Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Diplomacy is not non existent. You can declare war and make peace. Those are the only diplomatic options we need in this game in its current design.
It's just a popularity contest, pointless high school drivel
Diplomacy is the sort of thing that arises when the expectation is that people can settle their issues with discussion. When the issue is which kingdom is best able to take and hold territory by force of arms, the battlefield can be the only appropriate place to settle it. As they say; less talking, more raiding.
The opening video sets the scene for a time of mistrust and conflict. Diplomacy comes thru might and these methods mentioned by Brzezinski at the clan or lower lvl.
Or if provocative actions are carried out in the cities we own. if it results according to the governor's stealth skill features. If we catch them and decide what to do. Will they go to prison, will compensation be demanded, will war be started? If we can't catch them, we have to suffer the consequences.
I am aware that it is a much more difficult task compared to the "stealth kill system". That everyone has been craving for a long time(?) xD
The general dialogue variety should be increased. Instead of jumping directly to the decision-making screen for diplomacy options, there should be meetings on "important issues" and lords should be invited to these meetings. The reputation of those who do not participate should be reduced.
This is just an idea, I can list dozens like this.
If you tell those who express their opinions that "this game is not that kind of game", no one will express their opinions. We all know that the game is about war. But is war just about killing?
Just think, a message comes and says there is a rebellion in the city. you are going there and trying to solve it by agreement or fighting the rebels while civilians were running left and right. If you don't intervene, the city's loyalty will decrease and you will be allowing a bigger rebellion. And there was a chance of it being seized by neutral lords.
Or what if the merchants sometimes started fighting among themselves, there were regional wars. What if we try to resolve it diplomatically, if we failed and we had to choose sides and the city was fighting again, or if we found both sides wrong and started a fight all of them. If we held elections for who would replace the dead npcs, or had people do it.
The game needs much more interactions in the cities and castles. And needs much more diplomacy, immersion. If the game is a war game, these are all part of the war.
If what I say is not understood, I am aware that my English is not at its best :D
In Bannerlord reality it could be a companion with Roguery. But it would require a broader availability of governors.