• If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
  • Please note that we've updated the Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord save file system which requires you to take certain steps in order for your save files to be compatible with e1.7.1 and any later updates. You can find the instructions here.

Constant Warfare in Late Game - Unplayable

Users who are viewing this thread

The game is supposed to go on forever so that the heir system has a purpose. I like that they've made it hard to conquer the whole map, it is still possible, just hard. I would perhaps have liked it better if they had chosen another way to make it hard rather than replenish lords fast.
The game is supposed to go on forever so that the heir system has a purpose. I like that they've made it hard to conquer the whole map, it is still possible, just hard. I would perhaps have liked it better if they had chosen another way to make it hard rather than replenish lords fast.
The introduction of heirs is probably the source of alot of problems. You can now play the game for (insert number) times longer than warband but you are essentially just repeating the same thing (insert number) more times.

But, as fare as I recollect it has been a requested feature. so. Self-imposed missery?
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Master Knight
The game is supposed to go on forever so that the heir system has a purpose. I like that they've made it hard to conquer the whole map, it is still possible, just hard. I would perhaps have liked it better if they had chosen another way to make it hard rather than replenish lords fast.
It's not even hard though, it's just sucky and unsatisfying because it's just a forced loop over and over with as little player agency as they can manage. I feel like if (when) they could figure out how to give you less control and strategy they would . I only clear the map to give feedback on everything wrong with it and how much it sucks. If they want the game to be longer they need to CREATE content for it. I don't know how warband late game was more satisfying, but it was. Probably because there was no forced and frequent peace so you could press you advantage and constantly progress until THE END.
 

MadVader

Duhpressed
Duke
M&BWB
The introduction of heirs is probably the source of alot of problems. You can now play the game for (insert number) times longer than warband but you are essentially just repeating the same thing (insert number) more times.

But, as fare as I recollect it has been a requested feature. so. Self-imposed missery?
This is a good question as a single life Warband-like pacing is quite different from multi-generational dynasty pacing - those two games need different balancing and you can't have it both ways, like Taleworlds tried to do. They try to accommodate both players who like and hate dynasties and the game balancing suffers. This is cowardly game design IMO, they should have enforced dynastic play (and balancing) and made it palatable to dynasty-haters.
 
I don't know how warband late game was more satisfying, but it was.
Well, my thoughts exactly... I can't put my finger on what it is either, i just know it is (it just works!™)
I remember my last warband playthrough before Bannerlord being so much fun, and it was solely with diplomacy, no other mods...
Can't say the same about my last playthrough in bannerlord.. so much so that I don't feel like playing again so soon

This is cowardly game design IMO, they should have enforced dynastic play (and balancing) and made it palatable to dynasty-haters.
I don't even know if I love or hate the system, cause i get burned before raising any children.. its too much grind
 
This is a good question as a single life Warband-like pacing is quite different from multi-generational dynasty pacing - those two games need different balancing and you can't have it both ways, like Taleworlds tried to do. They try to accommodate both players who like and hate dynasties and the game balancing suffers. This is cowardly game design IMO, they should have enforced dynastic play (and balancing) and made it palatable to dynasty-haters.
Absolutely!

...As long as the pacing is based on a non-dynastic playstile:wink:

But, personally, I can live with some improvement to the early phase of the game; as in the period up to the point where you transition to hunting lords. Atm this does not feel rewarding and is essentially just something that you need to transition out of as quickly as possible.

Realisticly speaking, "improvement" in the endgame tend to come in two flavors. Everyone declares war on you or a doomstack arrives from off the map.
 
Last edited:

KingEroc1st

Veteran
This is cowardly game design IMO, they should have enforced dynastic play (and balancing) and made it palatable to dynasty-haters.
Bannerlord does not have nearly enough depth of game play variety to be a dynastic game.
it gets old real quick with the same field battles and sieges on repeat 100 times. if you want dynastic play, go check out crusader kings series...
last time i checked, mount and blade is a combat simulator rather than a dynastic empire builder.
 

five bucks

Squire
The game is supposed to go on forever so that the heir system has a purpose. I like that they've made it hard to conquer the whole map, it is still possible, just hard. I would perhaps have liked it better if they had chosen another way to make it hard rather than replenish lords fast.
That goal would be better achieved if conquering the whole map was easier, but holding it was harder (civil wars and/or foreign invasions becoming increasingly likely to happen in super-large factions). That would satisfy both people who wanted to be able to conquer the map to "beat the game" without a long boring slog, as well as satisfying people who wanted endless games in a Crusader Kings mould.
 
Top Bottom