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

[grunwalder01]

This looks very much like sarcasm but I'm sure it is not lol

 

[Lazregamesh]

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!

?

 

[Ser Jon]

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!

Yes. This is perfectly said.

 

[CrazyElf]

That is a terrible suggestion in my humble opinion. It will increase time between battles.

On Topic:
Some have suggested alliances. I hope they never get implemented, because that is one sure-fire way of making the game stale.

Why would it make the game stale?

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Weaker nations can and should unite to fight stronger nations. It would add a whole new level of intrigue - imagine a system where lords could be paid to fight one another. It would also represent an effective potential counter to snowballing.

Then there's the matter that in the real world, alliances are formed. Weak nations ally with other weak nations for strength in numbers or strong nations for protection. When combinations of alliances go to war, it can result in massive wars (WWI is a real world example of that).

If anything, the game is stale without alliances. The battles are smaller in size than they could be and the wars too are smaller in scale. There is no opportunity for intrigue of the type in CK3, and the battles get very repetitive because of the AI being rather unintelligent at battles.


IF this game is to be a sandbox, then the player should be allowed to play how they want. It feels like the OP is trying to force his or her way of playing on people. If diplomacy is implemented and a CK3 system, you can ignore it and focus on the wars. Even in CK3, intrigue can be mostly avoided in favor of military conquest. A CK3 like system, if well implemented would truly make the game more of a sandbox.

 

[Lazregamesh]

Why would it make the game stale?

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Weaker nations can and should unite to fight stronger nations. It would add a whole new level of intrigue - imagine a system where lords could be paid to fight one another. It would also represent an effective potential counter to snowballing.

Then there's the matter that in the real world, alliances are formed. Weak nations ally with other weak nations for strength in numbers or strong nations for protection. When combinations of alliances go to war, it can result in massive wars (WWI is a real world example of that).

If anything, the game is stale without alliances. The battles are smaller in size than they could be and the wars too are smaller in scale. There is no opportunity for intrigue of the type in CK3, and the battles get very repetitive because of the AI being rather unintelligent at battles.


IF this game is to be a sandbox, then the player should be allowed to play how they want. It feels like the OP is trying to force his or her way of playing on people. If diplomacy is implemented and a CK3 system, you can ignore it and focus on the wars. Even in CK3, intrigue can be mostly avoided in favor of military conquest. A CK3 like system, if well implemented would truly make the game more of a sandbox.

You should install a mod called Diplomacy, it is a life changer

 

[Ser Jon]

Why would it make the game stale?

The answer he has to this question he won't directly share, but it's obvious he thinks this because it would then imply that Bannerlord is missing (yet another) interesting feature that could greatly reshape the way people enjoy it.

 

[Riffraff99]

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.

Spoiler: Stuff

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.

Diplomacy was a big wanted feature, like it or like it not.

Edit: I dont think the majority allowed you to speak for them.

 

[gungarvar]

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.

Spoiler: Stuff

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.

Coz this is not call of duty so U can just login and shoot anybody.

 

[Honved]

Wars were generally fought for a purpose over a specific disagreement or rival claim, not because the various nobles were bored and wanted to cut off a few heads for entertainment. Wars were VERY costly, and therefore not initiated without a pressing reason. Without a decent diplomacy system, Bannerlord's wars are pointless and shallow. The factions declare war for trivial reasons, if any, fight without any strategic goal or direction, and settle for peace randomly. After you've played for a while, it all feels stupid and meaningless. We don't need Crusader Kings levels of diplomacy and intrigue, but there's depressingly little of it right now.

 

[Lazregamesh]

Wars were generally fought for a purpose over a specific disagreement or rival claim, not because the various nobles were bored and wanted to cut off a few heads for entertainment. Wars were VERY costly, and therefore not initiated without a pressing reason. Without a decent diplomacy system, Bannerlord's wars are pointless and shallow. The factions declare war for trivial reasons, if any, fight without any strategic goal or direction, and settle for peace randomly. After you've played for a while, it all feels stupid and meaningless. We don't need Crusader Kings levels of diplomacy and intrigue, but there's depressingly little of it right now.

I really think they should integrate the Diplomacy mod, it is a start and it is amazing!

 

[danEN]

game needs diplomacy and other features so we have something to do other than a constant barrage of poorly optimized moshpit zombie ai battles

 

[Ted Striker]

game needs diplomacy and other features so we have something to do other than a constant barrage of poorly optimized moshpit zombie ai battles

Some people seem to think the game should be one big constant barrage of poorly optimized moshpit zombie ai battles.

They don't understand how much more is capable. Modders do though.

 

[pRaX]

This thread is a clowncar and OP is the driver. *honk* *honk*

 

[Honved]

Some people seem to think the game should be one big constant barrage of poorly optimized moshpit zombie ai battles.

They don't understand how much more is capable. Modders do though.

Some people only want one big constant barrage of poorly optimized moshpit zombie ai battles, and don't want anything "diplomatic" to get in the way of it. That's why the rest of us can't have nice things.

 

[xdj1nn]

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.

Spoiler: Stuff

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.

why not? Still I don't like your attitude much, so I'll refrain myself from interacting too much, but I see no reason why that'd be a bad thing, even though I don't really advocate in favor of it at all. It could be fun, has some potential, you are like complaining over conjecture, it's very odd.

 

[vonbalt]

I really think they should integrate the Diplomacy mod, it is a start and it is amazing!

Indeed it's amazing and i love the civil wars feature it has.

Just a shame we'll have to rely on mods yet again for basic features like a proper diplomacy system.

That's my biggest gripe with bannerlord really, TW had almost a decade of development to take the series to the next level, to implement and improve features deeply loved by the players as the ones presented in 99% of warband mods like diplomacy which was the foundation stone upon which most mods were built but instead they decided to add some shinny graphics and leave it as a glorified arcadey-battle game cause that's basically all there is to it for now, battles and good graphics.

 

[Lazregamesh]

Indeed it's amazing and i love the civil wars feature it has.

Just a shame we'll have to rely on mods yet again for basic features like a proper diplomacy system.

That's my biggest gripe with bannerlord really, TW had almost a decade of development to take the series to the next level, to implement and improve features deeply loved by the players as the ones presented in 99% of warband mods like diplomacy which was the foundation stone upon which most mods were built but instead they decided to add some shinny graphics and leave it as a glorified arcadey-battle game cause that's basically all there is to it for now, battles and good graphics.

I agree,
I think what they are going for is have the core stable and let the community to its magic. I wish those mods were implemented but since i am no programmer, i can't judge them for it.
If they stabilize BL, i am sure the modding community will do 70% of the work needed to make this game really enjoyable.