Search results for query: *

What this is, of course, is a flag for a delayed release. What this is, is an attempt to get people off their backs for a while. What this means is that they THINK they can finally get it done by next year. Of course, after "narrowly missing" release dates for 4 years in a row, that's really subject to speculation.

I've read articles saying that the lead dev has micro-managed the whole thing, causing significant delays, while other articles have suggested that they were hoping for a buyout. I guess the Take-Two Interactive deal didn't go through? 

The moral lesson? Don't believe anything but your own eyes. And pray it isn't the almost the same game engine with slightly improved graphics and a $60 price tag.

So let's see... how to really screw with a starting player? How about let's dump serious wounds on him every other freaking battle. At $300 a shot, you can totally keep them in their place. Should be able to be disabled along with everything else... but it isn't. Horrible. Now I've got to rip this mod apart to fix everything that's screwed up. Oh, well... It's summer time.

Used to be pretty good. However, there are simply too many bugs this time out. I'll try it again after a couple of patches. Additionally, I've always thought it would help if undesirable behaviors could be disabled. It's interesting that the only mod where troops line up correctly when advanced formations are turned off is Pendor. Why is that?

One of the most disappointing aspects of this game has always been the inability to share it. Sure, there's MP.... but let's be honest... it's not over-whelming, is it? I would love to be able to host up a server which shared the combat aspects and army recruitment/deployment of this game with the exploration and construction aspects realized by some of the mods out there. 

I would have to admit that it is true that many modern games are over-focussed on graphics and haven't put enough time into gameplay (IMO)... notably ARK, and others of its ilk. But you have a whole host of games which are overland RTS sandbox games; more like the MP version of this game, but over a much larger area. I'm talking about titles like Gloria Victis or Legends of Ellaria. They both have a territorial control aspect, as well as a construction aspect (something I think was under-appreciated in the original M&B release). Those are also both non-target combat games. The point is, those games are graphically appealing, similar in gameplay, and equally ambitious. They are being slowly fleshed out, and while they cannot be said to be "there" yet, I would consider them to be threats to this franchise. They are still "missing" something... but for how long?

First, let me say that I own all the titles Taleworlds or their associates have released. I have always supported their projects, and I will likely buy their Bannerlord, whenever it is released.

However...

Six years ago, one of the first things that was released for this title were a bunch of allegedly "in-game" shots. Having seen some of the art previously, it was immediately obvious that the shots had come from within the existing game, so I called them on it. That kind of behavior is not helpful for building confidence in a game developer. The fan boys roared away at me, but six years later, that little bit of mis-direction is forgotten, and we're still waiting.

The Mount & Blade title was dated when the original was released. At the time, a lot of people argued, "well, gameplay is more important than graphics," and maybe they had a point. But that's changed - completely and utterly. Consumers have far more powerful machines, graphics cards with massive capabilities, connection speeds 100x or more the speed that was available back then, and those consumers expect a unification of game aspects. Using "gameplay" as a justification for an out-dated release will not save this title.

IMO, six years is a bit too long for this sort of thing. One of the main issues is the rapid advance of technology, and the resulting dating of the game engine, the graphics, compression formats, RAM utilization, etc. It isn't just this game or this company - it's happening all over, whether it's an Indie on Steam, or a professional game company. There's another problem: competition. While this game remains arguably the best in the genre for non-target combat, mounted combat and (despite what a bunch of fanboys have said), archery combat, there are others that are using the same concepts with far better graphics, with a goal towards complete multi-player and modding support. While most aren't quite there yet, they ARE getting there, and when that happens, if this title isn't the best thing since sliced bread, it's going to get shelved. That's a viable concern, given the (IMO) garbage that's been released using the old game engine, as well as the bugs and missing features that haven't been addressed since the original release. 

There's been a lot of hype coming about this upcoming title, but the longer it goes without a release date indicated, the more meaningless the hype becomes. I've read interviews suggesting that the window for 2016 was "narrowly missed," only to read a year later that the 2017 window was also "missed." And now it appears that 2018 will be yet another "missed window." We see footage released from conventions, but I think most people understand that there is a vast difference between a carefully controlled presentation, and the release of an actual working game.

We're about to start into yet another year, and I have to wonder if this developer isn't running on vapor right now. IMO, this project needs to be finished, or else sold to a developer who can finish it. No, don't rush and release garbage. Don't release it as an "EA" title. I think we all know the kind of junk being sold under the guise of "EA" which remains "EA" for years on end. However, this project does need to conclude. There does need to be a release date, and I think that the consumers that have supported this game all these years deserve a progress report from time to time. And I don't mean a developer blog that talks about the shading on horses.   

Tournaments no longer work. GUI displays no activities, notes "no epidemic in town name." Town intro states "a tournament will be held here soon." You can also go to the castle and "join the feast." Kind of an obvious issue, huh?

It is unfortunate how little understanding has gone into the role of strongpoints and castles. OP is only partically correct. A strongpoint is designed to fulfill a tactical purpose, whether as a Vietnam-era firebase or the hastily-thrown-up-fort of an Alemani warlord. They are designed to "resist" an initial attack or threat, to "delay" an enemy while troops are rushed to the area. The forts built along Hadrian's wall by the Romans are yet other examples of these purely tactical structures. The term "castle" must be viewed very differently. By the medieval period (particularly in a period of nation-building), the role of a castles had evolved into that of a strategic and logistic center, not only acting a defensive salient, but also providing an administrative center and a permanent living place for a resident lord and his retinue, with all the necessities of home. This happened fairly early on, during a period of nation-building. By 1284, advanced, concentric castles frequently had towns built around them, established contemporaneously, for strategic and logistic rather than tactical reasons. As in the Holy Land, castles constructed in Europe (and particularly as seen in Edwards Welsh campaign) were designed to become centers of commerce and military might for a large surrounding area. The development of these castles did not happen by accident, nor was a single stone placed without the realization of the impact a castle and its town would have on the surrounding region in the future. Medieval castles were not designed to delay an enemy, they were designed to completely stymie one. They were intended to provide the logistical base for a permanent military force while the fortified town growing up around them completed the conquest of a region more effectively than any military force could. It was a feudal world, and would remain a largely rural one for hundreds of years to come.   

The mention of cities as a center for civil matters is a complete misunderstanding of the period involved. Cities derive importance from the rise of the middle classes, and while that was certainly occuring in the 1200s, it had a long way to go. The English Magna Carta (which provides protections which eventually would apply to a growing middle class) was forced down the throat of an unpopular king by revolting barons, not peasants. All the civil functions that were executed by a town or city during the period, its offices and officers such as mayors, judges, courts, public works, policing, etc., all derived their power from appointment by, and approval of, the power of the lord of the castle. The truth of the matter is that cities growing up in the medieval period would never reach their full potential as centers of commerce, civilization, and importance until well after the castles and walls which protected them in their infancy were more of a hindrance than a necessity.

Failure to recognize this concept has led to a devaluation of the castle in the game. There are conceptual misunderstandings regarding strongpoints and castles which should have been remedied prior to implementation. There is a saying in the military "amateurs talk about tactics; professionals talk about logistics." IMO, Modders who have implemented the ability for the player to place their own "fortifications" and have made new industry possible in castles understand this. Judging from everything I have read about this extended development process (6 years now?), the developers STILL do not. And that's too bad. 

This is probably my favorite all-time mod, due to its traditionally clean, smooth-running, nature. True, it doesn't have some of minor features some players like (like diplomacy, etc.), but since most of those features have either caused problems or have never really updated, I don't view that as a major issue at all.

That said, something ugly has reared its head, specifically with the last couple of versions: power creep. That applies to both new and existing items in the item log, but also to AI troop capabilities. The mod has always been a little silly with regards to thrown weapons, but now there are ridiculous qtys of high damage items being thrown around for extended periods of time. And that's just one tiny little part. Equipment values have been boosted to remain constant with troop abilities, or else adjusted to "balance" out the player, resulting in some amazingly powerful items. Appearances have been increased, resulting in a relatively low level player able to get their hands on equipment which essentially breaks the course of the game. And instead of logically reducing the abiulity to use that equipment (like limiting the crystals, or relegating them to a specific quest dynamic, AI equipment has been empowered to counter the player equipment/abilities. And that never ends. What happened to the various abilities/equipment provided by dieties? It is now hopelessly outclassed by equipment available as loot or for purchase.

Let's be honest: most of us have been playing around with this mod for literally years. Of course we're going to find some aspects easy or simplistic. But to make radical adjustments on the basis of artificial expectations is NOT good for the mod.

This mod is a classic. How about, instead of "trying to keep it fresh" while destroying the best aspects, the modders tie this one off, and move on to a new project? 

I appreciate all the effort, and having dabbled a little bit, I understand the time involved, but really after, what, 3 years? with the same character menu issues, masacred character face screen, broken quests, random non-senisical error messages regarding skull caps (when travelling overland), random quests assigned without any interaction, and very amusing language choices, despite having the original game as a referrence, don't you think it's time to add some more help?

It's a good idea, don't get me wrong. But at the moment, it's more amazingly buggy rather than simply amazing.

Too many hide an seek Guildmasters. Seriously, they are nearly impossible to find in some of the cities. -2

If you are making 4k as a merc, you should be ruling a kingdom. Seriously, when I calculate out how many troops/troop levels you would need to have to make that much on the default map, it doesn't sound very likely.

Owning a village gives you the title of lord, even if you didn't start as one, which is a beginning place for faction machinations - if you play that style. It can provide you with a place to rest, and sometimes specialty troops or tasks (mods).
Sometimes, you can garrison them (mods). However. it's also a huge liability, because in a war, it's going to get raided, and I've seen the AI do it with as little as 5 men. In fact, the local king probably offered you something burned out and useless for a couple of weeks. Of course, you can just go and take a city, which is ultimately more profitable and easier to defend. 

In the module file, there is a place for friction and wind resistance, etc. Check to see what has been modified versus the native version. It's also possible that if the actions are taken by a single brf resource file, you can walk down the list in the module file, and disable loading of that btr by throwing a ";" in front of the line. Keep in mind that if other things have any dependencies in that file, they will not work, and the game may crash as a result. outcomes that are created by multiple resource files or multiple alterations to the module files can be hard to track down. 

Historically, melee cavalry have never done very well in a direct attack against archers. You have only to look at Agincourt or Crecy to understand why massed bowmen can be lethal. Instead, I prefer to set my line with archers to the front, backed by infantry, with cavalry off to one side. Yes, the Rhodoks with the two handed weapons are nonsense, because a real archer simply wouldn't be able to manage it. However, the method of dealing with them is the same. The idea with melee cavalry is to catch the enemy by the flank or the rear. Coordinating takes a lot of micromanagement, but I prefer it to the mods that force formations on to a player. Archers up front (or on a significant hill with good lines of fire), backed by infantry, and firing until the last moment, when I move them back 10 and the infantry forward through the line 10. Don't let your archer keep firing at stragglers; stragglers are food for you or your cavalry. Don't let your cavalry get carried away; keep them in hand or it's the charge of the light brigade all over again. Mobility is life. If you're using pure cavalry, better stay with the archers and do the cantabrian circle thing. Lure the enemy into a position to be charged by your melee cavalry.

The AI has a tendency to focus on you (whether a mod formation or otherwise), so you can literally lead the enemy troops around by the nose while your archers pour shot into them. Against the unmodified AI, this is as simple as killing a few guys in the rear. Those large shields the Rhodoks carry are utterly useless turned around the wrong way. Once the enemy is turned around, you have a number of choices. I like to have my heavy infantry slam into them, while the archers keep firing. Then I pull back my cavalry and wait for a bit. Once the enemy has turned back to engage the infantry, then I slow charge with my cavalry, only sprinting at the last minute. That way, my guys all hit at about the same time. From there, it's usually over in less than a minute.

Against cava;ry charges, your troops need to be as close together as possible. They absolutely need to hold formation; if you get spread out, you'll die. I like a mix of polearms and sidearms. Depending on how bad it is, I may have my archers hold their fire and join the infantry. The problem with being massed together, of course, is that you are a perfect target for archers or mounted archers. In those circumstances, I use my cavalry to attack, in an attempt to keep them off of the infantry for as long as possible, knowing that I'll probably lose a bunch of them. 

One of the real problems for a lot of the battle maps is that sometimes, your starting positions are too close together, and you have literally no time to move formations or move into formation. When that happens, your cavalry had best charge while you organize things. I love those mods that allow you to set up positions ahead of time, but then start you with everyone jumbled together so that no one can actually go where they are supposed to go (that's sarcasm, because really, the guys that do that, and the guys that actually think that's okay to include in a mod should just stop modding). The only thing worse is the mods that have screwed with the default formations so badly that the game cannot resume them, even if the mod has a way of turning the custom formations off.

Anyway, with cavalry, think chess and not American football. And remember, if your cavalry aren't moving, they're a target.

Don't rely on the base Perisno troops. At each level, the stats available for Perisno troops are hopelessly outbalanced versus the other troops. Familiarize yourself with the various editing tools, and then go in and carefully adjust the relative files/scripts. There's a lot that's broken (settings that turn on/off other settings, such that off can actually be on), broken quests, missing animations, power-creep, the works. Much of that can be fixed or removed, as needed, simply by using the tools.

Oh, one more thing that's broken: if you submit to a ruler, after having your own kingdom, you can continue to start wars with opfor, and then request the territories be rewarded to you. I have yet to be refused, so now I have all the power, but because the king keeps giving me what I want, I have no option to rebel or take over. LOL. I'll be adding in a convo thread to do that, I think.

Formations are clunky and AI has a hard time using them. Even after a charge is ordered, which should clear all formations to the default, the formations are incorrectly offset. This is a common issue with most mods that insist on forcing players to accept formations. As I consider establishing formations to be part of my job as commander, I have removed the offending code. It plays much better. You might want to follow the example set by PoP, and allow them to be disabled in the camp menu.

You know, I told you guys exactly what to expect when they hadn't posted anything for almost a year, and you flamed me, so now it's my turn. Go look at it you fools. No new engine, no new physics, same tired old stuff. It's virtually a frigging mod. You're going to see the same sets rehashed, mostly the same sounds, and you'll shell out another $30 plus for the right to play. A year into development, and that's it? 

I could see if it was like two guys in a basement making a game. It isn't. This "Indie" has been milking people for couple of years now with virtually no real improvements whatsoever, and they need to be called on it. Honestly, it's embarrassing. 

We could use some morale tweaks, I think, and some Diplomacy options/extra staff. For example, I'd like to discuss raising levies at the castle I own, but there's no castellion. I'd like to be able to raise morale in taverns or with feasts, or with special items (like Pendor and Britenwalda), because the NPC armies are huge, and getting to that large without throwing all my points into Charisma is next to impossible, and not much fun. This would be a cool mod to implement garrisons and strongholds with, as well.

Morale tweaks most of all, though.

Two issues, one minor, one major.

First, the map is upside down. LOL. No one noticed? Rob Stark is King of the South.

Second, Tournaments are really not improved at all. Frequently I spawn without any gear, which makes winning impossible when you're down to 1 v 1. I'd recommend just putting the defaults back in until you've got it figured out.

Can we get a patch for the tourneys?

Virtually an entire year without a single news update? Taleworlds may be an Indie company, but that's pretty pathetic. Two updates to the game itself (no engine updates), and a notice that "News is coming?" Well shoot, Christ is due too. At this rate, anyone want to take a bet on which gets here first?

After that B.S. teaser with no game footage whatsoever, which must have taken all of 15 minutes, I don't expect too much. You know what I see happening? Another Fire and Sword debacle. Watch "Bannerlord" be some sort of BS expansion using the same tired old engine and what amounts to a mod, instead of a new game. Pathetic.