why is that? To me, the game would only become more dynamic... and the battles wouldn't get reduced, necessarily
Everybody wins
-
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
Everybody wins
What would have been really cool is a hybrid system of the levies of 1257 AD mod and normal M&B, like you have you personal party you recruit and raise. but as you gain fiefs you also gain access to a levy 'army' that you can all to war, instead of of all the lords dog pilling into armies you could have the clan leader raising his levies for an objective and other clan parties staying back to do issues and defense, maybe 1 clan party comes along as a scout or utility party. Maybe a mod someday. I like 1257 AD.
that would be really cool like, during peace time lords all just carry their retinues around but as soon as the faction gets in a war they ride to their fiefs and raise levies from a manpower pool in each one (if they lose these soldiers in war it takes a good while for the fiefs to recover from it and it affects things like prosperity and hearth numbers)
Maybe a modder could make something like that in the future, i'm learning to code but i'm far from being able to develop complex mods for now
imo 'ck2 features' arent just about diplomacy, its more about characters and family. Ck 2 is more about characters as well. diplomacy is second aspext of the game.
Bannerlord doesn't even have a proper family tree. Having more interraction with others would make the battles, and death extremely more intense.
Moreover the game doesn't even need to have all the features of ck2.
Bannerlord doesn't even have a proper family tree. Having more interraction with others would make the battles, and death extremely more intense.
Moreover the game doesn't even need to have all the features of ck2.
If they manage to implement a system where the player can assign some council member to diplomatic tasks, freeing up the player, then I am all for it.
Some have suggested I should only play custom battles, I may suggest something similar. Those who want heavy diplomacy and involved systems, can play CK or other such advanced games and then load up a bannerlord custom battle when it's battle-time.
I happen to enjoy the RPG and some of the strategy aspects of this game. Spamming custom battles is not my intention.
Also, I thought of a way to make traveling less boring. We should be able to engage in talking/menus/etc while traveling, and then if someone starts chasing us, the game will pause. What do you think? Might be hard to implement.
Some have suggested I should only play custom battles, I may suggest something similar. Those who want heavy diplomacy and involved systems, can play CK or other such advanced games and then load up a bannerlord custom battle when it's battle-time.
I happen to enjoy the RPG and some of the strategy aspects of this game. Spamming custom battles is not my intention.
Also, I thought of a way to make traveling less boring. We should be able to engage in talking/menus/etc while traveling, and then if someone starts chasing us, the game will pause. What do you think? Might be hard to implement.
The travelling time was so far not a problem - for my experience. Could imagine it is hard to let the system decide what could be for the players interesting enough to pause while they browse the encyclopedia. But interesting thought.
The game could allow you to follow any of several courses, and change between them.
First, the early-game situation where you're an independent mercenary. There is no "diplomacy" required if you just want to chase bandits, and minimal diplomacy involved if you take a temporary contract with a faction.
Second, there's the option to join a faction and work within that faction. You can either ignore diplomacy and follow the orders of the faction leaders while chasing bandits or rival parties for more action, or try to rise within the faction through more involved diplomacy, while fighting battles on the side. The degree of diplomacy is up to you, but it will take a fair amount to move into higher positions within the faction.
Third, you can establish your own kingdom, which would require intensive diplomacy both within the faction and with other factions. You can participate in battles, but it's no longer the primary focus.
That way, you can choose your own degree of "diplomacy versus combat". It shouldn't become "M&B: Crusader Kings".
First, the early-game situation where you're an independent mercenary. There is no "diplomacy" required if you just want to chase bandits, and minimal diplomacy involved if you take a temporary contract with a faction.
Second, there's the option to join a faction and work within that faction. You can either ignore diplomacy and follow the orders of the faction leaders while chasing bandits or rival parties for more action, or try to rise within the faction through more involved diplomacy, while fighting battles on the side. The degree of diplomacy is up to you, but it will take a fair amount to move into higher positions within the faction.
Third, you can establish your own kingdom, which would require intensive diplomacy both within the faction and with other factions. You can participate in battles, but it's no longer the primary focus.
That way, you can choose your own degree of "diplomacy versus combat". It shouldn't become "M&B: Crusader Kings".
I don't think that would many players expect this from the series.
Strongly agree on the emphasie that the player should be able to choose on what scale he/she wants to interact with deeper and more meaningful mechanics.
thats what happens irl
You know double-clicking your destination sets time acceleration faster, right?
Nobody wants IRL rates of major battles. You'd fight in like four or five your entire play through.
Marajah
Regular
Thing is there is nothing to do in the game besides fighting. Quests are clearly targeted at early game to help the player explore the game. Whenever the player moves on to a kingdom and is at peace there's nothing to do and it could benefit from other CK3ish-like features
I actually want Crusader Kings 3 Combat features.
--such at man at arms vs levies. (make more use of militia in bannerlord)
--Being able to monitor incoming enemy forces over areas you control. (instead of suddenly getting notification an army is at your gates)
--losing combat resulting in a rout, where you have a chance to escape with most of your troops, the enemy will engage in pursuit phase and have a chance to get more kills
--such at man at arms vs levies. (make more use of militia in bannerlord)
--Being able to monitor incoming enemy forces over areas you control. (instead of suddenly getting notification an army is at your gates)
--losing combat resulting in a rout, where you have a chance to escape with most of your troops, the enemy will engage in pursuit phase and have a chance to get more kills
It could be an optional feature tho. People who want politics can enable it and others who doesn't want to be bothered by it can turn it off.
Diplomacy, politics, posturing, persuasion: all missing or weak in the vanilla game.
I want to tell King Raggie of the Stooges that his axe is for body washing, and his offspring is weak. Give him a reason to come at my 15k power vs his 3k power instead of it being "out of nowhere" or from being backed in to a corner.
I want to tell King Raggie of the Stooges that his axe is for body washing, and his offspring is weak. Give him a reason to come at my 15k power vs his 3k power instead of it being "out of nowhere" or from being backed in to a corner.
Last edited:
There are an option without politics already in the game... it's called 'custom battles'
so, it's optional, in a sense
yup, it's not like if they added any depth to the non-existent diplomacy of the game that players would be forced to sit in a court room planning every move of their campaign for 3 hours straight lol
Any game that has indepth diplomacy and roleplaying elements can totally be played without never even touching these features, take Crusader Kings for example, you can carefully arrange political marriages and play the diplomatic game like it's chess to inherit the world or... you can raise a freaking huge army and crush skulls left and right like there is no tomorrow just as easy.
Having more options means only that, more, it doesn't mean you have to change your play style or be forced to use those at all.
Yeah, everybody wins
What a pointless discussion. What made Warband great and I invested hundreds of hours into it for more than a decade was the mods and the modding community which is simply EPIC. I have played M&B in 13thC Europe M:TW style diplo/alliances and backstabbing, killed white walkers in Westeros after finding that special sword and so many other possibilities of gameplay style, it boggles the mind. IF the OP wants his action pew pew he can have it, we can have diplomacy and everything else in between with mods. That is if the modders have not given up on the game yet.
The current gameplay loop is oversaturated with nothing but crappy battles that are difficult to enjoy or care about. Maybe with some diplomacy and build-up the wars would feel more meaningful. I would much rather have 2-3 major battles per war with lots of intrigue and planning inbetween than the boring slugfest that we have now. Endless battles and lords who rejuvenate their armies immediately after defeat makes everything feel meaningless.
After 6 month hiatus and with a few choice mods been really enjoying Bannerlord this time around. The battles still are just epic and yet i still cant let go that feeling that this iteration of Mount and Blade could have just been so much more with a stronger Political/Personality dynamic backstory happening.
To me a great Sandbox should be an interesting world with its own goings on in which the player can choose to engage or totally ignore -but the World WONT ignore him. Meaning, the game world should react to what the player is doing regardless of whether or not the Player initiated it. Right now the game world map still just feels like a giant Ant Farm, with critters scrambling around everywhere -sure Bandits will attack -but theres ZERO intrigue to that and Faction parties totally ignore the player unless you instigate something.
But if you had a world where these faction's believed in their property and their land and didnt like outside Parties just cruising thru with huge armies without paying tribute? Or jealous Lords that hate the Player because he's won so many tournaments or captured/killed famous Bandit Lords? Or a Nemesis Character who emerges against Player and commits his entire game life to sabotaging and ruining everything your trying to accomplish? Or a Faction Lords initiating a fight with you for no reason whatsoever except that he dont like your face around his area?
Ive never played any CK games - but i would welcome this kind of Backstory World in a heartbeat as it would make every runthrough much more compelling
Edit: Also just realised how much better it would be if missions like Escort Caravan were also done dynamically rather than the tired old :follow a caravan around for x days fight x bandits. Boring. So right now just finished a huge Allied Army fight against a huge enemy army -we won but my Allied Lord buddy was depleted to only 40 troops (with 150 wounded) deep behind enemy lines and needing to get past alot of enemy Lords in the area to get to a friendly town. I on the other hand still had a strong 100 men -why wouldnt a Lord in this situation ask Player to help escort him back to a friendly town? this would feel far more fresh and believable than the silly Escort Caravan rehash
To me a great Sandbox should be an interesting world with its own goings on in which the player can choose to engage or totally ignore -but the World WONT ignore him. Meaning, the game world should react to what the player is doing regardless of whether or not the Player initiated it. Right now the game world map still just feels like a giant Ant Farm, with critters scrambling around everywhere -sure Bandits will attack -but theres ZERO intrigue to that and Faction parties totally ignore the player unless you instigate something.
But if you had a world where these faction's believed in their property and their land and didnt like outside Parties just cruising thru with huge armies without paying tribute? Or jealous Lords that hate the Player because he's won so many tournaments or captured/killed famous Bandit Lords? Or a Nemesis Character who emerges against Player and commits his entire game life to sabotaging and ruining everything your trying to accomplish? Or a Faction Lords initiating a fight with you for no reason whatsoever except that he dont like your face around his area?
Ive never played any CK games - but i would welcome this kind of Backstory World in a heartbeat as it would make every runthrough much more compelling
Edit: Also just realised how much better it would be if missions like Escort Caravan were also done dynamically rather than the tired old :follow a caravan around for x days fight x bandits. Boring. So right now just finished a huge Allied Army fight against a huge enemy army -we won but my Allied Lord buddy was depleted to only 40 troops (with 150 wounded) deep behind enemy lines and needing to get past alot of enemy Lords in the area to get to a friendly town. I on the other hand still had a strong 100 men -why wouldnt a Lord in this situation ask Player to help escort him back to a friendly town? this would feel far more fresh and believable than the silly Escort Caravan rehash
Last edited:
Similar threads
