• If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
  • Please note that we've updated the Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord save file system which requires you to take certain steps in order for your save files to be compatible with e1.7.1 and any later updates. You can find the instructions here.

If only taleworlds choosed another timeline.

Users who are viewing this thread

MadVader

Duhpressed
Duke
M&BWB
I kinda somewhat disagree with the Civil Wars not being good for Mount and Blade, but I can see why they could suck. If all that Civil Wars do is split your kingdom in half and you have to retake all of those keeps, then yeah that would suck.

However, if there is a system where you can crush the Civil War and all the keeps are just added back into your kingdom, it would be a nice addition to the game.
Some Paradox games had similar mechanics and it sucked for me. You are developing your empire and plan strategies and everything and then suddenly you are punished by a lengthy campaign to reconquer your lands, and even if you are successful, you suffer a big setback compared to the competition. It's a good reason to ragequit because it's an almost random and brutal punishment.
The gameplay problem is there is no gain from this, except being spared from another civil war for some time. Invent and counter-balance some gain with the punishment and you may get genuine gameplay out of this.
 
The gameplay problem is there is no gain from this, except being spared from another civil war for some time.
Yeah it's not fun for the only "benefit" of your efforts ingame to be "it won't happen again for a while". I don't think the player should be additionally rewarded for absolutely everything they do right, but for an entire mechanic to have no positive rewards is just detrimental to enjoyability.
 

Phantom425

Sergeant
Some Paradox games had similar mechanics and it sucked for me.
Oh, I completely get that. I mostly play EU4, haven't really touched CK where that system is in place, and I have had actual nightmares about the rebel sound in that game. If a system is done horribly, then it can really make it suck for everyone.
The gameplay problem is there is no gain from this, except being spared from another civil war for some time. Invent and counter-balance some gain with the punishment and you may get genuine gameplay out of this.
Yeah it's not fun for the only "benefit" of your efforts ingame to be "it won't happen again for a while". I don't think the player should be additionally rewarded for absolutely everything they do right, but for an entire mechanic to have no positive rewards is just detrimental to enjoyability.
I get that, however I do somewhat disagree with the fact that you may not get anything positive out of it. In my mind what a system of a civil war would be like is if a bunch of your nobles eventually get really mad at you they may for a plot. It isn't like some system where all of a sudden a noble that you love hates you because the game needs a civil war, rather your failure to keep your nobles happy lead to this.

And, if there should be a gain, after crushing the rebelling nobles, you should be able to seize parts of their estate and gain a lot of influence. So, after you crush the rebels you can get something out of it.

Edit: One thing that I think so be added is that in this system, when you capture the head conspirator then rebellion basically ends, since you cut off its head. That is just so that you won't have to siege down every single keep. And then you can choose what to do with the people who rebelled. Maybe killed them all, maybe take their fiefs, maybe let them go and just kill the head conspirator. Each should have their own benefits and drawbacks.
 

Grank

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
One thing that I think so be added is that in this system, when you capture the head conspirator then rebellion basically ends, since you cut off its head.
That doesn't really make sense tho. Just because the head got captured, all those other lords with standing armies and intact castles wouldn't just roll over and risk having their heads chopped off. You could ask for their surrender I suppose, and having the head captured would increase that chance. In fact, asking for surrender is still unused in this game. Only bandits would surrender to you.
 

Phantom425

Sergeant
That doesn't really make sense tho. Just because the head got captured, all those other lords with standing armies and intact castles wouldn't just roll over and risk having their heads chopped off. You could ask for their surrender I suppose, and having the head captured would increase that chance. In fact, asking for surrender is still unused in this game. Only bandits would surrender to you.
That's fair. I guess instead of just capturing one you have to win a certain amount of battles and capture a few nobles. Basically, you don't just have to siege down all of the keeps to end the war, rather you can capture the nobles and force them to concede.
 

Nordous

Sergeant Knight
I'd say a later period, some 800 - 1300 is more appealing for me personally, but I'm not pissed of by the chosen setting either.
 

vota dc

Sergeant Knight at Arms
M&BWB
Some Paradox games had similar mechanics and it sucked for me. You are developing your empire and plan strategies and everything and then suddenly you are punished by a lengthy campaign to reconquer your lands, and even if you are successful, you suffer a big setback compared to the competition. It's a good reason to ragequit because it's an almost random and brutal punishment.
The gameplay problem is there is no gain from this, except being spared from another civil war for some time. Invent and counter-balance some gain with the punishment and you may get genuine gameplay out of this.
There was some placeholder about notables supporting a faction, that was when Empire was supposed to be in civil war and the same faction with 3 leaders rather than 3 different Kingdoms with same culture.
 
Which genius had the idea to settle bannerlord in this age? The "transition" age between antique and medieval is so boring, i also hated this time period in total war series, because it's "neither fish nor fowl" so to speak.
We neither have pike/spear formations, slingers, chariots, elephants of the antique, nor do we have full plated heavy knights of the high medieval age. Instead, we have this weird, muddled and mixed dark age fart.
The antique or renaissance/early modern era would have been a fresh breeze, especially in battle gameplay,
One can only hope that there will be a DLC soon which is settled in another age.
Warband was literraly in full plate armor era. In my opinion plate armor is super overplayed in popular media so I am happy we are getting 9th-12th century instead. Also there is no reason for absence of elephants in pseudo historical setting since their historical abscence is due to their extiction in northern Africa and low interactions with India. Same with pikes and slings, no reasons why they could not be used (pikes are actually in game), there could simply be nation with very disciplined troops that can pull of pike wall formation.
 
Top Bottom