A bit more Life

Currently viewing this thread:

ShakenSpeare

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
I's pretty clear that battles are the main focus of the game but they felt much more impactful in earlier titles. A victory over a lord with 1K troops means nothing in Bannerlord because he'll be out of prison and have that many again in a week to 10 days.
Precisely. The battles can feel very cinematic and superbly awesome, but they also feel that they can get unbelievably repetitive after hundreds of hours. Not to mention all of their problems, broken AI, and the absolute meaningless value of battles as you mentioned.

Remember during that 2016 PC Gamer demo, how Captain Lust said that battles would have a massive impact on the campaign and that each loss would deal a significant and noticeable blow on a kingdom?

Either a complete fabrication, or goals missed by a light year. In Warband or VC, a big battle being lost tended to spell imminent domination for a faction, the situation was in trouble and the tide of war changed. Now, it's just constant big battle after big battle, the lord you defeated just a couple of days ago is back with a sizable host. This was a problem in the old engine too, but not nearly to this grinding degree. Is this the middle ages, or 20th century Total War in attrition to the last man and last resource?

The whole game is indeed just a battle simulator. Nothing more. The battles are cool and with some work can be very, very good, but when that's all you can wholly praise about the game, it makes the battles themselves meaningless. There's no real story or care for factions and lords. It's inherently soulless, and that makes the battles far weaker, even when ignoring the little impact they have over the world.
 
Precisely. The battles can feel very cinematic and superbly awesome, but they also feel that they can get unbelievably repetitive after hundreds of hours. Not to mention all of their problems, broken AI, and the absolute meaningless value of battles as you mentioned.

Remember during that 2016 PC Gamer demo, how Captain Lust said that battles would have a massive impact on the campaign and that each loss would deal a significant and noticeable blow on a kingdom?

Either a complete fabrication, or goals missed by a light year. In Warband or VC, a big battle being lost tended to spell imminent domination for a faction, the situation was in trouble and the tide of war changed. Now, it's just constant big battle after big battle, the lord you defeated just a couple of days ago is back with a sizable host. This was a problem in the old engine too, but not nearly to this grinding degree. Is this the middle ages, or 20th century Total War in attrition to the last man and last resource?

The whole game is indeed just a battle simulator. Nothing more. The battles are cool and with some work can be very, very good, but when that's all you can wholly praise about the game, it makes the battles themselves meaningless. There's no real story or care for factions and lords. It's inherently soulless, and that makes the battles far weaker, even when ignoring the little impact they have over the world.
The idea that a lord can just pull troops out of a garrison and replenish his army is beyond stupid. Imo what the ai should be doing when losing a big battle is to play defensive and several lost big battles for a faction should mean the whole faction either plays very defensive or sues for peace. The name of the game should be changed to GrindLord because that's really what this game does best. :wink:
 

Grank

Sergeant Knight
WBNWVC
The idea that a lord can just pull troops out of a garrison and replenish his army is beyond stupid. Imo what the ai should be doing when losing a big battle is to play defensive and several lost big battles for a faction should mean the whole faction either plays very defensive or sues for peace. The name of the game should be changed to GrindLord because that's really what this game does best. :wink:
I wouldn't mind lords pulling troops from their garrison, if the settlement doesn't regenerate its garrison too fast. It would be more interesting if the more hot-headed lords empty their cities for a field battle instead of going on the defensive. Such dynamic will accelerate the war and make battles hurt more for the loser.
 
I wouldn't mind lords pulling troops from their garrison, if the settlement doesn't regenerate its garrison too fast. It would be more interesting if the more hot-headed lords empty their cities for a field battle instead of going on the defensive. Such dynamic will accelerate the war and make battles hurt more for the loser.
I'd be ok with that kind of a reaction as long as it's not every lord all the time. But as is there is no purpose to battling anyone in this game because unless you do it ad nauseam it doesn't affect anything. Instead of making the player feel like he/she is making an impact on the world it just feels like you're getting grounded down by the world. I don't need that in my video games because I get that enough in real life.
 

Grank

Sergeant Knight
WBNWVC
I'd be ok with that kind of a reaction as long as it's not every lord all the time. But as is there is no purpose to battling anyone in this game because unless you do it ad nauseam it doesn't affect anything. Instead of making the player feel like he/she is making an impact on the world it just feels like you're getting grounded down by the world. I don't need that in my video games because I get that enough in real life.
Of course. Just like in Warband, there could only be a several lords with such trait. Bringing back the marshal system could also improve on this. For example, a rich and strong faction who's in a winning war will be more likely to elect an aggressive lord to be the marshal, while a losing faction would prefer a calm defensive one (use influence to vote and all). It would add to the role playing and makes player's choices more impactful.
 
Top Bottom