Let players decide.

[Goyyyio]

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.

Yeah pretty much. It's funny he thinks something so simple as NPCs reacting to player actions in a meaningful way is too complicated to be implemented, while ****ing Warband had a lot of those already, even this game reacts in someway to your actions.

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

No, you won't be able to just break your oaths without suffering consequences for it

I don't want to break peace treaties. This isn't a God game.

A god game? You're so deluled about this game being overly simplistic you can even imagine the idea of a simple feature being not that simple. You know you can play kenshi and everything is so stupidly interconnected, there's a ****ing group of religious ****s who come every week and if you don't pray with them you'll get invaded and Bannerlord Devs have to put a "can't perform this action" feature so they don't have to actually do the work of making an NPC just lower relations with you. It's really nothing that complex, it's not complex at all. In fact most complex stuff Taleworlds won't add modders do it in a couple of weeks and in fact they do it better than Taleworlds does, when they eventually realize that's a very good feature, example: Troop Sorting feature.
But yeah bro "who needs troop sorting, that's a problem SOME players have not everyone" sure, but the point here is to make a better game, not make the middest of stuff ever known to mankind and release for a quick cash grab.

"I live in a society and I cannot convince my cousin's to break their oaths"

Dude's living in 1427, you can't convince your cousins to break their oaths what the hell is that even supposed to mean lmfao

 

[Rackie]

... 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.

fair point I'd be fine with that.

-honor and, with low honor novody should trust you

 

[mujadaddy]

what about those that want to break treaties?

Mods?

The "engine" is just C++ and C#, they could do almost anything they wanted. The only limitation is

The limitations are /within the logic/ of the engine. You guys act like you're asking for one change, but you're not.

You're asking for the addition of an entire system of trustworthiness, so you can be untrustworthy. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it won't happen.

I don't think this is coming from a lack of appreciation; just frustration and disappointment.

I get it, we've been anticipating Better Warband but we got Bannerlord.

I'm not against the idea of oathbreaking, I'm saying that it would have to be a MINOR feature in a HUGE upgrade to the relations engine.

I used to play with Diplomacy, but I realized that all the nonTW options made the game play trivially easy. Topdown control breaks the TW game engine's very fragile balance, so, don't sit here telling me you 'just want X' unless you have a ready-made DLL which implements your changes, so the rest of us can provide feedback.

 

[mujadaddy]

honor and, with low honor novody should trust you

This is such a half-baked concept. What does trust equate to? Tell us everything that would change.

 

[Rossa]

This is such a half-baked concept. What does trust equate to? Tell us everything that would change.

It would match the game well then, as it's an amalgamation of half-backed concepts.

 

[JunKeteer]

Mods?

The limitations are /within the logic/ of the engine. You guys act like you're asking for one change, but you're not.

You're asking for the addition of an entire system of trustworthiness, so you can be untrustworthy. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it won't happen.

So, yes, mods can (to a degree) allow those that want to break treaties, but at the same time, also too limiting for TW themselves due to the logic of the engine?

I get it, we've been anticipating Better Warband but we got Bannerlord.

I'm not against the idea of oathbreaking, I'm saying that it would have to be a MINOR feature in a HUGE upgrade to the relations engine.

From how I see it, OP's just asking for practically the exact same 'application' as they have with executions; which could also be 'just a mod', but they added it in for player agency but no option to break treaties?

I used to play with Diplomacy, but I realized that all the nonTW options made the game play trivially easy. Topdown control breaks the TW game engine's very fragile balance, so, don't sit here telling me you 'just want X' unless you have a ready-made DLL which implements your changes, so the rest of us can provide feedback.

'all' is overgeneralizing it; the only mods I've been seeking are ones that add some semblance of challenge/difficulty back into the gameplay since the base is ridiculously, trivially easy and broken.

 

[mujadaddy]

at the same time, also too limiting for TW themselves due to the logic of the engine?

Not quite; there is a nonzero amount of labour involved in implementing this feature; since TW has /no/ interest in doing so, I recommend being more realistic about what we can expect from TW and to identify what players can give each other.

From how I see it, OP's just asking for practically

If it's so easy, where's the mod?

ones that add some semblance of challenge/difficulty back into the gameplay

Lol, breaking treaties on the simpleton AI is introducing a challenge now?

would match the game well then, as it's an amalgamation of half-backed concepts.

 

[JunKeteer]

Not quite; there is a nonzero amount of labour involved in implementing this feature; since TW has /no/ interest in doing so, I recommend being more realistic about what we can expect from TW and to identify what players can give each other.

Any change from the current is a nonzero amount of labour, not sure why that matters. TW's interest, yes, realistically this won't be implemented; among all the other 'common' issues discussed.

If it's so easy, where's the mod?

I haven't looked so I don't know, but just because there isn't one presently, does not mean it's impossible/can't be done; though that may be the case as well. The only precedent is their very own executions feature which is close to what OP is wanting. Button to execute, pop-up warning, resulting negative relationship/traits, end result = dead noble/clan member not in game.
Encounter kingdom at recent treaty, button to break it, pop-up warning, resulting negative relationship/trait, end result = kingdoms @ war again.
How the relationship/traits consequences apply from there, that's its own issue/lack of depth from TW.

Lol, breaking treaties on the simpleton AI is introducing a challenge now?

No, stop cutting context out to only sections to spin it, not 'all' mods (as you mentioned) make the game trivially easy - as if the base game is considered the best aspect 'challenging' at all anyways. Some mods do, some don't - more options (base game system implementations) allow more room for mods to take that to whatever level they want to tweak it towards.
Breaking treaties can make the game easy, it can also make the game challenging if applied right. Smithing is currently easy/broken, but it can be challenging/fun if TW applied it better. Same with FoW, same with armor/damage mechanics, same with tactics, same with markets/trade, same with workshops, alleys, hideouts, AI army logic, town/castle management, patrols, bandits, etc....