maximus1541
Recruit
There's no soul in the game.
One of the fundamentals of the game was the many-to-many battle and these elements were clearly irreplaceable immersion.
And I'm not saying that this game sucks on this part.
However, there is another fundamental that the developers or players of this game do not mention or insist on, and there is a serious defect.
Speaking of what it is, in addition to many-to-many battles in the M&B series, 4x strategy simulation game elements are strongly introduced when the initial game progress is slightly exceeded.
That's what we call land conquering.
"
Before speaking her name
she had been nothing but a gesture.
When I spoke her name,
she came to me and became a flower.
"
Like the verse I quoted above, the 4x strategy game has no choice but to be as core content as the many-to-many battle, as it has justification and meaning for the implementation of the many-to-many battle, which is the biggest feature and only advantage of this game in a 4x strategy game..
In other words, this game is the basis of both "experience" and "4x strategy" as one of them in many-to-many battles.
However, the problem is that the strategic part of these two fundamentals is like ****.
In fact, this problem was the same in Warband and Original, but instead of improving in Bannerlord, it was rather regressed by hiding behind "EA-Shield",
(I hope the management takes it seriously.)
Even after two years of patching, the regressed state did not improve at all,
The system itself has inherited Warband and Original, so there is almost no possibility in the future.
That's why Bannerlord is being criticized by players.
Quantitatively, in a situation where one of the fundamentals is the same and one is degenerate, the other side branches have changed and improved, so it is impossible to shield.
The development direction so far has been wandering aimlessly as much as the npc of the game made by developers.
If we look at this problem in more detail from the 4x strategy point of view, first of all, one of the big problems is that the relationship between individuals(NPC) ate up the strategy.
However, although this relationship is too personal with the player character, it is too primitive to give fun to various situations or strategically like Crusader Kings,
The interface and side systems that support this element are also not good.
For this reason, whether you are playing concept play or conquering the world, to play peacefully, there is only infinite farming or raising a relationship that is not fun and has no soul.
If some of the lords are executed, the relationship will be devastated and there will be infinite hell or only extreme options.
That is why it is said that the relationship system destroyed the strategic system.
Neither relationship nor system is interesting.
However, there is no development at all, and there is no prospect of development.
Also, on the world map, NPCs just wander around aimlessly, meaningless, and too fragmented.
Due to this, it is theoretically possible to play a large-scale battle that will save many-to-many battles, but it is difficult to play in the game with the strategy system and strange AI of the actual game,
The recruiting system is also an *******.
These are the collaborations, so war is just an endless repetition of small and medium-scale battle farming that doesn't even make use of the game's only strength.
The diplomatic system has only two things: a declaration of war and a peace agreement, with thin content that can't even be written about.
This problem was the same in Warband and Original, but it was the first indie game at the time, and it was hidden in the unique, many-to-many battle immersion,
In the sequel, Bannerlord, the strange system was still inherited.
Even the details were regressed, so the evaluation of fans, not new users, was bad.
Even if the details are improved by improving the EA period, it is obvious that the basic system is the same as Warband and Original.
Economics and internal affairs, like diplomacy, have nothing to do with it.
Since this game is a sandbox game, why not try a concept play between many-to-many combat action and strategy beyond the given framework? If you say
The above problems do not affect the concept play, nor the system and content for concept play are poor, so even this inevitably leads to a **** game.
After all, it is a sandbox-type game, but here, too, there is only one advantage of this game is that it is a many-to-many battle,
Still, the content of the game is inevitably repeated in the same form every time, whether it be battles, politics, or whatever.
Even that is the infinite battle and farming.
Because of these problems, before and after the timing when many players can deploy their troops,
The fun does not culminate in the greatest and best many-to-many battles the game has to offer,
Rather, interest is rapidly declining and they are complaining about the lack of content.
So, some players are asking, "What makes Bannerlord different from Warband after all but graphics?" it sounds like
A few things have changed, such as Perk, but the basic play experience is the same from the outside, and if you look closely, it has only deteriorated.
If it wasn't for the developers' gaslighting due to bugs in the early version of EA Shield, improvements to the simulcast formula, and content additions
It can be said that even the current evaluation is a game that can be viewed as overly favorable.
It is a game with no answer unless there is an improvement that overturns the strategy and existing various contents from the ground up.
For example, after the dlc was released, what would be different if countries, troops, and equipment were added?
It can only be repeated endless farming of the same repertoire with only the shell different.
If there was a possibility, expectation, and vision to change something from the beginning, something must have changed from the beginning of the release of the sequel, Bannerlord EA, in the first place.
It can be said that it is a game where there is nothing but gaslighting of developers who only improve the shell little by little and tame the users as it is a game that has been changed while maintaining the inertia of ignorance in Warband.
Also, in multiplayer, no custom server has been released for 2 years, the TDM server has not been fixed to crash for 2 years, and even the moment I write this, the servers are crashing.
Eventually many multiplayers left Bannerlord and switched to games like Chivaly 2 and the like. Skirmish has not been caught even once after 9 hours, and the Battle mode triggers Freezing or CTD when the score reaches 3-0.
I've been playing the M&B series since 2008, and I'm a huge fan from Korea.
That is why I am writing this article.
I wanted the M&B series to develop into popular games like League of Legends, Dota, Starcraft, and Overwatch, APEX.
Medieval games like Chivaly 2 or For Honor can't beat Bannerlord's combat system yet,
but TW, It is only a matter of time before they catch up with you.
One of the fundamentals of the game was the many-to-many battle and these elements were clearly irreplaceable immersion.
And I'm not saying that this game sucks on this part.
However, there is another fundamental that the developers or players of this game do not mention or insist on, and there is a serious defect.
Speaking of what it is, in addition to many-to-many battles in the M&B series, 4x strategy simulation game elements are strongly introduced when the initial game progress is slightly exceeded.
That's what we call land conquering.
"
Before speaking her name
she had been nothing but a gesture.
When I spoke her name,
she came to me and became a flower.
"
Like the verse I quoted above, the 4x strategy game has no choice but to be as core content as the many-to-many battle, as it has justification and meaning for the implementation of the many-to-many battle, which is the biggest feature and only advantage of this game in a 4x strategy game..
In other words, this game is the basis of both "experience" and "4x strategy" as one of them in many-to-many battles.
However, the problem is that the strategic part of these two fundamentals is like ****.
In fact, this problem was the same in Warband and Original, but instead of improving in Bannerlord, it was rather regressed by hiding behind "EA-Shield",
(I hope the management takes it seriously.)
Even after two years of patching, the regressed state did not improve at all,
The system itself has inherited Warband and Original, so there is almost no possibility in the future.
That's why Bannerlord is being criticized by players.
Quantitatively, in a situation where one of the fundamentals is the same and one is degenerate, the other side branches have changed and improved, so it is impossible to shield.
The development direction so far has been wandering aimlessly as much as the npc of the game made by developers.
If we look at this problem in more detail from the 4x strategy point of view, first of all, one of the big problems is that the relationship between individuals(NPC) ate up the strategy.
However, although this relationship is too personal with the player character, it is too primitive to give fun to various situations or strategically like Crusader Kings,
The interface and side systems that support this element are also not good.
For this reason, whether you are playing concept play or conquering the world, to play peacefully, there is only infinite farming or raising a relationship that is not fun and has no soul.
If some of the lords are executed, the relationship will be devastated and there will be infinite hell or only extreme options.
That is why it is said that the relationship system destroyed the strategic system.
Neither relationship nor system is interesting.
However, there is no development at all, and there is no prospect of development.
Also, on the world map, NPCs just wander around aimlessly, meaningless, and too fragmented.
Due to this, it is theoretically possible to play a large-scale battle that will save many-to-many battles, but it is difficult to play in the game with the strategy system and strange AI of the actual game,
The recruiting system is also an *******.
These are the collaborations, so war is just an endless repetition of small and medium-scale battle farming that doesn't even make use of the game's only strength.
The diplomatic system has only two things: a declaration of war and a peace agreement, with thin content that can't even be written about.
This problem was the same in Warband and Original, but it was the first indie game at the time, and it was hidden in the unique, many-to-many battle immersion,
In the sequel, Bannerlord, the strange system was still inherited.
Even the details were regressed, so the evaluation of fans, not new users, was bad.
Even if the details are improved by improving the EA period, it is obvious that the basic system is the same as Warband and Original.
Economics and internal affairs, like diplomacy, have nothing to do with it.
Since this game is a sandbox game, why not try a concept play between many-to-many combat action and strategy beyond the given framework? If you say
The above problems do not affect the concept play, nor the system and content for concept play are poor, so even this inevitably leads to a **** game.
After all, it is a sandbox-type game, but here, too, there is only one advantage of this game is that it is a many-to-many battle,
Still, the content of the game is inevitably repeated in the same form every time, whether it be battles, politics, or whatever.
Even that is the infinite battle and farming.
Because of these problems, before and after the timing when many players can deploy their troops,
The fun does not culminate in the greatest and best many-to-many battles the game has to offer,
Rather, interest is rapidly declining and they are complaining about the lack of content.
So, some players are asking, "What makes Bannerlord different from Warband after all but graphics?" it sounds like
A few things have changed, such as Perk, but the basic play experience is the same from the outside, and if you look closely, it has only deteriorated.
If it wasn't for the developers' gaslighting due to bugs in the early version of EA Shield, improvements to the simulcast formula, and content additions
It can be said that even the current evaluation is a game that can be viewed as overly favorable.
It is a game with no answer unless there is an improvement that overturns the strategy and existing various contents from the ground up.
For example, after the dlc was released, what would be different if countries, troops, and equipment were added?
It can only be repeated endless farming of the same repertoire with only the shell different.
If there was a possibility, expectation, and vision to change something from the beginning, something must have changed from the beginning of the release of the sequel, Bannerlord EA, in the first place.
It can be said that it is a game where there is nothing but gaslighting of developers who only improve the shell little by little and tame the users as it is a game that has been changed while maintaining the inertia of ignorance in Warband.
Also, in multiplayer, no custom server has been released for 2 years, the TDM server has not been fixed to crash for 2 years, and even the moment I write this, the servers are crashing.
Eventually many multiplayers left Bannerlord and switched to games like Chivaly 2 and the like. Skirmish has not been caught even once after 9 hours, and the Battle mode triggers Freezing or CTD when the score reaches 3-0.
I've been playing the M&B series since 2008, and I'm a huge fan from Korea.
That is why I am writing this article.
I wanted the M&B series to develop into popular games like League of Legends, Dota, Starcraft, and Overwatch, APEX.
Medieval games like Chivaly 2 or For Honor can't beat Bannerlord's combat system yet,
but TW, It is only a matter of time before they catch up with you.
Last edited: