Why do some people want Bannerlord with Crusader Kings 3 Features/Diplomacy?

Users who are viewing this thread

That would be utter crap. I and the majority of steam review users are happy with the way the developers are taking Bannerlord. In that it will be a combat-oriented game, not a diplomacy simulator. Of course, there are features that are still needed in the game, and it is not yet finished.
Like feasts, proper dismemberment, assassinations, being able to make your companions into new lords with their own clans, and some other juicy things.

Imagine being forced to sit through a bunch heavy weight diplomacy just to get to the fight already.

I have played Stellaris, and its biggest downfall is that there is too much build up/diplomacy and so few wars. Who would want that except for a noisy forum minority?

Praise be to getting to the action quickly. Heck, the game is slow enough with all the world map traveling already.

Thoughts? Feelings? No drama, only war.
 

Phantom425

Sergeant
The political aspect of the game definitely needs improvement upon, for both external and internal politics. While I don't think there should be a total use of a CK system, or any Paradox thing for that matter, the game isn't just about battles. Diplomacy is really lacking with the game in the current game.
Also, I don't recall anyone ever saying there is too little war in Stellaris. All you gotta do is pick a Driven Assimilator and you're set.
 

Askorti

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WB
Why do some people ask stupid questions about why some nebulous group of people wants something?

Thery want rt, because to them it would be more fun. To you, it wouldn't be. Your opinion is not any better than theirs. Get over yourself.
 
No, opinions are not better or worse depending on how many share them. They might be more or less relevant, but not better or worse.
You don't like democracy, I take it?

Of course opinions shared by the largest group are better or the best. And, like you said, more relevant too.
 

Askorti

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WB
You don't like democracy, I take it?

Of course opinions shared by the largest group are better or the best. And, like you said, more relevant too.
Unless we are all violent shroom greenskins from the Warhammer 40k universe, the fact that a lot of people believe something does not make it either good, or true. It just makes it popular. But that by itself is not necessarily a good thing.

The fact that you bring up democracy is kinda silly, for several reasons, one of them being the fact that it completely goes against the point you're (supposedly) trying to make, given that democratically elected officials are rarely good, just(temporarily) popular.
 

Fate

Veteran
Please stick to the topic. Don't use maturity to support your flawed arguments. That you had to ask my age instead of facing my words is very telling.

An opinion being widely shared has absolutely nothing to do with its merit. Popularity is not the proper basis of judging a viewpoint. We have documentation as early as the 5th century BC showing some Greek philosophers believed the Earth is round. At that time the "opinions shared by the largest group" believed the earth was flat. Was their opinion "better or the best" simply because they were the majority?

Also, I very much struggle to believe the majority of players wouldn't like some level of more advanced diplomacy (non-aggression pacts, peace treaties). I don't see people asking for Stellaris level diplomacy nor do I believe that would fit this game. Simply because people gave steam the thumbs up when they first bought this game does not mean those same people are not now looking for additional features.
 
An opinion being widely shared has absolutely nothing to do with its merit. Popularity is not the proper basis of judging a viewpoint. We have documentation as early as the 5th century BC showing some Greek philosophers believed the Earth is round. At that time the "opinions shared by the largest group" believed the earth was flat. Was their opinion "better or the best" simply because they were the majority?

Also, I very much struggle to believe the majority of players wouldn't like some level of more advanced diplomacy (non-aggression pacts, peace treaties). I don't see people asking for Stellaris level diplomacy nor do I believe that would fit this game. Simply because people gave steam the thumbs up when they first bought this game does not mean those same people are not now looking for additional features.
There have been people saying that Bannerlord should have a CK3 type system and diplomacy. I am mainly addressing that line of thought.

Also, for the Greeks, if what you say is true, it wouldn't have mattered to them much anyway, if the world was flat or round. Because they could only operate within a limited area.
 
In the thread title you're asking a valid question. The rest of it sounds like nonsense tbh.

The reason why i would like this game to have some form of diplomacy is that right now wars feel hollow and meaningless. They start and end like for no reason. Its bs. The whole game becomes tedious after a while and i hardly play single player for that reason. Diplomacy wouldn't effect your game style, because you can still have your endless wars if you know how to start them. Nothing to lose for you then.
 

Fate

Veteran
There have been people saying that Bannerlord should have a CK3 type system and diplomacy. I am mainly addressing that line of thought.

Also, for the Greeks, if what you say is true, it wouldn't have mattered to them much anyway, if the world was flat or round. Because they could only operate within a limited area.

Well we are in agreement then that it shouldn't have a CK3 type system with CK3 type diplomacy. I do believe the current diplomacy should be expanded though
 
Well we are in agreement then that it shouldn't have a CK3 type system with CK3 type diplomacy. I do believe the current diplomacy should be expanded though
Agreed. Having an X day truce after a war would be good for starters, but only if we as players can break that truce somehow, with consequences.
 

Phantom425

Sergeant
It is if it's the opinion of the majority, which steam reviews seem to indicate.
Looking at the Steam reviews, I didn't really see too many people saying that there shouldn't be more diplomacy.
You don't like democracy, I take it?

Of course opinions shared by the largest group are better or the best. And, like you said, more relevant too.
This also makes your entire point seem like bait.

It is perfectly fine to want different things for the game, but you can't really paint your opinion of the game as the objective fact. I would like expanded diplomacy, with things like gift giving and assassinations. You would like a focus on combat. The game is neither a diplomacy simulator nor a combat simulator, it is an RPG game where you are meant to play as who you want to be. However, at the moment, the game is really more balanced towards combat and not too much towards actual diplomacy. It would be nice to have that be expanded. I'll agree with you that the game shouldn't be just CK3, but having some aspects of expanded diplomacy would be really nice for those who wish to play the game like that.
 

dannazgu

Sergeant at Arms
Diplomacy would benefit this game a thousandfold. Why?

Let's take the Peace negotiations made in Crusader Kings, the two kingdom stay few year without mindless headbutitng their armies together, in times of peace si the time to build, which means develop your kingdom, armies, economy and the family dynasty. Along side X years of peace during negotiations would help deal a lot with the snowballing problem too.

2º I'd prefer a mix(bit of total war too): I'd love to see Trade agreements on diplomacies, alliances and non-agression, among another things. Simply because would make focus on the startegy of the game and player. Imagine you fighting a war deep in the East and then the west decide take your lands? You'd need days to reach all way there just to fight a fresher army while your enemies in the east would just take this time to push your eastern frontiers.

3º: The moment TW made this game and inclusion of dynasties too, stopped being a fighting simulator and become more a strategy game, although I agree needs a lot of polishing

4º final and last: I think, maybe unitentional, they made a mix of Total war and Ck on Mount and Blade, and now hope they make the best for it with everything included. Warband was War simulator, Bannerlord is not
 
Top Bottom