Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord Developer Blog 13 - Weekending

Users who are viewing this thread

<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">Greetings ye faithful and thank you for coming to read the, somewhat belated, thirteenth of our here Bannerlord blogs. As promised, we're giving a rundown of what we showed at the PC Gamer Weekender (video below) in March, with some added detail, guided by the questions we received on the forums. Thanks to everyone who got involved whether directly asking questions or just discussing in general!</p>
<p><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bbrnPtybNd4" frameborder="0" width="560" height="370"></iframe></p></br> Read more at: http://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/15
 
Lamias said:
Don't get me wrong, i know they work hard and that the battle aspect of the game is GREATLY improved, but why this silence over the world map? It's where 60% of the game is played.

I hope we see the same improvements there...

you should re-watch the video that shows the worldmap  :razz:
 
Excuse me but i can't find it. Could you post the link please? :smile:

Anyhow, so far all i have seen from the world map is a seasons script (which is nice), and some talk about minor factions that we don't know what they will do (which is also nice). But what else..?
Warband had amazing mods that added tons of features (Diplomacy, ships and sea battles, Buying Land, Slavery, Bank script etc,). Taleworlds HUGE bet is to make the world map more fun to play than those mods made Warband (a decade-old game).

They should add more options in the war aspect than the simple trio: loot village - attack lords - siege holdings. We could blockade ports for example? Or make raiding possible anywhere in the countryside, not just in villages? Or make killing Lords possible, even with assassination attempts, and make a script for giving the possibility to the AI to appoint (spawn) new lords, to counter lord shortage in late game? Or make pacts with other Kingdoms to attack someone together?

They should add more quests that actually have an impact. Remember the quest when you follow the marshall and he tells you to bring him some cattle? It does nothing, like the majority of the quests. You just do them for xp, money and the heck of it, while it would be cool if your actions could affect the entire world. (For example, the "bring me cattle" quest from the Marshall, could raise the morale of the men, and so you would feel that you contribute more to the campaign, or the "Scout the following areas" could give you more REAL info regarding the enemy's defences)

It would be good to make economy matter more. If caravans don't come to a town because i am raiding them, the town should have less provisions if i siege it. Moreover, the enemy lords should be alarmed if no caravan reaches their town, and they should come hunt me. Also they could implement automatic trade routes (tell your chamberlain to send a caravan of goods to sell them in another town and make profit while you do something else)

It would be good to make borders matter. Borders should be respected and even crossing them without permission could be a cause of war. Pacts should exist for entering another kingdoms territory if you are a lord. If the enemy is hunting me, entering my kingdom should slow them down or make them return home, so we would avoid 9 stacks of enemy lords just strolling in your kingdom because they are hunting bandits. :razz:

I have heard something about ambushes, which would be cool. Also, they should make strategic positions on the world map MATTER. I pass by a castle on a mountain and i say "i should take it, it will be easy to defend it", and then i think again and say "idiot, i am not playing Total War. In Warband there is no bonus if you defend a castle on a mountain, it's as breachable as a castle in the plains". Terrain should matter, as well as hitting someone from behind in battles should deal more damage...

Also, make the AI think strategically. The thing i hated most was the illogical AI choices during the war. E.g. the Nords are at war with Sarranids and the Sultan decides to ride across the map to capture Wercheng - a city it's certain he won't be able to keep for more than 5 days - why? The AI should progress by capturing the holdings closer to their kingdom first, and advance progressively.

It would be good to introduce attrition, like in total war games, where even standing past the borders of hostile kingdoms would damage their economy. Also, bandit parties should cause attrition to the economy, should be able to attack villages and cause a drop in public order (if such a feature could be implemented).

--> What i am trying to say is that, firstly, the player should feel like his/her actions have an IMPACT in the world. It's OK to bring cattle to the army and acquire XP and relations, but it's a whole other level of immersion, for example, to bring cattle and save them from the attrition they are suffering, which kills 10 units every day. And secondly, it should feel like there is REAL strategy involved, not just numbers and slashing/bashing.

It's a difficult task, but it should be done, because if the world map is dull and repetitive like Warband's map was, then the game will not meet it's potential. The chance to create a unique game will be lost.

And the guys from Taleworlds deserve to create a game truly unique because they won over millions of fans without having a famous brand logo or thousands of dollars, only with their ideas and their hard work.

 
Taleworlds understands that mods added many features that's why they are focusing on making a strong base game because they know moders will pop off
 
Lamias said:
Excuse me but i can't find it. Could you post the link please? :smile:

Anyhow, so far all i have seen from the world map is a seasons script (which is nice), and some talk about minor factions that we don't know what they will do (which is also nice). But what else..?
Warband had amazing mods that added tons of features (Diplomacy, ships and sea battles, Buying Land, Slavery, Bank script etc,). Taleworlds HUGE bet is to make the world map more fun to play than those mods made Warband (a decade-old game).

They should add more options in the war aspect than the simple trio: loot village - attack lords - siege holdings. We could blockade ports for example? Or make raiding possible anywhere in the countryside, not just in villages? Or make killing Lords possible, even with assassination attempts, and make a script for giving the possibility to the AI to appoint (spawn) new lords, to counter lord shortage in late game? Or make pacts with other Kingdoms to attack someone together?

They should add more quests that actually have an impact. Remember the quest when you follow the marshall and he tells you to bring him some cattle? It does nothing, like the majority of the quests. You just do them for xp, money and the heck of it, while it would be cool if your actions could affect the entire world. (For example, the "bring me cattle" quest from the Marshall, could raise the morale of the men, and so you would feel that you contribute more to the campaign, or the "Scout the following areas" could give you more REAL info regarding the enemy's defences)

It would be good to make economy matter more. If caravans don't come to a town because i am raiding them, the town should have less provisions if i siege it. Moreover, the enemy lords should be alarmed if no caravan reaches their town, and they should come hunt me. Also they could implement automatic trade routes (tell your chamberlain to send a caravan of goods to sell them in another town and make profit while you do something else)

It would be good to make borders matter. Borders should be respected and even crossing them without permission could be a cause of war. Pacts should exist for entering another kingdoms territory if you are a lord. If the enemy is hunting me, entering my kingdom should slow them down or make them return home, so we would avoid 9 stacks of enemy lords just strolling in your kingdom because they are hunting bandits. :razz:

I have heard something about ambushes, which would be cool. Also, they should make strategic positions on the world map MATTER. I pass by a castle on a mountain and i say "i should take it, it will be easy to defend it", and then i think again and say "idiot, i am not playing Total War. In Warband there is no bonus if you defend a castle on a mountain, it's as breachable as a castle in the plains". Terrain should matter, as well as hitting someone from behind in battles should deal more damage...

Also, make the AI think strategically. The thing i hated most was the illogical AI choices during the war. E.g. the Nords are at war with Sarranids and the Sultan decides to ride across the map to capture Wercheng - a city it's certain he won't be able to keep for more than 5 days - why? The AI should progress by capturing the holdings closer to their kingdom first, and advance progressively.

It would be good to introduce attrition, like in total war games, where even standing past the borders of hostile kingdoms would damage their economy. Also, bandit parties should cause attrition to the economy, should be able to attack villages and cause a drop in public order (if such a feature could be implemented).

--> What i am trying to say is that, firstly, the player should feel like his/her actions have an IMPACT in the world. It's OK to bring cattle to the army and acquire XP and relations, but it's a whole other level of immersion, for example, to bring cattle and save them from the attrition they are suffering, which kills 10 units every day. And secondly, it should feel like there is REAL strategy involved, not just numbers and slashing/bashing.

It's a difficult task, but it should be done, because if the world map is dull and repetitive like Warband's map was, then the game will not meet it's potential. The chance to create a unique game will be lost.

And the guys from Taleworlds deserve to create a game truly unique because they won over millions of fans without having a famous brand logo or thousands of dollars, only with their ideas and their hard work.

https://youtu.be/bbrnPtybNd4
 
Venerable F. Sheep said:
If that's offending to you, you need to stay inside the rest of your life and not be allowed internet.

lol, im joking. but i think the game never became as cool as what thay say. its allways like this. i remember the godfather game thay had intresting  ideas but cant Implement it good.
 
Are horses any different from Warband besides look? in the previous game, horses would stop dead upon  running into a small group of enemies, instead of riding through/trampling.. is this any different? It was very annoying when an extremely large group of cavalry just stopped because it ran into 5 infantry
 
Yes, it changed, you push them side to side and your horse go through, instead of stopping.

Horses also push each other. Physics evolved in Bannerlord.
 
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING BATTLES

I love Warband. I like most of what I see about the Bannerlord so far. But there are some very basic things that still seem to be missing. I don’t know if this late in the development stage the developers are still taking any ideas and if they actually look at here but here are some ideas that would make the game, especially the battles, both more fun and realistic. And these are easy to implement too. Just do it and the world will be a better place :smile:

1) In WB you could easily become overpowered in combat as a mounted lancer even with the max difficulty settings. If fighting on foot was made more rewarding, the game would be both more fun and realistic. Historically, cavalry charges were high-risk endeavors that depended on suitable terrain, well-trained horses, good morale, etc. to achieve the intended impact. When these conditions did not come together, even the best knights frequently dismounted and fought on foot (while light cavalry continued to serve as harassers). So

- More infantry should use spears as their first weapon, they should always use it against charging cavalry, and not break formation unless absolutely necessary. (The Viking Conquest DLC made a good job in this, why not imitate?)

- Dramatically decrease the trust damage of lances when they are not couched, and also make them prone to breaking upon impact sometimes.

- Introduce a probability (inverse to the quality of the horse) that horses decelerate/turn away when facing infantry in formation (especially when you are not part of a barrage of cavalry riding close to each other in formation)

2) Fighting with a two-handed sword seems the most fun weapon for most players, as one can tell from the multiplayer battles. So make it more rewarding to use it. Again this would be realistic too. Knights with the best resources and training tended to rely on full (mail and then plate) armor and a two-handed sword, doing away with the shield. So,

- Make armors more resistant to one-handed swords and to swing (cut) damage in general.

3) Another reason why battles can become too easy in WB is that the AI didn’t care about taking down the commander any more than they care about taking down a random peasant archer. This is outrageous.

- Make the morale of the army depend on the performance of their commander and any participating lords, letting it change during the battle. If the commander falls, the troops panic. If the commander takes down many enemies himself, the troops hearten. Take a page from the Total War series.

- Make sure the AI values targeting the enemy commander and any lords much more than targeting regular soldiers.

- Make sure that when you personally take down an enemy lord, he doesn’t simply appear “managed to escape” in the after-battle screen.

4) The battles would become strategically more meaningful if withdrawal was more rewarding and desertion of AI-controlled troops (due to low morale) was a thing.

- Introduce a time limit by which the attacking party should destroy the enemy. Failing that, the remaining troops of the defending party can withdraw with few additional (automatic) casualties, finding themselves at some distance from the attacking party on the campaign map afterwards.

- Introduce more terrain features (swamps etc) on the campaign map that create chocking points where one can practically impose a battle on an unwilling party. Introduce more interesting terrain features in battle maps too.

- With these changes, I can envision many different kinds of battles. At some occasions you’ll just hope to survive by making good use of the battle terrain and then withdraw. At other occasions, when you are somewhat outnumbered, you’ll throw yourself to the front hoping to take down the enemy commander to turn a likely defeat to a great victory, etc. We could have quests in which you have to face a significantly overwhelming enemy so that you can capture a particular lord, or so that the enemy is weakened before your suzerain’s main army attacks, etc.

I suppose these would be fundamental improvements in the battle system that few would object, are mostly easy to implement, and some (like the battle time limit) could be turned off if desired.

In short, make formation more essential, lances less effective when not couched, swing damage less powerful against armor (thus making dismounted and 2-handed fighting more rewarding); and introduce battle timer, in-battle morale and intuitive withdrawal options (thus making commanders/lords much more highly valued in battle). It would be the best game ever, and more realistic too.
 
I would love to see also horses as characters that can level up. When you have new bad level 1 horse, it is slow and it might do more it's own wrong moves. Then when you update its running speed and it's "clothes" etc it get better. Just like heroes do.
 
Back
Top Bottom