• 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.

Mod suggestion - scale down calradia so the player feels more in control, and less grind

Users who are viewing this thread

Lornloth00

Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
sorry if I posted this on the wrong section

Imo bannerlords map is too huge and makes the player feel powerless against the amount of towns, castles, villages,lords ,clans, ladies and map size in general
, I would like a smaller scale where you actually get to meet the lords during feasts, and improve relations with them, only 3 clans and 4-3 towns per kingdom would make things less convoluted, the smaller maps would also diminish travel time in general.


650px-Mount%26Blade_Warband_world_map.jpg
Mount-Blade-II-Bannerlord-Trading-Goods-Guide-2.jpg


sorry this was made so badly , I took some sleeping medication and i really need to go to bed, luv u guys,
Please NO!

Besides its probably not as big as the Sword of Damocles map. If anything the huge map size was a great idea.
 

cyresdog

Banned
If anything at all the map is too small and everything is way to close to everything else. When 90% of my army gets destroyed is almost no drawback. I can recruit half the map in 2 ingame days... things need to be spread out way more. This doesn't feel like a world to me, it feels like one big city with districts.
Every 2 seconds I come across a Lord.
No streets
Bandits left and right. Sure too big and it feels empty but rn it is way too small for my taste
 

Wulfsdottir

Sergeant
I too think that map is rather small. It should have to take longer to travel from city to city and much longer to travel around the world than it takes now. I understand that in old days of vanilla M&B and then Warband there were lots of technical difficulties preventing from map to being big but I think modern technologies and PCs can handle a bit larger map without problems
 

gungarvar

Recruit
Imo bannerlords map is too huge and makes the player feel powerless against the amount of towns, castles, villages,lords ,clans, ladies and map size in general
, I would like a smaller scale where you actually get to meet the lords during feasts, and improve relations with them, only 3 clans and 4-3 towns per kingdom would make things less convoluted, the smaller maps would also diminish travel time in general.

-100
The point of this game is to GAIN POWER and BECOME KING/QUEEN as FAR AS POSSIBLE, if you feel powerless than u don't meant to ruled this land. Just activated "death in battle" and be done with it.
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
Mount-Blade-II-Bannerlord-Trading-Goods-Guide-2.jpg


Gotta say not a huge fan of the graphics style for the regional banner logos - they feel like they could be corporate logos for Epstein, Jeffries, Bargles & Stoudt or Ellenbach Mutual Investments. The map just doesnt pull me in, in any way whatsoever. Maybe like a medieval cloth type look with an embroidery effect would have worked better
 

XDaron

Sergeant Knight
as a reminder, this is a mod suggestion, dont think that I'm trying to sabotage your enjoyment of the game.

saying that, feel free to disagree, upon reflection I understand now that the reason I dont feel as attached to the lords and cities (meaning they are not as memorable as warband) may not be because there are too many of them, it's probably because horses have too much HP (or because I'm just nostalgic)
 

stevehoos

Banned
as a reminder, this is a mod suggestion, dont think that I'm trying to sabotage your enjoyment of the game.

saying that, feel free to disagree, upon reflection I understand now that the reason I dont feel as attached to the lords and cities (meaning they are not as memorable as warband) may not be because there are too many of them, it's probably because horses have too much HP (or because I'm just nostalgic)

I don't feel any attachment to any lords in the game, it just feels off, I can't pin point it though.
 

Revverie

Instead of making things smaller, make things more meaningful.
This, everything is meaningless. I actually understand OP, this world is too big, but it's also empty. What is the point of having 6 towns per faction if all of them have the same people in it, if there is nothing new to encounter and to feel attached to, this game doesnt make me feel powerless, rather it makes me feel like I'm doing this without a reason, this game is creating doomers lmao
 

stevehoos

Banned
This, everything is meaningless. I actually understand OP, this world is too big, but it's also empty. What is the point of having 6 towns per faction if all of them have the same people in it, if there is nothing new to encounter and to feel attached to, this game doesnt make me feel powerless, rather it makes me feel like I'm doing this without a reason, this game is creating doomers lmao

This ^. The game just really really lacks any immersion or attachment. There's 0 reason to ever go into a town or a village, they are nicely done but are entirely pointless. No random world events, you feel completely disconnected from it. Random wars with no reasonable cultural differences to create them: bland bland bland... Again I hate to keep mentioning this, but Viking Conquest is a much better game than this and it is not close. I mean did the dev team ever play or look at what the community wanted in terms of what was modded? Something like custom troops? This game has a chance but in my view it is a shell of mods like 1257 AD or Nova Aetas.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, I'm surprised how many people aren't getting the point of OP. I more or less agree with him, but definitely not his solutions of just making things smaller.

There simply isn't enough intrigue to immerse me into believing this world is alive. The idea that a lord I befriend can get murdered or betrayed by our peers would simply mean nothing to me since I'll just befriend the next in a faction with dozens of vassals.

Sieges have become so dull it is saddening. They aren't special events that take planning and coordination, rather because there can be multiple armies in the field at once, sieges are a daily thing in war, not to mention easy for attackers since the garrisons are ALWAYS garbage.

I'm just waiting for mods at this point.
 

Honved

Knight
Contrary to the OP's initial complaint, I don't think the map is big enough, or more accurately, that there's enough meaningful content on it. Sure, there are enough castles and towns, but a mere handful of villages does not make a kingdom, and a dozen or so villagers with nothing but the same old generic lines to say doesn't make for much of a village. It really needs at least 3-5 villages per town or castle, and a few more MEANINGFUL dialog options with the inhabitants to give it the impression that there are actually people besides bandits and soldiers living in this mostly-deserted wasteland. Why is the village headman the only quest-giver? Why don't the villagers have occupations, concerns, and problems aside from the village-wide prosperity level?

....and as other posters point out, the problem is not that there are too many lords, but not enough meaningful interaction with any of them, making all of them unmemorable. Too much generic, not enough substance. Taking away some of the generic would simply leave....less, for no real advantage.

In theory, one should be able to run a game where you spend most of your time in one kingdom, and aside from occasional bandit incidents, you'll only see battles near the borders or more rarely between rival clans within the faction. THAT would make for a much more replay-friendly experience, where running a campaign in an Empire faction would play out differently than one in Batannian or Khuzait territory, or for a migrant trader or mercenary band that travels from one kingdom to the next. When you get the same options regardless of where you go, there's no point in going.

Taking over an entire kingdom should be a big deal; taking over the entire map should be a massive undertaking involving generations.
 

Lord Irontoe

Master Knight
Mount-Blade-II-Bannerlord-Trading-Goods-Guide-2.jpg


Gotta say not a huge fan of the graphics style for the regional banner logos - they feel like they could be corporate logos for Epstein, Jeffries, Bargles & Stoudt or Ellenbach Mutual Investments. The map just doesnt pull me in, in any way whatsoever. Maybe like a medieval cloth type look with an embroidery effect would have worked better
I don't mind the style, they're nicely readable. My main beef with those banners is how they stay the same size no matter how far you're zoomed in or out. When you're zoomed in close they look pretty good, but when you zoom way out like the picture, they look huge and ugly how they overlap each other and make the map feel small and crowded. I wouldn't want them to zoom exactly with the map, because then they'd be too small to read when zoomed out, but if they could shrink to like 30% when zoomed out, they'd still be readable and look a lot better. It would also be nice if the gray shaded name area scaled to length of the name so there's not all that empty space on short town names like Tyal or Omor.

Another map pet peeve of mine: Why doesn't clicking on the town banner take you to the town instead of just centering the camera on it? Its so annoying.
 
Last edited:
running a campaign in an Empire faction would play out differently than one in Batannian or Khuzait territory

Taking over an entire kingdom should be a big deal; taking over the entire map should be a massive undertaking involving generations.
^This

I think the skeleton is here to create a world that has unique cultures and epic wars/rivalries that last hundreds of years, but its not there yet. I think culture should absolutely play more of a role in how things in the world happen. If a kingdom takes over a land, the culture should not just sit back and let it happen like it currently does (with minimal effect on loyalty). In that same regard, invading a land and taking it all over in the first place should not be as easy as it currently is.

I would love a war like britain versus france, epic battles, shifting tides and a long timeline. I think a focus on the culture in an area would help keep the kingdoms somewhat in their original shapes. Maybe if a kingdom holds a place long enough it can eventually shift the culture to theirs (or genocide for a massive loss in prosperity and loyalty to achieve a culture shift)

I mean, look at scotland, there are tons of people there who *still* want independence from britain and they've been the same country for 300 years.
 

stevehoos

Banned
"Taking over an entire kingdom should be a big deal; taking over the entire map should be a massive undertaking involving generations."

Yep, this!!!!!!!
 

markp27

Sergeant
Won't mention Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan or any of the other great conquerors to the people above :censored: :xf-wink:.
 

Honved

Knight
Won't mention Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan or any of the other great conquerors to the people above :censored: :xf-wink:.
Don't mention them. Alexander usually granted authority over a conquered territory to a former administrator or ruler of that territory, as long as they acknowledged his own authority above theirs. When he was gone, the areas pretty much went on as before, with only a change of who they paid taxes to. Those conquests did not significantly change the cultures of the conquered, and when the conquerors were succeeded by the next set of rulers, the ties often had to be re-forged with another campaign through the area. Only a few major cities were left with a proper garrison to insure longer-term control, and several of those later rebelled or changed allegiance. They weren't "annexed", they were merely beaten into submission and forced to pay tribute.
 

Foefaller

Recruit
Don't mention them. Alexander usually granted authority over a conquered territory to a former administrator or ruler of that territory, as long as they acknowledged his own authority above theirs. When he was gone, the areas pretty much went on as before, with only a change of who they paid taxes to. Those conquests did not significantly change the cultures of the conquered, and when the conquerors were succeeded by the next set of rulers, the ties often had to be re-forged with another campaign through the area. Only a few major cities were left with a proper garrison to insure longer-term control, and several of those later rebelled or changed allegiance. They weren't "annexed", they were merely beaten into submission and forced to pay tribute.

Similar with the Mongols, who were perfectly fine with letting those who surrendered willing go on as before or even help them administrate their neighbors who tried to fight (for example, Muscovy) and it still took two generations for the Mongol Empire to reach its largest size. IIRC Temujin (i.e. Genghis Khan) was dead for almost two decades before the Mongols first showed up in Eastern Europe.
 
I do think the map is too big, if only because of how the mechanics force every war to be a war of annihilation, and everything just comes down to attrition. If there is to be a bigger map, the entire game needs to shift focus from big national WW2 tier wars to a player-centric local management type game, like Guild or Kenshi.

Right now the entire game leads to nothing but constant war and preparation for war. There are no interesting goals to reach in peacetime besides getting massive amounts of money which you can't even feasibly spend.
If they want a massive map, they should go down this route of more local-level management and interpersonal stuff. But if not, they should do what Callum ill-advisedly claimed and turn the game into an action RPG with a smaller map, more forgiving recruitment mechanics, and more tightly packed action. But right now Bannerlord is in a weird limbo where it has this giant map but nowhere near enough mechanics to justify it.
 
Top Bottom