***Community Feedback ROADMAP - What Taleworlds still needs to fix!***

Does this roadmap represent your basic wants for Bannerlord?

  • Yes

    Votes: 364 86.3%
  • No

    Votes: 58 13.7%

  • Total voters
    422

Users who are viewing this thread

Ser Jon

Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
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? :neutral:

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.
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
War/peace. Bannerlord better. Can actually vote, and player can decide unlike in Warband. Theres tribute, theres actual reasons for war/peace (for example them taking land, being in other wars etc). Nothing warband did better here, just worse. It had no diplomacy at all almost, it had "treaties" which meant cant declear war for 30 days which made no sense. And player faction could never even use that.
Your vote still means nothing most of the time in Bannerlord because all lords usually vote the same way on war. Occasionally 1 will vote differently. Also, in Warband you could start a war as a vassal yourself without needing to pass a vote, the only thing you couldn't decide on was peace, but the AI for war/peace decisions was much better and less suicidal in Warband so I usually never felt the need to.

And that's another thing. Warband's war/peace AI is so, so much better. You actually get periods of peace! Wars last a sensible time, instead of one hour like Bannerlord wars sometimes do.

Warband DOES have actual reasons for war/peace, much more so than Bannerlord. Did you never look at the Factions screen? Or talk to lords about how the war was going? All that information was there.

Tribute right now is a negative over Warband, not a positive, because in order to make peace with a faction who you have kicked the ass of, you have to pay them money which is really dumb.

Bannerlord has treaties too, they're just hidden.
Companions: Backstories are as interesting in Bannerlord. To me, not at all. But you might remember warband ones because you read them 100 times unlike in BL, but they arent better, basically 100% same.
The writing quality is the same but there is much much less in Bannerlord. Bannerlord backstories are two paragraphs' worth. Warband backstories were about twenty paragraphs' worth per companion. Once you have hired a companion in Bannerlord, they will never talk to you about any backstory or lore matter again.
Stats, wdym, basically same.
I mean that all companion stats were useful in Warband and could be improved rapidly, but in Bannerlord you can get terrible starting stats for companions and some of them are just literally useless! What is a Roguery-oriented companion in Bannerlord meant to be useful for?
interactions- the same except 1 thing warband had and that is comments about eachother.
Not the same. Bannerlord does not have comments about each other, does not have lore comments on areas you pass through, and does not have most of the reactions that Warband had to negative/positive actions. The only companion reactions in Bannerlord are to burning villages.
Importance of relation in voting. Bannerlord has this. Unlike in warband, its also more in depth in bl. You mustn't love it or even like it, but it's more in depth. I can't convince you to prefer it but there are no arguments for why warband was better in that regard (same for your other points).
No. I have tested voting in Bannerlord extensively; it does not work.

Ease of finding people. Bannerlord easier. Less immersive though. Look it up in encyclopedia.
BL only tells you where someone was last seen. WB tells you where someone is going to and where they currently should be. This means you can take a shortcut to their location rather than just endlessly chasing their last known location only to find that information is out of date.
Ai kingdoms. In warband they got way more magic troops than in BL. In BL they just wont die off because they have no settlements, rather clans desert and youll have the kill the last ones. Imo change for better. otherwise one could sacrifice all to conquer last castles/towns, leave them with no garrison and the kingdom becomes defeated few days after even if have hundreds of soldiers.
It's not a change for the better at all, because now you get annoying pains in the ass raiding you literally forever who you either have to pay tribute to or execute every single last one of and have all of Calradia hate you! It sucks!

As for the scenario you describe, it didn't happen that way in Warband. If armies of hundreds were running around, they would retake fiefs, you had to kill the armies first.
Tactics. Way more useful in bannerlord for autoresolve,
If someone levels up Tactics it's because they want to roleplay a tactician and actually fight their battles! Not skip them with autoresolve.
and way more useful in battle as well because of perks.
No they weren't. Go look at the perk tree. Only a handful of Tactics perks apply to actual battles and not very much.
Raiding makes more sense in BL. Early game its rewarding. In Warband it was OP af, letting you buy top tier gear if they have 1-2 spice in the village lol.
It's useless late game because you can only get the contents of the town market. It should be useful for all the time you spend. It's not even useful early game in Bannerlord because of the crime and faction relation penalties you get, as well as losing relation with village recruiters.
In bannerlord it has a diplomatical and economical reason, tied to settlement economy, loyalty and war tribute.
All of this applies in Warband.
Medicine? wtf my man, have you ever played bannerlord? medicine is super useful.
Yes I have, and if you think it's "super useful" you haven't played enough: by the time you level it to the point of being good, your troops are already disposable anyway.
Lords personalities. There were like 3 presets everyone had. They had no significant impact on behavior no.
Wrong. It affected their behaviour on the campaign map, how happy they were to be released as a prisoner, whether they were willing to join you, how angry they got at being passed over for fiefs, some certain lord personalities even lost relation with you for giving them too many fiefs.
In bannerlord it also affects relation to you (honour, traits etc.
By like +1. Also, relation doesn't do anything in Bannerlord anyway!!
Armour. Try BL. They updated this half a year ago. Imo armour is way too OP now but people (that complained like you) like it.
???? How can you call armor OP when you literally die in 4 arrows in top tier armour? Ranged troops are the ones that are OP, and they are incredibly OP. Anyone who has played lots of Bannerlord knows this. You can beat enormous armies by just using a tiny amount of distraction infantry plus a stack of archers. Khan's Guards and Fian Champions are the most OP troops in the game.
Shields have directional shield blocking making them better. Wider range of them as well, that argument makes no sense.
The argument is that shields are unrealistically durable. They were more realistic in Warband and went down in a more sensible amount of hits.
Fighting off sneak attempts. Finally one where I can kind of agree. Feature "missing" from BL. But it was also way too OP in warband, too easy to beat guards once used to it
I'm glad we agree. I agree it was a bit too strong in Warband but that was much better than the alternative (being thrown in jail with no player agency).
and makes no sense you can wander around free in town after that, when you are king and have 1k troops outside, and town has 500 garrison not caring...
The text says that you run away and hide in the streets successfully - you're in disguise after all, and the guards who know you're there are either dead or unconscious.
Bandits, drunks and assassins. Here is one I 100% agree on. Tiny features, but random encounters are missing from BL. Could be improved upon.
Yeah, random encounters would give good variety.
Troop trees. Very subjective, I can tell you that most seem to prefer Bannerlord, having more troop types and trees, noble line as well as all factions having access to some level of decent infantry, archers and cav. Armies are still well distinct enough in BL while making sense and being fun to play, so you can focus on 1 culture without having to sacrifice having no cav at all.
I think the ideal approach would be between Bannerlord's and Warband's, but it is undeniable that Warband's armies were more distinct.
Music. Omg glad you brought this up, ive been complaining about this for 2 years and nobody seems to care wtf. The amazing soundstracks I never hear ingame? Warband music was also getting repetetive but in bl I really do only hear 2 tracks ever, since they've made it so region based while map being huge.
Yep. I think it's bugged for regional music to not play in certain regions. Aserai regional music works, but the rest doesn't.
Manhunters. meh, made no sense to me. didnt "add life" really. you have minor clans/mercenaries which are way better.
The other important thing about Manhunters was clearing out the massive spawns of 50+ bandit parties that can happen in the corners of the map.
Buying skill boost is such a bad gameplay mechanic imo. So easy to get money. Skill & perks in bannerlord are way better than they even came close to in warband even with mods.
It wasn't a bad gameplay mechanic, it gave players options. Skills and perks have the downside of still forcing you to grind a specific skill in order to be able to level it. And that's really difficult when you want to, for example, level Engineering in early game but that can literally only be done by sieging and it's too early for you to siege in early game. If bannerlord had skill books or skill trainers you could learn about sieging early.
"Being able to battle within the streets of a city against an enemy that fought back."
Unsure of what you mean? Sieges? Same in BL
In Bannerlord the enemy AI will never defend the streets of a city, once they lose the walls they either fight to the death on the wall or they run away to the keep but they don't fight you. In Warband troops would actually defend the streets after losing the wall.
You didn't even bring up the usual ones such as feasts and deserters wow :smile:
I meant to bring up feasts. Just forgot. :iamamoron:
 

Rackie

Veteran
WF&S
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? :neutral:

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.
Not gonna comment your preference for warband sieges further. Mechanically and feature wise, as well as gameplay they are superior in Bannerlord and 99% of people who've tries both agrees.

No, I'm not confusing quantity as depth. Quests. Basically same as in warband, but have a little bit more to them. As an example the simple quest of collecting revenues now have different events with alternatives and outcomes. Conquering settlement- options. Sieges- more in depth. Settlement management- more in depth, more upgrades, more values, so much more to it. Economy- way more in depth. Battle ai- way more in depth. Campaign ai- also more in depth. Diplomacy- same. Damage calculations. Campaign/story. Workshops. Name basically any feature, it's either the same/slightly more in depth, or a lot more in depth.

You still haven't told me what you mean with annoying battles as I clearly misunderstood what you mean as I know of no such thing. I've never felt battles annoying to deal with in Bannerlord compared to warband, just the opposite, more fun because the battles are superior.

What's my point? My point is that some of what you are saying makes no sense at all. Feels like you tried out bannerlord for 30 minutes 2 years ago (or just seen video footage), saw the flaws, felt different than warband and went back playing wb and deciding to hate on bannerlord forever. More like you not being honest with yourself, having convinced yourself that bannerlord sucks and warband is better and stuck to that narrow mindedness. As clear multiple times from my posts I do not hide away the issues of bannerlord. It can be a 5/10 game for someone or 0/10 for someone else. But saying that warband is better is not being honest or based on ignorance.
 

Rackie

Veteran
WF&S
Your vote still means nothing most of the time in Bannerlord because all lords usually vote the same way on war. Occasionally 1 will vote differently. Also, in Warband you could start a war as a vassal yourself without needing to pass a vote, the only thing you couldn't decide on was peace, but the AI for war/peace decisions was much better and less suicidal in Warband so I usually never felt the need to.

And that's another thing. Warband's war/peace AI is so, so much better. You actually get periods of peace! Wars last a sensible time, instead of one hour like Bannerlord wars sometimes do.

Warband DOES have actual reasons for war/peace, much more so than Bannerlord. Did you never look at the Factions screen? Or talk to lords about how the war was going? All that information was there.

Tribute right now is a negative over Warband, not a positive, because in order to make peace with a faction who you have kicked the ass of, you have to pay them money which is really dumb.

Bannerlord has treaties too, they're just hidden.

The writing quality is the same but there is much much less in Bannerlord. Bannerlord backstories are two paragraphs' worth. Warband backstories were about twenty paragraphs' worth per companion. Once you have hired a companion in Bannerlord, they will never talk to you about any backstory or lore matter again.

I mean that all companion stats were useful in Warband and could be improved rapidly, but in Bannerlord you can get terrible starting stats for companions and some of them are just literally useless! What is a Roguery-oriented companion in Bannerlord meant to be useful for?

Not the same. Bannerlord does not have comments about each other, does not have lore comments on areas you pass through, and does not have most of the reactions that Warband had to negative/positive actions. The only companion reactions in Bannerlord are to burning villages.

No. I have tested voting in Bannerlord extensively; it does not work.


BL only tells you where someone was last seen. WB tells you where someone is going to and where they currently should be. This means you can take a shortcut to their location rather than just endlessly chasing their last known location only to find that information is out of date.

It's not a change for the better at all, because now you get annoying pains in the ass raiding you literally forever who you either have to pay tribute to or execute every single last one of and have all of Calradia hate you! It sucks!

As for the scenario you describe, it didn't happen that way in Warband. If armies of hundreds were running around, they would retake fiefs, you had to kill the armies first.

If someone levels up Tactics it's because they want to roleplay a tactician and actually fight their battles! Not skip them with autoresolve.

No they weren't. Go look at the perk tree. Only a handful of Tactics perks apply to actual battles and not very much.

It's useless late game because you can only get the contents of the town market. It should be useful for all the time you spend. It's not even useful early game in Bannerlord because of the crime and faction relation penalties you get, as well as losing relation with village recruiters.

All of this applies in Warband.

Yes I have, and if you think it's "super useful" you haven't played enough: by the time you level it to the point of being good, your troops are already disposable anyway.

Wrong. It affected their behaviour on the campaign map, how happy they were to be released as a prisoner, whether they were willing to join you, how angry they got at being passed over for fiefs, some certain lord personalities even lost relation with you for giving them too many fiefs.

By like +1. Also, relation doesn't do anything in Bannerlord anyway!!

???? How can you call armor OP when you literally die in 4 arrows in top tier armour? Ranged troops are the ones that are OP, and they are incredibly OP. Anyone who has played lots of Bannerlord knows this. You can beat enormous armies by just using a tiny amount of distraction infantry plus a stack of archers. Khan's Guards and Fian Champions are the most OP troops in the game.

The argument is that shields are unrealistically durable. They were more realistic in Warband and went down in a more sensible amount of hits.

I'm glad we agree. I agree it was a bit too strong in Warband but that was much better than the alternative (being thrown in jail with no player agency).

The text says that you run away and hide in the streets successfully - you're in disguise after all, and the guards who know you're there are either dead or unconscious.

Yeah, random encounters would give good variety.

I think the ideal approach would be between Bannerlord's and Warband's, but it is undeniable that Warband's armies were more distinct.

Yep. I think it's bugged for regional music to not play in certain regions. Aserai regional music works, but the rest doesn't.

The other important thing about Manhunters was clearing out the massive spawns of 50+ bandit parties that can happen in the corners of the map.

It wasn't a bad gameplay mechanic, it gave players options. Skills and perks have the downside of still forcing you to grind a specific skill in order to be able to level it. And that's really difficult when you want to, for example, level Engineering in early game but that can literally only be done by sieging and it's too early for you to siege in early game. If bannerlord had skill books or skill trainers you could learn about sieging early.

In Bannerlord the enemy AI will never defend the streets of a city, once they lose the walls they either fight to the death on the wall or they run away to the keep but they don't fight you. In Warband troops would actually defend the streets after losing the wall.

I meant to bring up feasts. Just forgot. :iamamoron:
Not true about voting. I have many times influenced war decisions quite a lot. In warband you couldnt decide on wars as a vassal, except attacking enemies out of nowhere, which you still can in bannerlord and there's even a decent penalty (influence) for it which makes more sense.

For war/peace the decisions were based on nothing more than simply being in war with more than 1 faction and power. In bannerlord its same, + addition of territory taken, closeness to current fiefs, damage caused, raids etc. You may prefer it in warband but I don't, but I think it's wrong to call it "better". In bannerlord there can also be longer peace periods. People complain about too much war as well as too much peace.

Tribute in bannerlord makes sense and no one doesn't necessarily have to pay for peace when winning. If you do its because youve taken their lands and they think they can take them back. You probably have another war or more and they have none other which is why, it makes sense you want peace but they dont unless you pay them.

You just said too much war in bannerlord and now you say it has treaties? I was unaware of this anyways.

In bannerlord you can use companions for quests. So roguery can come in handy. Alternatively if they are party leader it helps with raiding, prisoners etc. Bannerlord takes longer to complete than warband. I dont think its bad that things take long to level up. Rather I just dont want them to die which is why I toggle that off. They do have comments & feelings for actions, not only raiding but devastating, fleeing, running out of food, not paying wages etc. And they arent as abusable, as in if you do it twice or thrice they'll not trust you and leave.

Tactics in bannerlord offer another way to play. Some like it. It was never that useful in warband. And dont even have to have it so high level for it to be usable really.

Traits affect relation a lot in bannerlord, try. I have an honourable character and have +10 +20 with some who's clan I've never met before. Same as in wb. In bl there are also more things affecting it, such as what you did to their clan members (obviously as relation is based on clan), prisoners released, if you've killed their enemy, if killed their friend etc.

Medicine has been useful for me, idk go make a poll to see how many agree. But it wasnt better in warband.

You dont die of 4 arrows from npc archers on body with top tier armour. But yes thats still powerful. And especially OP against swords, deal very little damage. You should have a shield for deflecting arrows, not an armour piece and take 100, makes shields useless. Yes ranged troops are OP, as they always were, same in warband lol. Having rhodok sharpshooters or vaegir/aserai archers were as OP.

I never had a higher tier shield be broken in warband either. In bl it matters if youre blocking correct side.

In warband siege battles were so small they'd never get to the streets in my experience. ever. Whereas in bl it has happened to me quite few times actually, on towns, especially as some block the gate and some reinforcements spawn down there.

You bring up things which you preferred in warband but overall not much concrete and mostly small issues anyway (most of which I cant agree on even).

I can agree to disagree, but to say warband was better than bannerlord for very few tiny concrete matters and some other very subjective personal opinions while disregarding everything it does better is not being genuine I think.
 

Ser Jon

Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Not gonna comment your preference for warband sieges further.

Why in the world should I waste my time on someone who will just ignore portions of what I'm saying? What you're doing is the equivalency of a child putting their hands over their ears and screaming. Good luck in life with that, kiddo.
 

geala

Squire
Insulting people who have a different opinion isn't a proof of maturity either. :xf-wink:

What I don't understand in these endless debates about BLs many faults and blandness is why people with such a deep aversion are still around.
If I don't like a game, I don't play it and don't read/write about it. If Warband is so much better, and graphics don't matter, as usually the story goes, why not playing Warband (or VC)? Is there still hope for fundamental improvements in BL? Then you have more trust in TW than I have.

But I for my part will never go back to Warband btw, as many feasts or else it has, cause I don't like the graphics and above all the marshal system and the clunky combat.
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
Insulting people who have a different opinion isn't a proof of maturity either. :xf-wink:

What I don't understand in these endless debates about BLs many faults and blandness is why people with such a deep aversion are still around.
If I don't like a game, I don't play it and don't read/write about it. If Warband is so much better, and graphics don't matter, as usually the story goes, why not playing Warband (or VC)? Is there still hope for fundamental improvements in BL? Then you have more trust in TW than I have.

But I for my part will never go back to Warband btw, as many feasts or else it has, cause I don't like the graphics and above all the marshal system and the clunky combat.

Because they have alot of time invested into the series and want the Developers to understand their displeasure with their direction. How to 100% way to make sure the Developers make zero changes? Dont say anything but gently fold your hands and listen to Warband soundtrack. Series general trajectories are effected by peer and public critical feedback
 

LyonExodus

Veteran
What I don't understand in these endless debates about BLs many faults and blandness is why people with such a deep aversion are still around.
If I don't like a game, I don't play it and don't read/write about it. If Warband is so much better, and graphics don't matter, as usually the story goes, why not playing Warband (or VC)? Is there still hope for fundamental improvements in BL? Then you have more trust in TW than I have.
Why? Because an healthy person is already in the last stage of grief: Acceptance. TW knows their limits and so do the people who have accepted. Therefore those people change their expectations and such to better fit reality.

The ones that still complains like kids are still in the second stage, anger . And must relentlessly point out everything wrong even when there is little or nothing wrong. Anything that makes them feel better basically. At the same time coming up with solutions that will never work and selling them as absolute truths.
Sometimes those people seem to make sense, but oftentimes they don't, and from the view of the observer, they act like crybabies, therefore even when they are right their opinions end up being discounted.
Nobody wants to listen to a broken disk, always stuck on the same verse.

The forums lately have become an echo chamber, where everyone with a different opinion is almost forced off by an angry mob that thinks the game is absolutely terrible because of their unrealistic expectations or nostalgic memories of better times.

I am the first to say this game should be more. But i don't make a crusade out of that statement.
At the same time Bannerlord is a game that you can easily play for 500 hours as a new player and still enjoy.
it's not a bad game by any means, just a very flawed one.

The people who act like broken disks are always the same, just stop listening to them.
The 1 time they make sense is not worth listening to the other 15 they don't. They are not even willing to change their opinion when fundamentally flawed. Let them live in their fantasy, If they haven't woken up in 2 years, they likely never will.
 
The forums lately have become an echo chamber, where everyone with a different opinion is almost forced off by an angry mob that thinks the game is absolutely terrible because of their unrealistic expectations or nostalgic memories of better times.

I am the first to say this game should be more. But i don't make a crusade out of that statement.
At the same time Bannerlord is a game that you can easily play for 500 hours as a new player and still enjoy.
it's not a bad game by any means, just a very flawed one.

The people who act like broken disks are always the same, just stop listening to them.
The 1 time they make sense is not worth listening to the other 15 they don't. They are not even willing to change their opinion when fundamentally flawed. Let them live in their fantasy, If they haven't woken up in 2 years, they likely never will.
Exactly, many people on these forums act as if you've shot their dog if you say that you enjoy the game. The game has many many faults, but also many good things about it. People enjoy the game (or don't) to varying degrees, this is not a new information.

The fact is, most people seem to like Bannerlord based on user reviews (which may also change over time), but many people on the forums can't accept this fact for some reason. A game can be both good and disappointing at the same time, which is what it is to me.
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
But saying that warband is better is not being honest or based on ignorance.
It's not better but Bannerlord has too many flaws with things that worked in Warband to be considered an improvement over WB. I will call it even until (or IF!) BL gets fixed. Then BL will be a better game.

Right now, yes Bannerlord has slightly more depth in most areas, much more depth in a couple of areas, and is the prettier game. But it also has less depth in some areas, and is MUCH less balanced, functional, well-designed, and bug-free than Warband.

And that makes Warband the more fun game most of the time. Additional depth to mechanics is no good if those mechanics aren't carefully designed and balanced to make the experience more fun.
Not true about voting. I have many times influenced war decisions quite a lot.
That hasn't been my experience. I participated in many war/peace votes, and all the lords usually vote the same.
and there's even a decent penalty (influence) for it which makes more sense.
IIRC you also get a massive relation penalty with your faction for attacking an enemy faction without approval/formal declaration of war. It isn't really meant to be an option, except that relation doesn't do anything useful in Bannerlord
For war/peace the decisions were based on nothing more than simply being in war with more than 1 faction and power. In bannerlord its same, + addition of territory taken, closeness to current fiefs, damage caused, raids etc.
Wrong. Reasons given included, in addition to the reasons in Bannerlord:
* Peasants petitioning a foreign ruler for support when mistreated by their liege, used as a casus belli to go to war
* Going to war to retake lost territory
* Going to war to curb the power of a faction that was too strong
You could read this stuff on the Faction menu.
And when you talked to lords they would give you information on how the war was going and how well they were succeeding at their goals.
You may prefer it in warband but I don't, but I think it's wrong to call it "better". In bannerlord there can also be longer peace periods. People complain about too much war as well as too much peace.
The war/peace balance in Warband was pretty much perfect: you would be at war with one or maybe two factions at a time, then at peace for a little bit after a war ended which gave you a breather to replenish everything, then move onto the next war. Bannerlord rarely has long boring periods of peace (which is also bad) but the default situation is being at constant war merry-go-round where you jump to the next war before the first one is even finished.
Tribute in bannerlord makes sense and no one doesn't necessarily have to pay for peace when winning. If you do its because youve taken their lands and they think they can take them back. You probably have another war or more and they have none other which is why, it makes sense you want peace but they dont unless you pay them.
No dude. It makes no sense that I have killed 10000 troops, taken 9/10 fiefs from a faction, and have all but one of their lords prisoner, and they are demanding tribute from me. If you really think that makes sense you are just arguing for the sake of it.

They should actually fear for their lives and property as if they were human beings. They should be paying me not to be wiped out of existence if I graciously offer them peace! Not acting like suicidal money-grabbing bots who do not value their own lives!
You just said too much war in bannerlord and now you say it has treaties? I was unaware of this anyways.
The treaties mean little because other factions will just jump on you instantly after a peace signing because every faction will robotically declare war on you as soon as they detect a hint of excess strength or vulnerability. In Warband factions were less likely to declare war by default so you actually got some peace break time. if I was waging war to destroy the Sarranids I wouldn't also be dealing with Khergits and Rhodoks attacking me at the same time.
In bannerlord you can use companions for quests. So roguery can come in handy.
Which quests use roguery? More importantly which ones that aren't terribly imbalanced and not worth doing? Companions take aaages to come back from quests and now you have to pay the troop wages upfront too.
Bannerlord takes longer to complete than warband. I dont think its bad that things take long to level up.
It's bad that you have to take hours specifically leveling a character with boring repetitive tasks for just minor gains.
They do have comments & feelings for actions, not only raiding but devastating, fleeing, running out of food, not paying wages etc. And they arent as abusable, as in if you do it twice or thrice they'll not trust you and leave.
Never seen one for those last 3, and yes I have done those actions with companions in the party.
Tactics in bannerlord offer another way to play. Some like it. It was never that useful in warband. And dont even have to have it so high level for it to be usable really.
It doesn't offer good performance in field battles which is the whole point of the skill, in Warband it made you more powerful in field battles and gave the advantage.
Traits affect relation a lot in bannerlord, try. I have an honourable character and have +10 +20 with some who's clan I've never met before. Same as in wb. In bl there are also more things affecting it, such as what you did to their clan members (obviously as relation is based on clan), prisoners released, if you've killed their enemy, if killed their friend etc.
Have not seen it ever get to +20, it must be Charm perks doing that. More importantly, as already said, relation does nothing of consequence in Bannerlord. My traits could give me +100 and it wouldn't matter because relations do not matter in Bannerlord for recruiting nobles or voting or the way they treat you which is a horrible flaw with the game.
You dont die of 4 arrows from npc archers on body with top tier armour. But yes thats still powerful. And especially OP against swords, deal very little damage. You should have a shield for deflecting arrows, not an armour piece and take 100, makes shields useless. Yes ranged troops are OP, as they always were, same in warband lol. Having rhodok sharpshooters or vaegir/aserai archers were as OP.
Ranged troops were definitely not OP in Warband, Huscarls or Swadian Knights would slaughter Sharpshooters or Aserai archers in open field. In Bannerlord, Khan's Guards will slaughter literally any troop in the game at least a 2:1 ratio!
I never had a higher tier shield be broken in warband either. In warband siege battles were so small they'd never get to the streets in my experience. ever.
You must be remembering poorly! I can conclusively say you are wrong and both did definitely happen in unmodded vanilla WB.
Whereas in bl it has happened to me quite few times actually, on towns, especially as some block the gate and some reinforcements spawn down there.
I'm not talking about like right outside the gate, but actually well within the town itself.
You bring up things which you preferred in warband but overall not much concrete and mostly small issues anyway (most of which I cant agree on even).
Many "small" issues make a whole especially in a game like this where that's pretty much everything there is to the game. There was plenty concrete there, just because you say it isn't doesn't mean it isn't. Pretty meaningless argument to make.
I can agree to disagree, but to say warband was better than bannerlord for very few tiny concrete matters and some other very subjective personal opinions while disregarding everything it does better is not being genuine I think.
See top of post, I am saying what was better in Warband, not saying Warband was better. Neither game was better because Bannerlord is still so broken. None of my complaints were tiny either that's nonsense. I am also not "disregarding everything it does better" I have credited TW for that on many occasions. But at this point praising them is not productive. Telling them about how great they are will not get the game fixed and make it a true straight upgrade from Warband like a sequel should be.
 
Last edited:

Orion

Still Not Worthy
Global Moderator
M&BWBWF&SNW
What is a Roguery-oriented companion in Bannerlord meant to be useful for?
Unironically, they're useful for not playing the game. Gang leader notables in towns give quests, and their success rate can often be determined by roguery skill level. Unfortunately, tactics and leadership also tend to work, and those are much more useful companion skills in general. So, you can use a roguery companion to complete quests in the background so you don't have to. Kind of a joke.

The value in it is getting notable relations in the town high enough to provide a loyalty bonus, so you can prevent rebellions in towns of different cultures. That's it, since recruitment volume has stopped being a concern by the time you own a town.
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
Unironically, they're useful for not playing the game. Gang leader notables in towns give quests, and their success rate can often be determined by roguery skill level. Unfortunately, tactics and leadership also tend to work, and those are much more useful companion skills in general. So, you can use a roguery companion to complete quests in the background so you don't have to. Kind of a joke.

The value in it is getting notable relations in the town high enough to provide a loyalty bonus, so you can prevent rebellions in towns of different cultures. That's it, since recruitment volume has stopped being a concern by the time you own a town.
I didn't realise that high notable relations gave a loyalty bonus, because I have had castle fiefs where I've done quests over and over and over for the same handful of village notables, got their relations really high, and yet fief Loyalty was still shockingly low. And IIRC this was even despite the garrison being decently sized and the governor being of the correct culture. I must have done 30 quests for these guys dragging them "indentured workers" (it's slavery, TW).

Does it only work for town notables or something?
 

Orion

Still Not Worthy
Global Moderator
M&BWBWF&SNW
Does it only work for town notables or something?
Yup.

AN3J6Qp.png
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Grandmaster Knight
They are not even willing to change their opinion when fundamentally flawed. Let them live in their fantasy,
This describes you more then anyone else on the forums.
Unironically, they're useful for not playing the game.
This is such a strange type of thing but I describe many things in Bannerlord this way. Many perks and skill or other mechanics are good because they let you ignore something else that's more annoying or not possible to interact with. Are vassal clans really good? No, but they're less hassle then normal clans and you can make them on your own schedual, so it's make it better
IIRC you also get a massive relation penalty with your faction for attacking an enemy faction without approval
Nope just a hefty influence fine, like 200-300 (not sure what effects it) as a vassal and NOTHING if you the ruler. Do it all the time, even as a vassal.
More importantly which ones that aren't terribly imbalanced and not worth doing
If you don't know the way of the cheese, many quest are good for building up early game. If you know the way... well... I haven't done a normal quest in several playthroughs now. 🧀🤡💰
By like +1. Also, relation doesn't do anything in Bannerlord anyway!!
Heh heh that trait relation can **** you over though. Today I wanted to join Calidog and went across the map to talk to him.... but he wouldn't let me in his castle. Turn out he -3's me because of the character creations traits and his own. Although not enough to technically stop me from joining him, it's enough for him to not let me in, so I can't talk to him. I could go around and give gift to his clan mates unit we're back to 0, but Derthert is right there next store and welcomes me with open +1 arms because of our trait! Bet you can guess which faction I immediately forced a war with!
 

JunKeteer

Veteran
I dont think banners addition was shallow though? That's actually one of the only features post early access release that surprised me that they've given care and time to implement properly. How else would you liked them to be? They are actually exactly how I hoped in my mind theyd be, but thought wouldnt see. Actually having purpose except visuals/immersion, system for banner bearers and troops picking it up after they fall.
It is shallow, and I don't think they will bother adding more to it now with the game released. The technicalities of it may be complicated (I don't code) getting it working in a open field AI/battle but not in a gameplay sense.
Do they explain if it's radius or just whoever is in that formation is globally applied? Did someone truly test the banner boons actually work? Will they make the cavalry lance colours match the faction colour (vs the default brown)?
They probably had banners ready for months, only deciding to implement it in the last month before release to make 'banner'lord official and not wanting to deal with, in time, the added complaints/issues that the feature obviously has - besides basic bugs (ie player banner disappearing).
It's good to have the feature for sure, but like the other features, is shallow and lack any sort of cohesive 'sense' with the other elements. They're just adding features as if based on some checklist someone made, but with no oversight to make them work with each other or fleshed out.
What did suck and was shallow was the custom banner creation that I do think lol
Yes, and they are not adding to it, I just hope that BannerEditor from early EA still works so we can at least fix/copy&paste ourselves.
 

xdj1nn

Knight at Arms
WBWF&S
This is a collection of feedback from the community, to track Bannerlord's progress on meeting community expectations.
Taleworlds said they want to "bring the game to the level the community expects" - here, those expectations can easily be seen. This list only contains things which Taleworlds somehow led buyers to believe the game would have.

This post was made in patch 1.5.8. Please let me know of errors and I'll fix them.
Added content or fixed issues are marked in green.
Issues/content which Taleworlds has confirmed will be worked on are marked yellow.
Deconfirmed features are in grey.





CATEGORY 1: Completing, fixing, and balancing existing features to improve gameplay.
This is a list of significant issues, not including minor bugs. TW is aware of some of these issues, but they are listed for the sake of tracking progress.

Overworld
*
War/Peace: Peacetime is too short because the AI declares war too much. AI kingdoms should not demand tribute if they are losing badly. AI kingdoms should offer peace to the player (Added 1.6.1).
* Voting: Most votes can't be changed, even with 150 Influence and 100 Relations. Traits and Relation should affect the AI's vote choice more. The player should always be an option in a fief/leader vote. The AI should not repeatedly call the same vote in a short time.
* Nobles and garrisons never surrender and rarely negotiate. The player should have a reason to surrender.
* Siege artillery should spawn in reserve. The AI should only deploy them when they have enough.
* Culture Bonuses: Battanian forest speed bonus is too strong. Khuzait bonuses are too weak.
* The player needs better ways to increase a settlement's Loyalty or speed up construction.
* Minor factions: Criminal minor factions don't do criminal activities. Mercenary minor factions don't have T5 units. All minor factions do not use their own troops enough. Beni Zilal have no backstory (added 1.7.2).
* The reward for raiding is not worth the penalties and time.
* AI Kingdoms with no fiefs left raid the player forever. They need to be removed from the game after 30 days of holding no territory.
* Autoresolve Battles: High tier troops die in simulations when they shouldn't. AI nobles don't die in simulated battles (Fixed 1.6.3).
* Strategic AI: Players want enemy armies to less rapidly return after they are defeated (fixed? 1.8.) AI parties should commit to actions more instead of bouncing between targets (fixed 1.8.) Parties should enter friendly towns/castles when fleeing (fixed in 1.5.9).
* Caravans die too easily, and their profits are too low (Fixed in 1.8.)
* Castles need to be more useful (Added exclusive recruits to castle villages in 1.5.10).
* Imprisoning nobles is unviable as they escape too easily (fixed 1.5.9).
* Player has no control of their allied parties (Fixed in 1.5.10 with stance and wage options for kingdom/clan parties).

Roleplaying
*
NPC Relations: Good relations with nobles has no useful benefits. It should make them much more likely to join your faction. Executing a noble makes too many people hate you in other kingdoms. Members of your clan should have good relations with you, instead of 0.
* Skill Gains: Medicine, Tactics and Engineering level too slowly. All skills level way too slow (Fixed 1.5.10). Leadership, Trade and Roguery are too hard to level (Fixed 1.8.) Charm tree is underpowered (Fixed 1.7.0).
* Skill Effects: Engineering should make building siege camps faster. Athletics should reduce armor weight more. "Loyalty and Honor" perk gives all T2+ troops perfect morale, making morale useless. Ability to respec perks (Added in 1.8.)
* Tactics skill does not give the player much benefit in real battles. In Warband it improved troop spawns.
* Companions: Companions/clan members take too long to learn skills. Not enough companions spawn (Fixed 1.7.2).
* Personality Traits: Merciful, Calculating, Impulsive, Generous and Closefisted traits are way too hard for the player to gain. Executing people should give you the Cruel trait, not Dishonest. Traits have almost no effect on the behaviour of AI nobles and companions.
* Marriage: NPCs often marry characters that are on the other side of the world from them or are too old to have children.
* Some armor pieces have wrong stats or civilian rating. (17 items fixed in patches 1.6.2-1.8.)
* Quests: Some quests do not trigger (Fixed? 1.6.1). The mid game lacks quests (improved in 1.6-1.6.1 with "Conquest of City", "Noble Revolt" and "Revenue Farming").
* Dialogue: Many lines of text have grammar/spelling/consistency issues (fixed in 1.8.) Tavern keepers have no dialogue (Fixed 1.7.2). Player should be able to talk to prisoners (Added 1.7.2). Dialogue should reflect recent events (Added 1.8.)
* Smithing: 2H maces lack parts (Fixed 1.8.) Smithing is repetitive (1.6 Orders mode adds variety). Items sell for ridiculously high prices (Fixed 1.7.0).
* Trade: Camels aren't purchasable (Added 1.8.) Some weapons and armor are worth far too much money (Fixed 1.7.0).
* Tournaments: Need better rewards to make them more worth it in mid-game. (Fixed 1.6.5).
* Upgrading a unit should use the cheapest horse the player has, not the most expensive (Fixed 1.6.3).

Battles
* Singleplayer Armour: Arrows/bolts do too much damage to armour, which is unrealistic, makes archers/horse archers very overpowered, and leads to shallow tactics. Armour gives poor protection against melee weapons, which makes battles end too quickly, and expensive armour pointless (Fixed 1.8.)
* Combat AI: Archers cannot hit circling horse archers. Spearmen do not use their spear when fighting infantry. Cavalry rarely couch their lances (Fixed in 1.9). Cavalry will ride off the map to gain charging distance on enemies (Fixed 1.5.10). Troops sometimes ignore close threats to reach their destination (Fixed 1.6.4) or focus on enemies who are too far away (Fixed 1.5.10). Ranged unit AI will not target cavalry at long range (Fixed 1.5.9).
* Singleplayer Weapons: Spears are too slow and weak. Glaives do too much damage. Shields have too much health. Throwing axes are weak. Throwing axes should do more shield damage (Added 1.8.) Pike bracing does not work in Singleplayer (Added 1.6.2).
* Morale is mostly irrelevant, and doesn't let you turn the tide of battle, the way devblogs said it would. Low tier troops can easily get perfect morale (fixed 1.5.9). Visible formation morale (added 1.7.0).
* Troop Trees: Too few troops use braced polearms. Troop trees are not different enough from each other. Tavern mercenaries are very weak (Fixed? 1.9).
* Prison Breaks: Roguery should reduce the bribe more. Need ability to tell the prisoner to wait (Added 1.6.1).
* The ability to order troops to attack a specific enemy formation is needed to make battlefield tactics less frustrating to execute.
* Sieges: Siege ladders should be less powerful for attackers. Troops use siege towers and siege ladders very inefficiently (Fixed 1.7.0), and attack castle gates one at a time (Fixed 1.6.1). Artillery often hits allies when aiming at enemies (Fixed 1.5.10 and 1.6.1). Rams block troops (Fixed 1.5.9).
* Due to collision zones, crowds of units jitter rapidly, and can attack through each other. (Fixed 1.9).
* Retreating from a siege has no penalty and can be exploited (Fixed 1.9).
* Singleplayer Mounted Combat: Horses charging into infantry don't cause enough knockdown (Fixed 1.8.)
* Reinforcements teleporting into the middle of a starting location severely disadvantages whichever side moves forward to attack (Fixed 1.8.)
* AI nobles/companions die in non-simulated battles too often (Fixed 1.6.3).

Visual/UI/Sound
*
Balding haircut options, which were in Warband.
* Generated NPC children are clones who look exactly the same.
* Many nobles wear lower quality armour or helmets than their troops. Some armor pieces/crowns in the game are not used by troops/rulers.
* NPC conversation animations glitch when they loop.
* Music: Unique regional songs rarely play when travelling in the relevant territory (except for Aserai's song). Siege music lacks variety.
* Rain weather effects for scenes are built into the game, but currently do not occur.
* Scenes: 2 unique town scenes, some castles, and 66 field battle scenes are still unimplemented. (Many added in patches 1.5.9 to 1.9.)
* Battle Ambient Sound System and Quad Ambiences improvements to sound system.
* Vlandian culture lacks shoulder armor models (Fixed 1.8.)
* Frequent sound for relation gain is annoying (Fixed in 1.6.3 by reducing frequency of emissary relation gain).
* Helmets are the incorrect size for characters' heads (Fixed 1.9).
* NPCs do not blink in quick talk screen (Fixed 1.7.2).
* Rulers of a faction should have something that makes them look like rulers (great crown models added in patches 1.5.10 - 1.6.5).
* Aserai culture lacks armor models (Fixed 1.6.2-1.8.)
* Upgrading large quantities of troops in the UI is irritating. (Fixed 1.6).
* Greeting/main quest voiceovers. (Added 2.0 official release).

Engine/Multiplayer/Technical
*
Multiplayer servers are unstable and players complain they crash often.
* Official multiplayer servers for South American players.
* Replay system for Multiplayer.
* General bug/crash fixing. (Ongoing in every patch - TW tracks bugs in this thread)
* Improved voice chat for Multiplayer.
* Mod tools and their documentation need to be completed (improvements in patches 1.6.1 - 1.9.) and the modding community have requested the code to be more easily accessible (done in patches 1.6 to 1.6.5).
* Steam Workshop support for modding (Added 1.9)
* Custom servers for Multiplayer (Added in 1.8.1.)
* Bad performance needs fixing/optimising (Mostly fixed since 1.6 and subsequent patches, most PC users now report decent performance.)
* Single-life "Battle" mode for Multiplayer (Added 1.7.2).
* Various mechanics in the game are poorly explained, and could receive more information in the Encyclopedia. (Added 1.7.2).
* Ranked matchmaking system for Multiplayer (Added 1.7.2).
* Aesthetic customization system for Multiplayer (Added 1.6.2).
* Choosing which troops are used in Custom Battle (Added in 1.6).





CATEGORY 2: Features missing that were previously in M&B, or were mentioned in dev blogs.
By using the Mount & Blade name to sell Bannerlord, Taleworlds created an expectation it would carry over what people liked about M&B Warband. TW also hyped up buyers by talking about new features in the developer blogs, so they should deliver on those expectations.

Overworld
*
Kingdom Court: In Warband, your kingdom had a Court where you could convince nobles to join you.
* Minor Faction bases: Shown in the 2016 demo. A place for minor factions to recruit their troops and the player to hire them.
* Manhunters: Neutral bounty hunters with special troops, who spawned to fight bandits when there were too many. Demo
* Civil Wars: A claimant recruits you and other nobles in a war to try and take control of a kingdom they claim to be the rightful ruler of.
* Ability to promote companions to nobles as a faction ruler. (Added in 1.6.4)
* Choosing to accept a ransom offer for a noble, or keep them prisoner (Added in 1.5.10)
* Reasons for support for war or peace (Added in 1.6.1)
* Suggesting to allied nobles to attack/defend a specific location without you. A similar feature, ordering allies to act defensively or offensively, was added in 1.5.10.

Roleplaying
*
Feasts in Peacetime: Warband let nobles and the player hold feasts, which added roleplaying options, made it convenient to talk to lots of nobles in one location, and increased immersion.
* Skill Training: You could pay money to get experience in a skill faster in Warband.
* Criminal Enterprises system: Taking over an alley from a gang to create your own profitable criminal operation and "build a secret criminal empire".
* The ability to retire the main character.
* Cutscenes: Animations for important events (Added in 1.8.)
* Sandbox Mode: Option to skip the main quest and choose your own starting situation (Added in 1.5.9)
* Ironman Mode: Option to play a save where you cannot quit without saving (Added in 1.6)
* Companions with story interactions and unique persistent personalities, appearances and stats.

Battles
* Surprise Encounters: Warband had surprise attacks by drunks, bandits, and even assassins, in towns at night.
* Noble Duels: You could insult a noble to challenge them to a one-on-one Duel.
* Escape Fight: Fighting your way out in civilian gear after failing to sneak into a town.
* Banners borne by troops in combat as shown in the 2017 trailer. (Added in 1.9.0)
* Order of Battle: Choosing where and how to position your troop formations before a field battle. (Added in 1.7.0)
* The ability to break imprisoned nobles out of a dungeon and battle your way out. (Added in 1.5.9)
* Fighting defenders in the keep after winning the wall fight of a castle siege. (Added in 1.6.1)
* Tax Collection quest where you must gather taxes (Added in 1.6.1) and fight the citizens if they try to stop you.





@armagan @Dejan @MArdA TaleWorlds @elysebluemoon @Singil @uçanbiblo @SadShogun @Duh_TaleWorlds @lottendill @Callum
The community likes and appreciates much about the game, but these problems cause frustration and prevent it from reaching its potential. If this list can get mostly completed, Bannerlord will be a truly good sequel to Warband, and you'll please the vast majority of your buyers.
Come to think of it based upon the title "What Taleworlds still needs to fix!" it could be argued that maybe, just maybe, it falls into a single line:

The company
* Talewords: Needs fixing.
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
Updated list to take into account the things in beta release patch 1.0.2 which improved/resolved issues from this list, or implemented features:

* Bugfixes and crash fixes.
* Performance improvements.
* Added missing town scene, Sanala.
* Improved conversation animations; fixed noticeable loop skipping of animations.
* Reduced AI tendency for declaring peace right after a war and making very short wars (remains to be confirmed).
* Modding improvements.
 
Last edited:

elbanana02

Recruit
I just got on this game after not playing since v1.65 and it seems to be in a much worse state. The change to the infantry/cavalry/archers etc formation system doesn't allow you to place companions/specific troops in desired formation slots. Battle formations are messed up, circle and square formations don't work properly making them mostly useless, captured nobles don't show up in dungeons so you can't prison break them, many facial hair options seem bugged with some graphical glitches, siege defenders no longer push against the walls properly allowing enemies to easily take ground...
I'm especially worried since we're in the "full release" now and I simply don't know how TW plans to move forward, but between glitches and poor design/ui changes I am tempted to roll back to beta 1.7, the game felt a lot more playable then.
 
Top Bottom