Poll: Why Does Bannerlord Still Feel Like it Lacks Personality and Soul?

Why Does Bannerlord Still Feel Like it Lacks Personality and Soul?

  • Bannerlord's 'lore' is just uninspiring and bland

    Votes: 12 7.5%
  • There simply isn't enough lore and story connected to the different factions and characters

    Votes: 26 16.3%
  • It's down to the main quest - which is just plain bad

    Votes: 13 8.1%
  • It's because of a lack of depth in game mechanics - and lack of 'functionality' in general

    Votes: 104 65.0%
  • Progression style - you feel uninspired to put in the work to gain rewards - castles and towns etc

    Votes: 43 26.9%
  • The game needs greatly enhanced diplomacy to give you a feeling of real power

    Votes: 68 42.5%
  • Other

    Votes: 14 8.8%

  • Total voters
    160

Users who are viewing this thread

Antaeus

Sergeant at Arms
Well I don't really need further confirmation that the game is rather bland and lacks a certain 'heart'. I mean it's blindingly obvious to anyone who plays it .... or compares it to Viking Conquest.

The only questions are : why does this continue to be the case after all this development time?... and how could this realistically be fixed and changed? (By TW ..... or more likely by modders)

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values

I.e. "I was already disappointed in the game, so this update is likely to reinforce my disappointment"
 

Ser Jon

Squire
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
It couldn't possibly be because the game is disappointing and yet another patch which is broken to the moon and back just reinforces that assertion. No, that would just be silly of any gamer to think.
 

stevepine

Knight
Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values

I.e. "I was already disappointed in the game, so this update is likely to reinforce my disappointment"
Thanks. Yes, I do get the meaning of the term.

I wanted to see if people agree or not...and to determine if I only have part of the picture here ... (which I'm sure is probably the case). I thought that resulting discussions would be interesting to read.

Anyway, let's not quibble about semantics and definitions.

To get back on topic ... what do you think the game needs to feel more characterful?
 
Last edited:

Antaeus

Sergeant at Arms
Thanks. Yes, I do get the meaning of the term.

I wanted to see if people agree or not...and to determine if I only have part of the picture here ... (which I'm sure is probably the case). I thought that resulting discussions would be interesting to read.

Anyway, let's not quibble about semantics and definitions.

To get back on topic ... what do you think the game needs to feel more characterful?

Here I was thinking the topic is "Why Does Bannerlord Still Feel Like it Lacks Personality and Soul?" which is why I suggest the poll needs an option for Confirmation bias - "I was already disappointed in the game, so this update is likely to reinforce my disappointment"

But to answer you more directly... I don't think the game needs to be more characterful. I think the game is primarily a tactical battle simulator. The bits in between are there to give a little strategic overlay to support that. Others seem to want Bannerlord to be this giant immersive RPG. But it isn't that, and never will be. This is the key conceptual difference that seems to lead to most of the complaining here.

So improvements I want to see are around making the battles function better. I really don't care for any of that lore/quest/story junk. It does enough to make the battles plausible. That's about all it needs to be. Now if you make a thread that asks "what needs to happen to make battles better" I'd have a few suggestions.
 

stevepine

Knight
But to answer you more directly... I don't think the game needs to be more characterful. I think the game is primarily a tactical battle simulator. The bits in between are there to give a little strategic overlay to support that. Others seem to want Bannerlord to be this giant immersive RPG. But it isn't that, and never will be. This is the key conceptual difference that seems to lead to most of the complaining here.

So improvements I want to see are around making the battles function better. I really don't care for any of that lore/quest/story junk. It does enough to make the battles plausible. That's about all it needs to be. Now if you make a thread that asks "what needs to happen to make battles better" I'd have a few suggestions.

Ah well this the real point of disagreement. The truth is that Bannerlord is actually a hybrid.

It's a tactical battle simulator, and part strategy game (moving your armies around the map etc.), and part RPG (reasonably deep character creation, different cultures, courtship and marriage, children, death, feuding nobles struggling for power etc).

Of course battles are really important and they are a core feature of the game - but they are just one part of what mount and blade has always been about.

I think it's a shame you consider the lore and story to be "junk" as you put it. For me, those things are a large part of what makes the game different and unique.

If Mount and Blade was only about hack and slash, bash and charge, then it would have died long ago as a franchise.

So, you see it as primarily about the battles. well ok. However, I think on the forums, you will find that that is quite a minority view. (Maybe with one or two exceptions - like Lucius Confucius).
 
Last edited:

vito397

Knight at Arms
WBWF&SNWVC
Here I was thinking the topic is "Why Does Bannerlord Still Feel Like it Lacks Personality and Soul?" which is why I suggest the poll needs an option for Confirmation bias - "I was already disappointed in the game, so this update is likely to reinforce my disappointment"

But to answer you more directly... I don't think the game needs to be more characterful. I think the game is primarily a tactical battle simulator. The bits in between are there to give a little strategic overlay to support that. Others seem to want Bannerlord to be this giant immersive RPG. But it isn't that, and never will be. This is the key conceptual difference that seems to lead to most of the complaining here.

So improvements I want to see are around making the battles function better. I really don't care for any of that lore/quest/story junk. It does enough to make the battles plausible. That's about all it needs to be. Now if you make a thread that asks "what needs to happen to make battles better" I'd have a few suggestions.
Lmao a tactical battle simulator with "bits in between". Have you ever played any MB game besides Bannerlord? This is the most boring opinion I've read on this forum, and there's a lot of competition.

When did this franchise go from

"A lord asked me to free his friend from a prison. First I go to a nearby village to ask the village elder to light a fire to distract the garrison from the keep. As I have built a relation with him, he accepts. I sneak into the castle dressed as a pilgrim and talk to the prison guard. As I have high charisma he lets me in, or else i beat him and take his keys. I enter the prison and tell the lord to stay behind or to pick up a weapon. We fight our way out of the castle with staffs and he goes on his way."

To

"The only thing that matters are the battles. Everything else can be done in a menu. I dont give a feck about the lore, the diplomacy or characters."

Why dont you play the latest iterations of the Total War franchise? Nothing but battles in that. No diplomacy, pure map colouring. You get the RTS camera that you talk about on these forums, you can point specific units to target other specific units, menus are endless and theres no NPCs to talk to, and you dont need to bother reading lore. Or conquerors blade? Epic!

Warband had a soul, VC had a soul, NW had a soul even though it had no campaign. Even Warrider had a soul, with zombie Harlaus. BL doesnt have a soul because it moved away from what MB used to be. Whats exciting about creating a kingdom through a "Create Kingdom" button? Whats exciting about never meeting your vassals? Whats exciting about spending absolutely no time whatsoever in scenes. Maybe BL doesnt have a soul because opinions like the quoted one are dime a dozen and it brings big money. And thats why trmplays rakes up 30-70k views on Warsword Conquest playthroughs from Warband in 2021 while TheReformist plays a highly modded version of BL and still complains about its core.
 
Last edited:

Rungsted93

Sergeant at Arms
WBWF&SVC
I think TW just have a very different vision of what the game should be compared to the majority in this forum, and looking at the Steam review scores it does indeed affirm that they were right and the people in the forum are just a loud minority.

But yes agree, this is the game I've ever been the most dissapointed with and the last time I bothered playing it was the 16th of January... I was in this forum the day Bannerlord was announced (lurked for a couple of years before making an account) and it's just sad and frustrating knowing what this game could've and should've been.
 

five bucks

Squire
I think TW just have a very different vision of what the game should be compared to the majority in this forum, and looking at the Steam review scores it does indeed affirm that they were right and the people in the forum are just a loud minority.
When you look at those reviews, remember that yes the forum is indeed a minority compared to the wider playerbase, but people who bought Bannerlord because of the hype and individually played it for about 6 hours and left a positive review on Steam saying "10/10 would eat butter again" probably would have left positive reviews no matter which direction it took, as long as it wasn't obviously total garbage.

Even many of the positive reviews contain a lot of criticism. Here's one of the top rated reviews as an example:
"My overall impression is possitive but that doesn't mean there are not a lot of issues with the game.
Game is fun, uniqe and has a very well built combat system. Those are solid wins for the game so it gets a thumbs up.
Sadly, after more than a year of 'early access' my expectations are kinda let down. Needs a lot more features and a good amounth of bug fixes."

Another point: I do agree that TW has a different vision for the game to most of the forum, but not to a drastic extent. Many people here want more roleplaying/immersive features, and TW has announced their future commitment to some, such as civil war claimants, event cutscenes, player's banner being borne in combat, and so on.

A lot of the reasons Bannerlord currently lacks immersion/personality apparently aren't by intentional design, but just due to the unfinished state of the game. For example lords lacking personality is mostly due to the Traits system obviously being unbalanced and unfinished, which is (hopefully!) something you'd assume TW would address.
I was in this forum the day Bannerlord was announced (lurked for a couple of years before making an account) and it's just sad and frustrating knowing what this game could've and should've been.
I'm disappointed with many aspects of the state of the game and pace of development too but still have some hope.

If I can ask because I'm curious, what were you looking for Bannerlord to be?
 

Horked

Regular
WBNWVC
even humans doesnt get a proper personality until they are almost adults, some even long after adulthood
 

Rungsted93

Sergeant at Arms
WBWF&SVC
I'm disappointed with many aspects of the state of the game and pace of development too but still have some hope.

If I can ask because I'm curious, what were you looking for Bannerlord to be?

Regarding the reviews I do agree with you, but at the end of the day any decent sized company will just look at the numbers and when it says 87% positive they will call it a succes, no matter if most of the reviews are meme reviews or contain constructive criticism.

What I would've liked Bannerlord to be is a good question, because I'm not even entirely sure myself.
But I did expect the definitive edition of what the M&B formula could and should be, if Warband was the succesful low budget Indie then Bannerlord would be TW's title to become an AA/AAA studio.

Some features I was hoping for but not limited to:
-Co-op campaign (people have been wishing for that even before Warband came out)
-Much deeper relations, RPG elements
-Expanded Diplomacy
-A vassal system somewhat akin to Crusader Kings (would make it way more fun to work your way up inside a kingdom and having smaller scale local wars)
-Pretty much taking the best features from popular Warband mods + Viking Conquest and implement them
-Overall just a lot of those extra "nice to have" features, which they wouldn't technically need to do but it's what makes a good game become great

I'm well aware though I might have had way too high expectations.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
Regarding the reviews I do agree with you, but at the end of the day any decent sized company will just look at the numbers and when it says 87% positive they will call it a succes, no matter if most of the reviews are meme reviews or contain constructive criticism.
Pretty sure the numbers they are looking at have currency symbols in front of them.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
The market sucks, why cant we just have the same marketplace system like in warband? Armor merchant sells armor, weapons merchant sells merchant, etc so why is it all combined together? I paid 40 dollars for this, I dont want to scroll down everytime to look for something that I want.
The skills are quite confusing, I dont know what to invest in fear of messing up my game so I havent put anything into well, anything.
Those buttons at the top divide the trade categories. Melee weapons, ranged weapons, armor, horses and trade goods/food.
Speaking of mercenary work, Influence points are ****ing stupid. Pay me money, I dont need points, I need money, points are just stupid and pointless, give me cash, Cash gives me the ability to do the one fun thing in this game, to wage war.
The influence does get turned into money.
 

danEN

Banned
WBM&BWF&SNWVC
Just bought the game, played around 6 hours so far. For me, it's BORING. Armor sucks, You cant do much but chases down looters that are stupidly fast for some reason and you cant do anything but chase down looters to build your renown.
Now instead of recruiting from villages, you have this stupid mechanic of people owning the people you want to recruit into your warband. Meaning that if they don't like you? sorry, bud better drag your sorry butt around the map to a different city or village if you want to have the capability to wage to war.
Wages are paid daily instead of a weekly basis, dont know why they changed that, I prefer having time to procure funds needed to have a warband if I dont have the funds on hand to do so currently.
The market sucks, why cant we just have the same marketplace system like in warband? Armor merchant sells armor, weapons merchant sells merchant, etc so why is it all combined together? I paid 40 dollars for this, I dont want to scroll down everytime to look for something that I want.
The skills are quite confusing, I dont know what to invest in fear of messing up my game so I havent put anything into well, anything. It's not anything at all like warband where we had a straight forward skill system where it just told you everything whenever you hovered your mouse above it.
Your slow if you dont have any horses in your party, which brings me back to the sentence about skills above, where the heck is the pathfinder skill? leadership? It was so straightforward and taleworlds took it out the back and essentially shot it to bits and peices.
Days pass by fast for some absurd reason, why cant the days be slow like in warband?
Because of the daily wage and the absurd cost of mercs I cant hire any of them because I will simply not have enough money to pay them. I cant attack caravans or villages because for some reason, they have millita and cavalry that can kill my troops easily my troops which mind you, take a bit to level up, and I cant level them up because those looters, the only safe bet to level up my troops, always run and are absurdly fast. It's a loop, unless I get lucky, I have trash tier mob troops against enemies that can deal decent damage to me, I cant level them up, I spend way to much time chasing looters who 60 percent of the time manage to escape from me.
The only reason why I currently had any success in my current and first run was simply because I got lucky. After 5 hours of running around and grinding on the map, I finally reached clan level 1 and could then become a merc. I sold my sword to the southern empire and ran into a caravan, a caravan that had a ton of cavalry that would have taken me out in a fair fight, which is pathetic because I had 40 and they had 40. (For some reason the enemy ai, even looters can deal some serious damage to me even when I have armor on,so that's another problem.) The only reason I managed to beat them was because another party that had like 79 guys were nearby and decided to help me out. I managed to beat the caravan took all of their ****, and managed to sell them for a profit. I managed to come out with 10k in my purse that day.
Speaking of mercenary work, Influence points are ****ing stupid. Pay me money, I dont need points, I need money, points are just stupid and pointless, give me cash, Cash gives me the ability to do the one fun thing in this game, to wage war. And even then, Im not having that much fun, Im getting taken out with ease if um not careful, my troops cant level up because looters are stupidly fast, and as a result I cant catch them to both level up my troops and make money, and without money I cant buy horses to move faster, which in turn prevents me from chasing looters, I CANT DO ANYTHING, UNLESS PRAY THAT I GET LUCKY.
This isnt fun, it isnt like warband at all, It has all these stupid mechanics that are useless, and terrible. It feels like a rebellious **** head of a kid that went no! screw you dad! I'm going to do my own thing! It's basically boruto, nobody likes him, he's riding of the coattails of his old man, and is just generally a **** head.
Well at least its like that to me.Warband was so magical because it was so simple, and in that simplicity it did so many things right. I feel like if bannerlord didn't have any new features and was literally warband but better graphics and engine, it would have done a lot better.Now, I know banner lord isn't warband, but thats the PROBLEM. It isnt. For me, warband was a masterpiece, even though the graphics were terrible it was still fun. This game COULD have been a magnum opus of taleworlds, but it wasn't. It isnt. I feel like a disappointed parent, I cant even get angry anymore, I just want to turn off the game and go play warband instead whenever the above mentioned problems hit me once more.
The days are to fast. Enemies to fast, to strong and money is a commodity that is hard to yet so easy and fast to lose. Thats Why it feels so souless, it's not fun. And whats up with you getting a banner straight away? It feels like a cop out. It feels to insincere. Like its playing it safe or something.
Well, at least thats my take. I know very well that people aren't me, and they have different opinions, it's probably just me with these problems, but I generally think this is why bannerlord isnt fun for me. I'll put it like this. I have a sword, it's blunt. I have no money and no whetstone. My profession is war and I kill people for money, I cant kill people with a blunt sword now can I? The mechanics are taxes, I have no money, and whenever I do make money i lose it, limiting my ability to get that damn whetstone and making my life miserable.
Also the 40 dollar price tag is absurd. This is game is simply not worth 40 dollars, Now warband? that was worth 40 dollars.
Thats my take on the matter at least. So I'm probably wrong on a lot of things.
If you think the first 6 hours are boring you don't want to try the end game, the start of a new campaign is normally the only semi fun part because you have something other to do than constant battles
 

Hedving

Recruit
I'm not quite sure why but I think a lot of people on this forum need to have their bubbles burst, and this thread may be a perfect indicator of that.
I was a Warband player with about 300 hours playtime, and now I've recently started playing Bannerlord. I come on this forum and all I see is negativity, seemingly for some pretty minor things and even non criticism such as this thread.
Seriously, what do you mean by soul? And why did Warband have one? It was a pretty janky and simple game (altough a very fun one), the gameplay loop feels about the same in Bannerlord. Independent Mercenary - Vassal - Ruler whilst fighting increasingly stronger armies and enemies along the way, sieging was very simple and diplomacy was barely a thing. Besides some minor quality of life features missing, Bannerlord seems to have pretty much everything that Warband had and a bit more.
If this is your criticism then I agree and it's a valid one, it should be way better not just Warband 2.0, but why are we pretending that Warband had some magic to it that this one doesn't? It seems to be just because you can't let go of your old toy.

Just bought the game, played around 6 hours so far. For me, it's BORING. Armor sucks, You cant do much but chases down looters that are stupidly fast for some reason and you cant do anything but chase down looters to build your renown.
Now instead of recruiting from villages, you have this stupid mechanic of people owning the people you want to recruit into your warband. Meaning that if they don't like you? sorry, bud better drag your sorry butt around the map to a different city or village if you want to have the capability to wage to war.
Wages are paid daily instead of a weekly basis, dont know why they changed that, I prefer having time to procure funds needed to have a warband if I dont have the funds on hand to do so currently.
The market sucks, why cant we just have the same marketplace system like in warband? Armor merchant sells armor, weapons merchant sells merchant, etc so why is it all combined together? I paid 40 dollars for this, I dont want to scroll down everytime to look for something that I want.
The skills are quite confusing, I dont know what to invest in fear of messing up my game so I havent put anything into well, anything. It's not anything at all like warband where we had a straight forward skill system where it just told you everything whenever you hovered your mouse above it.
Your slow if you dont have any horses in your party, which brings me back to the sentence about skills above, where the heck is the pathfinder skill? leadership? It was so straightforward and taleworlds took it out the back and essentially shot it to bits and peices.
Days pass by fast for some absurd reason, why cant the days be slow like in warband?
Because of the daily wage and the absurd cost of mercs I cant hire any of them because I will simply not have enough money to pay them. I cant attack caravans or villages because for some reason, they have millita and cavalry that can kill my troops easily my troops which mind you, take a bit to level up, and I cant level them up because those looters, the only safe bet to level up my troops, always run and are absurdly fast. It's a loop, unless I get lucky, I have trash tier mob troops against enemies that can deal decent damage to me, I cant level them up, I spend way to much time chasing looters who 60 percent of the time manage to escape from me.
The only reason why I currently had any success in my current and first run was simply because I got lucky. After 5 hours of running around and grinding on the map, I finally reached clan level 1 and could then become a merc. I sold my sword to the southern empire and ran into a caravan, a caravan that had a ton of cavalry that would have taken me out in a fair fight, which is pathetic because I had 40 and they had 40. (For some reason the enemy ai, even looters can deal some serious damage to me even when I have armor on,so that's another problem.) The only reason I managed to beat them was because another party that had like 79 guys were nearby and decided to help me out. I managed to beat the caravan took all of their ****, and managed to sell them for a profit. I managed to come out with 10k in my purse that day.
Speaking of mercenary work, Influence points are ****ing stupid. Pay me money, I dont need points, I need money, points are just stupid and pointless, give me cash, Cash gives me the ability to do the one fun thing in this game, to wage war. And even then, Im not having that much fun, Im getting taken out with ease if um not careful, my troops cant level up because looters are stupidly fast, and as a result I cant catch them to both level up my troops and make money, and without money I cant buy horses to move faster, which in turn prevents me from chasing looters, I CANT DO ANYTHING, UNLESS PRAY THAT I GET LUCKY.
This isnt fun, it isnt like warband at all, It has all these stupid mechanics that are useless, and terrible. It feels like a rebellious **** head of a kid that went no! screw you dad! I'm going to do my own thing! It's basically boruto, nobody likes him, he's riding of the coattails of his old man, and is just generally a **** head.
Well at least its like that to me.Warband was so magical because it was so simple, and in that simplicity it did so many things right. I feel like if bannerlord didn't have any new features and was literally warband but better graphics and engine, it would have done a lot better.Now, I know banner lord isn't warband, but thats the PROBLEM. It isnt. For me, warband was a masterpiece, even though the graphics were terrible it was still fun. This game COULD have been a magnum opus of taleworlds, but it wasn't. It isnt. I feel like a disappointed parent, I cant even get angry anymore, I just want to turn off the game and go play warband instead whenever the above mentioned problems hit me once more.
The days are to fast. Enemies to fast, to strong and money is a commodity that is hard to yet so easy and fast to lose. Thats Why it feels so souless, it's not fun. And whats up with you getting a banner straight away? It feels like a cop out. It feels to insincere. Like its playing it safe or something.
Well, at least thats my take. I know very well that people aren't me, and they have different opinions, it's probably just me with these problems, but I generally think this is why bannerlord isnt fun for me. I'll put it like this. I have a sword, it's blunt. I have no money and no whetstone. My profession is war and I kill people for money, I cant kill people with a blunt sword now can I? The mechanics are taxes, I have no money, and whenever I do make money i lose it, limiting my ability to get that damn whetstone and making my life miserable.
Also the 40 dollar price tag is absurd. This is game is simply not worth 40 dollars, Now warband? that was worth 40 dollars.
Thats my take on the matter at least. So I'm probably wrong on a lot of things.
And this post is just too many words to say "I suck at the game". First question is, how did you enjoy Warband? As I said above, the gameplay loop is the exact same, hunting down Looters and Bandits was always Early Game 101. All the other criticism can be boiled down to bad criticism or you just being bad at the game.
Recruitment bad
Warband only allowed you to recruit Tier 1 troops and you couldn't do it in Towns. The default Bannerlord system will give you pretty much the exact same thing. Getting relations with towns is really easy and even if you don't have them, you will find plenty of Tier 2 - 3 troops to recruit straight away without relations.
Merchants
You missed the UI buttons that allow you to filter for what you want.
Skills are confusing
Warband was even worse, it's an RPG, learning how to build your character has always been a thing. Read up, all the information is there.
Battle problems
Judging your opponents strength has always been a part of the game, it seems you're bad at it. Lower your difficulty.
Campaign and money problem
"Mommy mommy I don't know how to play the game! I'm disappointed, I paid 40 dollars for this?"

Like seriously, what is the point of this post?
 

AndrewArt

Squire
The progression really kills my vibe for sure. Early game is nice, it's fun doing some quests/tournaments/struggling a bit in fights (if you handicap yourself in some ways at least). The small party really fits my playstyle and it feels like every soldier counts.

Comparing it to late game, where there's 0 need to do quests and tournaments, you don't really struggle anymore in any sense (economically or battles), you don't really care about your soldiers that much, as winning battles is really the only thing left to do in the game. The lack of variety then makes you bored and impatient, and now you just F1 + F3 your troops in to just get over these repetitive encounters on the battlefield. Or you find a superficial goal like trying to raise your medicine skill so you suicide your units, until you realize it was not worth the effort. All this happens because of not enough things to do in the game. Where is some spouse relationship development? Just pay a cow and get a wife. Player hideout, bandit lords? None. I want to interact with some fief-less "lords" and join them to conquer the world as a bandit from 0.

There simply needs to be more things to do, as the game is just empty late in the game. Mid game also! We needed to have our own upgradeable hideout, for it to be a time and money sink, we need more reasons to get castles... For me there is absolutely 0 reason to take a castle. In the beginning it feels like an accomplishment, so you struggle to get your first castle. But then what is left? To defend it and attack another castle... that's all. Why even care to upgrade it? It doesn't belong to you. An enemy can take it right back. No attachment to castles at all. If I had my own little hideout to upgrade and care for, that would feel like a home. Castles and towns feel like nothing. This whole point of conquering the map seems like a really boring concept. And I don't know why. Games like Rome Total War were fun, because they're more strategy focused. I can't put my finger on it but something is truly lacking... the casual nature of the game must be making it so. Even the "hardest" difficulty makes it impossible to get a challenge late game, as all you really need is a bigger party to defeat even the "hardiest" of lords...

So to recap, what I need:
1) more things to do
2) more variety in battles etc, lords need obviously different/flavorful tactics and personalities that really shine. Relationship development with family/spouse. Hideout, bandit lords. Let me have a bandit family and have them live in a hideout! Make it a roguery perk to make it possible to make your own bandit hideout, pls!
3 Also challenge. Please give me a difficulty setting that actually gives the AI an advantage in battle (reduced damage dealt to enemies). It's obvious by now that the player will always outsmart the AI and it will never be challenging. If you put this option + make the AI not recruit a full party in a couple of days (more consequences for AI losing battles), I think you'd have a great game... Impactful/meaningful battles + struggle to win battles, that's what I personally need.
 
Last edited:

AndrewArt

Squire
Some of the stuff Taleworlds has already said they're working on will help. Turning your companions into nobles could be a nice roleplaying feature that lets you feel like you're rewarding them for loyal service.
For it to feel like you're rewarding companions for loyal service I'd need companions to have more depth... It doesn't make me feel what you're implying if they're all robots who will follow my lead no matter what I do. I need some to actually betray me, turn hostile against me and attack my party with theirs (and you don't see them as hostile until it's too late, so it's a very dramatic event. Also they'd try to aim for moments when your party is weakened if possible). I need relationship, and relationship to actually matter in such decisions they do. If I treat them well I expect them to treat me well and be loyal to me, especially if our "styles" are similar. If they're good natured and I don't do any bad stuff I expect them to be more willing to stay loyal to my cause. But if they're more of a rogue and have some nasty traits then I expect them to betray me if I'm too good-natured for their liking, and be more willing to follow me if I'm a raiding, peasant killing bastard... I JUST WANT THAT. Some depth to these characters. If I turn them to lords but I know they will always be loyal no matter what, because they're robots with no feelings, how can I roleplay that they're anything special when they're not? I guarantee I still won't care for them at all... The army template based on personality that you mentioned does really sound good though, those are the kind of additions that we need. Game really needs personality.

PS: I'm reading all the comments and so far I agree with what pretty much everyone is saying. One thing we all agree on, late game do be lacking hard.
 

madnessario

Knight
For it to feel like you're rewarding companions for loyal service I'd need companions to have more depth... It doesn't make me feel what you're implying if they're all robots who will follow my lead no matter what I do. I need some to actually betray me, turn hostile against me and attack my party with theirs (and you don't see them as hostile until it's too late, so it's a very dramatic event. Also they'd try to aim for moments when your party is weakened if possible). I need relationship, and relationship to actually matter in such decisions they do. If I treat them well I expect them to treat me well and be loyal to me, especially if our "styles" are similar. If they're good natured and I don't do any bad stuff I expect them to be more willing to stay loyal to my cause. But if they're more of a rogue and have some nasty traits then I expect them to betray me if I'm too good-natured for their liking, and be more willing to follow me if I'm a raiding, peasant killing bastard... I JUST WANT THAT. Some depth to these characters. If I turn them to lords but I know they will always be loyal no matter what, because they're robots with no feelings, how can I roleplay that they're anything special when they're not? I guarantee I still won't care for them at all... The army template based on personality that you mentioned does really sound good though, those are the kind of additions that we need. Game really needs personality.

PS: I'm reading all the comments and so far I agree with what pretty much everyone is saying. One thing we all agree on, late game do be lacking hard.

Totally agree! The whole trait system and the clan relations (or better yet, individual relations) are not there yet in terms of substance. Traits should create conflict in order for the dynamic system we have (and will have) to make sense.

I havent seen anything though in regards to this in the future work post or the statement v3 post; the latter also needs to be updated!
 

Ser Jon

Squire
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
If you think the first 6 hours are boring you don't want to try the end game, the start of a new campaign is normally the only semi fun part because you have something other to do than constant battles

Yep. Ten or twenty hours into a campaign and the game becomes this boring slog of "kill them again".
 

HugoTheFrenchMan

Master Knight
Late game nothing else no matter what there is nothing to push you back.
Battles become an eysore of recruits in same colour uniforms no matter if you have fought that faction, even if you let a faction build up it's always a majority low tier.
Then you kill them they get new armies with a bunch of high end units start and army get a bunch if recruits drop off high ends at garrison (this happens rarely) repeat.
Early game is enjoyable for the current standing.
 
Top Bottom