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
 
What will happen to our companions? Will they also be assigned as simple soldiers? Or will there be the possibility that we can take control of them if our character falls unconscious?

Will there be the option that our companions with roles of doctor or engineer do not participate in the battle? It would be a pain in the ass, losing our best doctor in that way.
 
BIGGER Kentucky James XXL said:
Even if this just ends up being a mana farm essentially, I like the idea of being able to control a smaller part in a larger battle. It's a lot of fun to (occasionally) fight alongside the AI in total war or an RTS even when the AI itself sucks. Still, I have a couple of concerns:

1. If the AI can control your troops how do you disincentivise the player from just dropping off their soldiers off prior to the battle so they don't get wrecked by uncontrollable decisions?
2. Will the player ever be in a position where they can control the entire army, or at the very least more than one troop type?
3. Does this apply during sieges?

These are guesses, but I would say:
1) If you leave all your troops behind so as not to have them killed, you're not contributing as much to the war effort, and therefore get less credit for positive results; you also lose "rank" points within the army.
2) Yes, you can lead the entire army - it says so in the blog. If you're commanding a group within the army, it looks like it's one troop type - but that might just be default settings. In Warband you could compose custom groups of whatever troops you wanted, and they could be mixed types, so maybe that's possible.
3) Good question! Though I don't see why it wouldn't?
 
I believe that if you are the commander of the army you should be able to choose the groups or blocks of the army. Even select who will command them and the quality of troops that each group will have. Of course also having the automatic option for players who do not want to waste a lot of time. Perhaps the option could also be added that if we choose a lord instead of another who has more prestige, he will take it badly.
 
You guys know that most of your potential customers are gone now right? Look at the steam charts, no one cares about your game anymore. Unless you release this game in a year then Bannerlord will become outdated, Look at Mordhau, satisfying combat and great graphics, eventually someone is going to make a better Mordhau and you are still going to develop and develop until you die of old age? How many years has it been?
 
This seems like an interesting addition in terms of realism, but I wonder what it actually means for gameplay. Is there a difference between the performance and AI of a formation being controlled by the commander in a single lord's army versus a formation that is being directly controlled by a lord in a multi-lord army? Related, when the player becomes commander, are there any benefits from lords controlling your formations versus the player directly controlling them all like in solo battles?
 
jujumoooyee said:
You guys know that most of your potential customers are gone now right? Look at the steam charts, no one cares about your game anymore. Unless you release this game in a year then Bannerlord will become outdated, Look at Mordhau, satisfying combat and great graphics, eventually someone is going to make a better Mordhau and you are still going to develop and develop until you die of old age? How many years has it been?
I don't know what steam charts you're looking at, but the average player count has remained very constant at around 6k for several years now. If the only thing you're going to contribute is a complaint, at least make it a valid one.

https://steamcharts.com/app/48700#All
 
Great blog Callum thank you !



rysborn said:
Out of curiosity, does the play HAVE to be the leading commander if game decides this, or can they decide to hand it over to the next highest and then pick a unit to command instead?

Yes, according to blog player has to. Though you are right handing over should be an option(but so heavily punishing that noone should chose it). If you are the Marshall then you should have to quit it or you are the king your relations decrease.

The Meddling Monk said:
Conversely, if the player has the highest rank and is assigned as the commander, then they will be given total control over the entire army during the battle. In this case, the player is still shown the menu but can’t change anything and just has to proceed after reviewing the information
So we won't be able to choose which lords or companions lead which troops?

It seems no. Though I wonder how much say did marshalls have in real life in these situations.

John C said:
Sounds excellent. I especially like that nobles go for prestige, rather than tactical viability (may still coincide, of course).

Is it also possible for the player's rank to be so low, for example as a mercenary, that they can't choose a commanding role at all and have to fight as a common fighter?

Where on earth has it been seen that a kingdom gave right to a mercenary to command in a battle ? You have to be a lord. Only maybe they dont have enough lords.
Edit: Though mercenary captain should not involve his own party with this system, mercenary captain should be a sub-commander of his employer and should command his own party.

Terco_Viejo said:
It's not clear to me. Battle orders = Sergeant mode? An undercover freelancer?
I would have to see it in action...I want to like it; however it is not well explained...or I have not understood it well...

We have seen it. It is sergeant mode. AI on top of us will say things like ''flank them from my left'' and you will either obey or disobey these. But if you disobey and battle end up badly the relation may decrease.

vicwiz007 said:
Interesting. I would have expected the overall commander to choose which commander gets what, and then lose/gain a tiny bit of relation with each lord if you give them something unbecoming of their status.

If you are just a Marshall lord it should be as it is in the blog but if you are the king then what you said should be the case.

vicwiz007 said:
I still have a lot of questions. Such as how command actually works. So when you are commander what do your subcommanders actually do? When an AI lord is the overall commander, do the other AI subs have their own free will such as the player to control their formation, or is the player the only one?

Lots of questions...

Well considering every npc has its own characteristic AI then they must be controlling their formations.

Bleiz glaswenn said:
Thanks, good blog.

Just a question too : is it still possible to command only your soldiers on a battlefield like in warband (not only a certain kind of troops, but your archers along with your infanterie...) ?
If I happen to loose my whole unit of archers because of a foolish lord, I'm going to be sooo mad  :evil:

Well prepare to get mad then because judging from the blog thats what it is going to be and I like it because thats how it has been I think. I mean I am not sure. In battles did every lord commanded a unit or everyone commanded their own troops ?

Ettenrocal said:
Do we need companions to have leaders to our units ? In our own army. If no companion only one unit with every troops in it ?

No when you are alone you will command your entire army. This system only applies when you join forces with other lords of your faction.

JuanNieve said:
Something that is not clear to me is, if an NPC or the player has the rank of Marshal should he pass directly to command the battle?

I mean isnt that… what marshalls do ?

JuanNieve said:
In case we have a mercenary contract like in the native, I think it would be better if we could keep control of our units

Agreed. Mercenaries should be left out of this system. Mercenary leader should command his own party taking oreders only from his employer lord/king.

JuanNieve said:
What will happen to our companions? Will they also be assigned as simple soldiers? Or will there be the possibility that we can take control of them if our character falls unconscious?

Will there be the option that our companions with roles of doctor or engineer do not participate in the battle? It would be a pain in the ass, losing our best doctor in that way.

They will probably be assigned as simple soldiers. Maybe you will be able to appoint them if you are the king/Marshall or maybe when the composite party lacks lord.
 
Although this blog clearly focuses on multi-party armies, it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to imagine that the same system could be used on a smaller scale when you're fighting with only your own party, using your companions in place of the Lords?
 
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 ?
 
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 ?
Can't say for certain, but I will risk a shot that it depended on the situation. Some armies were kept divided by their lords (Like Total War games), others joined their forces into groups. Especially since most often, the only specialized troops were personal retinues/guards, bowmen and cavalry. Other than that, levies were a mix of everything, so it's easier to join forces.

I may, or I may not, look further into it.
 
Love this blog post! I'm really curious as to how AI lords handle their troops in the field. If allowing them to manage troops on their own, gives you the option of micromanaging a bit less at times, I'll enjoy it quite a bit. Also, it may make companions feel a little bit more important to me personally. I've played a ridiculous amount of Mount and Blade, and I always wanted companions to feel a little bit more useful and alive than just a random stat bonus/decent soldier.
    Thanks for the updates, can't wait for the game!
 
Lord banneret were not really commanding their own troops but they had their own banner and their knights following them. But theses bannerets had also like every lord  bring some archers/crowbowman or infantry/peasant in arms with them (the concept of the ost) that were dispatch with the infantry and archers of other lords so i think we can say the Bannerlord system is pretty accurate. The knights were followed by their knights more like body guard but were most of the time part of bigger cavalry units so they were not really commanders but could be designed as a commander of an unit why not (in this case a banneret could be a commander but was also commanding others inferior lords and knights.
 
Very good to hear. On this topic, it would be nice to assign a second and third in command, and be able to take over as him if you die in battle. Battles didn't end when the leader died, so you should be able to fight on.
 
KhergitLancer99 said:
vicwiz007 said:
I still have a lot of questions. Such as how command actually works. So when you are commander what do your subcommanders actually do? When an AI lord is the overall commander, do the other AI subs have their own free will such as the player to control their formation, or is the player the only one?

Lots of questions...

Well considering every npc has its own characteristic AI then they must be controlling their formations.
I wouldn't assume that though because you control them while you are the overall commander (apparently). So why would they have their own free will when commanded under an AI? I think it is the commander's personality characteristics which will dictate the battle strategy.
 
Back
Top Bottom