Mount&Blade without a world map.

Why not have M&B map like a "World of Warcraft" map?

The way you travel Very simple just like "WoW" travel by foot or horse.

The way you would encounter enemy's (example) first it depends how good your spotting is, say 5, you have a scout ahead of everbody and he comes back and reports to you that looters or who ever are two miles away and the scout also tells you how fast there going. And if your party is going faster you and your men will catch up and then fight. (Note) All of this is taking place on a scene no world map.

To begin a fight When fighting an enemy you first ride up by yourself or with some heroes talk to their leader and he asks you to surrender or fight just like in the Native. Pretty much all the dialogue would be the same. Then both leaders go back to there party and begin the fight.

Encountering towns & Villages Again your scout will report when you come up to a town or village. You will see in the distance a town or village, slowly it will be getting bigger and then you will be there.

Theres much more but I hope you get the idea by what I mean. Pretty much no world map and just one big scene.

it would take lots of coding and would take lots of time, but it can be accomplished. First off, the battle fields kind of work randomly, so they have a set of fields to fight on per area, it could be these mountains have these 3 fields, so all that work would have to be changed to make it so your always in some sort of mode, but would be tough with how much the AI can actually do, and path finding and spotting may not work as well. tracking as well.

They would have to change some of the skills or even remove/replace them. I like the idea though.

Yeah... and then stop and see your men building camp... lol "WE FOUND EM! YEAH! DIE YOU MOTHERS! OH **** RAGNAR IS HERE!"

Tracing enemies and the lag might be bad, I mean constantly processing all that land would be tough. TRAVEL ACROSS THE LAND OH GOOD SIR!!!!

so like a good honorable lord we say yes, but we die from game lag by the time we start sieging.

LordMutaz said:

Tracing enemies and the lag might be bad, I mean constantly processing all that land would be tough. TRAVEL ACROSS THE LAND OH GOOD SIR!!!!

so like a good honorable lord we say yes, but we die from game lag by the time we start sieging.

Click to expand...

And let us not forget the difference in travel speed between mounted and unmounted units... While it may increase the immersion, graphically representing travel adds little to the game at the expense of a lot of work.

Oh, and the fact we'd need a persistent map that differs in more than just region type, or else travel would get boring fast... The game is pretty, yes, but outside of the heat of battle, without terrain deviations and features that are persistent? Travel may get rather boring.

I would enjoy, however, observing my troops in camp mode... IE: Troops around fires and maybe portable shelters... Perhaps some interactions, like practice spars... General immersion. The plus is that it would set a stage should your camp be attacked while camping.

Do you mean an open world? That would be nearly impossible for such a small team of developers. I like it how it is now though, but yeah, it's a good idea.

I like the whole at Camp idea, and can you imagine its size if you had 100+ men. That would be awesome.

but the greatest idea in game is being able to kill anyone anywhere. I want to kill random town folks and get chased by gaurds.

I like the idea was well. With a map like that, you could even set up ambushed by hiding in the forest near the trail and attack a caravan or something.

but what about your soldiers and the AI's soldiers? Some have 200+. wouldnt they have to all be on the map? You would also be traveling with ur party, so ur foot units would slow u down alot.

maybe were forgetting things...

like how do they carry camp equipment and weapons and siege equipment???

We have wagons, so cavalry them selves wouldn't need it but infantry and archers would be forced on wagons, so more wagons, slower the speed.

I think they should keep it the way it is, becuase most of us don't have high powered PCs that can run that type of setting with that many people.

Plus, if you had 40+ men, pathfinding would be a *****. You'd lose a man here and there due to a lack of correct path coding that's needed for a game like that.

yeah, I think they implemented it that way for slower PCs.

Yea you guys are right. I bet my computer would go very slow with it. But if would be a lot more fun with it, but thats only if I had a better computer .

I've actually thought of this before, so I must say I like the idea =)

yeah, I think they implemented it that way for slower PCs.

Click to expand...

No, they implemented it that way because that was their design choice. I doubt it ever occurred to them to make it an open world, and it certainly isn't feasible anyway. As cool as it sounds to some, the idea of taking an army (some of us do play with 1000+ troops) and marching it across land in real-time is too demanding for a player. Much simplier to have an simple representation of icons and a world map, such as what we have and what Total War uses.

It is only possible with "zones" The trick is to make enough of them and load all the next when entering a zone. This will be very heavy for procs, but you can achieve an open field this way.

Wasn't there already a thread about this?