[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
Dev Blog 13/06/19
- Thread starter Callum
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
The blog is interesting and it raised some questions in my mind. Is the system assign ranks to the troops as well? If it doesn't it should. I'm assuming the highest ranked lord would be given more troops overall, as well as the troops given are high ranked as well (e.g. The highest ranked lord takes 15 cavalries, 10 huscarls as opposed to lowest ranked leading 4 farmers). I also assume the divisions in the army won't be consist of same types of units (e.g. Lord A will lead the cavalry and Lord B the infantry etc.) unless the lord negotiate to make it so. If my assumption is correct, is there a room for negotiation in the situation? Can the highest ranked lord trade his 5 huscarls for 2 more cavalries for example (the troops rankings comes into play in this)?
I'm not as knowledgeable as I would like to be in medieval history but from a gamer standpoint, the game's system determining which troops the player will lead without negotiating would be suffocating.
I'm not as knowledgeable as I would like to be in medieval history but from a gamer standpoint, the game's system determining which troops the player will lead without negotiating would be suffocating.
I also wonder who determines which divisions are made. I'd assume the high commander would do that but there is no clear answer.
I hope the player and the ai lords have the ability to refuse to share command and instead command their own troops maybe even having their own subdivision. This of course bearing significant political ramifications and causing significant distrust if the commander's reputation is high. Though if the commander is not respected it might be a more acceptable choice.
On that note, Will we be able to betray our allies and switch allegiance mid-battle? Large medieval battles were known for their politics with allies often being unwilling to commit to a battle until they were certain of victory and merchenaries switching sided mid-battle if they were offered more by their new masters.
I hope the player and the ai lords have the ability to refuse to share command and instead command their own troops maybe even having their own subdivision. This of course bearing significant political ramifications and causing significant distrust if the commander's reputation is high. Though if the commander is not respected it might be a more acceptable choice.
On that note, Will we be able to betray our allies and switch allegiance mid-battle? Large medieval battles were known for their politics with allies often being unwilling to commit to a battle until they were certain of victory and merchenaries switching sided mid-battle if they were offered more by their new masters.
! JuJu70
Cool feature, but it would make more sense to have a pre-battle planning meeting where commanders of various groups would be appointed by voting instead of hard-coded assignment. Historically, a group of high-ranking lords and the king would hold a meeting where the roles were assigned according to lord's significance. Also would add more to politics since both player and AI would have to work on their relationships. Since there was already a script on assigning fiefs in Warband I don't think this feature is that hard to code.
Terco_Viejo said:I'm glad you're back.
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?
https://tw.greywool.com/i/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.
Thanks ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
I don't understand the numbers neither, so i re-watched the video, and now i assume you mis-matched 2 battles. In this video;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMeqj8WG0a8
There are 257 allied troops ready in the beginning (258 including player). And in the result page, i assume that sword symbol is "neutralised enemy number", aka total number of killed+wounded enemy (i may be wrong).
If you count skeleton symbol (our killed troop number), broken shield symbol (our wounded troop number), and standing green soldier symbol (our alive & ready troop number), we would get 258 (257+player). The last symbol, i assume, is the number of troops ready to upgrade. I also dislike that cut, but i'm pretty sure it will be the first thing to be reported in Beta tests
Varrak said:Terco_Viejo said:I'm glad you're back.
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?
https://tw.greywool.com/i/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.
Thanks ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
I don't understand the numbers neither, so i re-watched the video, and now i assume you mis-matched 2 battles. In this video;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMeqj8WG0a8
There are 257 allied troops ready in the beginning (258 including player). And in the result page, i assume that sword symbol is "neutralised enemy number", aka total number of killed+wounded enemy (i may be wrong).
If you count skeleton symbol (our killed troop number), broken shield symbol (our wounded troop number), and standing green soldier symbol (our alive & ready troop number), we would get 258 (257+player). The last symbol, i assume, is the number of troops ready to upgrade. I also dislike that cut, but i'm pretty sure it will be the first thing to be reported in Beta tests
Edit: Hi I'm Terco_Viejo and i'm stupid and I don't know how to do mathematical sums because I have dyslexia problems...today has been a hard day. All right then
Oops the results are swapped, my fault editing...Capture video sergeant vlandian:
(Start battle adds troops) 169 + 33 + 25 + 19 = 246
(Result)150+ 87 + 21 = 258
246≠258
2. Video capture archer on horseback khuzait:
(Start battle adds troops) 124 + 38 + 26 + 46 + 23= 257
(Result) 123+100+24= 247
257≠247
I still can't get the numbers
In the video of the PCgamer 2016 neither...perhaps it is for reason of restriction in the waves.
min 22:09
Varrak said:
Because I'm an idiot
Accountancy isn't chief weapon of Spanish Gifquisition.
Tatari_okan said:
Everything I’ve seen in sergeant mod videos suggests Lords command pooled units of a single type (i.e. only infantry for example) in large battles as opposed to mixed units. This suggests that the sergeant ai has been coded for such simplified formations.
JuJu70 said:
+1 especially if coupled with different Lords proposing different standard pre-battle deployment plans based upon their level of caution or bravado. I’d love the option to vote for my preferred battle plan even if the majority decided on something else.
Terco_Viejo said:Varrak said:
I'm glad you're back.
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?
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.
Do not look here said:
Hulagu said:
Asking a few question:
1) Is that marshal have right to "Organization Structure Reengineering".
on another word, in the early and middle game,
the lord with the highest rank may let a stupid NPC lords to control,
in that time, mercenary captain (player) can't do nothing but say goodbye to his man...
Is that marshal have no right to "Organization Structure Reengineering".
on another word, in the later game,
clever mercenary captain still control his man,
in that time, marshal (player) cant splitting all horse archers to two party but a large number of unorganized structure...
2) Soldier belong to faction, NPC lords, mercenary captain?
difference lord have difference village, difference village produce difference equipment, difference equipment let soldier weak or not, but hire a condottiere to control all mercenary captain is that must for big faction or just use his NPC lords?
therefore, mercenary captain (player) cant join battle.
3) In the same faction, will NPC lords war each other for village uneven distribution just like Roman Emperor Constantine with domestic politics, idly plot and intrigue,
in the later game, when NPC lord have small village, they just able to supply small share of solider to battle.
as a result become no value,
what will the action of king and other AI lords ?
A) take away his village by force.
B) let him still no value.
Do not look here said:
Absolutely... my tax advisor is benefiting from me.TFK_Ted said:Terco_Viejo said:Varrak said:
Because I'm an idiot
Well, at least that got us a lovely new quote that's worth being distributed through the signatures
All for the sake of the community
FBohler said:
nItpIcKErY fORevA!
JuJu70
Rabies said:
Not really since player is explicitly not allowed to vote
Also assuming strategy and tactic perks grants specialized advantages over some troop types,that a lower rank lord maybe good cavalry leader with bonuses like cavalry morale, speed, charge damage, speciality in certain formation(maybe even unlocking)etc it's not wise to give largest troops to most influencial lords. And as mentioned game should measure level of of troops to consider strength. So as @Juju70 suggests, a system where king/lords decides when they meet up would solve the issues. People should chose and manage who'm would lead, facing it's consequences both in battle and in politics.
FBohler said:
By single lord army, I mean a single party. The terminology is kinda awkward, but I'm assuming Bannerlord still has battles where one lord encounters another lord and they fight using their own troops with each side being commanded by a single lord.
