What is the current state of diplomacy in the game?

[Drinjanin]

What Mount And Blade - Warband lacked was the diplomacy that allowed alliances to be made and broken, non-aggression pacts, hub where you would be able to select lords and faction leaders, and communicate/negotiate with them.

Now, since the scope of Bannerlord is way bigger, there is a need for this type of diplomacy option. The question is, are these features implemented into the game or not?

PS: I don't care about diplomacy mods. Do not bring them into this discussion.

[Clovis Sangrail]

I don't care for diplomacy mods either.

As to your question as to whether these features have been implemented into the game or not -- A little bit, but not much. Just enough for them to say 'There is diplomacy.'

[Action Man]

You cannot form alliances or make NAPs with other factions.

There are only 8 factions in the game. Why does there need to be alliances/NAPs? The only difficulty Bannerlord has is giving you too many fires to put out. If you can seal your borders so the AI is not allowed to attack, that would make the game even easier than it already is.

I certainly understand the RP behind it, but this game doesn't really have any inherent RP.

[kristianjakob]

The developers had an other purpose in mind for the system. So, no.

[Drinjanin]

That is unfortunate.

[kristianjakob]

Originally posted by Drinjanin:

That is unfortunate.

Just stay relatively small and you can play the game the way you want to.

You are just not allowed to do a world conquest without opposition.

[Drinjanin]

Originally posted by kristianjakob:

Originally posted by Drinjanin:

That is unfortunate.

Just stay relatively small and you can play the game the way you want to.

You are just not allowed to do a world conquest without opposition.

Two kingdoms bonding together. That simple. Three maybe. Of course there would be opposition. The problem is the AI leans towards total chaos, where kingdoms end up at war with more than two factions. And AI always revolves everything around the player, so, of course it will be your faction against multiple others at the same time. That is artificial and broken. Now, add to that all those additional factions and mini factions Bannerlord has. Not every action has to revolve around the human player. Speaking from Warband experience. Medieval II - Total War does the same. Other games as well. It feels more organic when player is not always at the spotlight, or the centre of the drama, like the chosen one of The Elder Scrolls V - Skyrim. For now I will stick with Warband. I will wait and see what the new DLC brings to the table.

[kristianjakob]

Originally posted by Drinjanin:

Originally posted by kristianjakob:

Just stay relatively small and you can play the game the way you want to.

You are just not allowed to do a world conquest without opposition.

Two kingdoms bonding together. That simple. Three maybe. Of course there would be opposition. The problem is the AI leans towards total chaos, where kingdoms end up at war with more than two factions. And AI always revolves everything around the player, so, of course it will be your faction against multiple others at the same time. That is artificial and broken. Now, add to that all those additional factions and mini factions Bannerlord has. Not every action has to revolve around the human player. Speaking from Warband experience. Medieval II - Total War does the same. Other games as well. It feels more organic when player is not always at the spotlight, or the centre of the drama, like the chosen one of The Elder Scrolls V - Skyrim. For now I will stick with Warband. I will wait and see what the new DLC brings to the table.

Total war (tons of different versions so..) does the same as bannerlord, as did warband. They all have a "you are getting to big" mechanism. Bannerlords is just more gradual (organic was infact the word that was used).

[Uchiha Itachi あまてらす]

If it's okay to call a drink that contains 5% real fruit as a "fruit juice", there's definitely diplomacy in the game. Some people like the original taste or thinks that more real fruit would ruin the drink. But they also say that adding different flavors without increasing the real fruit ratio, wouldn't hurt either. Some people think that this drink should not be called as a "fruit juice" and should not be consumed as such. Others say the taste is just bland and needs more fruit. The drink is so unusual, unique and not everyone had the opportunity to taste the version they wanted. Therefore, people have very different ideas about it. If you think there is no mistake in my metaphor, this is the case.

[Drinjanin]

Originally posted by kristianjakob:

Originally posted by Drinjanin:

Two kingdoms bonding together. That simple. Three maybe. Of course there would be opposition. The problem is the AI leans towards total chaos, where kingdoms end up at war with more than two factions. And AI always revolves everything around the player, so, of course it will be your faction against multiple others at the same time. That is artificial and broken. Now, add to that all those additional factions and mini factions Bannerlord has. Not every action has to revolve around the human player. Speaking from Warband experience. Medieval II - Total War does the same. Other games as well. It feels more organic when player is not always at the spotlight, or the centre of the drama, like the chosen one of The Elder Scrolls V - Skyrim. For now I will stick with Warband. I will wait and see what the new DLC brings to the table.

Total war (tons of different versions so..) does the same as bannerlord, as did warband. They all have a "you are getting to big" mechanism. Bannerlords is just more gradual (organic was infact the word that was used).

The way things currently are in the game, is it possible to conquer the entire map?

[kristianjakob]

Originally posted by Drinjanin:

Originally posted by kristianjakob:

Total war (tons of different versions so..) does the same as bannerlord, as did warband. They all have a "you are getting to big" mechanism. Bannerlords is just more gradual (organic was infact the word that was used).

The way things currently are in the game, is it possible to conquer the entire map?

I just completed a normal world conquest today. In less than 3½ ingame years (279 days to be precise).

So yes,

As for diplomacy that people soo love to hate. The tribute payments I have had to make probably makes up roughly 6% of my total costs over the campaign. 80%+ of my costs have been buying clans.. It is that irrelevant.

[Judaspriester]

Originally posted by Drinjanin:

The way things currently are in the game, is it possible to conquer the entire map?

There is an achievement for doing it, 2.5% of the players have it. So yeah, it is, it just requires time and I could imagine the last 3rd of the map will feel kinda tedious as always in games like this.

[kristianjakob]

Originally posted by Judaspriester:

Originally posted by Drinjanin:

The way things currently are in the game, is it possible to conquer the entire map?

There is an achievement for doing it, 2.5% of the players have it. So yeah, it is, it just requires time and I could imagine the last 3rd of the map will feel kinda tedious as always in games like this.

That last part is waayy beyond tedious;)

But yes, that is basically a given.

[Teralitha]

What is the current state of diplomacy in the game?

Its functional. Not sure what else to say about it.