Feedback on the singleplayer campaign

Currently viewing this thread:

Feedback

Recruit
So i made an account on this forum because i would like to share my thoughts on how to improve this game, because the replayability is very low at the moment.

I played through the entire campaign, experienced a couple of crashed and model bugs but played around those it is early access after all and those will be fixed.

The real problems i ran into were in the foundations of the game at is it right now.

- It does not matter what faction u choose, apart from a buff, so most people allways choose the same and allways spawn at the same location.
- It does not matter what faction u choose, cause u can get access to all the units in the game, inlcuding noble lines and mercenaries.
- It does not matter what faction u choose, u allways get the same quests and story line.
- It does not matter what faction u choose, u can get the same armor and weapons, being a Battanian but looking like a Valandian or Sturgian.
The list goes on...
.The quest u need to finish to really get you going makes no sense and takes way too long ( talking to 10 faction leaders that roam somewhere on the map )
- Diplomacy is basicly declare war / make peace / repeat.

This foundation problem really destoys the replayability, because after one playthrough, why would u touch the singleplayer again and what about co-up?

My suggestions for Diplomacy on the Campaign map are:

- Why not have Trade agreements ( your carravans do trade with those factions or get a bonus )
- Non aggresion pacts that last for a number of days or need to be broken, but declaring war right after gets u penalties.
- Aversion, some factions get easier diplomacy and some dislike eachother and make for harder diplomacy.
- Donating troops and bartering, helping in a battle, clearing bandits and bandit camps ect. gets u +Diplomacy in relations.

My suggestion for the Campaign map and factions are:

- Different stances on the map, Ambush stance ( succesfull: the bandits or party can not escape ) March stance: makes u go faster but when caught u get a speed debuff
- Let every faction have its own spawn point, with the same training field and tutorial i would not mind that.
- Let every faction have unique units that are not accesable to other factions and keep the unique fighting styles ( more reason to play every faction.)
- Let every faction have its own goals and quests ( like destroy those factions, defeat those leaders, occupy those city's ect. ) ( more reason to play every faction )
- Let every faction have unique weapons and armor or even unique siege weapons, horses, horse armor ect ( more reason to play every faction.)
 

Antaeus

Veteran
My suggestions for Diplomacy on the Campaign map are:

- Why not have Trade agreements ( your carravans do trade with those factions or get a bonus )
- Non aggresion pacts that last for a number of days or need to be broken, but declaring war right after gets u penalties.
- Aversion, some factions get easier diplomacy and some dislike eachother and make for harder diplomacy.
- Donating troops and bartering, helping in a battle, clearing bandits and bandit camps ect. gets u +Diplomacy in relations.

Some of these things do exist in game.

You can donate troops and prisoners for influence gain - this is done in city and castle keeps. You can help other nobles in battle. There are quests that involve clearing bandits that give you relationship and loyalty gains with the notables and towns that initiate them - look out for them in cities and villages - they're an important part of managing cities, and there are reputational impacts between characters who dislike each other. Even when factions are at war, if clans and characters like each other, they're less likely to target and fight each other and visa versa.

Non aggression and trade pacts would be interesting, but I do know a lot of work is going on regarding diplomacy at the moment, the next update might see some changes there.

My suggestion for the Campaign map and factions are:

- Different stances on the map, Ambush stance ( succesfull: the bandits or party can not escape ) March stance: makes u go faster but when caught u get a speed debuff
- Let every faction have its own spawn point, with the same training field and tutorial i would not mind that.
- Let every faction have unique units that are not accesable to other factions and keep the unique fighting styles ( more reason to play every faction.)
- Let every faction have its own goals and quests ( like destroy those factions, defeat those leaders, occupy those city's ect. ) ( more reason to play every faction )
- Let every faction have unique weapons and armor or even unique siege weapons, horses, horse armor ect ( more reason to play every faction.)

The stances seem very Total War and I think there is resistance to making Bannerlord more Total War.

Regarding faction specific units... this wouldn't really be 'historic' for the periods that the game is influenced by. In the medieval period, armies weren't ethnic or nation specific. They were either professional companies fighting for anyone who pays, or they were feudal forces fighting for whoever was the local lord no matter what their ethnicity. For example, a French army of the middle ages might include Flemish, Dutch, English, Scottish, Spanish, German, Swiss or any multitude of forces. Byzantine armies could be even more cosmopolitan - Many of the Western nobles who went on the first Crusade had already fought for the Byzantines - Emperor Alexios had Flemish and Norman forces fight for him against the Turks, and Turks fight for him against the Normans. Even Turkish armies of the medieval period might include Norman or Italian mercenaries fighting along side Greek or Armenian soldiers levied in Turkish ruled cities. Cosmopolitan should be the rule.

The same is true for armour. The best armourers and workshops were famous across Europe. Milanese armourers would work for English lords, German armourers would work for Hungarian lords. Certainly there were localised variations, but there was nothing to stop the King of England buying a fancy suit of Italian armour. It could and did happen - as evidenced by what you find in the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds.

I do on the other hand like faction specific goals and quests... The Empire factions should be trying to unit the Empire. Other factions should be playing roles in and around this - taking advantage, or helping out depending on the context
 
Last edited:

Feedback

Recruit
Some of these things do exist in game.

You can donate troops and prisoners for influence gain - this is done in city and castle keeps. You can help other nobles in battle. There are quests that involve clearing bandits that give you relationship and loyalty gains with the notables and towns that initiate them - look out for them in cities and villages - they're an important part of managing cities, and there are reputational impacts between characters who dislike each other. Even when factions are at war, if clans and characters like each other, they're less likely to target and fight each other and visa versa.

Non aggression and trade pacts would be interesting, but I do know a lot of work is going on regarding diplomacy at the moment, the next update might see some changes there.



The stances seem very Total War and I think there is resistance to making Bannerlord more Total War.

Regarding faction specific units... this wouldn't really be 'historic' for the periods that the game is influenced by. In the medieval period, armies weren't ethnic or nation specific. They were either professional companies fighting for anyone who pays, or they were feudal levies fighting for whoever was the local lord no matter what their ethnicity. For example, a French army of the middle ages might include Flemish, Dutch, English, Scottish, Spanish, German, Swiss or any multitude of forces. Byzantine armies could be even more cosmopolitan. Even Turkish armies of the medieval period might include Norman or Italian mercenaries fighting along side Greek or Armenian soldiers levied in Turkish ruled cities. Cosmopolitan should be the rule.

The same is true for armour. The best armourers and workshops were famous across Europe. Milanese armourers would work for English lords, German armourers would work for Hungarian lords. Certainly there were localised variations, but there was nothing to stop the King of England buying a fancy suit of Italian armour. It could and did happen - as evidenced by what you find in the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds.

I do on the other hand like faction specific goals and quests...
Thanks for the reply.
But do those Actions increase your relation to that factions as a whole or Just that noble or clan?
Influence is basicly spend on diplomacy for fiefs and declaring war or making peace but this is currently not working properly.
On the other hand u need influence for maintaining armies.

Bannerlord is FPS but the campaign is allready similair to Total War, why not take in what allready works, is also historical accurate and attributes to gameplay.

When it Comes to mercenaries and bandits, i dont have a problem with mixing units of different factions.
But gameplay wise doing this in general like it is now does not add to the gameplay even if it were to be historicly accurate. The campaign becomes a one way play with no interest of replay, because everything feels te same, There is no identity or unique factions, they all have and play the same cause u mix everything aside from a few government penalties.

When it Comes to armours, it is characters and companions only, so i dont mind that.
Most armours were captured after the battles though.
 
Top Bottom