Hours played this hours played that, genuinely who gives a ****? The game is blatantly unfinished! This is not a matter of opinion. Multiplayer is barely functioning on release and barebones besides. Singleplayer is a wasteland battle simulator with dummy ai. If this is worthy of being called finished in your opinion then I envy your taste.
In my opinion this is not a release that should be praised or rewarded. This is a kick out the door and a console cash in, TaleWorlds are washing their hands of the responsibility. I suggest people who care about hours played try engaging with the actual arguments people are making rather than smugly pointing their finger at the hours played and declaring victory. Smug replies incoming I'm sure.
+1Some people seem to be satisfied with the current results. That's fine, enjoy yourselves, my response is to never give this company another cent for the rest of my lifetime unless something radically changes. I somehow doubt that however.
Since I already paid, I come around to keep tabs and see what's going on and even occasionally commiserate. Of course there will be mods to play this game and make it somewhat enjoyable, but there are of course the continual frustrations as well.
Ultimately however, I just will vote with my wallet. No reason to get emotional and argue with the Taleworlds defense force on these forums, and certainly no use begging decision makers who don't give a @#$^% to act like they do.
Many decisions are made for the player on a regular basis, or are false choices where the player's input doesn't change the outcome. An obvious example of the former is the automatic recruitment/upgrading of troops in castle and town garrisons. Can't turn off recruitment, can't turn off upgrading, can't even decide what troops it upgrades into. If you don't fully stuff a garrison yourself (after emptying all of the trash out of it) then when you come back a month later it will be packed with units you often don't want. This actually creates a continually escalating problem for the player if they don't actively purge the garrison on a regular basis, as you still have to pay for all of these troops as they are recruited into the garrisons and upgraded, alongside their usual wages.
For the latter, kingdom policies can make holding onto certain settlements a nightmare with the rebellion system. If you join a faction that wants to pass all of the policies which reduce town loyalty (like debasement of currency) then any foreign towns you wind up with are going to be stuck in a catch-22: an upgraded building can get your loyalty equilibrium out of the rebellion range, but your stacked loyalty penalties are so strong that you have to run the festival continuous project to stay out of rebellion range. Unfortunately, the AI seems to universally want some policies and never others. The support splits are almost entirely lopsided along the lines of 90:10 one way or the other, and they remain that way once the policy has passed. It's also a trap to choose a culture during character creation which matches the faction you join (except imperial) because the only way you're going to get settlements of your culture is if your faction loses some of their starting territories and retakes them. Congratulations on your new castle or town, you only got it because your faction couldn't keep hold of it the first time. The AI is firmly in the driver's seat and takes you along for a ride.
Look at the pre-battle formations/OOB update: we gained the ability to pre-position our troops and assign companions to them as leaders. We lost the ability to manually designate certain troop types into different groups, so you're stuck with broad classifications for troops which may have a common baseline but differing roles, or are the same role but different tiers. The prioritization toggles can sort-of alleviate that, but they don't work 100% and you still end up with troop types bleeding into different groups if their base class is the same (e.g. melee cavalry includes conventional cav like vlandian knights as well as skirmisher cav like aserai faris, which have differing engagement behavior). Also, companions can't be manually assigned to a specific group, they're stuck with whatever classification the game thinks is best for them when they're generated and that's what they are. Your brother is considered infantry even though he has riding skill and you can give him a horse.
I'm sure some people have, but my issue with it is more about garrisoning troops I already have in my party which are ready to upgrade but which I have chosen not to upgrade. I made this mistake with some Vlandian spearmen at one point when I wanted to go out and recruit some more troops. About 30 out of the ~45 I had were ready to upgrade, I stuck them in a garrison to make space, came back and they were all billmen. I was specifically saving them to upgrade into infantry, though, so they would still have shields, and I take advantage of XP being shared across all troops of the same type so I upgrade my troops in batches rather than doing it as soon as each individual is ready. It's pretty hard to get 3 footmen upgraded when they're in a formation with 50 swordsmen, because those footmen will hardly get any kills. So I come back with another batch of squires to level up along with my spearmen only to find that they're all billmen I don't want. Back to the Fians as an example, imagine putting 100 Fians ready to upgrade into a garrison (1200 wages when you put them in) only to come back the next day and they're all Fian Champions (1700 wages) on their own. If you set a wage cap, does it just disband Fian Champions until it's back down to the cap? How many troops do you lose?I don't think anyone has lived long enough to see a T1 Recruit placed in the Garrison reach T5 or T6.
^This is what I was going to say. My gameplay has degraded over many games to just using the garrison more like a trash can then a garrison. Anything useful has to remain in my party. Even prisoners can't be safely stored to recruit later causing me to carry a massive pile of 1 troops for later. IMO we need much more exact control over what the things we own or pay for, including prisons, garrisons and clan parties.I'm sure some people have, but my issue with it is more about garrisoning troops I already have in my party which are ready to upgrade but which I have chosen not to upgrade.
OP also said that there were hundreds of other bugs reported since 1.9 that were never fixed. Many of them are major issues.I mean. You're actually very sensible and I can agree with this comment, but for most people including me these are tiny almost non issues. Don't get me wrong, should be fixed, but such unimportant things that I wasn't even aware of since I've never had it happen or noticed, as well as reading them I wouldn't even really care if it happened.
Well, this sums it up nicely and squarely. A bit too squarely though.Money. Everything, boils, down, to, money. They needed it, console release supplied it.
Welcome to Bannerlord. Not fixing game breaking bugs is TW's hobby. It took them two years to "fix" (kinda) siege ladders in a game that is about battles and sieges.OP also said that there were hundreds of other bugs reported since 1.9 that were never fixed. Many of them are major issues.
Here's two that I want to draw attention to:
This bug makes large army battles less rewarding and ultimately pointless for mercenaries or minor vassals, just a T5 troop sink.When you have a battle and the enemy flee. A new battle take place right after with the fleeing party. But the experience you get from the first fight is lost. Let's say the post battle report from the first fight says I had 14 troops that did level up. As I got no chance to actually level up...forums.taleworlds.com
It also happens to small party fights if at least 10 units got away, so it affects almost all phases of the game.
Two of the strongest infantry formations for countering cavalry got nerfed. Infantry are pretty much sitting ducks for horse archers.Summary:Troops in square formation only face forwards when they should face all directions such as in 1.8 How to Reproduce: Command troops with shields to perform square formation Have you used cheats and if so which: No Scene Name (if related): N/A Media (Screenshots & Video): Computer Specs...forums.taleworlds.com
Both threads immediately received a reply that QA was made aware of the issues. Since beta 1.9 they knew about these bugs.
I'm making my review negative so that I can hopefully save someone the future disappointment. This is an obvious sign of either incompetence or laziness, maybe both:
Isn't that just disappointing? It's ridiculous too. If this is going to be their company culture from now on then it's best not to expect anything from them. It's also best to tell other people to stay away until TW can own up to their mistakes and earn back user trust.
- Both bugs are easy to reproduce so the editing and testing cycle should be straightforward.
- The intended features worked properly before, so someone just has to look at what's been changed in the relevant parts of the code.
- It's already been a month, and there's still no patch for TWO major bugs.
- While fully aware of two major game breaking bugs, they just went ahead and proudly announced the game was released. That'll be $49.99, please!
They were actively working on the console version in 2020 and said so. They said console release was only going to happen in the distant future but mexxico (for example) had been putting off working on console optimization since the summer of 2020:Im sure theres more to it, but it has to be most of the reason. I remember back in september 2020 TW was adamant that console versions were something to think only in the future. Then 2022 becomes all about console release... it feels wrong.
I am not fan of spending time for console works. They want me to make optimization at these campaign ai codes since summer. I always delayed it to make single player at PC better first. But it seems I cannot run away from this anymore.
they were working on or at least hiring for some space game some years ago, probably best they dont announce it for another 10 yearsI can pretty much guarantee there will not be the same fanfare for a MB3 if it ever happens at this point. Which begs the question what is the future for TW then? Maybe they were smart and started working on another title, I sure hope so, otherwise I can't see how they'll be able to generate enough sales to stay afloat. Anyone defending TW and the state of Bannerlord at this point is doing so to TW's detriment IMHO.
Probably Ship & Shoot: Cyberlord, set in the distant future of 2040. Conquer the stars by stopping in your spaceship to accurately hit enemies in SPACE! Only it'll be released in 2042, so actually takes place in the past.they were working on or at least hiring for some space game some years ago, probably best they dont announce it for another 10 years