Userre
Recruit
Bannerlord's pacing has been a somewhat contentious topic since launch. This is primarily due to snowballing. The devs did an excellent job in really tackling that problem, and so it doesn't feel like the rush to king that it used to be.
However, the pacing of the game as it currently stands doesn't match what one would expect from a game that so strongly supports Clan mechanics, the most important being the continuation of play as a relative of your original character. This feature is incredibly useful, especially in those circumstances where your main character might die early on. For those who are afraid of that circumstance, I strongly encourage trying to play with death on, even at a reduced rate. It can really add to the experience, especially for those campaigns that have gone on for years in game.
The issue, though, is that Bannerlord's general pacing is similar to that of Warband. The time needed to set up an army and siege and capture a single city is in the realm of a month in-game, when there are currently features that are intended to be utilized with dozens or even over a hundred years in a campaign. The problem is that as you progress through the game, some factions die and no new ones crop up. Your faction (should you have one) can't break up, and other factions can't break up either. This leads to a problem; as you play more and more (a few dozen years), the game becomes less interesting with less factions to interact with and no new challenges to face.
That's why I think it's necessary that the game introduce elements to either shift the pacing of the game or constantly provide political events throughout the campaign, including massive civil wars among the larger factions or even a mass slaughter of a faction's nobility by the king. Imagine if you were part of Vlandia on your main character, Derthert has died and his son was made king. He invites you and most lords (let's say just clan leaders) to a feast where you're slaughtered. This would be an incredibly rare event as to not dissuade players from participating in feasts, and so feasts would also have other features (major tournaments, relations building, etc) in order to persuade players to take part in them.
I think a lot of these events should be driven by cultural challenges. As of now, there is already a key cultural challenge in the game; civil unrest can lead to rebellions which can be costly and time-consuming, or even debilitating, to deal with. However, there's a lot of potential. Rebellions should be dynamic, where if there are multiple fiefs leading towards rebellion, they can group up to be a more meaningful force. This can lead to one kind of civil war. Cultures in general should wish to preserve themselves by always tending towards creating or sustaining their own independent faction. In order to avoid problems with the largest Empire culture, we can distinguish between the southern, western, and northern cultures, or create new systems that can allow these factions to sustain themselves or even recreate themselves should they be extinguished and the right circumstance present itself.
Events such as these would force adaptation, changes in playstyle and overall planning from the player, and so long as the game maintains a balance of AI power within the game, it can allow the player to play in a much more enjoyable and timeless sandbox environment, which would make continued play with other clan members a much more meaningful and interesting proposition.
Furthermore, I'd propose that these challenges should face the player as well. These shouldn't be entirely random, but for example if a large percentage of your nobility dislikes you or dislikes a sufficient number of policies, they can come to you with ultimatums or even abdicate with their fiefs, or create a new faction and wage civil war. If you're an incredibly renowned player and you're captured by a lord that truly despises you, there should be a decent chance that your main character gets executed (this may be in the game, but I've never witnessed it). These events should always be driven by the player's actions and hence can be avoided, but they should still exist to challenge the player in those circumstances.
Anyways, that's about it. If anyone happens to read this, tell me what you think of some of these suggestions.
However, the pacing of the game as it currently stands doesn't match what one would expect from a game that so strongly supports Clan mechanics, the most important being the continuation of play as a relative of your original character. This feature is incredibly useful, especially in those circumstances where your main character might die early on. For those who are afraid of that circumstance, I strongly encourage trying to play with death on, even at a reduced rate. It can really add to the experience, especially for those campaigns that have gone on for years in game.
The issue, though, is that Bannerlord's general pacing is similar to that of Warband. The time needed to set up an army and siege and capture a single city is in the realm of a month in-game, when there are currently features that are intended to be utilized with dozens or even over a hundred years in a campaign. The problem is that as you progress through the game, some factions die and no new ones crop up. Your faction (should you have one) can't break up, and other factions can't break up either. This leads to a problem; as you play more and more (a few dozen years), the game becomes less interesting with less factions to interact with and no new challenges to face.
That's why I think it's necessary that the game introduce elements to either shift the pacing of the game or constantly provide political events throughout the campaign, including massive civil wars among the larger factions or even a mass slaughter of a faction's nobility by the king. Imagine if you were part of Vlandia on your main character, Derthert has died and his son was made king. He invites you and most lords (let's say just clan leaders) to a feast where you're slaughtered. This would be an incredibly rare event as to not dissuade players from participating in feasts, and so feasts would also have other features (major tournaments, relations building, etc) in order to persuade players to take part in them.
I think a lot of these events should be driven by cultural challenges. As of now, there is already a key cultural challenge in the game; civil unrest can lead to rebellions which can be costly and time-consuming, or even debilitating, to deal with. However, there's a lot of potential. Rebellions should be dynamic, where if there are multiple fiefs leading towards rebellion, they can group up to be a more meaningful force. This can lead to one kind of civil war. Cultures in general should wish to preserve themselves by always tending towards creating or sustaining their own independent faction. In order to avoid problems with the largest Empire culture, we can distinguish between the southern, western, and northern cultures, or create new systems that can allow these factions to sustain themselves or even recreate themselves should they be extinguished and the right circumstance present itself.
Events such as these would force adaptation, changes in playstyle and overall planning from the player, and so long as the game maintains a balance of AI power within the game, it can allow the player to play in a much more enjoyable and timeless sandbox environment, which would make continued play with other clan members a much more meaningful and interesting proposition.
Furthermore, I'd propose that these challenges should face the player as well. These shouldn't be entirely random, but for example if a large percentage of your nobility dislikes you or dislikes a sufficient number of policies, they can come to you with ultimatums or even abdicate with their fiefs, or create a new faction and wage civil war. If you're an incredibly renowned player and you're captured by a lord that truly despises you, there should be a decent chance that your main character gets executed (this may be in the game, but I've never witnessed it). These events should always be driven by the player's actions and hence can be avoided, but they should still exist to challenge the player in those circumstances.
Anyways, that's about it. If anyone happens to read this, tell me what you think of some of these suggestions.