When playing M&B:W, one character (the Queen Mathide, daughter to a trader) was pushed to the 10 000 ingame day limit. This was done with the purpose of accessing the feasibility of building a character over a life time (while M&B missed elements like building a family etc)
It held. There was potential.
Bannerlord, while it adds elements to extend a run, collapses too fast. The economy is troublesome, money no longer means anything too fast. That emulates a growth economy, without any scheme of debt.
I severely dislike if the PC is disproportionately powerful, and running away is half the fun. As is picking your fights and getting crushed if you annoy the wrong gang or lord. Not that I don't also enjoy being powerful, but if I start out that way where's the incentive to carry on?
Powerful avatars were present in M&B. It seems that Bannerlord pushes even more.
Now it requires to take advantage of the power of an avatar.
On smaller battles, it takes to bait the enemy troops, to thinnen them then redirect them to the core of the troops so they finish the job. Charging head along would mean defeat.
And bandits, looters are not raiders (as they were not in M&B)
On larger battles, it takes to position troops, use the terrain etc Charging head along would probably mean being crushed.
A remark on this: in M&B, the AI was able to do the same in a defensive manner, it could take the high ground, stack their units and wait until the player comes. Baiting them out of position by riding in front of their line was not sufficient.
All in all, it seems they have loosened up things compared to M&B/W.
Chasing small enemy groups: compared to M&B, it seems that it is made loosier.
Catching up with a 15 enemy group when riding a 100/150 army seems easier.
Making the auto resolve a safer way.
In M&B/W, when intending to clear an area from bandits influence, hunting from prisoners or so, the speed balance encourages to pick a smaller army so to catch up. Making playing the battle hands on a better solution.
