[parsehtml]<p><img class="frame" src="https://www.taleworlds.com/Images/News/blog_post_97_taleworldswebsite.jpg" alt="" width="575" height="290" /></p>
<p>Picture the scene. You find yourself deep in enemy territory. After seizing an enemy stronghold, you pause for a respite. The campaign has been long and costly, and supplies are running low... And then, on the horizon, you see your worst fears realised. At first, a low rumble and a blur of colour, but then, slowly, the standards and banners of the enemy army come into focus. Your army is ill-prepared for a field battle, and so, you dig in.</p></br> [/parsehtml]Read more at: http://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/117
Dev Blog 04/07/19
- Thread starter Callum
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
The second screenshot is also bugging me, that dead guy on the bottom center-left, lit by sunshine, the same sunshine also exposed some of the collision between the NPCs dead body and a spear and sword, both of which seemlessley stuck in his arm.
I know he is a ragdoll at this poing, but this shouldn`t be happening anymore on engines dating 2010+ . Really hope they fix that too, along with enlarged heraldry . . .
I know he is a ragdoll at this poing, but this shouldn`t be happening anymore on engines dating 2010+ . Really hope they fix that too, along with enlarged heraldry . . .
Speaking of slashes on the clothing, guy on far left seems to have blood streaks lining up with the slashes, showing taking whether or my armor is present under the clothes is taken into account. Pretty cool.
piconi said:
Agreed.
piconi said:The second screenshot is also bugging me, that dead guy on the bottom center-left, lit by sunshine, the same sunshine also exposed some of the collision between the NPCs dead body and a spear and sword, both of which seemlessley stuck in his arm.
I know he is a ragdoll at this poing, but this shouldn`t be happening anymore on engines dating 2010+ . Really hope they fix that too, along with enlarged heraldry . . .
No one notices when they are in the thick of battle
There's a couple of things I don't understand about the screenshot. The first thing is that I don't think it bears much resemblance to the scenario given by Callum in the devblog text:
In the screenshot, it looks very much like the player isn't besieged inside the city at all, but outside commanding the party of 98 soldiers in the woods. The garrison doesn't appear to have a commanding Lord present, because it's just called "Garrison". The besieging army's parties are all lead by named lords. But anyway, that's not terribly important.
If the player is commanding the 98 soldiers in the woods, though, why does it say in the bottom right that their party is only 76? I don't get it.
It says the enemy army has 3 days worth of food for the siege, while the defending garrison has 0 days! So I guess breaking through the siege lines to resupply the city is an attractive option here, even though losing 39 out of 98 (or 76?!) troops is quite a significant price to pay. Like was said earlier, I'd be interested to know how long your party's "45" food will last. Would it be way out to guess that each man needs 1 food per day? That would mean 45 food would be gone in well under a day, especially if it had to feed the 222 soldiers in the city as well as the 60-odd survivors of the relief force. So in that case it certainly wouldn't be worth breaking through to the city. But somehow I doubt food consumption is calculated like that (even though it would be an intuitively simple system) or else the player here is woefully under-prepared for any situation.
In the screenshot, it looks very much like the player isn't besieged inside the city at all, but outside commanding the party of 98 soldiers in the woods. The garrison doesn't appear to have a commanding Lord present, because it's just called "Garrison". The besieging army's parties are all lead by named lords. But anyway, that's not terribly important.
If the player is commanding the 98 soldiers in the woods, though, why does it say in the bottom right that their party is only 76? I don't get it.
It says the enemy army has 3 days worth of food for the siege, while the defending garrison has 0 days! So I guess breaking through the siege lines to resupply the city is an attractive option here, even though losing 39 out of 98 (or 76?!) troops is quite a significant price to pay. Like was said earlier, I'd be interested to know how long your party's "45" food will last. Would it be way out to guess that each man needs 1 food per day? That would mean 45 food would be gone in well under a day, especially if it had to feed the 222 soldiers in the city as well as the 60-odd survivors of the relief force. So in that case it certainly wouldn't be worth breaking through to the city. But somehow I doubt food consumption is calculated like that (even though it would be an intuitively simple system) or else the player here is woefully under-prepared for any situation.
Yes it would appear that the player is outside the walls rather than in. I think that scenario created was just an example, and not the description exactly of what was going on there, though perhaps very close.Rabies said:
The party is hidden behind the besieging army, not the one to the right which says 98. This party is much more central to the screen and has 76 troops. And look, it says "As many as 39 may be lost", which probably means that is the most you could lose, pending RNG.
And finally the food- The number is how many days worth of food are remaining, same as represented at the top. Which means this party has 45 days worth of food remaining for a party of 76. This is still nearly 2 weeks worth for the party + all garrisoned troops (subtracting troops lost getting into the town). I think it may be as intuitive as you think. Remember each food item has many uses, so if each person consumes 1 "use" per day, you could easily buy up a bunch of grain from nearby towns/villages to resupply the siege.
vicwiz007 said:
Ah, that makes a lot of sense! Thanks. I can see the player party behind the besieging force now you pointed it out.
If the party is carrying 45 days worth of food for 76 men, that'd be 3420 "uses" of food. And if you take Warband as a reference, that's 68 bags of grain. That seems like a hell of a lot to me. (But maybe you're right.)
When you zoom in the first screenshot you can see that besieging army is represented as a walking rabble in Viking conquest style, all carrying different sturgian clans banners, and it seems player is represented with 2 flags, one red banner with something yellow on it,that horseman on the map representing his army carries, and beside party number 76 theres deer head on green-black background ...
I don't think it's the multiple-soldiers icon, but rather one for every lord in the army. Seems like every single one of them would be an archer on foot, which is actually interesting. Wonder how they command cavalry then.
To be honest, now that I think about it, will the commanders of infantry remain on their horses? Will the commanders of cavalry that so happen to not ride on a horse be given one? That's something I haven't even thought about when this whole commanding formations came up.
To be honest, now that I think about it, will the commanders of infantry remain on their horses? Will the commanders of cavalry that so happen to not ride on a horse be given one? That's something I haven't even thought about when this whole commanding formations came up.
Do not look here said:
Cavalry, chaaaaaarrrrggggeeeee!!!!!!!
"Oops, I think we just trampled Lord Whatshisface"
Do not look here said:
Good spot. I wonder how far a detached party must be from the army group to be safe to attack in isolation.
Sargot’s map icon has three offset wall sections where most modellers would place a single straight wall on that scale. Does that mean that scene props have world map LODs similar to armours? Seems unlikely as a previous blog said map icons were modelled by hand to resemble their towns.
If you are outside and have come to the aid of a besieged castle, you again have options. You can attack the besiegers right away, and in general, the forces in the town will sally out to join the fight, and together, you may hopefully overwhelm the attackers. Another option is to stay mobile outside of the siege camp, harassing the enemy, attacking foragers and reinforcements in the hope that the enemy will run out of provisions before they can take the castle.
I know the besiegers tents are only for aesthetic interest, but I’d love the option to target them for a night raid designed to destroy the besieger’s stockpile of supplies - a bolder and more dangerous option if your force is too large to just harass foragers but still too small to fight the besieging army.
Some people have already echoed this here, but I suggest it outside of sieges too: Bannerlord needs to do away with these battles that are fought to annihilation. I know mass routes are more common, but AI lords should fall back from sieges or battle if they have suffered too many casualties.
KhergitLancer80
Banned
AmateurHetman said:
++++
From the looks of it TW overlooks the factor of people caring for their lives.
Gathering people almost in a decade and losing them in a rout en masse without having most of them even swinging a sword was a very common and frustrating for leaders thing back in the day.
I mean people mostly joined to war parties for the sake of being able to raid their neighbour village nothing else.
Sounds like options to use Tactics are just the typical RNG options with 'X' chance of success and the other options are actually player enacted?? I hope.
Does the "Think of something else" option imply that there may be other options besides creating a distraction and breaking through the siege lines to reach the city? Does having a higher 'Tactics' skill offer different alternatives, maybe, such as sneaking small numbers of men and supplies in at a time?
Or does Tactics skill just determine how many (or few) troops you lose in the distraction?
Or does Tactics skill just determine how many (or few) troops you lose in the distraction?
