Gambino
i've discovered a BL feature, it is that you will be able to do warcries/taunts. because that guy's mouth is open.
Mount&Blade II: Bannerlord
- Thread starter vadermath
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
- Status
Exciting news, this. Not sure what the fuss about the name is all about, it's actually rather cool. It seems to suggest an expansion in scope relative to the older games, ie. vanilla had you as some nondescript, Warband has you beginning to lead a party of soldiers, and Bannerlord has you conquering cities under a single banner.
Gameplay footage would be nice, though.
Gameplay footage would be nice, though.
Merlkir
Sethaniel said:
Yep. TW, the cat's out of the bag now, you had to know you'd get more demands after this. And you have. NOW GAEMPLY FOOTAEG PLS!
I'll keep bugging them for more stuff. Don't worry, they don't seem to plan on leaving you starved for info. Though, probably won't be getting any extra rations. They'll most likely give a few spoilers here and there. A screenshot maybe.
Swordmaster said:
Oh! That's quite interesting, thanks for the info. I still think it's a poor translation, but at least we can make some sense of it now.
Anyway, yeah, I sure as hell hope they don't just reuse the WB engine again. That'd be bad.
It has a certain something...
Lyze
Baron
Neutral reaction to the name, muted pleasure to the actual official announcement; we knew it was coming and in the works, just didn't know when.
As to the engine, they better have a new engine. Or as Madoc put it, "an entirely different beast". There were so many limitations and blocks on the original engine that if they reuse it, it will seriously prevent a lot of improvement that I'd like to see, personally. I'm honestly hoping for a lot more tactical and strategic depth. The one thing that always bugged me was the lack of campaign mechanics - it didn't matter if you obliterated a 4000 man host from the enemy kingdom, capturing four lords and heavily wounding others; they'd just be back with another, equally strong host in a couple days. There was no consequence to the battle, and that made anything from mid-game on a boring grind. Ideally, I'd like there to be dynamic campaign mechanics, with loss, attrition, recruitment rates, and a functioning economy with growth and supply and demand. For reference, look at Nijis' work for the Battle of Sicily mod way back in .808... that had some superb, if rough, mechanics, I'd say.
The combat mechanics are excellent, and I'm sure they'll continue to improve them... so in my opinion, what's needed to ensure that M&B II is truly a successor and not an imitation is that TW expands those areas where it was significantly weak, those being the macro-level mechanics for campaigns and wars, and fiefdom/kingdom economy/political management. If they can create working systems for those areas, and allow the player to either see or affect dynamic changes within those systems, then we'll get a game with much more replayability, and a wondrously increased level of enjoyment in the end game. No longer will it be a slog through thousands of troops and repetitive battles, but a serious and in-depth campaign where you dictate the forces of a kingdom.
Those are my two cents, at least. And for all of that, they'd need a new engine. I doubt the original engine could handle that. My hope though, is that with Nijis as a developer, some of this will come to pass.
As to the engine, they better have a new engine. Or as Madoc put it, "an entirely different beast". There were so many limitations and blocks on the original engine that if they reuse it, it will seriously prevent a lot of improvement that I'd like to see, personally. I'm honestly hoping for a lot more tactical and strategic depth. The one thing that always bugged me was the lack of campaign mechanics - it didn't matter if you obliterated a 4000 man host from the enemy kingdom, capturing four lords and heavily wounding others; they'd just be back with another, equally strong host in a couple days. There was no consequence to the battle, and that made anything from mid-game on a boring grind. Ideally, I'd like there to be dynamic campaign mechanics, with loss, attrition, recruitment rates, and a functioning economy with growth and supply and demand. For reference, look at Nijis' work for the Battle of Sicily mod way back in .808... that had some superb, if rough, mechanics, I'd say.
The combat mechanics are excellent, and I'm sure they'll continue to improve them... so in my opinion, what's needed to ensure that M&B II is truly a successor and not an imitation is that TW expands those areas where it was significantly weak, those being the macro-level mechanics for campaigns and wars, and fiefdom/kingdom economy/political management. If they can create working systems for those areas, and allow the player to either see or affect dynamic changes within those systems, then we'll get a game with much more replayability, and a wondrously increased level of enjoyment in the end game. No longer will it be a slog through thousands of troops and repetitive battles, but a serious and in-depth campaign where you dictate the forces of a kingdom.
Those are my two cents, at least. And for all of that, they'd need a new engine. I doubt the original engine could handle that. My hope though, is that with Nijis as a developer, some of this will come to pass.
Eктωρ said:
I'll be another one to jump on the bandwagon and say that I find the name badass.
Actually the bandwagon appears to be just the opposite
- Status
