[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
Cynwulf
Recruit
For Battania consider incorporating Brochs and Crannogs both of which were early iron age fortifications used in areas of the british isles dependent on terrain and region. Hill forts are great but they do not work well on top of a huge rock jutting from the ocean or for fortifications on an island weather natural or man made in the case of Crannogs.
DanAngleland said: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.
Very much so. Most of the conflicts were actually sieges with a few hundreds of men max. The larger battles (mostly royal ones) would have those kind of numbers...the subject is very debatable and there is no consensus amongst historians, but most tend to agree the numbers found in the chronicles are often exaggerated. Gamewise, I think the usual number of troops each lord has in Warband is quite good and reflects the historical proportion. Considering an average of 100 men per lord, in order to have a 10k army you'd need around 100 lords - and that would be only in the most epic battles.
I also agree that walls are just...pharaonic...and man, they do look awesome! But if Bannerlord is inspired on the XI century, we shouldn't have Theodosian walls here and there. That would be more befitting to the classical antiquity instead. Not a problem to have a few of them, but this shouldn't be the norm.
Also, regarding ladders - we can't forget that the context in which ladders had been used also included commando-like operations, especially at night. Building a ladder is a menial task of sorts, and can be done quickly and quietly. There are references of castles being taken by a small amount of men using these subterfuges, and I feel that is something TW could explore.
I think this blog, is a proof of how easy it is to make a mod!
Dennonius said:
as long it is hard to get to last stage (level 3), in terms of resources and building time, so the world doesn't become full of huge fortress all around, it is fine.
remember that having 3 levels for each location also means creating 3x the scenes for them, which is a lot of work, now that it includes every town and one castle for each village.
I rather have 3 stages with plenty of variety between locations, than 10 stages that repeat themselves over and over again (clone castles/towns).
Honestly I'd quite like a system where you could just dump a fort anywhere, and maybe it could become a castle and take a village under it's control. I imagine that'd wrech path finding, but It's a hope.
Still. It's very easy to imagine more than three teirs of castle, or even tiers for different aspects of the castle (Keep, outer walls,inner walls, gatehouse etc all of different levels) So long as bannerlord supports the potential of such things, they don't need to go into doing it themselves, it'd just be good for the all-important mods.
I believe it should be possible to destroy or dismantle a fortification. One thing I'd like to see is a main fortification which you build for hopeful permanence, and then a sort of "fortifying" temporary upgrades; You put wooden stakes in the ground,you lay obstacles in your yard, you augment your stone battlements with wooden shelters, you fill the next cauldron with something nasty and perishable.
All these things might be consumed or broken in the next battle or maybe they'd just be inconvenient for people living in the fortification.
Still. It's very easy to imagine more than three teirs of castle, or even tiers for different aspects of the castle (Keep, outer walls,inner walls, gatehouse etc all of different levels) So long as bannerlord supports the potential of such things, they don't need to go into doing it themselves, it'd just be good for the all-important mods.
I believe it should be possible to destroy or dismantle a fortification. One thing I'd like to see is a main fortification which you build for hopeful permanence, and then a sort of "fortifying" temporary upgrades; You put wooden stakes in the ground,you lay obstacles in your yard, you augment your stone battlements with wooden shelters, you fill the next cauldron with something nasty and perishable.
All these things might be consumed or broken in the next battle or maybe they'd just be inconvenient for people living in the fortification.
Everything looks very good, with one exception. As always, game developers and movie makers tend to ignore the fact that there was life in the immediate vicinity of the castle, as opposed to a huge, unused wasteland around a mighty fortress. There need to be fields, woodcutter huts, barns, endless stacks of hay all around and what not. The fact that life is missing around the castle ignores its fundamental purposes: ruling and protecting the people and the lands around it. So far, it looks like there is nothing for that castle to protect other than grasshoppers.
I agree with you, and I don't want to undermine a point that I very much agree with, but sometimes someone'll whack a castle in a place that has a strategic advantage but not much of a working presence.
I don't know how your gov supporters run things, but if they only rehash a single irrelevant, unproven complaint about a group of opposition, further insisting that all input from this opposition must be entirely ignored on princible regardless of it's potential value, then asylum'd be a pipe dream.KhergitLancer80 said: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
Revverie
That seems pretty valid to meInnocent Flower said:
FBohler said:
But realism is neither gritty nor dull, so that point is really not valid
They are really staying away from that campaign map. Interesting blog non less.
Hopefully everything is coming along nicely.
Hopefully everything is coming along nicely.
Baltic Marauder
Veteran
FBohler said:
But if lack of realism makes the game less fun, shouldnt we point that out?
Revverie
Nobody disagrees with that, there has been a thread about this and a lot of us stated that realism is at the perfect state already, nobody gives bollocks about a realistic ballista, a reallistic ballista looks pretty bad and un fun if you ask me tooBaltic Marauder said:
Baltic Marauder
Veteran
Why does it have to be zero sum? There are tons of features they could add to make the game both more realistic and more fun. The OP was just calling for shorter ladders. How about damage when you get knocked off your horse? Are those things really less fun?
Revverie
Well I'm not getting in detail, I didn't even know where the discussion started xd, but damage when you fall from your horse makes both sense and would be fun indeed. Investigate 3/11Baltic Marauder said:
