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

Users who are viewing this thread

vonbalt

Sergeant Knight
WBNWVCM&B
Eh I think a good middleground can be found. Like i said Ive never played CK so i wouldnt advocate to take their system of diplomacy and plug it directly into bannerlord. I would just like to see more options for politics and management which would make gameplay more interesting, though its likely we will have to wait for mods for this. More than anything i wish Ai battle commanders had access to more than 9 different but very basic battle strategies so that if the focus of BL is to remain battle oriented there is greater variety and more challenge.
The middle-ground to me is the diplomacy mod, just look at that marvel it has proper and dynamic civil wars, war exhaustion, expansionism, alliances, non-aggression pacts and a few more quality of life improvements.

That mod is an absolutely must-have for me to enjoy Bannerlord and i really wish TW would take some notes from it and other mods to improve their non-existent diplomacy.

"oh but why don't you just keep using the mod then?"
- Because mods can be abandoned and thus incompatible with future versions of the game and i just want a good and well-rounded vanilla experience, the less mods we need to make the game "playable" the better for everyone
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
Its only because CK is in the title thats causing all the uproar. Ive never played CK but from ive heard its on the far extreme side of the spectrum as far as politics/family dynamics. Obviously there is a scale for that sort of thing and had this thread title be labeled "Why do Some People Want Boring Diplomacy Added" - it wouldnt have gone more than 3 posts. Hence the sheeple are bored
 
Don't expect this guy to know what an informal fallacy is :grin:
I knew you wouldn't accept the duel request you fish headed coward.

Someone must have stolen your spleen and split it right-a-clean. Coward in the jar, soured by tar.

On Topic:
Status quo prevails. MostBlunted is correct, there will likely not be any involved system that significantly reduces the frequency of battles. Which is good. And like I have said many times. I am okay with a little improvement to politics and diplomacy.
Also, @MostBlunted I have played over 500 hours and many, many battles. They do not get stale, because every battle is different for me. Different things at stake, different characters involved. I like the battles very much in this game. (They should fix siege tower ladders though.)
 

GaMoR

Recruit
It is if it's the opinion of the majority, which steam reviews seem to indicate.
I don't see how you may come to such conclusion? I revied the game on Steam positive that does not mean in the slightest, that I would not love to see a way deeper layer of kingdom / politics management. I don’t even see the problem between the yes or no to diplomacy groups. Just let the AI do what she is doing anyway and so the player may focus on the battle and if you want to micro mange you can because the implemented the possibilities. Why it always has to be 100 or 0? It is like the Battels you want action F1 + F3 here you go. You want a little bit of immersion feeling F6 here you go. You want to tweak out the last 25% of optimal battle outcome 1-0 + F1 - F8. And everybody has something he/she likes. Diplomacy would not destroy your Action oriented playstyle. Why creating problems?
 
I don't see how you may come to such conclusion? I revied the game on Steam positive that does not mean in the slightest, that I would not love to see a way deeper layer of kingdom / politics management. I don’t even see the problem between the yes or no to diplomacy groups. Just let the AI do what she is doing anyway and so the player may focus on the battle and if you want to micro mange you can because the implemented the possibilities. Why it always has to be 100 or 0? It is like the Battels you want action F1 + F3 here you go. You want a little bit of immersion feeling F6 here you go. You want to tweak out the last 25% of optimal battle outcome 1-0 + F1 - F8. And everybody has something he/she likes. Diplomacy would not destroy your Action oriented playstyle. Why creating problems?
I will say this:
If they manage to implement a good diplomatic and political system that somehow does not significantly lower the chance for battles, then I am all for it. What I fear with an involved and advanced system is that if you do not engage in it, you will fall behind and inevitably lose to the AI. That is my fear. But, read my above post, like MostBlunted said, this will likely never happen. So all is well.
 

GaMoR

Recruit
I will say this:
If they manage to implement a good diplomatic and political system that somehow does not significantly lower the chance for battles, then I am all for it. What I fear with an involved and advanced system is that if you do not engage in it, you will fall behind and inevitably lose to the AI. That is my fear. But, read my above post, like MostBlunted said, this will likely never happen. So all is well.
I see. Honestly, I’m kind of sad that there will be no in-depth system. And I’m really hoping it is not because of the limits that console players brought on this franchise. And the reason is that people prefer the action-oriented playstyle.

In the end for my part, I will have then wait for mods that give the player more possibilities. You see, you worry less, now I do more 😉 but yeah mods gona do it.
 

Foohy

Recruit
Imagine being so dumb to think Bannerlord, with all the kingdoms, court intrigue, relationships between lords etc. is intended to only be a battle simulator. Are you only playing sandbox? Have you ever opened Warband in your life? Are you mentally challenged?

Diplomacy is what this game is literally all about, wars and battles are just a biproduct of how kingdoms interact with eachother diplomatically. If you are so afraid of not being able to start wars with regular kingdom votes, you can literally always just go up to any kingdom vassal and demand he surrender or die and it will start a war for you without anyone voting.
 

Honved

Knight
As Sigaretovic points out, the wars are currently meaningless and stupid. Rather than JUST a diplomacy system, what the game really needs to make victories and defeats more meaningful would be a "Faction Strength" level that would be reduced by recruiting or replacing troops in active armies. Points would gradually replenish from controlled fiefs, so losing fiefs would lower the ability to recover. As losses add up over time during an active campaign faster than they replenish, faction strength would drop, and it would get increasingly difficult to find replacements. Factions would need time to recuperate after an offensive, and would refrain from starting new wars while faction strength is low. In extreme cases, a faction might even need to surrender a fief in exchange for a truce to buy time to recuperate. It avoids the situation of a faction down to its last fort, but with a sizable group of lords at full strength guarding it, and simply coming back with another army if/when they lose.

That by itself would contribute to rapid snowballing, so you need to combine that with a diplomatic system that makes smaller factions more willing to ally, and larger factions less able to gain or even hold existing allies. The biggest faction in the game will be likely to find itself fighting alone against a coalition of weaker enemies unless it can exert enough diplomatic pressure to keep other factions from joining the wars against it, and having its Faction Strength depleted. Snowballing should be difficult, and largely dependent on the player to make smart attacks against more valuable or defensible targets, while keeping one's diplomatic ties high enough to prevent allies from deserting or even joining your enemies as you expand. Battles are the heart and soul of M&B, but without some sense of purpose behind it, they're hollow victories.

The TLD mod (for both M&B and Warband) did something similar with Faction Strength, although Diplomacy wasn't really important in a game with fixed sides. Your battles actually made a small contribution to the overall balance of power, and factions actually got weaker as they lost battles.
 

BallerLarva

Recruit
I think this is one of the most braindead takes I've ever seen on anything. It's certainly the dumbest one I can remember seeing off the top of my head.

The idea that this game is supposed to be just about combat is completely asinine. Think about the level of effort and detail that's been put into the succession and family mechanics, or the simulated economy. All of that becomes wasted effort if this is just a shallow combat simulator. The moment you add Crusader Kings style family free mechanics to the game you are implicitly commiting yourself to making a complex grand strategy layer in which any of it is meaningful, otherwise that feature has no purpose. If this is just a battle simulator then most of the new mechanics that have been added since warband are pointless busywork. A simulated economy of the kind we have, in a shallow battle simulator is about as useful as Riot adding an RPG style dialog tree to the shopkeeper in League of Legends 2.
 

vonbalt

Sergeant Knight
WBNWVCM&B
As Sigaretovic points out, the wars are currently meaningless and stupid. Rather than JUST a diplomacy system, what the game really needs to make victories and defeats more meaningful would be a "Faction Strength" level that would be reduced by recruiting or replacing troops in active armies. Points would gradually replenish from controlled fiefs, so losing fiefs would lower the ability to recover. As losses add up over time during an active campaign faster than they replenish, faction strength would drop, and it would get increasingly difficult to find replacements. Factions would need time to recuperate after an offensive, and would refrain from starting new wars while faction strength is low. In extreme cases, a faction might even need to surrender a fief in exchange for a truce to buy time to recuperate. It avoids the situation of a faction down to its last fort, but with a sizable group of lords at full strength guarding it, and simply coming back with another army if/when they lose.

That by itself would contribute to rapid snowballing, so you need to combine that with a diplomatic system that makes smaller factions more willing to ally, and larger factions less able to gain or even hold existing allies. The biggest faction in the game will be likely to find itself fighting alone against a coalition of weaker enemies unless it can exert enough diplomatic pressure to keep other factions from joining the wars against it, and having its Faction Strength depleted. Snowballing should be difficult, and largely dependent on the player to make smart attacks against more valuable or defensible targets, while keeping one's diplomatic ties high enough to prevent allies from deserting or even joining your enemies as you expand. Battles are the heart and soul of M&B, but without some sense of purpose behind it, they're hollow victories.

The TLD mod (for both M&B and Warband) did something similar with Faction Strength, although Diplomacy wasn't really important in a game with fixed sides. Your battles actually made a small contribution to the overall balance of power, and factions actually got weaker as they lost battles.
There was a mod in the early days of bannerlord that added an awesome manpower system to fiefs and the more you recruited the more "wasted" that place became and needed time to recover before providing new recruits.

It was really good but without the AI knowing it needs manpower and how to make strategic decisions regarding it doesn't work as it should.

The game also desperately needs a diplomatic system for peace deals, you should have a score of both sides and then after war they negotiate fiefs, prisoners, payments and other concessions based on that score (like in Europa Universalis for example)

Imagine if fiefs didn't flip sides immediately after a siege but went into an "occupied" state until the negotiations at the end of that war, this would even pave way for a casus belli system where factions would declare wars with clear goals and after achieving them they would negotiate peace deals (medieval wars weren't total war like in the world wars, they had clear goals and a justification for the aggression)

The game has that awesome bartering screen that's perfect for this, it just needs to be used to it's full potential.

I know these won't happen (we can't even get basic features that previous M&B games had from the devs) but a man can dream no? lol
 
@Foohy and @BallerLarva
You need to read the thread. Don't get emotional over simple things. Besides, there will be no significant changes that reduces battles and brings in a tedious diplomacy system, so there really isn't much to talk about. Your side and your arguments are pointless, you have already lost.

@GaMoR
Right you are, mods will allow us to specialise the game to individual needs, I really think mods will be the best for the game. Heck, after my thousandth hour even I may opt to pick a more strategic mod just to try it out. But it is important for the core-game to be more war-oriented. Also, I too dislike the impact consoles may have on this game.

On Topic:
I wish people read the topic before posting, so I wouldn't have to repeat myself so often. I am not against improvements. I am against a tedious strategic system that forces you to engage in menus and things just to stay ahead of the AI, but like has been said so many times now, that will never happen, me and mine have won.
 

SadBlueberry

Recruit
Imagine being so dumb to think Bannerlord, with all the kingdoms, court intrigue, relationships between lords etc. is intended to only be a battle simulator. Are you only playing sandbox? Have you ever opened Warband in your life? Are you mentally challenged?

Diplomacy is what this game is literally all about, wars and battles are just a biproduct of how kingdoms interact with eachother diplomatically. If you are so afraid of not being able to start wars with regular kingdom votes, you can literally always just go up to any kingdom vassal and demand he surrender or die and it will start a war for you without anyone voting.
Have you ever played Warband? Diplomacy is not what previous M&B titles are all about. You're talking about real world historical references where wars are by-product of diplomacy failing.

Warband doesn't have good diplomacy; it was still barebones in that game. There is no court intrigue. There are limited positions and titles. There was nothing really to mess around with to trade except for the limited currency that was your fiefs. Trade goods were just a flavor and without mods, they lent to nothing except just as a source of income. Even in the mods, diplomacy was almost never over trade routes, taxations, titles passing out of the kingdom through laws, quarrels between low level nobilities, inheritance squabbles over land.

Clearly you either played a version of Warband that nobody else on Earth has ever played before or you don't understand what diplomacy is. I especially lol'd at "court intrigue". That is completely absent in Bannerlord. Relationships between lords does not count as "crout intrigue". You can't seduce an enemy's spouse. You can't send assassins after them. There are no coveted council positions. Wow, much "court intrigue" in Bannerlord.
 
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.
If CKII like features are implemented properly it will be improvement, game is sandbox afterall and if someone does not want to bother with diplomacy I am pretty sure that mercenary playthrough will deliver in that sense.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
As Sigaretovic points out, the wars are currently meaningless and stupid. Rather than JUST a diplomacy system, what the game really needs to make victories and defeats more meaningful would be a "Faction Strength" level that would be reduced by recruiting or replacing troops in active armies. Points would gradually replenish from controlled fiefs, so losing fiefs would lower the ability to recover. As losses add up over time during an active campaign faster than they replenish, faction strength would drop, and it would get increasingly difficult to find replacements. Factions would need time to recuperate after an offensive, and would refrain from starting new wars while faction strength is low. In extreme cases, a faction might even need to surrender a fief in exchange for a truce to buy time to recuperate. It avoids the situation of a faction down to its last fort, but with a sizable group of lords at full strength guarding it, and simply coming back with another army if/when they lose.
This is already how wars go in Bannerlord, right down to running out of (mid or high tier) troops and seeking peace, then refraining from starting new wars (getting wars forced on them is another thing). It takes some time because people want wars to last more than 15-20 days but all that stuff goes on.
 
Last edited:
The battles are great but I need a reason to fight, a story. Without a story there isn't any depth. To me that's the essence of the appeal to more diplomacy. As the saying goes, war is the continuation of politics by other means. I'm sure some people enjoy mount and blade as a battle simulator, but the replay value to me is in the unfolding story we create within the world. The cause behind the battles that unfold and a reason for fighting against the odds.
 

BallerLarva

Recruit
Starts thread titled ''why do some people want X thing''

''For these reasons''

''Well there's no point talking about it because I win''

I guess I've trolled a little in my time as well.
 

TheBerserk

Sergeant
Warband doesn't have good diplomacy; it was still barebones in that game. There is no court intrigue. There are limited positions and titles. There was nothing really to mess around with to trade except for the limited currency that was your fiefs. Trade goods were just a flavor and without mods, they lent to nothing except just as a source of income. Even in the mods, diplomacy was almost never over trade routes, taxations, titles passing out of the kingdom through laws, quarrels between low level nobilities, inheritance squabbles over land.

that's why we waited after 10 years for the famous Bannerlord to raise the bar :smile:
especially with his commercial success
 
Top Bottom