I feel like Talesworld has fallen into the Bethesda trap: they just go "oh those improvements you mention? Modders can take care of those for you!" which lets them avoid the responsibility for fixing core gameplay elements.
It is funny when you were talking about the late game village quests not scaling in importance at all. Imagine the king just rolls in to your village and you ask him to deliver the herd.
@@Strat-GuidesI feel like it makes sense since if you don’t do something for the people then less people will grow up to like and fight for your cause and you can always task a companion to do these tasks for you…do they gain levels? It’s also tideous doing that but food for thought.
@@MG-cw4rw A king / lord wouldn't be doing it anyway.. They would be assigning their troops to do it. like not even good troops.. just recruits or something.. I wouldn't be sending my 2nd in command to deliver sheep .. I'd be sending a few recruits that I wouldn't miss. I would be leaving my 2nd in command for something I needed someone I could trust / rely on for.
@@chrishaugh1655 It makes sense that a lord or king would help his people to improve the economy. But I think those things must not be quests for high-tier clans. Instead, I'd prefer some menu in which you could send your troops and clan members to those villages.
@@igor8770 In Warband you could pick specific units to assign to formations so you could have shielded units in group 1, pikes in 2, shock troopers in 3, etc rather than them simply being all lumped into "infantry" together
Kenshi adding new animations to your character as they get better is one of my favorite aspects of the game, really adds a sense of progression to the character.
@@Strat-Guides You go from basic chop attacks, to full flourishes and combos, basic blocks, to dodges, back steps, counter attacks, rolls, and so forth. And it varies for each weapon. 100% Recommend Kenshi sooner rather than later. Your Bannerlord stuff is great, but I feel Taleworlds is more or less taking the money and running. We've had little to no real improvements for almost a year.
I'm still surprised they didn't just yoink all the Diplomacy and Freelancer mod concepts. Those two were easily the most popular non-conversion mods for Warband and the devs totally slept on them.
I couldn’t agree more with every single point I’d also add these: 1. You can’t play tall at all, every game no matter what style/faction you choose will end up you being genghis khan 2. More variety for sieges, from more siege weapons (such as Greek fire etc) and multiple stage sieges too 3. Your commanders can disobey you if they have low affinity for you or they have low tactics 4. Same as point one but with individual wars, either u win or lose, you can’t retreat and return back (the ai will keep chasing you) Other than that everything you mentioned is more than a need, there were even some points you mentioned I never thought of
Interesting point I hadn't considered - it would be really fun to play tall in this game! I like that suggestion a lot as it's one of my favorites in EU4
@@azzor4134 1. Exactly that’s the issue. 2. That’s the point, it will put an emphasis on choosing your commanders and having them trust (good relations) you just like irl
@@azzor4134 It might work if we can make the rewards reaped justify the risk taken. In other words if we can see a real difference with commanders, then simply not choosing any would not have to be such an obvious option.
I haven't played Bannerlord in well over a year and have never made it to the late game. I still like the game, it's a fun time, it's not like I'm actively avoiding it, but a lot of your points illustrate why it doesn't have the same pull for me to keep coming back. One major thing for me that I would add to the list tho- Character for the NPCs. I really miss from Warband that the companions and notables had PERSONALITY! As well as something resembling stories/missions/questlines for each ruler, including usurpers to the throne. But even without interacting with that, we remember Jeremus and Rolf and Ymira and Matheld bc even though it was super barebones (ex. Deshavi and Rolf hate each other, so one of them will leave you if you don't separate them), their personalities were meaningful in-game, memorable and made your campaign feel more personal. It feels like a relatively super easy fix vs things like improving the tactical AI (esp since character traits have existed for everyone since day one, with no in-game use for them), so it's frustrating that TW insists that every NPC be as bland and lifeless and placeholder-y as possible.
Yes! Everyone in Bannerlord feels the exact same, but with a different skin and stats for their skills. They all react the same, lead armies the same, fight in battle the same, etc. Just a bunch of bland, soul-less NPCs
Oh yes, those old NPCs. Fighting nord raiders with good old buddy Firentis is my first memory from M&B somewhere from 2007. Alayen, Bunduk, Marnid, those guys can tell a tale. But after 200 hours in Bannerlord I can't recall a single npc.
I still remember this fella fighting against the game breaking bugs of earlier versions of this game and bringing us content. Props to you little strat! fly high!
Great video and I would add one more thing. I wish there was some difference between the factions. Because at the moment they have different troops and colours, but there are kind of the same. And this creates a bit of a dissonance for me. On one hand you have Northern Empire that supports Senate, Western Empire which is a militaristic faction, Vlandia which is a feudal kingdom or Battania, which is some kind of confederacy of tribes. But their lore is just a note in encyclopedia because in game you don't feel any difference between them. It's not like Lucon has to consult with the Senate, because this doesn't exist anywhere in the game. I think that giving each faction a bit more depth would be advantageous. For example, image that the Empire has a capital city, like Rome or Constantinople, where you have an imperial palace or a senate building. Those unique buildings could grant some bonuses. And this could be the case with all other factions. Or add different types of governments. You can have a republic, monarchy, confederacy ect. Each might give you some bonuses but also certain limitations. And could lead to some interesting long quests, like: "Reestablish the Calradic Republic" or "Rebulit Calradia as an Empire"or "Transform Battania into a feudal kingdom" or "Fight to preserve Battania's old ways".
Yeah 100% agree! It also feels like nibbles are pretty much the same with different skins. I don't get the sense that anyone has their own "personality"
@@Strat-Guides Couldn't agree more, this world is an interesting early-medieval battle simulator, but that's all. It doesn't feel "lived in", all the lore is interesting, but you can't see it present anywhere in the game. If I remember correctly, Vlandia was once the part of the empire, but I don't recall seeing any ruins of remnants of any old imperial buildings anywhere. But all feels like it was static for couple hundreds of years or started to exist when the player enters it.
That would be awesome, while the other factions would benefit from it as well, the empire factions really really need it as of rn the only thing that's actually different between them is the leaders
You make tons of great points, as usual. I am equally as frustrated at the lack of diplomatic options in Bannerlord, and I've always been bothered by the fact that battles always end in one side getting utterly wiped out, completely ahistorical. Have you ever tried the De Re Militari mod? I've not used it myself, but it overhauls the troop trees and recruitment to better represent authentic medieval armies where levies would comprise the bulk of forces and nobles or professionals only a minority. I imagine it would go a long way towards preventing the type of snowballing you see where one faction obliterates the rest with hordes of T5/T6 units.
The main things I'd like to see are pre-battle army composition options and pre-battle orders (preferably that are saved between battles) and a "tackle" mechanic so that mobs of low tier troops can pin down isolated high tier ones and stab them to death.
Here's a hot take: the 1-2% perks have to be this way because if you combine them together in a coherent manner, they work better than anything else in the entire game. I already wrote in comments before how END+INT build with some VIG captain perks sprinkled on top can make an unstoppable army out of just melee infantry (you know, the cheapest, tankiest and most plentiful unit in the entire game) that you can F1+F3 into anything and go make some tea while it's winning, and spending time on micromanaging them will actually slow you down without changing anything substantially, it's basically the most trivial way to play a combat-focused character (you're still using a 9-10 END demigod with very high melee skills) and still practically having all the benefits of other attributes, like charisma or cunning, because you single-handedly win wars so you don't need good policies or relations, and you can "autoresolve" a battle by just loading in and sending your troops while you switch your attention on something else instead of using the actual autoresolve function. Stat bonuses to your formation and party are far more impactful in base game than any form of tactics or global strategy you can apply. Even spreading your units across multiple formations sometimes is a bad idea, because moving them from a captain who is a melee monster to some random lord in your army, you just get *vastly* inferior units that you micro-control only a bit better. And I'm afraid that's fundamental to the entire progression system, so, unless TW decides to rework it from grounds up, that's not going to change.
That's exactly the point I was trying to make - if you want any of the smaller perks to actually make a difference, you're forced into picking the same ones over and over because the alternative perks are simply useless/not worth it. I wouldn't mind seeing fewer perks (maybe every 50 levels or more) but make them much more impactful and make me want to restart to see how the other perks would do. Currently, it's mostly the same perks being picked over and over. Long time no see btw, hope you're doing well! Thanks for the comment :)
@@kubaGR8 Even back in the day, when you could just raise a "zombie" army consisting only of t1 peasants and autoresolve everything, it required you to run a dedicated charisma build with tons of leadership, as well as other blows and whistles, and even back then, it was annoying to constantly juggle recruitments and armies around, as well as train companions to even make it possible. After the autoresolve changes long ago, I would imagine it'd be infinitely worse. And that's only considering the sheer winning potential of such build. Don't get me started on how boring it would be to remove the battles from your gameplay, and just leave the tedious, repetitive preparation in.
I like the idea of an endgame option for trade players. If there was a limited amount of gold in the world and the player can obtain it all, or a majority of it and become the Bank of Calradia. Instead of conquering the world with armies, conquer it via trade and barter and rule from behind the Throne/s or being the kingmaker funding who you like and disenfranchising who you don't./
13:45 Its kinda funny how settlement expansion options got worse from warband to bannerlord in warband every single settlement on the map, from the smallest village to the largest town had upgrade options. Not sure how much they really affected things, but either way it was nice to have stuff to load money into I remember some village upgrades costing 10-15k to make, which in warband was quite alot when u first start getting fiefs and villages
@Strat Gaming Guides : On the topic of elite troop being more expensive I believe that their maintenance cost should be partly in influence. Also noble troop should only be recrutable in castle if you are of the right faction.
Oooh that's an interesting idea! I hadn't considered that, but it makes sense because noble troops are nobles. I also think vassals should require daily influence to maintain. It's so odd to think that we recruit them into the kingdom and that's pretty much it lol
in the realm of thrones mod you have the household troops which you get from a NPC inside the household 'capital'. Something like that for noble troops, but then with other prices and numbers as in this mod. Then more villages would have the regular bad troops and nobles would be more scares.
4:57 As someone who does actual reenactment (1300 Centra Europe), I can attest that many open field battles can be finished pretty damn quickly, and the game actually shows very well what happens when you do what the troops in the game often unfortunately do. They run into each other, break their formation and start hacking each other into pieces. Keeping the formation's cohesion is absolutely critical for success in a melee battle, because any break in the formation introduces individuals fighting against multiple opponents at once without their side being protected. Once a single side breaks the formation, it perishes. If both sides break their formations (happens pretty much always in MB), it is going to be incredibly swift bloodbath for both sides. A battle taking days is not realistic. In full heavy armor, especially under direct sun, one can fight (with generous breaks) for an hour or two before being pretty much completely spent. Longer battles were so long because they inculded small skirmishes, sieges or long maneuvers. But that time was anything but filled by the actual melee. In real battles, if the formation of one of the sides was broken, it would immediately try to fall back and re-form its line. If either that was not successful or the discipline was too bad for this to be even seriously attempted, the entire group of troops would just break into open rout (which could have been stopped later, like in Total War). The reasons are two. The first is described above: your formation is broken = you are going to die, and soon. The second is the following: in many battles, especially in early and high middle ages, you would often be able to tell the friend from foe mainly from the direction they were facing. Are they facing you? An enemy. Are they facing the same direction as you are? An ally. There weren't uniforms back then, certainly not for common troops. Forget about Total War units bearing shared colors. Nothing like that up until the late middle ages. Sure, you can tell a Mongol from and European, but if 2 Austrian lords are battling each other over some inheritance and both brought bunch of foreign mercenaries with them... yeah, good luck. So, once the formation breaks, you are suddenly surrounded by combatants and may often be unsure about who is your ally and who your enemy. And that is the moment when you want to bail. And fast. So, formation cohesion should be #1+++ priority for all units. Losing it should introduce massive morale hits. Units trying to keep their formation would also fight way more defensibly and carefully. And losses would be coming way slower, at least until someone's formation breaks. Then it's a bloodbath. That would fix your concerns and make the battles way, way more tactical.
I hate the fact that there are no real tactics/orders or objectives to your armies or parties they just roam around the map doing nothing or getting into fights they can’t win. I would love it if I can open up a map and have my army patrol a certain route around a fief or something or have them block a bridge or tell them when and where to attack
Yes and give orders like "Take x castle" "raid in this area" "Hunt down the emperor and capture him" "follow my army and support us by providing logistics, food, taking our battle loot/ prisoners back to x town to store/sell" "defend x town and its villages and if theres an enemy army retreat into the town to bolster the siege defense" Theres so many dynamic options!
very thankful to have such a dedicated bannerlord channel, your 5k hours show, especially in the livestreams; i like your suggestions i hope they reach the taleworlds team, keep up the good videos
I remember Warband having flee and rally mechanics too, but it'd trigger before the fleeing units left the field. Chasing down fleeing enemies could be dangerous.
@@kubaGR8An individual fortress simply isn't a large enough part of the entire economy to count as a closed loop. Now it is true that on the map itself you could have a closed resource loop but the entire world itself isn't a closed loop. Trade caravans bringing in goods and dwarves are essentially generated out of thin air. Dwarf Fortress is a pretty cool game though for its complexity.
Closed loop seems two orders of magnitude harder to get done properly. I don't think there is a game that fully works that way. Balancing that to not derail into broken state will be a nightmare
Distant Worlds: Universe tried something like this. Ships are built with actual resources, mining them has a very severe cap and you will always crunch on fuel. The issue is mostly that you can't control how resources are moved or how many ships actually do it, since that's handled by civilians. (NPC ships on your side) Also, fuel crunch completely kills the endgame of every single empire unless you're a player and know how to manage it. The AI doesn't, so that's an autowin. Still, one of the better games I've played.
Adding more man made structures (perhaps randomly generated) to battlefields such as watch towers, charcoal burners, logging camps and small farmsteads could help diversify tactics a bit more by breaking up battlefields and make them feel more varied. It could also make the world feel more alive and lived in as there aren't really and artificial structures in the game besides towns, villages and hideouts (and bridges). It just feels like a missed opportunity that I haven't seen anybody mention.
totally agree! I usually burn out from a campaign after I've gotten a few towns as there is nothing unique to do in the late game. I remember getting so excited from perisno with the zann invasion. Something like this or a revolution when you take a certain amount of fiefs to have something to build up for in the late game would be awesome. I also really like the idea of reduced amount of quality perks. It always seems like there is just 1 real option to choose from. Great stuff, hopefully the taleworlds devs can see this and see a thing or two to implement into their amazing game!
Trade - Id like to see it have added effects that focus on boosting a town. Loyalty, food production, recruits, etc. Basically a governors/lords skill tree. I literally 9nly use it to buy feifs, but the problem is, by the time I've leveled it to max, it would literally be easier to just TAKE the city. I def want more options/sliders. For example, i use a mod to make exp gain 50% of vanilla. But then make arena exp 300% (basically simulating training; if i rely on fights to train them, itll take forever; get them in a tourney, watch their fights, and they'll gain combat exp faster. Training lol) I WISH there was a mod that reduced recruit spawning by at least 50% (slower to build armies). AND i wish taking recruits from a village reduced its hearth. ("I wish i could take these guys, but the village is BARELY feeding the castle as is"). I love RBM; I laugh and said "bullshit" when losing a close arena fight (laughing because its FUN to be challenged, and losing means its working 😂) I love xorbacks legacy (or whatever) that adds scholars to towns (again, training). I love Agricultural Estate (but DO wish vanilla had iptions to buod up the village. Training grounds for better militia, actual animal breeding, have high end villages ables to unlock the ability to grow more than one type of food (basically clear fields like in AE). I NEED A FEAR MECHANIC Basically, if I'm KNOWN for taking no survivors, even larger armies should ACTIVELY avoid me, and kingdoms should be too aftaid to declare war on me. (Unless in a coalition, maybe; but even then only "reckless" lords should willingly attack you. Theres more, but we all have a list lol.
Yeah having your own kingdom is really fucked for some reason. You'll take a small castle in Battania and then for some reason kurzhaits will declared war on you for no reason
my biggest peeve is, if you fight as a commander within a larger army and whether you're given a small detachment or not, the allied commander leading the battle will usually give you explicit orders, "skirmish here, hold here, fight here, engage here, retreat, regroup" etc, giving the players a way to input those commands and those commands make the ai do it, would not be that hard in my mind, most of the necessary mechanics are already there, you just have to make sure it's done in that manner, love the game hope something like that is added, cause larger battles feel like I either have to micromanage or it's f1-f3 time.
@@SuperGreyknight Thats just handing the ai your troops without being able to give them explicit tactical orders, wich means they will basically go off and do their own thing (suicide charge) instead of being compliant to a bigger battle plan. Might as well just F1+F3 since its the same thing. What the OP meant was giving overarching orders to "squads" that you do not have to micro yourself, such as defend this radius, skirmish or flank this side. So you could still have a coherent plan without having to micro like you're playing 3rd person total war
My suggestions for combat: - add skill to speed scaling, meaning not only do people swing slower when in lower skill, but they block, recover, and react slower to attacks. - increase spear attack animation. It does not need to be op like in RMB, where getting a stack of javelin makes you the most person on the battlefield. Spears need passive dmg hit box and realistic trusting speeds, which can be very fast even when wielded by low skill people. - Bring back warband couch lancing flexibility. Allow for a wide range of movements during couch lancing and not the restrictive motion we have currently My suggestions for sieges: - allow players to control where he can be deployed, and if the player is a lord, allow the player to deploy his own troops. Disable auto delegate on siege start, since it causes more issues than it is beneficial. - please, and I mean it, please add some way to tell the ai to get off the goddamn catapults. It is so annoying to have to physically waste all catapult ammo or destroy it to prevent ai from rushing to using it even when the catapult is overran by enemies. - for the love of God make the ram take at least some damage when we hit the roof. As of now if you hit the roof, the ram itself takes no dmg and act as if it isn't even part of it. - remove infinite defender ammo. Add general ammo pool that all defender units share. Remove infinite ammo on siege ambushes. It is just broken and makes no sense, unless winning a 30 v 1500 men siege is OK for taleworlds - make ai rush defenders when they reach the top of the walls instead of waiting or rushing for the gate. - reduce accuracy of sieging archers units against archers on walls. It makes no sense that the best strategy currently is to not have archers on walls (bar for a few high ground castle maps)
haven't seen the vid yet, but my suggestion would be better revolutions. If you could recruit other lords in your kingdom to your side before you rebel, or AI lords can rebel against you that would force kings to care about their lords and actually give land.
want to add that mount and blade has come a long way since its early developement days of couching looters with a quarterstaff. it just takes time, but it has been a fun journey. one mechanic from warband/viking expansion that i would like to see return, is you could pay bards to increase your standing with clans/within kingdoms. You also could buy your troops a feast and other services from taverns to keep them happy. Little things like that makes a difference. also, viking expansion was a hard game
Even tho I enjoy the game for what it is(and it’s very unique), I could not fathom putting 5k hours into bannerlord. They haven’t even remotely added 5k worth of content
I haven't played Bannerlord in a while but I'm with you. You're raising good points and I feel like these changes/additions would truly help the game feel much better and less boring.
For me the one thing I love in games is actually the cutscenes and the story like in campainge i feel like they don't make a big enough deal about you reuniting the empire or whatever. As well I think all of the mentioned things are really important as well. Great video!
in medieval combat, all out field battles were rare; armies tended to deal largely in skirmishes resulting in lost supplies and wounded to take care of, a long battle of attrition here's how I'd handle it; when you encounter a large army, you enter a turn based tactical grid in which you move portions of your forces defending certain points. each army has its resources physically placed on this grid map, a central camp, supplies, prisoners, money being carried, even siege equipment. you move your forces on this grid and when one skirmishing party attacks another it will pull directly adjacent parties in tetris style so if everything is clumped together a massive battle may result; otherwise you can split your forces up and join individual units on skirmish assaults to take tactical resources damaging their army depending on your respective leadership and tactics skills, after a number of turns armies may disengage and the battle ends if there are many parties involved, they control the actions of their own skirmishers and have their own camps and resources; if you wanna jailbreak your prisoners just press the assault against the tile holding them and jump into that battle, if you wanna break up the army and make them regroup back in their own territory then raid their camp, cut their progress by taking their food or dispersing their pack animals, end a siege by attacking their siege weapons
@@shadowsensei9040they have boardgame AI, so it seems plausible in concept that they could do something like this seeing as it follows the same general principle. Biggest issue coming to mind for me is how you'd divide your troops up into turn based units. I'd say probably 20 troops in a single tile unit and the distribution of troops is by unit type (so don't leave archers unattended)
I have roughly 2100 hours in Bannerlord with most of it being multiplayer because lets face it, singleplayer is boring and has no complete total conversion mods to add flavour to it. And so I just want to quickly add my thought on the sections in this video. 1. I disagree with basically everything about limited combat as I think its already in a fine state and its only seems limited if you play against the poor AI. I do agree with the shield part however as the invisible shield range was a problem in warband as well and it sucks that I made it into bannerlord. 2. I agree that there needs to be more damage group and should basically adopt a RBM Lite version for Bannerlord. 3. Stamina could work but yeah RBM posture system sucks. 4. Yeah battles should later longer, 10-20 minutes should the the ideal range and in general troops just need to be more self preserving and AI generals use unique tactics based on their personality traits. Also if armour is properly improve then the battles with be generally longer. Also I liked in RBM how damaged/unshielded troops would retreat to the rear of the formation instead of suiciding in the front. 5. Generally AI just needs to be improved. Cav AI is still as useless as ever. 6. I would love to see more improvements to settlement management, I think the problem is that everything can be built given time and money. How about some culture buildings or limited build slots with unique building options forcing to pick between economic buildings or military building etc. 7. Companions need more variety. Where are the nobles, the brigands, the hermits etc. And I would also like to see companions be hired by AI clans like in Bannerkings because it makes the world feel lot more lively and encountering perhaps a former companion now working for a rival cool for story building. Wanderers just need to have more freedom to do their own thing in the world instead of waiting for the player to hire them. I also think it would be cool if you could privately train companions in spars sessions like warband had with the training fields. However having a companion limit is good and I don't want that to change. Hiring unlimited companions is okay for a unique playthrough like companions only but for general game purpose it makes no sense to hire massive amounts of them as it just means every companion is even more forgettable. 8. I think that villages should just not make noble troops but instead noble troops need to be recruited in castles at a very limited amount. It never made sense to me how I can conscript an entire army of vlandian squires and gallants just from a couple of villages. They should be more rare. 9. I think I would like more quests that come in multiple parts. Basically all quests are "do this thing then come back to me" I would like some more long term missions. 10. Yeah late game is just boring and it really shouldn't be as kingdom building is a great gameplay concept. They need to improve diplomacy and long term clan behaviour. I also want them to ditch the hivemind relation and just build relation with the individual and not the clan like it was in warband. Also I do like the idea of mid game crisis like a brigand warlord of a foreign horde wandering the map. I remember mods for warband like Pendor which had invading armies and unique spawns that just make the game so much more interesting. 11. Vassals are easy to manage because personalities have very little impact and all kingdoms just run the same. They need more difference between cultures like with the calradian civil war they say they are all different but just play the same. One should be a republic, another a absolute monarchy and the last one a military junta etc. Also more interaction with vassals would be nice, hosting tournaments and feasts to appease them. Losing a war should have some serious consequences when you make peace and have to pay money to an enemy with vassals being upset at your poor leadership. 12. Tournaments need to be leveled. Local tournaments could be hosted for low reward but anyone can take part while royal tournaments only accept nobles but have much higher reward outcome. 13. I think Bannerlord should adopt the project zomboid approach to learning where reading books and studying do not directly increase xp but simply increase xp gain up to a certain level depending on the quality of the book. A level 1 social book would increase all xp gain to skill in the social tree to a level of 50, requiring better books to continue the xp boost. Also makes it a good money sink. 14. Just add the option to smith armour, that's all I want. And that's about it from me >.< It is amazing how this game still feels like its in Early Access despite being released like 2 years ago now.
I can see where you're coming from with combat - I've got maybe 100 hours online and it's like night and day difference. But it's still pretty sad that a left swing will always look the exact same no matter who is throwing it. I don't have much experience with armed combat, I've got a lot in hand to hand and varying up your speed and power can make a huge difference in throwing off your opponent. The Diaz brothers are a perfect example - they throw a ton of soft, slower punches to train the enemy to block them, then vary the speed and power to sneak through the guard. I'm not sure how they would implement any of that to be honest, but it would be fun to have!
Yeah this!! It would be so cool to see the animation change at different skill levels. I know RBM adds the ability to "preload" 3 arrows in the hand for rapid fire after a certain level, but it would be nice to visually see the progression.
@@Strat-Guides another thing is for mounted archery perks you can switch hands to shoot ambidextrously allowing you to skirmish 360 degrees. All famous horse archer cultures did this
3:30 there was a stamina system that was used for one of the dlc's of warband, granted it originally started as a mod and was eventually made into an official extension. It would be interesting to have that system implemented into bannerlord, or at the very least some version of it.
Historically the defeated side in a battle suffered at least 40% of casualties while the winning side took less than a 5%. This was so common that the only time it did not happen like this, the battle was remembered for millenia (Pyrrhus of Epiro against romans)
To me, the biggest shortcomings are definitely battles and diplomacy, a cassus belli system similar to Paradox games would be amazing (it can be as easy as giving a bunch of objectives before declaring war and having your vassals vote on it). You already explained why so I won't add anything there, I'll just say that not having to do more than 110 sieges to paint the map, or have conflicts play out in specific parts of a kingdom would be among the amazing consequences of these additions. A lot of things can be suggested, but trying to stay within the confines of what's easier and more pressing, I think sieges could do with more attention. They are the second thing you do the most after battles after all. A lot has already been done to improve them, but I think it could go even further. Diplomacy is nearly useless, towns should have the option to negotiate a surrender rather than contest every army through force. Sneaking in town to open the gates...would give a purpose to sneaking inside hostile towns, bribing the gatekeeper (charm), sapping (ingeniery)...should all be options available to the player. Sneaking in town should be easy enough to implement, bribing as well. For sapping it could involve a trench battle or even just fighting a sortie to protect your sapping works, if the sortie succeeds, then it's back to square one, if it fails then the next assault will load a map where the city lacks one of the walls. Overall, sieges really need some variety in what can happen while besieging an enemy or being besieged yourself.
Actually some of your suggestions were already covered in warband. And they decide to remove, there was a misson for raiding a caravan for war declearation and economy was somehow effect the aggressions, like lack of a some materials can motivate the one kingdom to declear a war to a kingdom has surpluses
We should be able to higher smiths to customize/temper our equipment for large prices. (I'd prefer this to get all the end game weapons and armor than the current skill. The skill could be replaced with a block/parry skill) I also dislike the perks, I would prefer to have the skill points themselves do more to improve my abilities than to suddenly be able to fire a long bow/xbow from horse back. (I'd prefer that not to be an option, but if it is perhaps we receive a greater penalty from them which reduces with a higher skill)
One thing that's small but I'd love to see is a small zone of control around cities and castles. Somewhat like total war. It just seems so dumb to have a cool castle in a small mountain pass that enemy forces can just walk past. Maybe it wouldn't be balanced but it could be super cool to be able to force an enemy to attack a castle to break through a pass or to take a longer unguarded way around.. perhaps even have rougery or scouting Perks that allow you to bypass the zones of control or the option of ambush battles where the idea is to cross to the other side of the map using your elite troops to make a rear guard.. I'd also like to see more consistency in the bridge battles. Would be nice if there was a little icon that showed you when you would have a bridge battle or a coastal battle.. or perks to hide in rougery.. I hate how if you attack a caravan especially early game its super hard to attack any others since they have so much calvary they can just outrun you. Would be awesome to have the option as a rougery perk to take time to set up an ambush and after a few hours your party can hide and wait for enemy armies or caravans.. likewise you should have the ability to make a fortified camp with high enough engineering.. imagine being able to find a critical pass into the mountains and you fortify a camp giving you a village like battle with walls but no gates..
Great vid dude. Lots of good points :) 16:21 One thing I would like to add in regards to quests ( 16:21 ) is that there are some quests that give village hearths on completion. Quests like "village needs tools", "village needs draught horses" and "deliver herd to x/y town" give a flat +40 hearths which is nice to get recently raided villages back to the 200 hearth breakpoint for town food supply. Little known mechanic that I would love to see more of in game
I’m all for these & I hope they get noticed. I think two of the simplest additions that would have the largest impact would be adding more diplomacy options & reworking delegating command. Both of these would improve the core draw of the game: the ability to be on the ground in battle personally leading an army you recruited yourself & a large campaign map with unique factions & cultures the player can shape & mold by their actions. Adding even a Medieval II Total War level of diplomacy would go a long way adding to role play & provide much needed variance in how the world plays out & responds to the player & other factions. Giving the player the option to choose the approach of their captains would offer a real reason to delegate & free up time & focus to personally fight in a battle more frequently if they choose.
Would love to see how advanced ai like gpt and such would integrate into games like bannerlord 2. Imagine being able to instruct ai on how play especially on delegate command, like making the ai play defensively or more of a skirmish harass style etc. while you command your other troops like cav or like waging guerilla warfare on the side somewhere. I am super excited to see how imaginative future game devs will be on integrating super advanced ai into future games
They should definitely make shields have accurate cover since shields are directional now. As for events, the Mount and Blade lore can be used for that. The Nord invasions and Rhodok rebellion.
I’d say one of the most annoying things is when you destroy a enemy’s party of like 150 troops and then you see the same party on the map not even a week later with the same amount of troops. It feels like winning a big battle doesn’t really matter too much
Very well thought out improvements, many of them would’ve even be super hard to implement and I’m sure several modders have already, sucks that this game isn’t given as much support from developers as it could
Good video. Personally, I think armies should be able to use at least some heavy equipment while on the march. Currently, going full Genghis Khan and spamming horse archers is is too overpowered. But imagine if a slower moving army could bring a ballista or even a catapult to the fight. This would help re-balance the game and give players more of choice when building their armies.
0:50 - Your movement can also dictate the "speed" of your attack(more specifically travel time from start of swing to target), if you move the same direction as your swing you will hit faster or if you look to the right as you do right swing, there's a shorter travel time, albeit the latter can have reduced damage because of it. You can combine the two to hit your target even faster, a technique that we used to do in Warband, was looking straight down while having our target directly left of us and doing a left swing, this was the shortest possible swing distance we could create and would be used to counter an attack by attacking as they attack, your attack would always be quicker unless they did the same as you. These are all equally applicable in Warband as it is Bannerlord. But, I do agree that the format is too basic, it hasn't really changed since first game other than slight adjustments on swing patterns, possibly speed and blending of animations. Shields have always been a frustration, it was equally a problem in the previous titles, they are just far too powerful and ends up being the de-facto choice for survivability. I can't imagine it would be too hard to fix that, assuming you just change values on the shield and the shield skill that increases that invisible hitbox. Stances is a good idea to increase the complexity of combat, could even be as simple as switching between thrusting and swinging stances. I also like the morphing that was done in games like Mordhau, where you can start as a swing but switch to a thrust and everything is animated for it. I'd also like to see the possibility to half-sword and Mordhau/Murder-stroke for more potential damage against plated enemies. Shield + spear has always been the worst combat style in the franchise, it's far too slow and only has two forms of attacks which are both thrusts. Because of its slowed attacks, it can often botch the attack, making the "bump" sounds instead of doing dmg, leaving you open for an attack. Personally, I wish they kept the swings for the spears, while it would be useless against a heavily armoured, it would be useful to non-armoured and to confuse your enemy. While it also should be affected by what type of spear/polearm it is, if it has more mass or is hafted with a blade or spike, it should do more swing damage. Personally, I think the crush-through overhead strikes are far too strong at times and can easily be exploited by maintaining the correct distance, I think if you block(deflect) at a timely fashion, it should counter-act the crush-through.
I know many people complain about that aswell: but I honestly believe for more complex games the Paradox approach to games might be really good. Most paradox games come at full price at release. Alongside normal update which include minor balancing and bugfixes paradox also publishes new features. Some of the features are free (incorporated in the base game) and some come with a paid dlc. Sure we would have to pay for some „premium“ features but this approach rewards devs (and ultimately the stakeholders/management) to keep developing the game and keeping it alive over the years. Heck, EU4 is from 2013 and still going. It’s a comparable business model like older paid MMOs (excluding the monthly subscription costs).
I wish they would make trading and workshops more useful like in Warband. Getting the ability to build one castle and smith armors like in Nova Aetas wouldn.t hurt either
Love the comments about companions. It's why I don't have Bannerlord yet, and still play warband. Companion only playthroughs are the only way I'll play now, modded or unmodded. It's too much fun. I just completed a companion only playthrough with all 16 companions on vanilla (xbox), no horses, no vassels. Just the 16 lovable rascals and me.
I aslo think it would be great if sieges had more options. It would be nice if defeating an enemy army next to a town or castle, increased the chances of said fief to surrender. You could also add the ability to sneak inside the fief to open the gates of the take the keep under cover of darkness, or even if you have good relations with notables they might help you during a siege wether you are the defender or attacker, and the AI could do the same. Maybe as the defender you could also raid the enemy camp, destroying their supplies and lower their army cohesion. Perhaps even force them to give up the siege or send forces to gather supplies, making them target for an ally relief force. I also believe it is too easy for catapults and trebuchet to break down the walls. Stone walls were much harder to destroy from bombardment. If you want to tear down the walls you could always do some sapping.
8:00 in. I agree with EVERYTHING said, but I want to expand a bit. And I won't ask the impossible. 1. Recruiting System - This system should be more Dynamic and Realistic. Let me give an Example. Say you got into a War with your Neighbor, and at first there's Tons of Recruits because you had Peace time and People to spare. As the War goes on, Recruiting should get more and more difficult due to Warrime Economy, Enemy Armies Raiding Territory, and Villages needing a Minimum amount of People to keep the Village running. 2. Diplomacy - We all know the Current Vanilla Diplomacy is garbage, though it has been Polished a Smidge. Nowhere near enough though. 3. Supply & Demand - The Economy in Bannerlord is as basic as it gets. With very little change aside from when a Player takes over a Settlement. I want this expanded on by making Population and Professions a thing. Each Village, as mentioned before needs a Certain amount of People to run. Especially depending on the Resources said Villages Produce. And if we add a Profession System, depending on the Resource, and the skill of said Professional, it can really make an impact. The Companion and Notable Systems could be combined to make this work. And on top of that, whilst we do have Trade Caravans, the only thing that really happens when one is destroyed is the Owner Faction typically just loses money. This needs to change. 4. Village & Town Specialization - Whilst each Village produces certain Resources, Towns serve as nothing more than Hubs with only a handful of Workshop Slots. And they don't adhere to their Surroundings, Map Placement, or Common Sense. Let me give an Example: A Major Town by the Sea should have a Functional Port. Where Traders, Fisherman, and Navy Sailors should be located. You should be able to make Naval Caravans, Build a Shipwright, or Fishery Business, etc. 5. War & Peace Changes - As stated, each Faction should operate differently during these Times. Say you just got out of a 10 Year War with Sturgia, your Economy would likely, depending on how you managed it, be Weaker as it didn't have the Workforce necessary to sustain it due to them serving in the War. You should have to spend time going around to Towns & Villages to get Quests to either: - Resupply them with essential Resources. - Find People/ Slaves to Relocate to that Village or Town to fill the Labor need. - Petition their Lord to send Aid to the Village. - Or Offer to free the People of their Service to their Current Lord to better serve under You. 6. Fief & Loyalty System Overhaul - I always loved how in Warband sometimes you would have to start with just a Single Village and work your way up. I would like to see that brought back and expanded on depending on some of the Factors in other Points I made above. Take ownership of a Village, becoming the Village Chief. Interact with your Villagers, Expand or Improve your Village in various ways like you do with Castles. AND SEE IT, not just alter an invisible statistic. Let me give an Example: Say you were at War, and your Villages main resource is Iron. Of course you have a Blacksmith(s) in your Village helping to Produce Arms or Armor for your Lord, (And maybe even your Local Guard). And you wanted to Fortify your Village against possible Raiders. Pull a Trump, and build a Wall. Gate and All. Loyalty needs to expand BEYOND just Lords and Ladies, but also Fiefs and entire Clans. I know Clans are already somewhat touched, but I mean even Individual Memebers of Clans, or Families turning Traitor against the Rest. AND FOR TALEWORLDS TO GET OFF THEIR ASSES AND STOP LETTING MODDERS FIX THEIR GAME. That's all.
I think the worst part of bannerlord is the NPC relations system. I used to think warband was bad for how basic it was. Giving you only a few options to mess with for improving or lowering relations. But Bannerlord has even fewer interactions!. They introduced 2 new menus to mess with, one for clan and the other for kingdom. And in there, there are only policies for bonuses/penalties and some fluff text, and war peace declarations. The most you can do there to affect relations with nobles is to improve or remove some of their influence. The best thing they can do to fix this is to make influence a resource that you have regardless of being in a kingdom or not, that is used for all sorts of relations. You want to be a merc for a faction? You need to use your influence and charm to persuade the ruler that you are worth the coin, maybe even negotiate pay. The more the noble likes you and the weaker the kingdom is the easier it is for you to negotiate higher prices. Make marriage agreements that bind the clans together, yes, but you need to be influential enough for them to consider binding themselves to your clan. If you accrued a lot of influence you'll be invited to join a tournament as a guest of honor, allowing you to fight and/or simply spectate from a special noblemen viewing gallery with other nobles giving you chance to improve relations with them through special conversations, some allowing you to spend influence to improve relations further or even with the noble's friends. Send your companions as messengers to nobles to converse with them even in times of war on matters such as trade, conspiracy or none-aggression pacts between the two of you, with a chance that your companion will be imprisoned if the noble dislikes you, has a trait that would make him prone to do such things while also not being a friend of yours. Make some companions require persuasion and high enough relation with them to make them join you rather than everyone being a hired mercenary. (which also makes me question, why do you need to pay for your family members to fight with you? Isn't your money the clan's money?!) There's so many things that can be done with the new kingdom, clan and influence mechanics to improve the social interaction part of the game. The devs just need to put a little thought into using it and making quests related to personal relations and not just "noble needs horses" or "noble too busy to collect taxes". How about "Derthart, the bastard, imprisoned my son for a week, find him, kill his army and drag him through the dirt for a while and make sure he knows that Caladog means business!" Or something like that.
Great suggestions! The countless number of videos and posts with such well developed feedback goes to show how much potential this game has. It’s a shame that Taleworlds doesn’t seem to care to do anything more with it and simply let the modders sort it out. I only get excited and return to the game when overhaul mods come out. It was the same case with M&B 2, but the base game lasted quite a bit longer. In short, thank you to all the modders who put so much time and passion into improving the game
Personally I think lategame grind could be somewhat avoided by a custom culture system. Being able to establish your own cult following and gain the support of the people, and claiming towns under your culture to enhance your iron grip on foreign territories. This could also allow you to make your own troop trees. Maybe you get a merc troop tree if you prove yourself as a good mercenary. And then more of a customizable troop tree as you claim territory and prove yourself superior. Finally culminating in the custom noble troop tree after you claim a sufficient amount of land and influence
It's actually super interesting having watched the video a month later and seeing (potentially) some results of the criticism here be in the game. The game does indeed have Alliances and non-aggression pacts now! :D PS. this is just one of the things I noticed, I more or less agree with most things aside from the over-realistic battle stuff, I was an avid supporter of RBM at some point but over time it got on my nerves just how much time things took despite the overall massive enhancement to the experience, it almost stopped being a game in a sense which I think Bannerlord should still stay as.
Love the video! A lot of things kind of bland together. But to combine caravans and economical warfare. It would also be nice if Caravans made better decisions. So you could for example find a spot on the map make it economically prosperous and have Caravans try and stay in the safe area. Now raid parties also become more valuable. It would in the same light make sense for caravans from hostile factions to avoid these areas. Something that never made sense to me was seeing empire caravans traveling in Khuzait territory when they are at war (even when they aren't, they make war all the time). One could also use bandits to then specifically target said areas for example.
A main diffference i have seen between Warband village quests and Bannerlord village quests Bannerlord gives you money and relations and Warband only relations (from what i remember, if they also give money then there is that, but mostly is just relations or sometimes supplies) Money as already is discused is good in early game and useless in mid to end, so, we keep relations What does good relations with a village (or more specifically, a village influential lord) give you?, from what i know, you only get 1...or sometimes 2 more troops to recruit in the village, which is...kinda of dissapointing, taking the fact how much you need to level relations (not that much in realistic but still) What does good relations with a village (This time, the entire village) in warband give you?. The Volunteers they give you can be upgraded from recruits, to militia, and in the higher levels they can even give you a pretty big ammount of elite troops at the highest levels (We are talking about they giving you almost like 15-20 or even more troops like Huscarls, Sergeants, etc.) Both are annoying to level up, but in warband they give you as a prize a constant way to get elite troops, which can be useful in the mid to end game (at least after a big battle and you have lost some). Not that it is way better, but that system gave you at least a better reason to upgrade relations that...winning an extra random troop when you recruit Some other not related things i like about warband better -Vassals are way harder to recruit and need management. You cant just leave them alone, you need to give orders (Or have a trusty marshall do them), because they will defect if they dont feel happy. And also having a successfull kingdom can attract them to join yours by their own -Marriages are uncommon and you need to work on them. You have to romance ur lady at least a little, and way more than in bannerlord. They dont give you childs, but they give you an alliance with the family, and you need to work on it, unlike Bannerlord where you just...pay a lot of money. Also you could fight against another nobles for her! -Class Difference. Being Female or of low level origin would make it harder for you to level up. Heck, you couldnt have your own banner if you werent a noble already!. -Companions. No need to explain here, there is no Jeremus -Mods. No need to explain here, there is no Perisno, 457AD, Prophesy of Pendor, Hispania 1200, Between Empires...you get the point
100% agree with all of your suggestions, though I doubt most of them will be possible (maybe some will eventually be tackled by some incredibly dedicated and skilled modders), but fingers crossed. Anyway, just want to say thanks for all the work you've done on your Bannerlord videos. You've been my go-to UA-camr for the last few years when it comes to Bannerlord. Your videos are extremely helpful, and the meticulous care and attention to detail is appreciated.
I recently did a merchant playthrough and was distinctly disappointed with the lack of depth trading had to offer. It boiled down to buying a bunch of trade goods from villages and towns with low prices and going somewhere with low access to that resource to sell them, and repeat. In addition to your thoughts about dynamic economies and trading monopolies, I'd love to see something like a trader/artisan/village notary trade agreements to give more depth to where and who you should buy goods from. Instead of just letting you buy more troops from them, high relations would let you propose trade agreements at the cost of influence, relation, or both to give you lower trade penalties, exclusive access to goods, or allow you to buy a higher tier of goods from them for the chance at better profit margins. It would actually make decisions about which villages or traders to help and which you shouldn't feel impactful, and give weight to things like raiding villages and caravans during wars.
I think it would be great to have minor lords with low influence and mercenaries come to you for quests like we do to lords in the early game. You would be able to assign them a quests that you have accepted and would offer payment, you more you offer the more likely they will accept.
18:50 , I use that a lot in my game : declare a war, immediately start sieging, take 1 or 2 settlements, and declare piece before they can take one of your fiefs. The price of the peace can look expensive, but it's a price per day, so you can just declare war again to stop paying (and take a few more fiefs). I took most fiefs from factions much stronger than me like that. (you can also buy all food from a town before declaring war and sieging to make the siege easier)
F1 F3 is a classic Everytime I start a match im like "f1,,, f3" And exactly, all the points you provided would literally make me addicted to this game. I only have 200 hours, but if these were alll added it would multiplied by hundreds
honestly all these points are on the mark but even IF they were to do all that the game would still feel hollow (to me at least). the world just has no life there's no world building, no world state changes from things like a complete annihilation of a major faction no reactions from the npc's to ANYTHING that happens in the world; settlement raided last night "butters selling well in pen this week" castle next door burning to the ground, "nice weather today" no real lore aside from a couple dialog chats. no real peace time activity's like feast, proper weddings, proper tournaments, festivals tailored to there culture's, all of which could have the potential for rivals to commit subterfuge or straight up dastardly betrayal think red wedding or Tourney at Harrenhal type deal. sieges are completely bland and short and just feel uneventful after the first one. cities don't even feel populated and have next to nothing in them to do, taverns are a joke. I used to look forward to the dev blogs to see what's next on the list but really its just down right disappointing. for a team this large I expected to see much more than warband but the only thing truly improved are the graphics/cosmetics, and battle size, they completely left out the rest of the game. at this point modders are the only reason this game even has/had life anymore and I think the dev's have just given up
I think economy/trade and diplomacy are the things I'd want to be changed/upgraded the most. FE it's fun starting out as a trade character but it doesn't scale well and after a certain point the profit margins become neglible + you have too much money anyways. Also being able to properly affect/damage the economy of cities/regions/enemies would be nice.
main things for me are the diplomacy, the party troop organizer (warband style) and i would love for a more restricted map (large armies can only use roads and if they want to go through mountains/dense forest/very ruff terrain, they would incur a heavy penalty to movement and soldiers would eat ration faster) to simulate that the land can actually offer actual benefits other then your troops are just barely slower. Also i know there is the (very buggy) sally out option but i would love to have a second entrance to the castle in order to do a proper sally out with my knights when being besieged. Granted i always use MLW mod so i can make my own troops but it still makes cavalry a bit pointless when during a siege. I would love to be able to sally forth with my knights to hit the enemy archers real quick while the enemy infantry is busy with the walls then come back into the castle/town, or to hit the enemy siege then fall back during the siege battle itself. Very good vid as always Strat !!
I really love this game, and your content has been a really big part of that. Here is my top things I would like to see changed 1 The end game is stale and lacking in part this is because their is really only one objective as you said paint the map in your colour and that requires running around doing the same siege over and over you can't auto resolve them as loses are so high so have to just download RTS and speed though them as fast as you can. I think wars should be less common but have greater consequence and also not come out of the blue. The way I would do this is to borrow(steal) paradox casi bell system. You can pick any province on the map and select more than one and if you win the war then you get all those fifes if you lose you have to pay reptations much as the system is now, with a white peace being something in the middle. Getting a Casi bell should take some time and you should see if someone is rabble rousing against you so you see those back stap wars when you already at war on the other side of the map. It would also be really nice to be able to set different objectives to end the game with nice cut screens but not sure how that would work. 2 Troops Totally agree high tier troops are to easy to get and once you have a 1.5k stack of khans guard/fiends etc you can't lose a battle and they seldom die. One way you could fix this is to use something more like a champion system where you have your lords that serve you and each lord will then higher champions who each have a band of their own men. So I have two lords and each of have 10 Nobel(fiends, khans guard etc) and those then have 10 mid teir and 20 low tier and 20 trash tier of the same type so fiends would have lower classes of bow men. this would make it feel like those nobles are really nobles and they bring their own people to the fight. Their numbers might auto replenish over time if they lose some low tier or if the Nobel dies it take time for your lord to recruit more nobles. This might give you less control on army comp but it would also feel more natural and organic. 3 Trade I am a bit hesitant on this one I feel I quite like the way the trade caravans though maybe a delay in respawn and having them cost prosperity to create but if you do that then you should be able to stop your cities spawning them/control the route so they don't just walk into people you are at war with. 4 Diplo Agreed on this one diplomacy mod makes the game so much better. The ability to send messages rather than haul your army half way across the map is so nice. On that subject being able to give parties more direct tasks such as deal with bandits counter raids etc would be nice. 5 Bandits Final one is bandits I feel like this is something they should make a DLC for adding more complex goals and aims for bandit play through.
Here is another idea to add more to the game. When enemies are at the gate building siege equipment and their camp if you can split off your Calvary troops from your party and lead a night raid through their camp or run your cav troops through to try and cause chaos. Also depending on where the castle is if it has cliff faces it would be nice to send out a small contingent force out to harass the troops below delaying their attack so reinforcements can hopefully get there to assist.
A lot of what you want for economy and quests actually exists in X4. X4 is a space sim, however. - If you haven't played it, I'll try to explain it briefly: - The goal for most AI is to build warships. - Building ships needs complex resources. - Basic resources are gotten by mining. - Basic resources need to be refined into more complex resources. This is done through space station refinaries. - AI factions already start with a bunch of stations for mining and refining resources and building ships, but building more also requires resources. - The value of a resource in a certain area is directly related to its availability and demand, generating trade opportunities. - AI will be sending trade and transport ships to move around these resources, generating raiding opportunities. -- Raiding 50 resources is 50 resources that faction no longer has, the destroyed ship is a ship that faction no longer has. This effects the AI's ability to do things. - Missions are generated in the world based on the demands and requirements of the AI. - X4 is indeed a game where it's possible to create your own faction and conquer the whole galaxy. You yourself have to do the sane things to build ships like the AI is doing.
Might not be a popular opinion but I like how simple the PVP is in Bannerlord and Warband, easy to learn as there's only 4 directions to attack from with most weapons, but it can take 1000s of hours to master. I have probably close to 2k hours on Warband on Xbox, most of which was on MP, and I still enjoy hopping on MP occasionally, even after so many hours the PVP is satisfying.
In many modern games, including bannerlord, I'm sorely missing a glorified text document keeping track of stats like total casualties, previous wars, money spent on troops or food, etc. Usually these games keep track of it some way or another anyway, for instance Empire Total war's enemies killed achievements. Why not show me the data you've already collected? As for Bannerlord specifically - the war UI is a mess. I can't keep track of what's actually going on. It all feels arbitrary and just 'out there' or I have to keep a big paper backlog of everything (which was fine in Warband because there was NOTHING memorized for you, like trade rumors. YOU had to pay attention.) Just stay consistent! It improves the game. And that wouldn't just aid Bannerlord! Paradox games would especially benefit (LOOKING AT YOU, STELLARISM MY GOODNESS!)
it's kind of crazy to me that only after 20 hours of playing the most recent version I noticed all the problems the game had that you brought up in this video and I had to be like "whoa, there's no way this is actually how all this stuff works, I must be missing something about how the game mechanics work or something" and it turns out my intuition was right and this game is just kind of like skyrim where you need to mod the shit out of the game in order for it to be good except some of the issues don't even have mods to fix them yet in this game. At least it's not a bugfest like it was when it launched in 2020 but sheesh
They should add more dialog options, like skyrim. They should add military alliances so you can ally with other factions instead of a "join me or perish" mentality. Make courting better. They should make uniting houses a bigger deal. They should add military access pacts so armies cannot travel through your lands if they do it violates pact and starts war. They should add illness so players can die at young ages to illness(with alot of moderation) they should make executions less of a penalty if it's an existing enemy. The negative relations should only be for the faction or their friends. Not the entire map disliking you for an execution. They should add naval warfare and should use the islands. They should make more quests that can alter the storyline. They need more maps. Bannerlord is a great game. I think I played for so long because I literally fantasized my own story thru the game play. The game itself is boring. But the sandbox is anything you want it to be. That's what's so fun about it. The story unfolds as you play. My first playthru was like a literal movie lmao😂
I always wonder why game studios don't approach modders and either hire them or pay them a lump sum to use their mods/their features, these people are truly passionate about the game and already do great work for free. They are in the community and know what we want.
I. LOVE. The whole culture unique animation idea, however I can see this being minmaxxed and making certain cultures unviable. However, this doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen. They just have to actually balance them. Perhaps instead of it being culture based, maybe it can be a character setting when creating a character, or changed mid-campaign and unlock more fighting styles as you gain skill. This would add way more options for not only the player but also to stylize major and minor factions alike, and even extend to individual troops in troop trees. I’d expect a peasant to fight differently from a footman, and a footman to fight differently from a cataphract.
- You ever hear the story of Strat gaming the Wise? He was once an youtuber for Bannerlord, migthy and powerfull. He expierenced so much and learned so much, in the end he obtained the key knowledge to fix Bannerlord, ultimately, for good, even stop people from leaving this game forever... What an irony, he knew how the game should be modded, but never has a power or time to mod it all only by himself. - But... From whom can you learn this power? - Not from a Devs.
Lol to be fair, I would make a terrible video game and I think TW did an amazing job! I'm sure a lot of my suggestions aren't practical to implement (or at least not in a realistic timeframe or in a "fun" way) but it's always good to dream and get the ideas out there. You never know who's watching
1. More attacks - Possible, but would drastically change the control scheme. Also, the AI already barely understands combat; it understands the directional system well, but not footwork, and any additional move would have its own optimal footwork further making the AI appear confused. 2. Realistic shield area - Possible to the point of being easily moddable. Again, the bottleneck is AI, as it would not acknowledge feints and always get stabbed; in general, this change would likely drastically increase the amount of units dying, particularly to missiles. 3. Gothic style anim progression - Easily doable, but I suspect kinda expensive, iirc the rest of the anims are motion-capture. 4. Fix the damn balance - Absolutely, and it's not just combat. There's no reason not to dedicate devtime to fix it; with a solid framework, any new items would require no extensive balancing of their own. Whether this framework needs to be realistic is debatable, but there has to be one. 5. Stamina - There's a whole can of worms about what Hitpoints are supposed to represent, so it's possible that lack of Posture-like system is a deliberate choice on the devs' part. That combat system is symplistic and abstract does not necessarily make it bad per say. 6. Slower, tactical battles - Probably objectively correct, as Bannerlord has a completely different player perspective and pace compared to Total War where arcady 5-min battles are the zeitgeist. The AI is at fault again. 8. More simulation elements in battles - Personally agree, as Bannerlod in general has a simulator vibe, but that sort of thing is likely hard to realize on what is very much still a Warband-like engine, where battles are very self-contained and have a weird relationship with their fairly tiny battlemap. 9. Formation groups and custom formations - Yes. 10. Smarter AI - it's the Holy Grail of any dev, I feel, but a largely abandoned art. 11. MOAR SIMULATION - Yes. Especially your point about how this gives the player something tangible to interact with. Peasants being actual kindgom manpower, carrying actual town food supply, gives player a reason to protect them or mess them up. There's no reason to interact with a minecraft-style mob beyond the player-exclusive loot it drops, when everything else about this mob is set-dressing. 12. SImulation-based quests - Brilliant and true. 13. Diplomacy - Well, Paradox-tier dyplomacy is probably excessive for a game like Bannerlord, but I see no reason why it doesn't have at least Warband-tier diplomacy. 14. Less perks as long as they're better - Agreed. This is a general sentiment for me personally, it's ok to have a huge framework for the future that is mostly empty placeholder, but then there gotta be regular improvements on the smaller scale. 15. More setting customisation - While nice, this is by its nature moreso appealing to advanced players, and advanced players lean into modding. So while not redundant per say, I feel like that should be a low priority for devs, even if for advanced players this is a highly desirable feature.
These are all great points. I knew going into this that many of my suggestions would be "nice to have, but fiscally not realistic to implement", but it's still fun to think about :)
After I heard that the DRG developers do not add additional difficulty above 5, because few people need it, I realized that even the most interested developers are chasing money. And the money is made in the first hours. They don't care what a player with 5+k hours wants.
I'd like armour to be armour. It degrades as you hit it, and you get low level damage that affects your stamina until you are knocked down and "finished". Especially plate armour. You don't get eviscerated by a two handed sword in one swing if you're wearing plate. You might get a really nasty bruise and possibly winded. If you're really unlucky you might break a bone or dislocate a joint. You don't have the plate rent in two with one swing and have your guts spilled. Same deal with arrows to the face. You might survive one. But you're going to be REALLY distracted, and probably start running away or fall to the ground and scream a lot....if you are lucky enough not to have it strike a fatal location. I'd also like them to implement more of a Kingdom Come Deliverance style combat system, where you can implement combo's depending on your and the enemy's combination of strikes, blocks and damage.
They could add playable phases to major battles via a card minigame with higher tactics unlocking new battle stratagems. Ie raid camp/ supply line. Ambush. Skirmish over forage, poison well etc Both you and the opponent could each take turns playing cards. You could also have other skills play a part ie a high athletics character could scale the walls of the castle and attempt to fight their way through the city to open the main gate from inside. or a high roguery character could raise the gangs is revolt within the city. They could also reuse the bandit lair and village maps which are unloved since its entirely likely that 2 armies would fight a small skirmish between forage parties around the nearest village.
I feel like Talesworld has fallen into the Bethesda trap: they just go "oh those improvements you mention? Modders can take care of those for you!" which lets them avoid the responsibility for fixing core gameplay elements.
Nah, you're just a whiner. It's a quality game.
@@barryfinkle1755 Lots of game producers do that. Being a whiner is complaining about every little detail. He didn't do that.
@@quickquranrecitations3091 that's such a lie. A lot of you don't know what you think you know.
Exactly. They launched an, at best, early beta bare-boned game and expect the community to make it actually engaging and enjoyable to play.
Id they had mods on console, I'd agree with them lol
It is funny when you were talking about the late game village quests not scaling in importance at all. Imagine the king just rolls in to your village and you ask him to deliver the herd.
Hahaha "My lord, we need 5 sheep. If you don't bring them, I will be upset and not sell you as many of my troops".
@@Strat-GuidesI feel like it makes sense since if you don’t do something for the people then less people will grow up to like and fight for your cause and you can always task a companion to do these tasks for you…do they gain levels? It’s also tideous doing that but food for thought.
@@MG-cw4rw A king / lord wouldn't be doing it anyway.. They would be assigning their troops to do it. like not even good troops.. just recruits or something.. I wouldn't be sending my 2nd in command to deliver sheep .. I'd be sending a few recruits that I wouldn't miss. I would be leaving my 2nd in command for something I needed someone I could trust / rely on for.
@@MG-cw4rw it makes sense that a LORD OR KING would go deliver sheep for a villager? WHAT?
@@chrishaugh1655 It makes sense that a lord or king would help his people to improve the economy. But I think those things must not be quests for high-tier clans. Instead, I'd prefer some menu in which you could send your troops and clan members to those villages.
Re-adding the ability to put specific units into specific formations would help a TON
Do you know if anyone has created a mod for this? It's one of my biggest gripes with the game as it stands
Do you mean assigning units to a specific formation from a party screen?
@@igor8770 In Warband you could pick specific units to assign to formations so you could have shielded units in group 1, pikes in 2, shock troopers in 3, etc rather than them simply being all lumped into "infantry" together
@@demomanchaosin bannerlord, you can specify which formation prioritizes shields, polearms, two-handed, etc.
@@dane1382 Yes, but even with the prioritization, troops will end up spilling over into the wrong formation regardless.
Kenshi adding new animations to your character as they get better is one of my favorite aspects of the game, really adds a sense of progression to the character.
Oh cool, I didn't know that! I'm going to get into Kenshi this year - it's high up on my priority list :)
@@Strat-Guides You go from basic chop attacks, to full flourishes and combos, basic blocks, to dodges, back steps, counter attacks, rolls, and so forth.
And it varies for each weapon. 100% Recommend Kenshi sooner rather than later. Your Bannerlord stuff is great, but I feel Taleworlds is more or less taking the money and running. We've had little to no real improvements for almost a year.
@Strat-Guides definitely would be up your alley! I'd love to see you make some videos on kenshi! Mods make the game better though!
@@Strat-GuidesYou’d love Kenshi!
@@Strat-Guides when you play kenshi, remember, the fast way to earn money in early game is just beat people and sell them a.k.a slavery business ;)
I'm still surprised they didn't just yoink all the Diplomacy and Freelancer mod concepts. Those two were easily the most popular non-conversion mods for Warband and the devs totally slept on them.
The Bannerlord Diplomacy Mod isn't *that* good but Taleworlds could easily just improve upon its features to at least improve their game a little bit
They copied party roles from Silverstag, keep siege from pop
@@viniciusms6636 I always treated Silverstag like Floris. Not a total conversion but almost, kind of like Warband v1.5.
Apparently the players are too dumb to handle diplomacy, they should just left click and slash.
@@Voleia pretty sure he meant warband diplomacy mod not warbands
We need this to blow up and to get noticed as much as possible!
Why?
@@eivindmosesen767dumbest question ever asked
@@Thanan548 I doubt it
@@eivindmosesen767 So bannerlord and more ppl who play bannerlord will hear this
This guy is pro-combat stamina system.. I love all his other suggestions but an stamina system would be so annoying in the long run
I couldn’t agree more with every single point
I’d also add these:
1. You can’t play tall at all, every game no matter what style/faction you choose will end up you being genghis khan
2. More variety for sieges, from more siege weapons (such as Greek fire etc) and multiple stage sieges too
3. Your commanders can disobey you if they have low affinity for you or they have low tactics
4. Same as point one but with individual wars, either u win or lose, you can’t retreat and return back (the ai will keep chasing you)
Other than that everything you mentioned is more than a need, there were even some points you mentioned I never thought of
Interesting point I hadn't considered - it would be really fun to play tall in this game! I like that suggestion a lot as it's one of my favorites in EU4
1- bannerlord isn't really assymetric
3- would be so annoying you would just choose not to use commanders
@@azzor4134 1. Exactly that’s the issue. 2. That’s the point, it will put an emphasis on choosing your commanders and having them trust (good relations) you just like irl
Having rash commanders charge or flee without orders would be brilliant, basically what barbarian units could do in total war
@@azzor4134 It might work if we can make the rewards reaped justify the risk taken. In other words if we can see a real difference with commanders, then simply not choosing any would not have to be such an obvious option.
I haven't played Bannerlord in well over a year and have never made it to the late game. I still like the game, it's a fun time, it's not like I'm actively avoiding it, but a lot of your points illustrate why it doesn't have the same pull for me to keep coming back. One major thing for me that I would add to the list tho-
Character for the NPCs. I really miss from Warband that the companions and notables had PERSONALITY! As well as something resembling stories/missions/questlines for each ruler, including usurpers to the throne. But even without interacting with that, we remember Jeremus and Rolf and Ymira and Matheld bc even though it was super barebones (ex. Deshavi and Rolf hate each other, so one of them will leave you if you don't separate them), their personalities were meaningful in-game, memorable and made your campaign feel more personal. It feels like a relatively super easy fix vs things like improving the tactical AI (esp since character traits have existed for everyone since day one, with no in-game use for them), so it's frustrating that TW insists that every NPC be as bland and lifeless and placeholder-y as possible.
Yes! Everyone in Bannerlord feels the exact same, but with a different skin and stats for their skills. They all react the same, lead armies the same, fight in battle the same, etc. Just a bunch of bland, soul-less NPCs
@@Strat-Guides Indeed! Their personality traits could be much more impactful! Too bad the nemesis system are Shadow of Mordor/War ONLY!
was Rolf a weasel of a character for u as well? like in warband I eventually made him a lord and he almost instantly defected to my enemy's side
Oh yes, those old NPCs. Fighting nord raiders with good old buddy Firentis is my first memory from M&B somewhere from 2007. Alayen, Bunduk, Marnid, those guys can tell a tale. But after 200 hours in Bannerlord I can't recall a single npc.
No mention of Borcha? The real chad.
I still remember this fella fighting against the game breaking bugs of earlier versions of this game and bringing us content. Props to you little strat! fly high!
Great video and I would add one more thing. I wish there was some difference between the factions. Because at the moment they have different troops and colours, but there are kind of the same. And this creates a bit of a dissonance for me. On one hand you have Northern Empire that supports Senate, Western Empire which is a militaristic faction, Vlandia which is a feudal kingdom or Battania, which is some kind of confederacy of tribes. But their lore is just a note in encyclopedia because in game you don't feel any difference between them. It's not like Lucon has to consult with the Senate, because this doesn't exist anywhere in the game.
I think that giving each faction a bit more depth would be advantageous. For example, image that the Empire has a capital city, like Rome or Constantinople, where you have an imperial palace or a senate building. Those unique buildings could grant some bonuses. And this could be the case with all other factions.
Or add different types of governments. You can have a republic, monarchy, confederacy ect. Each might give you some bonuses but also certain limitations. And could lead to some interesting long quests, like: "Reestablish the Calradic Republic" or "Rebulit Calradia as an Empire"or "Transform Battania into a feudal kingdom" or "Fight to preserve Battania's old ways".
Yeah 100% agree! It also feels like nibbles are pretty much the same with different skins. I don't get the sense that anyone has their own "personality"
@@Strat-Guides Couldn't agree more, this world is an interesting early-medieval battle simulator, but that's all. It doesn't feel "lived in", all the lore is interesting, but you can't see it present anywhere in the game. If I remember correctly, Vlandia was once the part of the empire, but I don't recall seeing any ruins of remnants of any old imperial buildings anywhere. But all feels like it was static for couple hundreds of years or started to exist when the player enters it.
That would be awesome, while the other factions would benefit from it as well, the empire factions really really need it as of rn the only thing that's actually different between them is the leaders
100% this
I miss the feasts and dedications of your tournament victories to someone. Those were cool.
Yeah but it was dumb to go have a feast/tournament during a very active war.
@@nucleararmedhogthat depends, wars then arent like wars are now, you are looking at it with a modern eye
yes, this seems like a rather trivial addition, not sure why they didn't add this...
You make tons of great points, as usual. I am equally as frustrated at the lack of diplomatic options in Bannerlord, and I've always been bothered by the fact that battles always end in one side getting utterly wiped out, completely ahistorical.
Have you ever tried the De Re Militari mod? I've not used it myself, but it overhauls the troop trees and recruitment to better represent authentic medieval armies where levies would comprise the bulk of forces and nobles or professionals only a minority. I imagine it would go a long way towards preventing the type of snowballing you see where one faction obliterates the rest with hordes of T5/T6 units.
The main things I'd like to see are pre-battle army composition options and pre-battle orders (preferably that are saved between battles) and a "tackle" mechanic so that mobs of low tier troops can pin down isolated high tier ones and stab them to death.
Here's a hot take: the 1-2% perks have to be this way because if you combine them together in a coherent manner, they work better than anything else in the entire game.
I already wrote in comments before how END+INT build with some VIG captain perks sprinkled on top can make an unstoppable army out of just melee infantry (you know, the cheapest, tankiest and most plentiful unit in the entire game) that you can F1+F3 into anything and go make some tea while it's winning, and spending time on micromanaging them will actually slow you down without changing anything substantially, it's basically the most trivial way to play a combat-focused character (you're still using a 9-10 END demigod with very high melee skills) and still practically having all the benefits of other attributes, like charisma or cunning, because you single-handedly win wars so you don't need good policies or relations, and you can "autoresolve" a battle by just loading in and sending your troops while you switch your attention on something else instead of using the actual autoresolve function.
Stat bonuses to your formation and party are far more impactful in base game than any form of tactics or global strategy you can apply. Even spreading your units across multiple formations sometimes is a bad idea, because moving them from a captain who is a melee monster to some random lord in your army, you just get *vastly* inferior units that you micro-control only a bit better. And I'm afraid that's fundamental to the entire progression system, so, unless TW decides to rework it from grounds up, that's not going to change.
That's exactly the point I was trying to make - if you want any of the smaller perks to actually make a difference, you're forced into picking the same ones over and over because the alternative perks are simply useless/not worth it. I wouldn't mind seeing fewer perks (maybe every 50 levels or more) but make them much more impactful and make me want to restart to see how the other perks would do. Currently, it's mostly the same perks being picked over and over.
Long time no see btw, hope you're doing well! Thanks for the comment :)
I wonder if you could do the same, but only rasiing the Tactics skill.
Tactics 330, one skill, might just make everyother skill far less relevant.
@@kubaGR8 Even back in the day, when you could just raise a "zombie" army consisting only of t1 peasants and autoresolve everything, it required you to run a dedicated charisma build with tons of leadership, as well as other blows and whistles, and even back then, it was annoying to constantly juggle recruitments and armies around, as well as train companions to even make it possible.
After the autoresolve changes long ago, I would imagine it'd be infinitely worse.
And that's only considering the sheer winning potential of such build. Don't get me started on how boring it would be to remove the battles from your gameplay, and just leave the tedious, repetitive preparation in.
I like the idea of an endgame option for trade players. If there was a limited amount of gold in the world and the player can obtain it all, or a majority of it and become the Bank of Calradia. Instead of conquering the world with armies, conquer it via trade and barter and rule from behind the Throne/s or being the kingmaker funding who you like and disenfranchising who you don't./
this is actually sick idea. The game needs more ways to be played
This way you could even play it as a pacifist : )@@meer7872
The Mansa Musa playthrough.
Ck3 Bohemia gameplay crossover
You know, it's kinda weird how there's all these gold coins around, but no actual gold mines.
13:45 Its kinda funny how settlement expansion options got worse from warband to bannerlord
in warband every single settlement on the map, from the smallest village to the largest town had upgrade options. Not sure how much they really affected things, but either way it was nice to have stuff to load money into
I remember some village upgrades costing 10-15k to make, which in warband was quite alot when u first start getting fiefs and villages
if i remember correctly, you could upgrade your village in warband to a point, where it was possible to fund a decent sized Group of Soldiers.
> Not sure how much they really affected things
They were utterly useless.
@@strategsc2 They weren't, they could increase revenue, production and troop count.
@Strat Gaming Guides : On the topic of elite troop being more expensive I believe that their maintenance cost should be partly in influence. Also noble troop should only be recrutable in castle if you are of the right faction.
Oooh that's an interesting idea! I hadn't considered that, but it makes sense because noble troops are nobles. I also think vassals should require daily influence to maintain. It's so odd to think that we recruit them into the kingdom and that's pretty much it lol
in the realm of thrones mod you have the household troops which you get from a NPC inside the household 'capital'. Something like that for noble troops, but then with other prices and numbers as in this mod. Then more villages would have the regular bad troops and nobles would be more scares.
4:57 As someone who does actual reenactment (1300 Centra Europe), I can attest that many open field battles can be finished pretty damn quickly, and the game actually shows very well what happens when you do what the troops in the game often unfortunately do. They run into each other, break their formation and start hacking each other into pieces. Keeping the formation's cohesion is absolutely critical for success in a melee battle, because any break in the formation introduces individuals fighting against multiple opponents at once without their side being protected. Once a single side breaks the formation, it perishes. If both sides break their formations (happens pretty much always in MB), it is going to be incredibly swift bloodbath for both sides. A battle taking days is not realistic. In full heavy armor, especially under direct sun, one can fight (with generous breaks) for an hour or two before being pretty much completely spent. Longer battles were so long because they inculded small skirmishes, sieges or long maneuvers. But that time was anything but filled by the actual melee.
In real battles, if the formation of one of the sides was broken, it would immediately try to fall back and re-form its line. If either that was not successful or the discipline was too bad for this to be even seriously attempted, the entire group of troops would just break into open rout (which could have been stopped later, like in Total War). The reasons are two. The first is described above: your formation is broken = you are going to die, and soon. The second is the following: in many battles, especially in early and high middle ages, you would often be able to tell the friend from foe mainly from the direction they were facing. Are they facing you? An enemy. Are they facing the same direction as you are? An ally. There weren't uniforms back then, certainly not for common troops. Forget about Total War units bearing shared colors. Nothing like that up until the late middle ages. Sure, you can tell a Mongol from and European, but if 2 Austrian lords are battling each other over some inheritance and both brought bunch of foreign mercenaries with them... yeah, good luck. So, once the formation breaks, you are suddenly surrounded by combatants and may often be unsure about who is your ally and who your enemy. And that is the moment when you want to bail. And fast.
So, formation cohesion should be #1+++ priority for all units. Losing it should introduce massive morale hits. Units trying to keep their formation would also fight way more defensibly and carefully. And losses would be coming way slower, at least until someone's formation breaks. Then it's a bloodbath. That would fix your concerns and make the battles way, way more tactical.
This is incredibly detailed, thank you for sharing this!!
@@AmarothEng Get RBM, they AI module will help with lines instead of everyone rushing head on
I hate the fact that there are no real tactics/orders or objectives to your armies or parties they just roam around the map doing nothing or getting into fights they can’t win.
I would love it if I can open up a map and have my army patrol a certain route around a fief or something or have them block a bridge or tell them when and where to attack
Yes and give orders like "Take x castle" "raid in this area" "Hunt down the emperor and capture him" "follow my army and support us by providing logistics, food, taking our battle loot/ prisoners back to x town to store/sell" "defend x town and its villages and if theres an enemy army retreat into the town to bolster the siege defense" Theres so many dynamic options!
very thankful to have such a dedicated bannerlord channel, your 5k hours show, especially in the livestreams; i like your suggestions i hope they reach the taleworlds team, keep up the good videos
I remember Warband having flee and rally mechanics too, but it'd trigger before the fleeing units left the field. Chasing down fleeing enemies could be dangerous.
A closed loop economy with actual resources would be such an awesome and novel idea to see in a video game.
It would change so much! I might actually want to play a trade campaign.
We have that in Dwarf Fortress.
@@kubaGR8An individual fortress simply isn't a large enough part of the entire economy to count as a closed loop.
Now it is true that on the map itself you could have a closed resource loop but the entire world itself isn't a closed loop. Trade caravans bringing in goods and dwarves are essentially generated out of thin air.
Dwarf Fortress is a pretty cool game though for its complexity.
Closed loop seems two orders of magnitude harder to get done properly. I don't think there is a game that fully works that way. Balancing that to not derail into broken state will be a nightmare
Distant Worlds: Universe tried something like this. Ships are built with actual resources, mining them has a very severe cap and you will always crunch on fuel.
The issue is mostly that you can't control how resources are moved or how many ships actually do it, since that's handled by civilians. (NPC ships on your side)
Also, fuel crunch completely kills the endgame of every single empire unless you're a player and know how to manage it. The AI doesn't, so that's an autowin.
Still, one of the better games I've played.
Adding more man made structures (perhaps randomly generated) to battlefields such as watch towers, charcoal burners, logging camps and small farmsteads could help diversify tactics a bit more by breaking up battlefields and make them feel more varied. It could also make the world feel more alive and lived in as there aren't really and artificial structures in the game besides towns, villages and hideouts (and bridges). It just feels like a missed opportunity that I haven't seen anybody mention.
totally agree! I usually burn out from a campaign after I've gotten a few towns as there is nothing unique to do in the late game. I remember getting so excited from perisno with the zann invasion. Something like this or a revolution when you take a certain amount of fiefs to have something to build up for in the late game would be awesome. I also really like the idea of reduced amount of quality perks. It always seems like there is just 1 real option to choose from. Great stuff, hopefully the taleworlds devs can see this and see a thing or two to implement into their amazing game!
Trade -
Id like to see it have added effects that focus on boosting a town. Loyalty, food production, recruits, etc. Basically a governors/lords skill tree. I literally 9nly use it to buy feifs, but the problem is, by the time I've leveled it to max, it would literally be easier to just TAKE the city.
I def want more options/sliders.
For example, i use a mod to make exp gain 50% of vanilla. But then make arena exp 300% (basically simulating training; if i rely on fights to train them, itll take forever; get them in a tourney, watch their fights, and they'll gain combat exp faster. Training lol)
I WISH there was a mod that reduced recruit spawning by at least 50% (slower to build armies). AND i wish taking recruits from a village reduced its hearth. ("I wish i could take these guys, but the village is BARELY feeding the castle as is").
I love RBM; I laugh and said "bullshit" when losing a close arena fight (laughing because its FUN to be challenged, and losing means its working 😂)
I love xorbacks legacy (or whatever) that adds scholars to towns (again, training).
I love Agricultural Estate (but DO wish vanilla had iptions to buod up the village. Training grounds for better militia, actual animal breeding, have high end villages ables to unlock the ability to grow more than one type of food (basically clear fields like in AE).
I NEED A FEAR MECHANIC
Basically, if I'm KNOWN for taking no survivors, even larger armies should ACTIVELY avoid me, and kingdoms should be too aftaid to declare war on me. (Unless in a coalition, maybe; but even then only "reckless" lords should willingly attack you.
Theres more, but we all have a list lol.
Yeah having your own kingdom is really fucked for some reason. You'll take a small castle in Battania and then for some reason kurzhaits will declared war on you for no reason
my biggest peeve is, if you fight as a commander within a larger army and whether you're given a small detachment or not, the allied commander leading the battle will usually give you explicit orders, "skirmish here, hold here, fight here, engage here, retreat, regroup" etc, giving the players a way to input those commands and those commands make the ai do it, would not be that hard in my mind, most of the necessary mechanics are already there, you just have to make sure it's done in that manner, love the game hope something like that is added, cause larger battles feel like I either have to micromanage or it's f1-f3 time.
I kind of like those orders that superior commanders give you. It makes fighting as a small fry different from fighting as the big cheese.
@@TheDolphinTuna Only after you figure out what the fuck "Skirmish sparsely" is supposed to mean lol
@@kubaGR8 1. Skirmish
2. Spread out
:]
F1 F6 I believe is the answer to that been a little bit since I played
@@SuperGreyknight Thats just handing the ai your troops without being able to give them explicit tactical orders, wich means they will basically go off and do their own thing (suicide charge) instead of being compliant to a bigger battle plan. Might as well just F1+F3 since its the same thing.
What the OP meant was giving overarching orders to "squads" that you do not have to micro yourself, such as defend this radius, skirmish or flank this side. So you could still have a coherent plan without having to micro like you're playing 3rd person total war
My suggestions for combat:
- add skill to speed scaling, meaning not only do people swing slower when in lower skill, but they block, recover, and react slower to attacks.
- increase spear attack animation. It does not need to be op like in RMB, where getting a stack of javelin makes you the most person on the battlefield. Spears need passive dmg hit box and realistic trusting speeds, which can be very fast even when wielded by low skill people.
- Bring back warband couch lancing flexibility. Allow for a wide range of movements during couch lancing and not the restrictive motion we have currently
My suggestions for sieges:
- allow players to control where he can be deployed, and if the player is a lord, allow the player to deploy his own troops. Disable auto delegate on siege start, since it causes more issues than it is beneficial.
- please, and I mean it, please add some way to tell the ai to get off the goddamn catapults. It is so annoying to have to physically waste all catapult ammo or destroy it to prevent ai from rushing to using it even when the catapult is overran by enemies.
- for the love of God make the ram take at least some damage when we hit the roof. As of now if you hit the roof, the ram itself takes no dmg and act as if it isn't even part of it.
- remove infinite defender ammo. Add general ammo pool that all defender units share. Remove infinite ammo on siege ambushes. It is just broken and makes no sense, unless winning a 30 v 1500 men siege is OK for taleworlds
- make ai rush defenders when they reach the top of the walls instead of waiting or rushing for the gate.
- reduce accuracy of sieging archers units against archers on walls. It makes no sense that the best strategy currently is to not have archers on walls (bar for a few high ground castle maps)
Wait, is skill level not involved in weapon swing speed at all in Bannerlord? Weapon Proficiency levels dictated that very thing in Warband!
@@Light_Skullyit affects swing speed, but not really reaction time of the AI nor the block speed of weapons used
haven't seen the vid yet, but my suggestion would be better revolutions. If you could recruit other lords in your kingdom to your side before you rebel, or AI lords can rebel against you that would force kings to care about their lords and actually give land.
Thats how warband worked
Diplomacy mod btw, the devs are crap, just walk with the modders.
want to add that mount and blade has come a long way since its early developement days of couching looters with a quarterstaff. it just takes time, but it has been a fun journey. one mechanic from warband/viking expansion that i would like to see return, is you could pay bards to increase your standing with clans/within kingdoms. You also could buy your troops a feast and other services from taverns to keep them happy. Little things like that makes a difference. also, viking expansion was a hard game
Even tho I enjoy the game for what it is(and it’s very unique), I could not fathom putting 5k hours into bannerlord. They haven’t even remotely added 5k worth of content
I haven't played Bannerlord in a while but I'm with you.
You're raising good points and I feel like these changes/additions would truly help the game feel much better and less boring.
For me the one thing I love in games is actually the cutscenes and the story like in campainge i feel like they don't make a big enough deal about you reuniting the empire or whatever. As well I think all of the mentioned things are really important as well. Great video!
in medieval combat, all out field battles were rare; armies tended to deal largely in skirmishes resulting in lost supplies and wounded to take care of, a long battle of attrition
here's how I'd handle it; when you encounter a large army, you enter a turn based tactical grid in which you move portions of your forces defending certain points. each army has its resources physically placed on this grid map, a central camp, supplies, prisoners, money being carried, even siege equipment. you move your forces on this grid and when one skirmishing party attacks another it will pull directly adjacent parties in tetris style so if everything is clumped together a massive battle may result; otherwise you can split your forces up and join individual units on skirmish assaults to take tactical resources damaging their army
depending on your respective leadership and tactics skills, after a number of turns armies may disengage and the battle ends
if there are many parties involved, they control the actions of their own skirmishers and have their own camps and resources; if you wanna jailbreak your prisoners just press the assault against the tile holding them and jump into that battle, if you wanna break up the army and make them regroup back in their own territory then raid their camp, cut their progress by taking their food or dispersing their pack animals, end a siege by attacking their siege weapons
Wow.. i like that😊
@@shadowsensei9040they have boardgame AI, so it seems plausible in concept that they could do something like this seeing as it follows the same general principle.
Biggest issue coming to mind for me is how you'd divide your troops up into turn based units. I'd say probably 20 troops in a single tile unit and the distribution of troops is by unit type (so don't leave archers unattended)
You can great "divisions" on a table.so, for little battles 30vs30. As on a tiered tray @@reaganeidemiller7132
My workplace is right next to TaleWorlds office in Ankara. I will personally visit them and show them this video. Hopefully they'll consider
I have roughly 2100 hours in Bannerlord with most of it being multiplayer because lets face it, singleplayer is boring and has no complete total conversion mods to add flavour to it. And so I just want to quickly add my thought on the sections in this video.
1. I disagree with basically everything about limited combat as I think its already in a fine state and its only seems limited if you play against the poor AI. I do agree with the shield part however as the invisible shield range was a problem in warband as well and it sucks that I made it into bannerlord.
2. I agree that there needs to be more damage group and should basically adopt a RBM Lite version for Bannerlord.
3. Stamina could work but yeah RBM posture system sucks.
4. Yeah battles should later longer, 10-20 minutes should the the ideal range and in general troops just need to be more self preserving and AI generals use unique tactics based on their personality traits. Also if armour is properly improve then the battles with be generally longer. Also I liked in RBM how damaged/unshielded troops would retreat to the rear of the formation instead of suiciding in the front.
5. Generally AI just needs to be improved. Cav AI is still as useless as ever.
6. I would love to see more improvements to settlement management, I think the problem is that everything can be built given time and money. How about some culture buildings or limited build slots with unique building options forcing to pick between economic buildings or military building etc.
7. Companions need more variety. Where are the nobles, the brigands, the hermits etc. And I would also like to see companions be hired by AI clans like in Bannerkings because it makes the world feel lot more lively and encountering perhaps a former companion now working for a rival cool for story building. Wanderers just need to have more freedom to do their own thing in the world instead of waiting for the player to hire them. I also think it would be cool if you could privately train companions in spars sessions like warband had with the training fields. However having a companion limit is good and I don't want that to change. Hiring unlimited companions is okay for a unique playthrough like companions only but for general game purpose it makes no sense to hire massive amounts of them as it just means every companion is even more forgettable.
8. I think that villages should just not make noble troops but instead noble troops need to be recruited in castles at a very limited amount. It never made sense to me how I can conscript an entire army of vlandian squires and gallants just from a couple of villages. They should be more rare.
9. I think I would like more quests that come in multiple parts. Basically all quests are "do this thing then come back to me" I would like some more long term missions.
10. Yeah late game is just boring and it really shouldn't be as kingdom building is a great gameplay concept. They need to improve diplomacy and long term clan behaviour. I also want them to ditch the hivemind relation and just build relation with the individual and not the clan like it was in warband. Also I do like the idea of mid game crisis like a brigand warlord of a foreign horde wandering the map. I remember mods for warband like Pendor which had invading armies and unique spawns that just make the game so much more interesting.
11. Vassals are easy to manage because personalities have very little impact and all kingdoms just run the same. They need more difference between cultures like with the calradian civil war they say they are all different but just play the same. One should be a republic, another a absolute monarchy and the last one a military junta etc. Also more interaction with vassals would be nice, hosting tournaments and feasts to appease them. Losing a war should have some serious consequences when you make peace and have to pay money to an enemy with vassals being upset at your poor leadership.
12. Tournaments need to be leveled. Local tournaments could be hosted for low reward but anyone can take part while royal tournaments only accept nobles but have much higher reward outcome.
13. I think Bannerlord should adopt the project zomboid approach to learning where reading books and studying do not directly increase xp but simply increase xp gain up to a certain level depending on the quality of the book. A level 1 social book would increase all xp gain to skill in the social tree to a level of 50, requiring better books to continue the xp boost. Also makes it a good money sink.
14. Just add the option to smith armour, that's all I want.
And that's about it from me >.<
It is amazing how this game still feels like its in Early Access despite being released like 2 years ago now.
I can see where you're coming from with combat - I've got maybe 100 hours online and it's like night and day difference. But it's still pretty sad that a left swing will always look the exact same no matter who is throwing it. I don't have much experience with armed combat, I've got a lot in hand to hand and varying up your speed and power can make a huge difference in throwing off your opponent. The Diaz brothers are a perfect example - they throw a ton of soft, slower punches to train the enemy to block them, then vary the speed and power to sneak through the guard. I'm not sure how they would implement any of that to be honest, but it would be fun to have!
singleplayer is def not boring, it only becomes boring lategame
Different archery reloads plz and they should fix that impossible archery animation that is impossible to do in real life
Yeah this!! It would be so cool to see the animation change at different skill levels. I know RBM adds the ability to "preload" 3 arrows in the hand for rapid fire after a certain level, but it would be nice to visually see the progression.
@@Strat-Guides another thing is for mounted archery perks you can switch hands to shoot ambidextrously allowing you to skirmish 360 degrees. All famous horse archer cultures did this
3:30 there was a stamina system that was used for one of the dlc's of warband, granted it originally started as a mod and was eventually made into an official extension.
It would be interesting to have that system implemented into bannerlord, or at the very least some version of it.
I think that was viking conquest mod. Spears were strong in that.
Historically the defeated side in a battle suffered at least 40% of casualties while the winning side took less than a 5%. This was so common that the only time it did not happen like this, the battle was remembered for millenia (Pyrrhus of Epiro against romans)
To me, the biggest shortcomings are definitely battles and diplomacy, a cassus belli system similar to Paradox games would be amazing (it can be as easy as giving a bunch of objectives before declaring war and having your vassals vote on it). You already explained why so I won't add anything there, I'll just say that not having to do more than 110 sieges to paint the map, or have conflicts play out in specific parts of a kingdom would be among the amazing consequences of these additions.
A lot of things can be suggested, but trying to stay within the confines of what's easier and more pressing, I think sieges could do with more attention. They are the second thing you do the most after battles after all. A lot has already been done to improve them, but I think it could go even further.
Diplomacy is nearly useless, towns should have the option to negotiate a surrender rather than contest every army through force. Sneaking in town to open the gates...would give a purpose to sneaking inside hostile towns, bribing the gatekeeper (charm), sapping (ingeniery)...should all be options available to the player. Sneaking in town should be easy enough to implement, bribing as well. For sapping it could involve a trench battle or even just fighting a sortie to protect your sapping works, if the sortie succeeds, then it's back to square one, if it fails then the next assault will load a map where the city lacks one of the walls.
Overall, sieges really need some variety in what can happen while besieging an enemy or being besieged yourself.
“The only winning move is to not play”
Actually some of your suggestions were already covered in warband. And they decide to remove, there was a misson for raiding a caravan for war declearation and economy was somehow effect the aggressions, like lack of a some materials can motivate the one kingdom to declear a war to a kingdom has surpluses
Your videos are always most welcome my dude. Hope all is well.
We should be able to higher smiths to customize/temper our equipment for large prices.
(I'd prefer this to get all the end game weapons and armor than the current skill. The skill could be replaced with a block/parry skill)
I also dislike the perks, I would prefer to have the skill points themselves do more to improve my abilities than to suddenly be able to fire a long bow/xbow from horse back. (I'd prefer that not to be an option, but if it is perhaps we receive a greater penalty from them which reduces with a higher skill)
For melee combat just we need a normal attack/strong attack. Not much than that
One thing that's small but I'd love to see is a small zone of control around cities and castles. Somewhat like total war. It just seems so dumb to have a cool castle in a small mountain pass that enemy forces can just walk past. Maybe it wouldn't be balanced but it could be super cool to be able to force an enemy to attack a castle to break through a pass or to take a longer unguarded way around.. perhaps even have rougery or scouting Perks that allow you to bypass the zones of control or the option of ambush battles where the idea is to cross to the other side of the map using your elite troops to make a rear guard.. I'd also like to see more consistency in the bridge battles. Would be nice if there was a little icon that showed you when you would have a bridge battle or a coastal battle.. or perks to hide in rougery.. I hate how if you attack a caravan especially early game its super hard to attack any others since they have so much calvary they can just outrun you. Would be awesome to have the option as a rougery perk to take time to set up an ambush and after a few hours your party can hide and wait for enemy armies or caravans.. likewise you should have the ability to make a fortified camp with high enough engineering.. imagine being able to find a critical pass into the mountains and you fortify a camp giving you a village like battle with walls but no gates..
Great vid dude. Lots of good points :) 16:21
One thing I would like to add in regards to quests ( 16:21 ) is that there are some quests that give village hearths on completion. Quests like "village needs tools", "village needs draught horses" and "deliver herd to x/y town" give a flat +40 hearths which is nice to get recently raided villages back to the 200 hearth breakpoint for town food supply.
Little known mechanic that I would love to see more of in game
Woahhh did not know this. Crazy useful thank you.
I’m all for these & I hope they get noticed. I think two of the simplest additions that would have the largest impact would be adding more diplomacy options & reworking delegating command. Both of these would improve the core draw of the game: the ability to be on the ground in battle personally leading an army you recruited yourself & a large campaign map with unique factions & cultures the player can shape & mold by their actions.
Adding even a Medieval II Total War level of diplomacy would go a long way adding to role play & provide much needed variance in how the world plays out & responds to the player & other factions.
Giving the player the option to choose the approach of their captains would offer a real reason to delegate & free up time & focus to personally fight in a battle more frequently if they choose.
Would love to see how advanced ai like gpt and such would integrate into games like bannerlord 2. Imagine being able to instruct ai on how play especially on delegate command, like making the ai play defensively or more of a skirmish harass style etc. while you command your other troops like cav or like waging guerilla warfare on the side somewhere. I am super excited to see how imaginative future game devs will be on integrating super advanced ai into future games
They should definitely make shields have accurate cover since shields are directional now.
As for events, the Mount and Blade lore can be used for that. The Nord invasions and Rhodok rebellion.
I’d say one of the most annoying things is when you destroy a enemy’s party of like 150 troops and then you see the same party on the map not even a week later with the same amount of troops. It feels like winning a big battle doesn’t really matter too much
Great Video 100% agree with every point!
Hey Jackie! Thanks man - hope all is well with you
Very well thought out improvements, many of them would’ve even be super hard to implement and I’m sure several modders have already, sucks that this game isn’t given as much support from developers as it could
Strat
I appreciate you and your game content.
Good video. Personally, I think armies should be able to use at least some heavy equipment while on the march. Currently, going full Genghis Khan and spamming horse archers is is too overpowered. But imagine if a slower moving army could bring a ballista or even a catapult to the fight. This would help re-balance the game and give players more of choice when building their armies.
0:50 - Your movement can also dictate the "speed" of your attack(more specifically travel time from start of swing to target),
if you move the same direction as your swing you will hit faster or if you look to the right as you do right swing, there's a shorter travel time, albeit the latter can have reduced damage because of it.
You can combine the two to hit your target even faster, a technique that we used to do in Warband, was looking straight down while having our target directly left of us and doing a left swing, this was the shortest possible swing distance we could create and would be used to counter an attack by attacking as they attack, your attack would always be quicker unless they did the same as you.
These are all equally applicable in Warband as it is Bannerlord.
But, I do agree that the format is too basic, it hasn't really changed since first game other than slight adjustments on swing patterns, possibly speed and blending of animations.
Shields have always been a frustration, it was equally a problem in the previous titles, they are just far too powerful and ends up being the de-facto choice for survivability.
I can't imagine it would be too hard to fix that, assuming you just change values on the shield and the shield skill that increases that invisible hitbox.
Stances is a good idea to increase the complexity of combat, could even be as simple as switching between thrusting and swinging stances.
I also like the morphing that was done in games like Mordhau, where you can start as a swing but switch to a thrust and everything is animated for it.
I'd also like to see the possibility to half-sword and Mordhau/Murder-stroke for more potential damage against plated enemies.
Shield + spear has always been the worst combat style in the franchise, it's far too slow and only has two forms of attacks which are both thrusts.
Because of its slowed attacks, it can often botch the attack, making the "bump" sounds instead of doing dmg, leaving you open for an attack.
Personally, I wish they kept the swings for the spears, while it would be useless against a heavily armoured, it would be useful to non-armoured and to confuse your enemy.
While it also should be affected by what type of spear/polearm it is, if it has more mass or is hafted with a blade or spike, it should do more swing damage.
Personally, I think the crush-through overhead strikes are far too strong at times and can easily be exploited by maintaining the correct distance, I think if you block(deflect) at a timely fashion, it should counter-act the crush-through.
I know many people complain about that aswell: but I honestly believe for more complex games the Paradox approach to games might be really good. Most paradox games come at full price at release. Alongside normal update which include minor balancing and bugfixes paradox also publishes new features. Some of the features are free (incorporated in the base game) and some come with a paid dlc.
Sure we would have to pay for some „premium“ features but this approach rewards devs (and ultimately the stakeholders/management) to keep developing the game and keeping it alive over the years. Heck, EU4 is from 2013 and still going. It’s a comparable business model like older paid MMOs (excluding the monthly subscription costs).
i was under the impression that bannerlord is still in early access, i had no idea things were that bad... the devs abandoned their game...
It's a really good game and there's a very active modding community.
@@cat_city2009sure but most ideas in the video aren't possible to properly implement without access to source code, especially AI.
I wish they would make trading and workshops more useful like in Warband. Getting the ability to build one castle and smith armors like in Nova Aetas wouldn.t hurt either
Damn mate, those are some very well funded opinions. Good video. :)
Love the comments about companions. It's why I don't have Bannerlord yet, and still play warband.
Companion only playthroughs are the only way I'll play now, modded or unmodded. It's too much fun.
I just completed a companion only playthrough with all 16 companions on vanilla (xbox), no horses, no vassels. Just the 16 lovable rascals and me.
Strat! Can we expect a M&B Warband playthrough?
The fact that you can block a charging spear with a butter knife is the worst part.
Not sure how you'd fix it, but it needs doing.
Fun fact 5000 hours is what it would roughly take for an average person to finish highschool in the states.
Lol sounds about right! I'm probably halfway through a PhD at this point :)
I aslo think it would be great if sieges had more options. It would be nice if defeating an enemy army next to a town or castle, increased the chances of said fief to surrender. You could also add the ability to sneak inside the fief to open the gates of the take the keep under cover of darkness, or even if you have good relations with notables they might help you during a siege wether you are the defender or attacker, and the AI could do the same. Maybe as the defender you could also raid the enemy camp, destroying their supplies and lower their army cohesion. Perhaps even force them to give up the siege or send forces to gather supplies, making them target for an ally relief force. I also believe it is too easy for catapults and trebuchet to break down the walls. Stone walls were much harder to destroy from bombardment. If you want to tear down the walls you could always do some sapping.
Basically for combat we need the Kingdom come deliverance system.
That fails within that game when fighting 3 people at once lol.
8:00 in.
I agree with EVERYTHING said, but I want to expand a bit. And I won't ask the impossible.
1. Recruiting System - This system should be more Dynamic and Realistic. Let me give an Example.
Say you got into a War with your Neighbor, and at first there's Tons of Recruits because you had Peace time and People to spare. As the War goes on, Recruiting should get more and more difficult due to Warrime Economy, Enemy Armies Raiding Territory, and Villages needing a Minimum amount of People to keep the Village running.
2. Diplomacy - We all know the Current Vanilla Diplomacy is garbage, though it has been Polished a Smidge. Nowhere near enough though.
3. Supply & Demand - The Economy in Bannerlord is as basic as it gets. With very little change aside from when a Player takes over a Settlement.
I want this expanded on by making Population and Professions a thing. Each Village, as mentioned before needs a Certain amount of People to run. Especially depending on the Resources said Villages Produce. And if we add a Profession System, depending on the Resource, and the skill of said Professional, it can really make an impact. The Companion and Notable Systems could be combined to make this work.
And on top of that, whilst we do have Trade Caravans, the only thing that really happens when one is destroyed is the Owner Faction typically just loses money. This needs to change.
4. Village & Town Specialization - Whilst each Village produces certain Resources, Towns serve as nothing more than Hubs with only a handful of Workshop Slots.
And they don't adhere to their Surroundings, Map Placement, or Common Sense. Let me give an Example:
A Major Town by the Sea should have a Functional Port. Where Traders, Fisherman, and Navy Sailors should be located. You should be able to make Naval Caravans, Build a Shipwright, or Fishery Business, etc.
5. War & Peace Changes - As stated, each Faction should operate differently during these Times.
Say you just got out of a 10 Year War with Sturgia, your Economy would likely, depending on how you managed it, be Weaker as it didn't have the Workforce necessary to sustain it due to them serving in the War.
You should have to spend time going around to Towns & Villages to get Quests to either:
- Resupply them with essential Resources.
- Find People/ Slaves to Relocate to that Village or Town to fill the Labor need.
- Petition their Lord to send Aid to the Village.
- Or Offer to free the People of their Service to their Current Lord to better serve under You.
6. Fief & Loyalty System Overhaul -
I always loved how in Warband sometimes you would have to start with just a Single Village and work your way up. I would like to see that brought back and expanded on depending on some of the Factors in other Points I made above.
Take ownership of a Village, becoming the Village Chief. Interact with your Villagers, Expand or Improve your Village in various ways like you do with Castles. AND SEE IT, not just alter an invisible statistic.
Let me give an Example:
Say you were at War, and your Villages main resource is Iron. Of course you have a Blacksmith(s) in your Village helping to Produce Arms or Armor for your Lord, (And maybe even your Local Guard). And you wanted to Fortify your Village against possible Raiders. Pull a Trump, and build a Wall. Gate and All.
Loyalty needs to expand BEYOND just Lords and Ladies, but also Fiefs and entire Clans. I know Clans are already somewhat touched, but I mean even Individual Memebers of Clans, or Families turning Traitor against the Rest.
AND FOR TALEWORLDS TO GET OFF THEIR ASSES AND STOP LETTING MODDERS FIX THEIR GAME.
That's all.
RTS mod should the base game
I think the worst part of bannerlord is the NPC relations system.
I used to think warband was bad for how basic it was. Giving you only a few options to mess with for improving or lowering relations. But Bannerlord has even fewer interactions!.
They introduced 2 new menus to mess with, one for clan and the other for kingdom. And in there, there are only policies for bonuses/penalties and some fluff text, and war peace declarations.
The most you can do there to affect relations with nobles is to improve or remove some of their influence.
The best thing they can do to fix this is to make influence a resource that you have regardless of being in a kingdom or not, that is used for all sorts of relations. You want to be a merc for a faction? You need to use your influence and charm to persuade the ruler that you are worth the coin, maybe even negotiate pay. The more the noble likes you and the weaker the kingdom is the easier it is for you to negotiate higher prices.
Make marriage agreements that bind the clans together, yes, but you need to be influential enough for them to consider binding themselves to your clan.
If you accrued a lot of influence you'll be invited to join a tournament as a guest of honor, allowing you to fight and/or simply spectate from a special noblemen viewing gallery with other nobles giving you chance to improve relations with them through special conversations, some allowing you to spend influence to improve relations further or even with the noble's friends.
Send your companions as messengers to nobles to converse with them even in times of war on matters such as trade, conspiracy or none-aggression pacts between the two of you, with a chance that your companion will be imprisoned if the noble dislikes you, has a trait that would make him prone to do such things while also not being a friend of yours.
Make some companions require persuasion and high enough relation with them to make them join you rather than everyone being a hired mercenary. (which also makes me question, why do you need to pay for your family members to fight with you? Isn't your money the clan's money?!)
There's so many things that can be done with the new kingdom, clan and influence mechanics to improve the social interaction part of the game. The devs just need to put a little thought into using it and making quests related to personal relations and not just "noble needs horses" or "noble too busy to collect taxes". How about "Derthart, the bastard, imprisoned my son for a week, find him, kill his army and drag him through the dirt for a while and make sure he knows that Caladog means business!" Or something like that.
Will there be a mount and blade 3
How tf is he supposed to know
@@Floris_VI I am asking for his opinion u idiot whether he thinks there will be a mnb 3
Great suggestions! The countless number of videos and posts with such well developed feedback goes to show how much potential this game has. It’s a shame that Taleworlds doesn’t seem to care to do anything more with it and simply let the modders sort it out. I only get excited and return to the game when overhaul mods come out. It was the same case with M&B 2, but the base game lasted quite a bit longer. In short, thank you to all the modders who put so much time and passion into improving the game
You should make this into a mod and call it Bannerlord 3.0. I think that a lot of the people who play bannerlord would love this.
Personally I think lategame grind could be somewhat avoided by a custom culture system.
Being able to establish your own cult following and gain the support of the people, and claiming towns under your culture to enhance your iron grip on foreign territories.
This could also allow you to make your own troop trees. Maybe you get a merc troop tree if you prove yourself as a good mercenary. And then more of a customizable troop tree as you claim territory and prove yourself superior.
Finally culminating in the custom noble troop tree after you claim a sufficient amount of land and influence
It's actually super interesting having watched the video a month later and seeing (potentially) some results of the criticism here be in the game. The game does indeed have Alliances and non-aggression pacts now! :D
PS. this is just one of the things I noticed, I more or less agree with most things aside from the over-realistic battle stuff, I was an avid supporter of RBM at some point but over time it got on my nerves just how much time things took despite the overall massive enhancement to the experience, it almost stopped being a game in a sense which I think Bannerlord should still stay as.
Love the video!
A lot of things kind of bland together. But to combine caravans and economical warfare. It would also be nice if Caravans made better decisions. So you could for example find a spot on the map make it economically prosperous and have Caravans try and stay in the safe area. Now raid parties also become more valuable. It would in the same light make sense for caravans from hostile factions to avoid these areas. Something that never made sense to me was seeing empire caravans traveling in Khuzait territory when they are at war (even when they aren't, they make war all the time). One could also use bandits to then specifically target said areas for example.
A main diffference i have seen between Warband village quests and Bannerlord village quests
Bannerlord gives you money and relations and Warband only relations (from what i remember, if they also give money then there is that, but mostly is just relations or sometimes supplies)
Money as already is discused is good in early game and useless in mid to end, so, we keep relations
What does good relations with a village (or more specifically, a village influential lord) give you?, from what i know, you only get 1...or sometimes 2 more troops to recruit in the village, which is...kinda of dissapointing, taking the fact how much you need to level relations (not that much in realistic but still)
What does good relations with a village (This time, the entire village) in warband give you?. The Volunteers they give you can be upgraded from recruits, to militia, and in the higher levels they can even give you a pretty big ammount of elite troops at the highest levels (We are talking about they giving you almost like 15-20 or even more troops like Huscarls, Sergeants, etc.)
Both are annoying to level up, but in warband they give you as a prize a constant way to get elite troops, which can be useful in the mid to end game (at least after a big battle and you have lost some). Not that it is way better, but that system gave you at least a better reason to upgrade relations that...winning an extra random troop when you recruit
Some other not related things i like about warband better
-Vassals are way harder to recruit and need management. You cant just leave them alone, you need to give orders (Or have a trusty marshall do them), because they will defect if they dont feel happy. And also having a successfull kingdom can attract them to join yours by their own
-Marriages are uncommon and you need to work on them. You have to romance ur lady at least a little, and way more than in bannerlord. They dont give you childs, but they give you an alliance with the family, and you need to work on it, unlike Bannerlord where you just...pay a lot of money. Also you could fight against another nobles for her!
-Class Difference. Being Female or of low level origin would make it harder for you to level up. Heck, you couldnt have your own banner if you werent a noble already!.
-Companions. No need to explain here, there is no Jeremus
-Mods. No need to explain here, there is no Perisno, 457AD, Prophesy of Pendor, Hispania 1200, Between Empires...you get the point
100% agree with all of your suggestions, though I doubt most of them will be possible (maybe some will eventually be tackled by some incredibly dedicated and skilled modders), but fingers crossed.
Anyway, just want to say thanks for all the work you've done on your Bannerlord videos. You've been my go-to UA-camr for the last few years when it comes to Bannerlord. Your videos are extremely helpful, and the meticulous care and attention to detail is appreciated.
I recently did a merchant playthrough and was distinctly disappointed with the lack of depth trading had to offer. It boiled down to buying a bunch of trade goods from villages and towns with low prices and going somewhere with low access to that resource to sell them, and repeat. In addition to your thoughts about dynamic economies and trading monopolies, I'd love to see something like a trader/artisan/village notary trade agreements to give more depth to where and who you should buy goods from. Instead of just letting you buy more troops from them, high relations would let you propose trade agreements at the cost of influence, relation, or both to give you lower trade penalties, exclusive access to goods, or allow you to buy a higher tier of goods from them for the chance at better profit margins. It would actually make decisions about which villages or traders to help and which you shouldn't feel impactful, and give weight to things like raiding villages and caravans during wars.
I think it would be great to have minor lords with low influence and mercenaries come to you for quests like we do to lords in the early game. You would be able to assign them a quests that you have accepted and would offer payment, you more you offer the more likely they will accept.
Hehe yeaaah boiii :D
18:50 , I use that a lot in my game : declare a war, immediately start sieging, take 1 or 2 settlements, and declare piece before they can take one of your fiefs.
The price of the peace can look expensive, but it's a price per day, so you can just declare war again to stop paying (and take a few more fiefs).
I took most fiefs from factions much stronger than me like that.
(you can also buy all food from a town before declaring war and sieging to make the siege easier)
They could make peace cost some money upfont to stop this strategy.
F1 F3 is a classic
Everytime I start a match im like "f1,,, f3"
And exactly, all the points you provided would literally make me addicted to this game. I only have 200 hours, but if these were alll added it would multiplied by hundreds
honestly all these points are on the mark but even IF they were to do all that the game would still feel hollow (to me at least). the world just has no life there's no world building, no world state changes from things like a complete annihilation of a major faction no reactions from the npc's to ANYTHING that happens in the world; settlement raided last night "butters selling well in pen this week" castle next door burning to the ground, "nice weather today" no real lore aside from a couple dialog chats. no real peace time activity's like feast, proper weddings, proper tournaments, festivals tailored to there culture's, all of which could have the potential for rivals to commit subterfuge or straight up dastardly betrayal think red wedding or Tourney at Harrenhal type deal. sieges are completely bland and short and just feel uneventful after the first one. cities don't even feel populated and have next to nothing in them to do, taverns are a joke.
I used to look forward to the dev blogs to see what's next on the list but really its just down right disappointing. for a team this large I expected to see much more than warband but the only thing truly improved are the graphics/cosmetics, and battle size, they completely left out the rest of the game. at this point modders are the only reason this game even has/had life anymore and I think the dev's have just given up
I think economy/trade and diplomacy are the things I'd want to be changed/upgraded the most. FE it's fun starting out as a trade character but it doesn't scale well and after a certain point the profit margins become neglible + you have too much money anyways. Also being able to properly affect/damage the economy of cities/regions/enemies would be nice.
main things for me are the diplomacy, the party troop organizer (warband style) and i would love for a more restricted map (large armies can only use roads and if they want to go through mountains/dense forest/very ruff terrain, they would incur a heavy penalty to movement and soldiers would eat ration faster) to simulate that the land can actually offer actual benefits other then your troops are just barely slower. Also i know there is the (very buggy) sally out option but i would love to have a second entrance to the castle in order to do a proper sally out with my knights when being besieged. Granted i always use MLW mod so i can make my own troops but it still makes cavalry a bit pointless when during a siege. I would love to be able to sally forth with my knights to hit the enemy archers real quick while the enemy infantry is busy with the walls then come back into the castle/town, or to hit the enemy siege then fall back during the siege battle itself.
Very good vid as always Strat !!
I really love this game, and your content has been a really big part of that. Here is my top things I would like to see changed
1 The end game is stale and lacking in part this is because their is really only one objective as you said paint the map in your colour and that requires running around doing the same siege over and over you can't auto resolve them as loses are so high so have to just download RTS and speed though them as fast as you can. I think wars should be less common but have greater consequence and also not come out of the blue. The way I would do this is to borrow(steal) paradox casi bell system. You can pick any province on the map and select more than one and if you win the war then you get all those fifes if you lose you have to pay reptations much as the system is now, with a white peace being something in the middle. Getting a Casi bell should take some time and you should see if someone is rabble rousing against you so you see those back stap wars when you already at war on the other side of the map.
It would also be really nice to be able to set different objectives to end the game with nice cut screens but not sure how that would work.
2 Troops
Totally agree high tier troops are to easy to get and once you have a 1.5k stack of khans guard/fiends etc you can't lose a battle and they seldom die. One way you could fix this is to use something more like a champion system where you have your lords that serve you and each lord will then higher champions who each have a band of their own men. So I have two lords and each of have 10 Nobel(fiends, khans guard etc) and those then have 10 mid teir and 20 low tier and 20 trash tier of the same type so fiends would have lower classes of bow men. this would make it feel like those nobles are really nobles and they bring their own people to the fight. Their numbers might auto replenish over time if they lose some low tier or if the Nobel dies it take time for your lord to recruit more nobles. This might give you less control on army comp but it would also feel more natural and organic.
3 Trade
I am a bit hesitant on this one I feel I quite like the way the trade caravans though maybe a delay in respawn and having them cost prosperity to create but if you do that then you should be able to stop your cities spawning them/control the route so they don't just walk into people you are at war with.
4 Diplo
Agreed on this one diplomacy mod makes the game so much better. The ability to send messages rather than haul your army half way across the map is so nice. On that subject being able to give parties more direct tasks such as deal with bandits counter raids etc would be nice.
5 Bandits
Final one is bandits I feel like this is something they should make a DLC for adding more complex goals and aims for bandit play through.
I'm happy to hear that and thanks for sharing this!
Here is another idea to add more to the game. When enemies are at the gate building siege equipment and their camp if you can split off your Calvary troops from your party and lead a night raid through their camp or run your cav troops through to try and cause chaos. Also depending on where the castle is if it has cliff faces it would be nice to send out a small contingent force out to harass the troops below delaying their attack so reinforcements can hopefully get there to assist.
A lot of what you want for economy and quests actually exists in X4.
X4 is a space sim, however.
-
If you haven't played it, I'll try to explain it briefly:
- The goal for most AI is to build warships.
- Building ships needs complex resources.
- Basic resources are gotten by mining.
- Basic resources need to be refined into more complex resources. This is done through space station refinaries.
- AI factions already start with a bunch of stations for mining and refining resources and building ships, but building more also requires resources.
- The value of a resource in a certain area is directly related to its availability and demand, generating trade opportunities.
- AI will be sending trade and transport ships to move around these resources, generating raiding opportunities.
-- Raiding 50 resources is 50 resources that faction no longer has, the destroyed ship is a ship that faction no longer has. This effects the AI's ability to do things.
- Missions are generated in the world based on the demands and requirements of the AI.
- X4 is indeed a game where it's possible to create your own faction and conquer the whole galaxy. You yourself have to do the sane things to build ships like the AI is doing.
Might not be a popular opinion but I like how simple the PVP is in Bannerlord and Warband, easy to learn as there's only 4 directions to attack from with most weapons, but it can take 1000s of hours to master. I have probably close to 2k hours on Warband on Xbox, most of which was on MP, and I still enjoy hopping on MP occasionally, even after so many hours the PVP is satisfying.
Have you made it into a Captains lobby with us yet?
In many modern games, including bannerlord, I'm sorely missing a glorified text document keeping track of stats like total casualties, previous wars, money spent on troops or food, etc.
Usually these games keep track of it some way or another anyway, for instance Empire Total war's enemies killed achievements.
Why not show me the data you've already collected?
As for Bannerlord specifically - the war UI is a mess. I can't keep track of what's actually going on. It all feels arbitrary and just 'out there' or I have to keep a big paper backlog of everything (which was fine in Warband because there was NOTHING memorized for you, like trade rumors. YOU had to pay attention.) Just stay consistent! It improves the game. And that wouldn't just aid Bannerlord! Paradox games would especially benefit (LOOKING AT YOU, STELLARISM MY GOODNESS!)
it's kind of crazy to me that only after 20 hours of playing the most recent version I noticed all the problems the game had that you brought up in this video and I had to be like "whoa, there's no way this is actually how all this stuff works, I must be missing something about how the game mechanics work or something" and it turns out my intuition was right and this game is just kind of like skyrim where you need to mod the shit out of the game in order for it to be good except some of the issues don't even have mods to fix them yet in this game. At least it's not a bugfest like it was when it launched in 2020 but sheesh
They should add more dialog options, like skyrim. They should add military alliances so you can ally with other factions instead of a "join me or perish" mentality. Make courting better. They should make uniting houses a bigger deal. They should add military access pacts so armies cannot travel through your lands if they do it violates pact and starts war. They should add illness so players can die at young ages to illness(with alot of moderation) they should make executions less of a penalty if it's an existing enemy. The negative relations should only be for the faction or their friends. Not the entire map disliking you for an execution. They should add naval warfare and should use the islands. They should make more quests that can alter the storyline. They need more maps. Bannerlord is a great game. I think I played for so long because I literally fantasized my own story thru the game play. The game itself is boring. But the sandbox is anything you want it to be. That's what's so fun about it. The story unfolds as you play. My first playthru was like a literal movie lmao😂
All good stuff, but most firmly agree on "Companions are bad (mostly)"
I always wonder why game studios don't approach modders and either hire them or pay them a lump sum to use their mods/their features, these people are truly passionate about the game and already do great work for free. They are in the community and know what we want.
Because they do it for free.
They should make us give orders to noble within our kingdom like capture castles or invade from a certain place
I. LOVE. The whole culture unique animation idea, however I can see this being minmaxxed and making certain cultures unviable. However, this doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen. They just have to actually balance them. Perhaps instead of it being culture based, maybe it can be a character setting when creating a character, or changed mid-campaign and unlock more fighting styles as you gain skill. This would add way more options for not only the player but also to stylize major and minor factions alike, and even extend to individual troops in troop trees. I’d expect a peasant to fight differently from a footman, and a footman to fight differently from a cataphract.
- You ever hear the story of Strat gaming the Wise? He was once an youtuber for Bannerlord, migthy and powerfull. He expierenced so much and learned so much, in the end he obtained the key knowledge to fix Bannerlord, ultimately, for good, even stop people from leaving this game forever... What an irony, he knew how the game should be modded, but never has a power or time to mod it all only by himself.
- But... From whom can you learn this power?
- Not from a Devs.
Lol to be fair, I would make a terrible video game and I think TW did an amazing job! I'm sure a lot of my suggestions aren't practical to implement (or at least not in a realistic timeframe or in a "fun" way) but it's always good to dream and get the ideas out there. You never know who's watching
1. More attacks - Possible, but would drastically change the control scheme. Also, the AI already barely understands combat; it understands the directional system well, but not footwork, and any additional move would have its own optimal footwork further making the AI appear confused.
2. Realistic shield area - Possible to the point of being easily moddable. Again, the bottleneck is AI, as it would not acknowledge feints and always get stabbed; in general, this change would likely drastically increase the amount of units dying, particularly to missiles.
3. Gothic style anim progression - Easily doable, but I suspect kinda expensive, iirc the rest of the anims are motion-capture.
4. Fix the damn balance - Absolutely, and it's not just combat. There's no reason not to dedicate devtime to fix it; with a solid framework, any new items would require no extensive balancing of their own. Whether this framework needs to be realistic is debatable, but there has to be one.
5. Stamina - There's a whole can of worms about what Hitpoints are supposed to represent, so it's possible that lack of Posture-like system is a deliberate choice on the devs' part. That combat system is symplistic and abstract does not necessarily make it bad per say.
6. Slower, tactical battles - Probably objectively correct, as Bannerlord has a completely different player perspective and pace compared to Total War where arcady 5-min battles are the zeitgeist. The AI is at fault again.
8. More simulation elements in battles - Personally agree, as Bannerlod in general has a simulator vibe, but that sort of thing is likely hard to realize on what is very much still a Warband-like engine, where battles are very self-contained and have a weird relationship with their fairly tiny battlemap.
9. Formation groups and custom formations - Yes.
10. Smarter AI - it's the Holy Grail of any dev, I feel, but a largely abandoned art.
11. MOAR SIMULATION - Yes. Especially your point about how this gives the player something tangible to interact with. Peasants being actual kindgom manpower, carrying actual town food supply, gives player a reason to protect them or mess them up. There's no reason to interact with a minecraft-style mob beyond the player-exclusive loot it drops, when everything else about this mob is set-dressing.
12. SImulation-based quests - Brilliant and true.
13. Diplomacy - Well, Paradox-tier dyplomacy is probably excessive for a game like Bannerlord, but I see no reason why it doesn't have at least Warband-tier diplomacy.
14. Less perks as long as they're better - Agreed. This is a general sentiment for me personally, it's ok to have a huge framework for the future that is mostly empty placeholder, but then there gotta be regular improvements on the smaller scale.
15. More setting customisation - While nice, this is by its nature moreso appealing to advanced players, and advanced players lean into modding. So while not redundant per say, I feel like that should be a low priority for devs, even if for advanced players this is a highly desirable feature.
These are all great points. I knew going into this that many of my suggestions would be "nice to have, but fiscally not realistic to implement", but it's still fun to think about :)
After I heard that the DRG developers do not add additional difficulty above 5, because few people need it, I realized that even the most interested developers are chasing money.
And the money is made in the first hours.
They don't care what a player with 5+k hours wants.
I'd like armour to be armour.
It degrades as you hit it, and you get low level damage that affects your stamina until you are knocked down and "finished".
Especially plate armour. You don't get eviscerated by a two handed sword in one swing if you're wearing plate. You might get a really nasty bruise and possibly winded. If you're really unlucky you might break a bone or dislocate a joint.
You don't have the plate rent in two with one swing and have your guts spilled.
Same deal with arrows to the face. You might survive one. But you're going to be REALLY distracted, and probably start running away or fall to the ground and scream a lot....if you are lucky enough not to have it strike a fatal location.
I'd also like them to implement more of a Kingdom Come Deliverance style combat system, where you can implement combo's depending on your and the enemy's combination of strikes, blocks and damage.
I agree 100% with basically everything.
Realistic Battle Mod should be the direction to go for the Taleworlds.
They could add playable phases to major battles via a card minigame with higher tactics unlocking new battle stratagems. Ie raid camp/ supply line. Ambush. Skirmish over forage, poison well etc Both you and the opponent could each take turns playing cards. You could also have other skills play a part ie a high athletics character could scale the walls of the castle and attempt to fight their way through the city to open the main gate from inside. or a high roguery character could raise the gangs is revolt within the city.
They could also reuse the bandit lair and village maps which are unloved since its entirely likely that 2 armies would fight a small skirmish between forage parties around the nearest village.