While Bannerlord may be moving in the right direction, I think many participants on these forums (including some of the staunchest defenders of the game) have at times been worried about the pace of progress. Those expecting an acceleration post-refactor will have been somewhat disappointed. As someone who moved to the sidelines of Bannerlord a while back, I still peek into these forums for updates from the regulars (you know who you are!), to gauge how much has changed. I am not expecting significant additions of content: CK3-style Court systems, TW-style Non-Agression Pact / Defensive Alliances / Military Alliances, etc. would all be nice, but I recognise that they would be brand new features in a game that is still knee-deep in Early Access fixes.
What I do expect, and I think many others as well, is much faster iteration by the developers on tasks that are both quick to deploy and, honestly, blindingly obvious issues with the current game's meta. To their credit, several of this game's developers do pay active attention to these forums. The sole purpose of this thread is to provide a recap of what are in my view the simple, easy-to-implement, high-impact changes that should constitute part of the patch cycles sooner rather than later.
1. Archers Dominate Too Easily: This has been an obvious flaw in the game's combat meta since the very start. Massed archers or crossbowmen trivially decimate any army and remove the joy of mastering combined arms warfare. It doesn't matter what faction you pick: even if it's a faction with poor ranged (say, Sturgians), you'll still get excellent results bringing 80% archers. Total War's best franchises all rely on finding effective ways to balance infantry, ranged, cavalry and where applicable, artillery. Bannerlord's battle meta really ought to strive for that depth.
Suggestion: Reduce damage of bows and crossbows significantly, iterating in increments of 10% nerf. With each damage nerf, increase the ammunition of ranged units commensurately so that your archers can still put out the exact same amount of damage in protracted battles as now; only, they will need someone (infantry!) to tie up incoming forces. This will also make positioning/repositioning relevant: your archers need an angle from which to fire into enemy troops when the infantry lines crash into each other.
2. Faction Troops need More Flavour: This issue is somewhat related to the previous one. With Ranged being so dominant in Bannerlord's combat meta, there is often little need for much, if any, infantry or cavalry. Assuming we address the domination of archers, the game could still benefit from a substantial differentiation in each faction's strengths and weaknesses. From a replayability perspective, I would ideally want to be telling myself: this playthrough is Sturgian, my infantry core is going to demolish things but my ranged firepower will be lacklustre. This other playthrough is Vlandian: cycle-charging with cavalry will be instrumental to victory. In general I'd favour more extremisation of each faction's strengths and weaknesses (paired with meaningful morale penalties for too much mixing and matching of troops across cultures).
Suggestion: This is really down to the developer vision for what each faction represents, and this may differ from my understanding. I say this because I think of Battanians as the archer faction (given how amazing Fians are), but the absence of any non-Noble ranged option actually means the Battanians often have the least ranged firepower in any engagement! At a guess, I'd say the original vision for faction key strengths was: Vlandia = Lance Cavalry, Sturgia = 2-Handed Shock Infantry, Battania = Longbows, Khuzait = Horse Archers, Aserai = Mounted Skirmishers, Empire = Shielded Heavy Infantry. Whatever the vision was: take the relevant units of each faction and dial up their skill point allocations and gear to 11. If need be, dial down the skill point allocations and gear of the faction's weaknesses commensurately for balance purposes. If you can make it possible to achieve heroic victories with very different combined arms ratios by playing to the strengths of each faction, you've just improved the game's replayability sixfold.
3. The Smithing Money Printer needs to Stop: The option to smith javelins worth more than a town's annual income is nonsense, and makes a mockery of the game's economy. I understand the devs want gear to exist as a money-sink for the player. I personally think this is a mistake, as it is responsible for one of the game's most fundamental cognitive dissonances ('wait, I'm still in rags but this troop I've leveled on Looters is now in heavy plate armour worth hundreds of thousands? And he's working for 12 denar a day? Okay then...'). If they insist on gate-keeping high-level gear behind exorbitant prices, then some sort of affix for player-crafted gear is required to ensure it can not be used to trivialise the game's money management aspects. Building up fief prosperity, caravans, trading, doing quests, war spoils, tributaries - so many aspects of the game are negatively affected by the existence of such a powerful, immersion-breaking shortcut to wealth.
Suggestion: Implement some affix system for player-crafted gear to ensure it is only as profitable, at top-end, as any of Bannerlord's other roads to riches. Or more simply from a balance perspective: make it never be profitable at all, but instead boost the damage potential of master-crafted weaponry significantly. Those in pursuit of the most powerful personal character should still eagerly explore smithing for that edge in battle.
4. The Khuzaits are OP: The Khuzaits have spent the entire Early Access being far too powerful, for reasons that are well-known: a strong geographic position with their back to a map edge (so their economy rarely gets raided), 20% cavalry autocalc bonus, choosing their engagements (because of mounted ratios + culture bonus), etc. I won't belabour this point as it's really flogging a dead horse (we wish! amirite?... i'll see myself out). As I understand it, Mexxico has already acknowledged this issue, and it's one they're looking to address soon.
Suggestion: I think ongoing tests by Mexxico were showing that Khuzaits are still decent (as in, still actually conquering stuff and -never- getting deleted from the map) with the 20% cavalry buff and their cultural speed buff removed. It would take even more to push Khuzait into territory where they might actually be one of Calradia's losers. Personally, I'd like some more entropy in my campaigns. Evidence shows the cavalry autocalc buff was counterproductive to campaign balance: so for now, take it out and delete their culture speed buff. Replace with a horse-related culture trait, like -20% cost to all horse purchases. Even that would probably be more valuable than the Aserai caravan trait...
What I do expect, and I think many others as well, is much faster iteration by the developers on tasks that are both quick to deploy and, honestly, blindingly obvious issues with the current game's meta. To their credit, several of this game's developers do pay active attention to these forums. The sole purpose of this thread is to provide a recap of what are in my view the simple, easy-to-implement, high-impact changes that should constitute part of the patch cycles sooner rather than later.
1. Archers Dominate Too Easily: This has been an obvious flaw in the game's combat meta since the very start. Massed archers or crossbowmen trivially decimate any army and remove the joy of mastering combined arms warfare. It doesn't matter what faction you pick: even if it's a faction with poor ranged (say, Sturgians), you'll still get excellent results bringing 80% archers. Total War's best franchises all rely on finding effective ways to balance infantry, ranged, cavalry and where applicable, artillery. Bannerlord's battle meta really ought to strive for that depth.
Suggestion: Reduce damage of bows and crossbows significantly, iterating in increments of 10% nerf. With each damage nerf, increase the ammunition of ranged units commensurately so that your archers can still put out the exact same amount of damage in protracted battles as now; only, they will need someone (infantry!) to tie up incoming forces. This will also make positioning/repositioning relevant: your archers need an angle from which to fire into enemy troops when the infantry lines crash into each other.
2. Faction Troops need More Flavour: This issue is somewhat related to the previous one. With Ranged being so dominant in Bannerlord's combat meta, there is often little need for much, if any, infantry or cavalry. Assuming we address the domination of archers, the game could still benefit from a substantial differentiation in each faction's strengths and weaknesses. From a replayability perspective, I would ideally want to be telling myself: this playthrough is Sturgian, my infantry core is going to demolish things but my ranged firepower will be lacklustre. This other playthrough is Vlandian: cycle-charging with cavalry will be instrumental to victory. In general I'd favour more extremisation of each faction's strengths and weaknesses (paired with meaningful morale penalties for too much mixing and matching of troops across cultures).
Suggestion: This is really down to the developer vision for what each faction represents, and this may differ from my understanding. I say this because I think of Battanians as the archer faction (given how amazing Fians are), but the absence of any non-Noble ranged option actually means the Battanians often have the least ranged firepower in any engagement! At a guess, I'd say the original vision for faction key strengths was: Vlandia = Lance Cavalry, Sturgia = 2-Handed Shock Infantry, Battania = Longbows, Khuzait = Horse Archers, Aserai = Mounted Skirmishers, Empire = Shielded Heavy Infantry. Whatever the vision was: take the relevant units of each faction and dial up their skill point allocations and gear to 11. If need be, dial down the skill point allocations and gear of the faction's weaknesses commensurately for balance purposes. If you can make it possible to achieve heroic victories with very different combined arms ratios by playing to the strengths of each faction, you've just improved the game's replayability sixfold.
3. The Smithing Money Printer needs to Stop: The option to smith javelins worth more than a town's annual income is nonsense, and makes a mockery of the game's economy. I understand the devs want gear to exist as a money-sink for the player. I personally think this is a mistake, as it is responsible for one of the game's most fundamental cognitive dissonances ('wait, I'm still in rags but this troop I've leveled on Looters is now in heavy plate armour worth hundreds of thousands? And he's working for 12 denar a day? Okay then...'). If they insist on gate-keeping high-level gear behind exorbitant prices, then some sort of affix for player-crafted gear is required to ensure it can not be used to trivialise the game's money management aspects. Building up fief prosperity, caravans, trading, doing quests, war spoils, tributaries - so many aspects of the game are negatively affected by the existence of such a powerful, immersion-breaking shortcut to wealth.
Suggestion: Implement some affix system for player-crafted gear to ensure it is only as profitable, at top-end, as any of Bannerlord's other roads to riches. Or more simply from a balance perspective: make it never be profitable at all, but instead boost the damage potential of master-crafted weaponry significantly. Those in pursuit of the most powerful personal character should still eagerly explore smithing for that edge in battle.
4. The Khuzaits are OP: The Khuzaits have spent the entire Early Access being far too powerful, for reasons that are well-known: a strong geographic position with their back to a map edge (so their economy rarely gets raided), 20% cavalry autocalc bonus, choosing their engagements (because of mounted ratios + culture bonus), etc. I won't belabour this point as it's really flogging a dead horse (we wish! amirite?... i'll see myself out). As I understand it, Mexxico has already acknowledged this issue, and it's one they're looking to address soon.
Suggestion: I think ongoing tests by Mexxico were showing that Khuzaits are still decent (as in, still actually conquering stuff and -never- getting deleted from the map) with the 20% cavalry buff and their cultural speed buff removed. It would take even more to push Khuzait into territory where they might actually be one of Calradia's losers. Personally, I'd like some more entropy in my campaigns. Evidence shows the cavalry autocalc buff was counterproductive to campaign balance: so for now, take it out and delete their culture speed buff. Replace with a horse-related culture trait, like -20% cost to all horse purchases. Even that would probably be more valuable than the Aserai caravan trait...
Last edited: