Community Feedback-based EARLY ACCESS ROADMAP - ready for you, Taleworlds!

Does this roadmap represent your basic wants for Bannerlord?

  • Yes

    Votes: 330 85.9%
  • No

    Votes: 54 14.1%

  • Total voters
    384

Users who are viewing this thread

AngryPanCake

Veteran
@five bucks

Hello,
And thank you for the feedback. You are right about using this EA game in its Vanilla form in order to provide accurate feedback of what's working and what's not.

Thank you,
APC
 

Mjdecker123

Recruit
So are the AI in general going to get an overhaul? Like I mean in all departments. Diplomacy, How they go about battles, Sieges, recruiting, everything. I get that it will always be AI and stuff, but they are kind of....dumb. I am just hoping the AI in general haven't been forgotten as they do make up lot of the game also.

(Edit, Guess I killed this discussion lol)
 
Last edited:

five bucks

Knight at Arms
Updated list to take into account the things in patch 1.7.0 which improved/resolved issues from this list, or implemented features:

* Bugfixes and crash fixes.
* Performance improvements.
* New feature: Added the Battle Terrain system! Field battle scenes are now representative of the terrain of the world map (not all scenes yet implemented though), and the location which you were in on the world map relative to the enemy determines where you spawn in the battle.
* Added 23 new field battle scenes, bringing the total field battle scene pool to 72 (out of 148 planned scenes).
* New feature: Added the Order of Battle system! Players can now choose how they deploy their troops before a battle, and choose formations, give those formations orders, and assign captains to these formations if they are the formation leader.
* Formation morale is now displayed. General battle morale improvements.
* Fixed longstanding issues with siege ladders and siege towers such as troops not climbing ladders or only using one ladder, climbing back down ladders, and ignoring ladders. Sieges appear to, overall, function correctly now.
* Underpowered Charm skill tree reworked and buffed.
* Overall item prices have been reduced, and it has been made more difficult to sell high-tier items.
* Battanian troop lines have had some variety introduced.
* Dialogue and encyclopedia text improvements.
* Modding received multiple improvements.
 
Last edited:

CrazyElf

Sergeant
Five bucks, I'd be interested to see what your thoughts are on Taleworlds overall progress. It is clear that some of the issues have been resolved, but many are still outstanding.


I suspect that many will need an expansion pack and may never be truly resolved.



* Courtship: Visiting more times to improve relations, to improve your chances of success in courtship. Fighting a duel against rival suitors.

To be honest, I think that the whole relationship system needs an overhaul. It should be possible to get better relationships with your family or members in your own clan as well, like companions.



Weapon Balance: Stabbing polearms e.g. spears are too slow and weak, slashing polearms e.g. glaives are too strong. Pike bracing should have a 1 second animation before being able to brace, instead of being instant. Shields should take slightly more damage from arrows/bolts

Personally I think that swinging polearms are fine as is, but the rest I agree with. Spears need a major buff.

There is a reason for the dominance of poleaxe and halberd type weapons by the late Middle Ages and even into the Renaissance. They were simply superior weapons. That and armor technology advanced. Many of these polearms were designed with armor penetration in mind.

Formations like phalanx and push of pike should be possible if spears were realistic.
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
Five bucks, I'd be interested to see what your thoughts are on Taleworlds overall progress. It is clear that some of the issues have been resolved, but many are still outstanding.
In terms of their progress in making a fun game, Bannerlord still has a long way to go. While things have certainly gotten better in the last 10 months, and roamer/mercenary is enjoyable, the vassal/kingdom phase is still repetitive, grindy, and unsatisfying: players' skill in fighting, tactics, and strategy/politics doesn't have enough impact in getting them to victory quicker, instead gameplay is too based on luck or exploits to progress and too drawn out.

Or if you mean time until the list is completed, I would say at their current pace of work, if they worked on this list instead of new random stuff, they could get most of it done in about 20 months. It took them 10 months to complete roughly a third of the list.
I suspect that many will need an expansion pack and may never be truly resolved.

To be honest, I think that the whole relationship system needs an overhaul. It should be possible to get better relationships with your family or members in your own clan as well, like companions.
Yeah, it's really weird that your companions and even wife sit at like 4 relations and always give you a non-committal look, while in Warband my wife had about 50 relations with me IIRC from quests and poetry (ha) and coming back to visit.
It is nice though that ennobling companions in Bannerlord shoots them to 100 relations.
An easy solution would just be that hiring a companion increases your relation by 20 or so, marrying someone increases relations to 50, and your relations rise by 5 for each year that you know your wife and companions.
Personally I think that swinging polearms are fine as is, but the rest I agree with. Spears need a major buff.

There is a reason for the dominance of poleaxe and halberd type weapons by the late Middle Ages and even into the Renaissance. They were simply superior weapons. That and armor technology advanced. Many of these polearms were designed with armor penetration in mind.

Formations like phalanx and push of pike should be possible if spears were realistic.
I would argue that the current state of slashing polearms, where they combine ease of use, high damage, high speed and high range all in a single weapon, seriously hurts weapon balance. Why pick any other melee weapon?

When we discuss dominance in history, in the time period of Bannerlord (600-1100AD) long slashing polearms were not common in Europe and the surrounding areas. Stabbing polearms such as spears or lances were much more common weapons.

One of the weapons Bannerlord portrays as a slashing polearm, the Menavlion, was actually a stabbing pike in real life. Voulges were also a high middle ages weapon. The billhook was a repurposed agriculture tool.

Spears definitely need a major buff, and the ability for bracing to work against infantry in some capacity to enable the push of like would be very good.
 
In terms of their progress in making a fun game, Bannerlord still has a long way to go. While things have certainly gotten better in the last 10 months, and roamer/mercenary is enjoyable, the vassal/kingdom phase is still repetitive, grindy, and unsatisfying: players' skill in fighting, tactics, and strategy/politics doesn't have enough impact in getting them to victory quicker, instead gameplay is too based on luck or exploits to progress and too drawn out.

Or if you mean time until the list is completed, I would say at their current pace of work, if they worked on this list instead of new random stuff, they could get most of it done in about 20 months. It took them 10 months to complete roughly a third of the list.

Yeah, it's really weird that your companions and even wife sit at like 4 relations and always give you a non-committal look, while in Warband my wife had about 50 relations with me IIRC from quests and poetry (ha) and coming back to visit.
It is nice though that ennobling companions in Bannerlord shoots them to 100 relations.
An easy solution would just be that hiring a companion increases your relation by 20 or so, marrying someone increases relations to 50, and your relations rise by 5 for each year that you know your wife and companions.

I would argue that the current state of slashing polearms, where they combine ease of use, high damage, high speed and high range all in a single weapon, seriously hurts weapon balance. Why pick any other melee weapon?

When we discuss dominance in history, in the time period of Bannerlord (600-1100AD) long slashing polearms were not common in Europe and the surrounding areas. Stabbing polearms such as spears or lances were much more common weapons.

One of the weapons Bannerlord portrays as a slashing polearm, the Menavlion, was actually a stabbing pike in real life. Voulges were also a high middle ages weapon. The billhook was a repurposed agriculture tool.

Spears definitely need a major buff, and the ability for bracing to work against infantry in some capacity to enable the push of like would be very good.

Definitely! (y)(y)
 

CrazyElf

Sergeant
Or if you mean time until the list is completed, I would say at their current pace of work, if they worked on this list instead of new random stuff, they could get most of it done in about 20 months. It took them 10 months to complete roughly a third of the list.


That's fair - 2 years. Not everything here will be implemented, but if a lot is, it will be a better game overall.

An easy solution would just be that hiring a companion increases your relation by 20 or so, marrying someone increases relations to 50, and your relations rise by 5 for each year that you know your wife and companions.


Companions need more autonomy overall. Marriage (even inside your clan such as to your siblings or children or other companions in your clan), not just the ability to form a new clan with them.


The AI should recruit their own companions as well, especially AI that has money and that has suffered clan member losses (from death or executions).


I would argue that the current state of slashing polearms, where they combine ease of use, high damage, high speed and high range all in a single weapon, seriously hurts weapon balance. Why pick any other melee weapon?

Their long reach is a huge drawback in sieges where fighting is often at close quarters. They also leave the player vulnerable to arrows like any 2 handed weapon.

Essentially they are great for field battles, but have 2 drawbacks:

  1. No shield. That's a problem in field and siege battles. You have to survive long enough to get to the enemy to do damage. That's especially tough if you are facing an enemy with many archers and have no shielded infantry to screen. A good example of this is the Battanian Falxman, Vlandian Voulgier, etc. They are excellent in melee, but have to survive long enough to get there, which can be hard if the enemy has many good archers or uses horse archers in the field.
  2. The long reach is a double edged sword, so to speak. In sieges they do not do well at close quarters at all and when wielding them, it means that often the weapon will hit the walls or be too close for you to hit with the blade and will do much less damage because you hit them with the handle.

It's a great weapon overall, but not without its tradeoffs. Hence, I don't agree at all that they need a nerf. I'm strongly against the idea of any nerf to them.


Poleaxes would solve 2 of course, but without the long reach making them less good at anti-cavalry or when used from a horse reaching down, but are not in the game. They are also 2 handed weapons without shields. The point though is that there is no ideal weapon for every situation, hence I don't see the need for a nerf.

On most other points, I agree with you though.


When we discuss dominance in history, in the time period of Bannerlord (600-1100AD) long slashing polearms were not common in Europe and the surrounding areas. Stabbing polearms such as spears or lances were much more common weapons.

Not common does not mean that the weapon was not superior. There's a difference there. Likewise there is a difference between not common and not existing at all.

Poleaxes and the like eventually became dominant because they were superior. In order to do that, they had to exist earlier to begin with.
 
Last edited:

five bucks

Knight at Arms
That's fair - 2 years. Not everything here will be implemented, but if a lot is, it will be a better game overall.
Agreed.
Companions need more autonomy overall. Marriage (even inside your clan such as to your siblings or children or other companions in your clan), not just the ability to form a new clan with them.
Being able to marry companions would be great for a non-noble roleplay!
The AI should recruit their own companions as well, especially AI that has money and that has suffered clan member losses (from death or executions).
Was this mentioned in dev blogs, or am I imagining it?
  1. No shield. That's a problem in field and siege battles. You have to survive long enough to get to the enemy to do damage. That's especially tough if you are facing an enemy with many archers and have no shielded infantry to screen. A good example of this is the Battanian Falxman, Vlandian Voulgier, etc. They are excellent in melee, but have to survive long enough to get there, which can be hard if the enemy has many good archers or uses horse archers in the field.
I absolutely agree this is a major drawback in the current state of the game; however, this is only because arrows are incredibly strong, due to unrealistically weak armour that barely provides any more survivability against ranged attacks.

Since the poor state of armour has an extremely negative impact on many states of the game, that needs to be fixed. And so I do not believe that it should be used to determine weapon melee balance.

If armour is fixed - which Taleworlds has indicated they are going to do in their Future Plans post - then that will no longer be a reason to keep swing polearms in their current state.
  1. The long reach is a double edged sword, so to speak. In sieges they do not do well at close quarters at all and when wielding them, it means that often the weapon will hit the walls or be too close for you to hit with the blade and will do much less damage because you hit them with the handle.
I just fought a siege battle using a menavlion, which has 159 length, and didn't have that much trouble. The most enclosed area you fight in is the inside of towers (which can be avoided), but fights on the wall aren't that bad, and being on a ladder allows you to stay at optimal distance. The player only spends about 1/4 of their time in sieges, 3/4 in open fields with plenty of room to swing.
Not common does not mean that the weapon was not superior. There's a difference there.
What proof is there for the superiority of the weapon if it wasn't common in the time period? What actually makes you say long swinging polearms were the superior option in the 600-1100 time period in Europe/MENA/the steppe?

Why weren't Norman knights using bardiches and glaives instead of lances and swords, if they were the superior option?
 

CrazyElf

Sergeant
I just fought a siege battle using a menavlion, which has 159 length, and didn't have that much trouble. The most enclosed area you fight in is the inside of towers (which can be avoided), but fights on the wall aren't that bad, and being on a ladder allows you to stay at optimal distance. The player only spends about 1/4 of their time in sieges, 3/4 in open fields with plenty of room to swing.

The reason is the menavlion is one of the shorter (and IMO weaker) polearms right now.

The top weapons are actually the Rhomphaia right now, although you can make a better custom weapon.


But of course they get slaughtered against archers.


What proof is there for the superiority of the weapon if it wasn't common in the time period? What actually makes you say long swinging polearms were the superior option in the 600-1100 time period in Europe/MENA/the steppe?



The polearm isn't superior because of the period - it is because of the nature of the polearm.

  1. Reach - that's not going to be affected by time period
  2. Swinging force - it's going to hit much harder than a sword is going to, especially against armored targets
  3. Specialization - the head could be designed with the target in mind. Even a single standard poleaxe can do all of the following - deliver concussive blows (capturing lords rather than killing was a good idea if they had armor since they could pay a handsome ransom), cleave with the axe and punch through armour with its spikes (for lethal attacks).
  4. It's not as discussed, but swords require more training than polearms
  5. Variable reach - it's not portrayed in Bannerlord, but you can use a poleaxe or similar weapon with variable reach (to a degree you can do this with a sword as well - it's called "half swording"), but it's easier with a poleaxe or similar type of weapon

Swords were mostly backup weapons (the Ancient Romans with their gladius being the notable exception due to the type of opponents they fought). Against a poleaxe, most sword armed troops would die unless vastly more skilled or lucky or vastly more heavily armored.

The best chance would be to try to close the distance quickly (although this may not work against a shorter poleaxe) and to try to use terrain. The only other option (and this is an act of desperation against an opponent without much armor) would be the throw the longsword at the enemy.

Either way, fighting with a sword is an enormous disadvantage against a polearm armed enemy, especially one that can also slash. The game should reflect that. If you are saying that the game should remove these weapons because they weren't common during this time period, that's one argument, but had they been introduced, they would have been vastly superior. That's why they eventually took over.

My argument is if the game is going to have something (and there are some items that are already in the game that are out of the time period), it should be added in such a way that it reflects what the real world performance would be against contemporary weapons in game, had that item been available.
 
Last edited:

five bucks

Knight at Arms
  1. Reach - that's not going to be affected by time period
I'm familiar with Matt's videos, you should note that he says in that video itself roughly halfway through, "as you bring in shields and armor, reach becomes less important".
  1. Swinging force - it's going to hit much harder than a sword is going to, especially against armored targets
I have no issue with them doing more damage than two-handed swords necessarily, however they should be slower.

It is a physical and biological reality that if you take a sword blade and attach it to a long wooden pole, the longer pole will make it slower and more awkward for a human being to swing around, due to adding extra bulkiness to the weapon.

Compare for a moment the Rhomphalia and Thamaskene Steel Two Hander, both of the same tier. Rhomphalia has almost double the length, lower weight, and higher swing damage.

Or to maces. Rhomphalia does 2x more base damage than the best mace in the game, and has almost 3x the length, but is only marginally slower.

Swords aren't the only weapon we should be comparing swing polearms to either. Stabbing polearms are much slower and weaker than swinging polearms, despite being in the broad category of "polearms." Stabbing polearms need to be faster and higher damage, while stabbing polearms need to be slower.
  1. Specialization - the head could be designed with the target in mind. Even a single standard poleaxe can do all of the following - deliver concussive blows (capturing lords rather than killing was a good idea if they had armor since they could pay a handsome ransom), cleave with the axe and punch through armour with its spikes (for lethal attacks).
You could apply this statement to one-handed weapons too (you can have a mace head for concussive force, an axe or sword blade for cutting, a military pick spike for piercing etc).
Swords were mostly backup weapons (the Ancient Romans with their gladius being the notable exception due to the type of opponents they fought).
Plenty of infantry in the 600-1100 time range used swords (alongside a shield) as their primary weapon if they could afford one. For example the Swabian mercenaries at the Battle of Civitate, or lots of Viking and Saxon warriors.
My argument is if the game is going to have something (and there are some items that are already in the game that are out of the time period), it should be added in such a way that it reflects what the real world performance would be against contemporary weapons in game, had that item been available.
Yes.
 

CrazyElf

Sergeant
I have no issue with them doing more damage than two-handed swords necessarily, however they should be slower.

I think you've overestimated the impact that the length will have.

In historical re-enactments, I've noticed that even the modern "training" or "re-enactment" versions are heavily restricted. Rules are needed because even with these "safety versions", halberds tend to generate so much force that certain sparring techniques and targets must be banned for the safety of the re-enactments.

Halberd simply hit too hard to be able to spar in such an unrestricted manner. By contrast, swords are less restricted in re-enactments. It's why the swords are a lot more popular. Armor can stop them and the sparring can be a lot more aggressive without risking injury.

Swinging polearms are just that deadly - that's why they were around even well into the age of the musket.


Or to maces. Rhomphalia does 2x more base damage than the best mace in the game, and has almost 3x the length, but is only marginally slower.

That's hard to compare because the maces are doing blunt damage and the Rhomphalia is doing cut damage.

In the case of polearms, when they are "blunt", they tend to have smaller heads when they do get used as "pure blunt" weapons because the amount of torque needed to swing is very high.


A good example is the Lucerne Hammer.




Note the small size of the hammer itself.

Swords aren't the only weapon we should be comparing swing polearms to either. Stabbing polearms are much slower and weaker than swinging polearms, despite being in the broad category of "polearms." Stabbing polearms need to be faster and higher damage, while stabbing polearms need to be slower.


I'm in favor of buffing stabbing polearms, but not in favor of the speed reductions for slashing polearms.


You could apply this statement to one-handed weapons too (you can have a mace head for concussive force, an axe or sword blade for cutting, a military pick spike for piercing etc).

I'd be open to heads doing that - an example - some already do pierce damage when stabbing and cut when swinging.

Some heads will need a third type.
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
Updated list to take into account the things in patch 1.7.2 which improved/resolved issues from this list, or implemented features:

* Numerous bugfixes and crash fixes.
* Performance improvements.
* New Feature: Ranked matchmaking for multiplayer.
* Added companion spawning, which may solve the issue of not having enough companions of a certain culture (need to play more to confirm).
* Fixed NPCs not blinking in Quick Talk screen.
* Siege engine use now gives Engineering XP, giving a way to gain XP in the early game without having to lead a siege yourself.
* "Improved the campaign map AI to prevent party zigzag behaviour." This is tentative, will need a fair bit of gameplay to confirm they have properly fixed this.
* Vlandian Pikeman and Sturgian Heavy Spearman got their armor buffed, making them less of a useless option in their trooptrees (though major issues with pikes and spears remain).
* Tavern Keepers now have dialogue.
* New feature: Ability to interact with prisoners in dialogue, to convince them to defect.
* Added 5 new Cape pieces and 4 new Body Armor pieces to increase variety in Empire, Aserai and Battanian armor.
* 7 items/armour pieces now have stats more appropriate to their description/appearance.
* The majority of the text issues in Bannerlord's dialogue and encyclopedia have been fixed.
* Added more mechanical explanations to the Encyclopedia. Beni Zilal also now have an encylopedia entry.
* Modding received multiple improvements.
 
Last edited:

five bucks

Knight at Arms
Last edited:

Senko

Sergeant
A lot more is now in green than a year ago, which is nice :3
Full release of Bannerlord in 2022, i don't see that happening with all the stuff still being worked on (that is currently confirmed)
I guess a release in 2024 is more realistic. Btw the Steam page still says 1 year Early Access :p


My list of what i miss the most

Surprise Encounters - right now nothing really happens in the world, any random encounter would be more than welcome even if they just add the Drunk / Ambush back in from Warband

Some non random-generated companions added - even like 5 of them would add a lot of soul and heart to this game and add more of an impact when they die in battle

More Voice acting, it doesn't need full voice acting but even giving important characters like King Derthert or Empress Rhagaea a few lines of voice acting would benefit these characters and the game world a lot. Right now it's mostly text boxes everywhere, i was shocked to hear some voice acting when doing the main quest

Banners - I know they are being worked on, still looking forward to them because they will add of lot of flair to the battles
 
Top Bottom