Would you prefer more micromanagement options?

[Fate]

To quote dev Mexxico in regards to additional options on garrison management, "That kind of detailed micromanagement is not welcomed and accepted." (referring to TW management acceptance of features)

I personally find this extremely disappointing. I think this game would be much much more fun and have more enjoyable long-term playability with more control and options allowed to the player regarding their army, companions, clan, villages, castles, kingdom etc.

What do you guys think?

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

Yes, but I must stress OPTIONS, not a new add on to an existing function (like garrison auto recruitment)that I'm forced to babysit and check on all the time or face a repercussion. I would love options like say "send clan member to collect X amount of food at X town and bring to X fief" but NOT "clan members will make parties on thier own and go buy all the food and try to sell it unless you tell them not to every 5 days".

Or say "use command to target a group at another specific group type or direction" <- a very wanted feature!
But NOT "Units wont attack or defend themselves unless the player specifically commands them to do so every 30 seconds." This is just making the player micro for no reason. This is just a silly example I'm not saying TW would do that.

 

[LuciusDomitiusAurelianus]

I think this game desperately needs it, but if it's done in a way that can be ignored (sliders, default settings, etc.) it shouldn't cause any issues with more casual players.

Really needs it when it comes to garrisons, parties, Armies, and battles for sure - preventing my stupid parties from joining Armies that aren't led by me, or taking / placing troops into a garrison, or jacking up the composition would be great.

Also needs Kingdom micro in the form that if I am an absolute monarch, I shouldn't be overridden by stupid petty lords when I want to make war or make peace, and I would like to set war goals / raid targets so these morons don't charge 70 miles away from our nearest outpost and get doom-stacked by another kingdom...

 

[stevehoos]

" (referring to TW management acceptance of features)

These TW elites are adopting a philosophy directly contrary to forum opinion. Good luck with that DLC. The town management is about as bland as any feature I have seen in a game like this considering the removal of building castles.

 

[Riffraff99]

I still believe its just too complicated and wouldnt make much fun for the player

 

[Fate]

I completely agree with with you all, I'm not looking for the player to have to micro for no reason or to overcome bugs in the game. I also agree it should be done in a way that you can still play the game properly if you don't want to control various options, but that they should be available for the players who do

I really don't see how a lot of the options that have been asked would be "too complex" or "too much to handle" even for extremely casual players so I start to wonder if TW just wants to be done with the game

 

[Riffraff99]

would be "too complex" or "too much to handle" even for extremely casual players

extremely casual players want:

we want:

 

[Death2Tyrants]

I don't want micro management either. But I want control.

 

[StewVader]

" (referring to TW management acceptance of features)

These TW elites are adopting a philosophy directly contrary to forum opinion. Good luck with that DLC. The town management is about as bland as any feature I have seen in a game like this considering the removal of building castles.

Yeah right dude. All of the TW simps on here and reddit will buy anything FailWorlds puts out, regardless of this ****show. This is precisely why the quality of games is so bad these days. The developers know people will buy it no matter what. Failwords won't pay any price for the Bannerlord deceptions and failure.

 

[Dean Beecham]

Also needs Kingdom micro in the form that if I am an absolute monarch, I shouldn't be overridden by stupid petty lords when I want to make war or make peace, and I would like to set war goals / raid targets so these morons don't charge 70 miles away from our nearest outpost and get doom-stacked by another kingdom...


Yep with you on this.

 

[relam10]

More options does not mean greater difficulty.

I think it is perfectly compatible with a game suitable for casual gamers while satisfying the requirements of depth and rpg elements.

Aside from increasing the depth of a game, the fast track to becoming a battle and grind simulator will always be present and viable to conquer the world.

Just as always, I think we have a clear mod bias. Warband vanilla was a pretty simple game. Its formula worked well and gave some more room for immersion, but it completely lacked advanced microgestion.

 

[Death2Tyrants]

Also needs Kingdom micro in the form that if I am an absolute monarch, I shouldn't be overridden by stupid petty lords when I want to make war or make peace, and I would like to set war goals / raid targets so these morons don't charge 70 miles away from our nearest outpost and get doom-stacked by another kingdom...


Yep with you on this.

I should think this would be a kingdom policy. Some kingdoms are more democratic...and some aren't.

Maybe they need to tweak Kingdom policies instead. @SadShogun @mexxico how open are you guys to tweaking Kingdom policies?

Because as it stands right now, towards the end game, Kings are like puppets especially with the way AI votes in unison.

For one, I think voting should be more in line with relations (unless there's a direct interest of course). For example, if clan A is currently about to win a fief and holds 5 prisoners whereas clan B has all of its nobles in chains, and clan B votes to sue for peace, why would clan A agree? Or if clan C didn't participate in the war (because it wasn't for the war in the first place so the nobles stayed to defend their own fiefs) and if clan C detests clan B then again, why would clan C vote for peace if it means paying tribute? There's no incentive right? Maybe if Clan C would gain tribute it would agree to peace but then again, it should have a check against relations. Like how much tribute is worth putting aside my hatred?

Right now, we can see that the AI votes together. There's literally no disagreement. So it's almost impossible for the King to overrule.

I'm ok with that if the policy in place was "Peerage" so maybe "Sacred Majesty" needs a huge buff so players with that policy can make whatever decision they want...at a cost.

Relations. To make sure things are balanced, I'd tweak the charm perk "Respectful Opposition". Maybe 15% no penalty, 30% half penalty. Or 50% half penalty so there's always a cost of overriding decisions but before you tweak the perk, please fix how the AI votes in unison.

 

[Dean Beecham]

I do think the way the Lords vote is ok but in the end the King should be able to say yes or no going against his lords its his kingdom if they no like then leave this is why i have not played a game making my own Kingdom yet whats the point if i can not control it . I always stop playing when i get the mid the late game and start again because of this.

 

[Eneas21]

I do think the way the Lords vote is ok but in the end the King should be able to say yes or no going against his lords its his kingdom if they no like then leave this is why i have not played a game making my own Kingdom yet whats the point if i can not control it . I always stop playing when i get the mid the late game and start again because of this.

Well being realistic we are talking of a medieval feudal society, power is spread among lords, absolute monarchies would come a few centuries later with centralization of power. Think of the king more as a first son among equals that holds the capital and a few more titles or lands, he still depends on the rest of lords to raise men from the countryside.

But I do agree that AI votes always together and that feels unrealistic, there should be rivalry, negotiations, and relations should play a big role in the votes, but this is all "too complex". So git gud

 

[Death2Tyrants]

I do think the way the Lords vote is ok but in the end the King should be able to say yes or no going against his lords its his kingdom if they no like then leave this is why i have not played a game making my own Kingdom yet whats the point if i can not control it . I always stop playing when i get the mid the late game and start again because of this.

How is it ok for them to all vote in sync? Are you suggesting it's natural for all clans to share the exact same goals and views at the same time?

 

[vonbalt]

yes, the more finer control and options we get the better, just take a look at the economy for instance, TW focused so much on making it a completely detailed simulation but where did they factored the player in this? the interaction? the gamming and fun? it's a marvel as a simulation but it could be completely static that 99% of us wouldn't even notice because we can barely interact with any of that and everywhere the game is suffering from this, they want their simulations to be so good and streamlined UI that they forget this is a game and we should be involved and have choices to make it fun.

 

[Dean Beecham]

How is it ok for them to all vote in sync? Are you suggesting it's natural for all clans to share the exact same goals and views at the same time?

I meant on giving them the choice to vote , i just worded it wrong

 

[Terco_Viejo]

[...] they want their simulations to be so good and streamlined UI that they forget this is a game and we should be involved and have choices to make it fun.

+5 I got horny reading that .

Some of you may be too young and maybe you've never seen it... the thing is; quite a few years ago there was a Pirelli advert:

Well, this can be applied to the game. Bannerlord has a very powerful economic system and the player barely controls a small part of it. And so on, in every single part of the game.

It really saddens me how little control we have when it comes to mass combat (the basics of the game). F.e. You suggest incorporating more command buttons like weapon switching, enemy unit targeting, unit grouping, relative positional movement (like in VC), etc... and you suddenly get a dev with a crucifix exclaiming - Back Satan, back to the abyss you should never have come from ? ? .

 

[Dean Beecham]

Well being realistic we are talking of a medieval feudal society, power is spread among lords, absolute monarchies would come a few centuries later with centralization of power.

I am sorry but thats not true.. England medieval gos from 1066 to 1485 and there were many Kings in that time and they all had the last say what i am saying is that its ok for lords to vote for war or not but the king gets the last say.

 

[Death2Tyrants]

yes, the more finer control and options we get the better, just take a look at the economy for instance, TW focused so much on making it a completely detailed simulation but where did they factored the player in this? the interaction? the gamming and fun? it's a marvel as a simulation but it could be completely static that 99% of us wouldn't even notice because we can barely interact with any of that and everywhere the game is suffering from this, they want their simulations to be so good and streamlined UI that they forget this is a game and we should be involved and have choices to make it fun.

It does feel that way doesn't it and someone had a "conspiracy theory" on the whys it was developed thus.

@guiskj I believe? Apologies if it wasn't you.

We're supposed to be the Harry Potter in this story...but instead, we've been reduced to a cog helpless to even feed our town.