Dev Blog 08/11/18

Users who are viewing this thread

[parsehtml]<p><img class="frame" src="https://www.taleworlds.com/Images/News/blog_post_65_taleworldswebsite.jpg" alt="" width="575" height="290" /></p> <p>In the medieval world, castles and strongholds were not meant to be dwellings, but military tools that were strong and easy to defend, positioned in choke points to protect an important region or trade route. Villages, on the other hand, were the population centres - places where people would dwell and sleep after a long day of work in the fields or herding their cattle. Towns were somewhat a combination of the two, but they were also very different (and complex) places. They had walls for defence and a high population count, but they were much more than just dwellings and defensive structures: they were the most important places around. Towns are where kingdoms forged their real power. Artisans worked raw materials into quality goods and merchants turned them into wealth. Courts were established in towns, so they were also the heart and brains of any realm -- where politics, conspiracies, and plots took place.</p></br> [/parsehtml]Read more at: http://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/85
 
BIGGER Kentucky James XXL said:
Kentai said:
Terco_Viejo said:
As NPC99 rightly points out, I believed that quicksilver67 has taken the wrong reference. Clearly differentiating between city and castle (I see that you do) in this case the architectural design of both constructions are very well documented by Taleworlds.
sur-ts.jpg

blog_post_45_taleworldswebsite_02.jpg

I don't get why Taleworlds didn't put battlements facing the interior of that fortification. If the enemy were to breach the walls you'd still want your soldiers on the walls to have merlons for cover. Just a small gripe.

Very few fortifications have this. The whole point of a wall is to prevent anyone getting inside or deter them from even trying. Once someone's inside your castle you've basically lost. Even for big citadels with multiple layers of defence, the moment someone breaks through the first set of walls the entire garrison is intended to pull back to the previous set.

Carcassonne_cit%C3%A9_walls_towers.jpg

These two castles have several phases...I believe that (speaking of Bannerlord) if the first line of defense falls, behind the second wall there is a good chance of being victorious as defender unless the battlements of the towers are intercommunicated by the "adarve" (idk in english :roll:) and the attackers can make the pincer and surround you from above.
DMBYfTCW0AAIk68.jpg

maxresdefault.jpg

This castle from the 2016 siege seems to have only one layer of defense. (I wonder if we can follow the defenders and catch them inside the homage tower).
75jkrq.gif

14bannerlord.jpg

Cities, I believe, only have a defensive wall in the form of a ring.
blog_post_44_taleworldswebsite_02.jpg

blog_post_45_taleworldswebsite_02.jpg

siege.png

blog_post_45_taleworldswebsite_03.jpg

DfqpsA_XkAIq05W.jpg

bqGjeUm.png
 
Terco_Viejo said:
BIGGER Kentucky James XXL said:
Kentai said:
Terco_Viejo said:
As NPC99 rightly points out, I believed that quicksilver67 has taken the wrong reference. Clearly differentiating between city and castle (I see that you do) in this case the architectural design of both constructions are very well documented by Taleworlds.
sur-ts.jpg

blog_post_45_taleworldswebsite_02.jpg

I don't get why Taleworlds didn't put battlements facing the interior of that fortification. If the enemy were to breach the walls you'd still want your soldiers on the walls to have merlons for cover. Just a small gripe.

Very few fortifications have this. The whole point of a wall is to prevent anyone getting inside or deter them from even trying. Once someone's inside your castle you've basically lost. Even for big citadels with multiple layers of defence, the moment someone breaks through the first set of walls the entire garrison is intended to pull back to the previous set.

Carcassonne_cit%C3%A9_walls_towers.jpg

These two castles have several phases...I believe that (speaking of Bannerlord) if the first line of defense falls, behind the second wall there is a good chance of being victorious as defender unless the battlements of the towers are intercommunicated by the "adarve" (idk in english :roll:) and the attackers can make the pincer and surround you from above.
DMBYfTCW0AAIk68.jpg

maxresdefault.jpg

I believe adarve = wall walk.

This castle from the 2016 siege seems to have only one layer of defense. (I wonder if we can follow the defenders and catch them inside the homage tower).
75jkrq.gif

14bannerlord.jpg

However it plays in a Bannerlord siege, historically its keep was a second line of defence.

Cities, I believe, only have a defensive wall in the form of a ring.
blog_post_44_taleworldswebsite_02.jpg

blog_post_45_taleworldswebsite_02.jpg

siege.png

blog_post_45_taleworldswebsite_03.jpg

DfqpsA_XkAIq05W.jpg

bqGjeUm.png

In addition to a curtain wall, Bannerlord towns have a castle which can be directly accessed from the Town Menu.
 
metafa said:
"Our solution is to have a "siege state" for our scenes (which is easily achievable with our map editor). When a player deploys into a town that is under siege, they are greeted by deserted streets. The marketplace closes down, taking all of the colourful and fine goods with it, shops bar their doors and barricades are raised in the streets to help with defences."

Good!

"However, for those who are in a hurry, we group interactable NPCs together according to their roles for ease of access for players. And for those of you that don’t want to set a single foot in a town, we have the settlement menu, where you can access practically every function available in towns directly from the campaign map (barring a select few that we save for immersion)."

HORRIBLE! WTF. I HOPE you will be able to just deactivate that. ♥♥♥♥ing immersion breaking if I can just click on some picture instead of having to find the person in the town. HORR I BLE. Make it optional! Yes, even IF it is in itself optional for me to click on that person, please make it optional so that I can disable that whole functionality.

Yeah, we already had this argument once... Let's not bring it up again. Basically, it's way better to have that option so people who don't want to walk through every settlement every time don't feel alienated, therefore perhaps not buying/playing the game, rather than having an option that might make people who want to explore the city not do it. If you really want to walk through every city every time you can, and if you decide you need to remove the ability to click on the portrait, I'm sure it won't be that hard to mod out.


Kentai said:
Do not look here said:
Most walls are supposed to cover you from whoever is outside and remain vulnerable to whoever is inside. If the enemy breaks through the crew will move to the next tier of fortifications anyway, but in case only a segment of fortification was taken you don't want to provide free cover for enemy sitting there.

You wouldn't be giving them free cover. If they break through your first wall they're in the same situation once they're inside. With inward facing battlements you now have the enemy in a kill zone where they're surrounded by defenders on walls who still have cover. If the attackers manage to make it past that they have to climb up the stairs (another bottleneck) to have the free cover, but by then the defenders have escaped through a gatehouse on the battlement to an inner layer of defense, which would ideally be higher to target the enemies that have occupied the lower battlements through machicolations.

That's assuming the enemy doesn't take the wall first tho. If the enemy breaks through the gate or punches a hole in the wall and rushes through on the ground, inward facing merlons wouldn't hurt.  However, if the enemy takes a section of the wall using ladders/towers etc., now the merlons would give them cover against return fire from other walls, and especially any defenders on the ground.
 
The potential utility for infacing merlons is tiny, though. The area between two walls is designed to be a killzone and no attacker would want to find themselves there, and it's even less likely that someone caught there would want to trade fire with the defenders on the wall behind them. There's a reason you hardly ever see them, and why the defense of most fortifications is entirely outward-facing.
 
Roccoflipside said:
That's assuming the enemy doesn't take the wall first tho. If the enemy breaks through the gate or punches a hole in the wall and rushes through on the ground, inward facing merlons wouldn't hurt.  However, if the enemy takes a section of the wall using ladders/towers etc., now the merlons would give them cover against return fire from other walls, and especially any defenders on the ground.

The gatehouses that typically break the battlements into sections usually had stairs inside them specifically for this purpose. If the defenders thought they were going to lose the battlement they'd fall back into the gatehouses, bar the doors, and go up the stairs to the top of the gatehouse, where they'd have a height advantage against any attackers that had taken their battlement.
 
Good day! Question for new blog.

I like the combat system in Banerlord, whether it can become even more spectacular and beautiful in the future?

For example:
-parry strikes (rework chember mechanics);
-charge infantry;
-dodging strikes;
-pull the rider off his horse;
-the ability to cause damage with weapons without the use
of a strike (the rider came upon a javelin);
-squat.
 
AJIexander said:
Good day! Question for new blog.

I like the combat system in Banerlord, whether it can become even more spectacular and beautiful in the future?

For example:
-parry strikes (rework chember mechanics);
-charge infantry;
-dodging strikes;
-pull the rider off his horse;
-the ability to cause damage with weapons without the use
of a strike (the rider came upon a javelin);
-squat.

The animation of crouching is very necessary, more than anything to perform formations correctly; hopefully it will be available in Bannerlord.
I don't understand "the ability to cause damage with weapons without the use of a strike (the rider came upon a javelin);", can you explain?

edit
Look at the min 7:55, it seems to me that the pc is crouching...
 
Terco_Viejo said:
AJIexander said:
Good day! Question for new blog.

I like the combat system in Banerlord, whether it can become even more spectacular and beautiful in the future?

For example:
-parry strikes (rework chember mechanics);
-charge infantry;
-dodging strikes;
-pull the rider off his horse;
-the ability to cause damage with weapons without the use
of a strike (the rider came upon a javelin);
-squat.

The animation of crouching is very necessary, more than anything to perform formations correctly; hopefully it will be available in Bannerlord.
I don't understand "the ability to cause damage with weapons without the use of a strike (the rider came upon a javelin);", can you explain?

i think he mean lances when horse move in certain speed it can automatically hit without we use thrust action, and i guess that need a double edge effect like when enemy bracing the spear and we keep charging to enemy spear it can give damage due to the horse speed just like the lance mechanism.
 
Terco_Viejo said:
AJIexander said:
Good day! Question for new blog.

I like the combat system in Banerlord, whether it can become even more spectacular and beautiful in the future?

For example:
-parry strikes (rework chember mechanics);
-charge infantry;
-dodging strikes;
-pull the rider off his horse;
-the ability to cause damage with weapons without the use
of a strike (the rider came upon a javelin);
-squat.

The animation of crouching is very necessary, more than anything to perform formations correctly; hopefully it will be available in Bannerlord.
I don't understand "the ability to cause damage with weapons without the use of a strike (the rider came upon a javelin);", can you explain?

edit
Look at the min 7:55, it seems to me that the pc is crouching...

4e9071f84006f53b55efcb544f116c05.png
 
AJIexander said:
Terco_Viejo said:
AJIexander said:
Good day! Question for new blog.

I like the combat system in Banerlord, whether it can become even more spectacular and beautiful in the future?

For example:
-parry strikes (rework chember mechanics);
-charge infantry;
-dodging strikes;
-pull the rider off his horse;
-the ability to cause damage with weapons without the use
of a strike (the rider came upon a javelin);
-squat.

The animation of crouching is very necessary, more than anything to perform formations correctly; hopefully it will be available in Bannerlord.
I don't understand "the ability to cause damage with weapons without the use of a strike (the rider came upon a javelin);", can you explain?

edit
Look at the min 7:55, it seems to me that the pc is crouching...

4e9071f84006f53b55efcb544f116c05.png


A picture is worth a thousand words... understood with this frame  :fruity:
And yes crouch is real
5q633iX.jpg
 
Terco_Viejo said:
AJIexander said:
Terco_Viejo said:
AJIexander said:
Good day! Question for new blog.

I like the combat system in Banerlord, whether it can become even more spectacular and beautiful in the future?

For example:
-parry strikes (rework chember mechanics);
-charge infantry;
-dodging strikes;
-pull the rider off his horse;
-the ability to cause damage with weapons without the use
of a strike (the rider came upon a javelin);
-squat.

The animation of crouching is very necessary, more than anything to perform formations correctly; hopefully it will be available in Bannerlord.
I don't understand "the ability to cause damage with weapons without the use of a strike (the rider came upon a javelin);", can you explain?

edit
Look at the min 7:55, it seems to me that the pc is crouching...

4e9071f84006f53b55efcb544f116c05.png


A picture is worth a thousand words... understood with this frame  :fruity:
And yes crouch is real
5q633iX.jpg


Good!!! Thank you!)  Sory i bad speak english.
I recomend film "Outlaw king".
 
Orion said:
Pretty sure it's a Netflix original, for anyone interested. I planned on watching it this weekend.
A good continuation of the idea of ​​the film "Braveheart". I think you will like it. I would like that in Mount blade 2 there was the same gloomy atmosphere and the same spectacular battles)!
 
quicksilver67 said:
It is unfortunate how little understanding has gone into the role of strongpoints and castles. OP is only partically correct. A strongpoint is designed to fulfill a tactical purpose, whether as a Vietnam-era firebase or the hastily-thrown-up-fort of an Alemani warlord. They are designed to "resist" an initial attack or threat, to "delay" an enemy while troops are rushed to the area. The forts built along Hadrian's wall by the Romans are yet other examples of these purely tactical structures. The term "castle" must be viewed very differently. By the medieval period (particularly in a period of nation-building), the role of a castles had evolved into that of a strategic and logistic center, not only acting a defensive salient, but also providing an administrative center and a permanent living place for a resident lord and his retinue, with all the necessities of home. This happened fairly early on, during a period of nation-building. By 1284, advanced, concentric castles frequently had towns built around them, established contemporaneously, for strategic and logistic rather than tactical reasons. As in the Holy Land, castles constructed in Europe (and particularly as seen in Edwards Welsh campaign) were designed to become centers of commerce and military might for a large surrounding area. The development of these castles did not happen by accident, nor was a single stone placed without the realization of the impact a castle and its town would have on the surrounding region in the future. Medieval castles were not designed to delay an enemy, they were designed to completely stymie one. They were intended to provide the logistical base for a permanent military force while the fortified town growing up around them completed the conquest of a region more effectively than any military force could. It was a feudal world, and would remain a largely rural one for hundreds of years to come.   

The mention of cities as a center for civil matters is a complete misunderstanding of the period involved. Cities derive importance from the rise of the middle classes, and while that was certainly occuring in the 1200s, it had a long way to go. The English Magna Carta (which provides protections which eventually would apply to a growing middle class) was forced down the throat of an unpopular king by revolting barons, not peasants. All the civil functions that were executed by a town or city during the period, its offices and officers such as mayors, judges, courts, public works, policing, etc., all derived their power from appointment by, and approval of, the power of the lord of the castle. The truth of the matter is that cities growing up in the medieval period would never reach their full potential as centers of commerce, civilization, and importance until well after the castles and walls which protected them in their infancy were more of a hindrance than a necessity.

Failure to recognize this concept has led to a devaluation of the castle in the game. There are conceptual misunderstandings regarding strongpoints and castles which should have been remedied prior to implementation. There is a saying in the military "amateurs talk about tactics; professionals talk about logistics." IMO, Modders who have implemented the ability for the player to place their own "fortifications" and have made new industry possible in castles understand this. Judging from everything I have read about this extended development process (6 years now?), the developers STILL do not. And that's too bad.

Nerd! JK, thanks for the informative article.
 
Back
Top Bottom