Recent content by cuo

LordKaien said:

The game talk about the fall of roman empire. Around 450. Islam was not a think. And Asarei could see the birth of it. But is way too much early for crusaders.
You can ask for a mod about it, but not in the base game.

Click to expand...

Erm, nope. The scenario is set in a medieval setting. Something around 1000+.

Cèsar de Quart said:

He's got a point, but the problem with that is that sometimes modders will lose engangement if their vision is not respected. I understand that. We sometimes forget that modders are doing it mostly because they want to add something to the game, to their game.

The 1141 mod wants to recreate the Crusader States. This one seems focused on Hastings. That seems to me like a different goal.

Click to expand...

You were behind Europe 1200, right? Good to see you back in business!

Looking forward to play this. Always keep in mind that quality goes over quantity. So focusing on your chosen scenario might be the better approach than trying to bring in all of Europe. Just my two cents there.

Zydrate said:

Spoke my mind, sir

Click to expand...

Happy to hear that someone shares my relation towards Mount & Blade (even despite my broken english ). To be honest it's somewhat of a relief, because while reading the forums it often feels like we are in the minority with our dreams and demands.

Yep, we need storages. They should also be provided by workshops.

They should rework the trading interface in total. The Patricians and Port Royale games had a pretty good approach to this. You were able to buy or sell by moving the slider in the one or the other direction. And you would see the prices of the goods provided on your current location and the average price you payed for the goods in your inventory.

I want it to depict a believable and authentic medieval world which can be experienced the player can dive into. Warband was the only game that achieved this to a certain extent. It was a revelation playing my first campaign over 10 years ago.
Already back then I imagined what a successor would be like and blood ran cold when thinking about it. Just the same concept but with more detail and depth in every aspect. More options to interact with the world and especially people, plausible economy and diplomacy, better warfare and different ways to play the game.
So far with Bannerlord my dreams definitely haven't come true. The engine looks nice, economy is implemented and more transparent and there are a lot of new features that are going to right way. If TW would just fix all the bugs and wouldn't implement new features I'd say that Bannerlord is a great game. But it would still be far away of fulfilling my dreams of this medieval world I want to dive in. That's what I want Bannerlord to be.

shadyroluo said:

it's a mod with a persistent multiplayer server that keep track of all your stats/levels/equipment/gold. you start off as a pile of **** and slowly work your way up, gaining experience and increase your weapon skills to allow better performance against other players, it's like a Mount and Blade MMO PvP server, like having your single player character on a multiplayer server. Honestly, it was a great concept, I loved it, except for the fact that if you had someone who was not only good at the game, but also the advantage of playing/grinding alot, they were able to significantly dominate the server over everyone else. Granted, for a concept like that, you are bound to have low vs high skill/level/stat/equipment differences, otherwise there is no fun in it. But I do think if someone makes it for bannerlord, there should be additional considerations for some sort of a matchmaking/level/ranking match up to account for the crazy level/skill gap that was there in cRPG. Of course that's asking a lot for a mod, but maybe if TW sees the potential in it, they can actually turn it into an official gameplay mode for multiplayer.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the summary! That was exactly what I was asking for.

Can someone break down what CRPG does? Back in the days (maybe around 2011) I red about it and wasnt convinced by its concept. That's all I remember. I know it has something to do with a persistent world but is only using battles and not campaign map, right?

1. Real diplomacy: a simpler version of how diplomacy works in Europa Universalis should do the trick and might be quiet easy to code. Casus Belli and claims, infamy, alliances, truces. This would make diplomacy more believable and would lead to a more authentic experience in general.

2. More trading/economical options: Stashes for your workshops, so you can dump raw materials in there and to hold back the produced goods in there.
More control over your caravans: we should be able to give simple commands to them like "focus on item x" or "support workshop". In general again a simpler system taken from another game should do the trick. I'm thinking about Patricians 4/Port Royale here.

3. More tactical battles: battles should require more tactics. This could be achieved by slowing them down and tweaking the AI.

+1

Personally I'd be okay with a simpler system that allows rudimentary commands like "hunt bandits", "recruit troops (and garrison them)", defend fiefs in wartime.

We also need to be able to give directions for caravans which are partys by definition as well. Things like "support workshop x" (getting the needed raw materials), "buy (war)horses" or a general "sell high buy low".

Totally +1!

Totally this. We need more feedback in general. Just off the top of my head: prisoners escaped, allied lord(s) going into battle, ... >This should not only be in the log but should also bring up one of those messages on the right. This goes as well for some stuff that only comes up in log like an allied lord taking another lord as prisioner.

Better diplomacy: Why not copy some concepts from paradoxian grand strategy like claims and most important: infamy! Both would end the snowballing immediately and would provide a plausible diplomacy with wars that have a target. I'm not expecting diplomacy as complex as in EU but somethign that most importantly gets rid of snowballing and also feels like there is actually some diplomacy going on.

Speaking of claims: they could be as simple as this: from the beginning of the game there should be a claim starting to grow on a random fief of the enemy next to the own lands. After some time (3 months or so) the claim would be ready to be claimed and the AI is good to declare war (of course only if other conditions are met). This method wouldn't even require to change the warfaring AI. Let's say the AI goes for two fiefs before and conquers them and only then conquers the claimed fief. As soon as the latter is conquered they would make peace. This would make wars dynamic, less foreseeable and a bit more plausible and authentic.

Speaking of infamy: for every fief conquered kingdoms should get 1 infamy. In the case stated before the victorious kingdom would have 3 infamy. Every point of infamy would take a certain time to vanish. So while this kingdoms infamy is >0 they aren't able to declare war. They can be attacked of course.

+1

For me it's not even about aesthetics or visual immersion in the first place but about how fast battles are over. Since you can't react on what is going on there almost no room for tactical troop movement etc. This needs to be fixed and ruins mid and late game.