Feasts: The most beloved feature of Warband, let's discuss them.

[Taveren]

So let's discuss our fond memories of the feasts in Warband, and how much joy we had in participating in them, how much it made the world feel alive, and why Bannerlord not having feasts is such a grand disservice that someone has to bring it up at least once a week.

I think (as many others have stated here) that feasts represent that elusive "something" that feels missing from Bannerlord.
I agree, Warband feasts had a group of people standing stationary around a table with the same bland responses Bannerlord nobles have when you meet them in a Castle. Nothing earth shaking there. It did give you a chance to meet young ladies who were otherwise not seen, so there was that element. But in Bannerlord you can drop into almost any castle and chat with the locals, so strictly speaking not required.

No, it's something else. Bannerlord looks, in some ways (and in my opinion), a bit like the world we see in Skyrim. But Skyrim NPCs are a lot more "alive" as their sandbox programming is far more detailed, and then there are the "named" NPCs who actually have a backstory, or questline to engage with.
Sometimes I think we expect that level of depth from BL, because of how good it looks, yet forget what it really is - a conquest simulator. Lords are all bland with a same-ness about them, because their only requirement is good battle stats to win battles and contribute to wars. None of them have a specific role apart from faction leader, clan leader, or random lord to make up numbers. And Ladies are the same - even the ones with good encyclopaedia descriptions (e.g. Ira, Epipheria) offer no more depth than a cardboard cut-out, because the game is fundamentally something else. They serve no other purpose than to populate the world for YOUR/MY conquest story. So they do not need a uniqueness, and the world does not need feasts to serve it's primary purpose - rule the map. To me it feels a lot like Crusader Kings 3, but actively participating in the battles vs playing politics. (CK 3 also has a blandness to the world, but that's outside scope here).

I think one has to reset your expectations of what BL is - great looking battle scenes, a feeling of being able to conquer the world. As long as this is what you expect, you can/will enjoy BL. Objectively the world is better designed, fleshed out. Models are better, combat looks better.

EDIT: A lot of what made Warband so memorable in the end were the great mods that were made that injected lots of life and spice into the base game(Prophesy of Pendor and Perisno were both far superior to vanilla Warband in every aspect). I see the same with mods like Realm of Thrones (that have added incredible world events to the game) and the European Map + one of the 1100/1259 conversions to add a better setting and flesh it out with mods like Diplomacy, Improved Garrisons, Warband, etc.

 

[JunKeteer]

I think one has to reset your expectations of what BL is - great looking battle scenes, a feeling of being able to conquer the world. As long as this is what you expect, you can/will enjoy BL. Objectively the world is better designed, fleshed out. Models are better, combat looks better.

Most recognize that, that's really all BL has, but why is that aspect of the game also not well done? The conquest (end-game) is so shallow, grindy, and just...not thought out or designed for at all; once you get maybe a town or two, that's really the pinnacle of what the game has to offer. Once you hit that point where you're auto-simming the battles (whether small or castle or 1ks), which you get to quickly with how the game is designed, that playthrough is over. You're just playing a clicking game.
Graphics are graphics, that is just tied to updates to tech/GPUs of the times.

 

[drivegol]

Most recognize that, that's really all BL has, but why is that aspect of the game also not well done? The conquest (end-game) is so shallow, grindy, and just...not thought out or designed for at all; once you get maybe a town or two, that's really the pinnacle of what the game has to offer. Once you hit that point where you're auto-simming the battles (whether small or castle or 1ks), which you get to quickly with how the game is designed, that playthrough is over. You're just playing a clicking game.
Graphics are graphics, that is just tied to updates to tech/GPUs of the times.

I don't think I've ever auto simmed a siege or battle unless the enemy only had like 100 units left. Even in a siege where there are 100 militia left you'd still take heavy losses when auto simming so idk where this came from tbh?

And honestly... I like the siege and field combat as it is. I mean yeah it could always be better, but as it is right now it doesn't feel shallow or grindy at all? It's the other aspects of the game that are lacking and that I often see people complain about, and personally I can tell they are lacking in content but I like the quality of the content that is present.

 

[Taveren]

And honestly... I like the siege and field combat as it is....

Yet every siege and every field battle is basically exactly similar to the previous one. There are about 5 castle scenes, and about 6 field scenes (per map zone) where every battle takes place. So when you start a serious tilt at ruling the map, you do the same castle siege, same field battle over and over and over. Minor variations obviously, but basically cut and paste from previous time.
Hence the word "grind".

 

[Taveren]

...and personally I can tell they are lacking in content but I like the quality of the content that is present.

Then why ask the question about what others miss about feasts if you clearly enjoy the current flavour of content?
I you like the current state, you probably don't/won't understand why others are missing things that were part of Warband (i.e. subjective bias). You will just reinforce your own view through statements like these.

 

[JunKeteer]

I don't think I've ever auto simmed a siege or battle unless the enemy only had like 100 units left. Even in a siege where there are 100 militia left you'd still take heavy losses when auto simming so idk where this came from tbh?

So like, 80% of them. And that's the issue. I know I take heavier (stupid amount of) losses autosimming an attack and also upset a ridiculous amount autosimming as the defender for the same reason; there's no difficulty replenishing units anyways, even without the AI spawn cheats for players.

And honestly... I like the siege and field combat as it is. I mean yeah it could always be better, but as it is right now it doesn't feel shallow or grindy at all? It's the other aspects of the game that are lacking and that I often see people complain about, and personally I can tell they are lacking in content but I like the quality of the content that is present.

I don't know about you, but once I've "done" that Onira or Epicrotea castle maybe even 10 times in the last few hours, that's really the end of my patience; especially when each fight is subsequently degrading the quality of troops due to how it always goes.

 

[drivegol]

Then why ask the question about what others miss about feasts if you clearly enjoy the current flavour of content?
I you like the current state, you probably don't/won't understand why others are missing things that were part of Warband (i.e. subjective bias). You will just reinforce your own view through statements like these.

Am I not allowed to ask people why they don't enjoy something I do, and create an open discussion about it? You realise this is a forum?

Just because I would like to hear someone else's perspective to better understand and learn where some people are coming from does not mean I'm required to simply change my opinion even if I don't relate or agree, or that I'm suddenly not allowed to explain myself in kind as I'm requesting of others, they call that conversation.

Instead of analysing my motivations for making a thread, maybe take a moment to think about why you felt it was necessary to explain to a complete stranger about how you think they digest information they read on the internet and why they won't/don't.

 

[drivegol]

So like, 80% of them. And that's the issue. I know I take heavier (stupid amount of) losses autosimming an attack and also upset a ridiculous amount autosimming as the defender for the same reason; there's no difficulty replenishing units anyways, even without the AI spawn cheats for players.

I don't know about you, but once I've "done" that Onira or Epicrotea castle maybe even 10 times in the last few hours, that's really the end of my patience; especially when each fight is subsequently degrading the quality of troops due to how it always goes.

I tried making a build around auto simming to see if it was feasible, but always found that over time I was losing high quality troops faster than I could replenish them, which naturally lead to my parties becoming weaker and performing even worse in sims. I suppose with enough armies to gather this isn't as big of a deal, but at that point you're involved in plenty of larger battles anyway that you still shouldn't simply auto sim.

Most of the time when I did auto sim larger battles it was usually during a siege defense, because the defender has a massive advantage over the attacker during a sim. Idk if that's still true though. I also didn't find it common to continously find myself fighting in the same castle/town but this may just be related to a different playstyle.

Anyway, I didn't really feel any of this took away from the experience. I did feel fatigue from the sheer number of fights I had to go through before I could finally conquer the map, made more difficult by the fact I also successfully tried to destroy every clan, but I think that's less to do with the quality of the gameplay and more to do with the size of the map and the lack of other activities to busy myself with. I still enjoyed it, but I do get why people might want something meaningful to break up the monotony every once in a while.

 

[JunKeteer]

I tried making a build around auto simming to see if it was feasible, but always found that over time I was losing high quality troops faster than I could replenish them, which naturally lead to my parties becoming weaker and performing even worse in sims. I suppose with enough armies to gather this isn't as big of a deal, but at that point you're involved in plenty of larger battles anyway that you still shouldn't simply auto sim.

You just walk around and you get them incidentally. From the plethora of T5+ prisoners, those 1k armies roaming around (or just-broken armies), or those castles aforementioned holding way too many T5 prisoners-to-militia ratio to pick from. More often than not, I'm having to donate the excess to other AI/castles.

Most of the time when I did auto sim larger battles it was usually during a siege defense, because the defender has a massive advantage over the attacker during a sim. Idk if that's still true though. I also didn't find it common to continously find myself fighting in the same castle/town but this may just be related to a different playstyle.

The only battles not auto-simming are the ones you know you can't let the stupid sim calc lose for you (ie attacking a full-stocked town), other than that, the replenishment (even for players) is such an insignificant hurdle where you're just as endless as all the AI lords out there. Defender, almost always, the sim performs better than the actual battle, unless you find some buggy cheese with that particular map.

Depends if you have mods or not, without, you're going to be changing the same few castle/towns, unless you play without any self-made handicaps, which trivializes the endgame even further anyways.

Anyway, I didn't really feel any of this took away from the experience. I did feel fatigue from the sheer number of fights I had to go through before I could finally conquer the map, made more difficult by the fact I also successfully tried to destroy every clan, but I think that's less to do with the quality of the gameplay and more to do with the size of the map and the lack of other activities to busy myself with. I still enjoyed it, but I do get why people might want something meaningful to break up the monotony every once in a while.

Which is why the "endgame" is pretty much right when you own a few towns or defeat one faction; and you get to that relatively easy/quickly with how rest of the game systems are designed. Ie. before your kid even reaches teens. Conquering the map is just achievement hunting at that point, it's just prestige levels but with zero reward or feedback from it.

 

[Taveren]

Which is why the "endgame" is pretty much right when you own a few towns or defeat one faction; ...

Yes, from this point forward it is pretty much rinse & repeat, and as you (inevitable) get more powerful, it becomes increasingly easy, yet as time consuming to complete the total conquest. By the time you can recruit >10 nobles to your army, use them up, dismiss them and immediately replace them with 10 more nobles' parties to keep your army 2000+ strong, it's just a matter of time. A lot of time, but always same outcome.

I really enjoyed completed a campaign with the Realm of Thrones complete overhaul mod. They added so many 'world events' that triggered things (e.g. Ned Stark getting executed plunging the West into civil war. Targaryen invasion of West, etc.). It made it very enjoyable to be doing your own thing, yet the world 'felt alive' outside of what I was doing. A very good mod, highly recommend it.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

Okay, I did think it was a fun flex to throw a big feast and give your spouse all the food and items late the game. I suppose it could e the same in bannerlord where it's not so much for any purpose, but just something you can do for fun.

 

[Lokey7800]

I feel feast could be used as a way to not only meet lords and potential ladies for yourself but your clan members and trigger new events, forge alliances and even make enemies. Also assassinations should be included in vanilla as something that can happen in general but also at feast.