• If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
  • Please note that we've updated the Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord save file system which requires you to take certain steps in order for your save files to be compatible with e1.7.1 and any later updates. You can find the instructions here.

The real current problem of this game in terms of balance

Users who are viewing this thread

Grank

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
2) It is a terrible idea to replace clan relationship with individual relationship. Atm you can at least build relationship with a clan by handing in captured lords to one of the clan´s holdings. With individual relationships you would basically be reduced to capture and releash (and forced to do so a truckload of times more).
Just make such actions add relation to every adult member of that clan. It's not hard. Say you rescue a lord from a prison. You get +20 with him and +10 with his clan. Voting for a certain lord to own a castle gives +20 to the lord and +5 to the clan. Stuff like that. This way you can have more realistic relationships with NPC.

"Grank is best friends with Boronchar and is generally liked by his clan."
"Grank is neutral with Abagai but her clan generally dislikes him."
 
Just make such actions add relation to every adult member of that clan. It's not hard. Say you rescue a lord from a prison. You get +20 with him and +10 with his clan. Voting for a certain lord to own a castle gives +20 to the lord and +5 to the clan. Stuff like that. This way you can have more realistic relationships with NPC.

"Grank is best friends with Boronchar and is generally liked by his clan."
"Grank is neutral with Abagai but her clan generally dislikes him."
But what would be the point?

The only practical difference that I can see is that you might experience a very specific situation where a member of clan, from a hostile faction, that you have a good relationship with gets captured and replaced by one you have not developed a relationship with; who then proceed to raid your villages.

Apart from that it might affect a few akward dialogs of the "never seen you before" -> "you are my best friend" nature (which I personally skip anyway).


On the other hand. It would negatively affect your ability to build relationships with members of your faction. E.g. you can only affect the relationship of the owner (clanleader) by handing in captured lords.

I tend to do use that method quite a bit my self so I am not a fan of the proposal.
 

Grank

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
But what would be the point?
Depth and role play. It makes relationship more meaningful like it was in Warband. It also allows deeper politics, especially for mods. Say, stripping a clan of its members one by one into your side. Meddling in a clan's succession crisis. Actual geopolitic because a fief is owned by a person first, and the clan later. These are just from the top of my head. I can keep going if I really try.

The current clan relation system in Bannerlord makes relationship very superficial and gamey. It prevents a lot of cool features to be added in. Again, this wouldn't diminish the current clan relation. It will still exist in a different form. It will only enrich the game.
 
Depth and role play. It makes relationship more meaningful like it was in Warband. It also allows deeper politics, especially for mods. Say, stripping a clan of its members one by one into your side. Meddling in a clan's succession crisis. Actual geopolitic because a fief is owned by a person first, and the clan later. These are just from the top of my head. I can keep going if I really try.

The current clan relation system in Bannerlord makes relationship very superficial and gamey. It prevents a lot of cool features to be added in. Again, this wouldn't diminish the current clan relation. It will still exist in a different form. It will only enrich the game.
Alright, I get it. You feel it will open up for more opportunities. Sure.
 
Depth and role play. It makes relationship more meaningful like it was in Warband. It also allows deeper politics, especially for mods. Say, stripping a clan of its members one by one into your side. Meddling in a clan's succession crisis. Actual geopolitic because a fief is owned by a person first, and the clan later. These are just from the top of my head. I can keep going if I really try.

The current clan relation system in Bannerlord makes relationship very superficial and gamey. It prevents a lot of cool features to be added in. Again, this wouldn't diminish the current clan relation. It will still exist in a different form. It will only enrich the game.
Yeah... I agree on this.
I've always felt the relations kinda superficial.. You don't feel the npc's like actual people, and this is a big thing for me, and i think I can say for the majority of people who want more rp from the game as well.
 

Moton

Knight
I don't think this is as big a problem - in fact I'd rather have the enemy be able to quickly build up an army.

Otherwise after 1 major battle, the entire faction is pretty much finished.
No because usually after such a huge battle you have also sustained large casualties. Maybe still have enough men to take a castle. This is how it should be if you ask me. The end game of Bannerlord is actually just war as it is now. Endlessly grinding the meatgrinder
 

Earth Dragon

Sergeant
I just can’t wait for much of the “anti-snowballing” changes to be undone because the second string of players complain about the “current” game, not understanding where it was, and then we can go full circle and after 2 years of EA, we can right back to the beginning
 

Akka

Sergeant at Arms
I just can’t wait for much of the “anti-snowballing” changes to be undone because the second string of players complain about the “current” game, not understanding where it was, and then we can go full circle and after 2 years of EA, we can right back to the beginning
Maybe because a number of "anti-snowballing" systems are completely dumb and gamey ? There were numerous suggestions on how to fix the snowballing in a more immersive way, that were ignored. Can't blame people for not liking bad fixes.
 

kweassa

Sergeant at Arms
Honestly, it's not that much of a problem.

Most of these situations happen when the player takes things too fast. The game gives you something like 10 in-game-years amounting up to 1,500 or something days to get the main story quests done. And if you don't care about the quest, the game itself doesn't really have any time limit or an ending, other than what you make.

Those 10 years is plenty enough time to first build up you character's personal abilities, make yourself known to the realms, build up a significant economic base even when not being a part of any kingdom, and then gradually set up a very powerful player army that suffers minimal attrition in battles. Add to that the extra income if you do start owning land and etc.. and the wars become easier to manage. Especially if you have a strong economic base + mountain piles of money you've saved up to that point.

However, people tend to take the pace of the game much too quickly, build up an army with inadequate economic base, in which even minor rate of attrition, or a single Pyrrhic victory is enough to drop your forces to the gutter.

The game's always been that of the "long-game." Use your character's literal "life time" to plan things and slowly and meticulously build fr it, instead of try to rush for it.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
However, people tend to take the pace of the game much too quickly, build up an army with inadequate economic base, in which even minor rate of attrition, or a single Pyrrhic victory is enough to drop your forces to the gutter.

The game's always been that of the "long-game." Use your character's literal "life time" to plan things and slowly and meticulously build fr it, instead of try to rush for it.
That's because the game encourages the players to do that. There is nothing in your first playthrough that will teach you those lessons. It doesn't even hint at it. You just kinda expand at what feels like a decent pace, only to find yourself getting gangbanged by five other factions because you had the temerity to try to own a decent castle and the only way out is paying outrageous amounts of tribute. It is a really frustrating thing to experience and puts most people off the game when it happens.
 
Just give each city and village manpower that is based on their prosperity (or whatever represents population atm) and slowly regenerates. Better relations = more access to manpower, ownership of the town / being king = even more access.
 

Grank

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
That's because the game encourages the players to do that.
How? We actually get punished for building too quickly. For example, recruiting too many people at one means you will have an army of recruits, which would die and rout easily while being slow on the map. Then there's the wage. It's true that there's no lesson on this in-game, and that sucks for inexperienced players. It took me several tries to finally get a probe on how good an army has to be to actually beat lords and stuff, and all those losses suck.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
The main quest and the relative ease with which you can ninja your first castle, or even town if you're lucky.

In the interest of being constructive, I think it would be unironically better for the game if you had to pay like 75,000 or more denars to form your own kingdom. Sure, it is kind of a grind to get there if you're not fighting battles but if 75,000 is still a big deal to you, you're not ready for the amount of money required to maintain several strong garrisons or recruit clans or pay tribute to stave off war.

Maybe then, in exchange, they could just give the player kingdom a little 42 day cheat where they won't get declared upon by the AI.
 

kweassa

Sergeant at Arms
That's because the game encourages the players to do that. There is nothing in your first playthrough that will teach you those lessons. It doesn't even hint at it. You just kinda expand at what feels like a decent pace, only to find yourself getting gangbanged by five other factions because you had the temerity to try to own a decent castle and the only way out is paying outrageous amounts of tribute. It is a really frustrating thing to experience and puts most people off the game when it happens.

Er... which game in the market teaches you the overall effective strategy in the first playthrough?
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
Er... which game in the market teaches you the overall effective strategy in the first playthrough?
IME?
1) Total War: Three Kingdoms via missions and the campaign guardrails.
2) Crusader Kings 2 via a dozen or so pop-ups that, if followed, make it very hard to lose without understanding.
3) HighFleet by way of a training campaign and in-character exposition.
4) HBS Battletech via good UI design and having the AI teach the player with its own actions.
Just give each city and village manpower that is based on their prosperity (or whatever represents population atm) and slowly regenerates. Better relations = more access to manpower, ownership of the town / being king = even more access.
This is what happens when high prosperity towns start to rise up; they get way more notables and the player gets a bonus (or did?) for being the owner, basically free slots. You can also leave an ambassador in town and rack up free relations that way.
 
Top Bottom