Castle Building Removed?

Currently viewing this thread:

vjc810

Recruit
WB
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBp1EtBtG8g&t=1450s

Like most of you, I was really excited to see all the new gameplay footage to come out of Gamescom. While seeing the campaign in action was great, through all the videos I saw on YouTube I found one that caught my attention for all the wrong reasons.

Near the end of this interview with Rocket Beans, they start to talk about the map editor, and how you can build your own castles. This wasn't new info, they've talked about this before in dev blogs, but when one of the interviewers starts to get giddy with the thought of building your own castle on the map (something they've said you can do all the way back in 2015), Armagan and Paul drop a bomb when they say that you can't actually do that.

When did they cut this? Did they say this was being cut? Honestly, I knew everything about this game was too good to be true, and at some point along the development process something was gonna get dropped. It's pretty disappointing, cause this is something I was looking forward to, as making physical changes to the map and impacting it in a tangible way seemed really cool. The sad part is that the guy who asked about it even said something along the lines of "Wow, imagine if you could do that? That would be a great feature!"

This also opens up a whole new can of worms. Is settlement and castle wall upgrading cut too? Is everything regarding settlement upgrading reverting back to how it is in Warband? It's a pretty big letdown for me, hopefully they're not hiding any other cut features, and as much as I want to be optimistic I doubt this'll be making a return in some sort of update or DLC. I'm no modder, so I have no idea how much time, effort, and skill it would take to mod something that game-changing in either.
 

Noudelle

Grandmaster Knight
WBM&BWF&SNWVC
My take on why they removed it is they probably thought it would take too much time to create unique scenes for every player built castle.

I can't find the exact number but I think I read that there are currently over 300 villages/castles/cities. Which means they have to make over 300 uniques scenes for each of those. And that's not counting the interior scenes, the bandit hideouts, and other locations.

As for you wondering if they're taking castle/city walls upgradeing out of the game, they're not. When you hover over one of the icons in the castle/city menu, it shows the current wall strength, meaning that they will be upgradeable.
 
Well, I feel like mods can take care of a lot of stuff such as this to be honest, so even if it’s “cut”, it will be modded in, since they said modding would be way easier and better than warband.

I’ve seen what crazy stuff people have done even in warband modding, so no need to really worry I’d say.
 

Noudelle

Grandmaster Knight
WBM&BWF&SNWVC
Anani said:
Well, I feel like mods can take care of a lot of stuff such as this to be honest, so even if it’s “cut”, it will be modded in, since they said modding would be way easier and better than warband.

I’ve seen what crazy stuff people have done even in warband modding, so no need to really worry I’d say.
True 100%.
 

vicwiz007

D
Knight at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
At first I was disappoint this feature got dropped. Then I thought about it some more and it doesnt seem like such a bad thing now. First off as others have pointed out, that would be a lot of scenes to create for every village. 3 different ones for each village...yikes. Second, there would reach a point in the game where every single village has a castle to defend it. Either this or the castle would be destroyed/degrade every time it was taken, which would be super annoying and kinda immersion breaking.

There are other small things I came up with but none too important. I'm sure they had lots of gameplay reasons to do it this way. After all, they test it for many hours for balance and other issues.

As a side thought- do cities/villages/castles change at all when you conquer them? Would be kinda weird going to a city controlled by the Aserai and it's 100% Vlandian. It's probably asking too much for them to convert the  scenes, but little changes would be nice at least like faction specific decorations.
 

Novgorod

Recruit
vicwiz007 said:
At first I was disappoint this feature got dropped. Then I thought about it some more and it doesnt seem like such a bad thing now. First off as others have pointed out, that would be a lot of scenes to create for every village. 3 different ones for each village...yikes. Second, there would reach a point in the game where every single village has a castle to defend it. Either this or the castle would be destroyed/degrade every time it was taken, which would be super annoying and kinda immersion breaking.

There are other small things I came up with but none too important. I'm sure they had lots of gameplay reasons to do it this way. After all, they test it for many hours for balance and other issues.

As a side thought- do cities/villages/castles change at all when you conquer them? Would be kinda weird going to a city controlled by the Aserai and it's 100% Vlandian. It's probably asking too much for them to convert the  scenes, but little changes would be nice at least like faction specific decorations.


1. not a problem, more scenes more diverse location to fight etc.
2. no not every village would have a castle, first of all AI lords dont generate money out of the air, "they need to earn it like the player", second is every village has 4 upgrade slots, building place is limited and you have to decide between 4 moneymaking fields or 3 fields + castle. It would be a matter of strategical place/relevance.
3. changing the culture, architecture etc. needs time, MANY MANY years. Conquer a city and change everything in an instant is not realistic and breaks immersion. Its fine how it is


greetings
 

wormydowg

Sergeant
Novgorod said:
vicwiz007 said:
At first I was disappoint this feature got dropped. Then I thought about it some more and it doesnt seem like such a bad thing now. First off as others have pointed out, that would be a lot of scenes to create for every village. 3 different ones for each village...yikes. Second, there would reach a point in the game where every single village has a castle to defend it. Either this or the castle would be destroyed/degrade every time it was taken, which would be super annoying and kinda immersion breaking.

There are other small things I came up with but none too important. I'm sure they had lots of gameplay reasons to do it this way. After all, they test it for many hours for balance and other issues.

As a side thought- do cities/villages/castles change at all when you conquer them? Would be kinda weird going to a city controlled by the Aserai and it's 100% Vlandian. It's probably asking too much for them to convert the  scenes, but little changes would be nice at least like faction specific decorations.


1. not a problem, more scenes more diverse location to fight etc.
2. no not every village would have a castle, first of all AI lords dont generate money out of the air, "they need to earn it like the player", second is every village has 4 upgrade slots, building place is limited and you have to decide between 4 moneymaking fields or 3 fields + castle. It would be a matter of strategical place/relevance.
3. changing the culture, architecture etc. needs time, MANY MANY years. Conquer a city and change everything in an instant is not realistic and breaks immersion. Its fine how it is


greetings

Yeah.... Town cultures should absolutely stay the same... Remember when the USSR tried to make it's own little country called Yugoslavia? But once they went away it balkanized and became several small countries?

It wasn't till ww1 did it become popular to try and exterminate cultural & ethnic groups.

The big empires like the Greeks, Romans, Mongols, Ottoman, and British, just kinda let culture do it's thing. The last 2 empires were real jerks tho, ottomans wanted to unite all these different cultures under one religion, and the British we're trying to drain areas of their wealth.

Only the 16th century Spanish have managed to completely destroy cultures, and while they have done their fair share of destruction, it was actually forcing interracial marriage between native Americans and Spanish millitary  that did the most damage to existing culture.

So yeah, I don't think that feature should be considered.
Towns changing culture that is.
 

vicwiz007

D
Knight at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Novgorod said:
vicwiz007 said:
At first I was disappoint this feature got dropped. Then I thought about it some more and it doesnt seem like such a bad thing now. First off as others have pointed out, that would be a lot of scenes to create for every village. 3 different ones for each village...yikes. Second, there would reach a point in the game where every single village has a castle to defend it. Either this or the castle would be destroyed/degrade every time it was taken, which would be super annoying and kinda immersion breaking.

There are other small things I came up with but none too important. I'm sure they had lots of gameplay reasons to do it this way. After all, they test it for many hours for balance and other issues.

As a side thought- do cities/villages/castles change at all when you conquer them? Would be kinda weird going to a city controlled by the Aserai and it's 100% Vlandian. It's probably asking too much for them to convert the  scenes, but little changes would be nice at least like faction specific decorations.


1. not a problem, more scenes more diverse location to fight etc.
2. no not every village would have a castle, first of all AI lords dont generate money out of the air, "they need to earn it like the player", second is every village has 4 upgrade slots, building place is limited and you have to decide between 4 moneymaking fields or 3 fields + castle. It would be a matter of strategical place/relevance.
3. changing the culture, architecture etc. needs time, MANY MANY years. Conquer a city and change everything in an instant is not realistic and breaks immersion. Its fine how it is


greetings
1) Yeah it would be a damn problem because you're gonna be dead before they could release the game in that state.
2) they dont have to generate money, eventually someone will save up for it, and i highly doubt anyone would destroy a castle to make room for a farm becasue you know... a castle.
3) OK, it was just a thing i wondered about. I will be fine with seeing the new factions flag waving around.
 

Rhugar

Sergeant at Arms
I don't even hear it as if it's been cut. It just sounds like Armagan is saying "no", to the idea of building a castle "just anywhere". But I guess we'll just have to wait and see ^^
 
wormydowg said:
Novgorod said:
vicwiz007 said:
At first I was disappoint this feature got dropped. Then I thought about it some more and it doesnt seem like such a bad thing now. First off as others have pointed out, that would be a lot of scenes to create for every village. 3 different ones for each village...yikes. Second, there would reach a point in the game where every single village has a castle to defend it. Either this or the castle would be destroyed/degrade every time it was taken, which would be super annoying and kinda immersion breaking.

There are other small things I came up with but none too important. I'm sure they had lots of gameplay reasons to do it this way. After all, they test it for many hours for balance and other issues.

As a side thought- do cities/villages/castles change at all when you conquer them? Would be kinda weird going to a city controlled by the Aserai and it's 100% Vlandian. It's probably asking too much for them to convert the  scenes, but little changes would be nice at least like faction specific decorations.


1. not a problem, more scenes more diverse location to fight etc.
2. no not every village would have a castle, first of all AI lords dont generate money out of the air, "they need to earn it like the player", second is every village has 4 upgrade slots, building place is limited and you have to decide between 4 moneymaking fields or 3 fields + castle. It would be a matter of strategical place/relevance.
3. changing the culture, architecture etc. needs time, MANY MANY years. Conquer a city and change everything in an instant is not realistic and breaks immersion. Its fine how it is


greetings

Yeah.... Town cultures should absolutely stay the same... Remember when the USSR tried to make it's own little country called Yugoslavia? But once they went away it balkanized and became several small countries?

It wasn't till ww1 did it become popular to try and exterminate cultural & ethnic groups.

The big empires like the Greeks, Romans, Mongols, Ottoman, and British, just kinda let culture do it's thing. The last 2 empires were real jerks tho, ottomans wanted to unite all these different cultures under one religion, and the British we're trying to drain areas of their wealth.

Only the 16th century Spanish have managed to completely destroy cultures, and while they have done their fair share of destruction, it was actually forcing interracial marriage between native Americans and Spanish millitary  that did the most damage to existing culture.

So yeah, I don't think that feature should be considered.
Towns changing culture that is.

All I would like to see is probably a mix of townsmen from the conquering culture and the original culture in the bigger towns, and town guard to have the arms and armor of the conquering culture. It makes sense to me that a large town would attract tradesmen and travelers from the conquering nation once conquered.
 
wormydowg said:
The big empires like the Greeks, Romans, Mongols, Ottoman, and British, just kinda let culture do it's thing. The last 2 empires were real jerks tho, ottomans wanted to unite all these different cultures under one religion, and the British we're trying to drain areas of their wealth.

Only the 16th century Spanish have managed to completely destroy cultures, and while they have done their fair share of destruction, it was actually forcing interracial marriage between native Americans and Spanish millitary  that did the most damage to existing culture.

The reason North America is basically racially homogeneous is partly because the British systematically killed off the local populations. The Catholics, especially Spain, were much more lenient on natives in the New World. The pope even considered them to be essentially like children (which implies that they were seen as idiotic humans, but the British didn't view the natives as human at all).

Diego de Landa was even called back to Spain to be tried for conducting an unlawful inquisition and torturing natives. This is vastly different from how the British treated natives in North America.

Of course, disease killing something like 80% of the population (I took this number from Dan Carlin's history podcast, not sure what his source is) completely crippled civilizations, but the Catholics intermarrying with the locals is why you have any native culture at all in South America, and also the reason why pretty much everyone is mixed today.
 

Lord Milky

Sergeant Knight
M&BWBNWVC
There were plenty of native tribes after the British left. The decline of culture is mainly due to the influx of settlers which in turn caused population growth , shrinking territory and racial tensions. I'm not saying the British were completely innocent but let's not forget , the drastic decline happened after their departure. Your source sounds incredibly biased. The French also had a major foothold in the Americas causing war amongst tribes , disease etc

 

wormydowg

Sergeant
Lord Milky said:
There were plenty of native tribes after the British left. The decline of culture is mainly due to the influx of settlers which in turn caused population growth , shrinking territory and racial tensions. I'm not saying the British were completely innocent but let's not forget , the drastic decline happened after their departure. Your source sounds incredibly biased. The French also had a major foothold in the Americas causing war amongst tribes , disease etc

The French were the most ... "Friendly" to the natives. But yeah the French and British faught each other using native tribes against each other.

Tibertus said:
wormydowg said:
Novgorod said:
vicwiz007 said:
At first I was disappoint this feature got dropped. Then I thought about it some more and it doesnt seem like such a bad thing now. First off as others have pointed out, that would be a lot of scenes to create for every village. 3 different ones for each village...yikes. Second, there would reach a point in the game where every single village has a castle to defend it. Either this or the castle would be destroyed/degrade every time it was taken, which would be super annoying and kinda immersion breaking.

There are other small things I came up with but none too important. I'm sure they had lots of gameplay reasons to do it this way. After all, they test it for many hours for balance and other issues.

As a side thought- do cities/villages/castles change at all when you conquer them? Would be kinda weird going to a city controlled by the Aserai and it's 100% Vlandian. It's probably asking too much for them to convert the  scenes, but little changes would be nice at least like faction specific decorations.


1. not a problem, more scenes more diverse location to fight etc.
2. no not every village would have a castle, first of all AI lords dont generate money out of the air, "they need to earn it like the player", second is every village has 4 upgrade slots, building place is limited and you have to decide between 4 moneymaking fields or 3 fields + castle. It would be a matter of strategical place/relevance.
3. changing the culture, architecture etc. needs time, MANY MANY years. Conquer a city and change everything in an instant is not realistic and breaks immersion. Its fine how it is


greetings

Yeah.... Town cultures should absolutely stay the same... Remember when the USSR tried to make it's own little country called Yugoslavia? But once they went away it balkanized and became several small countries?

It wasn't till ww1 did it become popular to try and exterminate cultural & ethnic groups.

The big empires like the Greeks, Romans, Mongols, Ottoman, and British, just kinda let culture do it's thing. The last 2 empires were real jerks tho, ottomans wanted to unite all these different cultures under one religion, and the British we're trying to drain areas of their wealth.

Only the 16th century Spanish have managed to completely destroy cultures, and while they have done their fair share of destruction, it was actually forcing interracial marriage between native Americans and Spanish millitary  that did the most damage to existing culture.

So yeah, I don't think that feature should be considered.
Towns changing culture that is.

All I would like to see is probably a mix of townsmen from the conquering culture and the original culture in the bigger towns, and town guard to have the arms and armor of the conquering culture. It makes sense to me that a large town would attract tradesmen and travelers from the conquering nation once conquered.

Hmm good point, there should be like a few minority NPCs running around in every town. At least with factions that are at peace because they would probably have a lot of trade going on. Idk how they could achieve this, but yeah. It would be cool if notables traveled, because then you might be able to get exotic troops from a faction across the map... Could allow you to bring horse archers to a vlandian civil war.
 

vjc810

Recruit
WB
Rhugar said:
I don't even hear it as if it's been cut. It just sounds like Armagan is saying "no", to the idea of building a castle "just anywhere". But I guess we'll just have to wait and see ^^

There's another, longer Q&A interview somewhere on YT where someone asks, right before Armagan confirms the beta, "Can you upgrade villages into castles?" and he rather dejectedly says "no", so It's pretty much gone. Also now that castles are just like how they are in warband there seems to be no new interaction with them, same old wait here, go to hall, walk around, yadda yadda yadda. Pretty disappointing.
 

Novgorod

Recruit
vjc810 said:
Rhugar said:
I don't even hear it as if it's been cut. It just sounds like Armagan is saying "no", to the idea of building a castle "just anywhere". But I guess we'll just have to wait and see ^^

There's another, longer Q&A interview somewhere on YT where someone asks, right before Armagan confirms the beta, "Can you upgrade villages into castles?" and he rather dejectedly says "no", so It's pretty much gone. Also now that castles are just like how they are in warband there seems to be no new interaction with them, same old wait here, go to hall, walk around, yadda yadda yadda. Pretty disappointing.

that is exactly my biggest fear for bannerlord. In warband a castle for me was always a burden and a dead rock, either It will be sieged all the time or your garrison is eating up all your income, so why own a castle? Atleast give it some more option like a smith, market, guildmaster (like in fire and sword). Oh and villages were raided all the time nonstop.
 
Lord Milky said:
There were plenty of native tribes after the British left. The decline of culture is mainly due to the influx of settlers which in turn caused population growth , shrinking territory and racial tensions. I'm not saying the British were completely innocent but let's not forget , the drastic decline happened after their departure. Your source sounds incredibly biased. The French also had a major foothold in the Americas causing war amongst tribes , disease etc

Could you point out the biased premises so I could address them? The pope was generally quite lenient towards the natives, and the French were on better terms with the natives a lot of the time than the British (for example, there's to my knowledge no British equivalent to the Cajuns).

Of course, natives at different points in time would ally any European power they could against their traditional enemies, I'm not disputing that. The only thing I am trying to show is that, in the Americas, the Spanish were less destructive for the native populations than the non-Catholics (primarily British).
 

Duh

Duke
M&BWB
Novgorod said:
vjc810 said:
Rhugar said:
I don't even hear it as if it's been cut. It just sounds like Armagan is saying "no", to the idea of building a castle "just anywhere". But I guess we'll just have to wait and see ^^

There's another, longer Q&A interview somewhere on YT where someone asks, right before Armagan confirms the beta, "Can you upgrade villages into castles?" and he rather dejectedly says "no", so It's pretty much gone. Also now that castles are just like how they are in warband there seems to be no new interaction with them, same old wait here, go to hall, walk around, yadda yadda yadda. Pretty disappointing.

that is exactly my biggest fear for bannerlord. In warband a castle for me was always a burden and a dead rock, either It will be sieged all the time or your garrison is eating up all your income, so why own a castle? Atleast give it some more option like a smith, market, guildmaster (like in fire and sword). Oh and villages were raided all the time nonstop.
Castles will take a bigger role in Bannerlord since you only seem to own "regions" i.e. villages and their bound center (castle or town).
 

ArnulfFloyd

Knight at Arms
For me not is so important, I know as will be big in importance but I not know if players will do things such as blacksmith in castles, I believe as raiding villages not will change but your brother will defend your fiefs
 

John the Roleplayer

Sergeant Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
It would be good if the economic importance of castles was more tangible in Bannerlord. As they are the centres of the manorial industry, there could be sheriff's parties travelling between castles and villages, gathering the villages agricultural products in taxes. In the castle itself some of these goods could be for sale, while the rest is sent on to a higher ranking noble or the king in protected tax convoys. Fiefs only produce income for their lord, if these taxes arrive safely.

Hunting is something that should also be based on castles. It could either be managed as a form of enterprise in the castle itself, or there could be actual hunting parties on the map. Depending on their success, goods like venison and hides could become available in castles.
 
Top Bottom