What do you guys think of the new features being removed?

[ArnulfFloyd]

Feudalism is better in Bannerlord but I thinks about castles when I playing as Khuzaits because nomads not have castles maybe I dream of a large opulent yurt

 

[CaptainLee]

Feudalism is better in Bannerlord but I thinks about castles when I playing as Khuzaits because nomads not have castles maybe I dream of a large opulent yurt

Well, who doesn't?

 

[DtheHun]

Moreover, stone walls are not their friends till horse can't climb ladder.

 

[Bladerider]

And there is some logic to this, much easier to protect a village if you're right next to it, also easier to manage and subdue rebellious populations, along with many other reasons.

Not sure what you mean with this exactly? Since now a Castle and its village right next to it count as 1 fief, so whenever you get a castle you get the village right next to it aswell, so why would you want to build that village into a castle aswell? Whats the use of having 2 castles right next to eachother

Where is it said that you can't own a village without owning the associated castle once they have removed that feature?
The feature removed has never been about turning a village into a castle but about building a castle next to it in one of the four slots that could be used to farms and other things.

 

[R4MPZY]

And there is some logic to this, much easier to protect a village if you're right next to it, also easier to manage and subdue rebellious populations, along with many other reasons.

Not sure what you mean with this exactly? Since now a Castle and its village right next to it count as 1 fief, so whenever you get a castle you get the village right next to it aswell, so why would you want to build that village into a castle aswell? Whats the use of having 2 castles right next to eachother

Where is it said that you can't own a village without owning the associated castle once they have removed that feature?
The feature removed has never been about turning a village into a castle but about building a castle next to it in one of the four slots that could be used to farms and other things.

隐藏

Read the latest blog post, they said it there.

Q:Can we still build castles in villages we own?
A:We had to drop that feature. At some point in development, fief management became too complex, with towns, castles and villages each having their own specific management screens.
The ability to build castles in villages also gave rise to complex rules. For example, demolishing the castle in a village could potentially revert the village to another kingdom and
we had to add complex logic to handle that. Overall, we felt that the design had become too bloated and unappealing.

The solution was changing the status of villages so that they would no longer be considered independent fiefs but were always attached to a castle or town.
This removed the necessity to have a management screen for villages and simplified and streamlined the system. The aesthetics of our new villages is also much more pleasing.

 

[Ragratt]

Don’t care about castle in fief option. I want to upgrade fief and that option has been included.  I would like scout towers and small defenses available for contruction though.  I see no reason a couple towers, some fences and earthen mounds shouldn’t be buildable to add a couple chokepoints or slow footsoldiers down. Maybe fences horses could jump over and destructible sections that take only a few swings to break through I think having the ability to fortify fiefs in some small manor is important.  Castles in fiefs were a little redundant unless castles on map were removed and fiefs / castles coexist adjacent to each other on same map. Somewhere for all the peasants to hide when hostile armies come to raid. You could raid a fief with the castle in background. While besieging castle, a burning / looted village would make a nice backdrop. Attaching fiefs to a castles make sense, attaching fief to a town does not imo.  Hopefully the are a handful of fiefs independent of castles it’d be odd if there were none.

Being able to construct a mill tavern a wheat field is more practical and of greater interest to me. Being unable to join minor factions is a big disappointment however.  Hopefully player is still able to interact with them to a great extent.  I will want a DLC that expands minor factions and makes joining them an option. I’d also like to establish or join minor factions that don’t conflict with political affiliation. Religious cults, trading factions or secret societies with shared goals that cross faction lines would be interesting.

 

[Bladerider]

And there is some logic to this, much easier to protect a village if you're right next to it, also easier to manage and subdue rebellious populations, along with many other reasons.

Not sure what you mean with this exactly? Since now a Castle and its village right next to it count as 1 fief, so whenever you get a castle you get the village right next to it aswell, so why would you want to build that village into a castle aswell? Whats the use of having 2 castles right next to eachother

Where is it said that you can't own a village without owning the associated castle once they have removed that feature?
The feature removed has never been about turning a village into a castle but about building a castle next to it in one of the four slots that could be used to farms and other things.

隐藏

Read the latest blog post, they said it there.

Q:Can we still build castles in villages we own?
A:We had to drop that feature. At some point in development, fief management became too complex, with towns, castles and villages each having their own specific management screens.
The ability to build castles in villages also gave rise to complex rules. For example, demolishing the castle in a village could potentially revert the village to another kingdom and
we had to add complex logic to handle that. Overall, we felt that the design had become too bloated and unappealing.

The solution was changing the status of villages so that they would no longer be considered independent fiefs but were always attached to a castle or town.
This removed the necessity to have a management screen for villages and simplified and streamlined the system. The aesthetics of our new villages is also much more pleasing.

If you mean this sentence: "The solution was changing the status of villages so that they would no longer be considered independent fiefs but were always attached to a castle or town. "
It is the same as Warband. If you conquer a castle or town you conquer the attached villages. But you could own a village in Warband without owning the castle that village was attached to.

 

[ArnulfFloyd]

Joining minor factions was a cool feature but decision of TW to remove in basegame is smarter, DLCs and mods will adressing missing features

 

[R4MPZY]

If you mean this sentence: "The solution was changing the status of villages so that they would no longer be considered independent fiefs but were always attached to a castle or town. "
It is the same as Warband. If you conquer a castle or town you conquer the attached villages. But you could own a village in Warband without owning the castle that village was attached to.

Not really, If you capture a castle or town in warband you get the town/castle and every village thats associated with it yes,And then the faction leader decides who gets the castle AND for every village but in Bannerlord a castle and village are 1 fief, meaning if you get the castle awarded to you, you also get the village, the village management screen has been replaced by 1 management screen for both the castle/town and the village with it

This removed the necessity to have a management screen for villages and simplified and streamlined the system. The aesthetics of our new villages is also much more pleasing.

You manage your village when your in your castle management screen. You cannot get only villages anymore.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Ironically I think a dynamic system would actually work better and be simpler to implement than what they're planning. Imagine you own a border region castle, and there are some villages nearby, with a neutral faction's castle on the other side. In warband every castle has a village and that's it, but I think it would be more interesting if control was more ambiguous, and both you and an enemy lord could perform actions in the villages, like collecting taxes and building improvements. That's how border disputes started in real feudal societies, so why not incorporate that into the mechanics? What if you could build castles wherever you wanted in order to control more villages, but maintaining them cost you money rather than giving you money?

It always seemed weird to me how taxes just appeared in your universal calradian bank account at the end of each week without any player input. People living in feudal villages should have no real loyalty to their country or their lord, at least not enough to just hand over money like that. In the code there js actually a feature in warband where the player has to manually collect taxes, otherwise they accumulate and can be lost to raids. I think having control of villages be ambiguous would be quite interesting, and make your control be a more active than passive activity.

 

[xdj1nn]

Transforming a village in castle not have sense both historically accurate and logic. I don't care if new features were removed

we still could get castle building around villages in a way similar to the "camp" building in Viking Conquest, in which later on could be turned into a proper working castle and a village could be founded nearby by peasants.

IN short, the feature itself didn't need to be "village into castle" but it needed to be within the game in some form none-the-less...

I agree that is "historically" inaccurate but tis a game and features in a game are never "historically" accurate simply because it's a game, so idk, I don't see a problem with villages upgrading into castles, nor random dude being turned into a noble because he killed some bandits...

Btw, another thing bugging me greatly is the lack of "castle towns" with trading and other things within them. From the Demos I've watched BL is just like WB in every aspect of it with different UI and graphics.

 

[Sir Mordred]

I'd been excited about playing out my Alfred the Great fantasy, spreading burh's throughout my kingdom or Harald Hardrada joining the Varangian Guard before carving out my own kingdom.

Makes me wonder what other features are/will be cut.

 

[HUMMAN]

My humble  opinion village to castle is an actually a bad design i dont get why many people want it. Villages should be in danger war times, what WB was lacking  shallow AI and war campaign mechanics resulting in silly wars. Being able to build castles into villages wouldnt solve it, make it more boring. Raiding is an exciting element in wars.


One thing village to castle tries to handle small parties raiding constant ,(but there were bigger problems imo)
For example:
A party raids a vil.
Near castle if there are no near enemies if there is enough power of men send them to help village.
Since this is a little complex may lead to glitches (send your lord to raid and you take castle/may be you put patrollers in garrison to patrol at day and help villages/caravans if in attack) if not this idea some other ideas may work out. Another potential problem would be according to what AI lords will raid since there is semi-protection now etc.

 

[DtheHun]

This direct village -> castle conversion idea is bleeding from many wounds. Vilages was producing food on a large area, fortresses was defensive structures with limited capacity. They were not in the same league. Remember that Bannerlord is not played in the high castle age, but in dark tide with an empire just collapsed. In that time neighbouring fortresses was good to save the stocks from raiders outnumbering its garrison but not enough for a siege. Ability to build a stockade around the village with a not so durable gate, impregnable without siege equipment, giving effects like slowing raids, little advantage to the defending archers in scene and giving a chance to shelter some stocks and villagers (farther the castle, lesser the chance, success would grant a faster renewal after raid) would be more credible. (stakewalls are definitely not for desert region) It would also leave a big part of the village scenes and AI maps reusable.

 

[Bladerider]

If you mean this sentence: "The solution was changing the status of villages so that they would no longer be considered independent fiefs but were always attached to a castle or town. "
It is the same as Warband. If you conquer a castle or town you conquer the attached villages. But you could own a village in Warband without owning the castle that village was attached to.

Not really, If you capture a castle or town in warband you get the town/castle and every village thats associated with it yes,And then the faction leader decides who gets the castle AND for every village but in Bannerlord a castle and village are 1 fief, meaning if you get the castle awarded to you, you also get the village, the village management screen has been replaced by 1 management screen for both the castle/town and the village with it

This removed the necessity to have a management screen for villages and simplified and streamlined the system. The aesthetics of our new villages is also much more pleasing.

You manage your village when your in your castle management screen. You cannot get only villages anymore.

Certainly it would be weird to manage your village from a castle you don't own so probably you are right.
But if that is the case I am worried about the number of fiefs.
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,378752.msg9022179.html#msg9022179
There you can see that at the moment we will have 65 castles, 265 villages and 52 cities. (Asuming that numbers are correct, I only checked the number of cities)
In Warband we have 48 castles, 22 towns and 111 villages. And as possible owners we have 120 lords and 6 kings. So 126 owners for 181 fiefs.
In Bannerlord if we have 1 king and 20 lords for each faction as it is in Warband we would have 168 possible owners for 117 fiefs.
Considering that numbers I am not sure about villages being unable to be owned separately.

 

[DtheHun]

Maybe this lord and companion thing will be blended. How about a system where lords can have companions, companions can get fiefs, so companions can become lords and lords can become companions if they lose their land?

 

[ArnulfFloyd]

 

[HUMMAN]

Lords having companion cool idea(surgeons etc.) but why would they give fiefs  to strangers instead of their families. We have a family system now.

 

[Bjorn The Broken]

Isn't lords having companions already confirmed feature?

 

[DtheHun]

Your english is getting better every day.

Lords having companion cool idea(surgeons etc.) but why would they give fiefs  to strangers instead of their families. We have a family system now.

Because of permadeath? And a non-blueblood player is a noone too, but can get a fief if he/she deserves it.

Edit: Moreover, there can be landless relatives - until the next in inheritance rents an unlit wild boar to meet with his bro - so that's possible to have some ambitious nobles without fiefs from the start.