Dev Blog 13/06/19

Users who are viewing this thread

[parsehtml]<p><img class="frame" src="https://www.taleworlds.com/Images/News/blog_post_94_taleworldswebsite.jpg" alt="" width="575" height="290" /></p> <p>During battles, hierarchies are of key importance: keeping the chain of command intact and knowing exactly who is in charge is vital… especially if that someone is you! That rang especially true in medieval times when the chain of command was also a reflection of how society was ordered as a whole.</p></br> [/parsehtml]Read more at: http://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/114
 
Bjorn The Hound said:
vicwiz007 said:
I think it is the commander's personality characteristics which will dictate the battle strategy.

Obviously. But what if, like the player, subcommanders might have the ability of deciding whether they follow the order or not.
Well that ties in to my question. If they each command their own formation then it is possible. I think it'd be really neat. Otherwise the only point of having subcommanders is to lock the player out of some formations that the higher ranks chose. A subcommanders who does no commanding...
 
Bjorn The Hound said:
What if there are too many lords in a military campaign? Will the system decide top 4 or 5 lord and give them command? Then will we play as a mere soldier?
Conversely, what happens if there's only two Lords in the army, and you've got 4 or 5 different types of units?
 
KhergitLancer99 said:
My own question:

Which system was the case irl. I mean how did medieval joint parties handled this ? Everybody commanded his own troops or did they share troops like this system ? Or was it depending on the situation ?

I can think of examples of both. Many crusader armies, for instance, were crippled by division as the different lords commanded their oen forces.
On the other end there were professional armies like that of Matthias Corvinus or the janissaries, where full time soldiers would lead.
Most larger armies probably had a mixed system, trying to balance the feelings of high lords with the need to have someone actually qualified in charge. One compromise was to appoint a noble lord as nominally the leader and then give him many experienced underlings and aides. Not all high lords necessarily came personally to lead their armies, either. In Italian city states it became the norm to hire a professional condottiere to lead the armies of the state.
 
It does raise concerns about being a mercenary captain. I hoped they'd improve on that, but looks like my favourite playstyle is getting short end of the stick in favour of clan politics. Oh well, I'll still have my fingers crossed that a mercenary company can work in a same way clans do. Makes me wonder about NPC mercenaries as well, will they always be separate formation led by their captain? That would seem fair, imo.

Biggest question is how will the overall command work. Is it like Warband and the individual commanders play no role for player then, or is it more like trying to herd AI cats? The former sounds a bit disappointing on a surface level, the latter I can see getting really annoying really quickly. Maybe it's a mix, so that you have direct control over formation, but have to be aware that if left without orders the lords will try to gain fame on their own? That could depend on their personality, it would be interesting to have Lord Stickinbutt never move an inch without direct order and Lord Buttface charging forward with his cavalry the moment they are in position.
 
Oxtocoatl said:
I can think of examples of both. Many crusader armies, for instance, were crippled by division as the different lords commanded their oen forces.
On the other end there were professional armies like that of Matthias Corvinus or the janissaries, where full time soldiers would lead.
Most larger armies probably had a mixed system, trying to balance the feelings of high lords with the need to have someone actually qualified in charge. One compromise was to appoint a noble lord as nominally the leader and then give him many experienced underlings and aides. Not all high lords necessarily came personally to lead their armies, either. In Italian city states it became the norm to hire a professional condottiere to lead the armies of the state.

^ Good post. ^
 
Rabies said:
I notice in the first screenshot that there are two "Cavalry" groups. How is that determined? How are the groups determined in general?

That triggered me to. Clearly, the player was presented a screen where all the cavalry where commanded by Oragur with an unlocked window. Selecting that option didn’t replace Oragur, but split the cavalry force 50:50 between the player and the ai’s original choice - Oragur. More importantly, the player, Eren, is now shown in the screen shot further left than Oragur and has been given the rounding up trooper when the cavalry were divided into two parties, indicating that Eren out ranks Oragur. If with a higher rank you can’t replace a chosen ai Lord merely take half of his force, this suggests either:

1. All ai Lords must be given some command in battle and the more Lords there are makes multiple commands of the same type of unit (infantry, archers, etc.); or
2. Some ai Lords don’t qualify for command, fixing one commander per unit type until the player complicates matters by dividing the command of one unit type. If that’s the case, it would appear to be lazy programming = a bug.

I can see lots of instances where I’d like to fight a battle with two wings of melee/shock cavalry (not horse archers). However, I’m concerned that as an army commander you either can’t split up your cavalry between two leaders or your cavalry may be split automatically between too many ai Lords just to give each if them something to do. I’d appreciate some clarification.

On the question of Marshalls, I suspect there us no single Marshall per faction in Bannerlord as we have been advised that any Lord who spends sufficient influence, including the player, can lead an army.
 
It is a pity that Callum is still missing in combat; even in Discord they have noticed his absence.
Well, I will add two more questions to the list... :iamamoron:

How does this system work when attacking or defending in a siege?
If we can control the formations at a general level, can we set an Pre-Battle Orders & Deployment?
 
About 2 cavalry groups, i would speculate on that every lord should get one group of soldier. And if every type of soldiers have at least one lord, then next lord will get half of the cavalry. Then the next lord will get, half of the infantry. Then the next lord will get, half of the archers. Then, the next lord will get half of the horse archers.

Soldier type in this order may be different, but if the order is like this, then i dont like it. I would prefer infantry to get divided first, and then archers, and then cavalry, and then horse archers. Why? Because, most of the time, Infantry number will be higher than other types, and archer type would be second biggest number in the army. So they being divided first could be better in my opinion.
 
I think some lords should control only their army, it only makes sense since you can lead them easier. Maybe if it's mercenary, a different culture, a not so close lord, does not chose distribute his troops to main army.
 
I'm curious to know how a player is rewarded/punished for not following orders. For example: would you get punished if you didn't follow an order but ended up losing no casualties because of it?

Maybe I'm overestimating how deep the system goes but I'm still intrigued to see how it develops  :fruity:
 
Love this feature. How will this work with order disobedience? If you are the commander you command everything, but if you are not and disobey your commander's orders, shouldn't there be penalties? If AI always follow your orders when you are a commander but you don't, doesn't that break the "AI can do what the  player do" goal?
 
Rather than splitting same type units to the groups, to be able to assign commanders to them is great future. I am already splitting them groups such as shock cav. pikemem etc. in the Warband but it was becaoming challenging to command them at the same time when you have so diverse army. So if the AI comanders can command the these parties enough well by our simple commands, it would be great. Just imagine that you are splitting your horse archers to two party and sending them to right and left flanks to harash enemy while you are focusing to rest of your army and enemy.
I am sure sure there are things to be revail on this very crucial feature I hope press can experience it in Gamescom.

hansolo223 said:
Love this feature. How will this work with order disobedience? If you are the commander you command everything, but if you are not and disobey your commander's orders, shouldn't there be penalties? If AI always follow your orders when you are a commander but you don't, doesn't that break the "AI can do what the  player do" goal?

Good question, if you dissobey the commands of your general and battle is lost, this should bring some consequences. Definetly I would like to see that
 
BIGGER Kentucky James XXL said:
6. How many buttons do the Sturgian 5°eme L'infanterie de le lígne de l'fusilierie á cheval 47,624th Grenadierie adjutant drummers have on their wallets?

I too would like to know this.

Also would like to know:

1. If we're a nobody, will be just be inside a random company? Would kinda be cool.
2. Body sliding a thing when downed?


Also, why not just have Lords command their own army but still having to adhere to the King's/Marshall's orders? The King could requisition a certain number of other lords' troops.

AKA

KING loads in with 75 of his men.
Lord 1 Loads in with 50.
Lord 2 Loads in with 50.
Player loads in with 25.

King sequesters 15 cavalry and 20 additional infantry.  Perhaps king could take command up to a decided %.

King now has 110 men
Lord 1 might have 35
Lord 2 now 35
Player has 20

Hope my math is right, it's early.

I think I'd rather that route...but can't to too sure until I actually play....whenever that might be.....
 
Varrak said:
About 2 cavalry groups, i would speculate on that every lord should get one group of soldier. And if every type of soldiers have at least one lord, then next lord will get half of the cavalry. Then the next lord will get, half of the infantry. Then the next lord will get, half of the archers. Then, the next lord will get half of the horse archers.

Soldier type in this order may be different, but if the order is like this, then i dont like it. I would prefer infantry to get divided first, and then archers, and then cavalry, and then horse archers. Why? Because, most of the time, Infantry number will be higher than other types, and archer type would be second biggest number in the army. So they being divided first could be better in my opinion.

I'm glad you're back.  :party:

Different groups of a unit led by different Lords is a fact which we can check in the videos that are available. Doubts appear as soon as we start counting numbers ... I do not get the accounts. What parameters condition the distribution?

H7kv4.jpg


Nitpickery: If you take a good look at the blog images, the avatars are cropped with a questionable result (I understand that we are in wip - final retouches) and this remains unchanged from the video of the blog Ugurcan Orcun.
 
What I think is a little odd about this system of ranking Lords to determine the commander is how that plays into the Influence system in the overall campaign.

If I've understood correctly, an army can be raised by any Clan Lord in a Faction, who must spend his own Influence points to call other Lords to his banner and keep them there. There is a risk/reward factor in this, since leading an army costs a lot of Influence, but is repaid with interest of the campaign is successful and the army wins battles and/or captures territory.

But.

This Order of Battle system means that the Lord who sets up the army and chooses its targets doesn't necessarily command the battles. Firstly, I find that intuitively strange. Second, it would appear to be open to exploitation. If I've invested my Influence to call the Faction to arms, I don't want some AI Lord commanding my army - if it goes wrong, I pay the price in Influence. Or if I outrank the AI Lord who set up the army and get to be the commander in battles, is there not an incentive for me to deliberately make a mess of the battle in order to cost that other Lord all his Influence and thereby send him plunging down the political ladder within the Faction?
 
Hulagu said:
Good question, if you dissobey the commands of your general and battle is lost, this should bring some consequences. Definetly I would like to see that

I'd like that to be more nuanced if possible. I mean, if you take the initiative (also known as disobeying) to try to turn around a losing battle, and it's lost anyway, ideally you wouldn't be punished for that. The game can probably tell when a battle has gone one way or the other, and it could also look at player division's performance compared to the army average. Personality/relationship with the overall commander could also come into it.
 
Perhaps different lords and kings could have varying levels of acceptance for taking the initiative, one guy may consider you a hero for going out of your way to push the archers off that hill, another would consider it insubordination and therefore treason. And obviously how the battle is going when you do it and if your maneuver succeeds would alter the lord/kings acceptance of your actions. I’m sure somebody will mod a system like this in if the game doesn’t have it.
 
Back
Top Bottom