Do you think bannerlord would benefit from a smaller map and less clans?

[Count_Morfetico]

I actually think it should be a snowball if you lose a big battle and get annihilated. I'm sick to death of games with anti snowballing that solely exists to maintain equilibrium to offset the idiot kamikaze AI after it gets completely wiped, and to forcibly slow the player down if they're too good at the game. Strategy games have been doing this for years now and it's only getting worse. Enough!!!

Damn right! Anti-snowballing serve to a stale game, nothing exciting happens because everything must be ultra-balanced and i guess this is one of the causes of the non-stop-meatgrinder

That way if the player manages to force a 2000 vs 2000 battle and kill all the enemies somehow (a good AI would actually try to retreat in these circumstances), that faction would basically be screwed. But the AI would at the very least not hand its entire field army to you on a platter and never retreat even if they're getting massacred.

totally agreed... I also think there should be surrender negotiations instead of "ok, i surrender and it means nothing"
doesn't even need nothing complex...

 

[JunKeteer]

I actually think it should be a snowball if you lose a big battle and get annihilated. I'm sick to death of games with anti snowballing that solely exists to maintain equilibrium to offset the idiot kamikaze AI after it gets completely wiped, and to forcibly slow the player down if they're too good at the game. Strategy games have been doing this for years now and it's only getting worse. Enough!!!

'Hard' mechanics like we have with the tribute system is horrible as it's not balanced but enforced equilibrium, nor is there a clear way for a player to 'play' it really. All to keep the kingdoms the same even after a 50yr sim or something. As it is, the AI has no chance to counter a snowball besides implementing additional AI cheats to counteract the player; as the player, even in the current iteration, can take over quite easily despite the current mechanics.
You can't get 'ambushed', AI don't really 'maintain' their holdings, no 'alliances', no civil war (not the same as the rebellions we have which is more an 'event'), etc...
This would make 'beating' the game easier/quicker - which is fine; but it further trivializes the dynasty/generation thing they got - and all the resources spent on getting the world economy 'balanced' to maintain that equilibrium to keep it relevant for a potential 100 year game; the nonsense of noble deaths, aging, birth/rate, etc...and all those issues that are evident even now that don't really make sense with it.

Instead of adding annoying stuff like attrition or constant rebellions or civil war, factions should never commit 100% of their forces to a war unless there are only two factions left in the game. The Vlandians should look at all the factions around them with 10,000 men in the field vs their 4,000, and try to seek alliances and make peace at all costs rather than suiciding everything they have into every border conflict. That also means that instead of some hamfisted rebellion system, overextension is literal overextension, where you send 2000 of your 5000 men to die in a war and suddenly you're way weaker than your neighbours.

That way if the player manages to force a 2000 vs 2000 battle and kill all the enemies somehow (a good AI would actually try to retreat in these circumstances), that faction would basically be screwed. But the AI would at the very least not hand its entire field army to you on a platter and never retreat even if they're getting massacred.

Which I think is what we were always asking, something more along the lines of war objectives/casus belli. As it is, once a war is dec'd, an army is just insta-formed and they just siege the closest castle/town with the least garrisons; the opponent does the exact same thing. Back and forth trading the same 2 castles/towns until the calculation for tribute peace triggers (which works more for the defeated than victor).

BL right now is like playing single-player DotA/LoL, but the opponent has no heroes. At least in DotA/LoL (iirc) you could set up enemy AI heroes (or allies) and you could technically feed them enough where they can snowball against you; and some added flavor of variety on the composition of the heroes.

 

[Totalgarbage]

I actually think it should be a snowball if you lose a big battle and get annihilated. I'm sick to death of games with anti snowballing that solely exists to maintain equilibrium to offset the idiot kamikaze AI after it gets completely wiped, and to forcibly slow the player down if they're too good at the game. Strategy games have been doing this for years now and it's only getting worse. Enough!!!

Yes, there should be more snowballing in the game to make the late game much less tedious. If our kingdom/empire is already controlling 1/2 of the original territory of a faction, the succeeding war should be much much easier than when the balance of power was similar. If the reason for having so little snowball is for the players to take advantage of the dynastic features of the game (which they won't unless they're playing super slowly), time should be sped up rather than snowball being lowered.

Of course, snowball should never get to the level it had at the start of the early access, but a large empire should conquer a weakened faction so much faster and easier. We should also be able to talk with the garrison commander of a besieged settlement and have a chance of them surrendering or try to bribe us to lift the siege, individual lords should have a chance of surrendering or paying us to let them and their warband go.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

I don't necessarily think endgame wars should be easier, just faster and more decisive. Shogun Total War 1 is a good example, the endgame is always a single climactic battle where both sides go all in. Its still possible to lose at this point because the AI and you both have your backs to the wall (i.e. the sea on both ends of japan) and throw everything in.

 

[Ser Jon]

No.

The map being big isn't the reason why mid game is a repetitive and boring slog. It's the AI and the core mechanics that is the problem. The only benefit you would see on a smaller map is that it takes you less time to chase down that damn AI for the eight millionth time.

 

[JunKeteer]

Or treat it closer to TotalWars or Civ games where the AI also want to conquer more lands through X turns, so if the player is slower on their end (or TBD difficulty), they can be steamrolled. Likewise, by the time you take half the map, maybe only 2 other kingdoms remain of equal size - eventually leading to the massive battles of complete attrition and a winner takes all situation for the 'end'game.

BL is like if all those other kingdoms remained the same size even after 200 turns; with only the player's kingdom enlarging because of them. The gameplay opportunities though with BL, being that you could potentially switch factions at any time to play the dominator one 'generation' and choose to switch to the other side of the map and retake as an underdog.

 

[danEN]

it doesn't matter the game would still be boring either way

 

[RitoDurito]

I dont think making less clans would be as good of an improvement as simply making clans more impactful, you could name a bunch of characters and recognize their flags in Warband but in bannerlord each clan is simply culture/colour and that's all there is to them which is what's making all battles the same, the generals and clans have no impact or representation. Would also help if lords had personality and wants.

 

[Reiksmarshal]

No, personally I would like to see the current factions broken up a bit more where you have maybe 3-4 petty Kingdoms except for the Empire which already 3 different factions.

 

[Apocal]

But the AI would at the very least not hand its entire field army to you on a platter and never retreat even if they're getting massacred.

But then the player might not be able to fight four dozen HUGE, MASSIVE, EPIC battles!

 

[Brano]

If you take the distance ones warband can travel per day, general spacing of cities and other stuff, the map is in fact very small. Smtg in size between Czech republic and Hungary. On such small area you have cramped "cultures" that should occupy area 100x larger. To be at least believable.
My 3 points to make the game fun for me:
1. Mąkę the year 365 days again.
2. Make marriage/kids and all that crap a sidequest
3. Give common enemy to sedetary cultures > make Khuzaits great again

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

If you take the distance ones warband can travel per day, general spacing of cities and other stuff, the map is in fact very small. Smtg in size between Czech republic and Hungary. On such small area you have cramped "cultures" that should occupy area 100x larger. To be at least believable.
My 3 points to make the game fun for me:
1. Mąkę the year 365 days again.
2. Make marriage/kids and all that crap a sidequest
3. Give common enemy to sedetary cultures > make Khuzaits great again

Like most games the time is compressed. In Roller Coaster Tycoon for example the park is technically larger than Russia because it takes a 100kmh train days to get across. What really makes bannerlord feel "small" is how everything is the same and you have to run across the entire map constantly to do anything. A 365 day year isn't going to solve that.

 

[Zorion_no]

Specifically what I would want to see removed wasnt necessarily the size, but make sieges take alot longer to build up, so its not like a 1-3 day thing.
As you point out sometimes the travel time for armies to defend atleast in my case is insane.

Example Sturgia : Just without an army, and normal speed for my party, try travelling from Revvyl to Tyal.. So if you are at war with Vlandia and then Khuzait decides to attack.

Before you can reach Tyal that is besieged, its captured..
Just isnt a good mechanics imo.

(The removal of the Sturgian ability to travel faster on snow was really bad design decision imo).

Had the distance been less, then sieges would be ok I suppose.

The thing I hate the most isnt per se the number of clans, but the merc factions.
Every single time, you land a decisive "blow" to the other side, hire 1-2 more merc faction instead of going for peace.

Overall the lack of peace is just garbage imo, I cant play without diplomacy mod anymore, as it lets you set the peace time and such things.

Kind of wrong to say, but "its just to much war", should have some mechanics in play to limit it more (longer peace time for one would help out, as I enjoy the games where I set the minimum peace ot 125, with this I see typical weaker factions like Battania get up back again and reclaiming lost lands).

Also as others point out the casualties of war should account for something, I mean growing battleready troops typically takes 18-20 years after all.(Diplomacy-mod lets you put this as a factor for "warfatigue" aswell).

I get that it needs to be war in the game and all that, but for some of us players if we play the game vanilla we have 3-4 days of peace in a period for 10 years.. most of the time at war with multiple factions.
Thats just not fun.
Like I get that not everyone thinks the same thing is fun etc, but atleast in warband if you got fed up with a war, you could travel to a town, find the mayor and he offered you a quest to end the war, you'd need to track down 2 lords and bribe/persuade or capture the hostile factiosn lord, and boom you got peace.

 

[Retrobarbaari]

What I find problematic with the big amount of lords and parties is, that they stick with their clans and kings, even after they have been soundly defeated, and all they do is try raid villages.

When these lords are released or escape from captivity, they all get a new party for free. It's a rubbish party with a lot of recruits. Completely harmless against player (or a kingdom which is still victorious) in a battle.

You can find couple of dozen of these defeated parties swarming around someplaces. The A.I. is so stupid, it often happens a vassal of the player goes and attacks one of these harmless parties, and a dozen (or more) of these parties join the same fight. As the battle is fought only by numbers on the campaign map, the huge number of these harmless newbie parties can still defeat a strong NPC-party, even if they had no hope in a real battlemap fought battle. This continues endlessly, as them defeated parties always start with new free parties, and they won't abandon their clan or kingdom.
In my game there's even several non-kingdom factions brought by mods. Their parties are absolute rubbish, as they've lost a battle some time. They keep declaring wars against me all the time, but it is completely meaningless.

I voted for bigger maps and more lords, but the system of them getting free parties and sticking with their leaders needs to change. I might solve this by breaking these clans, and adding these lords into towns and villages. Make them merchants, gang leaders, farmers, what ever. And also seeking to join other factions or starting their own. Loyalty is too high in this game.

With the stupid tribute rules I won't ever make peace with kingdoms I'm at war with. I don't loot villages, they do, and as a result they still demand tributes when they are soundly defeated and lost all their towns and villages: no military power left. After I've defeated 2-3 of their biggest armies, their troops start to be rubbish, and they can't recover from that.
In my current game there's only two kingdoms left besides mine. The other has half a dozen towns, the other only 2 castles. All the defeated kingdoms still are around, they declare wars, and their troops are absolute rubbish.

If I talk some of these defeated parties, their reply is always that I need to find their clan leader to talk about deserting their kingdom. They will not desert their clan leaders. And as I don't have time to ride looking for these clan leaders, I never bother hire existing clans. I just create new clans by giving fiefs for my companions. MUCH easier and faster.

I think the game needs more kingdoms, so kingdoms have time to rebuild.
And it needs small kingdoms that players who start the game, can have easier adversories and defeated kingdoms could rise again fighting someone who they have chances against. (Yeah I know there are rebelling towns, sometimes a few: that is good).
And it needs big kingdoms who don't try to declare wars against all the small kingdoms first.
And it needs alliances, so that even small kingdoms can find safety. Of course it needs politics so this could happen.

And it really, really needs to get rid of the stupid different culture governor - different culture town penalty. That artificial rule to stop kingdoms from expanding (and guarantee the player wins every campaign) is the biggest nerf. Yeah I know it exists because it can take a long time to rise from farm boy/girl to a prince/princess, and they obviously want the campaign map still exist with different kingdoms. But it could be done otherwise than nerfing the expansion of all kingdoms. And if you spend decades being employed by another kingdom, is it so wrong that one kingdom (other than an Empire faction) could rise in the hegemony in the meanwhile?

If you have a campaign map with only a few kingdoms, it would be just about one war against each. And the defeated have no chance to rebuild. A very short campaign.

In a big map you might have some use for strategic planning even. Which front should you bring your party/army? Which garrisons need to be strengthened?

Unfortunately in current state of the game, there is little chance you could strengthen any border garrisons. NPC-lords don't do it, and when there are continuously wars, you can either transport troops between garrisons (boring), or go have fun and fight battles, but you don't have time for both. Especially in the end game you have not a single day of peace. Meaningful politics, both for declaring wars and trying to get time to rebuild, get allies, would be needed into the game.

 

[Retrobarbaari]

Specifically what I would want to see removed wasnt necessarily the size, but make sieges take alot longer to build up, so its not like a 1-3 day thing. ...

Example Sturgia : Just without an army, and normal speed for my party, try travelling from Revvyl to Tyal.. So if you are at war with Vlandia and then Khuzait decides to attack.

Before you can reach Tyal that is besieged, its captured..

Yeah. Also, the difference between tiers. Militia is absolute rubbish in siege battles. Often in sieges, even if the other side has hundreds of defenders, I don't have but a handful of casualties, as my high tier troops spawn first.

To say it bluntly: sieges are child's play. Too easy. After a little experience, you cannot lose one.

In M&B Warband starvation, all kind of events (hunting and ambush parties), sallying out, building siege fortress, sending agents into the sieged garrisons, could cause heaps of problems and different outcomes. I'm not saying you should add similar text-based random casualties events as Warband had. But definitly sieges could use some spices. Just watching the siege-engine battle, that's a bit dull. And the danger of enemy gathering an army (or getting aliies) that tried to break your longer lasting siege, would be welcome to the game.

Kind of wrong to say, but "its just to much war", should have some mechanics in play to limit it more (longer peace time for one would help out, as I enjoy the games where I set the minimum peace ot 125, with this I see typical weaker factions like Battania get up back again and reclaiming lost lands).

Also as others point out the casualties of war should account for something, I mean growing battleready troops typically takes 18-20 years after all.(Diplomacy-mod lets you put this as a factor for "warfatigue" aswell).

I get that it needs to be war in the game and all that, but for some of us players if we play the game vanilla we have 3-4 days of peace in a period for 10 years.. most of the time at war with multiple factions.
Thats just not fun.

Not fun, not reasonable, leaves no time for strategy building meaningfully garrisons.
There's time for war, time for peace, you could use both. And you could use DIPLOMACY to try and work navigate there in between. Instead of the current random war declarations.

 

[Zorion_no]

Yeah. Also, the difference between tiers. Militia is absolute rubbish in siege battles. Often in sieges, even if the other side has hundreds of defenders, I don't have but a handful of casualties, as my high tier troops spawn first.

To say it bluntly: sieges are child's play. Too easy. After a little experience, you cannot lose one.

In M&B Warband starvation, all kind of events (hunting and ambush parties), sallying out, building siege fortress, sending agents into the sieged garrisons, could cause heaps of problems and different outcomes. I'm not saying you should add similar text-based random casualties events as Warband had. But definitly sieges could use some spices. Just watching the siege-engine battle, that's a bit dull. And the danger of enemy gathering an army (or getting aliies) that tried to break your longer lasting siege, would be welcome to the game.


Not fun, not reasonable, leaves no time for strategy building meaningfully garrisons.
There's time for war, time for peace, you could use both. And you could use DIPLOMACY to try and work navigate there in between. Instead of the current random war declarations.

For the record I use Diplomacy mod and it fixes alot of the imo design flaws that TW did with the game.
Without Diplomacy I tried again now with the current Beta and it just isnt fun.

 

[Forest-Bandit]

Ok, so, I normally like to think things in their contextualized complexity... but I've been watching some videos of people playing warband's campaign, and was thinking if one of the problems of Bannerlord is that the map is huge in comparison with warband's and there are SO MANY of them clans everywhere.
That simple.
Do you think that Bannerlord would benefit from a smaller map and less clans?
I guess that it would reduce the meat grinder of army after army after army and maybe make the battles more meaningful cause' there wouldn't be so much lords hanging around forming armies non-stop. There would be less battles and there would be less vassals, and maybe if there are some personality traits that do function, maybe allow them to shine for a change...
I kinda remember someone talking about this in the forums, but i did a little search and couldn't find it.
So, what do you think? Aye or nay?

Ps.: I know that they wouldn't do anything like that at this point, this is just some musings...

I did agree bigger isn’t always better but when it comes to prosperity like growth best to think big

 

[Retrobarbaari]

For the record I use Diplomacy mod and it fixes alot of the imo design flaws that TW did with the game.
Without Diplomacy I tried again now with the current Beta and it just isnt fun.

I tried Diplomacy mod, but it didn't work, caused a crash or was grayed in loader, don't recall, many months since I started the game.

Because mods often have conflicts, important features really should be in the vanilla game.