Search results for query: *

Thank you Hinkel.
From what I've seen on these forums, you seem quite interested in the ACW and have been for a while. That's definitely assuring to me.

As to the video, as much as I like the inclusion of all of the needed animations for the drill, there doesn't seem to be anything that would enforce doing the drill and having the correct cooperation between the players. Even in real life, soldiers would have followed those orders because they would face serious repercussions for disobeying the orders of an authority. Soldiers, following orders, is the backbone of any military force and that is what creates the need for ranks higher than, say, Corporal. If the Corporals can control the men under their command then multiple Corporals can work together under another commander. Any sort of miliatry organization and chain of command is possible because of everybody doing as they are told.

Creating some sort of a system to punish disobedience and/or reward obedience seems like the go-to way of doing it but there could be other ways as well.

The work you put in to create a more authentic and immersive feel for the individual player is great becuase that will be the thing that makes the battle fun for the majority. I definitely like that that you guys are working hard on that.

Thanks.
I know I shouldn't expect people to spoonfeed me out of my own lazyness, but for games where there is a decent bit of interaction with the developers on forums a lot of important information is sometimes shared in random posts in random threads. That's why the people that follow that development closely are usually the best to ask about the game as a whole.

I'll take a look at those diaries but I've a feeling that plenty of the information there might be wrong in some way. Kind of expected from games with on-going development.

If your first sentence isn't a quote from them but your own opinion then you must surely know a decent bit about the game to be able to say that. I just want to know what makes you think that.

Judging by the latest patch notes it looks like they are mainly creating the framework for the game. You can't do that unless you even vaguely know what kind of a game it's going to be.

Two questions:

What does the finished product of the game look like in terms of gameplay? Is it NW but with a lot more polish or will it have mechanics that regulate and impose rules on the actions of players? In essence, are they trying to create the most authentic look and feel possible or are they also looking for more arcadey gameplay (perhaps a different gamemode)?

What is the player count that they wish to achieve?


Tactically, small-scale engagements are pretty boring so I doubt that any decent depth to the game can be achieved without coming up with some arcadey mechanics or increasing the size of the battles. The reason why NW is still fairly popular seems to be because it has its arcadey melee combat.

I was actually going to make a post about it and bump the thread up hearing about the new patch but never got around to it.

I'm pleased to hear that things are not as dire with the development as I had previosuly heard. Looking back, I'm not happy about that comment but it is what it is and no doubt there is some truth to it. At the same time you can't blame me or anyone else thinking so little about the dev at the time when the reception on Steam was so harsh and there were no news of a new patch. Even now the patch is far enough that you can't give us concrete details on what exactly is going to be changed, added or fixed.

Like I said previously, I enjoy the game and want people to try it out but there is still plenty of stuff to squint your eyes over in the game especially at this price point. It definitely has the groundwork for being the most accurate representation of Napoleonic warfare ever done in a game but just like most things of that sort, it needs a lot of work. The issues mentioned in my earlier post still exist.

If there are people here willing to try out something pretty groundbreaking, you can shoot me a PM and I'll show you the active MP groups and teach you whta I know and how to not be as frustrated when playing.

Well, technically since you yourself are the brain, you would still be hating your brain and your brain would be hating you. You would still be hating yourself.

In the introductory part of today's livestream they said that Taleworlds will be showing Bannerlord off on the stream for "a full 40 minutes".

It's around 6 minutes after the stream's inital start.

Well I didn't say it lacked features that Gettysburg had, just said that it lacks some in general. Might've given the wrong impression with my late-in-the-night ramblings.

Overall there are a couple big things that I can think of between all the little ones that can get fixed with a little spit and polish:

• Being able to choose the target for a charge manually.

This is a very important feature for a Napoleonic game due to the engagement ranges being smaller and cavalry actually threatening infantry as opposed to the ACW. Currently the unit that charges, charges the enemy unit that is their Primary target shown in the top left corner of the screen. This makes it very difficult to make combined charges on the enemy, because your batallions may not all choose the same primary target or may have the visibility of the enemy batallion blocked by each other (this unit visibility thing also needs some work). Cavalry basically can never be charged manually unless the enemy has their troops under Take Command and unable to make squares because the enemy's infantry batallions are very likely to form a square in time and cause massive losses when cavalry finally hits them. Having the cavalry charge on it's own means that they are free to stop at any point in the charge.

• Changing the Tiling system.

The game uses a system where each batallion/gun/squadron has a seperate invisible tile around them. This helps the units act more realistically and not cross the paths of other tiles or stand in front of tiles that are in active combat. This needs a lot of polishing to work well as it doesn't seem to be doing any of those things as fully intended and even causing units to not be able to walk through some clearly visible gaps. You can imagine how annoying it is when sometimes a batallion can't back away from the front line through a gap between my other batallions but rather chooses to take the long way around usually taking heavy casualties along the way.

• Changing the UI software to something that's actually user-friendly not user-hostile.

Modders are having lots of issues getting the UI to work the way the want. That's why every modded UI has lots of issues and peculiarities. The devs basically said that they're not going to change the UI software since they've worked so hard to get it to work. This and some other things might be the reason why you probably never see a mod like GCM for Waterloo.

• The artillery line of sight detection is worse than in Gettysburg.

I haven't played gettsyburg myself so I can't tell what exactly the modder I talked to meant by this, but in gettysburg it supposedly was better because they managed to fix it in the last patch for that game. One issue I've noticed is that the sprites that are next to the ammunition crate are the ones that have the LoS calculated for, not the sprites that are next to the gun itself and are operating it, which makes it more difficult to place units behind them in case the battery might need a guard unit. The damage output of artillery is also quite laughable at all ranges besides the canister range but fortunately this can be fixed with mods. Unfortunately, artillery doesn't like modding besides simple stat changes. It suffers from some terrible LoS problems when it's not on perfectly empty fields in Belgium.

There are many smaller issues that need to be worked on like the courier message confirmation spam, but they're likely to never get fixed either.

Oh and the performance is far worse than in Gettysburg, but I guess that could be due to the sprites looking worse there and the sprite limit in each unit being lower (the dev still can't code the game properly, though). It's not like Gettysburg runs great in large battles, but it's still significantly better there. I've heard that the MP is a bit less laggy too than in Waterloo.

There are obviousl many QoL issues too but I wont mention those to keep the post shorter.

Now after saying all that, I don't want you to think that this game is piece of garbage that doesn't have any redeeming values and can't hold it's own, because it certainly can. It's a very good representation of Napoleonic warfare within the limits of a computer game. The long-time fans seem to agree that the AI is better than Gettysburg and makes the Napoleonic combined arms way of fighting a pretty enjoyable expierience, leaving Gettysburg behind when it comes to complexity, depth and the different ways of cooperation between players. Grand Tactics as well as the micromanaging/small scale combat are all there and at a level that you really wouldn't expect from a game that tries doing them both.

The lower effective range of firearms, cavalry's incredible strength in melee and the artilery's punch at canister ranges just makes it a more dirtier and nastier type of warfare with a lot more melee charging and seeing stuff like artillery destroying a quarter of a square with a single canister shot (perhaps exaggerating here ) than you might get in Gettysburg (again - haven't played it myself but that's what the modders are telling me and it looks like that in videos).

Gettysburg is like playing chess with pawns and a king, whereas Waterloo has the whole set of pieces. The former technically can still provide you with a numerically huge amount of different battles each with it's own twists and turns, but the latter just makes things that much more challenging. It also means that it's a more difficult game to get into with a steeper learning curve.

EDIT: edited out some grammar mistakes and changed it slightly to hopefully make more sense.

A word of caution - I would seriously hold off buying this game. I just talked to the developers of a popular mod and what I had to hear just caught me unexpected - the main programmer and developer of the game has given up on it and will not release any further updates that have to do with the anything else but maps. He wasn't ready for the feedback he recieved after the release and just got mad at the world and you honestly can't blame the consumers because this game was rushed out before the anniversary of Waterloo just for the sake of more publicity.

All the annoying features and the lack of some features may never get dealt with due to so many of them being made in the source code, which obviously is not available to modders. This game in it's current state is less polished than Gettysburg and has less modability in many ways.

I don't know why but I feel awful after having to give up hopes for this game. No game has really done that to me in a long time.

I guess I have to mention that technically there is still a possibilty that one developer that still really cares for the game might be able to get the source and do something with it but the chances aren't too good as the main developer seems pretty stubborn.

Wellenbrecher said:

That he did indeed.
I like to imagine that he casually rode forward ignoring all warnings from his aide, chatting amicably away about the weather, hunting and cigars. When he finally looks up to see why the horse has stopped moving he sees a Union battery and two regiments staring at him in utter shock and he scrambles back to our lines as fast as he can.

That silly victory parameter that gave the battle to defeated side though...
We really need to look into those.

Click to expand...

That doesn't sound as bad though. I mean, I literally ordered a guy to stand in the middle of a town for the whole game without him ever seeing any action. He probably couldn't even spectate the battle from afar because of the annoyingly tall buildings.

Just an FYI for those that care - you can make some pretty terrible evening-ruining mistakes too.

Yesterday I commanded a division with 3 AI brigades and one player controlled brigade. He was Italian and didn't seem to understanding english well so I was a bit worried right from the start. Turns out that he was a pretty new player too.

To keep it short - I made him stand on an objective for the whole game with one other AI brigade that would've actually had enough men to capture it by itself. I feel pretty bad about it now.

My excuse was that I was convinced that he didn't understand my order to move towards the objective as I didn't see him there at the start maing me believe that he must've gone somewhere else to help some other division and was probably under the orders of our other Italian player on our team (would make sense because he actually said that he didn't understand one of my previous orders). The fact that he didn't send a single message to me throughout the rest of the game (after the initial start) made it even more likely that he had gone to help someone else.

I guess as a new player he thought he didn't have much of a say about anything so just executing an order given by me, a division commander, must've seemed like the most important thing ever. Can't blame the guy.

Like I said, the steam group I'm in organizes about 3 battles every week (there's 2 more decently sized groups that I know of currently).  There's going to be one this evening which will be the first battle of a scenario that we're testing.

That was me on the hill on the other side of the stream flanking the british. It was a really awesome battle that really was something to remember. I actually spent about an hour now watching the replay of the battle and just thinking about all my tactical mistakes and the overall battle that went down over the hills.

The really awesome part was that the only time I had contact with any of my allies was at the start and the only order I got from my general was to move to the objective and not use roads unless necessary. The flanking and cutting off was pretty much my idea that actually turned out to work pretty well. Except for the fact that I had to make a very difficult choice to move one of my divisions away from the valley to the objective and get some points for the team. I honestly think that I could have kept you suckers in that valley till the very end if I hadn't decided to use that division for capturing the point (don't want to sound too cocky but you really were at a heavy disadvantage in that valley).

Like you said in TS, we didn't really meet each other much so I can't comment on how well you did but I guess it wasn't that bad since the italians sounded satisfied with your performance. You'll certainly have a lot to learn if this is your first battle, especially about the ways A.I. acts given certain orders in certain ways just like I still do.

mcwiggum, you can join our steam group where we organize about 3 matches every week. Even if you think you're an absolute noob, you can ask for just a brigade to command.

http://steamcommunity.com/groups/sowwaterloo

It's one of the most historically accurate NW RTSs out there. The AI might be the best I've personally seen in any RTS. I'm not kidding - this game is worthy of It's price.

Yesterday I participated in a battle with 10 other people and it was one of the most engaging expieriences I've had in a long time. That feeling you get when what you're doing matters so much that it can easily change the course of the battle or the feeling that you basically made history right there on the battlefield and loads of people were a part of it (can't explain it without sounding silly) is just something you have to expierience yourself. It's like playing Civ and loking back at how your empire, through all the troubles, grew to become what it is now after long 12 hours of playing. I can't be the only one who gets that cool feeling right?

But of course before you really can start enjoying the sweet parts of the game, you have to go through the bitter stuff too. And it's mainly to do with getting used to the not-so-intuitive-UI and how the AI acts in certain situations (at the start it feels like it doesnt know anything about combat in Napoleonic wars but then you start to get how dumb you yourself are with your NTW-like tactics). Also the graphics and the performance aren't that great, but they grow on to you.

The sauce is nice and I'm hyped, but it's still a bit of a wierd way to release the info. Ashley sums it up well.

DanAngleland said:

CaptainAndrew said:

And those few lines of text might not be true at all. There's literally no source provided in the article, where TW would have actually said anything about a video or gameplay. Looks like a poorly known gaming news site making stuff up for traffic.

EDIT: And there's another barely known site posting the same

Click to expand...

Well you just provided evidence to support the notion that the press release IS genuine. As your link shows another site is posting the same information (I also found another yesterday when searching 'Taleworlds' and checking the last 24 hours of hits).

Click to expand...

The fact that the small sites are copypasting from one another doesn't make what's written there more valid. If it's ten people saying that the world is ending tomorrow or ten thousand, I won't care until they provide a good reason why.

And those few lines of text might not be true at all. There's literally no source provided in the article, where TW would have actually said anything about a video or gameplay. Looks like a poorly known gaming news site making stuff up for traffic.

EDIT: And there's another barely known site posting the same

Huh, I guess so. Never gave it a second thought about whether it's actually called a blog since those screenshots seemed more blog-worthy than the mostly empty talk in the actual following blogs. They certainly contained more information.

The first blog was most certainly not in november. I can't find a source for the date for it but I'm pretty sure it's September 27th. For example, there's a video about the blog on youtube posted on 29th of September or another one posted on October 1st. Obviously it's pretty likely that it was posted just a couple days before.