Three things I like, three things I don't

Users who are viewing this thread

As a multi-thousand hour player of Warband.

Likes:
1. Kingdom Operations: The influence / voting system, clans, ability to quickly find lords without asking 1000 people, not micromanaging villages, the ease of joining Armies and leaving just as easily... is a fantastic improvement over Warband and I really enjoy this aspect of game-play. The Kingdom feels like a family, and relationships with clans feel tangible.
2. Sieges: I actually liked sieges in Warband, my computer could handle up to 600 size battles well, but the choke points, getting stuck, traffic jams and just the time it took to do a siege in real time hours made it less than enjoyable at times. The siege play in Bannerlord is levels beyond... truly a great accomplishment! I could siege all day; well I pretty much do lol.
3. Marriage/ Children: Marriage is so much less painful and reasonable, and now you can quickly have kids to continue the lineage and keep interest in mid-game.
4. Interface. Very smooth and generally easy and efficient to do things without being overly tedious or breaking immersion. I've got way more likes than dislikes, so I'll throw this in as a quick fourth.

Dislikes: [DISCLAIMER: I know this is EA, this is just a comment on the current state and three things that bug me most]
1. Maps: Above all, I play a tactical wargame/simulation because I want a tactical challenge. Playing on the same very limited set of smallish maps for the open field battles is boring. After less than two dozen battles I have every one of them memorized. I know all the key terrain, memorized all the approaches, all the no/go terrain, best engagement areas... there is no thought involved, no sharpening my real life tactical planning skills. I'd rather have ****ty random terrain-- pretty terrain isn't important, it's the fun of sharpening your mind by learning to assess terrain in real time, quickly identifying the key terrain and useing it to your advantage. This is the heart of any tactical simulation/game that purports to be about real warfare and the most fun element of being a tactical leader (Bn and below). Hopefully this is just an area that is just a placeholder, but it is already feeling tedious... Ugh, the bridge terrain again, the two hills terrain, the terrain with the hide spot on the hill to the right in the woods... I wish I knew how to make random maps, no matter how bad just to break the tedium.
2. NPCs/Companions: I do know this is an area to be developed, but I loved companions (not the companion like/dislike circle of hell though) in warband, especially mods. I feel having companions and NPCs with deep dialog levels and subtle interactions would make this game unbelievably great.
3. Diplomatic strategy: There seem to be no alliances, it is just chaos. There are some groups who seem like they share more common cultures and histories and hatred of common enemies. For example the "Northern Peoples" modeled after Western Europe-- Sturgians, Battanians and the Vlandians would be expected to work together more against the common enemy of either the Empire or the Khuzaits, whichever is steamrolling them in a given playthrough, instead of being at each others throats literally every second of the game while being steamrolled by said common enemy. Perhaps strategic level scripting of kingdom leader preferences/alliances could make this feel more reasonable.
 
While i agree with most of this I simply have to disagree on marriages and children it feels very un personal to me and it leaves much to be desired you can kind of just save scum into getting a wife and just by being rich thats it just pass a speech check pay money boom married off screen and then against your will while in your party they have a kid just leaves much to be desired but overall you make very good points and maybe this new marriage system is just not for me glad someone likes it though
 
Back
Top Bottom