Can You atleast FIX the annoying WAR/Peace thing?

[Lord Irontoe]

The devs don't want these homeless factions to disappear because they believe that this a generational game like Crusader Kings, and you can't have all the factions gone in your first lifetime or your children and grandchildren won't have anybody to fight. Its just another example of how the death and aging system really screwed this game over.

 

[black_bulldog]

The devs don't want these homeless factions to disappear because they believe that this a generational game like Crusader Kings, and you can't have all the factions gone in your first lifetime or your children and grandchildren won't have anybody to fight. Its just another example of how the death and aging system really screwed this game over.

I brought up the idea years ago that the game wasn't built around generational play. But I kept hearing from so many people "it's a great idea the game will be more like CK". Yeah about that...

 

[Dabos37]

The devs don't want these homeless factions to disappear because they believe that this a generational game like Crusader Kings, and you can't have all the factions gone in your first lifetime or your children and grandchildren won't have anybody to fight. Its just another example of how the death and aging system really screwed this game over.

I brought up the idea years ago that the game wasn't built around generational play. But I kept hearing from so many people "it's a great idea the game will be more like CK". Yeah about that...

I disagree. Even in its bad current implementation state, aging & death adds a lot of fun to the game in my oppinion. It is probably my favorite new feature when comparing Bannerlord with Warband.

Making bad decisions like the existance of homless kingdoms has not much to do with the aging&death feature.

On the topic, I also dislike a lot the current war length. Wars are too short even if we do not take into account these 2-3 days negotitation wars.

 

[black_bulldog]

I disagree. Even in its bad current implementation state, aging & death adds a lot of fun to the game in my oppinion. It is probably my favorite new feature when comparing Bannerlord with Warband.

Making bad decisions like the existance of homless kingdoms has not much to do with the aging&death feature.

On the topic, I also dislike a lot the current war length. Wars are too short even if we do not take into account these 2-3 days negotitation wars.

I'm ok with the death and aging. Warband had your character's skills start to degrade after playing one long enough. But imho this system of generational play is there to bring a wider appeal to the game but adds nothing of value except rp for a few people. It's another system that is slapped on to the game without any thought of how to actually integrate it. The majority of players aren't going to play a long enough to actually use it because they'll get bored long before then and even if you do play long enough it's not like you couldn't finish a campaign long before handing the reigns from you initial character to another.

 

[Doofus]

I believe clans or kingdoms do get a small base income.

Yeah, but from who or why? Thats sort of the point. There's no place they should get an income from.

 

[Zerosaiko]

If I remember right, the base income for noble clans was removed in some past update, though minor clans without a merc contract do still get it.

Kingdoms do have a bank, however, which could be keeping the AI clans within them afloat. An AI clan will either pay into it, take from it, or nothing depending on its wealth. The original kingdoms all start campaign with 2m in their banks.

 

[Lord Irontoe]

Making bad decisions like the existance of homless kingdoms has not much to do with the aging&death feature.

Its a direct result of it. To make aging and death work, you need mechanisms to keep the game world relatively stable across generations. This is why they spent so much time and effort fighting steamrolling. But steamrolling is only a problem if you need the world to exist in a perpetual equilibrium, so they had to implement a whole host of features that act like anchors on any factions that start to gain steam, undead factions being one of them. Its part of the reason why the endgame is so weak. The world isn't really designed to be conquered because its always trying to get back to its original state of seven factions at perpetual war.

 

[Dabos37]

I'm ok with the death and aging. Warband had your character's skills start to degrade after playing one long enough. But imho this system of generational play is there to bring a wider appeal to the game but adds nothing of value except rp for a few people. It's another system that is slapped on to the game without any thought of how to actually integrate it. The majority of players aren't going to play a long enough to actually use it because they'll get bored long before then and even if you do play long enough it's not like you couldn't finish a campaign long before handing the reigns from you initial character to another.

Yes, this is the reason because I am usually complaining about the current implementation of aging&death. I think we have to wait an insane amount of time for having our kids ready.

SP - Player, NPCs & Troops - 14 years old kids should be playable

Keeping un mind how much time we have to wait until being able to play our kids, please make them available at 14 years old. I am checking some information, and men in medieval ages usually started as squires at 14 years old, and got promoted to knights at 18 years old. Would be great if we...

forums.taleworlds.com

Its a direct result of it. To make aging and death work, you need mechanisms to keep the game world relatively stable across generations. This is why they spent so much time and effort fighting steamrolling. But steamrolling is only a problem if you need the world to exist in a perpetual equilibrium, so they had to implement a whole host of features that act like anchors on any factions that start to gain steam, undead factions being one of them. Its part of the reason why the endgame is so weak. The world isn't really designed to be conquered because its always trying to get back to its original state of seven factions at perpetual war.

Even if aging&death would not exist, there are plenty of players who do not enjoy conquering the whole map easily. I am one of these players, and I prefer a balanced map where snowballing does not occur pretty often, and conquering the whole map is challenging.

The end game being weak in Bannerlord is related to laking content IMO, and it has not much to do with aging&death. This feature is actually part of the small content we have in end game. In any case, I also had the same feeling in Warband vanilla where I also find the end game boring (even more boring than Bannerlord because we do not have aging&death in Warband, which is a nice feature for end game).

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

Even if aging&death would not exist, there are plenty of players who do not enjoy conquering the whole map easily. I am one of these players, and I prefer a balanced map where snowballing does not occur pretty often, and conquering the whole map is challenging.

The end game being weak in Bannerlord is related to laking content IMO, and it has not much to do with aging&death. This feature is actually part of the small content we have in end game. In any case, I also had the same feeling in Warband vanilla where I also find the end game boring (even more boring than Bannerlord because we do not have aging&death in Warband, which is a nice feature for end game).

I am going to be honest, I am not sure it is really possible to make the endgame interesting (for most at least).

At the start of the game you experience progress in every aspect of the game. You get richer, level up, acquire gear, build an army, get lands etc. As you play, slowly but surely, progression is exhausted; money becomes a non-issue, your army is the envy of all, levelling grinds to a halt etc.

In the end all that is left is just adding more clans and fiefs to your kingdom. It gets old quickly, and it did so in warband too. I dont personally see how the generation thing really change anything but, at least, the levelling grind has been dramatically improved post 1.8 so we can get away from the whole "well the game is meant to be generational so ofcourse it should take 20 years of constant fighting to level up skills duhh".

If TW can somehow manage to push the breaking point alittle, where it just doesnt make sense to keep going for anyone other than the most diehard completionists, then they have done well in my book. Generations most certainly isnt going to do it. No way in hell I will play a 20 year long campaign.

 

[Dabos37]

I am going to be honest, I am not sure it is really possible to make the endgame interesting (for most at least).

At the start of the game you experience progress in every aspect of the game. You get richer, level up, acquire gear, build an army, get lands etc. As you play, slowly but surely, progression is exhausted; money becomes a non-issue, your army is the envy of all, levelling grinds to a halt etc.

In the end all that is left is just adding more clans and fiefs to your kingdom. It gets old quickly, and it did so in warband too. I dont personally see how the generation thing really change anything but, at least, the levelling grind has been dramatically improved post 1.8 so we can get away from the whole "well the game is meant to be generational so ofcourse it should take 20 years of constant fighting to level up skills duhh".

If TW can somehow manage to push the breaking point alittle, where it just doesnt make sense to keep going for anyone other than the most diehard completionists, then they have done well in my book. Generations most certainly isnt going to do it. No way in hell I will play a 20 year long campaign.

Aging&Death feature improves the late game because:

- You can be elected king of existent faction once the current king dead. This is for me an amazing addition and the possibility for becoming king for one existent kingdom is something I missed a lot when playing Warband.
- Character levelling and customization for family members. I enjoy making bigger my family and do not having to rely on companions for leading my clan’s parties. It is sadly too slow to have kids ready currently though.
- Having to arrange marriages for new family members. It maybe does not sound like something great, but it adds fun for me.
- Ironman mode + the possibility for death for the main character, companions and family members improve the roleplaying aspect of the game for me.

Death&Aging is for me one of the funniest features in Bannerlord, even when it is not currently well balanced.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

Aging&Death feature improves the late game because:

- You can be elected king of existent faction once the current king dead. This is for me an amazing addition and the possibility for becoming king for one existent kingdom is something I missed a lot when playing Warband.
- Character levelling and customization for family members. I enjoy making bigger my family and do not having to rely on companions for leading my clan’s parties. It is sadly too slow to have kids ready currently though.
- Having to arrange marriages for new family members. It maybe does not sound like something great, but it adds fun for me.
- Ironman mode + the possibility for death for the main character, companions and family members improve the roleplaying aspect of the game for me.

Death&Aging is for me one of the funniest features in Bannerlord, even when it is not currently well balanced.

I am not really going to advocate abolishing it. Its fine that some find it a valuable addition. The problem arise, as Irontoe pointed out, when you try to balance the game around it. If I had to make a, probably even extreemly conservative, estimate I would guess I fight at least 2 battles per in-game day. Multiply that by 20 years and you have a big "No thank you!"


In terms of death and aging. In Warband you would loose the party benefits when a companion was wounded. The solution back then was a dedicated group retreating off the map at the beginning of every battle. Since I am not actually willing to loose an e.g. healer and since I would never have a child grow up in time to be of any use; then dead does absolutely nothing for me and it is turned off for everyone.

 

[black_bulldog]

I am going to be honest, I am not sure it is really possible to make the endgame interesting (for most at least).

At the start of the game you experience progress in every aspect of the game. You get richer, level up, acquire gear, build an army, get lands etc. As you play, slowly but surely, progression is exhausted; money becomes a non-issue, your army is the envy of all, levelling grinds to a halt etc.

In the end all that is left is just adding more clans and fiefs to your kingdom. It gets old quickly, and it did so in warband too. I dont personally see how the generation thing really change anything but, at least, the levelling grind has been dramatically improved post 1.8 so we can get away from the whole "well the game is meant to be generational so ofcourse it should take 20 years of constant fighting to level up skills duhh".

If TW can somehow manage to push the breaking point alittle, where it just doesnt make sense to keep going for anyone other than the most diehard completionists, then they have done well in my book. Generations most certainly isnt going to do it. No way in hell I will play a 20 year long campaign.

PoP had a really nice idea of how to spice up mid - late game. Those who never played PoP, essentially there were outside factions that were threats to everyone some of them were moderate threats some big threats and some could spiral out of control and could get to 5K stack. Obviously you wouldn't have to deal with them all at once but at some point they each had to be dealt with if you wanted to control anything more than a town or 2. Some of the outside faction leaders could be sent away for good, some could only be temporarily defeated but would come back eventually and when they came back they were a smaller force but would build back over time if you didn't deal with them. They all had rare armor, weapons, diamonds, and other valuable items as well as mounts that could drop and were often worth farming. But they kept the late game from getting stale at the point when you're the big baddie who has half the map under his belt.

If Taleworlds would've taken some lessons from big mods like PoP or from even other open world games that have similar issues. They could've come up with something interesting but they did nothing, and now the only things to do late game is continually fight a series of endless battles that mean nothing and paint the map. I personally don't care about it once I have half the map taken over because it becomes a mindless chore, and trying to eliminate factions feels like ramming your head against a door to force it open. The leadership at Taleworlds has shown they don't care about innovation or even making a fun game. They just care about appealing to as big an audience as possible so they can increase sales. They have no motivation to change or add anything to make the late game fun because they have pc players money and console gamers won't care about late game.

 

[Dabos37]

I am not really going to advocate abolishing it. Its fine that some find it a valuable addition. The problem arise, as Irontoe pointed out, when you try to balance the game around it. If I had to make a, probably even extreemly conservative, estimate I would guess I fight at least 2 battles per in-game day. Multiply that by 20 years and you have a big "No thank you!"


In terms of death and aging. In Warband you would loose the party benefits when a companion was wounded. The solution back then was a dedicated group retreating off the map at the beginning of every battle. Since I am not actually willing to loose an e.g. healer and since I would never have a child grow up in time to be of any use; then dead does absolutely nothing for me and it is turned off for everyone.

What is exactly balanced around aging&death which you find wrong? Would you like to expand your kingdom faster?

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

PoP had a really nice idea of how to spice up mid - late game. Those who never played PoP, essentially there were outside factions that were threats to everyone some of them were moderate threats some big threats and some could spiral out of control and could get to 5K stack. Obviously you wouldn't have to deal with them all at once but at some point they each had to be dealt with if you wanted to control anything more than a town or 2. Some of the outside faction leaders could be sent away for good, some could only be temporarily defeated but would come back eventually and when they came back they were a smaller force but would build back over time if you didn't deal with them. They all had rare armor, weapons, diamonds, and other valuable items as well as mounts that could drop and were often worth farming. But they kept the late game from getting stale at the point when you're the big baddie who has half the map under his belt.

If Taleworlds would've taken some lessons from big mods like PoP or from even other open world games that have similar issues. They could've come up with something interesting but they did nothing, and now the only things to do late game is continually fight a series of endless battles that mean nothing and paint the map. I personally don't care about it once I have half the map taken over because it becomes a mindless chore, and trying to eliminate factions feels like ramming your head against a door to force it open. The leadership at Taleworlds has shown they don't care about innovation or even making a fun game. They just care about appealing to as big an audience as possible so they can increase sales. They have no motivation to change or add anything to make the late game fun because they have pc players money and console gamers won't care about late game.

POP was a battle kiting simulator that came with a unique feature that allowed you to craft your own unit.. but with an incentive system that made these both better and cheaper the longer you waited to deploy them resulting in that, when you finally did, it was game over in a way that would make Khans Guard feel embarrased.

I think we remember POP very differently from one another.

 

[Lord Irontoe]

What is exactly balanced around aging&death which you find wrong? Would you like to expand your kingdom faster?

Personally, I'd like an actual game with a beginning, a middle and an end. A game that you can play and beat in a satisfying conclusion, not one that drags on and on repetitively and peters out when you finally get too bored to continue.

When you design a game around the ability to keep the same playthrough going indefinitely by playing as your children and grandchildren, then you're not thinking about satisfying endgames, because its not designed to end. Its designed to keep going forever.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

What is exactly balanced around aging&death which you find wrong? Would you like to expand your kingdom faster?

No, for me, levelling still has some issue (it has been improved though).

But, there are still some things that will lack behind long after you have conquered all that you can stomach conquering.

Well, I guess we now atleast have the choice between horsearcher companions or footarcher companions. One small step for mankind.

 

[geala]

I don't like the death and aging system because the time dimension does not fit with the possibilities resulting. I think they wanted to simulate the huge importance of family/clan policies in the middle ages which often overshadowed all other and especially common interests. But it is not possible to interact with the nobles accordingly and the small scale family policy is mixed with worldwide conquest matters, which does not match. As a result we have a small addition with a few family actions but a huge mass of boring "do the same few things forever, but as your child" stuff. It delays a lot of things, hampering big parts of gameplay. It is similar to the nearly non-existing diplomacy in BL, it could be great but it isn't at all.

I don't see much remedy. Warband too for me was boring, at it's core in later gameplay. I don't think any M+B system could do better. Mods like PoP tried but what they did to mitigate the boredom was adding another kind of boredom. Land of Sika for Bannerlord has a story (not finished of course, it's in development), tough enemies and offers you the chance to make your own units, resulting in the nice 0 to 700 loss battles in favor of the player with his little warband. I find it terrible, and PoP was a bit similar.

Tor the wars, while I never saw many 2-day-wars, I recently had several wars in which factions with 2 or 3 enemies did not make peace for a longer time, with the result of getting ripped terribly. Maybe it is random, or did they change something in 1.8.0?

 

[Dabos37]

Personally, I'd like an actual game with a beginning, a middle and an end. A game that you can play and beat in a satisfying conclusion, not one that drags on and on repetitively and peters out when you finally get too bored to continue.

When you design a game around the ability to keep the same playthrough going indefinitely by playing as your children and grandchildren, then you're not thinking about satisfying endgames, because its not designed to end. Its designed to keep going forever.

It is a Sandbox like Warhammer Total War, Crusader Kings, etc. Maybe Bannerlord is missing some victory conditions easier to achieve than having to conquer all the Empire settlements, but to be honest, all the Sandbox games have the same problem and they are usually boring in late game.

I personally never enjoyed having to conquer the world in Warband, and I didn't even once in 2K hours played. I cannot see how Aging&Death is making the game worse and lower than Warband, except if you enjoy a lot conquering the whole world, which is still doable in this game. It is harder to conquer thw whole world though, because this game is better balanced and it is not all about getting some Swadian Knights and F1+F3 (Fian Champion and Khan's Guard are pretty damn OP though, but I hope they are going to get balanced eventually).

No, for me, levelling still has some issue (it has been improved though).

But, there are still some things that will lack behind long after you have conquered all that you can stomach conquering.

Well, I guess we now atleast have the choice between horsearcher companions or footarcher companions. One small step for mankind.

Yeah, levelling still has some problems but it is just a 100% balanced issue, and not related to Aging&Death now. Maybe it was the case before, but now it is pretty evident that TW is hearing us about we do not like grinding.

I personally dislike the idea about conquering the whole world. Even is the game would be balanced different, I just do not enjoy painting the map. It was extemely boring in Warband, and same in Bannerlord.

I don't like the death and aging system because the time dimension does not fit with the possibilities resulting. I think they wanted to simulate the huge importance of family/clan policies in the middle ages which often overshadowed all other and especially common interests. But it is not possible to interact with the nobles accordingly and the small scale family policy is mixed with worldwide conquest matters, which does not match. As a result we have a small addition with a few family actions but a huge mass of boring "do the same few things forever, but as your child" stuff. It delays a lot of things, hampering big parts of gameplay. It is similar to the nearly non-existing diplomacy in BL, it could be great but it isn't at all.

I don't see much remedy. Warband too for me was boring, at it's core in later gameplay. I don't think any M+B system could do better. Mods like PoP tried but what they did to mitigate the boredom was adding another kind of boredom. Land of Sika for Bannerlord has a story (not finished of course, it's in development), tough enemies and offers you the chance to make your own units, resulting in the nice 0 to 700 loss battles in favor of the player with his little warband. I find it terrible, and PoP was a bit similar.

Tor the wars, while I never saw many 2-day-wars, I recently had several wars in which factions with 2 or 3 enemies did not make peace for a longer time, with the result of getting ripped terribly. Maybe it is random, or did they change something in 1.8.0?

Sure, Aging&Death implementation is not great currently, but this feature opens the door for tons of new features and mechanics like seccesion wars, etc. Aging&Death is a pretty complex feature which is not great currently, but I am pretty sure that modders will take huge advantage of it.

Lacking diplomacy in this game is not related to Aging&Death feature at all. This is an isolated issue that I hope TW or someone fixs in the future.

 

[vito397]

I must agree with Dabos here. The presence of aging, children etc is the one big thing that separates BL from WB for me, in a good way. Painting the map in most WB mods, even with PoP, had me feeling the same as I do doing it in BL. WB's uncanny staticity bothered me back in 2012, as it does now. However, as Dabos said, its absolutely huge modding or feature potential is amazing. Youre comparing PoP to BL, and yes the endgame in PoP was good, but compared to vanilla WB and BL. So, instead of valuing BL less because of it, I think we should think about what PoP-like mods will be able to do once the game is brought to its semifinal, release state. If PoP could provide a good lategame on a game from 2009, I think there will be even more amazing ones on this engine.

 

[Pentagathoos]

Its a direct result of it. To make aging and death work, you need mechanisms to keep the game world relatively stable across generations. This is why they spent so much time and effort fighting steamrolling. But steamrolling is only a problem if you need the world to exist in a perpetual equilibrium, so they had to implement a whole host of features that act like anchors on any factions that start to gain steam, undead factions being one of them. Its part of the reason why the endgame is so weak. The world isn't really designed to be conquered because its always trying to get back to its original state of seven factions at perpetual war.

Yes I'm sure it was entirely due to this and absolutely nothing to do with the fact that people were consistently complaining about snowballing with each patch.