-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Why do some people want Bannerlord with Crusader Kings 3 Features/Diplomacy?
- Thread starter Lucius Confucius
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Any diplomatic depth would be an addition to the game since diplomacy is non-existent in BL right now (which can be resumed as "we strong? attack" and "we weak or fighting more than one enemy? make peace".
I would love more CK features in Bannerlord since those are my favorite gaming series, CK for the RP and strategic depth and M&B for the battles and the player being just one more soldier/commander in that army instead of bird-eye god commander like in the Total War series.
I get others may have different tastes but more depth, strategy and immersion would never be a bad thing in my book.
I would love more CK features in Bannerlord since those are my favorite gaming series, CK for the RP and strategic depth and M&B for the battles and the player being just one more soldier/commander in that army instead of bird-eye god commander like in the Total War series.
I get others may have different tastes but more depth, strategy and immersion would never be a bad thing in my book.
Bannerlord with Crusader Kings 3 Features/Diplomacy
Sounds like a Dream game to me
RorschachCO
Recruit
Of all the stupid posts I've seen, this one is peak idiocy. Imagine not understanding or appreciating the intricacies of diplomacy and just thinking "urrrrgggghhhh me wanna smash".
RorschachCO
Recruit
Right? Like what is OP on about
Probably the pleeb Dev who got assigned to "make the diplomacy things all better" by higher ups
Yeah and it doesn't have to be a PITA, it can be done in way that fits the game and makes it better.
DO you know you can complete the game without any vassals or Kingdom? You can just bulldoze everyone if you want.
Opinions? No steam reviewer opinions, steam reviewers go to the forced labor mines!?
I don't know what that means and I think it's an over simplified copout to just say "Like X game". We want there to be a distinct difference in player agency when becoming a ruler. This means we want to be able to do and control (or influence) more things about how our campaign goes. What's more, there should be some interaction with other clans and lords besides the mechanical ARMY and VOTE currency spending. They have traits, they should have some agenda that the player can interact with. As a ruler we should have some ability to solve or prevent the constant issues in our fiefs other then walking around doing them ourselves all day. We should be able to send out manhunters or delegate clan member as CONSTABLE to go around doing issues once we own a town. You sound worried about options getting in the way of battles, well endless issues and bandits and no way to delegate then someone else also gets in the way of battles!
More depth would also mean more meaningful battles. There's no good reason as to why Bannerlord shouldn't have a fully fledged vassal system, it would only make vassal playthroughs way more fun as you would be able to grow internally within your kingdom and eventually be more powerful than the king himself.
If you just want random battles and nothing else then you might as well just spam Custom battles.
If you just want random battles and nothing else then you might as well just spam Custom battles.
Mikal Manfriedson
Veteran
If I may add my five cents:
Is making a game a diplomatic process? In the end we can all talk about greeks, politics and what not - the devs decide where the game goes even over a 'majority' on a sales platform, so...what is the point?
I have not tested CK3 but played CK1 and 2 and I daresay, a litttle more diplomacy in BL is a good thing. If it were only to plunge from battle into another battle...what do we have a map for? Characters? Trade? Consequently done, we could eliminate those and just have another battle after we finished the last one. Maybe someone will mod a 'Blood for the Blood God' where you can exactly do that. For vanilla BL...well, it should offer as many ways of interaction with the world as possible not limited to constant warfare but also offer ways of using charms, cunning and skullduggery.
Also, calling the need for a deeper diplomacy 'wanting a CK3-style diplomacy' is utter exaggregation and flame-bait in my book.
Is making a game a diplomatic process? In the end we can all talk about greeks, politics and what not - the devs decide where the game goes even over a 'majority' on a sales platform, so...what is the point?
I have not tested CK3 but played CK1 and 2 and I daresay, a litttle more diplomacy in BL is a good thing. If it were only to plunge from battle into another battle...what do we have a map for? Characters? Trade? Consequently done, we could eliminate those and just have another battle after we finished the last one. Maybe someone will mod a 'Blood for the Blood God' where you can exactly do that. For vanilla BL...well, it should offer as many ways of interaction with the world as possible not limited to constant warfare but also offer ways of using charms, cunning and skullduggery.
Also, calling the need for a deeper diplomacy 'wanting a CK3-style diplomacy' is utter exaggregation and flame-bait in my book.
CrazyElf
Sergeant
I'd very much like a CK3 like court system.
You could pick advisers and the like, which would have consequences, and try to interfere with the enemy (or potential rival's) court as well.
It would also add a lot of other features like better diplomacy.
I think that it would be one of the biggest additions in the game. Like many others, I strongly disagree with the OP.
You could pick advisers and the like, which would have consequences, and try to interfere with the enemy (or potential rival's) court as well.
It would also add a lot of other features like better diplomacy.
I think that it would be one of the biggest additions in the game. Like many others, I strongly disagree with the OP.
Limbojack
Veteran
I am sorry, but do you think everyone who's given the game a positive review likes *every* part of the game..? Do you think most players are happy with the AI pathfinding during sieges? I mean, most reviews are positive.
If you read the positive reviews most are like: "the potential is there, the game will be awesome once the devs develop it more, it's EA so i'll wait" and variations of that.
TW really rode in the good-will accumulated from the community over the years from their previous amazing games/dlcs, had bannerlord been released as it was from a completely unknown studio with no previous record those ratings would have been much different from the start.
I have made the opinion that Bannerlord could really do with advanced and deep politics, and pointed to CK3 as an example. I did not mean that I wanted the same system ported from CK3 to Bannerlord, or even necessarily to that level at all. People use that example to point to advanced diplomacy and intrigue done right, and I imagine most who have brought it up meant that they would like something resembling a more simplified version that is M&B-esque, which is still leagues upon leagues further from what we have now. Please name me someone who said that they wanted the exact same system from CK3 ported and would've preferred having no action in Bannerlord. It is not about making a diplomacy simulator, it is about adding significance and meaning to the wars and battles, which is completely lacking.
Great observation.
Yes I know... there does seems to be a small set of people who would like Bannerlord just to be an open-world version of the game 'Chivalry'. Mostly just combat and no depth. No meaningful RPG elements, minimal diplomacy, certainly no lore. Just "give me my mace" and smash.
It's sad ... and represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what has made Mount and Blade games great over all these years.
Fortunately, such people seem to disappear from the forums after a mercifully short time.
Last edited:
"I and the majority of steam review users are happy with the way the developers are taking Bannerlord"
The majority of steam review users who play for under 100 hours and say the battles are EPIC, say the game has good graphics and combat, tell you to stop reading their review and to buy it, or just meme and rate it positive. Hardly anyone to be taken serious.
We just want more features for a feature lacking game. You're entitled to your opinion, and no opinion is better than any other. Some are just presented better.
The majority of steam review users who play for under 100 hours and say the battles are EPIC, say the game has good graphics and combat, tell you to stop reading their review and to buy it, or just meme and rate it positive. Hardly anyone to be taken serious.
We just want more features for a feature lacking game. You're entitled to your opinion, and no opinion is better than any other. Some are just presented better.
Last edited:
StewVader
Sergeant
Is the game really combat oriented though? I mean, if you play on realistic, its not like you can really get into the thick of it and last very long...
Oh and lets not forget that there are literally hardly any tactics or formations in the game, and its not like the AI is a worthy opponent on any difficulty...
But yeah, obviously more could be said. (having two groups of cavalry, and micro managing archers doesn't make you a strategic genius...)
Not sure if you can call this a combat oriented game or a medieval moshpit simulator, but if you think this game's combat is good, well your expectations are pretty low.
Here's why, and im saying this as someone that only vaguely played warband and has only had bannerlord for a month.
1. The wars in bannerlord are clunky and unfair, there are numerous factors that force you to divy up your kingdom to disloyal people that are programmed to betray you. while civilizations don't have to be absolutely balanced it would be better if defeated lords didn't respawn with troops so they could rejoin armies immediately, in addition there is no input in being able to make your own army meaning that starting your own kingdom just lets you choose it's flags primary color, theres no way to tell archers to pick people off as they retreat, theres no way to tell your falxmen to attack the gatedoor instead of climbing ladders, weapons are simple and your character feels weak in combat when in reality he's mostly fighting underfed peasant conscripts.
2. The game forces you to use a diplomacy system, it's just bad. due to the low number of companions and the low birthrate combined with the inability to have multiple wives leaves you forced to as stated divide you kingdom. can you elevate people to nobility who served you, with mods yes, but who knows if they will be updated. what about pulling someone from a rival kingdom? hope your nice to them cause they'll betray you otherwise and take cities with them. in addition executing lords is a nono and war never ends no matter how senseless it may be, meaning peace is the best option if you can afford it. there is no way to keep lords locked up without mods in addition locking them up has almost no effect on the enemy this means that building your own kingdom, a central point of the game is pointless because you just end up having to work harder to acquire necessary allies, how you will have to treat with by sending them "army points" called Influence, whose only purpose is to prevent your suicidal lords from going to war with a unstoppable force and to allow them to form armies.
3. politics are the second step of conflict after economics and before war. considering the sheer amount of historic empires built on using politics and conflict as a one-two punch it makes the game feel rather empty when you know theres one guy that hates you and i would benefit you if some guy wandered into town and stabbed their liege in the streets.
now if we had more politicking in the game it would open up new options for conflict, new playstyles, roguery would have a purpose as the dark wing of the secondary skills. maybe i don't want to be a warlord for the 4th time, maybe i want to conveniently capture a large economically viable city that went into rebellion and use assassination and marriages to procure more cities.
Well as it is now the game is literally 95% war. And while its "combat-oriented" it's also a RPG wich in a sence need other elements then brainless war all the time.
Similar threads
