[parsehtml]<p><img class="frame" src="https://www.taleworlds.com/Images/News/blog_post_34_taleworldswebsite.jpg" alt="" width="575" height="290" /></p>
<p>Castles are perhaps one of the most iconic images that come to mind when people think of the medieval era. These large and seemingly impregnable structures dominated the landscape in which they stood and projected an image of power and authority that aimed to impress both a lord’s subjects and peers. In last week’s blog we looked at some of the tools of warfare that were used to overcome the defences of these magnificent medieval behemoths and talked about the different ways that players can approach sieges in Bannerlord. In this week’s blog we would like to discuss the thought process that goes into designing castles for the game, from the historical influences we use through to the gameplay related decisions we make, and show you how this all comes together to make a castle for the game.</p></br> [/parsehtml]Read more at: http://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/54
Dev Blog 05/04/18
- Thread starter Callum
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
inox_ionizer said:
Excellent point, I think a simple fix would be to increase food and water consumption in hostile territory and desertion , this should increase the deeper into the enemy territory you go, or the farther you are from friendly lands . Meaning castles would need to be captured to sustain large armies in enemy territory .
After reading DanAngleland's post it's obvious I made a writing error that I'll fix.
But essentially.
-The castle walls are unrealistically high. This is a bad thing, because it's unrealistic.
-The castle walls are too high, and this is a bad thing for gameplay, because it means that climbing a ladder, or to the top of a siege tower, is a much slower thing.
-It's a bad thing in general that taleworlds makes all it's buildings way too big.
But essentially.
-The castle walls are unrealistically high. This is a bad thing, because it's unrealistic.
-The castle walls are too high, and this is a bad thing for gameplay, because it means that climbing a ladder, or to the top of a siege tower, is a much slower thing.
-It's a bad thing in general that taleworlds makes all it's buildings way too big.
Innocent Flower said:
google can fix that for you if you really think that medieval/ancient walls were small
dont confuse them with cannon age designs
and as they only showed a couple castles so far, it is not like you know the design of all forts in the game
Innocent Flower said:
climbing the ladder could be one of the most dramatic and tense moments in a siege, while you try to survive in a vulnerable position with all sorts of enemies trying to kill you.
Castles have many uses.
Firstly, it's a safe. It's where the local lord keeps his treasure so it won't get robbed easily. It's also his home, where he and his family can sleep in peace without fear of being murdered or attacked, especially if he's unpopular with the local peasants.
I'm not sure Bannerlord will really take these two basic functions into account, though, as they might well be abstracted into other game mechanics (which would be a shame). In the game, the primary function of castles is probably to give players a fun/interesting environment for fighting in (certainly not what they were for in reality!) so there is a potential clash there between what the game wants them for and what is actually useful in the 'real world' of the campaign.
In Warband, they didn't really serve much practical use at all, except as "objectives" for conquest - protecting your family and your treasure wasn't a thing at all in Warband, but it would be very nice if they were in Bannerlord. In Warband, a castle gave you status, it allowed you to hold prisoners, and it allowed you to save up a pool of 'spare' troops - that's about it. They didn't give you any real control over the surrounding area in strategic military terms.
Real castles were certainly useful in strategic military terms for a larger realm, as well as being safe-houses for the local Lord - they're a means of controlling territory and projecting power. Real castles were useful militarily because they were fortified bases for an army - an army on the march has to camp in the open, which isn't nearly so secure (again, Warband didn't simulate this). And if an invading army doesn't capture castles as it goes then it can't control it's supply lines, has nowhere to retreat to if caught out of position and is vulnerable to attack from all directions - controlling castles gives you security at your back, and lets you keep the war 'in front' of you (but again, Warband doesn't simulate any of this).
If castles in Bannerlord don't serve meaningful practical purpose in the way you control territory and fight wars, and they don't protect your family and treasure either, then all they are is a battlefield gimmick, essentially. By all accounts, siege battles in Bannerlord look a lot of fun, but in a campaign you don't want the battles to just be for fun - you want them to serve a real purpose in your campaign - and that's what I'm interested in seeing more information about.
Firstly, it's a safe. It's where the local lord keeps his treasure so it won't get robbed easily. It's also his home, where he and his family can sleep in peace without fear of being murdered or attacked, especially if he's unpopular with the local peasants.
I'm not sure Bannerlord will really take these two basic functions into account, though, as they might well be abstracted into other game mechanics (which would be a shame). In the game, the primary function of castles is probably to give players a fun/interesting environment for fighting in (certainly not what they were for in reality!) so there is a potential clash there between what the game wants them for and what is actually useful in the 'real world' of the campaign.
In Warband, they didn't really serve much practical use at all, except as "objectives" for conquest - protecting your family and your treasure wasn't a thing at all in Warband, but it would be very nice if they were in Bannerlord. In Warband, a castle gave you status, it allowed you to hold prisoners, and it allowed you to save up a pool of 'spare' troops - that's about it. They didn't give you any real control over the surrounding area in strategic military terms.
Real castles were certainly useful in strategic military terms for a larger realm, as well as being safe-houses for the local Lord - they're a means of controlling territory and projecting power. Real castles were useful militarily because they were fortified bases for an army - an army on the march has to camp in the open, which isn't nearly so secure (again, Warband didn't simulate this). And if an invading army doesn't capture castles as it goes then it can't control it's supply lines, has nowhere to retreat to if caught out of position and is vulnerable to attack from all directions - controlling castles gives you security at your back, and lets you keep the war 'in front' of you (but again, Warband doesn't simulate any of this).
If castles in Bannerlord don't serve meaningful practical purpose in the way you control territory and fight wars, and they don't protect your family and treasure either, then all they are is a battlefield gimmick, essentially. By all accounts, siege battles in Bannerlord look a lot of fun, but in a campaign you don't want the battles to just be for fun - you want them to serve a real purpose in your campaign - and that's what I'm interested in seeing more information about.
Designing my own castle like my world,The AI pathfinding system is very backward,So don't show up in time。Should the next blog is the weather system?
kalarhan said:Innocent Flower said:
google can fix that for you if you really think that medieval/ancient walls were small
dont confuse them with cannon age designs
and as they only showed a couple castles so far, it is not like you know the design of all forts in the game
Innocent Flower said:
climbing the ladder could be one of the most dramatic and tense moments in a siege, while you try to survive in a vulnerable position with all sorts of enemies trying to kill you.
Look at the picture again. A castle half the size would be a regular sized castle. Just because people could build walls and towers that high doesn't mean it was always a good idea. European castles of the time period just weren't that big; That castle is clearly excessive and it just means you'll need more defenders than you would with something more reasonable. It is obviously not a good thing to need more defenders in a castle. Ancient/classical buildings could be huge because their battles had vastly far more people involved (and they didn't really do castles but rather city walls and forts) but we're talking about fuedalism.
I'll happily wager that size isn't down to a "let's make this big because this castle is especially impressive" but rather "we need to make all the buildings supersized because we've done it to everything so far"
KhergitLancer80
Banned
+Innocent Flower
Armies of medieval european kingdoms also didnt consist of 600 men in total
Edit:
Btw since I opened the topic I think TW should make it so that when two kingdoms are at in a war both sides should gather all of their forces and attack at each other instead of lords fighting 1vs1 or etc.
A king should have 250 men and with other lords it should be sth like 500 at max so in such a battle there would be 1000 men which is the expected(aimed) limit of the engine.
I really dont want that more troops joining stuff we had in WB it was preventing me to do tactics.
Armies of medieval european kingdoms also didnt consist of 600 men in total
Edit:
Btw since I opened the topic I think TW should make it so that when two kingdoms are at in a war both sides should gather all of their forces and attack at each other instead of lords fighting 1vs1 or etc.
A king should have 250 men and with other lords it should be sth like 500 at max so in such a battle there would be 1000 men which is the expected(aimed) limit of the engine.
I really dont want that more troops joining stuff we had in WB it was preventing me to do tactics.
But the defenders would have a small army, since it would be less mouths to feed in the case of a siege.KhergitLancer80 said:+Innocent Flower
Armies of medieval european kingdoms also didnt consist of 600 men in total
I agree that this castle is out of proportion, but since in gameplay terms both armies will be quite big, it is in some ways a necessesity. It is probably intended to allow for the armies to spread out and provide for tactical choises. (I am geussing this is meant to be a bit like total war sieges)
the point of the castle was that you didnt need much men to defend a point, and as said, a seige means you want less men to take up food.Furthermore- Concern yourself with construction. Overly tall walls require more resources and slow down the completion of a castle significantly.KhergitLancer80 said:+Innocent Flower
Armies of medieval european kingdoms also didnt consist of 600 men in total
Battles were actually pretty rare IRL. Wars were mostly done with skirmishes. Nobody wants to commit to anything they have a good chance of losing. I do wish the AI lords were better at communicating, but all in all the time is how you fail, especially considering how there are so many agressive kingdoms in every direction.
Would taller walls require any more defenders? I don't see why that would be... In fact, building the castle outwards, i.e. adding more walls/towers/etc. and building the footprint, would require more soldiers as now you have more area to cover, but I don't see how taller walls could require more men... actually, I would think it would require less men, as you have a lot more time/ability to cut down the attacking troops.
FBohler said:
You only repeat yourself, and the moment you come up with something valid, you let us know, ok?
KhergitLancer80
Banned
No need to offend each other people, we all are here for the good of this game.
I dont know how you guys would stay sane among my gov's supporters
KhergitLancer80 said:+Innocent Flower
Armies of medieval european kingdoms also didnt consist of 600 men in total
The vast majority of the time only a small proportion of a kingdom's potential fighting population would be mustered, so I think in fact that 600 men might be rather generous for many medieval kingdoms on campaign. Obviously it varies over time and place, but there are, for example, accounts of a 300 man army in northern Britain riding south to fight another kingdom's army (that was in the dark ages). The armies of Harold Godwinson and William the Bastard may have been approximately 10,000 men each give or take a few thousand, but such forces were the exception rather than the rule, and these were two relatively large and militarily organised kingdoms compared to others in Europe at the time (there isn't always a system for mustering thousands of peasantry as soldiers). Even in the huge armies the core of the fighting force was the elite, 'professional' warriors who made a living from fighting and who would often be the only forces a king would take with him on smaller campaigns (such as the 300 I mentioned above).
When it comes to sieges, the numbers are even smaller; from what I've read having far fewer than 100 men in a castle garrison during a siege was the norm rather than the exception. Also, I think Innocent Flower is right about the tendency for a lot of M&B buildings to be at the extreme end of believability in terms of height.
KhergitLancer80
Banned
+DanAngleland
The thing I am trying to say is that even though this game is heavily inspired on 6-11th centuries Europe-North Africa-M.East, because of the technical difficulties they already have to ''disobey'' to some things that go for real life and history.
So what I am trying to say is that, since that magic is already broken, we may just assume this is the way this alternative universe(Calradia) developed.
Just like we(at least me personally) bind the reason of so less men in armies to Calradia being a waaaay less populated place than Europe in those ages.
+Rainbow Dash
I would see you if the game was cancelled because of that particular persons politics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Btw I am not fine with this mini map thing on Cpt. mode.
It reveals where your troops are to the enemy.
Maybe I want to take a stealthy approach why are you preventing me ?
The thing I am trying to say is that even though this game is heavily inspired on 6-11th centuries Europe-North Africa-M.East, because of the technical difficulties they already have to ''disobey'' to some things that go for real life and history.
So what I am trying to say is that, since that magic is already broken, we may just assume this is the way this alternative universe(Calradia) developed.
Just like we(at least me personally) bind the reason of so less men in armies to Calradia being a waaaay less populated place than Europe in those ages.
+Rainbow Dash
I would see you if the game was cancelled because of that particular persons politics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Btw I am not fine with this mini map thing on Cpt. mode.
It reveals where your troops are to the enemy.
Maybe I want to take a stealthy approach why are you preventing me ?
