Agree, naval combat doesn't make any sense in Bannerlord
I don't think this is really an improvement. A hard cap means you can't take a choice and then making the game difficult for yourself, in Warband rtr made sense world wise because sure you can start your own kingdom right away but people won't really care or think that you should be a king at all. And while the mechanic was rough and kinda hidden, things like sending out your companions was cool, even your own King would reprimend you for it, in my opinion it could have been improved upon rather than removed completely. Clan tier feels too MMORPG and more like a list of chores I have to do before the game allows me to do something, I like having the freedom of choosing and then suffering the consequences specially in an open sandbox.
Except it isn't the same thing, isn't it? They are only part of a quest but they should be able to be found in the open world. Rebel factions are a cool addition yes, but again, not the same thing. There's a request from that list your let out which is manhunters, and I think the issue here is not just that they're not in the game, it's the fact that there isn't enough variety in the world in terms of groups roaming around. Manhunters where a cool neutral faction that again, could have been improved upon, I would loved to see it as an actual neutral faction you could be a part of, or have it made a faction where you could quest in early game hunting bandits and such. Deserters could have been a consequence to losing wars or to fighting too many wars, where they could spawn around and cause trouble in your kingdom. I like the living reaction to the things happening in the world, I feel it just doesn't happen as much in Bannerlord. (Really didn't happened a lot in warband, but some mods hitted the spot with this, example, angry serfs spawning in PoP).
I agree, camping didn't have much use in Warband, and now you can wait in villages in Bannerlord which helps pass time faster and safer. I think camping was a solution to waiting for your army to attack in sieges. Here armies solve that perfectly.
What I liked about camping is what mods did with that mechanic. You could stroll around your camp, chat with your soldiers, train your soldiers or train yourself. I mean, there sure was some potential in it, while OG was useless it's sad seeing features go away nonetheless.
While a step in the right direction, there isn't much going on here. It's practically the same you've been doing in precious patches, except you get a bonus when you do it and from time to time you have to defend it. Eh sure it's a good addition, can't complain, it kinda feels like taking gangs in GTA San Andreas lol... maybe that was the inspiration? Who knows. I just hope they go some steps ahead and add more stuff to a criminal playstyle. The problem here is that there isn't any consequences to doing any of this, no one complains that you're ruling 5 gang alleys on your kingdom, like, yeah sure, he goes our kingpin ****ing my daughter no issues. If you're being a gangster lords should hate you, at least, based on their personality (a system Bannerlord has, yet the devs refuse to use for some reason, can someone tell me what do they affect? Seriously asking).
Kinda railed away with this one but TL,DR: good step forward, needs more additions to be called a playstyle.
Rebellions are a great addition, it's exactly the kind of stuff Bannerlord needs. A mechanic of consequences happening in real time to the point it can be a real pain in the ass, I want more of this happening. Ususrpers are not the same thing though, ususrpers/claimants were side characters YOU helped rebel. It was basically creating a kingdom, but for someone else. Really not a huge mechanic, could have some more stuff going on, but for some strange reason I loved doing those in Warband. Should it be in Bannerlord? I don't really miss it, but I understand that people would like the choice of doing them, it's variation, everyone loves variation.
Itttt kinda does. Random companions are usually called the same (Johnny the fighter, Mary the healer, well not so dumb but you get the point), sometimes they even have the same backstory, and you can completely forget about them, you can even not even realize they've died in battle. And then...
And while they react to some stuff happening, I don't think they react enough to be important, or to think something will happen. Again, THE PERSONALITY SYSTEM, could have more use here. Picking fights between companions could be considered an annoyance, but personally, I think that having conflicts in your party made the world feel alive, since how you morally and ideologically you run your party could determine if people would like to follow you or not. I want this to be expanded before saying it's better, because I in warband did liked my companions, and I always felt like I was seeing recurring characters that were part of Calradia. And since, backstories are boring and repetitive, and barely have any consequence in Bannerlord what really changes? Not a lot for sure. Not to mention, Lords in Bannerlord do not change at all in each run, unless they have kids in a long run, so what would be the problem with set companions too? Just add more to the list instead of having 10. Also rising companions into lords was one of the best mechanics in Warband.
On a side note, there's some things from that kinda aggressive list you left out like:
I don't think it's factually wrong at all, there's a lot of valid requests you left out, and half you covered that either were based on your opinion or were not replaced in Bannerlord, just kinda similar.
And this was my TED talk, Taleworlds, please, add politics into the game, they're fun.
