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

[Ling*]

There are only so many battles you can fight in before they become boring. The ai commanders are limited in the level of strategic depth they can achieve and the types of tactics they can use. I think it would be great to add additional gameplay elements so that it is not solely focused on battles. I have never played Crusader Kings, but it seems to me there are a lot of interesting managerial and political options CK games provide over Bannerlords rather simplistic approach to diplomacy. There has yet to be a game which combines a complex kingdom management + political system AND which has awesome combat and interesting battles. I think most people just want the game to be something like this, which is truly the ideal medieval gaming experience. Atleast that is the case for me, If i wanted to just play battle simulator, Total War games already provide this type of gameplay. If i wanted to just play politics simulator I would just play CK games. Bannerlord has the potential to offer both, but is severely lacking in the political and diplomatic / kingdom management aspect currently.

 

[Phantom425]

I am happy to know that you know what an analogy is. The way you wrote your post though, made it seem like you took him literally or perhaps it just came through that way to me.

Yeah, I can totally see how the way I wrote it would turn out like that. My bad.

 

[vonbalt]

There are only so many battles you can fight in before they become boring. The ai commanders are limited in the level of strategic depth they can achieve and the types of tactics they can use. I think it would be great to add additional gameplay elements so that it is not solely focused on battles. I have never played Crusader Kings, but it seems to me there are a lot of interesting managerial and political options CK games provide over Bannerlords rather simplistic approach to diplomacy. There has yet to be a game which combines a complex kingdom management + political system AND which has awesome combat and interesting battles. I think most people just want the game to be something like this, which is truly the ideal medieval gaming experience. Atleast that is the case for me, If i wanted to just play battle simulator, Total War games already provide this type of gameplay. If i wanted to just play politics simulator I would just play CK games. Bannerlord has the potential to offer both, but is severely lacking in the political and diplomatic / kingdom management aspect currently.

Crusader Kings is an awesome game but it's not this behemoth of complicated strategy people claim it is.

100% of the difficulty is learning the UI, which button does what and what information is relevant and what is just fluff immersive dialogues (otherwise the game would be just numbers pilling on top of each other)

Once you learn to play you get that the game is really simple in nature but every system connects to each other (which bannerlord severely lacks right now) and this organic iteration of systems that creates emergent and interesting gameplay.

Spoiler: One example:

You as king really want that last county that's part of your duchy but you can't just take it from a loyal vassal without tyranny so you use your spymaster to spread rumors about that vassal in hope of creating a opportunity to arrest him and take his county for yourself.

After some time based on your spymaster's skills and a bit of luck he manage to incriminate that vassal, you get all happy about it and send an order to imprison him but by sheer luck he managed to avoid being captured and to survive against your greed he declares open rebellion against the crown.

You focused so much in that personal goal that you neglected your other vassals wants or they remember you doing similar shady things in the past so many of them whom were already fed up of your arbitrary rule decide to join that first rebellious lord and what seemed like an easy way to get more land and increase your profits suddenly turns into a massive civil war that risks tearing your kingdom apart completely if you don't act quickly and decively.

Unfortunately for you the neighboring king was aiming a bordering county of yours for years just waiting for an opportunity where you would be weak and distracted to strike and he launched an invasion as soon as you marched your entire loyalist army to the other side of the kingdom to face the rebel lords.

Then you found yourself caught between a rebellious army and a foreigner invader because you didn't take in consideration that possibility before playing all your available cards and what will you do now?

You have slightly more soldiers than the rebels and with good commanders you believe that you can defeat their main field army but this will cost you precious manpower that is needed to fight the foreign invaders that slightly outnumber your current freshly raised soldiers.

You may win that battle but without capturing the rebel leader they will still resist you in their castles that you'll need to besiege one by one until they finally surrender but you know you won't have enough soldiers to defeat the foreign invaders then and while you are busy besieging rebel castles they may come from behind and destroy your field army that would be a complete catastrophe and would renew the hopes of rebel lords of turning the war and leaving your kingdom with half your lands thus massively weakening your power.

And i could go on and on here, this is just an example of one action you may take that has the chance of creating a complete dynamic "storyline" because the game has many systems all interconnected making each action lead to a huge variety of consequences down the line.

 

[Lucius Confucius]

Me mocking you and believing that your argument is dumb as all heck, doesn't make you magically more correct.

This is a great example as to how retarded your logic is.

So if we take one Nobel prize winner, an expert in his or her field, and pit them against 10 random strangers off the street that believe the same thing, people with no education in the subject. Would they be more correct or have a better opinion than the expert? Of course not.

It does make me more correct, whether you like it or not, fish head.

So, I guess, by your point, if we take Armağan versus the community, Armağan's vision and course for Bannerlord is more correct?
Good. I am finally on your side. Also, guess you do not like democracy much.

Also, Stromming, you still failed to use wits, but I guess the attempt would have torn your head to bits. How's your fish jar? I suppose it doesn't let you see very far. Because your sight can't compete with my might. The words I say, are not merely play. They are a request, for a duel at best. A duel that will deem, who has the best esteem.

Let us fight on a Bannerlord duel server.


On Topic:
This thread has had some good responses from people who want more diplomacy and more politics. I can agree to that in some small part. But we must not let it take over the game, which it can easily do if there is too much of it. Too much diplomatic and political action will take us away from the battlefield.

Crusader Kings is an awesome game but it's not this behemoth of complicated strategy people claim it is.

100% of the difficulty is learning the UI, which button does what and what information is relevant and what is just fluff immersive dialogues (otherwise the game would be just numbers pilling on top of each other)

Once you learn to play you get that the game is really simple in nature but every system connects to each other (which bannerlord severely lacks right now) and this organic iteration of systems that creates emergent and interesting gameplay.

Spoiler: One example:

You as king really want that last county that's part of your duchy but you can't just take it from a loyal vassal without tyranny so you use your spymaster to spread rumors about that vassal in hope of creating a opportunity to arrest him and take his county for yourself.

After some time based on your spymaster's skills and a bit of luck he manage to incriminate that vassal, you get all happy about it and send an order to imprison him but by sheer luck he managed to avoid being captured and to survive against your greed he declares open rebellion against the crown.

You focused so much in that personal goal that you neglected your other vassals wants or they remember you doing similar shady things in the past so many of them whom were already fed up of your arbitrary rule decide to join that first rebellious lord and what seemed like an easy way to get more land and increase your profits suddenly turns into a massive civil war that risks tearing your kingdom apart completely if you don't act quickly and decively.

Unfortunately for you the neighboring king was aiming a bordering county of yours for years just waiting for an opportunity where you would be weak and distracted to strike and he launched an invasion as soon as you marched your entire loyalist army to the other side of the kingdom to face the rebel lords.

Then you found yourself caught between a rebellious army and a foreigner invader because you didn't take in consideration that possibility before playing all your available cards and what will you do now?

You have slightly more soldiers than the rebels and with good commanders you believe that you can defeat their main field army but this will cost you precious manpower that is needed to fight the foreign invaders that slightly outnumber your current freshly raised soldiers.

You may win that battle but without capturing the rebel leader they will still resist you in their castles that you'll need to besiege one by one until they finally surrender but you know you won't have enough soldiers to defeat the foreign invaders then and while you are busy besieging rebel castles they may come from behind and destroy your field army that would be a complete catastrophe and would renew the hopes of rebel lords of turning the war and leaving your kingdom with half your lands thus massively weakening your power.

And i could go on and on here, this is just an example of one action you may take that has the chance of creating a complete dynamic "storyline" because the game has many systems all interconnected making each action lead to a huge variety of consequences down the line.

This is what I'm fearing the most. This will make us consider too many things before just going to war and finally allowing battles to happen. It will slow down the game significantly.

 

[vonbalt]

This is what I'm fearing the most. This will make us consider too many things before just going to war and finally allowing battles to happen. It will slow down the game significantly.

Well to each his own then, going battle after battle after meaningless battle just gets boring really fast to me, war should be there to advance your goals and not to just paint the map in your color.

You still get plenty of action with CK diplomacy system but it isn't always on your terms and you can lose or get caught in lose-lose scenarios unless you play carefully and always stay one step ahead of your enemies.

No need to go as deep with Bannerlord but anything is better than the current non-existent diplomacy of:

we strong? smash
we weak? make peace

 

[Phantom425]

This thread has had some good responses from people who want more diplomacy and more politics. I can agree to that in some small part. But we must not let it take over the game, which it can easily do if there is too much of it. Too much diplomatic and political action will take us away from the battlefield.

No one is going to take away your battles. At the moment, there is next to no diplomacy in the game, so wanting more of it really isn't asking for much. Asking for CK levels or diplomacy also really isn't asking for much, it is basically asking for alliances, marriages, and other things. CK diplomacy may work for Bannerlord as both games are character driven. And there isn't a shortage of warfare in CK. Furthermore, being a Lord/King should be more then just waging endless war, it should be managing your Kingdom. That's what a King did, not just kill endless hordes of foreign soldiers.

And, if I'm being honest, endless war gets draining after a while. There has to be something meaningful to do during peacetime, not just sit around and wait for the next war. Adding more diplomatic character interactions would add something good to the game that is currently missing.

This is what I'm fearing the most. This will make us consider too many things before just going to war and finally allowing battles to happen. It will slow down the game significantly.

This point also doesn't look good on your end. It boils down to you saying "the game makes me think too much before I get to kill things". BL isn't just a war simulator, it is a medieval RPG. You have to think at points and make decisions.

 

[vonbalt]

This point also doesn't look good on your end. It boils down to you saying "the game makes me think too much before I get to kill things". BL isn't just a war simulator, it is a medieval RPG. You have to think at points and make decisions.

To each his own and all that but if the guy wants to just mindlessly kill things with no end in sight it's easier to play custom battle or multiplayer.

The campaign should have battles but also strategy and roleplay elements and a diplomatic system is a must have for to achieve the last 2 of these 3 items.

I would be glad even with a total-war style diplomacy which was what i thought we would be getting when TW announced the barter system saying you could negotiate political deals in there but in the end it's only used for marriage to pay the dowry and inconsequential trading with other lords that usually have nothing to offer beyond a few horses and maaaybe exchange a fief in your faction if you level your trade skill to max level (by the time you do that you can own half the continent yourself instead of having to trade anything so it kills the purpose of the feature)

 

[Rungsted93]

Another perspective to the whole discussion that with CK like diplomacy, it should be very easy to improve mercenary/bandit gameplay as well which would make it possible to more or less just jump from battle to battle without all the politics and management.
Like this everyone would be happy.

 

[Roaring Mouse]

Seems like this is exactly what mods are for. To be more like CK, you would need to do Lance recruitment and change how raising armies work entirely. It would be an awesome game but nothing like what Mount and Blade is with a small map based around roving warbands.

Sure, Bannerlord seems like a disappointment, but it really isn't. Just let them finish the game and let whoever wants a different game make a cool mod for it.

He'll, I enjoy Hellish Quart but don't see a reason to make duels in Bannerlord more like that.

 

[CptGoofy]

The games is supposed to be a sandbox game. Why would you not want to be able to do politics in a kingdom-building game? You can't have a war without politics. Those things go hand and hand. The fact that I cannot make force peace treaties after beating a faction into submission or ally with another to destroy someone else is pretty ass honestly. Diplomacy matters if you love war.

 

[SOku]

That would be utter crap. I and the majority of steam review users are happy with the way the developers are taking Bannerlord.

You're making huge logical flaws to me.
You and the majority of steam review users are happy with Bannerlord today, that's fine, but that's also an ad populum.

In that it will be a combat-oriented game, not a diplomacy simulator.

Why not both ? Again, false dichotomy.
It's almost like I could bring a dictionary of sophism and put it on end of your sentences.

What do I mean by that is that bringing more depth on that game doesn't mean that the said majority won't be happy with the addition of features and depth the devs could bring in, in short we surely don't know yet, you don't know yet. It's a god damn hot take to claim otherwise.

If implemented correctly it can cater every type of players, from the casual " combat-combat-combat" players to the Stellaris type of players.

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

I'm advocating for you to enjoy the type of Bannerlord you want, and for those who don't like that to enjoy a more subtle, calm and strategic way of playing it, each their own with a large bag of players in the middle of this spectrum, again if implemented correctly choices matter.
That's exactly why we have Difficulty / Accessibilities options on a game to begin with, for starters on Bannerlord. ( even if the choices are scarse for now )

This isn't a zero-sum game, and since you asked my thoughts about your post, I strongly dislike your binary way to view things like that.

 

[Stromming]

You and the majority of steam review users are happy with Bannerlord today, that's fine, but that's also an ad populum.

Don't expect this guy to know what an informal fallacy is

 

[VicbossOG]

I don't see how adding diplomatic elements to the game would decrease the time you end up fighting. If done properly, it would increase it. This is never going to be CK3, so don't worry about that. It's always going to be a game about war, considering it takes place in the middle of a civil war.

 

[Clsy]

It's just a flame thread - deliberately made to provoke. Ignore him, guys.

crazy how people still fall for this after the first page

 

[MostBlunted]

On Topic:
This thread has had some good responses from people who want more diplomacy and more politics. I can agree to that in some small part. But we must not let it take over the game, which it can easily do if there is too much of it. Too much diplomatic and political action will take us away from the battlefield.


This is what I'm fearing the most. This will make us consider too many things before just going to war and finally allowing battles to happen. It will slow down the game significantly.

Dude you don´t need to be afraid. TW is doing everything to avoid that Bannerlord will be a complex game. No one will take this arcade playstyle away from you.

But one thing I´m really curious about:

How many battles have you played? And are you really enjoying them that much? I mean after like 100 battles you´ve seen everything. The AI isn´t smart enough to be any challenge in my opinion.

What´s your most used tactic:

a) F1 > F3
b) F6

Also, there is a custom battle option, so you can play battles 24/7.

 

[Apocal]

There has yet to be a game which combines a complex kingdom management + political system AND which has awesome combat and interesting battles.

There's a reason for that. CK teaches you that battles generally don't matter. When you start a war, you've either already won or already lost. Any strategy game worth its weight allows players to tip the scales so far in their favor (assuming competent play) that there is zero reason to ever care about what is going on on lower layers.

In CK all the really big and interesting things you can do are either have event fire semi-randomly in your favor (CK2) or build up relations like any other resource gathering game until people do what you want (CK2 a bit but all of CK3).

 

[TheBerserk]

Why Mount and Blade would be a simple combat simulator if the developers have bet and those since the first games on a map in which you can go anywhere you want, talk to NPCs with RPG elements, go remove the whole map and everything the rest if the famous Steam community so intelligent and objective asks for it and think the game should be poor

ah and of course that contradicts modders creations who made the success of the franchise

 

[Apocal]

Why Mount and Blade would be a simple combat simulator if the developers have bet and those since the first games on a map in which you can go anywhere you want, talk to NPCs with RPG elements, go remove the whole map and everything the rest if the famous Steam community so intelligent and objective asks for it and think the game should be poor

Because if you look at most of the media hype around the game it was massive battles, larger than anything else in the genre of third person slashers. In comparison, the RPG elements are mostly underdeveloped and tacked-on after the fact. I don't think a single WB NPC has more than twenty lines of unique dialog and Bannerlord isn't an improvement.

Or you can look at the number of devs working on the battles (30+) vs. the campaign side (like 7 now), then realize the campaign side devs aren't all working on RPG aspects but split between stuff like prisoner recruitment, party AI, economy, etc. on top of that.

 

[TheBerserk]

Because if you look at most of the media hype around the game it was massive battles, larger than anything else in the genre of third person slashers. In comparison, the RPG elements are mostly underdeveloped and tacked-on after the fact. I don't think a single WB NPC has more than twenty lines of unique dialog and Bannerlord isn't an improvement.

Or you can look at the number of devs working on the battles (30+) vs. the campaign side (like 7 now), then realize the campaign side devs aren't all working on RPG aspects but split between stuff like prisoner recruitment, party AI, economy, etc. on top of that.

I don't care what they do and how many there are, since Taleworlds can't understand their own community and what made their game so successful anyway. Today they are lost

if the management changed directors, the priorities would certainly not be the same since anyway she doesn't know where she is going

PS : they are really 30 in the battles for in the end that we always have siege that do not work and non-existent banners ? even more heartbreaking

 

[Ling*]

There's a reason for that. CK teaches you that battles generally don't matter. When you start a war, you've either already won or already lost. Any strategy game worth its weight allows players to tip the scales so far in their favor (assuming competent play) that there is zero reason to ever care about what is going on on lower layers.

In CK all the really big and interesting things you can do are either have event fire semi-randomly in your favor (CK2) or build up relations like any other resource gathering game until people do what you want (CK2 a bit but all of CK3).

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.