Dev Blog 17/01/19

[parsehtml][IMG]https://www.taleworlds.com/Images/News/blog_post_73_taleworldswebsite.jpg[/IMG] Over the course of the past few months, one of the most commented features that we have shown in this dev blog is the use of siege engines when someone is trying to take a castle by storm -- but we didn't really go into much detail about how they work. In this week's entry of our blog, we talk with Bahar Sevket, one of our gameplay programmers, who is currently working on new mechanics for that particular area of the game and can give us some interesting insights on how siege engines will be integrated into Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord. [/parsehtml]Read more at: https://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/93

 

[Do not look here]

I should mention that we recently made some changes to our siege preparation. Previously, a player who besieged a castle had to select what they wanted to build from a number of engines, one by one. Recently, however, we introduced a new tactics feature. Now, the player will select one of the siege tactics available and will get a preloaded waiting list for siege engines that are useful to the selected tactic.

What the **** is this ****? Why????

What the hell is the point of this change? I see no upside whatsoever to this change.

I just hope that it means that you get a preset positioning of siege engines when choosing a tactic and then you can tamper with it. If not, then it is just silly.

On the other hand, it could have been changed to prevent cheesing the AI with siege engines placement, maybe they couldn't figure out proper response to every combination for the defenders, so just went for dumbing the whole thing down to a rock-paper-scissors type of thing.

EDIT: By the way, settlement issues sound like really fun feature and I think the 'random' means they can fire once you enter the scene or not, but not that they will be chosen at random, considering you may need to change your approach as a result. I wonder what that means for settlements not owned by us and if it is owner-exclusive thingy then. I still have my fingers crossed for viable mercenary captain playstyle, but so many of the things they mention seem to be faction member/leader oriented

 

[Orion]

Is it hard to learn c #? I already have knowledge of c ++

One of the goals for C# as a language was to make it easier to learn than C++, and if you know C++ already then you should be able to pick up C# pretty quickly. I did so.

 

[Worldsprayer]

Yes but what I'm saying is that they are not talking about something vague but something specific.  If you google the purpose of an interface for example, this is the basic description of what it's used for: "The main purpose of the interfaces is that it makes a contract between you and any other class that implement that interface which makes your code decoupled and allows expandability."

So, they are  taking their code, saying "OK this works the way we have it, lets make sure anything else the community adds includes at least this so it works", so they create an overarching interface that includes their fundamentals and bam, the door to modding is swung wide open.

I hope i'm not being rude, just saying that when she said interface, she was being specific not vague.

In C#, as in many other languages, an interface is a specific thing, not what you are thinking.  An interface is basically a class/object breakdown of what must be inside anything claiming to be of that interface.  You do not create and use an interface, you extend it and everything that interface lists must be present.  It allows for moddability because you can then add things to it as well.

...after adding a new feature, we always analyse if it should be something that is moddable. If it is deemed to be a moddable feature, we add corresponding interfaces and maintain our default implementation in order to create room for moddable behaviour.”

For me it means, "modders interface" != "#C interface"

I fear, if your mod idea is over the devs assumptions, so the inner object structure is not suitable for it, than no tweaks can help like in the old school functional programming of Module System. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[DtheHun]

No problem. Maybe I'm just a bit sick of the glorification of Object orientation in the context of modding. For a company it's a safeguard to not let individuals to make big mistakes, but for a modder, working atop a structure layed in stone is more like a handcuff. It will be good for the usual faction, troop, and item hoarding mods deep in the bed of the vanilla game, but I can't expect any world-shaking creations in an OO environment.

 

[NPC99]

Yes but what I'm saying is that they are not talking about something vague but something specific.  If you google the purpose of an interface for example, this is the basic description of what it's used for: "The main purpose of the interfaces is that it makes a contract between you and any other class that implement that interface which makes your code decoupled and allows expandability."

So, they are  taking their code, saying "OK this works the way we have it, lets make sure anything else the community adds includes at least this so it works", so they create an overarching interface that includes their fundamentals and bam, the door to modding is swung wide open.

I hope i'm not being rude, just saying that when she said interface, she was being specific not vague.

In C#, as in many other languages, an interface is a specific thing, not what you are thinking.  An interface is basically a class/object breakdown of what must be inside anything claiming to be of that interface.  You do not create and use an interface, you extend it and everything that interface lists must be present.  It allows for moddability because you can then add things to it as well.

...after adding a new feature, we always analyse if it should be something that is moddable. If it is deemed to be a moddable feature, we add corresponding interfaces and maintain our default implementation in order to create room for moddable behaviour.”

For me it means, "modders interface" != "#C interface"

I fear, if your mod idea is over the devs assumptions, so the inner object structure is not suitable for it, than no tweaks can help like in the old school functional programming of Module System. I hope I'm wrong.

Thanks for your clarification. 
https://www.c-sharpcorner.com/UploadFile/sekarbalag/interface-best-example-in-csharp/

 

[FBohler]

But do the seige engines still look like they were made by a blind orc carpenter and his wife, duct tape?

You may mod the game to include orcs and duct tape, so your precious immersion can be left intact when you see the eye-hurting siege engines.

 

[DtheHun]

Orcs&Tapes sounds epic.

 

[Phalnax811]

Idk if I liked what was said about the selecting a tactic, I still think that being able to just select what you want built would be better. But idk maybe it’s a biased view because I haven’t seen this new method in play unlike the old method that they had shown us in one of the gameplays.

Hopefully, it’s designed to stop us ordering an expensive trebuchet which won’t be ready in time if our tactic is just to assault the castle’s main gate. For a simple gate assault, we would only need to build a battering ram with some support ballistae.

Possible siege tactics:

Quick gate assault - battering ram

Quick wall assault - ladders

Slower prepared assault - battering ram, ladders, towers and ballista (to kill defenders)

Very slow breach assault - mangonel & trebuchet (to breach walls) with ballista to suppress/kill defenders on the walls during the assault

Long term attrition (no assault) - trebuchet & ballista to kill defenders as time passes on the campaign map so the castle can be taken quicker than by starvation.

Treachery - no siege equipment necessary, if you have a traitor on the inside who can open a sally port.

Would've been nice to have a screen or two or video or two of such siege engines.......

There’s a whole blog on siege engines:
https://steamcommunity.com/games/261550/announcements/detail/1651007267220575513

And you can see some of them inaction in the 2016 siege videos.

Something newer...in a different scene.

 

[Reapy]

I like the implication here that while playing the game they were frustrated with a tedious feature and smoothed it over with the siege change. It's a thing you can only do when you play a game day in and day out and realize that the mechanics feel unrewarding and need to be tweaked. It does take a long time though to find those wrinkles to even know to iron them out.

I can also get an idea with the modding approach they are taking why they couldn't really gain much from putting out an alpha besides creating a lot of noise and distraction. If they are still adding feature sets and creating mod interfaces, there isn't much a player can do with them. You give it to a modder early and they may work on a system only to find it changed or deleted in the next update, so a modder couldn't start out strong doing anything without risk of having to start over.

Still, having a hard time keeping any hype around in myself for the game at this point.

 

[ombror]

I would have appreciate to see new pictures / videos of siege mechanics, since we're talking about sieges... We only got 2 random pictures showing nothing. Ok, you keep a part of the game secret for us to be surprised when game will be released, but...

The (only ?) more interesting point to me is the last question, talking about random events.

 

[AmateurHetman]

Dear taleworlds, you just lost a customer. I know my existence doesn't matter, but I don't give a ****. We are seeing sieges being redone and they been already finished in 2016, but now we get a blog sayin g they are rescrapped and redone again? Why is the game not out yet? To redo stuff to fix small mistakes? And they keep releasing joke blogs like this to keep the hype. Already been 7 years, if it isnt a good game then let Taleworlds crash and burn. It WILL be overhyped. Im done following TaleWorlds because we havent been given information close to the amount we want. I will not be buying this game. This is my first and last forum post on this ****ty website. Goodbye

okay goodbye then 

They haven't been scrapped. What they said was: "I should mention that we recently made some changes to our siege preparation. Previously, a player who besieged a castle had to select what they wanted to build from a number of engines, one by one. Recently, however, we introduced a new tactics feature. Now, the player will select one of the siege tactics available and will get a preloaded waiting list for siege engines that are useful to the selected tactic. The player will be able to start the bombardment as soon as any machine is finished and will be able to start damaging the defences of the town/castle even before starting the siege mission (battle)."

Siege battles are finished and ready clearly. All they have done is streamlined the siege preparation stage.

 

[DtheHun]

Now, the player will select one of the siege tactics available and will get a preloaded waiting list for siege engines

I feel it a bit manipulative polishing choice. If the scene is not suitable/prepared to use some of the engines, you still can get the same amount of tactic options to select from (maybe some of them will have the same menu of engines), and you feel less disapointed and won't grumbling about "Why I can't select to build a siege tower?"

OR
- can I modify the list?
- will there be more than one of an engine available in one scene (two mangonels)?
+ if I decide not to build all, can I select from the available deploy locations?

 

[CaptainLee]

Dear taleworlds, you just lost a customer. I know my existence doesn't matter, but I don't give a ****. We are seeing sieges being redone and they been already finished in 2016, but now we get a blog sayin g they are rescrapped and redone again? Why is the game not out yet? To redo stuff to fix small mistakes? And they keep releasing joke blogs like this to keep the hype. Already been 7 years, if it isnt a good game then let Taleworlds crash and burn. It WILL be overhyped. Im done following TaleWorlds because we havent been given information close to the amount we want. I will not be buying this game. This is my first and last forum post on this **** website. Goodbye

Goodbye person's alt that we will undoubtedly be seeing again in another guise soon.

 

[krafttomten]

It seems the community is having a hard time interpreting this part of the dev blog:

“Right now, I’m working on siege preparation on the campaign map. As you may have noticed, we introduced a variety of siege weapons that can be utilised during siege battles. Both the player and AI armies can build these engines before their assault.

I should mention that we recently made some changes to our siege preparation. Previously, a player who besieged a castle had to select what they wanted to build from a number of engines, one by one. Recently, however, we introduced a new tactics feature. Now, the player will select one of the siege tactics available and will get a preloaded waiting list for siege engines that are useful to the selected tactic. The player will be able to start the bombardment as soon as any machine is finished and will be able to start damaging the defences of the town/castle even before starting the siege mission (battle). The tactic can be changed at any point during the waiting time, based on the defender’s tactic, or any other events occurring in the world at that moment.”

Spoiler

What I Think is that instead of choosing which siege equipment to build one by one (Like total war games)
you will have to choose the attack tactic suitable for your current situation  For example

1)Bombardment focus: IF you are low in manpower and expect no relief to come you will build a lot of trebuchets and catapults (siege tower being the last thing built)  to damage the defenses and try to breach the wall from the strategic map.

2) Assault Focus:  You have a lot of men and you are hasty to take the castle the system will prioritize siege towers and ballistae to snipe enemies siege equipment will attacking.

3)balance Focus I guess catapults first and tower in the middle

Spoiler

Idk if I liked what was said about the selecting a tactic, I still think that being able to just select what you want built would be better. But idk maybe it’s a biased view because I haven’t seen this new method in play unlike the old method that they had shown us in one of the gameplays.

Hopefully, it’s designed to stop us ordering an expensive trebuchet which won’t be ready in time if our tactic is just to assault the castle’s main gate. For a simple gate assault, we would only need to build a battering ram with some support ballistae.

Possible siege tactics:

Quick gate assault - battering ram

Quick wall assault - ladders

Slower prepared assault - battering ram, ladders, towers and ballista (to kill defenders)

Very slow breach assault - mangonel & trebuchet (to breach walls) with ballista to suppress/kill defenders on the walls during the assault

Long term attrition (no assault) - trebuchet & ballista to kill defenders as time passes on the campaign map so the castle can be taken quicker than by starvation.

Treachery - no siege equipment necessary, if you have a traitor on the inside who can open a sally port.

Spoiler

In general, I really like where this game is going to. Think the people at Taleworlds are doing a really great job. However, now I'm a bit disappointed here as I see the changes concerning the siege engines as a serious limitation to battle, which is the core feature of the game. Maybe I'm missing something, or maybe I didn't get it right, but I'm not sure why they don't have both options in selecting siege engines... I mean, they already had the other system working. So why not have a siege battle option like:

-Automatically choose siege engines based on tactics
-Manually choose siege engines

You could keep it simple for the AI, have them choose the first option, right?

The thing you will probably have now is:
- waiting for engines to be finished that you don't really wish to use
- your men lingering around some siege engines that you don't wish to use

Again, maybe I'm missing something here?

I mean, I thought it was just great to have more freedom. Thought that was what the game was all about... Of course, I can imagine that some people want to have their hand held during the game and have it easy for them, but why not have both options? That there should be limitations concerning the amount of certain siege engines, that you won't use 10 catapults, not talking about that, of course. But if you just need one battering ram to make a rapid assault before some enemy relief forces arrive, that should be possible, I think.

Spoiler

I just hope that it means that you get a preset positioning of siege engines when choosing a tactic and then you can tamper with it. If not, then it is just silly.

On the other hand, it could have been changed to prevent cheesing the AI with siege engines placement, maybe they couldn't figure out proper response to every combination for the defenders, so just went for dumbing the whole thing down to a rock-paper-scissors type of thing.

EDIT: By the way, settlement issues sound like really fun feature and I think the 'random' means they can fire once you enter the scene or not, but not that they will be chosen at random, considering you may need to change your approach as a result. I wonder what that means for settlements not owned by us and if it is owner-exclusive thingy then. I still have my fingers crossed for viable mercenary captain playstyle, but so many of the things they mention seem to be faction member/leader oriented

Spoiler

okay goodbye then 

They haven't been scrapped. What they said was: "I should mention that we recently made some changes to our siege preparation. Previously, a player who besieged a castle had to select what they wanted to build from a number of engines, one by one. Recently, however, we introduced a new tactics feature. Now, the player will select one of the siege tactics available and will get a preloaded waiting list for siege engines that are useful to the selected tactic. The player will be able to start the bombardment as soon as any machine is finished and will be able to start damaging the defences of the town/castle even before starting the siege mission (battle)."

Siege battles are finished and ready clearly. All they have done is streamlined the siege preparation stage.

Spoiler

Now, the player will select one of the siege tactics available and will get a preloaded waiting list for siege engines

I feel it a bit manipulative polishing choice. If the scene is not suitable/prepared to use one some of the engines, you still can get the same amount of tactic options to select from (maybe some of them will have the same menu of engines), and you feel less disapointed and won't grumbling about "Why I can't select to build a siege tower?"

These are just some of the comments on the subject and no-one seems to have read the same blog post. Can we get a clarification on the subject by someone who actually knows?

*edit
I'm gonna contribute to the speculation


Firstly, she speaks of the besieging of a castle, which people are mixing up with the siege mission"

"Previously, a player who besieged a castle had to select what they wanted to build from a number of engines, one by one."

- So this is not the situation we have seen in the siege video, where you select the position of the siege weaponry, it is the preparation before the attack, where you build your siege weaponry and throw chickens at each other. You know, in warband, when you waited for 36 hours (or whatever) to build the siege ladders.

She continues with describing the new game mechanic itself.

"Recently, however, we introduced a new tactics feature. Now, the player will select one of the siege tactics available and will get a preloaded waiting list for siege engines that are useful to the selected tactic. The player will be able to start the bombardment as soon as any machine is finished and will be able to start damaging the defences of the town/castle even before starting the siege mission (battle)."

Some comments have been implying that they implemented this change to cover up their own mistakes, to reduce the number of possible combinations and dumb the sieges down to a rock, paper, scissor thing (can't be bothered to make a new quote). However, this cannot be right because as the blog post clearly states, we will have the ability to change tactics at any point during the waiting time, making it possible to change which siege weapons you would produce during the besieging, thus ultimately choosing which siege weapons you would have at your disposal when the battle comes.

"The tactic can be changed at any point during the waiting time, based on the defender’s tactic, or any other events occurring in the world at that moment.”

So, how is this a bad addition to the game?

 

[Konstantynopol33]

I have a felling these are just finishing touches and soon they will release the game. I hope it will be this year. But i might be wrong, who knows?

 

[Terco_Viejo]

These are just some of the comments on the subject and no-one seems to have read the same blog post. Can we get a clarification on the subject by someone who actually knows?

The absence of clarification is what makes the hype grow,
because everybody generates their own expectations.

Unclarified:
Dynasties
Character Traits
System event (backstory of grudges and feuds)
Seasons system -Climatic effects on battlefield
Ambushes
Permadeath system
Sergeant System
Gang system and criminal operations
Siege Tactics system
Settlement issues
Special NPC services
Dynamic Quests
Caravans and market stimulation policies
....and much more here

 

[DtheHun]

I have reread it. She loves nature. Be it enough.

 

[Rackie]

In general, I really like where this game is going to. Think the people at Talesworld are doing a really great job. However, now I'm a bit disappointed here as I see the changes concerning the siege engines as a serious limitation to battle, which is the core feature of the game. Maybe I'm missing something, or maybe I didn't get it right, but I'm not sure why they don't have both options in selecting siege engines... I mean, they already had the other system working. So why not have a siege battle option like:

-Automatically choose siege engines based on tactics
-Manually choose siege engines

You could keep it simple for the AI, have them choose the first option, right?

The thing you will probably have now is:
- waiting for engines to be finished that you don't really wish to use
- your men lingering around some siege engines that you don't wish to use

Again, maybe I'm missing something here?

I mean, I thought it was just great to have more freedom. Thought that was what the game was all about... Of course, I can imagine that some people want to have their hand held during the game and have it easy for them, but why not have both options? That there should be limitations concerning the amount of certain siege engines, that you won't use 10 catapults, not talking about that, of course. But if you just need 1 catapult to make a rapid assault before some relief forces arrive, that should be possible, I think.

There is a reason they changed, I bet it has to do with performance or a bug , anyway its fine by me .

Probably has to do with 2 things;

1, is that you and the other lords (npc's) are supposed to be able to do the same stuff
2, balancing, so you dont end up with 5 trebuches or something

 

[Akka]

Is it hard to learn c #? I already have knowledge of c ++

Nah. C# is extremely close to C++, and is actually quite easier and less treacherous.

 

[Innocent Flower]

But do the seige engines still look like they were made by a blind orc carpenter and his wife, duct tape?

You may mod the game to include orcs and duct tape, so your precious immersion can be left intact when you see the eye-hurting siege engines.

I'd love to. I'm not opposed to fantasy mods.
But if the game still had humans in it, they'd need proper siege engines*!
(and if it had elves... Bring forth the Ents?)

*Barbarian lands work fine.

I'd like to say Give me a seige engines per culture, and/or better seige engines for engineers. 



Other topic
It would be very desirable if there were an 'advanced mode' for people who actually do like to play with laborious strategy.

Also, if we could build seige stuff and other things for field battles, that'd be great.