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.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.
I knew you wouldn't accept the duel request you fish headed coward.Don't expect this guy to know what an informal fallacy is
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?It is if it's the opinion of the majority, which steam reviews seem to indicate.
I will say this: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 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.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.
fixedDiplomacy is what this gameisshould be literally all about, wars and battles are just a biproduct of how kingdoms interact with eachother diplomatically.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.