[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
Dev Blog 08/11/18
- Thread starter Callum
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
A question for Abdullah Nakipoğlu (Animator and Motion Capture Artist) - the modding blog listed a number of Bannerlord tools that Taleworlds would make available to the community, please can you tell us what you use the Model/Animation viewer for and which other third party software you use?
A question for Abdullah Nakipoğlu (Animator and Motion Capture Artist):
Can you explain us how the properties of the different weapons (length, weight, mass distribution, inertia - inverse kinematics) affect the different animations of the pc -npc both on foot and mounted?
----
How it affects the speed and weight of one weapon when parried by another (example parry sword vs sword)... the animation reflects inertia?... there will be a feeling that the weapon has weight?
Can you explain us how the properties of the different weapons (length, weight, mass distribution, inertia - inverse kinematics) affect the different animations of the pc -npc both on foot and mounted?
----
How it affects the speed and weight of one weapon when parried by another (example parry sword vs sword)... the animation reflects inertia?... there will be a feeling that the weapon has weight?
Duh said:It was likely not said at all. AFAIK the GC demo lacked a bunch of WIP shaders, because they didn't want to create a GC version for them. I think an example is the water in towns (at least in the one I visited). NPC also rightly pointed out the matter of GI.xdj1nn said:It was likely a liecherac said:
Anyways, please can the spam/baiting. (This refers to your now removed lieslies response to NPC.)
It wasn't baiting, I was being humorous trying to show that my post was a joke, and I was not serious, but sarcasm by text is something hard to grasp, so I understand the removal and all
@xdj1nn
[Sarcastically]You could use brackets[/Sarcastically].
[Sarcastically]You could use brackets[/Sarcastically].
Or the classic /s at the end.
Or smileys
Roccoflipside said:Or smileys
I usually use this one (
) for sarcasm/irony/joke... for me it's the perfect emoticon to represent this meme:
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.
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.
quicksilver67 said:
Feudal England is the wrong reference for Bannerlord, which derives inspiration from Byzantium.
Bannerlord is set 200 years before Warband. Players who followed Warband's lore will recall that Calradia was once an empire, which declined and was supplanted by successor states -- tribal confederations-turned-kingdoms -- much as the Western Roman Empire was supplanted by early medieval states. Bannerlord lets you join those rising kingdoms at an early stage in their development, and it also lets you join the Empire. Weapons, armor, clothes and architecture should date from around 600 to 1100 AD, rather than the 13th century...
...Few events in history convey as much epic tragedy as does the collapse of a great imperial power, so we want to let the player experience some of that, and perhaps give a small sense of what it would have been like to live through, say, the decline of Rome. Imperial declines can be a very disorienting, agonizing time, and societies are often less likely to pull together to face the challenges than they are to fall into recriminations over what went wrong.
https://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/8
Militarily, the Empire's troop types and equipment is drawn from ninth to eleventh centuries, a period of Byzantine resurgence. The Byzantines' best-known troops are their cataphracts, fully armoured cavalry who rode into battle with an arsenal of lance, sabre, and long-handled mace. But the Byzantines also had a full complement of medium and light cavalry, plus spearmen and skirmishers, not to mention whatever mercenaries they could get. They were masters of combined arms, authors of military manuals like the Strategikon that counselled patience over glory-seeking, pioneers of a more scientific approach to warfare.
https://steamcommunity.com/games/261550/announcements/detail/2740874571647160868
It's also worth noting that quicksilver's description of the real-life role of castles does accurately reflect towns in Warband:
Castles in Warband operate like the forts quicksilver describes. They don't offer any significant economic benefits and they're typically tied to only one nearby village, but they are usually positioned to offer a tactical advantage to defenders so they can be as much of a nuisance to invaders as possible. Again, the difference is mostly in name only. One could even argue that what Warband calls castles are just precursors to towns, and the game happens to take place before the boom.
Towns in Warband have a keep, sometimes even with a wall between it and the city's curtain wall. The ownership of nearby villages are tied to the towns, implying that control of the town confers control of the surrounding area. Towns are also the trade & production centers in Warband. The only difference between quicksilver's description and the reality of a town's role in Warband is in the name.quicksilver67 said:
Castles in Warband operate like the forts quicksilver describes. They don't offer any significant economic benefits and they're typically tied to only one nearby village, but they are usually positioned to offer a tactical advantage to defenders so they can be as much of a nuisance to invaders as possible. Again, the difference is mostly in name only. One could even argue that what Warband calls castles are just precursors to towns, and the game happens to take place before the boom.
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.
One thing I miss in Bannerlord (knowing that the castle builder was eliminated) is the constructive and structural evolution of the fortifications. A castle (apart from what has already been said about the 3 phases of updating the walls) should be able to become a walled city. Many cities were created in this way, first a fortress to house the nobility and later endowing it with walled extensions by sectors in the manner of neighborhoods.
One thing I miss in Bannerlord (knowing that the castle builder was eliminated) is the constructive and structural evolution of the fortifications. A castle (apart from what has already been said about the 3 phases of updating the walls) should be able to become a walled city. Many cities were created in this way, first a fortress to house the nobility and later endowing it with walled extensions by sectors in the manner of neighborhoods.
Ávila (Spain)
Peñiscola (Spain)
Morella (Spain)
in Spain we know of walls and fortifications too
Peñiscola (Spain)
Morella (Spain)
in Spain we know of walls and fortifications too
"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.
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.
metafa said:
Or just show some self-control? wouldn't that be by far the most practical solution?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Do not look here said:
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.
BIGGER Kentucky James XXL said: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.
And they're going to have greater difficulty targeting the attackers on that first narrow battlement because there are no machicolations on the second battlement. The defenders would have to move to a different section of the wall to have LoS on the attackers.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Article
