Try 1v1 against Ai in warband and bannerlord. In bannerlord against high tier/high skill npc, as those have better ai.
Battle Ai. In warband the tactic is hold back, and then charge, except for khuzait which always charge.
In bannerlord there are actual tactics especially if the battle is more even.
Sieges, really? I mean yeah still with issues, but warband was such a grind that got boring after first/second siege. in bannerlord the ai (even with the flaws), the catapults, breaking wallks, more ladders, battering ram, siege towers, even keep battle is better.
Warband/bannerlord npcs basically same level of depth, almost none, but few variations. only difference is of course in BL you have 10x the nobles without having more variation. and because of the amount of ones, you interact with each less obviously and thats why you dont remember them.
No, the point is that comparatively warband has way less depth than bannerlord, that's an objective fact. You can like warband, you can even prefer it to bannerlord (i just find it very weird, unmodded), you can say that bannerlord should be more better given its 10 years later or critize it for its flaws. but saying warband is a better game again, for the very few tiny features is outright a stupid argument and statement when bannerlord does so many things better. I didn't even mention those really, I feel like you should know if you ever played bannerlord.
Tactics didnt fail to deliver. More options for commands which are useful and work well, nobody complains. Sure could be even more improved, but objectively provides everything from warband plus more. Tactics ai, same thing. Not perfect, but at least its there, and at times its actually very impressive and immersive. and 100% its at least better than in warband.
"Constantly battling annoying ai" what do you mean, you mentioned it first... no I do not know of such issue or what you can mean by that really.
If you've played so much warband, even recently, then maybe you've barely played bannerlord. dont know what else that could be making you so ignorant about the differences.
I have. I much prefer Warband for it. Where it's simpler, it functions better. Bannerlord offers too much that just goes wrong, which in the end, makes it more annoying to deal with.
And again, it's comparatives. Warband sieges were no walk in the park, they just were slightly less annoying to deal with. And it's quite shameful that the same issue from Warband is present in Bannerlord. But that's the game you think is "better". A game with a new engine worked on for a decade, and two years in EA, having issues a supposedly inferior game had, is somehow "better". I mean, at least visually it looks better and the engine is new? 🤷♂️
And come on, that's not true and you know it. Warband NPCs are not basically the same. Even people who like the game admit they don't care for the NPCs in Bannerlord, because there's absolutely nothing of value there to cherish in any regard.
No, that is not true, even if you think it's "fact". You're conflating more features as depth, and it's really bizarre. A mobile game has a thousand different mechanics as opposed to most dedicated platform games. Do you think that because it does, it is suddenly a game with immense depth? Warband had less features, but it had more depth in what it did offer to the players. This whole "more is everything" is backwards as hell and is exactly what promotes the developers to put in half-baked ideas and mechanics into the game that are just boring, lifeless and or poorly working.
I said the Bannerlord commands menu just makes it more annoying, because of how it is setup and how it works off a really dumb AI. And "it's not perfect, but at least it is there"? Yea, something is there alright, but it's not something that should be praised in any way. It's poorly implemented and is strangled even further by incompetent AI. And "no one complains"? Where have you been, under a rock? People complain about it all of the time. Why, even their new feature for Battle Order is being complained about for how poorly it was implemented at the sacrifice of a better feature.
Wait, are you serious? Okay, well, what I meant was that you brought up the "annoying battles" as if Bannerlord does not have it with this statement, "Constantly battling annoying ai, what else could you do in warband? ". The issue is that I never said Warband didn't have that issue, or any others. You're misunderstanding me pointing out Bannerlord having it as me saying Warband doesn't. The point was that these annoying features were comparatively less annoying because there was less half-baked **** going wrong...such as what Bannerlord has. So let me be even more clear: Warband had annoying sieges. Warband had annoying battles. But they were less annoying to deal with compared to Bannerlord. And wait, what? You really don't think the AI is annoying, or haven't had to deal with annoying battles? I can't tell if there's a communication issue here or if you really aren't aware that's a big issue in the game that numerous people have pointed out.
Okay. Let's just say I've "barely" played Bannerlord. What is your point? What do you possibly think that would prove?
And I'm quite aware of the differences, as I've laid them out multiple times to you. The problem is that you cannot be honest with yourself about even blatant problems Bannerlord has that its much older, much simpler and broken predecessor did better even despite all of its comical flaws and issues. But you can keep on repeating "it's fact" as if saying it makes it true, if it should make you feel better.