To point is to eventually conquer all.
Not necessarily the entire continent with your first character, but your heir.
What's the point of forging a new empire if it's NEVER stable and I constantly have to fight civil wars? All things must come to an end.
Technically, no. A new character in a different scenario. I might be fighting Batanians instead of Khuzait, because they started steamrolling this playtrough.
I guess there is some miscommunication going on here, since we seem to have different time frames and game stages in mind.
Because it's a challenge and should be a challenge to rule a multicultural empire rather than being an unstoppable soldier factory. That said, a stable empire should be possible, and an end to a campaign in this case should be when you actually make a stable mono-cultural empire. But that should take multiple generations and hundreds of years in game after devastating rebellions and civil wars between heirs, rather than 12 years and suddenly Calradia is at eternal peace despite the fact 5/6 of all towns were conquered through war. Alexander's Empire died after he did, and I don't see why a Calradian empire wouldn't be at least thrown into chaos, and I consider the player character in m&b games capable of the same things Alexander the Great was. Your own goals should vary of course, its a sandbox game and you should be compelled to stop playing whenever. In general though, I thought of a basic early/mid/late/end game, tell me how you guys feel. Since devs say a faction conquering the entire map over 20 years should be possible -
Early game - multiple factions fighting over territory making minimal gain, while the calradian empire struggles to defend itself.
Mid game - Calradian empire should be either conquered by neighbors or united under one of the three leaders. The faction supported by the player should be one of the large factions at this stage.
Late game - Massive factions fighting over supremacy, massive battles and invasions, until one wins.
End game - A single faction dominating the entire map, but with massive cultural and internal power struggles that need to be resolved, but when the player (or AI ruler) dies, ambitious vassals or heirs who disliked the player fighting over inheritance. Many cities that are poorly managed should have rebelled or been in rebellion at this stage.
But, maybe you don't want to be the hero that conquers everything. It's an RPG, maybe you just want to be part of something, maybe you just want to be a merchant, maybe you want to be the king's right hand man, maybe just a loyal vassal but the game can keep going from there.
If your goal is to conquer the entire map, then the end game and generational stuff would be keeping it together. Think of Game of Thrones - the hard part wasn't conquering the seven kingdoms for Robert, it was keeping it together. Of course when death is a mechanic, you could die at any stage in game, right now the dynasty and clan system are frankly pointless gimmicks if you can conquer the entire world with a single character. In Bannerlord, the potential is there for a generational campaign that could change on a dime, leading to a truly insane dynamic, sandbox game but memorable, with tragedy, death, and legendary battles. Invading foreign armies, civil wars, collapse of player empires, independence factions started by you yourself or the AI, you name it. Warband did not have the potential, but Bannerlord does.