This game sucks

Users who are viewing this thread

That "the number of suggestions is so disproportionately high like this" can boil down to late game sucks and no rpg elements.
Boiling it down to a bland statement is meaningless. To achieve your aim, TW would have to implement a lot of new features and code. Why haven't they done this as they're not blind to player comments? Either they disagree with alternative visions or they are overloaded with higher priorities. Probably both.
The bulk of EA saw TW firefighting bugs/crashes to stabilise and optimise performance of the game on pcs, limiting their scope to add new features (although lots of new features, scenes and assets were added). Guess what, releasing console versions and custom mp servers has introduced a new round of firefighting bugs/crashes in those arenas.
AFAIK it might be some time before that dust settles and TW can re-schedule their priorities. The first round of pc firefighting wasn't quick.
There are still areas where the modding tools have suffered neglect due to TWs primary focus on eliminating crashes and game-breaking bugs for players.
In any event, I can't see TW adding anything outside of their published roadmaps, other than as future DLCs, whatever anyone posts.
 
Last edited:
That same observation can also tell that the number of people working on BL is low.
I mean... sure? I was saying basically the same thing. They seem overwhelmed with the workload. It's just that I don't have data on how many programmers they have so I mentioned skill instead. It could be one or the other, or even both. Point is the same.
 
I mean... sure? I was saying basically the same thing. They seem overwhelmed with the workload. It's just that I don't have data on how many programmers they have so I mentioned skill instead. It could be one or the other, or even both. Point is the same.
I'm pretty sure the majority of TW is working on their space game.

Awhile back, they confirmed that they were doing a sci-fi game. I'm guessing they'll take Bannerlord and swap out some assets, change the UI and call it a day.
 
according to Armagan bc he had already said that BL will offer such an experience that the players feel like they are in Game of Thrones
Maybe he meant the disastrous way the show ended?

I'm pretty sure the majority of TW is working on their space game.

Awhile back, they confirmed that they were doing a sci-fi game.
Too late, it's already here: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2316751071
 
When I said the number of people working on BL is low, I meant the proportion of TW's employees working on BL is low.
Alright. So there's the disconnect between us. When I said "them" I was referring to the people working on Bannerlord, while you were referring to Taleworlds as a whole. So in conclusion, those people really are overwhelmed, and you gave the reason that it's because Taleworlds only allocated a few people into Bannerlord.
 
Maybe he meant the disastrous way the show ended?
:ROFLMAO: I never thought in that way.
those people really are overwhelmed, and you gave the reason that it's because Taleworlds only allocated a few people into Bannerlord.
And this is totally fine, right? This justifies everything wrong about BL then?

You said TW increased rp elements with BL, right? Then let me copy paste something I wrote at reddit a while back which explains how they ruined it with BL:

"People bring up Warband because at that time the game made you feel you are raising through hierarchy by your martial prowess, your honor or dishonor, your renown which can deplete if you are inactive too long, raising your rtr, being able to be a martial. But now, you can almost do all of this by either with your money or influence which is a mana that completely destroys my immersion. While in Warband I had to roleplay an honorable guy or dishonorable guy to do that, in Bannerlord getting influence does not require any kind of roleplay.

I mean, you join a kingdom and you are just a new boy or girl and you want to create an army? Fine, kill bunch of looters and summon the party of the son of the ruler into your army because you have this ridiculous currency called influence. Who thought this was a good idea is beyond me. I have written this so many times, at the forums, at here.

There is a tactic in the game to sabotage your faction by gathering a huge army and staying in one place while your faction land burns to oblivion and while this is happening, the lords in my army do not give a f, just because I have enough influence to do so. They do not have any means to counter my actions because by game design, npc lords in Bannerlord are some kind of entity just for the players to fight against or to fight with. While in Warband, the lord parties was able to abandon the martial party like real people do. You know, they have lands, they don't want that lands to be raided.

And while I am a new boy in the faction, no one, I mean no one can summon me to their own army and who other than me have this ability? Only the ruler party can not be summoned to armies. Right from the start, I am treated like a ruler. While in Warband, I can be summoned by martial and if I decline or do not join my relation with his decrease.

Bannerlord can not trick my mind that I achieved something because in early game I am not treated like a guy who just joined a faction. While in late game, I can not enjoy being a ruler and managing my kingdom and the relation with other kingdoms because there is not any game mechanic to do that.

So without the things I mentioned, all of the improvements are not important because core of the game fails to satisfy me who enjoyed playing Warband.

Edit: I forgot the mention there was a controversy mechanic in Warband. You know as a martial you have to be successful if you don't, this stat will rise and you will be replaced. The mechanic is there, you can read it. I don't care if it was good mechanic or not btw because at least with this mechanic being in the game, Warband tried to be a game which aligns with common sense. While in Bannerlord, you just have to have enough influence."

Let me add something more:

"I can not start my own faction before clan tier 4. Why? In Warband, i could do that and lords was reacting to my kingdom with respect to my right to rule points. Bannerlord cuts an important role play here.

We are ****ing getting cutscene for marriage in the ****ing campaign map while in Warband, lords were attending my wedding in real time, because there was a feast feature.

While we are talking about feasts, this was a perfect opportunity for war councils by using feast feature from Warband but no, suddenly a forgotten telepathy magic appears in Calradia and lords deciding what to do via discord meeting.

A messenger system is suggested, maybe a thousand times in the forums, while npc lords still using discord for this kind of thing, i had to chase down minor factions to recruit them as a mothe****ing faction leader. What TW said about this is "we want players to explore the map" then how the **** kingdom decisions can be voted via discord meeting."

Yeah, yeah lots of rp elements and immersion with BL. 🤡💊💊
 
Many threads in that subforum indicate that it takes them weeks or months, even over a year in some cases, to implement changes. This is what I meant by skill issue on their part. They're clearly overwhelmed by this development and couldn't handle it properly. That's why they can't respond to every single feedback, especially the big ones. Making a bad response can lead to disaster as seen on early EA.

Your argument that they don't listen enough does carry some weight, but when the number of suggestions is so disproportionately high like this, it's unfair to use that argument to say that they don't listen, because they actually do. This situation sucks, yes, but get over it already.

I was exaggerating the time required to make the fix to make a point....which is that unless it is painfully easy to do, they do not do it.

And whether or not they don't listen because they lack the required skill, they still do not really listen to their community. They take the little meager fixes or suggestions they can implement relatively quick and easily as barebones, and nothing else. For everything else, they either ignore it or say it's not in their vision or "too difficult".

It's not unfair at all to say, and the fact that people keep babying them and making excuses for their behavior encourages them to keep doing it. And no, I won't. I spent good money on this game and I love the original franchise, so I want to see it get better. Even if that means posting constantly or repeating Bannerlord's numerous problems. You might be more than capable of giving up or accepting low effort quality, terrible excuses or whatnot, but I am not. And telling me to "get over it" just makes you dismissive, rude and come off incredibly biased.
 
And this is totally fine, right? This justifies everything wrong about BL then?
Nope. Never said that. All I'm saying is that people shouldn't be such immature bunch of screaming monkeys about it. If the issue is Taleworlds not allocating enough people to work on Bannerlord and you want them to allocate more, then say that. Insulting the devs who are simply overwhelmed due to bad management doesn't deliver that message. "But we were polite once and they didn't listen." Grow up. You're an adult. Going eye for an eye like that is ridiculously immature.

You said TW increased rp elements with BL, right?
I did, yes. I still stand by it. I will however remind you that I've always said these new RP features they added are still shallow.

"People bring up Warband because at that time the game made you feel you are raising through hierarchy by your martial prowess, your honor or dishonor, your renown which can deplete if you are inactive too long, raising your rtr, being able to be a martial. But now, you can almost do all of this by either with your money or influence which is a mana that completely destroys my immersion. While in Warband I had to roleplay an honorable guy or dishonorable guy to do that, in Bannerlord getting influence does not require any kind of roleplay.
Rising through martial prowess in Warband is still in Bannerlord. Honor or dishonor didn't make you powerful in Warband. Most lords would hate you and you wouldn't be able to get what you want. There's no "This guy is a jerk but he's scary so I will follow him." People just hate you. Bannerlord's influence system however allows this. Renown decay was barely a thing. It was never fast enough to hinder your campaign. Influence decay in Bannerlord works better than this. It decays really fast when you're leading an army. It actually affects your gameplay.

I'd argue that the money and influence in Bannerlord are better than that. Fact of the matter is, money was a big source of power in real history. The game allows you to role play as a non-martial lord, which was impossible to do in Warband. The influence system also links to martial prowess, so it doesn't erase that option either. You can toy with influence in various ways. You can use money, prisoners, policies or war. Your choice. You can roleplay as you want in Bannerlord. You don't have to roleplay a good guy to be followed like it was in Warband.

Role play relies on your imagination. Your mindset. Warband forced you to role play a certain role. Bannerlord allows you to role play whatever you want. You just need to have some imagination.

I mean, you join a kingdom and you are just a new boy or girl and you want to create an army? Fine, kill bunch of looters and summon the party of the son of the ruler into your army because you have this ridiculous currency called influence. Who thought this was a good idea is beyond me. I have written this so many times, at the forums, at here.
Normally killing looters won't give you enough influence to do that. You will have to kill an awful lot. The idea behind the influence system makes sense. It just lacks polish. There should be a cap and limits on how high you can get by doing certain things. For example, let's say it caps at 1000, and you can't gain more influence by killing looters if you already have 100. Losing a battle should lower your influence significantly. This way a campaign will be slower and influence is more important because it's more limited. That itself would have been enough, but you can polish this even further by taking clan relationships into account. It's not as bad as you're putting it.

While in Warband, I can be summoned by martial and if I decline or do not join my relation with his decrease.
I agree with this. It's currently lacking from the game. However I don't see why the influence system hinders this. It can be done with that system just fine.

While in Warband, the lord parties was able to abandon the martial party like real people do. You know, they have lands, they don't want that lands to be raided.
True. Then again, I don't see why you can't do this with the influence system intact. You can build on top of it to an amazing level. You can make it that you lose influence and relation if the fief of a lord in your army gets raided. You can make lords start a dialogue to you saying they want to leave to protect their fiefs. You can spend more influence to force them to stay or let them go. etc etc you get my point. The system is shallow, but not wrong.

I don't care if it was good mechanic or not btw because at least with this mechanic being in the game, Warband tried to be a game which aligns with common sense.
Isn't it unfair that you can be this tolerant to the shallow features of Warband, but if it's Bannerlord you get upset?

Let me add something more:
Generally agree with those. They're small things, but add a nice touch. Except for the clan tier thing. I don't see why it's even an issue.

Yeah, yeah lots of rp elements and immersion with BL. 🤡💊💊
Again, they did add a lot. They're just shallow. You can at least improve them with the much better modding unlike in Warband where they didn't even exist, and you could only load one mod at a time.
 
And whether or not they don't listen because they lack the required skill, they still do not really listen to their community. They take the little meager fixes or suggestions they can implement relatively quick and easily as barebones, and nothing else. For everything else, they either ignore it or say it's not in their vision or "too difficult".
You're contradicting yourself here. If they didn't listen, how could they implement those "little meager fixes"? How could they say "It's not their vision" or "It's too difficult" if they didn't listen? Simple reality is, they did listen. They just couldn't do many things.

I spent good money on this game
You spent $50. A programmer in Turkey is paid $191,72 per month the lowest. Considering you get an entire highly-moddable sandbox which you own permanently, I say it's a really cheap price.

And telling me to "get over it" just makes you dismissive, rude and come off incredibly biased.
Funny to hear from a bunch of people who spend their time nitpicking a video game and posting insults on an internet forums. :fruity:
 
You're contradicting yourself here. If they didn't listen, how could they implement those "little meager fixes"? How could they say "It's not their vision" or "It's too difficult" if they didn't listen? Simple reality is, they did listen. They just couldn't do many things.


You spent $50. A programmer in Turkey is paid $191,72 per month the lowest. Considering you get an entire highly-moddable sandbox which you own permanently, I say it's a really cheap price.


Funny to hear from a bunch of people who spend their time nitpicking a video game and posting insults on an internet forums. :fruity:

I didn't contradict myself, as I stated before it's not really listening in the regard that it has been done. The entirety of my context is built on that. Go back and re-read what was being said to you, please. It's like counting bug fixes pointed out to them by the community as them "listening to feedback" even though they ignore 99.9% of everything else. I know you understand the difference, you're just purposely refusing to see the point.

So what? $50 is a lot of money to a lot of people. And good for those programmers? Though it's hilarious that the devs could be making that much money and we're still getting the product we have. And good for you, but I didn't buy a game that was advertised as a "highly moddable sandbox". But I can see you're insistent on excusing everything they do away.

I have never once insulted another person on this forum (unless you count insulting their fav game by talking "bad" about it?). Either you're mistaking me being brutally honest about TW/Bannerlord as "insulting" (which is incredibly bizarre), or you're lumping me in with others that have and treating me thus because you've seen it elsewhere.
 
I know you understand the difference, you're just purposely refusing to see the point.
I do understand. I just think that point is wrong and biased for reasons I have discussed.

So what? $50 is a lot of money to a lot of people.
It's a lot for me too, living in a developed country. I just think losing that amount is not worth this much outrage. Well, not like I lost it anyway.

But I can see you're insistent on excusing everything they do away.
Nope. I've made my stance clear. The game is not that great. Many of its features are shallow. I just disagree with the community's toxic attitude.

you're lumping me in with others that have and treating me thus because you've seen it elsewhere.
Yeah I was doing this. I thought it doesn't matter at this point. It's clear that people refuse to see reason and be fair in their logic. They only want to see and talk about the bad stuff. Taleworlds dindu nuffin and everything is bad and unplayable fr fr.
 
I do understand. I just think that point is wrong and biased for reasons I have discussed.

You clearly do not understand and no, it is not wrong/biased. You very well known what I, and what others mean, when they say they don't listen to the community and I have specifically mentioned the context I'm discussing before. And you still choose to play semantics.

It's a lot for me too, living in a developed country. I just think losing that amount is not worth this much outrage. Well, not like I lost it anyway.

And it's perfectly okay for you to not care one way or another how you spend or waste your money. But sitting there and acting like because you don't care that others are "immature" or whatever other insult you might have for caring, is ridiculous.

Nope. I've made my stance clear. The game is not that great. Many of its features are shallow. I just disagree with the community's toxic attitude.

You can think whatever you want and still excuse away what they're doing, so this proves nothing. You've done it multiple times here. Saying "the game is not great, BUUUUT" followed by whatever excuses you have, is exactly excusing them away. "Oh, the game is this way because they don't have enough workers", or "Oh, the game is this way because they don't have the skill" and "Oh, the game does have so many issues, but remember, they did this one thing right" and so on and on are all excuses.

It must be convenient to disregard everything you don't like being said as "toxic attitude". When the reality is, the very few who are actually toxic about the game, are an extreme minority (like MostBlunted). Now, apparently, if you don't hand hold and pander to the few things the game does right, you're "so toxic".

Yeah I was doing this. I thought it doesn't matter at this point. It's clear that people refuse to see reason and be fair in their logic. They only want to see and talk about the bad stuff. Taleworlds dindu nuffin and everything is bad and unplayable fr fr.

So because you feel like they are being "unfair", you think it makes sense to treat people like that? Okay...

And they don't have to hand hold TW or Bannerlord to talk about the bad, nor does only pointing out the bad make it "unfair". You don't like that they don't baby the game before they point out the bad, and that's the only difference. It's not unfair at all. You need to start being honest with your real issue here and it has nothing to do with legitimate "unfairness". It has everything to do with people not babying the game. However, Taleworlds is not a child. They are not doing this for free. They are professionals that were paid for a specific product and said customers are reasonably upset about the quality they have been sold. And them pointing out only the bad does not mean they are "insulting" or "unfair".
 
You clearly do not understand and no, it is not wrong/biased.
I disagree with you, so you think I don't understand? If I understand then I will automatically agree with you. Is that what you're saying? That's ridiculous isn't it? I will say it again. I understand what you and others mean. I disagree with it because I think it's wrong and biased to blatantly ignore the good and only focusing on the bad.

But sitting there and acting like because you don't care that others are "immature" or whatever other insult you might have for caring, is ridiculous.
What's so bad about being immature? People make mistakes from time to time. Does it insult you so much when someone points out you're being immature? You can't accept the idea that you might be wrong? I mean, you and many people here seem to think that making mistakes is a big no-no. Being incompetent warrants a lashing. What's what I meant by toxic. It's a very toxic way of living.

Saying "the game is not great, BUUUUT" followed by whatever excuses you have, is exactly excusing them away.
I did that to emphasize that I'm not taking sides in this nonsense. If I only say bad stuff about the game you will think I'm on your side, and if I only say good things you will think I'm a TW simp. Simple fact is, I'm not. I bring both good and bad to the table. Thing is, merely bringing the good immediately means simping it in people's eyes. I mean, didn't you say it's impossible to know someone's intention the other day? Yet you assumed I'm playing semantic and taking TW's side? Come on...

So because you feel like they are being "unfair", you think it makes sense to treat people like that? Okay...
Funny isn't it? How it's basically the same as what people are doing here. Because they feel the game is bad, they think it makes sense to act like that?

nor does only pointing out the bad make it "unfair".
It literally is, buddy. One of the biggest arguments here is that "I paid so much money and the game is not worth that much". If you only point out the bad while pushing that argument, it becomes unfair. If you want to be fair when assessing the worth of something, you need to mention both good and bad. Otherwise of course the verdict is going to be "not worth it". You're just adding minus without the plus. The reason why people aren't doing that is because if they actually include the good, they will find that Bannerlord is not that bad of a product. Their argument is proven wrong. It's not unplayable garbage. It's just a video game that's not as good as its hype.
 
I disagree with you, so you think I don't understand? If I understand then I will automatically agree with you. Is that what you're saying? That's ridiculous isn't it? I will say it again. I understand what you and others mean. I disagree with it because I think it's wrong and biased to blatantly ignore the good and only focusing on the bad.

Are you serious? No, I think you don't understand because of your earlier post about me contradicting myself and etc proved that you did not, in fact, understand. Someone who understood would not think I was contradicting myself when the context had already been laid multiple times before, and not just by me. It has nothing to do with you disagreeing with me, and you know it.

Do you think you can reasonably explain why ignoring and or not discussing the good when discussing the bad makes it "biased" and "wrong"? Why should anyone baby it? Does not saying "oh the graphics look great" somehow make the statement "the game has problems" any less true because they didn't lay down a poem about the good beforehand? In what world does that make sense to you?

This line of thinking is flawed. TW nor any other fan should have to have to hear the good to hear the bad, and the fact that people cannot even stand to see that, is revealing. You can certainly be toxic and unfair about a video game, but it has nothing to do with only providing what's wrong with the game.

What's so bad about being immature? People make mistakes from time to time. Does it insult you so much when someone points out you're being immature? You can't accept the idea that you might be wrong? I mean, you and many people here seem to think that making mistakes is a big no-no. Being incompetent warrants a lashing. What's what I meant by toxic. It's a very toxic way of living.

You're the one insulting people and accusing everyone of being immature, biased or toxic, so clearly you are aware of what's wrong about it, otherwise you wouldn't be calling them to show how annoyed you are with them, now would you? And are you really asking why I'd take issue with you not only generalizing me, but slinging those insults and accusations at me when I never done any of that? You can't be serious with this. This is just delusional or some severe trolling, I can't tell which yet.

I'm more than capable of admitting when or if I am wrong, and have done so numerous times before, so if I am wrong here it is up to you to prove it. Simply throwing your accusations at me or others or waving your arms around shouting "that's unfair!" because it irks you how they are voicing their complaints, doesn't make it so.

I did that to emphasize that I'm not taking sides in this nonsense. If I only say bad stuff about the game you will think I'm on your side, and if I only say good things you will think I'm a TW simp. Simple fact is, I'm not. I bring both good and bad to the table. Thing is, merely bringing the good immediately means simping it in people's eyes. I mean, didn't you say it's impossible to know someone's intention the other day? Yet you assumed I'm playing semantic and taking TW's side? Come on...

I wouldn't think a thing of it, because I've seen really big fans talk **** and I've seen haters talk positive about the game a lot. And you can bring "both sides" to the table without excusing away TW, but that's not what you've done at all.

And please don't start with this, Grank. This isn't about assumptions and it is painfully obvious it isn't. You were playing semantics with me earlier and you know it. Also, I never said you're taking TW's side. In fact in numerous discussions you and I have had across the forums, I've acknowledged this of you multiple times. I just said you keep excusing away a lot of what they have done. Those two things can co-exist, do you realize that, don't you? And yes, you are very clearly doing that [excusing away the bad], even if you cannot admit to that or see it. Because when someone brings up something bad and you jump in and say, "Oh, it's only this way because this" etc etc, that's excusing it away. How do you not see that?

Funny isn't it? How it's basically the same as what people are doing here. Because they feel the game is bad, they think it makes sense to act like that?

If you find your behavior funny, good for you?

And no it isn't "basically" the same thing. How does that even make sense to you? Pointing out bad development or problems with the game is not the same as what you're doing and I refuse to believe you don't understand that. It's all about how you feel about them and being upset that they are saying mean things about Bannerlord without coddling the things it does right. And justifying your dismissive, rude, generalizing and excusatory behavior because you think the people complaining are "all toxic" or "unfair" only leaves one impression behind for readers and it has nothing to do with these people you're hell bent on marking as "toxic".

It literally is, buddy. One of the biggest arguments here is that "I paid so much money and the game is not worth that much". If you only point out the bad while pushing that argument, it becomes unfair. If you want to be fair when assessing the worth of something, you need to mention both good and bad. Otherwise of course the verdict is going to be "not worth it". You're just adding minus without the plus.

I think you need to learn what "literally" means.

One does not have to provide the good to provide the bad, and the lack of doing so does not make one "toxic" or "unfair". Instead of repeating yourself over and over again about how they are this and that, try to logically explain the nonsense that one most coddle the game to criticize it, or otherwise be "toxic and unfair".

The reason why people aren't doing that is because if they actually include the good, they will find that Bannerlord is not that bad of a product. Their argument is proven wrong. It's not unplayable garbage. It's just a video game that's not as good as its hype.

"Proven wrong"?

First off, for it to be "proven wrong" there would need to be undeniable proof, and there's not, nor will there ever be. Because the quality of the game stems entirely off individual opinion, which varies significantly by person. What you find to be a "good game" is not what I will find to be a "good game". So to you, the few things BL does right, makes it good. But to others, the few things BL does right, does not overshadow the numerous things it does wrong.

Secondly, that's your opinion, which you've built off your own admissions of not really caring about it because you got your money's worth etc etc. You feeling a certain way doesn't mean it's true, though, and yet you've convinced yourself that because that's how you see the game, everyone else must see it that way too or otherwise they are just toxic jerks being completely unfair about the game.

But the game in question passes the bare minimum and that is it. Even it's own creator said as much before TWs had to do severe back pedaling. Most features are poorly implemented or serve no purpose, the AI is atrocious still, there are comical amounts of bugs, ton and tons of missing features, lifeless NPCs, broken mechanics, a dead and completely terrible MP, and far more. You can consider that a "good game", but others do not, but that difference does not make them "unfair" or "biased" or "toxic". That's just in your imagination. Unless you see people like MostBlunted, which even most people complaining about Bannerlord knows is nothing more than a toxic troll 90% of the time he's on the forums.

It's not even a video game that accurately reflects what it advertised itself to. You sit here and talk to people about how unfair and biased they are, yet you can say that with a straight face?

The fact of the matter is, you can disagree with how they talk about the game all you want, but that disagreement doesn't mean they are toxic or unfair because they don't abide to your way of criticizing the game.
 
Honor or dishonor didn't make you powerful in Warband.
Wrong.
Honor in WB:
"Honor affects your interactions with other lords and causes certain events. A high honor can increase the likelihood of a mercenary accepting an offer, or of you being elected as marshall. In Warband some lords will like you for having positive or negative honor; every 3 points in honor will increase or reduce your relation score by 1 (although the latter has small effect due to negative relationship repairing over time). Low honor can result in a bounty being placed on your head or a war being declared on your faction."
Influence decay in Bannerlord works better than this.
Yeah, it is really that hard(!)
Role play relies on your imagination. Your mindset.
Nope, it is not just that. It also relies the output of the game according to your input which is your actions.
Ok guys, lets forget about killing looters for a moment. There is clan tiers in the game that is heavily can be unlocked by winning battles. So when you first join a faction when your clan tier is just 3, there are clans whose tier 5 and 6. You wonder that they must have been in countless battles. Then there is this influence thing you also mainly earn by winning battles. After you join a faction and earning 70 influence or so, you get to get summon a clan tier 6 member into your army who arguably been in countless battles since her/his clan tier so high.
Please explain how does this making more sense than WB? Or tell me how can I roleplay this? How can I imagine a situation that I can earn such a political power?
Monchug staying in his castle and with the lords of the realm decided to declare war upon on Northern Empire. I opened the army menu and summoned a huge army including all of his clan members.

Monchug would be like "WTF, who the fck this new boy think he is, summoning all of my clan members to his army, my father ruled these steppes and long before his father and this new boy, out of nowhere, thinks he has a political power to summon my clan members to his army, hunt down this fcker and bring his head to me, I have a good spike for it"

This is the most sensible thing to do for Monchug when I do this in the game. Because where do I get this political power, hunting down bandits, winning battles? These are what every other lords do anyway.
For me to be able to pull off this kind of stunt in Warband, I first have to get the approval of the faction leader. This is how was in history and this is way more sensible and common sense than to current system we have.
Isn't it unfair that you can be this tolerant to the shallow features of Warband, but if it's Bannerlord you get upset?
Bc
Warband tried to be a game which aligns with common sense.
Except for the clan tier thing. I don't see why it's even an issue.
Bc, in WB you are free to declare yourself king as soon as you get enough military power but you get a reaction from lords that they do not recognize you as a ruler. But in BL, as soon as you get to clan tier 4 somehow magically some button appears in UI and you can declare yourself as a ruler. What an immersive way this is. What a advancement from WB this is.
 
Back
Top Bottom