-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Castle Building Removed?
- Thread starter vjc810
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
The game engine has a lot to do with the difficulty in implementing castle construction in the game.
In games like Morrowind, items could be pre-placed and "disabled", making them invisible and intangible, so they were in effect "not there". They could be "enabled" via scripted events, making them appear the next time the scene was loaded. That allowed the developers to place ALL of the possible levels of construction and items which COULD be built into the scene, and simply enable or disable them individually as needed.
Contrast that with Mount & Blade, where in order to have something appear, it has to be placed in the scene and permanently visible, so if you want to be able to add or remove that item, you have to create duplicate scenes with and without that item, and load the appropriate scene as needed. That's not bad for a single item, but if you have 3 stages of construction for a castle, you need 4 different scenes (for no castle and each of the three stages). Worse, if you ALSO want to have a market upgrade and windmill addition, then you need scenes with neither the market nor the windmill, one with only the market and one with only the windmill, and one with both. Combining that and the castle, now you've got to have 4 different stages of castle construction for EACH of those 4 market and windmill combinations, giving you 16 different versions of the same small village, each of which has to be stored as a complete set of data. In my opinion, this is the cause of the problem, and why they've decided to cut castle construction, rather than drastically modify the engine this late in the development cycle, to display or not display all items as indicated by some variable.
In games like Morrowind, items could be pre-placed and "disabled", making them invisible and intangible, so they were in effect "not there". They could be "enabled" via scripted events, making them appear the next time the scene was loaded. That allowed the developers to place ALL of the possible levels of construction and items which COULD be built into the scene, and simply enable or disable them individually as needed.
Contrast that with Mount & Blade, where in order to have something appear, it has to be placed in the scene and permanently visible, so if you want to be able to add or remove that item, you have to create duplicate scenes with and without that item, and load the appropriate scene as needed. That's not bad for a single item, but if you have 3 stages of construction for a castle, you need 4 different scenes (for no castle and each of the three stages). Worse, if you ALSO want to have a market upgrade and windmill addition, then you need scenes with neither the market nor the windmill, one with only the market and one with only the windmill, and one with both. Combining that and the castle, now you've got to have 4 different stages of castle construction for EACH of those 4 market and windmill combinations, giving you 16 different versions of the same small village, each of which has to be stored as a complete set of data. In my opinion, this is the cause of the problem, and why they've decided to cut castle construction, rather than drastically modify the engine this late in the development cycle, to display or not display all items as indicated by some variable.
ArnulfFloyd
Knight at Arms
All is related to campaign logic and I give a exemple
In Medieval 2 Total War castle upgrade was from village and level up until citadel but castles were useless there as in native Warband regarding economical activity. A custom engine will allow all what is limited with all legendary engines but not even all weird ideas
In Medieval 2 Total War castle upgrade was from village and level up until citadel but castles were useless there as in native Warband regarding economical activity. A custom engine will allow all what is limited with all legendary engines but not even all weird ideas
Sorry for the necro guys, I was looking for information on building castles and I found this that I could not pass through:
Your comment denotes an absolute ignorance about the subject and sinning in the topics of the Spanish black legend as a whole.
The black legend was the fruit of Spanish hegemony during the period 1450-1650 and of the resentment that its territorial expansion, its military power and its cultural dominion awoke in Europe (especially in Protestant countries such as England and Holland). An example: An English pamphlet from 1598 described the Spaniards as a mixture of "a crafty fox, a voracious wolf and a rabid tiger," as well as "an unclean and dirty pig, a thieving owl and a superb peacock. And he alluded to "the perverse race of those half-Visigoths (...) half-Moors, half-Jews and half-sarracenes".
A couple of data to totally dismantle your argument:
Spain was the first country, and until the 20th century the only one, to promote laws for the protection of indigenous peoples. Neither France, nor England, nor Portugal... These laws ("Leyes de Indias")were the first to be established to protect the Indians (south-american natives).
The first university created by Spaniards is from 1538, the first created by English in North America is from 1740; we don't even talk about Africa. The decline of Latin America began after independence, not before.
The new mixed generations were responsible for creating a hybrid culture, a mixture of both, with recognizable indigenous patterns and preserving their identity as such. If we look a few kilometers north to the U.S. and Canada, where English and French were responsible for the conquest and where there was no human crossbreeding, we can see that, except for some isolated communities and almost as a tourist attraction, there is no trace of indigenous cultures or physical features among today's populations. The mixture today is a tangible reality in Latin America, which is not so true in North America where the ideal of the "WASP" prevailed.
I invite you to read mainly Henry Kamen and if you are not convinced about it, start with Hugh Thomas, Joseph Perez, John Elliot, Charles F. Lummis, Stanley G. Payne, Robert Goodwin and ending with Alexander von Humboldt, to form an opinion that stands on its own.
Blongo said:
Your comment denotes an absolute ignorance about the subject and sinning in the topics of the Spanish black legend as a whole.
The black legend was the fruit of Spanish hegemony during the period 1450-1650 and of the resentment that its territorial expansion, its military power and its cultural dominion awoke in Europe (especially in Protestant countries such as England and Holland). An example: An English pamphlet from 1598 described the Spaniards as a mixture of "a crafty fox, a voracious wolf and a rabid tiger," as well as "an unclean and dirty pig, a thieving owl and a superb peacock. And he alluded to "the perverse race of those half-Visigoths (...) half-Moors, half-Jews and half-sarracenes".
A couple of data to totally dismantle your argument:
Spain was the first country, and until the 20th century the only one, to promote laws for the protection of indigenous peoples. Neither France, nor England, nor Portugal... These laws ("Leyes de Indias")were the first to be established to protect the Indians (south-american natives).
The first university created by Spaniards is from 1538, the first created by English in North America is from 1740; we don't even talk about Africa. The decline of Latin America began after independence, not before.
The new mixed generations were responsible for creating a hybrid culture, a mixture of both, with recognizable indigenous patterns and preserving their identity as such. If we look a few kilometers north to the U.S. and Canada, where English and French were responsible for the conquest and where there was no human crossbreeding, we can see that, except for some isolated communities and almost as a tourist attraction, there is no trace of indigenous cultures or physical features among today's populations. The mixture today is a tangible reality in Latin America, which is not so true in North America where the ideal of the "WASP" prevailed.
I invite you to read mainly Henry Kamen and if you are not convinced about it, start with Hugh Thomas, Joseph Perez, John Elliot, Charles F. Lummis, Stanley G. Payne, Robert Goodwin and ending with Alexander von Humboldt, to form an opinion that stands on its own.
Terco_Viejo said:
None of your points refute his statement. This idea that the Spanish (of all people considering their actions in the 16th century) should be held up as some exemplar in native-European relations is so ridiculous I had to take time out to consider whether it was trolling or not.
Oh yeah, I'm sure the native student intake was real high. I mean really.
Mods should close this dumpster fire.
Ninja'd by Duh. 
Pathan has made an earnest attempt to stay on the original topic, so I'm keeping this open for now.CaptainLee said:
"every village will eventually become a castle"
If that's the case then the game is unbalanced and the mechanics should be reassessed. Turn to history to see why there weren't thousands of castles everywhere, rather than just arbitrarily limiting it.
1. Castles were expensive and didn't magically generate money on their own like they do in warband.
2. A castle needs an administrator, and lords tended to have just one castle. Any more than that and you have to appoint somebody to run it in your stead, in which case it sort of ceases to be your castle.
3. Kings would often limit the number of castles lords would build if they feared insubordination.
4. A castle without a garrison was useless. If you plonk a castle somewhere and put 10 men in it, it should surrender the moment an enemy puts ladders to its walls. There should be no area of control if the garrison is too small.
If that's the case then the game is unbalanced and the mechanics should be reassessed. Turn to history to see why there weren't thousands of castles everywhere, rather than just arbitrarily limiting it.
1. Castles were expensive and didn't magically generate money on their own like they do in warband.
2. A castle needs an administrator, and lords tended to have just one castle. Any more than that and you have to appoint somebody to run it in your stead, in which case it sort of ceases to be your castle.
3. Kings would often limit the number of castles lords would build if they feared insubordination.
4. A castle without a garrison was useless. If you plonk a castle somewhere and put 10 men in it, it should surrender the moment an enemy puts ladders to its walls. There should be no area of control if the garrison is too small.
As said, COST was an enormous factor, and skilled manpower (not just unskilled labor) another limiting factor. Only a king of a sizable country could afford to build up multiple castles within the span of a lifetime, and that often required hiring additional specialists from outside of the realm.
Owning muitiple castles directly was also problematical. If you build up a second castle, you need to put someone in charge of it as a steward in your absence, normally a highly trusted relative or long-time companion, otherwise the temptation would be there to declare independence or loot the treasury and run. Each additional castle means one less dependable companion traveling in your entourage. The usual historical situation was to grant them a fief of land, including the castle, in exchange for a vow of loyalty and military obligation, with those vows to be renewed each generation or else forfeit the right to the fief. Most medieval kings did this, and their vassals often did this within their own holdings, creating a ranked heirarchy of nobles: Kings, Dukes, Counts, Barons, and various intermediate titles, with Knights often controlling anywhere from nothing to a single large estate.
Hopefully, the game will price castle upgrades high enough to limit how many you (or the AI) can afford to build, not like the relatively cheap village upgrades which SHOULD be built in fairly large numbers over time by the richer factions.
Owning muitiple castles directly was also problematical. If you build up a second castle, you need to put someone in charge of it as a steward in your absence, normally a highly trusted relative or long-time companion, otherwise the temptation would be there to declare independence or loot the treasury and run. Each additional castle means one less dependable companion traveling in your entourage. The usual historical situation was to grant them a fief of land, including the castle, in exchange for a vow of loyalty and military obligation, with those vows to be renewed each generation or else forfeit the right to the fief. Most medieval kings did this, and their vassals often did this within their own holdings, creating a ranked heirarchy of nobles: Kings, Dukes, Counts, Barons, and various intermediate titles, with Knights often controlling anywhere from nothing to a single large estate.
Hopefully, the game will price castle upgrades high enough to limit how many you (or the AI) can afford to build, not like the relatively cheap village upgrades which SHOULD be built in fairly large numbers over time by the richer factions.
I think a lot of the issue has to do with how villages are in M&B. In WB, they were tied to a town or castle, but if you gave them the ability to build a castle, each individual village now has the potential to stand or be taken on its own. What happens if you take a castle from an enemy faction, destroy the castle to build a farm etc.? Does the village revert to the previous owner? Or does it now become tied to your closes castle/town?
I also hope that improving castles will be an expensive, long-term undertaking. Ideally a castle would be able to change over time, as it remains the seat of a noble family, and following generations add, modify and renew parts of it, but it appears the game will not go into that much detail.
Roccoflipside said:
BIGGER Kentucky James XXL said:
Unfortunately, that would require a method by which such tasks could be delegated or players would never feasibly "win" the game by conquering all of the settlements and eliminating all of the other factions. Even if you generously awarded fiefs to your vassals to minimize the micromanagement on your end, you would still need a reasonable number of settlements to generate income for you so support your party's upkeep. Naturally, you would certainly be leading your faction's armies around on campaigns as well, which severely limits your ability to directly govern any settlements you own. Abstraction of settlement governing can be considered a quality of life feature in this sense, as it allows you to focus more on the strengths of the game than on tedious number farming.
Similar threads
