• If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
  • Please note that the developer team will be on leave until 26th of July. All technical support tickets will be handled when we're back in action. Thank you for understanding.

King Harlaus > Bannerlord: what is this game missing?

Currently viewing this thread:

vota dc

Sergeant Knight at Arms
M&BWB
Warband faction lore was from companions, kings and claimants.
With Bannerlord has shifted to main quest that was never continued after the initial release, they even have the emperor's son that was killed at the beginning of game because a bug related of a quest that could bring his assassination but the quest was never implemented they just fixed him not die. Lords have a part of main quest and some specific dialogue. You could care more in Warband of lords because you have personal relation rather than clan relation but nothing to do with lore.

Also isn't the great Aserai warrior killed because he has a story with a girl of another clan being threated in encyclopedia just like a notable? In early version he didn't even have fighting skill, don't remember if they fixed it.
 

Rbtparker13

Regular
Apparently there is now? IDK.

I'm not sure if it's an artifact of Diplomacy Fixes or a recent update, but apparently a dead ruler means that there's an election for a new ruling clan (which CAN be you!).

Beats me tho. I haven't done a full playthrough in months because the game's been too busted.
Yeah but that's a election. There could be something like the claimants of old, where the bloodline has a right to the throne. The elected leader and the bloodline could have a civil war or something.
 

bonerstorm

Veteran
Yeah but that's a election. There could be something like the claimants of old, where the bloodline has a right to the throne. The elected leader and the bloodline could have a civil war or something.
THAT would really be nice.

Diplomacy Fixes has a usurp mechanic which I think works great.
 

vito397

Knight at Arms
WBWF&SNWVC
I'm not going to say it was the pinnacle of immersion or anything, but in most ways other than visuals, it was/is more immersive than Bannerlord.

Already have played two full campaigns of unmodded warband, plus multiple partial ones doing stuff other than map-painting. It is boring to conquer the whole map piece by piece once you've gotten to full snowball (Bannerlord has exactly the same problem) and of course it's not the most immersive game ever, but that aside, the process of getting there is more immersive than Bannerlord in lots of different ways, most of which are in the link in my signature which you've already seen.

I think the point is that despite Warband not being perfect, Bannerlord is a step backwards from it in a lot of ways, instead of an advancement.

Also lord dialogue had more of the lord's personality in it, and claimants who tell you stories of your kingdom and ask you to join them in a civil war, being ambushed by bandits/assassins who were hired by lords who hated you, fighting drunkards in taverns, companions telling you stories about themselves and Calradia that present points of view from almost every group in the game, commanding your allies to attack/defend/retreat to a specific location without your presence, roaming deserters and manhunters who made the map feel more alive, booksellers who sold books you could read to gain skills, being able to ask lords why they were doing something and get an answer, the ability to pitch a camp while waiting, having to actually fight your way out when failing to sneak into a town, vassals coming to your kingdom's court to offer their services, political quests to actually instigate a war yourself by robbing caravans or denounce other lords, resolving disputes among your lords, court gossiping to learn about a lady's personality and coming back to visit her during courtship, very basic casus belli for wars like "Citizens of the Kingdom of Nords say they are suffering mistreatment, and petition King Harlaus for protection. This will make it easier for him to go to war, if he wants it..." fighting duels with other lords when courting a lady or denouncing them, asking peasants to light a fire in a village for you to create a distraction while you did a prison breakout, and battling in the street and keep during a siege- among other things.

The multiple broken, incomplete, or unimplemented mechanics in Bannerlord don't help immersion either. There's a lot about Bannerlord that's good, but it's still missing a lot of meat on the bones which Warband had.

It's slightly too common in Warband, but it's much more realistic than throwing a random group of criminals, nobles, and scholars together for long periods of time and them all living in perfect harmony.

I genuinely enjoy it sometimes. Like in Viking Conquest, Donnchadh straight up tells you that Welshmen (iirc?) ruined his life and he won't put up with having one in your party. I thought "hey, I bet that's going to happen eventually." Then I did hire a Welsh guy and of course he got mad, and I enjoyed taking Donnchadh's side and telling the Welsh guy to shut up, since I liked Donnchadh.

It's another choice for the player to make- which companion do I value more? - that provides a diversion from the constant grind of looters. It reminds you what your companions' personalities are, and makes them feel more like people joining your journey instead of caravan-leading robots.

Getting higher-tier troops was much easier. When it comes to skill grinding though, I do like Bannerlord's skill system more, and find it more immersive than Warband.

Yeah. I'm still waiting to be able to run a "highly profitable" criminal enterprise in alleyways and base my gang there like they said we were going to be able to.
This is precisely what is wrong with Bannerlord, and I couldnt have put it better. What is bugging me is that even though we do have tinny snippets of some of the lords traits (eg, their reactions when you capture or release them) they are usually short, anachronistic to the setting or just dont play even the tiniest role in the later part of the game. What actually worries me is that we dont even have a notion of the devs willingess to actually implement any of the character interactions. As of right now, the only thing you can do with npc lords is fight them and trade with them. That is literally it. You might as well ignore them. No character and no significance to their presence. Absolutely bonkers. I hope some day the devs will say "right. we implemented all of our features. Time to make the game actually feel alive". Even though Id rather make it feel alive first, and then add the features...
 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight
I'm not going to say it was the pinnacle of immersion or anything, but in most ways other than visuals, it was/is more immersive than Bannerlord.

Already have played two full campaigns of unmodded warband, plus multiple partial ones doing stuff other than map-painting. It is boring to conquer the whole map piece by piece once you've gotten to full snowball (Bannerlord has exactly the same problem) and of course it's not the most immersive game ever, but that aside, the process of getting there is more immersive than Bannerlord in lots of different ways, most of which are in the link in my signature which you've already seen.

I think the point is that despite Warband not being perfect, Bannerlord is a step backwards from it in a lot of ways, instead of an advancement.

Also lord dialogue had more of the lord's personality in it, and claimants who tell you stories of your kingdom and ask you to join them in a civil war, being ambushed by bandits/assassins who were hired by lords who hated you, fighting drunkards in taverns, companions telling you stories about themselves and Calradia that present points of view from almost every group in the game, commanding your allies to attack/defend/retreat to a specific location without your presence, roaming deserters and manhunters who made the map feel more alive, booksellers who sold books you could read to gain skills, being able to ask lords why they were doing something and get an answer, the ability to pitch a camp while waiting, having to actually fight your way out when failing to sneak into a town, vassals coming to your kingdom's court to offer their services, political quests to actually instigate a war yourself by robbing caravans or denounce other lords, resolving disputes among your lords, court gossiping to learn about a lady's personality and coming back to visit her during courtship, very basic casus belli for wars like "Citizens of the Kingdom of Nords say they are suffering mistreatment, and petition King Harlaus for protection. This will make it easier for him to go to war, if he wants it..." fighting duels with other lords when courting a lady or denouncing them, asking peasants to light a fire in a village for you to create a distraction while you did a prison breakout, and battling in the street and keep during a siege- among other things.

The multiple broken, incomplete, or unimplemented mechanics in Bannerlord don't help immersion either. There's a lot about Bannerlord that's good, but it's still missing a lot of meat on the bones which Warband had.

It's slightly too common in Warband, but it's much more realistic than throwing a random group of criminals, nobles, and scholars together for long periods of time and them all living in perfect harmony.

I genuinely enjoy it sometimes. Like in Viking Conquest, Donnchadh straight up tells you that Welshmen (iirc?) ruined his life and he won't put up with having one in your party. I thought "hey, I bet that's going to happen eventually." Then I did hire a Welsh guy and of course he got mad, and I enjoyed taking Donnchadh's side and telling the Welsh guy to shut up, since I liked Donnchadh.

It's another choice for the player to make- which companion do I value more? - that provides a diversion from the constant grind of looters. It reminds you what your companions' personalities are, and makes them feel more like people joining your journey instead of caravan-leading robots.

Getting higher-tier troops was much easier. When it comes to skill grinding though, I do like Bannerlord's skill system more, and find it more immersive than Warband.

Yeah. I'm still waiting to be able to run a "highly profitable" criminal enterprise in alleyways and base my gang there like they said we were going to be able to.

Nice post, I do totally agree with this.
 

murtega

Knight
IMO, the problem with BL is that the game progresses too fast compared to Warband, so nothing feels hardly earned. Battles grant way too much renown that even if you outmatch looters 1 to 10, it still gives you like 1. After reaching the first clan tier, you simply roll your way up to become the king. Wars don't end, you keep getting more and more renown and influence. There's no village distribution so you are granted a castle/town immediately. Militia garrisons it so you don't bother with training men to defend the place. All NPC interactions are menu-based so no more searching people in settlements. You can immediately start building armies of your own, no lord would mind following a peasant to battle because he has influence. Your kingdom is likely to expand around where your first holding is so you keep getting granted more and more fiefs. And eventually... likely all the nobles of your kingdom, that served the realm for generations will vote you as king because reasons... By this point you're in a never ending battle simulation anyway that you hardly have time to do anything else.

I'll continue complaining for some more, this is addictive.

It feels like there's someone influential inside the company that tries so hard to turn this game into a combat simulator. I see this approach even at how they design quests. In warband, escort caravan mission was like as long as you're stronger than bandits roaming around, you could simply complete it without any fight. You taking the mission made no difference in how anything else behaved on the map. In BL there's a scripted ambush on the way to each town you visit because who'd want to spend time in BL without a battle, right? It is so lame because how obvious the ambush party spawns scripted to attack the caravan no matter how strong/weak your party is. The worse thing, there is also another caravan ambush quest which takes less time and rewards you more in the end.

Bandit parties stop running away if you take on clearing bandit quests, they surrender less frequently if you take on prisoner quest, you can't convince the poachers 2 times in a row despite the odds are the same... everything is scripted to force battle.
 

Life_Erikson

Master Knight
M&BWBNWVC
I will just quote myself.
This is spot on.

Warband was bare bones with aspirations to be something greater.
Bannerlord is the opposite. The budget and the presentation are greater than ever but the concept of Warband is nowhere to be found.
Bannerlord isn't about being a free actor in a feudal society writing his own story. Its campaign is instead an excuse for generating random battles.
 

Life_Erikson

Master Knight
M&BWBNWVC
I'll continue complaining for some more, this is addictive.

It feels like there's someone influential inside the company that tries so hard to turn this game into a combat simulator. I see this approach even at how they design quests. In warband, escort caravan mission was like as long as you're stronger than bandits roaming around, you could simply complete it without any fight. You taking the mission made no difference in how anything else behaved on the map. In BL there's a scripted ambush on the way to each town you visit because who'd want to spend time in BL without a battle, right? It is so lame because how obvious the ambush party spawns scripted to attack the caravan no matter how strong/weak your party is. The worse thing, there is also another caravan ambush quest which takes less time and rewards you more in the end.

Bandit parties stop running away if you take on clearing bandit quests, they surrender less frequently if you take on prisoner quest, you can't convince the poachers 2 times in a row despite the odds are the same... everything is scripted to force battle.

Sorry for doubleposting.
But this is exactly on point.

Got a quest to free a village from bandits? The village isn't infested by bandits because of the quest. You got the quest because it is.
Do you free the village? Yes? Not only you will get a reward for doing so but the gameworld will change as well as a result. (higher income for the owner of the village, recruits being available there, goods being sent again to the nearest town, goods being for sale there again)

Bannerlord is different. The quests arent a connection to the gameworld, but are there to accomodate the player. They are generated for the player and are there to "entertain" and benefit the player.
In Bannerlord (to stay with the example of the caravan escort you gave) the game makes sure that the caravan is attacked so to not bore the player. In Warband the caravan may or may not be attacked being influenced by the following: the amount of bandits roaming the field (are you / the lords buisy killing them? Or are the lords more buisy fighting a war, in which case there will be more bandits) , the distance the caravan wants to travel and the strength of your party. All of this is logical and plays into the rules of the gameworld. The quest in Bannerlord doesn't.

To conclude the point here:
Bannerlord is a game which revolves noticably around the player. Features / Quests are there to serve the Player.
In Warband the gameworld takes center stage. Features and Quests are almost all linked to that gameworld and work a) by its rule and b) influence that gameworld.

I think this is the reason why Warband for a lot of players feels more immersive opposed to Bannerlord.
 

WhyAmIHere

This is spot on.

Warband was bare bones with aspirations to be something greater.
Bannerlord is the opposite. The budget and the presentation are greater than ever but the concept of Warband is nowhere to be found.
Bannerlord isn't about being a free actor in a feudal society writing his own story. Its campaign is instead an excuse for generating random battles.
Everything in Bannerlord in its current state feels like it's there to push you towards yet another battle. Problem is that's only a part of why I loved Warband. If I want something that pushes me towards battles all the time, I'd go play total war.
 

murtega

Knight
In Bannerlord (to stay with the example of the caravan escort you gave) the game makes sure that the caravan is attacked so to not bore the player.

Yes, apparently they didn't trust in endlessly spawning looters/bandits to create enough battles for their simulator. :grin:

Since we compare warband with bannerlord, anyone knows why they didn't apply the ability of AI lords to retreat to friendly towns/castles instead of aimlessly run on the map until they get caught? Apart of the fact that it avoids battle, of course. This was also in Warband. It's very amusing to see them running forever instead of taking shelter in a nearby castle.
 

bonerstorm

Veteran
I'll continue complaining for some more, this is addictive.

It feels like there's someone influential inside the company that tries so hard to turn this game into a combat simulator. I see this approach even at how they design quests. In warband, escort caravan mission was like as long as you're stronger than bandits roaming around, you could simply complete it without any fight. You taking the mission made no difference in how anything else behaved on the map. In BL there's a scripted ambush on the way to each town you visit because who'd want to spend time in BL without a battle, right? It is so lame because how obvious the ambush party spawns scripted to attack the caravan no matter how strong/weak your party is. The worse thing, there is also another caravan ambush quest which takes less time and rewards you more in the end.

Bandit parties stop running away if you take on clearing bandit quests, they surrender less frequently if you take on prisoner quest, you can't convince the poachers 2 times in a row despite the odds are the same... everything is scripted to force battle.
There are a lot of fingerprints in BL that hint to a change in philosophy of trying to cater to a younger + always-online multiplayer-focused crowd who care about endless combat but don't GAF about whether it "makes sense".

Also a very particular demographic of hardcore gamers who want more fights and more grind and more difficulty and all in bigger numbers regardless of the context, because that triggers their dopamine hit. You know... the "Starkiller Base" kind of logic because it's "even BIGGER than the DEATH STAR RAWWR". Or how so many JRPG's have enemies with tens of thousands of hit points as if increasing the number of digits used translates directly into a more badass boss fight.

Basically they're trying to capture the Kyle and autist and Kyle-Autist demographic.

This is why spears don't work - Kyles and autists want swords to be better in every case because swords are cool regardless of how physics works IRL. That's also why the formation AI takes away all player agency and tactics - because it's all about the power fantasy of personally murdering every member of your high school class with a greatsword. That's why armor does practically nothing - because they usually aren't playing on realistic and just want to cleave enemy knights in twain while suffering only 1/3 damage in response.

The funny thing is that WB appealed to those gamers (vanilla had LEGENDARY grind), but the game gained broader popularity and cult status because of the story aspects - which players mostly had to make up in their heads until mods came along to fill the gap.

I may be wrong... but I think that TW just doesn't think gamers who like stories and roleplaying are a profitable demographic worth listening to. Witcher 3 may have made hundreds of millions of dollars on Steam, but Counterstrike: Global Offensive made BILLIONS of dollars on Steam. And, let's face it, TaleWorlds is not ever making Bannerlord into Witcher 3.
 

Sigaretovic

Sergeant at Arms
There are a lot of fingerprints in BL that hint to a change in philosophy of trying to cater to a younger + always-online multiplayer-focused crowd who care about endless combat but don't GAF about whether it "makes sense".

Sorry but that doesnt make any sense. If TW cared about the online MP community they would have invested a little more in that game aspect..
 

vito397

Knight at Arms
WBWF&SNWVC
Sorry for doubleposting.
But this is exactly on point.

Got a quest to free a village from bandits? The village isn't infested by bandits because of the quest. You got the quest because it is.
Do you free the village? Yes? Not only you will get a reward for doing so but the gameworld will change as well as a result. (higher income for the owner of the village, recruits being available there, goods being sent again to the nearest town, goods being for sale there again)

Bannerlord is different. The quests arent a connection to the gameworld, but are there to accomodate the player. They are generated for the player and are there to "entertain" and benefit the player.
In Bannerlord (to stay with the example of the caravan escort you gave) the game makes sure that the caravan is attacked so to not bore the player. In Warband the caravan may or may not be attacked being influenced by the following: the amount of bandits roaming the field (are you / the lords buisy killing them? Or are the lords more buisy fighting a war, in which case there will be more bandits) , the distance the caravan wants to travel and the strength of your party. All of this is logical and plays into the rules of the gameworld. The quest in Bannerlord doesn't.

To conclude the point here:
Bannerlord is a game which revolves noticably around the player. Features / Quests are there to serve the Player.
In Warband the gameworld takes center stage. Features and Quests are almost all linked to that gameworld and work a) by its rule and b) influence that gameworld.

I think this is the reason why Warband for a lot of players feels more immersive opposed to Bannerlord.
Agreed
 
Yes, apparently they didn't trust in endlessly spawning looters/bandits to create enough battles for their simulator. :grin:

Since we compare warband with bannerlord, anyone knows why they didn't apply the ability of AI lords to retreat to friendly towns/castles instead of aimlessly run on the map until they get caught? Apart of the fact that it avoids battle, of course. This was also in Warband. It's very amusing to see them running forever instead of taking shelter in a nearby castle.
Because it gets you into the action faster! What? Isn't that what you want?

As for BL as a whole, it really comes down to the mindset of developement.

Read this for example:

"With the massive increase in settlements that we have in Bannerlord, we felt that having to micromanage settlements all the way down to the village level would, over time (as your territory grows), become overbearing and tiresome to manage."
source
Let me explain why this makes absolute 0 sense and how this change can be seen with nearly every aspect of the game.

In medieval societies, vassals played a massive role is maintaining the strength and security of a kingdom, because obviously the King is one man and cannot control all the vast settlements and lands. The literal whole point of 'The Crownlands', and literal purposes of vassals. Micromanaging your vassals as your territory grows would give challenge to the Endgame, with possibilities of factions arrising within your kingdom, wanting to overthrow you. Instead, TW is now telling us that with this quote that they sincerely believe in quantity over quality and it shows everywhere. Don't believe me?

Look at the clan system. Instead of building a deep foundation of a true hierarchy with this system, they instead went an unbelievably lazy route and used clans as an excuse to make smaller war parties for the actual character lord. These minor nobles mean literally nothing gameplaywise other than giving the player more excuses to fight, with the only person who actually matters in a clan being the clan leader. Quantity over quality.

This game is riddled with this mindset, and it squeezes any kind of fun, immersion, and replayability for me.
 
I may be wrong... but I think that TW just doesn't think gamers who like stories and roleplaying are a profitable demographic worth listening to. Witcher 3 may have made hundreds of millions of dollars on Steam, but Counterstrike: Global Offensive made BILLIONS of dollars on Steam. And, let's face it, TaleWorlds is not ever making Bannerlord into Witcher 3.
I loved your rant and now I want to meet Autistic Kyle, we have much in common.
But anyway, why wouldn't Taleworlds make a Witcher-like game? It's not much more expensive to make than your action game and it still can be an action game if played superficially.
People playing immersive Warband mods found out that the battles became more satisfactory and meaningful as they were invested in the battle outcome, their allies and their enemies. It's a step in the right direction from the forever grind that is vanilla Warband/Bannerlord.
How is this a bad thing that may hurt profits? It's just a lazy excuse to do less.
 

Vekar

Recruit
I agree with Bjorn, you felt like you were making actual decisions instead of just clicking keys.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
But anyway, why wouldn't Taleworlds make a Witcher-like game?
Because you need good writers for that and there is lots of competition. Meanwhile, I don't think anyone else does 1000-unit, first/third person mass battles. That's what I imagine anyway.
 

WhyAmIHere

Because you need good writers for that and there is lots of competition. Meanwhile, I don't think anyone else does 1000-unit, first/third person mass battles. That's what I imagine anyway.
Total War is the closest you get to that in terms of large-scale battles IMO. Mordhau/Chivalry in terms of first/third person stuff. Neither have the Je ne sais quoi that Warband's system does, obviously.
 
"With the massive increase in settlements that we have in Bannerlord, we felt that having to micromanage settlements all the way down to the village level would, over time (as your territory grows), become overbearing and tiresome to manage."

This right here is the killer philosophy, the flat line pulse of this game. They did not listen to any of us, nobody wanted this.
 
I will just quote myself.
You know if some one actually had an imagination and some self control they can do a lot of that in game. I make a char, with a story behind them and skills to match. Not every one is the instant Lord/Kilng, in fact I rarely become a faction leader unless voted as such (Sturgians I been voted every time as the new replacement). I don't go for total conqorue of the map, I try as a Mercanary the first few tiers to fight for the underdogs. . One big complaint I do have is your kids grow way to fast for the time the game moves on, which is why I use Pacer mod to make it better. I don't try to rule it all before my kids come to age. There are missions/quest in where the ruler just asked me to raid some villages to keep the enemey busy while they attack castles/forts. So things are being added (I don't remember that being in 1.5.9).

I also think a lot of the folks *****ing came a long way after warband started and played much finish and modded games and expect a game in EA to be the same. Hell when I got into Warband it was when VC came out. There is stuff from that DLC I would love to see in Bannerlord so I can play a mercanary only play through (the refuge/outpost).

Since I normally play the game modded (not right now with 1.5.10) I do a lot of adding and removing them. Some of these mods I used a lot have been added into the game. Remember they are putting them into the game to make sure they work, modders don't have to do that. They can just mod the game and than walk off.
 
Top Bottom