Bannerlord is missing many good features from Warband and VC

Users who are viewing this thread

They weren't in Native Warband, but, you know, War Elephants are also not a thing atm...
Unfortunately, they probably shouldn’t be in Native Bannerlord either. Elephants became dated once it was discovered you just have to move out of the way as they don’t adjust their direction once prodded into a charge
 
Unfortunately, they probably shouldn’t be in Native Bannerlord either. Elephants became dated once it was discovered you just have to move out of the way as they don’t adjust their direction once prodded into a charge

Any sources on this ever happening in Calradia ? or Calradian Elephants behaving anything like African, Middle eastern or Indian Elephants ?
 
Any sources on this ever happening in Calradia ?
It’s a “history adjacent” game, so there is an acceptable amount of grounding.
I also have no confirmation that Lizardmen don’t live in the “not” Mediterranean in Calradia, which is why no one uses boats, but that doesn’t mean I’d be thrilled to see Lizardmen as recruitable in coastal villages
 
It’s a “history adjacent” game, so there is an acceptable amount of grounding.
I also have no confirmation that Lizardmen don’t live in the “not” Mediterranean in Calradia, which is why no one uses boats, but that doesn’t mean I’d be thrilled to see Lizardmen as recruitable in coastal villages

Well the adjacency is why I'd like to see some elephants. It'd be quite nice, and nowhere near as ridicolous as Lizardpeople. The whole historicity argument just doesn't make sense in this particular case, as it also isn't very historical to have Celtic peoples in that part of the continent adjacent to Norman knights from the 11th century.
 
Well the adjacency is why I'd like to see some elephants. It'd be quite nice, and nowhere near as ridicolous as Lizardpeople. The whole historicity argument just doesn't make sense in this particular case, as it also isn't very historical to have Celtic peoples in that part of the continent adjacent to Norman knights from the 11th century.
People keep saying this, but there WERE mainland celts that hadn’t quite been gobbled up yet

 
And let’s not get such bullet point focus: this game is an amalgamation of these cultures throughout the Dark Ages versus a snapshot of the their appearance and cultures of inspiration in the 11th Century.

The big thing missing, if we’re trying to snag “fuzzy” history would be flails: it was specifically the Kievan Rus that employed them. Good luck getting the physics to work devs!!!
 
Now, skimming through quickly, we’re talking over 60% are either in game or an adjacent feature is in game (board games vs jobs as a side distraction/extra way to earn money)
That's really reaching to call board games basically the same feature as jobs just because they have the same end result.

Regarding the statement "60% are in the game or an adjacent feature is in game," there is an updated list here https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...kwards-in-multiple-areas-from-warband.431963/ which is all the Warband features that do not have a gameplay equivalent and have not been replaced.
But we are now getting things such as prisoner rescues and keep battles, both which were in previous forms of the game, so its obvious they are working to add stuff back in.
Is it actually obvious, though? If the other missing Warband features making a comeback is planned, why haven't they just said so? The only reason they wouldn't say so is if they thought there was a good chance that they would not do it.
 
That's really reaching to call board games basically the same feature as jobs just because they have the same end result.

Regarding the statement "60% are in the game or an adjacent feature is in game," there is an updated list here https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...kwards-in-multiple-areas-from-warband.431963/ which is all the Warband features that do not have a gameplay equivalent and have not been replaced.

Is it actually obvious, though? If the other missing Warband features making a comeback is planned, why haven't they just said so? The only reason they wouldn't say so is if they thought there was a good chance that they would not do it.
Because it's taleworlds. they have some of the worst/quietest interaction with their player base anyone has ever seen. They do what they want to do, when they want to do it, and they're not going to let us know in advance.

Personally it makes perfect sense what they'e doing: They know all the features before were individually good, but now they have to convert their previous asinine scripting into their now asinine coding in C# in the new engine which takes time. But they are slowly putting it in. As you can see from their latest addition of the icons on the world map, they also have zero issue with directly incorporating mods as well. Just considering the number of bugs/crashes they fix each patch demonstrates they're working (btw...I have NEVER had a crash not directly related to a mod, so I never understand where these crashes come from)
 
Because it's taleworlds. they have some of the worst/quietest interaction with their player base anyone has ever seen. They do what they want to do, when they want to do it, and they're not going to let us know in advance.
So basically you're saying "they're not telling us for no reason at all." ?

Because really it wouldn't hurt them in the slightest to just tell us they are planning on doing it, if they are planning on doing it. It's really that simple.

When you say quiet, keep in mind they do somewhat frequently talk to us. They just don't ever actually say anything about long term goals when they do.
 
They (probably) don't have long-term plans related to content or mechanics.

I also think they don't plan to include all features in the original list. To be honest I think that they shouldn't. The list has quite a few entries which make the Warband feature cooler than in actual practice, a good example is VC's working as a farmer feaute. I am not sure if anybody tried it, but I did, and it is not fun, and basically a waste of time.

I really wanted expansion in two fields though.
1: influencing the game world. For example village improvements (preferably visible, but could work in text only too) for example. Not things with world changing effect, but some actual effect. For example giving some veteran (top tier) troops land in your own village could add 4-10 retired soldier units to your village caravans, so it is harder for looters to win against them. Minor effect, but some effect. Paying mercs to patrol a region (or telling your men to form a patrol), visit the robber camp and pay them to relocate to your enemy, etc.

2: making vassal status more interesing. In Warband you
- got less quests than previously (not suited for your status anymore)
- sometimes got invited to a feast
- sometimes you had to provide company to the marshall, who mostly did nothing interesting, and asked you to deliver cattle
Now, this is an area what has lot's of unmined potential. If you know, compare vanilla Crusader Kings 2 with the Conclave DLC. (nobles getting to the conclave getting a say in the plans of the kingdom. Also the game has wars between vassals of the same monarch, which would be very cool.
 
They (probably) don't have long-term plans related to content or mechanics.
I highly doubt that is true. Fundamental project management insists otherwise. What does seem to be an issue though are the details. The fact that there is a forum thread with a dev asking people what we want to see does seem to indicate that they're at least somewhat fishing in the dark.

There SHOULD be a GDD (Game Design Document) that has EVERY little detail that's desired laid out that they follow in construction. Their current path of development suggests they never made one, or it's not complete.
 
Mods are the best way to add all the features you mentioned, then players can pick and choose which they want .. plus these feature mods will be developed quicker.

.

Mods MIGHT, but like it was said here:

Yeah, the game is really barebones at the moment, it's probably one of the main reasons why it dropped to ~12k concurrent players after it had over 200k (with the all time peak of 250k) soon after launch. For reference, warband is sitting at stable 4-5k.

There is no clear distinction between which bannerlord mechanic is completed, a placeholder, or straight up bad and requires total rework. It is even less clear what the devs think about it, because besides the few tidbits on the steam page, we know next to nothing about what they want to change, and in what way, before the 1.0 launch. At first I thought the copy-pasted dialogue trees were just a joke / homage / placeholder, but even that I'm not sure any more.

I'm not sure all of the features listed in OP's post are a good idea to add, but they definitely need to do something instead of just bugfixing and releasing it as it is. Mods cannot be built on top of a weak and empty foundation, and if they don't improve the game more, I'm afraid the modding scene will just never developer properly in the first place.

Making more work for modders (more things that should be CORE features that need to be mods) makes it less appealing for modders to mod. It creates more inconsistencies between mods, it makes it so those things might only be in certain mods and not others.

Having strong core features enables all mods to reliably have those features and makes it so that modders don't have to add in core features so devs don't have to.

Not having those core features will make the game fade away quicker - because it becomes less appealing to mod and those mods won't reliably cover everything a player might want as often as they otherwise would.


-----
But yeah, OP. Fully agreed:

-Feasts would enable players to launch or go to events, with the main purpose being providing a fun way for players to find lords they want to meet. As well as perhaps increasing the prosperity of the town it was thrown in.

-Ship Stuff/Raiding/Viking Conquest Stuff: Yes and yes. I'm surprised they wouldn't integrate these into the core game already, but hopefully they will. Take those parts of the last game's expansions and make them part of the base game.

-Bounty Hunters/Manhunters: Yes, yes, yes. A manhunter clan or three would be pretty interesting. It might also be interesting if this sort of stuff happens dynamically. I.E. bandits become a big enough issue and a manhunter clan for that region (consisting of just a few notables) is created.

-Deserters: It would also be nice is deserter clans formed. Maybe a lord decides to go independent, maybe a lord's child does. They take a few troops with them and become a deserter clan (minor faction). Deserter troops should also be more varied, but hopefully they are just placeholders ATM.

-Quests: I'd like to see less quests, and more dynamic events. But more content is always nice.

-Dueling/Courtship/Noble interactions: More of these are needed. It'd also be interesting if your own lords might betray you from time to time (maybe depending on their own loyalty score, which could be influenced by factors like winning/losing battles, being given land, getting paid, being put into preferred clan positions, etcetera). Of course being able to duel lords (and having lords who don't like you challenge you!) would be good.

-More Battlemaps/Maps in general: It seems like they are adding more maps, which is good. Something else that might be nice would be the ability to transition to the "battle map" at any time and move around on it. Then transition out, and you've moved equal distance on the actual map. This kind of immersive improvement from warband is the kind of thing I'd expect in a sequel TBH - but I can understand if it'd be out of scope.

I'd generally like to see more abilities for NPCs to do things as well. Maybe when your clan gets renown, nobles will offer to marry into your clan. Or maybe if your clan starts losing battles, people might desert you. Maybe one of your clan members is travelling in enemy territory, gets captured, and you need to dynamically spring them out of prison before they get executed (or you send someone else with troops to do it, with success dependant on things like their roguery/combat skill).

Also things like entering an enemy city (instead of just a roll to sneak in) and having to actually sneak around town - with success at not being spotted by guards depending on rougery/related traits. Maybe if you run into a guard in the town (on the town map), then you either need to bribe them, charm them, fight them (kill them before they raise an alarm), or sneak away using rougery. That'd be a great use of town maps as well, sneaking around hostile ones instead of just using the menu. We have town maps with all sorts of nooks, back alleys, etcetera. . .we should have more uses for them (aside from sieges ofc!).
 
I'm a 60 year old programmer. I've seen the whole thing, from programming in machine code in the late 70s where the phrase "real programmers ..." became popular, referring to the fact that a few can do it well, some can do it poorly, and many can't do it at all. This is the one thing executives never ever learned. To them, a programmer is a progammer, like a clerk, or a machine operator. And this is the fatal flaw that has brought many a company or system crashing down. Three real programmers can build anything workable in three years, and ten can do literally anything in ten years. Add one bad programmer into the mix and you will slow the whole thing down by 20%. That's how it is, because they have to clean up after their buddy as well now.

Now, twenty years ago, some executive, rebelling against the highly skilled cost of using real and good programmers, had the bright idea of hiring staff from overseas where the exchange rate made it worthwhile. To provide the labour for this method they instituted training schools which churned people off the streets and into programming for what was to them good salaries, hugely increasing the percentage of bad programmers

Sadly the results are like this: you still need at least one good programmer for every three bad ones, and the three bad ones produce as much as two good programmers, only, it is poor quality code. Buggy, long-winded, obscure, difficult to follow or maintain, brittle, inflexible, skewed, not fit for purpose. So then the good programmer has to send it back to have added supports, diversions around obstacles, sticky tape and string added to make it work. The final buggy mess is such a Heath Robinson mangle of knotted fishing-line that if you just touch it in one corner, the far corner flops down and breaks - invisibly. It takes months to apply fixes on top of and around it, and each fix makes the problem worse.

At the end of the day, you get the system for slightly less than it would have cost you using real programmers, but you don't want what you got, and can hardly use it.

Programming is a real skill and requires aptitude. It's similar to surgery. Would you like to have someone who studied hard and got good results and has a good track record do a kidney transplant on you at a high cost, or go to some place where they train people en masse to do kidney transplants at a much lower cost? Executives ignore this fact at their peril.

I'm sure you've guessed by now what I'm driving at. M&B2 is so much worse, so slow to fix, so empty and shallow and brittle after so many years, that I would bet £100 they used a completely different set of developers on as on M&B1, and if there was a real programmer on the team, they were not given the power to direct the coding.

If that above is true, and I were a Taleworlds top executive, I would 1) hire three real programmers immediately to tell me what they recommend to fix it, and go with whatever they say, (whether it's a fix, a re-write, game 3, whatever), if affordable (i.e. if better than going into administration); 2) once I have that plan, publically apologise for the mistake and say what I am going to do to fix it; and pray that people understand.
Imagine thinking you can get 3 programmers to agree on anything.
 
I also think they don't plan to include all features in the original list. To be honest I think that they shouldn't. The list has quite a few entries which make the Warband feature cooler than in actual practice, a good example is VC's working as a farmer feaute. I am not sure if anybody tried it, but I did, and it is not fun, and basically a waste of time.
Everything from Warband on that list (except village management and tourney gear since I guess that's been replaced well enough, and obviously follow option has been replaced) were good and fun/immersive features that should return. It doesn't have to be in exactly the same form of course and can be tweaked where possible to make it more good/fun (for example, bring back feasts but make it so that kingdoms don't declare feasts while losing a war).

I don't think they should put the Viking Conquest stuff in vanilla Bannerlord but it would work great as DLC. The job minigames from VC weren't amazing or anything but the point was to give the player options and provide more ways of roleplaying than just being a trader or warrior. It was there for immersion and roleplaying, like quite a lot of other features in M&B.
 
Last edited:
I highly doubt that is true.
Alliances were still being hashed out in October. Party control wasn't on their radar until August. There were a few placeholder elements laid out in the code but they didn't connect to anything at all.
mexxico said:
I wish we had all game design 8 years ago (when we start this project) and we follow that design document. Probably we could finish game sooner if that kind of development is followed. If this was the case all these problems would be already solved. We are trying to add features one by one and this is not best way to create a detailed game like Bannerlord because all different features are connected each other and we should think all together not one by one. Adding features one by one is dangerous (can broke existing mechanics). However Warband is also developed that way too and be a great game. But even Warband example I think this is hard way to develop a game.
 
Alliances were still being hashed out in October. Party control wasn't on their radar until August. There were a few placeholder elements laid out in the code but they didn't connect to anything at all.
Based on how things are going now, I feel like they've developed something like a GDD, but I DO agree that it's obvious (especially having torn through their incredibly convoluted code structure) that at first there was practically zero coordination or foresight.
 
Back
Top Bottom