Knight at Arms
I'll keep my eye out also, but I think I've seen "Merciful" lords raiding before.On Merciful, I know the YouTuber Halyclion claimed to have followed King Derthert around to see if he'd hypocritically raid--he didn't, so I wouldn't be surprised if they're at least partially implemented. I have not actually checked to see if the idiots eager to pin down large hordes when I'm only passing by had Impulsive or Brave or not though--I really ought to...
Yep, clan relations are indeed pretty meaningless which is a shame. I think since clans are designed as an extension of their leader, the other clan members are an extension of you, "the player", so I get why that's the way it is. But it's a shame we'll probably never have stuff like our brothers plotting against us or something.In that case it'd be easy to keep the bad guys in check by virtue of there being numerous traits that'd counteract it with your proposition. A random assortment of vassals, chosen for their abilities rather than their Traits, would likely result in a net positive relation. However... I do think companions and their preferences should be expanded upon. It was a real surprise when Sorgard Breakskull confronted me on retreating, and me saying I wouldn't do it again raised his affection by +44, and then I did it again and the same thing happened... clearly, this could lead to something, but I'm not seeing it so I can't but think it's a half-baked idea as it stands. Like, he should have called me out on it and turned that +44 into a negative 44 or something, and that relationship value ought to mean something as well when, as it stands, relations within your own clan are meaningless.
Calculating/Impulsive is pretty vaguely defined by the game, so I erred on the side of "Impulsive" being a largely negative thing, like most of the other opposite traits are usually negative. I interpreted "impulsive" as "liable to make bad decisions". But your interpretation could be equally valid too.Referring back to your first point about illogical implementations; I notice a weirdness where Honor/Dishonor seems to refer to adherence to morality more than fulfillment of obligations (except you can gain Honor by turning in tax monies to nobles asking for you to tax farm for them) while Generous/Closefisted, at least in character descriptions and Encyclopedia, refers to the rate at which characters adhere to obligations. Therefore, somebody like King Caladog is supposed to take care of his homies but not give 2Fs about the moral question of life's value and whether it's better to suffer righteously for an unworthy ruler or be free and true to yourself as a traitor.
Possibly, but it could also be interpreted that you'd a madman who fights unwinnable battles (Impulsive) who happens to be good enough for those balls to be true (Brave)!
Honor used to be a catch-all "good/bad" in Warband, then when Bannerlord rolled around and added other traits, its role got a bit confused in the messy development of the game. Sometimes it seems to refer to morality (artifact of its role in Warband), and sometimes it seems to refer to keeping one's word.
The encyclopedia description leads towards keeping obligations, but on the other hand you can currently lose Honor for executing people. And I question that, because then what's the point of the Cruel personality trait? I think you should lose Mercy/gain Cruelty for executing people.
You wind up with these confusing situations when you make a sequel that recycles some code and dialogue from the last game, has the lead writer leave halfway through development, has no unified game design document, and has 100+ employees working on it with different ideas of how things should work.
My apologies, you were right and it is a thing, it just doesn't really seem to factor in the game. I thought it had been removed at some point.In that case, why is there an "extreme" yellow/red framed variant of it? They ought to range from negative 2 to positive 2 at the very least; THAT kind of moderation would justify it as-is, and would be a preferable handling.
You do make a convincing argument, maybe it would be better if it was like a 5% chance for Merciful nobles to raid villages.I'd really rather NOT have it be so predictable because half the fun of an open simulation is the sheer randomness and lack of predictability. If I always know King Derthert (for example) will be a great guy who'll never willingly force me into a stupid war, I'll never be miffed if he suddenly says "You know what? F__k the Empire, we're going on a crusade for Lycaron" or something lol. However, SOME predictability and trends is good, but not to the point where I can predict how everything in a long playthrough will turn out before I even set about it. Hammers and monkey wrenches ought to be thrown into my plans; I like it when God laughs, since I'm too used to strategy games where I can plan all day and watch it happen with little deviation.
Yep. Which sucks because the player usually can't manipulate the vote.That's very interesting; I know from my first playthrough that it's rare for voting nobles to be split down the middle or even 40/60. Usually it's on questions of war declarations where the prompt to vote on it preceded another prompt saying we got declared on and so, with changed information, some of the hawks decided to return to the nest.
I just think that if they advertised a game as having certain mechanics that did certain things, then they should make it happen without the player having to buy expansion packs.It's difficult for me to say what TW is and isn't willing to do--it's highly unusual for developers to update content for free into video games in general, so I have no precedence for this. After all, at least nominally, the game's done and officially complete for publication; normally it'd be time to do whatever it is we're postulating in the form of DLCs rather than do stuff (of varying levels of complexity) for free.
I think it's better to shoot for the stars at any rate; even if it falls short, it'd likely better than falling short of a modest target. Furthermore, to those like myself who'd be willing to reach into their pocket books, it may better for them to just clean up the game for now and then add new stuff (and redo existing stuff) via expansion packs. Considering how unstable the Sims 4 is (the only other game I know of with a post-development cycle, albeit one doing pricy DLCs AND free updates), I suspect it's much smoother to focus entirely on clean up or entirely on expansion content rather than trying to do both plus free update content. But... I don't know how game development works lol, and I've heard Sims 4 is being worked on by a skeleton crew on minimal budget whereas TW is an independent company, so... (shrug)
Back when they did the demo in 2016 https://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/15 they said: "The personalities of characters in the game are defined by their traits, which are earned in a variety of ways and determine how characters react, are reacted to and can affect their behaviour."
https://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/43 "In Bannerlord, an NPC’s behaviour is heavily influenced by their personality traits."
https://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/83 "To keep each battle varied and to further the emergent narrative for the player, this layer of the combat AI is influenced by the AI lord commanding the army. Some lords might be more cautious and prefer to seize the high ground before setting up in a defensive formation, whereas other lords might be a little more rash, putting pressure onto their opponents by committing to an early assault."
https://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/91 "An honorable emir may feel compelled by his oath of fealty to stick by even the vilest of sultans. A conniving one might turn down the choicest bribe because frankly, he doesn’t think you have what it takes to win a civil war, and silver is no use to him if he’s dead. Persuasion is a means to help players overcome these reservations."