<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" lang="en-GB">Players of Mount&Blade, idle passers and intrigued discoverers, Happy Friday to all. This little blog is about our progress making the game Mount&Blade II: Bannerlord. It doesn't cover everything we do but it tells you a little bit here and there which some may find of interest. “Never make a 6th album”, say the cynics. “Stop after the successful 5th!” - hogwash, we'll continue this blog until the sun rises in the west and sets in the east... or maybe just while we're working on Bannerlord.</p></br> Read more at: http://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/7
Mount&Blade II: Bannerlord Developer Blog 6 - Astounding Squirms
- Thread starter captain lust
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
When we going to get a forum section to talk about Bannerlord?
My biggest issue with Mount and Blade has been troop deployment at the start of a battle. Why does it insist on ordering everyone to charge automaticly? It screws up troop formations and then you have to spend upwards of 20 to 30 seconds just trying to get your troops back in line.
At the start of the battle the troops should be set in a standard battle formation using Stand your Ground order, and let the commander You, choose if they advance, charge, or move somewhere else.
Infantry on the first line, closest to enemy, line of archers behind them, and horseman behind them.
If not that formation have them load in square groups next to each other based on preset Groups you assign in the party window. Which is already in Warband. Group 1 spawns in a square formation in the middle, group 2 to the left of that, group 3 to the right of that, group 4 to the left of group 2, group 4 to the right of group 3 and back and forth. Then when you load onto the battle field if you use the command window and order infantry and archers forward onto a line they can easily move there without having to try and shove through your heavy horse, or your horseman being blocked in by a cluster**** of infantry standing in their way so they can't move.
You could also have your npc cav, load seperatly from your companions by moving them into a separate group. I keep my 4 Sword Sisters in Warband in a group called Protectorate. All they do is following me around the battlefield, and I keep them separate from the actual heavy horse unit so they don't all run off and charge to their deaths.
Make Inventory a party skill. Makes no sense that I can't have one of my companions focus on managing the companies supplies and wagons, why I need to do it is beyond me, i'm suppose to deligate that kind of stuff.
Quests: A simple check of party size and capability when offering quests, Offering a company of 120 soldiers a job to go chase down 8 bandits is not going to happen. The bandits are too fast, not to mention the weird ways they choose to spawn almost anywhere in the world and just run around all crazy and hyper fast. A simple check of party size to offer appropiate quests such as Go burn down that bandit fort, for an army of 70+, and go chase down those 12 bandits to a group of around 20 or so soldiers.
New look at recruiting from poor villages. Instead of taking what you get all or nothing. Have it roll a list dependent on your persusian skill, how well they like you in that town, current party morale. Then it rolls how many people are willing to join your party and then it selects what type of npcs will join. tribesman, soldiers, archers, peasants and let the player pick which ones they want to hire from the group individually.
So I go to a small town with +7 reputation with them, its mildly poor. I go to recruit people it accounts for my 4 levesl of persusian, my reputation with the town, and that my company has excellent morale and I get 12 people to join my party.
Of those 12 people I have 5 tribesman, 2 crossbowman, 3 farmers and 2 peasant women.
I don't want the farmers or the tribesman. I just want to hire the 2 crossbowman and the peasant women (cause I like Sword Sisters) So I just click next to their names to hire them and poof they join my party same way you would hire them individually from a rescued party. This is a better system then Warbands hire them all or nothing approach.
Improvement to feifs. The ability after pumping tons of money into a small village you can upgrade it to a castle, getting all the additions to a castle and you can upgrade it to a town, again a ton of upgrades and you can turn it into a major city.
I hated getting assigned the crappiest fief in the land and then being unable to really do anything with it. I can do the quests and make the villagers a little happier but I can't occupy the village and defend it like you can a castle or city. Paying for the upgrades doesn't have any immediate benefit to the towns folk themselves. It needs things like Build a Well that improves the fiefs ability to grow produce. Build a hall, so you can occupy the village and defend it if attacked by another army. Then you could Upgrade the village to a town, where it would generally look nicer then the run down village, have more people and more prosperity (assuming it doesn't get burnt to the ground by another army) From a town you could add more stuff and upgrade it to a Keep, and build a castle ect ect. This way if you want to be apart of a current faction, you are not stuck with this crap hole of a fief that is infested with the plaque. You could actually turn the crap hole into a flourishing city state, and with all the money and time you put into it, by the end your reputation with the people should be at like 90, since you litteraly built the town from nothing.
Considering how simplistic the map and towns and castles are all laid out, would it be too much to massively expand the play field? I'm thinking the size of Europe would be cool, were Warband feels like maybe its just Belgium sized, when it could easily up the game to Europe sized, so if you go ahead and conquer all the Warband sized map you are still just one nation against several and it would take months and months to conquer the whole map. Now that would be an achievement to conquer the world. In warband most people can conquer the world in a week or two.
Can't wait for Bannerlord. I still play Mount and Blade Warband, played it yesterday actually. Was not a big fan of Fire and Sword, I prefer a hefty spiked mace to a musket rifle.
My biggest issue with Mount and Blade has been troop deployment at the start of a battle. Why does it insist on ordering everyone to charge automaticly? It screws up troop formations and then you have to spend upwards of 20 to 30 seconds just trying to get your troops back in line.
At the start of the battle the troops should be set in a standard battle formation using Stand your Ground order, and let the commander You, choose if they advance, charge, or move somewhere else.
Infantry on the first line, closest to enemy, line of archers behind them, and horseman behind them.
If not that formation have them load in square groups next to each other based on preset Groups you assign in the party window. Which is already in Warband. Group 1 spawns in a square formation in the middle, group 2 to the left of that, group 3 to the right of that, group 4 to the left of group 2, group 4 to the right of group 3 and back and forth. Then when you load onto the battle field if you use the command window and order infantry and archers forward onto a line they can easily move there without having to try and shove through your heavy horse, or your horseman being blocked in by a cluster**** of infantry standing in their way so they can't move.
You could also have your npc cav, load seperatly from your companions by moving them into a separate group. I keep my 4 Sword Sisters in Warband in a group called Protectorate. All they do is following me around the battlefield, and I keep them separate from the actual heavy horse unit so they don't all run off and charge to their deaths.
Make Inventory a party skill. Makes no sense that I can't have one of my companions focus on managing the companies supplies and wagons, why I need to do it is beyond me, i'm suppose to deligate that kind of stuff.
Quests: A simple check of party size and capability when offering quests, Offering a company of 120 soldiers a job to go chase down 8 bandits is not going to happen. The bandits are too fast, not to mention the weird ways they choose to spawn almost anywhere in the world and just run around all crazy and hyper fast. A simple check of party size to offer appropiate quests such as Go burn down that bandit fort, for an army of 70+, and go chase down those 12 bandits to a group of around 20 or so soldiers.
New look at recruiting from poor villages. Instead of taking what you get all or nothing. Have it roll a list dependent on your persusian skill, how well they like you in that town, current party morale. Then it rolls how many people are willing to join your party and then it selects what type of npcs will join. tribesman, soldiers, archers, peasants and let the player pick which ones they want to hire from the group individually.
So I go to a small town with +7 reputation with them, its mildly poor. I go to recruit people it accounts for my 4 levesl of persusian, my reputation with the town, and that my company has excellent morale and I get 12 people to join my party.
Of those 12 people I have 5 tribesman, 2 crossbowman, 3 farmers and 2 peasant women.
I don't want the farmers or the tribesman. I just want to hire the 2 crossbowman and the peasant women (cause I like Sword Sisters) So I just click next to their names to hire them and poof they join my party same way you would hire them individually from a rescued party. This is a better system then Warbands hire them all or nothing approach.
Improvement to feifs. The ability after pumping tons of money into a small village you can upgrade it to a castle, getting all the additions to a castle and you can upgrade it to a town, again a ton of upgrades and you can turn it into a major city.
I hated getting assigned the crappiest fief in the land and then being unable to really do anything with it. I can do the quests and make the villagers a little happier but I can't occupy the village and defend it like you can a castle or city. Paying for the upgrades doesn't have any immediate benefit to the towns folk themselves. It needs things like Build a Well that improves the fiefs ability to grow produce. Build a hall, so you can occupy the village and defend it if attacked by another army. Then you could Upgrade the village to a town, where it would generally look nicer then the run down village, have more people and more prosperity (assuming it doesn't get burnt to the ground by another army) From a town you could add more stuff and upgrade it to a Keep, and build a castle ect ect. This way if you want to be apart of a current faction, you are not stuck with this crap hole of a fief that is infested with the plaque. You could actually turn the crap hole into a flourishing city state, and with all the money and time you put into it, by the end your reputation with the people should be at like 90, since you litteraly built the town from nothing.
Considering how simplistic the map and towns and castles are all laid out, would it be too much to massively expand the play field? I'm thinking the size of Europe would be cool, were Warband feels like maybe its just Belgium sized, when it could easily up the game to Europe sized, so if you go ahead and conquer all the Warband sized map you are still just one nation against several and it would take months and months to conquer the whole map. Now that would be an achievement to conquer the world. In warband most people can conquer the world in a week or two.
Can't wait for Bannerlord. I still play Mount and Blade Warband, played it yesterday actually. Was not a big fan of Fire and Sword, I prefer a hefty spiked mace to a musket rifle.
Tybalt_
Jarl Gunodd said:All I want for Bannerlord is slightly better graphics and better/more features.
Something I've been thinking about is expanding on being a mercenary captain. I'd love if I could name my company, have it earn renown, be paid based on that renown, choose a banner, maybe make some custom troops and build a wooden fort or heavily entrenched camp similar to a castle.
Yes please.
bitchslaproof-vest
Banned
Meko said:
if warbands map was belgium now you want a europe size???!!!! wtf man i wouldnt want to take a quest on that map it would be nightmare. HELL NO.
HannesFury
Sergeant Knight
Quite clearly the author does not realize the amount of actual scale he suggests. That said, we can count on some nice changes to the map which aim to bring us closer to uncanny valley.
bitchslaproof-vest
Banned
^
Please use spoilers to shorten your posts
Please use spoilers to shorten your posts
adsizbatir
Recruit
valla ne diyonuz siz bilmiyom ama Türkler oyunu yapıyo siz de lafını yapıyonuz ayp utanın serrrolar
Jarl Gunodd said:Something I've been thinking about is expanding on being a mercenary captain. I'd love if I could name my company, have it earn renown, be paid based on that renown, choose a banner, maybe make some custom troops and build a wooden fort or heavily entrenched camp similar to a castle.
Aghalen said:
*****slaproof-vest said:
Not if they fixed the quest system so it wasn't so crazy random. It makes little to no sense that a lord on far west of the world would give you a quest that takes place 20 days ride to the east, but rather within 1 day ride within that lords actual region.
Your focusing on the old quest system, new game, better game, better quest system?
It's simply too easy to conquer the world in Warband once you get going. You can sack a town leave no people in it, go to the next castle, sack it, and go from castle to town to castle, hiring any captives along the way. In a day or so you've wiped out the Sarrinads and then you just go back thru it and hand out fiefs to the homeless lords who now follow you around. Lead them over to sack the Rhodoks, now you got all those lands and more lords, more people. It's a snowball rolling downhill to the point you got so many people, and so many lords who autogenerate troops you don't need to do anything but stand around outside the castles and not get killed.
I would like to see a better more skill based system of siege warfare, Let us choose which siege engines to build, a slow to build siege tower or a quick ladder system rather then it choosing for us.
The terrain needs fixing as well, Random terrain generation in fights. You confront a group of 30 sea raiders on a flat open plain a few miles from sea, and a few more miles from any mountain with your 50 crossbowman, when you load into the battle your in the middle of a mountain range that looks like it was generated by minecraft. Terrain should be more reasonable in regards to the terrain of the map you are on. It doesn't seem to be in warband.
Now just hear me out on map size. In Warband you only had 5 factions, it use to be only 4. Now lets say the map is 4 times larger, slightly segregated by geological terrain, kind of like how the Sarrinads are cut off from the rest of the map but for only a few passes between the mountains. They could add geographically different enviorments to the game, we already have the typical europe and middle east cultures, but they could expand on that and add a region south of that, that is even more desert and rivers and add several nations with slightly differing african cultures such as the egyptians, or expand in other directions and add other cultures such as the chinese/japanese style of weapons armors and people.
By the time you conquer or help conquer your homeland (where you start) You can then enjoy the challenge of leading large armies of troops to the edge of that area and try to conquer a completely different type of culture and face new and different tactics and troops. Let's compare it to some common European nations. Let's say Warband's map is Germany. It's got some vikings on the northish side, its got several nations in it, some mountain people, some plains people and on the other side the sarranid, so lets just assume thats pre-instanbul when it was ruled by the middle east. So you conquer all that and now you are the King of Germany, but the game isn't over, you can muster your lords and armies and move west to conquer France and all the unique soldier types they have, faced with the added difficulty of moving your troops so far away from their base. You will have to supplment your army with new units from the new area and so on till you no longer have hardly any of the native soldiers of your land left and essentially become Alexander the Great.
These replies of HEll no, omg thats dumb, are total knee jerk reactions, fears of the issues of Warband in Bannerlord. If the quests are limited to a region there is no way you'll have to cross 20 days of riding to complete a quest, it only takes 5 days or so to ride from one side of Caldaria to the other.
Oh defently need to look into NPC AI. the follow me command, were they all run right at you regardless of your orientation of position and then they box you in so you can't move and just stare are you like your the stupid one who ordered them to do it.
A simple addition of 'Follow me' making them stop when they are 5 feet from you, so it isn't a huge cluster ****.
I know I bring up lots of bad parts of the game, but I still play it almost every day cause its fun as hell to smash some night in the face with a heavy morning star while he rides at you on his horse and to see his body do a cartwheel off the back of his horse with a sickening crunch.
Tybalt_
I believe the reason some criticized your ideas all-around is because they read "Warband is Belgium - Make it europe" I'm not sure you either know how big/small Belgium is but it would almost defnitely make everyone lag on the world map. 1257ad isn't even close to as big as you imagined and It's making my Intel Core i7 and GTX760 lag. Now, they probably will polish it alot so it won't lag as lot as Warband but it's still huge.
Also the fact that there would be a huge amount of repetition if the map were that large. They could always do scenes via some algorithm but that has its own issues, and would remove the handcrafted look, like some of the scenes in the screenshots. It's quality vs quantity.
bitchslaproof-vest
Banned
to meko
the only dumb thing here is you wanting a "europe" compared to the previous "belgium" map. and screw quests. that wasnt the point in the first place. NO ONE WANTS TO BEAT THAT INHUMANLY RIDICULOUSLY REPETITIVELY ENORMOUS ****.
the only real dumb thing was even taking slightly seriously your absurd and clueless statement and implying there was even a slight chance to be seriously considered by the devs
ps find and study a europe map. it will help you clear your mind of this idea. i hope...
the only dumb thing here is you wanting a "europe" compared to the previous "belgium" map. and screw quests. that wasnt the point in the first place. NO ONE WANTS TO BEAT THAT INHUMANLY RIDICULOUSLY REPETITIVELY ENORMOUS ****.
the only real dumb thing was even taking slightly seriously your absurd and clueless statement and implying there was even a slight chance to be seriously considered by the devs
ps find and study a europe map. it will help you clear your mind of this idea. i hope...
Wow, I didn't know there was so many knee jerk activists on this forum. Attacking people over a perceived metaphorical statement. I better put the kiddy gloves on and use smaller, easier to understand less metaphorical statements in the future. Thanks for the heads up.
I'm sorry your computer lags, on the world map? I presume since that is what we are talking about. Seems strange to lag on the world map as anything not directly around your very simple, low poly animated group doesn't even render in the game to reduce CPU usage. I've never experienced lag while playing MB:Warband.
I know exactly how big Belgium is, which is why I used it as a reference. Picking Germany or France or Spain wouldn't fit as the Warband map only has around 20 cities, which in comparative size of travel time from one side to the other is actually a pretty small area and comparing it to a larger country such as France would be a illogical.
I think *****slap just wants to yell and spit venom, he is the one who responded with a complaint about quests on a map that big, then responds with screw quests? I guess i'm in the wrong to assume the fan base of Mount and Blade was a bit more mature then the Xbox community as the game requires some patience and math.
The battlefields of the game are rendered landscapes, not directly connected to the world map. Armies meet on the world map and then load into the battlefield, Expanding the world map would be the easiest most cost effective way to increase the scope of the game and make it look bigger to the consumers. "Bannerlord! Now with 150% more world map!"
I will admit it could be repetitious if you fought the same units over and over like conquering Swadia and it was nothing but knights and crossbowman. If they added more variation in nations/culture and units it would break up repetitions. You don't fight a city full of Nord's the same way you fight a city full of Rhodoks ect. Different tactics unless you like your army being slaughtered. They already at one time rendered and put into the game Samurai style armor and weapons, why not just expand on that since it's already got a foothold in the game?
I'm sorry your computer lags, on the world map? I presume since that is what we are talking about. Seems strange to lag on the world map as anything not directly around your very simple, low poly animated group doesn't even render in the game to reduce CPU usage. I've never experienced lag while playing MB:Warband.
I know exactly how big Belgium is, which is why I used it as a reference. Picking Germany or France or Spain wouldn't fit as the Warband map only has around 20 cities, which in comparative size of travel time from one side to the other is actually a pretty small area and comparing it to a larger country such as France would be a illogical.
I think *****slap just wants to yell and spit venom, he is the one who responded with a complaint about quests on a map that big, then responds with screw quests? I guess i'm in the wrong to assume the fan base of Mount and Blade was a bit more mature then the Xbox community as the game requires some patience and math.
The battlefields of the game are rendered landscapes, not directly connected to the world map. Armies meet on the world map and then load into the battlefield, Expanding the world map would be the easiest most cost effective way to increase the scope of the game and make it look bigger to the consumers. "Bannerlord! Now with 150% more world map!"
I will admit it could be repetitious if you fought the same units over and over like conquering Swadia and it was nothing but knights and crossbowman. If they added more variation in nations/culture and units it would break up repetitions. You don't fight a city full of Nord's the same way you fight a city full of Rhodoks ect. Different tactics unless you like your army being slaughtered. They already at one time rendered and put into the game Samurai style armor and weapons, why not just expand on that since it's already got a foothold in the game?
Destroyer_of_Cities!
Regular
Honestly, I think the current number of towns is large enough. IF they are going to make the map bigger i would suggest doubling the number of villages, to help make the statistics a little more believable. For example, the typical medieval town was generally a minimum of 2000 people, whereas a largish village would have around 500. In warband, there are 22 towns, and 110 villages. This might sound like a good ratio but if you do the math you find that around 44,000 townsmen, noblemen, and soldiers are supported by around 55,000 serfs in the entirety of calradia. You don't have to be an agricultural professor to understand that without modern fertilizer, refrigeration, pesticide, and farming machinery, there is no way in hell that there is anywhere near enough food to go around. Now, I'm not calling for absolute simulation here, I'm just one of the whackos who would be better immersed if there were, say, twice as many villages.
Not to mention, as my username would imply, I'm quite a big fan of setting entire countrysides on fire, so the more flammable settlements the better AAARRGGHHH!!!
Not to mention, as my username would imply, I'm quite a big fan of setting entire countrysides on fire, so the more flammable settlements the better AAARRGGHHH!!!
Meko said:
Ignore *****slaproof-vest, he doesn't represent the majority of people here.
We're not attacking you, just scrutinising the feasibility of your suggestion. A lot of people would like a larger map, but given that every settlement in warband is unique (even villages), they'd have to make some cuts to quality and detach you from the world even more, and I for one would prefer a smaller, more handcrafted map.
If you're going to make a suggestion on here expect some people to disagree. It's a forum.
jacobhinds said:
Back on point though. I can see the added bonuses that would come along with a larger, and less populated map (and i mean populated with large cities). Namely for multiplayer though. As someone said earlier, if they implemented the founding and growth of cities from village, to castle, to town, then large towns. One would think it would open up enough room on the map so we're that much closer to a living, breathing, and evolving multiplayer RPG. And that would be the only reason for me to jump off single player to multiplayer. That aside, i can't see the map being to much bigger for an enjoyable single player experience, unless of course they're adding more factions.
