Endgame is boring and really kills all the fun...

Users who are viewing this thread

I don't know for him but warband had a few points making the endgame better imo:
  • fewer town, but harder to take. There are almost as many town in the three empires than there were in the whole game in warband. This leads to two things :
    • it's much more tedious since you do the same thing for much longer (and since the towns are pretty easy to capture you can be sure that they will be taken back by the enemy, so you have to do it again and again)
    • you don't see the light at the end of the tunnel. There is no time you're thinking "just one faction, one war and I've done it" because kingdoms do not disappear, just one faction means several years of war because you can't count on your allies, there is too many castles/cities to take. and you know that it will take way too long.
  • battle variety: fight the swadian or the khergits, it's incomparable. fight the empire or sturgia ? same thing. The only factions that feel different are battania and the khuzaits, and even then not by much.
  • capturing/defeating lords had an impact. You didn't have hordes of imperial recruits to fight endlessly because the cousin twice removed from the noble you've just captured somehow can build and army in his stead. And he did not escape so easily too
  • Feeling of progression. high tier troops were hard to get until the mid game, and having a complete army would be even later in the game. But they were very strong and were worth the investment, both in price and time. I can sustain 100+ tier 6 noble troops before reaching clan size 4 in bannerlord, yet feel like they aren't worth neither the time nor the price unless I mod the game.
  • on the same point, armor used to be useful and worth the price, a tier 6 armor in bannerlord protects me against 4 bow shots instead of two without it, for the price of 200k+ gold, and the improvement in melee combat is only a few months old...
  • less painful leveling,with more variety. Getting the focus points is fine, but the attribute points system is terrible, and I won't even talk about the perk, most of which are useless and the ones that aren't are just OP
  • relations were useful, now they just seem to vary the price you have to pay to marry someone
  • companions could be leveled and doing so truly made your troops better.
  • even in late game you could be afraid of fighting your foes. want to take a battanian town ? no problem, just throw more troops. want to take a late game rhodok castle ? now this is terrifying, although some of the reasons why are very bad design, namely the single ladder and the fact that the battle would end at you getting knocked out.
+1, well said.
Ionce modified the troop trees on my end to make them more like warband (so basically very specialized, not every factions has cav/horse archers, archers or even infantry in the base tree) and yep, changed a lot the endgame when combined with a mod to make armor work. I actually had to adapt my strategy to the enemy instead of the "F1 + F3" or "archers behind shieldwall" that are all you need to win a battle in bannerlord
It would be amazing if tactics actually mattered in Bannerlord. If the faction armies were differentiated more and if the enemy AI actually used pike bracing.
 
The Nords need to invade with a massive army in the late game. That would add so much life to the end game and a fun challenge.
I would disagree on this, the endgame is already an endless loop of battles, adding more battles would be just as boring. Unless the opposing troops bring a special challenge that can't be solved by stacking fians of khan's guards, what you are effictively doing is adding a new faction that is stronger thus longer to conquer


It would be amazing if tactics actually mattered in Bannerlord. If the faction armies were differentiated more and if the enemy AI actually used pike bracing.
Well they don't in the base game but modding the game a bit can change a lot of things. By rebalancing armour, cavalry charges, crossbows vs bows, and shield longevity warbandlord (best mod tbh) makes for a much more varied battle gameplay, at least from a progression standpoint as you have to be much more careful with low tier units, more creative. It won't make the factions much more varied but that's why I made my mod so for me it's a solved issue..
To my surprise the infantry does use pikes, the implementation is just strange : only the first two rows of infantry will do it, and only in line formation.It is almost useless, mostly just stop the charge (aside from a few kills, but the bracing soldiers also do get damages if not killed while doing this) so I would recommend having shock troops right behind the pikes
 
Well they don't in the base game but modding the game a bit can change a lot of things. By rebalancing armour, cavalry charges, crossbows vs bows, and shield longevity warbandlord (best mod tbh) makes for a much more varied battle gameplay, at least from a progression standpoint as you have to be much more careful with low tier units, more creative. It won't make the factions much more varied but that's why I made my mod so for me it's a solved issue..
That's what I want to see the vanilla game be like. That way we wouldn't need to rely on mods to get a game that's tactically fun.

TW added these features that should have made BL a much better tactical game than WB, but then took a bunch of steps backwards with poor balance decisions.
To my surprise the infantry does use pikes, the implementation is just strange : only the first two rows of infantry will do it, and only in line formation
I've seen my troops do it, but never the enemy AI: even in custom battle when I attack them with cavalry and they have all pikemen and they are on defense they still don't do it.
 
I would disagree on this, the endgame is already an endless loop of battles, adding more battles would be just as boring. Unless the opposing troops bring a special challenge that can't be solved by stacking fians of khan's guards, what you are effictively doing is adding a new faction that is stronger thus longer to conquer
It's because they went hard on preventing that snowballing effect at the outset where kingdoms are now completely stale and the new implementations put in place specifically to prevent even that 5% chance of a snowball effect. Only the player inputs can really swing any difference - due solely on how we can abuse said mechanics vs AI.
It doesn't have that same...time factor as something like Civ or TW games where, if you want to take things slow, the other AI faction/kingdoms can and will start to enlarge and be even more difficult for the player to overcome without also needing to get stronger themselves.
Well they don't in the base game but modding the game a bit can change a lot of things. By rebalancing armour, cavalry charges, crossbows vs bows, and shield longevity warbandlord (best mod tbh) makes for a much more varied battle gameplay, at least from a progression standpoint as you have to be much more careful with low tier units, more creative. It won't make the factions much more varied but that's why I made my mod so for me it's a solved issue..
To my surprise the infantry does use pikes, the implementation is just strange : only the first two rows of infantry will do it, and only in line formation.It is almost useless, mostly just stop the charge (aside from a few kills, but the bracing soldiers also do get damages if not killed while doing this) so I would recommend having shock troops right behind the pikes
At the outset, there was a lot more differences between kingdom cultures (closer to what WB had) - then they went and made practically all kingdoms have 'similar' units across all types so they start to lose their uniqueness. Was the lazy way to find a balance between the factions by making them all the same vs trying to have them unique but still within balance of each other.
 
It's because they went hard on preventing that snowballing effect at the outset where kingdoms are now completely stale and the new implementations put in place specifically to prevent even that 5% chance of a snowball effect. Only the player inputs can really swing any difference - due solely on how we can abuse said mechanics vs AI.
Even before snowballing was fixed, the late-game/endgame was an endless treadmill of battles. It was just even worse because if you didn't move fast enough, there would be a giant mega-kingdom that could throw 25,000 troops at you and regenerate like 300+ a day, every day.
 
It's because they went hard on preventing that snowballing effect at the outset where kingdoms are now completely stale and the new implementations put in place specifically to prevent even that 5% chance of a snowball effect.

Couldnt agree more and stated at the time that this is no real solution. Sure it would artificially prevent one constant dominant faction but in the least interesting possible way -and then devs could wipe their hands clean of the issue "well, fixed that...*clasps hands

The thing is ,theres nothing wrong with having a dominant faction in a sandbox. If im playing an open ended sandbox type WW2 game -I want Russia and Germany to be dominant factions -not all random heads of States with random personalities thats Bulgaria can hang militarily with. Its about the interesting (or lack thereof) gameplay and strategic mechanics in how an AI might possibly attempt to rectify against a constant dominant faction which makes or breaks the interest/fun level. Homogenizing everything and every one in the name of balance is a lowest common denominator solution
 
Even before snowballing was fixed, the late-game/endgame was an endless treadmill of battles. It was just even worse because if you didn't move fast enough, there would be a giant mega-kingdom that could throw 25,000 troops at you and regenerate like 300+ a day, every day.
Always was and will be, unless some drastic changes or content is implemented which will not happen at this stage of release.
Before, iirc, a lot of it stemmed from issues with the cultural bonuses, map layouts (still main reason Sturgian struggles imo), etc...which was why it was always the same culprits that snowballed. But as it is now, with the route they went, there's almost no chance% for that to happen, whether it's Aserai somehow managing to sweep half the map (via luck or favorable circumstances) so there's no potential of it having the possibility to be powerhouse 1v1 kingdom 25k v 25k.
 
Since its a sandbox game, there is no victory condition.

You have to make your own. Put a settlement goal in and you can avoid the late game.
 
Just bought Crusader Kings 3 just to try CrusaderBlade mod which allows Bannerlord battles ( using Swadia armoury looks fantastic) in the very dynamic world of CK. Ive never played CK before and havent delved that much yet but already i much prefer a world which seems not to just wait around for Player besides seemingly endless battles -but a to one of dynamics of politics and intrigue. Have to say i enjoy the overall artistic direction and color/UI palette too, but of course BL wins combat hands down.. If this plays out as good as it seems right now it will have made Bannerlord worth the cost and grief to this point
 
The Nords need to invade with a massive army in the late game. That would add so much life to the end game and a fun challenge.
What we really need are some green animal rights activiists to show those butter hoarding, olive eating inbred Vlandians that there is a superior way to win battles without using their mediocre knights, save a horse, use a rhodok.

We also need better Sturgian archers, they should mod the game so that after a few hundred years, new armor gets invented and Vlandia gets renamed to Swadia and a rebel faction breaks off from them. And we should add feasts too especially now that everyone in the enclyopedia is a gray question mark

I have been trying to destroy the current kindgoms and establish the warband ones in a multigen playthrough lol
 
I don't want to be that guy, but I generally don't like being overpowered in games.
Same can be said about reaching the end-game content of any game I play, unless it's a story driven game, where I don't have a clue what the ending is going to be, and I'm very hooked on, I don't usually finish the majority of my games.
In general, the closer to the end I am, the less motivation I have to continue playing. In sandbox games, that don't have an end, I usually make a new save once I'm way too overpowered to enjoy the game.
And Bannerlord is a sandbox in which you can get crazy OP army, that kills the joy in the game. For example, the archer exploit, you might feel good for killing 300 with 50 archer units, but after commiting a small genocide ingame, you get bored of it, there's no purpose, the novelty of it runs out, and you need something new that excites you (not marital advice :cautious:).
That's why I believe your expectations are slightly unreasonable. The usual way of tackling this issue with sandbox games is to present a late game challenge that would push the player to the brink, say in warband, in mods like Perisno, or now lesser known Native Expansion, the mod devs added late game invasions by forces that have better units than normal forces, but most of all, have incredible number of troops, and spread like a plague once they're on the map. You could do the same for Bannerlord, but there's a question of what meaningful features you could add to the endgame to make it feel not-so-boring.
Endgame is the end of the game, it's better to start a new save, try something different, and move on.
Just bought Crusader Kings 3 just to try CrusaderBlade mod which allows Bannerlord battles ( using Swadia armoury looks fantastic) in the very dynamic world of CK. Ive never played CK before and havent delved that much yet but already i much prefer a world which seems not to just wait around for Player besides seemingly endless battles -but a to one of dynamics of politics and intrigue. Have to say i enjoy the overall artistic direction and color/UI palette too, but of course BL wins combat hands down.. If this plays out as good as it seems right now it will have made Bannerlord worth the cost and grief to this point
Disregarding my bias against CK3s arcading the sh*t out of CK2 mechanics, and creating a dice roll combat system similar to EU4 (which is bloody disgusting, an aberration of what we had in CK2), it is a hands down better game than any of the M&B games made. The general reason why that is is because you can't really reach the point of the game where you feel like everything is in your control. You can be a lord of a vast empire, but a faction seeking independence suddenly starts to form, with vassals that are more powerful than you. You always have something going on, some threat to manage, inside or outside. It's a game in which you need to do a lot of problem-solving, while in M&B, it's very straight to the point, a medieval battle-simulator. Go there, fight here, swear fealty, become a king. There's not a lot more going on in it.
 
I played many rounds warband and i started some days after release on consoles my first bannerlord run up to this day. The Endgame isn't even funny anymore, im vassal of Vlandia and we conquered most of the city's, 3 kingdoms allready got nothing anf the only kingdoms standing get crushed every time but can build their army's up fast, that's so stupid. The warscore system is bull**** too, if killed 30k more than them, more than 50 generals captured and they demand 8k gold from my kingdom of we want peace? Could it be that the developers doesn't care about the players fun? Is there anyone out there that finished one game? I'm all out of fun
Yes, I rarely make it past Day 1000 in a Campaign for this reason.

The game basically devolves into endless sieges, since that's really only way to guarantee any kind of actual victory. Open field battles are almost entirely pointless. I mean yeah if you defeat a 2000 man army, that'll hurt the enemy a bit, but it's so easy to replenish ranks they'll be back in no time. Battles are entirely inconsequential other that you may be to able to capture some Lords and lock em' up or abuse perks so they never escape.

I really wish TW would dial back the troop spawn rate, so like you know attrition actually matters, and building up a warband matters. Losing your elite 250 man party really isn't that big of deal. The real frustration from my experience is losing all your Horses and Food honestly.


But the other big problem is how the A.I. basically totally breaks down once your Kingdom gets too big. Your idiot vassals vote for wars they shouldn't, everyone else declares war on you even though they are much too weak to do so. The game desperately needs some real diplomacy. The A.I. has to know when it's understrength and either sue for peace, wait for right time to attack, or you know ally with other Kingdoms. The game experience is just not well balanced after the first 10 years. Everything with war declarations/war score really just feels placeholder. And sure it sort of keeps A.I. in check, but it's an awful experience as a player.


There has to be better features to keep Kingdoms in-check. Rebellions help a bit, but what the game really needs is a Civil War mechanic. Kingdom getting too big? Guess what it splits apart and enters a Civil War (this is literally what happened to in-game Empire LOL). Conquering the map really has nothing to do with strategy. Relations don't matter, vassals don't matter, you just siege-siege-siege til you reach a point (usually around 15,000-20,000 Troops) where your Kingdom basically goes into auto-pilot for world conquest.

Honestly forming a Kingdom is way harder than conquering the map (unless you are super well prepared), which really seems backwards to me. Conquering the map should be all about forming the right alliances, making friends with the right people, and then managing your vassals so none of them become strong enough to break away. That should be real end game, something that may actually be difficult to do within a single lifetime.

But as King you just gather big armies, siege, and slap your vassal on wrists for wanting to declare a fourth war...
giphy.gif
 
That's why I believe your expectations are slightly unreasonable. The usual way of tackling this issue with sandbox games is to present a late game challenge that would push the player to the brink, say in warband, in mods like Perisno, or now lesser known Native Expansion, the mod devs added late game invasions by forces that have better units than normal forces, but most of all, have incredible number of troops, and spread like a plague once they're on the map. You could do the same for Bannerlord, but there's a question of what meaningful features you could add to the endgame to make it feel not-so-boring.
Endgame is the end of the game, it's better to start a new save, try something different, and move on.

A lot of older strategy games actually used to implement what you're describing, where the ai would just surrender once you got strong enough. There is this subgenre of grand strategy and resource management games like Knights of Honor and settlers 2 where the lategame was just a final battle between the strongest two factions, andbthe winner takes all.

The recent trend of endless strategy game campaigns is really hurting the genre as a whole. I agree, There really isn't anything interesting you can add to a campaign after 40+ hours when the map and player could be in any condition whatsoever, usually too overpowered to want anything else besides being nerfed again.
 
Always was and will be, unless some drastic changes or content is implemented which will not happen at this stage of release.
Before, iirc, a lot of it stemmed from issues with the cultural bonuses, map layouts (still main reason Sturgian struggles imo), etc...which was why it was always the same culprits that snowballed. But as it is now, with the route they went, there's almost no chance% for that to happen, whether it's Aserai somehow managing to sweep half the map (via luck or favorable circumstances) so there's no potential of it having the possibility to be powerhouse 1v1 kingdom 25k v 25k.
Early on, it wasn't the same culprits. It was utterly random which factions would take over everything.
3O6S6QH.jpg

Note the date: only five hundred days and the map was near-solid painted by an AI faction.

But at any rate, it was actually not fun to fight a mega-faction, especially because back then the AI was smarter and would plow two or three armies straight through your territory, raid everything along the way and go besiege either the place with the weakest garrison or the town with the most prosperity.

That's why I think people who suggest huge endgame invasions are more interested in the idea of it than actually playing it.
 
I would disagree on this, the endgame is already an endless loop of battles, adding more battles would be just as boring. Unless the opposing troops bring a special challenge that can't be solved by stacking fians of khan's guards, what you are effictively doing is adding a new faction that is stronger thus longer to conquer
Nords invading would be a nice late-game event, if only because it would bring variety. Granted I personnally wouldn't want a huge invasion force, just an interesting one and perhaps a new settlement with the Nord culture, an outpost from where to recruit their troops.

They would essentially be better Sea Raiders, with no cav and not many archers... which sounds more unique than most factions right now imho.

(Kind of agree with Apocal that a huge, mega faction invasion would be kind of... boring? Whilst a Mercenary Faction scale invasion could come in sooner and be quite fun... granted it brings the question of how to prevent Sturgia from getting steamrolled every game since the Nords come from, well, the North...)
 
But at any rate, it was actually not fun to fight a mega-faction, especially because back then the AI was smarter and would plow two or three armies straight through your territory, raid everything along the way and go besiege either the place with the weakest garrison or the town with the most prosperity.

That's why I think people who suggest huge endgame invasions are more interested in the idea of it than actually playing it.
Nor is it fun to fight the same 'scale' of factions/battles, especially since the AI don't react to the player taking Vlandia, then Batt, and so on - it's the exact same rinse&repeat difficulty of battles from taking that 2nd town, all the way to the 40th town (made even easier due to player power scaling). I wasn't a fan of that dark knight thing in WB (iirc why it was removed); it was presented a novel challenge for the first few fights but that was it.

There's no 'random' factor in the current version; agree that what it was early on was too crazy, regardless which faction it was TBD patch updates (never seen NE do it back then - usually was always Vland/Khuz in mine).
Looters will always be looters - instead of 10 units, you fight 100+ of them; no 'random' chance for them to have unit variety from, say for instance, rescuing prisoners from another party they defeat or also upgrading tier TBD that parties XP from battles (which are probably rare occurences anyways).

TW created these clear 'steps' of stages from first fighting looters/bandits, to mercenary (and setting up caravan/workshops), to lord/kingdom takeover stage. It's just that the last stage ('end-game') comes upon the player way too quick/easily; and it starts from and is the same from taking/owning that 2nd town all the way to the 40th town.

Unless they add some actual roadblocks between 2nd and 40th town - it's why it feels so bad as an end-game. Or add further roadblock/challenges before then so it's harder to gain/hold that first town or two so the 'end-game' doesn't come too quick.
You always gain way too many towns/castles than you even have companions to govern (or become king too easily), before your kids even grow up (even if you speed run marriage) as uncapped companions; I'm always having to donate every single fief capture back just to give me that handicap/slow down the pace to the end-game which is practically forced upon me.
 
Nords invading would be a nice late-game event, if only because it would bring variety. Granted I personnally wouldn't want a huge invasion force, just an interesting one and perhaps a new settlement with the Nord culture, an outpost from where to recruit their troops.

Why not have them in the game from the start then? Why contrive a reason to keep playing after the game has gotten stale by spawning them at the 30 years mark or whatever?
 
TW created these clear 'steps' of stages from first fighting looters/bandits, to mercenary (and setting up caravan/workshops), to lord/kingdom takeover stage. It's just that the last stage ('end-game') comes upon the player way too quick/easily; and it starts from and is the same from taking/owning that 2nd town all the way to the 40th town.

Unless they add some actual roadblocks between 2nd and 40th town - it's why it feels so bad as an end-game. Or add further roadblock/challenges before then so it's harder to gain/hold that first town or two so the 'end-game' doesn't come too quick.
I agree with all of this, yeah.
 
Back
Top Bottom