Let players decide.

Users who are viewing this thread

There are quite a few things broken with the game still. Regardless, if you use barter to escape from a battle, I agree that you should be penalised and made to wait a certain amount of time before being able to attack again.

Do I find the mechanic annoying? Yes. Do I understand its implementation? Also yes. Imagine if you could just be like "please take this money, don't attack me" then walk about 2 minutes away and absolutely demolish a group of villagers. That would be madness.
Well like kentucky said, the fun in the game is roleplaying so if you do that you should be held accountable by the NPCs hands not the god's invisible game hand, but this way you're also rewarding the player for roleplaying, encouraging them to play a different way and recieving consequences, something this game lacks completely and makes the world feel unnimersive
 
Imagine if you could just be like "please take this money, don't attack me" then walk about 2 minutes away and absolutely demolish a group of villagers. That would be madness.

For a severe reputation loss, yes. If it caused nobles to hate you, good companions/lords to leave/refuse to join your service, harder to recruit from towns and villages, not being allowed into towns with lords who dislike you (and having to sneak in), assassination attempts, higher costed goods in towns that don't like you because of said reputation.

But we don't have any of that. We just have broken trait and relationship system that does bugger all and when you have essentially and infinite amount of money mid to late game, you just buy your lords. You could butcher their family and pillage their villages and then bump into them the conversation goes:

NPC: "hello, have we met?"
Player: "yeah, let's fight"
NPC: *Hands on hips 😤"
 
Last edited:
Do I find the mechanic annoying? Yes. Do I understand its implementation? Also yes. Imagine if you could just be like "please take this money, don't attack me" then walk about 2 minutes away and absolutely demolish a group of villagers. That would be madness.
I believe you already can if you peace out via Kingdom Tab as a ruler, you just have to pay Influence to override your vassals since they'll likely resist the peace and, if your target is a little grander than a village, to reignite the war a day later lol. I think the game already provides a good enough countermeasure to exploiting this behavior as a ruler, so it's a shame it doesn't do something similar as a non-ruler--like, I dunno, a cooldown on a kingdom's willingness to accept bartered peace or, worst case scenario, perpetual war with them.
 
For a severe reputation loss, yes. If it caused nobles to hate you, good companions/lords to leave/refuse to join your service, harder to recruit from towns and villages, not being allowed into towns with lords who dislike you, assassination attempts, higher costed goods in towns that don't like you because of said reputation.

But we don't have any of that. We just have broke. Trait and relationship system that does bugger all and when you have essentially and infinite amount of money mid to late game, you just buy your lords.
When you put it that way, it seems as if they realized they couldn't find a worth in game punishment so we got this instead. Or at least this is the way they shaped their game so artificial consequences is all they can think of.
 
When you put it that way, it seems as if they realized they couldn't find a worth in game punishment so we got this instead. Or at least this is the way they shaped their game so artificial consequences is all they can think of.

It's called pissing on a fire. The game might have started of with good intentions with competent development, but they needed to release the game to continue said development in its current state (and yeah the game hasn't really progressed since Day 1, so current state it is still) and we have been in pissing to put out the fire for the last 3 years of EA/Alpha/Beta/Full release - or whatever the hell this is supposed to be. Maybe all the good developers who introduced these systems left, who knows.

Case and point is it is obviously easier for TW to fix clipping issues on male lords wearing dresses, thus giving them tits then it is to actually fix the bug. Don't try convince me this was part of the game's scope, because it definitely wasn't.
 
Last edited:
Case and point is it is obviously easier for TW to fix clipping issues on male lords wearing dresses, thus giving them tits then it is to actually fix the bug. Don't try convince me this was part of the game's scope, because it definitely wasn't.
I like to think this indirectly fixed the issues women had wearing women's clothing, at least, but I have to wonder why that doesn't appear to have gotten attention until I pointed it out with the assumption somebody surely said something about an issue so obvious and endemic.
 
How long does the lockout last?
A few in-game days (however long that is RL); and you're latching onto a side analogy for your easy out. I don't have much issue with the lockout particularly related to losing a battle - that's a minute/two at most; I can grab a drink or do a quick chore in the meantime. It's about all the designs besides that one example in addition that build up to a lot of 'non-gaming' time for a player.
I have no issue pointing fingers at TW for actual problems, but this isn't one of them.

It's a design decision. Like in Civilization, you can't re-declare war for 10 turns. It's not a *problem*.
In Civ, it works because you have other means of diplomacy or world conquest in the meantime; that is was the why that design decision works for that game. It's a *problem* in BL because they are removing you from the core gameplay without any semblance of player agency in that regards.

It all boils down to removing player agency (prevent player mechanic abuse) to compensate for how simple/lacing the logic is for AI; pervasive in the battle tactics, town management, trades, caravans, workshops, alliances, politics, etc...All we're left is a 'not much to do' and why all these features feel (are) half-assed at times.
 
A few in-game days (however long that is RL); and you're latching onto a side analogy for your easy out. I don't have much issue with the lockout particularly related to losing a battle - that's a minute/two at most; I can grab a drink or do a quick chore in the meantime. It's about all the designs besides that one example in addition that build up to a lot of 'non-gaming' time for a player.

In Civ, it works because you have other means of diplomacy or world conquest in the meantime; that is was the why that design decision works for that game. It's a *problem* in BL because they are removing you from the core gameplay without any semblance of player agency in that regards.

It all boils down to removing player agency (prevent player mechanic abuse) to compensate for how simple/lacing the logic is for AI; pervasive in the battle tactics, town management, trades, caravans, workshops, alliances, politics, etc...All we're left is a 'not much to do' and why all these features feel (are) half-assed at times.
You said it perfectly. I don't think there's nothing more to add to this matter. Essentially we're screwed and stuck with these mechanics because it's the only getaround Taleworlds can do, unless they start adding more diplomacy options or modders take the job instead and make the game deeper as it should be.
 
then there would be no sense to this feature and itd be just a cheesy non balanced way to get out of trouble, and then it would make sense to remove them from letting you go in the first place.
 
then there would be no sense to this feature and itd be just a cheesy non balanced way to get out of trouble, and then it would make sense to remove them from letting you go in the first place.
... That's why we're saying that the consequences of not going through with your pact means Lords won't trust you and you won't be able to do it again.
 
Yeah there are lots of little things like this which could be far more immersive and work with other aspects of the game. Break a pact get the ‘dishonourable’ trait which means nobody will make a pact with you again etc etc. Like the ‘features’ are all there but they don’t interact
 
then there would be no sense to this feature and itd be just a cheesy non balanced way to get out of trouble, and then it would make sense to remove them from letting you go in the first place.


Sucker punching the AI by breaking treaties one or two times before they stop trusting you is fun in every game that lets you do it. Honestly video games need more cheese in them. The obsession with levelling out all imbalances except for stupid +1% bonuses has sucked the life out of every big strategy game of the last decade.
 
It's about all the designs besides that one example in addition that
OK, THIS is a clear point which garners sympathy. As a whole, we all know BL is held back by the Inscrutable TaleWorlds Grindset.

But
then I see people say,

the consequences of not going through with your pact means Lords won't trust you and you won't be able to do it again

'Won't be able to do it again', what, PEACE?

You guys want to add things which are wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy (breathes) -ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more complicated than there's any evidence the little engine that could can be expected to fold into itself,

Without a quantity of development and testing.

So, I'm not here to argue 'should' about TaleWorlds. I'm here to argue you're asking for a feature you don't need to interact with systems, *simple* systems, you don't seem to appreciate.

That is, this aspect of the game is only a problem for some people, not all people.

I don't want to break peace treaties. This isn't a God game. I live in a society, and I cannot convince my cousins to break their oaths, and I must expend my political influence to even think about implementing some things.

Cry more about it, it's funny.
 
Last edited:
You guys want to add things which are wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy (breathes) -ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more complicated than there's any evidence the little engine that could can be expected to fold into itself,

The "engine" is just C++ and C#, they could do almost anything they wanted. The only limitation is their inter-office politics, hence why modders can and do implement this stuff. I don't think anyone here (after some 10+ years of suggestion threads) really thinks their ideas are going to make it into Bannerlord, they just want to discuss what they like and dislike about the game.
 
But
then I see people say,

'Won't be able to do it again', what, PEACE?

You guys want to add things which are wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy (breathes) -ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more complicated than there's any evidence the little engine that could can be expected to fold into itself,
That's a fault of TW and their poor implementation/lack of foresight planning the wholistic game design to date with all these mishmash systems. They already have relation modifiers from other actions; and they claim the 'traits' affect AI decisions, what's hard about adding another modifier related to attacking an enemy despite a treaty in place? I can understand adding smithing armor being more complicated than that, or adding more hitboxes, or even making armor/damage more 'realistic'.
Without a quantity of development and testing.
That's also their fault, the game was EA for 3 whole years, that is the perfect time to implement things and see what breaks or not.
So, I'm not here to argue 'should' about TaleWorlds. I'm here to argue you're asking for a feature you don't need to interact with systems, *simple* systems, you don't seem to appreciate.
I don't need it, but that's probably how TW has been with every other feature that's been in to date. Workshops don't need levels, don't need messenger system, don't need feasts, don't need diplomacy/politics, kingdoms don't need to die out, etc...ad nauseam from the hundreds of discussions on this board.
And I don't think this is coming from a lack of appreciation; just frustration and disappointment.
That is, this aspect of the game is only a problem for some people, not all people.

I don't want to break peace treaties. This isn't a God game. I live in a society, and I cannot convince my cousins to break their oaths, and I must expend my political influence to even think about implementing some things.

Cry more about it, it's funny.
Sure, it's subjective as aforementioned with needs, but because one doesn't need it, doesn't invalidate those that do. You don't want to break treaties, so you can decide not to, what about those that want to break treaties? What if the game was designed so treaties need to be broken to renew a war but you don't want to break peace treaties? You're **** out of luck - since you'll just crying about a tiny problem in that game.

Heck, they added the toggle option to disable birth/death, I don't think it was needed, but know some people that didn't want to deal with that stuff - and was good to add. And I'm 100% sure that implementation (and the balancing mess with the rest of the game systems) is a lot more complicated than what OP is asking for here.
 
Back
Top Bottom