[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
Nymeris said:
Yes, we all remember that poll, how it was terribly worded, how half the comments were about how terribly worded it was, and the other half was FBohler bumping it. But just let me dissect your post for you
Well, yes, evidently they do. Nobody's specified that they'd give their bollocks, but people have expressed interest in realistic seige equipment in at least the last dev blog, and it's not like everyone that cares about realism writes on this forum. It's really rude to suggest that people who care about x are "Nobody", and if you're not trying to be rude, then it's not like you're any better. If you can't read; don't write.
Why would anybody ask you? You clearly don't show any respect for the opinions of others, you've shown you lack knowledge and that your views are incredibly shallow and inane. Please; Articulate for us why a realistic looking balista would be un-fun. It's not like they were going for some exaggerated-badass-McNugget design and people want it toned down for realism. The argument for you people seems to only extend to "If we repeat ourselves a thousand times it'll catch on"
Cale
Sergeant
Rackie said:
I'm not sure why everyone thinks the Battanians only get wooden fortresses. The screenshots already show stone walls, built in concentric rings.
They're not saying the Battanians are going to be out done by other factions, just that they're taking the themes of Celtic design and applying them to a period they never reached.
Besides, the actual Celts used stone all the time. Large settlements and cities in France included stone walls prior to the Romans arriving and you can see hut circles from the bronze age in stone on Dartmoor and in the Hebrides that have survived millennia. There's even a whole family of large stone towers on the Hebrides that pre-date the Romans in some examples (may have religious significance rather then defensive but could easily be used by an artist to make towers).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broch
Finally, wooden castles didn't fall out of use because they didn't work or were burnt down (have you ever actually tried to set fire to non-treated wood without lighters, firelighters, gasoline etc? Now do it with people shooting at you while that wood is stuck in the wet, damp ground of northern Europe) but because they're a bastard to maintain. Wood rots, stone doesn't.
You can build a wood fortress in as little as a year with enough hands, but you'll have to replace broken/rotten timbers for the rest of your life.
Spend a decade building a stone castle though and you'll never need to touch the walls except for the odd post-siege repair.
Revverie
Because it looks ugly lol. Really just that, it looks ugly, and your opinions are all complains about lack of realism of an own lore setted game, it's like asking LOTR realism in things like I don't know, orcs?Innocent Flower said:
Last time I checked I was constantly complaining about the oxybeles in the last devblog. I can ensure you there are people who care about it.Nymeris said:
If anything it's the fake twig that looks ungodly. a correct ballista is quite an impressive machine. A springald would also be great especially because everyone forgets it exists.
because the game would be better if there is believable siege weaponry?Rainbow Dash said:
And last because people ignored it
I wouldn't want permadeath but there are actually people who like it as a feature because it raises the stakes. It's a pretty bad example.Rainbow Dash said:
Just stick to dysentery. that usually does the trick.
then again, a bit more emphasis on your camp and making your soldiers are comfortable and not sleeping in the mud might actually be interesting.
I think they're trolls, sometimes I wonder if they're one person with different accounts. It takes very little intelligence to separate things like "this device/structure is designed badly" or "this tree breaks the laws of trees" from " and "we want permadeath, dysentry and our denars should have weight" and these people continuously seem to be unable to make the distinction.
Oh cool, something sensible to discuss.
When I said batanians are doomed to fail, I meant it in a "well, the closest thing we have to battania in warband is forest bandits, who were explicitly said to have ties to them. Whilst most of the other factions survive and evolve into a warband full-faction counterpart. There's got to be a reason for batanians to be the loser, and a tech disadvantage is a good reason but doesn't make a hundred percent sense in the context of where batania is located.
Everything else you've said I agree with.
Cale said:
Oh cool, something sensible to discuss.
When I said batanians are doomed to fail, I meant it in a "well, the closest thing we have to battania in warband is forest bandits, who were explicitly said to have ties to them. Whilst most of the other factions survive and evolve into a warband full-faction counterpart. There's got to be a reason for batanians to be the loser, and a tech disadvantage is a good reason but doesn't make a hundred percent sense in the context of where batania is located.
Everything else you've said I agree with.
Innocent Flower said:
that may be the case if you let the faction alone or go against it, but if the player allies/controls them then all bets are off.
even if Warband is to be considered the canon version for Calradia lore, the player is not tied to it (sandbox).
from Battania blog
Enter Battania forest at your own risk
Wait, what?Baltic Marauder said:
realism has no correlation with fun, like at all. Graphics + historical accuracy adds an immersive element, but it's such a useless formula to rely on in the end, Kingdom Come: Deliverance is a perfect example.
In essence, what makes a game fun is a combination of things; but ultimately, what it comes down to is how re-playable the game is. How the initial gameplay leaves an impact on your overall experience. It's really hard to pin down honestly, but that's a good thing because that means fun is not a simple formula. A fun game needs to capture the player in the totality of the moment, and I hate how general that sounds, but its the only way I can put it when I ask the question:
"what makes a game fun?"
DoHope said:
Would you not state that MnB was more realistic game than most of it's counterparts?
I think failure of KC
in late game has nothing to do with realism or lack of it. I would point out that it is story driven game and it's storyline was repetetive and stale after few quests.But is it really? There are games that are very heavily story driven (say witcher2) which you generally play once (or twice making other choices and getting different content) and that's it.
All that said, it was great and engaging game. But if you know the story already, it becomes somewhat boring.
hiul
Sergeant at Arms
for the ballista look, if it can improve the realism i dont see why not, and i dont see it hinder gameplay, because it change graphic and animation but it still work the same.
the same with the hole and clunky look in other siege engine, but i think this one really need the improvement the most.
for the tonedown the wall scale, this one clearly will impact siege gameplay, and from the other opinion i see the wall is close enough to the realism except the scale, and this seems like a downgrade rather than improvement, beside i like big castle.
but either way is fine by me though.
the same with the hole and clunky look in other siege engine, but i think this one really need the improvement the most.
for the tonedown the wall scale, this one clearly will impact siege gameplay, and from the other opinion i see the wall is close enough to the realism except the scale, and this seems like a downgrade rather than improvement, beside i like big castle.
but either way is fine by me though.
On the issue of "realism", as long as the structures, equipment, machines, etc. look like they would be physically possible within the realms of the real world, it doesn't matter a jot whether they exactly replicate the 10th century medieval era or not. They can, but they don't have to - because Calradia is not the same place and it doesn't have the same history.
As long as the technology that the game's lore gives the civilizations allows it, then it's fine. If the siege engines look like they would work, and the people had the technology to build them like that, it doesn't matter whether or not they use the same designs as actual medieval siege engines. The same goes for the design of castles, armour, weapons.
To me, that's what "low fantasy" means: the world is like Earth in terms of its physical properties, and its inhabitants are humans - that way the player can relate more to the scenario and characters, giving them more immersion in the setting and environment. There are no dragons or magic or other supernatural entities at play - there's barely even any religion (there could be more without it being too fantastical, but if they choose to ignore that aspect of human culture then it doesn't matter very much, I don't think). The physics should behave as close to the real world as the developers can get it (for better immersion) and the characters should behave like real humans as far as possible for the same reason: that's where more realism is good. But real historical accuracy is only an inspiration, not a blueprint - it can be as close or as loose as the developers choose.
As long as the technology that the game's lore gives the civilizations allows it, then it's fine. If the siege engines look like they would work, and the people had the technology to build them like that, it doesn't matter whether or not they use the same designs as actual medieval siege engines. The same goes for the design of castles, armour, weapons.
To me, that's what "low fantasy" means: the world is like Earth in terms of its physical properties, and its inhabitants are humans - that way the player can relate more to the scenario and characters, giving them more immersion in the setting and environment. There are no dragons or magic or other supernatural entities at play - there's barely even any religion (there could be more without it being too fantastical, but if they choose to ignore that aspect of human culture then it doesn't matter very much, I don't think). The physics should behave as close to the real world as the developers can get it (for better immersion) and the characters should behave like real humans as far as possible for the same reason: that's where more realism is good. But real historical accuracy is only an inspiration, not a blueprint - it can be as close or as loose as the developers choose.
I don't care to have all the siege equipment, helmets and minutia of castles to be exactly like the real world, even if the basinet was clearly god's gift to armoured men. Honestly, if taleworlds has someone with the right inspiration, I'd love to see designs for helmets, weapons and fortifications that didn't exist in history but make sense in terms of what would be capable with technology. I'd probably get pumped up if they did that extensively; though things tend to go the easy route: the same shapes of blades popped up independently across the world after all.
There's logic to things though; Universally oversized buildings, embarrassing seige towers and third grade protection for rams...
I think "physically possible" alone is a stretch. For me it has to work.
You should consider how expensive something would be, and if people'd think it's worth it.
You should consider who made such an item and how it reflects on them ( I hate the tower/ram shown in the last blog and wouldn't be seen dead using it, unless i was playing an orc)
If it's going to be widely replicated, it needs to be a good idea. If something takes unnecessary risks or faults in design, it's not going to be popular. Not everything was perfectly designed, people made flawed things, but something popular should be tried,tested and refined.
It should roughly fit the technology shown, and there's a bit of nuance to that that I don't care to explain.
There's logic to things though; Universally oversized buildings, embarrassing seige towers and third grade protection for rams...
Rabies said:
I think "physically possible" alone is a stretch. For me it has to work.
You should consider how expensive something would be, and if people'd think it's worth it.
You should consider who made such an item and how it reflects on them ( I hate the tower/ram shown in the last blog and wouldn't be seen dead using it, unless i was playing an orc)
If it's going to be widely replicated, it needs to be a good idea. If something takes unnecessary risks or faults in design, it's not going to be popular. Not everything was perfectly designed, people made flawed things, but something popular should be tried,tested and refined.
It should roughly fit the technology shown, and there's a bit of nuance to that that I don't care to explain.
Innocent Flower said:
Well, to be fair, we don't exactly know how they will work yet. I agree that the tower looks a bit ropey with all the random bits of wood stuck around the sides, and the drawbridge part doesn't look particularly strong (is that what you mean?), but that isn't probably going to affect how they work in practice in the game. Similarly, the gaps in the roof of the battering ram look like they would let plenty of projectiles through to hit those operating it; but again that isn't necessarily the case and can probably be adjusted fairly easily to balance the gameplay.
How they look is much less important than how they work. But I'd agree that they should look like they would work! It'd be frustrating if, for example, it looks like you can fire arrows through gaps in a structure when in fact you can't.
Bonky!
Recruit
Rabies said:
+1
Perhaps the historical balista would make a good addition to the game, as a weapon of the empire. It could shoot faster and further for less of an arc. It would also require a higher skill in engineering and/or a companion/hired engineers. The weapon could incure other advantages and disadvantages.
This could double to show the empire's waning strength and superiority.
KhergitLancer80
Banned
Facebook user:
I took these from facebook.
So we already know that we will be able to hit multiple people in bannerlord and
this respond confirms that it only goes for human player.
I dont know you guys but I have always hated different rules going for the player and equal NPC characters.
Taleworlds:
I took these from facebook.
So we already know that we will be able to hit multiple people in bannerlord and
this respond confirms that it only goes for human player.
I dont know you guys but I have always hated different rules going for the player and equal NPC characters.
