Villages Before Castles (Please)

Currently viewing this thread:

ste636

Sergeant
Best answers
0
I don't feel like this is watered down, just different. I personally hated getting villages in WB. It took weeks to get anything built and it never felt worth doing, add to the fact that every lord and his dog targeted my village to raid and it became pure frustration for me early as a lord. Once I got a castle or town I never went back to the village.
I feel the whole game has been watered down, not only the villages.
What I miss and I hope will change in the future, is that in BL too much is left to RNG or just simplified to cater new audiences...
Playing these games i like to take it easy and take my time doing things, I guess it's just different play styles...
 
Best answers
2
< snipped quoted post >
I was arguing against the post where someone said that it was historically accurate to only get awarded castles as fiefs. Personally I don't necessarily care how historically accurate bannerlord is, only that it makes internal sense. Often looking at history is the most straightforward way of doing that.

If you want to get on anyone's back about unwarranted historicity, go talk to Callum, because every other social media post is about how X or Y faction is basically a clone of something from history. This is a hole they dug themselves into. They even retconned the map to make it look even more like europe, while making less sense from a gameplay perspective.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Best answers
0
What we've got going is actually alright by my books. Makes more sense and its actually more interesting. I remember loving my first village back in Warband, until I received real property and watched as the village was looted again and again. Upgrading and working on it felt so pointless.
 
Last edited:
Best answers
2
Upgrading in warband felt pointless because it absolutely was. The buildings were so hilariously bad that armagan must have been high or drunk when he put them in. +5% prosperity after 60 odd days of construction? +1 relation per month after 70 days of construction? They're all an absolute joke, and at that state the game would actually be better if they were removed entirely.

Bear in mind that warband's fief management was basically broken and shouldn't be held up as a kind of baseline for bannerlord to achieve. Practically zero thought was put into it, and by now they should be doing a much better job.
 

black_bulldog

Knight
WBWF&SVC
Best answers
0
I feel the whole game has been watered down, not only the villages.
What I miss and I hope will change in the future, is that in BL too much is left to RNG or just simplified to cater new audiences...
Playing these games i like to take it easy and take my time doing things, I guess it's just different play styles...
Rng has always been in RPGs it's a staple. If you always succeed with a certain amount of charisma/charm on speech checks then what's the use of putting it in in the first place because it just becomes a game of get this level of speech craft and win. That becomes very boring very fast. I admit Bannerlord needs work when it comes to conversations for sure but there is a system in place.
What exactly do you considered watered down? I think people are looking back at Warband with rose tinted glassess and forget how basic the game was and the only thing that saved it for more than 1 play through was mods and conversions. I feel that Bannerlord's systems are either incomplete or buggy but there's a framework in place it's just going to take time.
From what you're saying you act like you're rushed in Bannerlord. Why can't you take your time? I've never felt the need to rush to do anything in this game.
 

ste636

Sergeant
Best answers
0
Rng has always been in RPGs it's a staple. If you always succeed with a certain amount of charisma/charm on speech checks then what's the use of putting it in in the first place because it just becomes a game of get this level of speech craft and win. That becomes very boring very fast. I admit Bannerlord needs work when it comes to conversations for sure but there is a system in place.
What exactly do you considered watered down? I think people are looking back at Warband with rose tinted glassess and forget how basic the game was and the only thing that saved it for more than 1 play through was mods and conversions. I feel that Bannerlord's systems are either incomplete or buggy but there's a framework in place it's just going to take time.
From what you're saying you act like you're rushed in Bannerlord. Why can't you take your time? I've never felt the need to rush to do anything in this game.
Nooo I usually take it super easy, in Warband (4000h and still playing it ATM) I go the trader route and have my own kingdom around day 1000....so yeah, i hardly rush....in Warband....
The most engaging playthrough is obviously with mods, Perisno for me mostly, that is the benchmark when talking of Warband for me.

The know how has been out there for years, it was clear what people wanted and preferred, TW could have gotten on par with that, but they did not.

Obviously native is pretty basic, but still you need to work for many actions and use your real life brain, you gotta study Lords' personalities, charm one or the other, intrigue against somebody, you could ask Lords about other lords, court ladies, maybe she likes you but the tutor does not, so you need to go and befriend him...or elope...

It means you had to plan your campaign from day 1 actively working on it,not much to plan in BL, at least at the moment.

I liked to use the night time's malus to range troops tactically,I wish I could do the same with forest bandits and horse archers, things like this, that have been extremely simplified or removed altogether (like my beloved night malus).

Mainly it's the diplomacy and the interaction with NPCs, I really don't like the % RNG type of conversation for example, with high enough trade you can even buy settlements, just not my cup of tea.
I find it very immersion breaking when at spawn I run to a princess, save scum a bit and merry her like that. yes, it might change in the future, it might, but now it is what it is....

I totally agree with you that RNG is in every RPG, but my problem with BL is that it seems to me they are relaying on RNG more then in WB, while more complex and more immersive mechanics could have been implemented as those Warband modders did.

I am afraid the framework you mention, won't be expanded upon, I hope I am wrong, but I already was right when I was critic with EA before they even published it, it seemed premature and it was.

I really like BL, I think the combat is way better, not to mention scenes and art (the real HUGE deal), but it's about it, even taking in consideration EA, I doubt they will go the extra mile and implement complex and brainy mechanics, after all the new players don't know better as most did not play WB, so it's good enough for them.
I played a few hundred hours, but i find it really hard to immerse and RP, I don't feel attached to any NPC,nor I feel hating any NPC.

On a side note I am amazed, this is the first time in BL forums I had a mature and respectful conversation with somebody, happiness!
 

Honved

Knight
Best answers
0
From a historical perspective, in most Western kingdoms, a knight would typically be granted a fief consisting of an estate, not even an entire village, although a village (not owned by the knight) might grow up around that estate. The knight generally didn't automatically pass on ownership to his heir, so his son had to renew his father's pledges just to continue to hold the estate. A baron or higher title might own a castle or town, typically including villages, farms, and estates in the surround lands, and that ownership was generally hereditary. Some of that could be handed out to vassal knights to provide a source of income for them, so they would be available for military service when called on.

More importantly, the castle would usually include surrounding farmlands, and often a village directly adjacent to the castle or a short walk away. The lord would generally rule several nearby villages as well. Either the castle would be built in a suitable defensive location to protect several villages, or else the villages would be founded in close proximity to the castle, where they could be defended. In BL, we get one or two villages controlled by the castle, but not near it, so the castle protects nothing, and serves no purpose other than as a place to store armies between wars....and there are rarely times when kingdoms are not at war.

Basically, the map doesn't make sense as it now stands, the political system is artificial and nonsensical, and the unending respawns of bandits and armies are the only way to make the game playable, because the world and its economy and population simply don't work.
 

Askorti

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WB
Best answers
0
I don't think there's a need to separate villages from castles. Also, there's plenty of fiefs, it's just that none of them is unique in any way, they're mostly interchangeable on their respective levels, so it doesn't really feel like you have much when you get another one.
 

Sidhwen_Khorest

Veteran
Best answers
0
I mean, warband also had villages tied to the castles in terms of ownership, when a castle was taken the villages went with it, which made sense to me. seems like this is just streamlined since it is clans owning fiefs rather than individual lords, so it kind of makes sense to give them the whole package rather than becoming a "tenant" or other things brought up in this thread.

I too liked villages before castles as I felt it gave me a good goal to hit before obtaining my first castle, maybe something like that but not exactly the same could be a good addition. Perhaps minor titles that you can work towards/buy/etc. or maybe building a base could be fun. idk.
 

Callum

Community Manager
Best answers
0
Does anyone know if TW plan to implement this - so that you don't just get given a huge castle straight away, you get a village first?

I really liked this in Warband. It made me excited just to have a village. I was SO protective of it and loved upgrading it.
Settlements work a little differently in Bannerlord when compared to Warband in that they are tied/connected to castles and towns.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
Best answers
1
Settlements work a little differently in Bannerlord when compared to Warband in that they are tied/connected to castles and towns.
:unsure:
I'm sure that villages were connected to castles and towns in Warband. Like Dhibbain being one of Shariz's villages.
 

Grandburger

Recruit
Best answers
0
I would like it alot if we went back to this system, but sadly the way the clan system is set up right now, it appears if a small clan gets a village they all inherit it. I wish they had made it more realistic with Houses and Cadet branches. Maybe have mixed it up a bit bya dding an extra layer of immersion and intrigue. Also who is to say a village can not house a lord? What about Manors, remember them? Or even how 1257 allowed you to fortify a village into a castle. I mean, these sound like some new features that would be added to a title that has been in development for a while...
 
Best answers
0
Derthert, is that you? There are literally TONES of fiefs, so many settlements. Besides, when you get the castle/town, you also get all villages which are bound to them. I'm still not convinced, mate, sorry, but there are enough fiefs in the game.
Could be a matter of expectations. Still, the scale of the world and number of fiefs aren't nearly enough to adequately simulate medieval feudalism while it, for me at least, comes at a cost of player progression (and potential depth).
In any case, with diplomacy hopefully improved, I hope we can have a somewhat detailed hierarchical vassal and fief system, wherein villages are connected to castles, and village "mayors" serve the lord of the castle and so on.
 

Callum

Community Manager
Best answers
0
:unsure:
I'm sure that villages were connected to castles and towns in Warband. Like Dhibbain being one of Shariz's villages.
In a sense, yes, but at the same time, no. In Warband, you could be assigned a village as a fief (as was the case when you joined a faction and ended up with a burned down village on a hostile border... :razz:), whereas in Bannerlord these lower-level settlements are directly tied to the castle or town (making the lord of the castle/town the owner of the village).
 

Apocal

Master Knight
Best answers
1
In a sense, yes, but at the same time, no. In Warband, you could be assigned a village as a fief (as was the case when you joined a faction and ended up with a burned down village on a hostile border... :razz:), whereas in Bannerlord these lower-level settlements are directly tied to the castle or town (making the lord of the castle/town the owner of the village).
Oh, OK. You meant for purposes of being grantable.
 

XDaron

Knight at Arms
Best answers
0
villages were left in an inferior way in bannerlord, no building upgrades, no village elder, no clear way of improving the villages opinion about you.
besides the scale of the game is just too big for me to care about ONE village in the first place, it isn't worth it.

I'm telling you, less is sometimes more, one day I shall learn how to mod and make the small calradia mod™


I would also like to see village revolts
 

Ettenrocal

Baron
Best answers
0
I agree, I am not really liking how BL is a watered down, simplified version of WB...

This game for some aspects is a massive upgrade from the previous, but in all the "deep" and interesting mechanics we had a huge regress. I mean, it seems like all the stuff that make you work or think has been wiped from the game...
I 100% agree, for now i pass my time stupidly grind looters. There is a total lack of interaction with the world like in Warband.