"Bannerlord is a good game"...

Users who are viewing this thread

You could have something like a 94% survival rate with 14 surgery and you could insta upgrade units with high training skill.
Incorrect it was 81% - 4% per skill point 4x14=56% and add the 25% base. It was powerful and why most experienced players would try to max it out but it's not a guarantee of surfival.
 
I fully agree that party skills were stronger in WB (except for some combos like free recruitment of bandits & upgrading them to noble troops)
Last time I played Bannerlord you could get money from your unit's upkeep by having high enough quartermaster and relevant perks, or infinite food from quartermaster.
You can definitely get a lot more overpowered in Bannerlord
 
Incorrect it was 81% - 4% per skill point 4x14=56% and add the 25% base. It was powerful and why most experienced players would try to max it out but it's not a guarantee of surfival.
Ah okay, thanks for informing me, I did know about the 4 n + 25, I don't know where I pulled 94% from.
Last time I played Bannerlord you could get money from your unit's upkeep by having high enough quartermaster and relevant perks, or infinite food from quartermaster.
You can definitely get a lot more overpowered in Bannerlord
They patched units paying you out from the game a while ago (though maybe it still works with mercs?), but with specific perks and combos you can be more OP in bannerlord. You can beat every army with recruits by stacking all perks that give HP to your units & a captain who increases skills & movement + a good banner.
 
... says 85% of Steam reviews and an overwhelming majority of Metacritic reviewers. How so? Does that mean that:
  • Bannerlord is a good game and a small minority writing on here criticizing it makes an impression it is bad?
  • Bannerlord is a bad game, but most people who bought it (such as teens) had lower standards as compared to Warband players, therefore they left good reviews?
Please explain it to me since I am confused. If TaleWorlds sell Bannerlord for the same high amount of money they charged in 2020, it must mean it succeeded, right?
I'm pretty sure most of the reviews on Steam are from Early Access when everyone was simply happy the game was finally available so of course they give (y) .

Looking through recent reviews seems a bit more mixed. Also some of the positive reviews seem a bit suspect; so you play for 30-100 hours and your review is simply "cool" or "great"?


What's most curious is the majority of the playerbase seems to be active around 14:00 UTC. My initial thoughts would be that the playerbase is predominantly Turkish, but that would be midnight in Turkey right? No way that's prime time in Turkey, and it's too early for West Europe or the Americas. So I can only conclude the majority of the PC playerbase is Chinese/Korean/Japanese these days.

The game isn't bad, but it isn't good either and it certainly isn't what people on these forums wanted.
Yep, Bannerlord is just in a permanent state of limbo. I really do have to wonder what TW considers a feature complete game? I mean really how much longer can they afford to continue working on the game at this point? I mean it's close to a year now the game was "released" and console players are still effectively waiting on what I would consider an essential feature: kingdom destruction. And I definitely would not consider last year's release "complete", but that seems to be an issue with the industry at large.

Also a bit worried most of the total conversion mods are going to peter out here. I'm sure it doesn't help them when TW actually introduces worthwhile features (like weather) they may want incorporate which only slows things down. But you can't expect all the disparate modders to agree to mod a single version of the game either.


Honestly TW should just leave the game alone. It's not worth the broken mods, and it's not like console players will ever get mods themselves. Hopefully console players are now starting to see TW for their true colors. I think that's what bugs me most about TW - they seem to have no respect for their playerbase's time. All I know is there won't be much of a playerbase when TW gets around to add something like Diplomacy or real Kingdom Management a year or two from now.
 
Answer to OP, this game is actually very enjoyable however because of the long EA period this sub has a large number of permanent lingerers who are rather embittered by TW's slow progress to develop the game, and have subsequently developed a culture of egging each other on about how bad the game is. This is a very common thing on gaming forums.

Myself and all of my friends absolutely love the game, and take it as it is. There's nothing quite like it, and even though it could do with a bit more polish there are hundreds of hours of entertainment to be had, and the experience of commanding hundreds of troops assaulting realistically rendered castles which soldiers actually defend in formations and with siege equipment is frankly amazing. I also rather enjoy the RPG skill tree and how many possible build choices there are.

Factional, troop and item variety is also fantastic, with each faction having a rich backstory and definable playstyle.

The game is not perfect, but it is very good.
 
Factional, troop and item variety is also fantastic, with each faction having a rich backstory and definable playstyle.

The game is not perfect, but it is very good.
Definable playstyle in the very short battles and rich backstory in the back of the box of the game, in the game map, the other 50% of the game all factions play the same and the backstory influences nothing on how they make decisions and how the diplomacy works. People on this forum don't think the game is bad, we think the game is lacking on several areas that we've been criticizing and that TW has been ignoring, relying on modders to add the features we're talking about.
 
Definable playstyle in the very short battles and rich backstory in the back of the box of the game, in the game map, the other 50% of the game all factions play the same and the backstory influences nothing on how they make decisions and how the diplomacy works. People on this forum don't think the game is bad, we think the game is lacking on several areas that we've been criticizing and that TW has been ignoring, relying on modders to add the features we're talking about.
Sturgian armies last longer, Empire has easier access to large powerful armies, Khuzait have difficulty attacking castles

I'd say they play differently on the campaign map
 
Answer to OP, this game is actually very enjoyable however because of the long EA period this sub has a large number of permanent lingerers who are rather embittered by TW's slow progress to develop the game, and have subsequently developed a culture of egging each other on about how bad the game is. This is a very common thing on gaming forums.

Myself and all of my friends absolutely love the game, and take it as it is. There's nothing quite like it, and even though it could do with a bit more polish there are hundreds of hours of entertainment to be had, and the experience of commanding hundreds of troops assaulting realistically rendered castles which soldiers actually defend in formations and with siege equipment is frankly amazing. I also rather enjoy the RPG skill tree and how many possible build choices there are.

Factional, troop and item variety is also fantastic, with each faction having a rich backstory and definable playstyle.

The game is not perfect, but it is very good.

Im guessing this is your first at a M&B game?
 
Answer to OP, this game is actually very enjoyable however because of the long EA period this sub has a large number of permanent lingerers who are rather embittered by TW's slow progress to develop the game, and have subsequently developed a culture of egging each other on about how bad the game is. This is a very common thing on gaming forums.

Myself and all of my friends absolutely love the game, and take it as it is. There's nothing quite like it, and even though it could do with a bit more polish there are hundreds of hours of entertainment to be had, and the experience of commanding hundreds of troops assaulting realistically rendered castles which soldiers actually defend in formations and with siege equipment is frankly amazing. I also rather enjoy the RPG skill tree and how many possible build choices there are.

Factional, troop and item variety is also fantastic, with each faction having a rich backstory and definable playstyle.

The game is not perfect, but it is very good.
My dude 10+ years isn't slow progress it's glacial, most studios could put out 2 games in that time frame.
 
I must be hallucinating. Are people seriously claiming that Bannerlord's factions have different playstyles? What on Earth?
 
froggyluv - I mean I've been playing consistently since the original Mount and Blade ~~ 15 years ago or whatever it was, I have ~~6000 hours on Warband (mostly MP, about 2/3 of that on cRPG), so I'm hardly talking as a noob

black_bulldog - yes, it is very slow, which is why people here are embittered, as I said

SadMoney - I only play single player, but yes, the factions there definitely have very distinct playstyles. I have no idea about Bannerlord multiplayer

I think it's important that this forum is a big time echo chamber, and your views don't necessarily represent the majority of the playerbase (the vast majority of whom only play single player)
 
Answer to OP, this game is actually very enjoyable however because of the long EA period this sub has a large number of permanent lingerers who are rather embittered by TW's slow progress to develop the game, and have subsequently developed a culture of egging each other on about how bad the game is. This is a very common thing on gaming forums.
It's not about the lengthy EA, there's loads of games from even smaller studios with even longer ones that have your 'healthy' forums. TW's issue is the non-communication that comes with it. The most concrete, single-sentence affirmation we can get tucked away in a single thread here after egging them on for weeks/months was that latest "What is clear is that you will receive these changes. It also won't be years before that happens."
Really, that's the most confident statement TW can allow public at this stage, 1-year into their 'official' release, ~4-5 months since their last beta-content patch, and 1.5 years since last roadmap?
They won't even allude to what is holding up except some 'blocker issue' and somehow pin it back towards us that delay is because 'Oh, it wouldn't meet the standards for official hence the non-communication and non-updates and non-fixes'. As if their official release a year ago met that standard.
What 'blocker issues'? Technical, competence, staffing issues, local/global, engine re-re-re-re-factoring, lack of resources, bored/burn out, moved on, etc...or all the above? As it seems like it's all the above.

If the game was kept EA, whatever, anything can happen or be expected and that's fair play. But we're 1-year post-release; when can we get a finished and complete game?
 
So, I did play some Warband, but I never really got into it. I own the game on console and considered getting it on steam at some point. I have over 600 hours of play time with Bannerlord and I've never played Total War. I do like the game on its face however, I've had to take long breaks between campaigns. My biggest issues with the game or things that need to be addressed in my opinion are as follows:

1) Sturgia, Battania, and N. Empire are always getting their teeth kicked in by 1086 when the game started in 1084. Vlandia and Khuzait dominate every playthrough and completely plow everyone regardless who the player chooses. By the time you're ready to pick a faction to join it's either a cake walk or an uphill nightmare. (Balancing is a little better in beta 1.2.x but Sturgia is still getting their teeth kicked in by around 1095 and the N. Empire is still relatively weak. Battania however seems to fair a little better)

2) Endless conflict and diplomacy issues. In my own testing of beta 1.2.x I am with the S. Empire faction and from 1095 until 1100 (Where my save is at this moment) it has been a never ending cycle of war after war. The Khuzait go 5 days between wars before declaring war again. The S. Empire is declaring war when at war on two different fronts (i.e. At war with Khuzait so lets declare war on the W. Empire too). This issue has resulted in me leaving factions on several occasions because I get so burnt out from constantly fighting and not getting to enjoy other parts of the game. I can't be working on clan stuff without one of my fiefs being sieged by someone. There was also an instance where as Vlandia the Khuzait declared war despite them having to cross the entirety of the map to get to me.

3) Player created kingdoms. It is next to impossible to create your own kingdom. While the balancing is better and the factional strength doesn't seem to get as lopsided it is still nearly impossible to start a kingdom. Regardless where you choose you end up being at war with much more powerful factions. And with the new kingdom destruction feature if you lose your one fief your kingdom is destroyed (at least this is how I understand it I've not experienced it)

In short, balancing (I find that cav units when you use the send troop feature is extremely overpowered) and endless conflict. I can't enjoy my sandbox if I'm always defending it.
 
So, I did play some Warband, but I never really got into it. I own the game on console and considered getting it on steam at some point. I have over 600 hours of play time with Bannerlord and I've never played Total War. I do like the game on its face however, I've had to take long breaks between campaigns. My biggest issues with the game or things that need to be addressed in my opinion are as follows:

1) Sturgia, Battania, and N. Empire are always getting their teeth kicked in by 1086 when the game started in 1084. Vlandia and Khuzait dominate every playthrough and completely plow everyone regardless who the player chooses. By the time you're ready to pick a faction to join it's either a cake walk or an uphill nightmare. (Balancing is a little better in beta 1.2.x but Sturgia is still getting their teeth kicked in by around 1095 and the N. Empire is still relatively weak. Battania however seems to fair a little better)

2) Endless conflict and diplomacy issues. In my own testing of beta 1.2.x I am with the S. Empire faction and from 1095 until 1100 (Where my save is at this moment) it has been a never ending cycle of war after war. The Khuzait go 5 days between wars before declaring war again. The S. Empire is declaring war when at war on two different fronts (i.e. At war with Khuzait so lets declare war on the W. Empire too). This issue has resulted in me leaving factions on several occasions because I get so burnt out from constantly fighting and not getting to enjoy other parts of the game. I can't be working on clan stuff without one of my fiefs being sieged by someone. There was also an instance where as Vlandia the Khuzait declared war despite them having to cross the entirety of the map to get to me.

3) Player created kingdoms. It is next to impossible to create your own kingdom. While the balancing is better and the factional strength doesn't seem to get as lopsided it is still nearly impossible to start a kingdom. Regardless where you choose you end up being at war with much more powerful factions. And with the new kingdom destruction feature if you lose your one fief your kingdom is destroyed (at least this is how I understand it I've not experienced it)

In short, balancing (I find that cav units when you use the send troop feature is extremely overpowered) and endless conflict. I can't enjoy my sandbox if I'm always defending it.
In short, these issues were mentioned to them probably the first weeks of EA back early 2020; the same issues that persist in the ~4 years since.
 
In short, these issues were mentioned to them probably the first weeks of EA back early 2020; the same issues that persist in the ~4 years since.
My ability to be surprised is long gone at this point... I've long had an issue with the war/diplomacy system and lack thereof.
 
... says 85% of Steam reviews and an overwhelming majority of Metacritic reviewers. How so? Does that mean that:
  • Bannerlord is a good game and a small minority writing on here criticizing it makes an impression it is bad?
  • Bannerlord is a bad game, but most people who bought it (such as teens) had lower standards as compared to Warband players, therefore they left good reviews?
Please explain it to me since I am confused. If TaleWorlds sell Bannerlord for the same high amount of money they charged in 2020, it must mean it succeeded, right?
It's an amazing game whose scope exceeds the vision of its developers, that's my take on it
 
Nice troll from a "recruit" level account. Playing this game without mods is a death sentence
I don't know what you mean. I never said I play vanilla, it's so barebones on vanilla. Hence my comment "scope exceeds the vision."
Either way, it is an amazing game (I have 174hrs); it just doesn't let it's potential shine unless you're using mods. Hope that clarifies what I meant!
 
Back
Top Bottom