This game is just war simulator.

Users who are viewing this thread

But it has each of those things. It sacrifices depth of gameplay that those specialised games have in their specialist areas, to include a wider variety of things to do.

Does it really though?
Sure it has rpg mechanics and an overworld, but so do a lot of anime porn games, and people still only play those for one reason.
My point is that while bannerlord has elements from different genres, the battles are at the centre of it all, and if you removed them the game would be a laughable shell of nothing, like a p2w mobile game.

Something like fallout 4 is a jack of all trades because it has about 3 different core mechanics it pushes you to using (shooting, base building and looting/exploration), but if you removed any of them the game would still be intact. On the other hand the new God of War games have a lot of very basic puzzles in them that wouldn't stand up on their own, but exist to give breaks to the combat which is what the game is really about.

Its not a jack of all trades just because it has token elements from different genres.
 
"People" hmm? lol....
Including everyone in this forum still counts as "people". setevepine included.

And I sure understand their vision™, but it sure seems to be a bland shell of a game. I can hope they are ghostupdating to include basic stuff like relations, which were present in warband. But it's just a fraction of what made M&B great before, and more stuff is definitely needed, though unlikely to be added for the next year or two. Who knows in the future?
 
Last edited:
That's a pacing issue and good mechanics adding substance wouldn't spoil the game it would make is leaps and bonds better and not just a boring fight game. people should play chivalry 2 or the like or stick the online multiplayer if they want just battles, Warband had more to do than Bannerlord and that's the problem. Plus one the Big stand out mods is Banner kings they have mad it work.
I'm not asking for a pure fighting game at all.

Changing the pacing of the campaign would require quite a few changes to the nature of the game itself. Stuff I dunno is feasible.

Again, I think its so much better off if they focused on stuff like being able to make camps, set up ambushes, manage soldier relations, check on camp followers, that sort of thing.
 
The game simply is not well suited to that Crusader Kings thing at all, at least as it is though. Its very possible to fly through stuff too fast and have a lot done before your kids are even ready to take over.
This

As nice as the "dynasty" mechanics might seem, I don't think anyone really wants to play a campaign so long that their main character dies of old age, their kid takes over, and you have to level up all over again. It *might* work if conquering the map was a truly difficult or borderline impossible task. The real meat of the game should be in trying to maintain a Kingdom. Like you can maybe conquer the map for a brief time while with some expert vassal management, but it should not be something that lasts.

Any Kingdom that gets too big should be prone to splinter apart.


I think TW really should have just focused on improving what they had with Warband. Have characters that are unique, actually interesting and persistent. These generic, cardboard cut-out NPCs really do not do the game any favors. Having any NPCs with actual personalities would do quite a bit for the game. Like a cowardly Lord who will never fight unless they have a numerical advantage and surrenders fairly easily if outmatched. Actual companions, not just these "blank slate" formation captains. Anything that adds dynamism to the game.

Ultimately the game should be focused on 3 things: Battles, Party Management, Kingdom Management

Anything beyond that should be regarded as side activity at the most


Battles are sound, truthfully only reason folks still play this game is for the spectacle/thrill of battles. This is the absolute core of the game. That said there's still room for improvement here. A lot of balance issues between troops, sieges still feel W.I.P., better troop deployment/orders, etc. This about only thing I can say has really gotten better during EA, though feels like it too way too long. And I'm not sure without RBM it would have gotten this far.

Party Management is lacking. Simple things like "sorting" would do wonders for the player. Nevermind friendly A.I. parties should have a lot more going for them. Like just some basic forms of command "defend this fief", "recruit these units", etc. I think there's way too much focus on trade/economy, which really doesn't add anything to the game. It just wastes both player and development time from the fighting bit for no real reason. It's not like a lack of food variety or armor effects how you recruit units.

Kingdom Management is the real problem. It's a joke actually. Strangely fief management is very detailed though, and with actual cultural effects could literally be it's own strategy game. But the stupid constant non-sense war declarations that just get out of out control once you're doing well. The lack of truces/alliances. There's no diplomacy in this game and nothing is explained to the player in a meaningful, sensible way. You can't have a war game with multiple Kingdoms and not have some rudimentary diplomacy. There's no civil war or in-factions, you just pick a color and that's it. The horrible way Kingdom Policies are voted on too.

Then there's being a monarch. All you do is slap your vassals on the wrists for being idiots. You can't order armies or anything. It's such a meaningless and hollow thing to be a ruler. Supposedly this is the goal of the game, but honestly you aren't missing anything if you never get this far. You are basically just Joe Bowers from Idiocracy.


Too much of this game has been "balanced" around what are effectively incomplete game features
 
Any Kingdom that gets too big should be prone to splinter apart.

Loads of grand strategy games fail to address this problem, and I think most of the issue is this idea of map painting. That once you conquer something it's just yours with no strings. They could fix half the grind in the game by making actual annexation a difficult process, and having most wars end in vassal treaties between the defeated party and the victor, sort of like peace deals in paradox games (the one major thing those games get right imo). That way a big empire is more like a series of treaties than a single state, and a weak kingdom could be forced to capitulate through just field battles rather than by assaulting every settlement, while a weak overlord could easily lose its vassal after getting spanked on the battlefield by someone else.
 
Last edited:
You've literally answered your own question.

If Bannerlord could only autoresolve battles, it would be like a bad version of Civilisation games.
If Bannerlord didn't have first-person, it would be like a bad version of Total War games
If Bannerlord didn't have a 3d world map with full battles it would be like a bad version of Crusader Kings.

But it has each of those things. It sacrifices depth of gameplay that those specialised games have in their specialist areas, to include a wider variety of things to do. Certainly the battles are a big part of Bannerlord, but it is also a 1v1 combat sim. And you can quite easily play the game by pressing auto-resolve for every battle.

This is where the jack of all trades comment comes in. And why Bannerlord will never be as good as all those other games in their specialised areas - which will always leave those who expect it to be unsatisfied.

Disagree because a Jack of All Trades is decent at all things just master of none. None of those things besides the actual combat hold up on even a ios game caliber level.
 
Loads of grand strategy games fail to address this problem, and I think most of the issue is this idea of map painting. That once you conquer something it's just yours with no strings. They could fix half the grind in the game by making actual annexation a difficult process, and having most wars end in vassal treaties between the defeated party and the victor, sort of like peace deals in paradox games (the one major thing those games get right imo). That way a big empire is more like a series of treaties than a single state, and a weak kingdom could be forced to capitulate through just field battles rather than by assaulting every settlement, while a weak overlord could easily lose its vassal after getting spanked on the battlefield by someone else.
Exactly this.

The only way I've managed that has been with diplomacy, separatism and AI Values Life mods together, with certain configs. So any big sprawling empire has a hard time staying united after a while, which makes total sense and absolutely makes late game better.
 
It is a jack of all trades game that offers a little of what dozens of genre-specific games offer in great detail.

That is both its beauty, and its curse. It is the reason so many are addicted to it in spite of it's flaws, and why so many people dislike it, but still play.

It is a little bit real time battle simulator, a little bit role playing, a little bit diplomacy, a little bit FPS and a little bit of many other genres. There are better games in all those genres which specialise. Total War is a better tactical battle simulator, Crusader Kings has better diplomacy, Civilisation games are better for building empires etc etc. But Bannerlord offers more diversity of experience than them all, because they specialise.

So people who play Bannerlord and Crusader Kings are sad because diplomacy lacks. But they still play for the tactical battle. People who play Total War are sad because tactical battles lack, but still play for the FPS thrill of being in the battle. People who play Civilisation are sad because they have so little control over the development of their empire. But they still play because they can walk about their cities and see the buildings during a siege.

Bannerlord will never be as good at your favourite specialised game, at it's specialisation. It will offer a little bit of that. Just enough to support it's breadth.
I am still searching the diplomacy in the game. To me, it is non-existent.

But still, let's assume bannerlord has a little bit of everything ... what a poor AI ...
 
Again, I think its so much better off if they focused on stuff like being able to make camps, set up ambushes, manage soldier relations, check on camp followers, that sort of thing.
These would be good additions to the military side of the game definitely. But the diplomacy and kingdom ties is important too. But the character relations working would create alliances and feuds between characters or clans. For me the battles just need formations that work and don't blob only scattering on low morale other than that for me combat is ok.
 
Last edited:
You've literally answered your own question.

If Bannerlord could only autoresolve battles, it would be like a bad version of Civilisation games.
If Bannerlord didn't have first-person, it would be like a bad version of Total War games
If Bannerlord didn't have a 3d world map with full battles it would be like a bad version of Crusader Kings.

But it has each of those things. It sacrifices depth of gameplay that those specialised games have in their specialist areas, to include a wider variety of things to do. Certainly the battles are a big part of Bannerlord, but it is also a 1v1 combat sim. And you can quite easily play the game by pressing auto-resolve for every battle.

This is where the jack of all trades comment comes in. And why Bannerlord will never be as good as all those other games in their specialised areas - which will always leave those who expect it to be unsatisfied.
what are you even on about, you're using battle mechanics as evidence that bannerlord isn't just a battle simulator
 
what are you even on about, you're using battle mechanics as evidence that bannerlord isn't just a battle simulator
The key word.

I also evidenced diplomacy. And empire building. The point being that it is diverse, and yes that includes comparing to other battle games to show it does more than them outside their specialisations, and comparing to diplomacy and empire building games to show that it does battles.

You can successfully play Bannerlord by autoresolving every battle if you choose - proving it isn't just a battle simulator. You're left with a mediocre empire building game with mediocre diplomacy. It's the full scope of mediocre things that makes it unique.
 
Last edited:
It is a jack of all trades game that offers a little of what dozens of genre-specific games offer in great detail.

That is both its beauty, and its curse. It is the reason so many are addicted to it in spite of it's flaws, and why so many people dislike it, but still play.

It is a little bit real time battle simulator, a little bit role playing, a little bit diplomacy, a little bit FPS and a little bit of many other genres. There are better games in all those genres which specialise. Total War is a better tactical battle simulator, Crusader Kings has better diplomacy, Civilisation games are better for building empires etc etc. But Bannerlord offers more diversity of experience than them all, because they specialise.

So people who play Bannerlord and Crusader Kings are sad because diplomacy lacks. But they still play for the tactical battle. People who play Total War are sad because tactical battles lack, but still play for the FPS thrill of being in the battle. People who play Civilisation are sad because they have so little control over the development of their empire. But they still play because they can walk about their cities and see the buildings during a siege.

Bannerlord will never be as good at your favourite specialised game, at it's specialisation. It will offer a little bit of that. Just enough to support it's breadth.
Tactical battle. Yeah ok, this game tries to be everything and it's just one thing, barely
 
Kenshi 2 when?!?!
Soon™.

Outside of battles, all of the game includes mediocre mechanics which makes this game a battle simulator.
Decent battle simulator. Not great, decent, as stated by
Tactical battle. Yeah ok, this game tries to be everything and it's just one thing, barely

Unfortunately, for now, TW has no prospect of improving diplomacy. I know nothing about relations being added in, i can only hope™.

Maybe, just maybe, with enough hope™ we can get better battle formations and AI somewhat soon. Especially since it was such a big improvement with the new improved spacing. But that in itself is still too little. We need better behaviour, less blobbing. Then again, i never know what im talking about.
 
You can successfully play Bannerlord by autoresolving every battle if you choose - proving it isn't just a battle simulator. You're left with a mediocre empire building game with mediocre diplomacy. It's the full scope of mediocre things that makes it unique.
stop dying on this hill, calling the game a jack of all trades because you can slightly touch the most depthless skinny bone ass features is just out of touch. people play the game for the battles because it's the only interesting thing it offers
 
stop dying on this hill, calling the game a jack of all trades because you can slightly touch the most depthless skinny bone ass features is just out of touch. people play the game for the battles because it's the only interesting thing it offers

Or you could respond to the points made. The fact that you haven't, and are just telling me to stop dying on a hill, suggests you have no adequate response. I'm happy to take the concession.
 
Back
Top Bottom