Dev Blog 09/05/19

Currently viewing this thread:

In the words of Omar Bradley, “Amateurs talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics”. So buckle up for some serious professional talk, because in this week’s blog we'll be covering supply in Bannerlord -- both how to get the food and other materials that you need, and how to deny them to your enemy!


Read more at: http://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/109
 

Tork789

Knight at Arms
WBNWWF&SM&BVC
We will talk a little more about what to expect from us at Gamescom in a future blog, as well as, discussing our plans for the upcoming beta.
This phrase from the previous blog made me think you're gonna reveal something about the upcoming beta this time. I feel disappointed now.
 

Davic

Master Knight
WBNW
Hopefully targeting the enemy's resources and economy has greater effects on the quality of their army than it did in Warband. It seemed like the only way to noticeable weaken the enemy before battle in Warband was to lower the number of fiefs a lord had.
 
BIGGER Kentucky James XXL said:
Every time this influence system pops up it's completely out of place and nonsensical. It's like a mana system from a bad paradox game. Why would a commander deny supplies to a part of his army just because the leader hasn't grinded enough influence yet?
Once an abstract variable is well integrated into other game systems, you'll like it for gameplay reasons. You can nitpick about realism just about everywhere, but if it's intuitive enough, you'll get over it.
I think they nicked influence from TLD. I also hated it there, as I believe in minimalist streamlined design, but the team was against dropping it. Ironically, it was me that tried to find and implement ways to earn and spend it, just to justify its existence more.
 
I had already written a post about logistics, suggesting a system to implement it in a simple way but that is vital for armies war strategies on the map.
title of topic: Logistics and Supply Lines
I will insert the link and in the spoiler the content of the link, so as not to fill the whole page.
I hope that the developers but also you of the forum can read it and maybe discuss it, or maybe some modder could do us a little thought.

Here is the link:
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,381046.0.html

INTRODUCTION:
As someone has pointed out, it happens in M ​​& B that entire armies of a faction turn their attention to a small castle of an opposing faction located on the opposite side of the world just because its garrison is with few men, perhaps in relation to some recent evidence which has decreed this condition.
It is clear that a large army or more armies must move along the map and therefore must bring food for humans.
At stake, in a few words, we fill the food inventory and then we start with the attack.
This leads the enemy to defend himself in his territory by coming to us from the front, or, if he can avoid us, to go to our territory to create problems.
But it is difficult to happen because since we started a lot ahead of them, we could have time to do what we have to and get back in time to stop them.
In reality, the armies that march on the front must have a constant supply line of provisions, weapons and more.
So I thought: why not make sure that a LINE OF SUPPLY is established between the point in the map where you are and the last place visited?

HOW THE IDEA IS IMPLEMENTED
(help me to improve it if you like it, in this way, even if in the original game there is not because the times do not allow it, some good soul of a modder, can resume the idea and make the  game more strategic even in the campaign map.)


Imagine the game map in which you move the horse with your pg and around you have the towns / villages / castles and in sight you pass the npc or groups of them, which leave their tracks.
in short .. the usual screen!
enter the city and exit.
go on for a few seconds and you will see behind you a trail that connects you to the city you left behind.
That's your supply line!

Now that you have a clearer picture, let's go specifically.

The strength of this line depends on the place you left behind and allows you not to use the food in the inventory or slow down the consumption, which without the line, suffers quite heavily. (Clearly are parameters to be evaluated, I give only the qualitative idea).
It also affects the MORALE OF THE BATTLE and the QUALITY OF TROOPS.

In this way, an attacking army is forced to attack from several fronts to cover a larger area and prevent the enemy from circling the army to hit the supply line and prevent the advance.

On the other hand, the attacker will also hit the enemy supply line to benefit from the advantages.
one steals part or all of the booty.
Specifically, I would tie this result to the type of attack that is performed.
If you damage the places where these resources are stored.
For example, the use of flaming arrows is likely to cause a chariot to fire.

DEEPENING these lines:
1) the support capacity(goods/ day or goods/week or goods/month and boost of morale) depends on the color of the line and its length, depending on the last place visited and the distance from it.
- Better is the city / castle / village left behind, more towards red is the color of the line, which symbolizes the ability to support.
- the greater the distance from the city that has been left, the longer the line will be and its color will turn towards a colder color.
as with the tracks on mount & blades that turn from red to blue.
A less warm color leads to a less efficient line, due to the difficult management of the supply, given the distance.
We see the line, but not the enemy, at least not seeing the conveyor belt along it (with the spotting ability).
tracking and spotting skills here play a nice role for the enemy.
the quality of the line increases the likelihood that it will be discovered even if no wagon runs through it if the enemy has enough high tracking ability.


HOW TO MAKE THE LINE IN PRACTICAL TERMS?
The reference city has a warehouse with goods, depending on its economy,that can empty or falls below a threshold such that the city decides to interrupt the line.
clearly there are the caravans escorted by the guards, who transport the goods.

HOW MUCH NEED TO TRANSPORT?
These goods reintegrate those in the inventory (food and ammunition).
But clearly travel can not be done to transport the right (which is equal to the consumption of resources between a caravan and the next) and leave half empty wagon, so the player should be given the choice of the amount of goods between discrete values ​​(therefore dimensions of the small / medium / large style wagon or how you prefer to break them down).
So you can choose if you get more than necessary or less than necessary, or at least manage the number of party members to stay on the value you prefer.
The higher the quality of the goods and the quantity, the greater will be the men involved in escorting the caravan.
The amount of excess food involves a boost of morale, even if that food is not present in the inventory.
Also the amount of arrows and darts in excess involves a boost in morale.
If it is smaller, nothing strange happens, it simply consumes part of that inventory.
In this regard, clearly every commodity is exhaustible, as well as arrows and darts.
the caravans travel along the line until they reach the prefix destination (the party, passing from one camp to another).

DEPARTURE TIME:
does the caravan leave weekly? or daily? or maybe monthly?
This is to be decided, I would like to leave this choice to the player, but must also involve some consequences.
The ability to change the departure times of the wagons means that attacking them while traveling, for the enemy is more difficult because he can not know these times without some features that allow it.
So I think that the change in timing should take time and money, as well as the possibility that this schedule of change of timing is discovered by the enemy.
I assume that someone has to carry the order, in the form of a mission, and if he is caught by enemy explorers, the risk is that the timing change does not happen and that the next load is likely to end up in enemy hands.
Or a spy can take the place of the messenger, or the same can betray his faction and deliver a fake order.
All missions that could also be entrusted to us, or that we could create, if circumstances permit.

These caravans are however managed by people and as such they must also go to rest once tired .. they can not always stay awake, or am I wrong?
But we can not make them camp in the middle of the road they travel, as they risk being attacked by bandits or being intercepted by the enemy and have no defense.

In support of this line the camps / outposts come into play.

OUTPOSTS/CAMPS:
2) THEREFORE the support line must be built while traveling, practically building small temporary outposts (like camps).
We spend money,time and resources (wood and other stuff).
Maybe these camps can have different levels, so as to change their defenses and adapt them to different situations.
On construction time I can not say, maybe the different levels of camp can affect this variable.
The number of encampments affects the quality of the line.
The caravans can rest in these camps and then resume their journey to the next one, up to the destination, so that the goods, during the journey, is defended.
The camp that will hold the stocks will be chosen by the player.
It will also be able to divide them into percentages among the various camps instead of assigning them all to the camp closest to the front and the army (in case it is lost).
Each camp has therefore a warehouse that can be filled up to a certain point.


ATTACK ON A SUPPLY LINE:
A) IN OPEN FIELD:
the attack on a supply line in the open field, where there are no camps, requires a short time, such as to allow a defense attempt only to nearby armies arriving in time.

The attacker attacks the supply line, which is damaged until it is interrupted or until the defender fails to defend it.

HOW DOES THIS COME?
the attacker with his party goes to the transporter and starts the classic battle.
BUT THERE IS A TIMER as a function of the nearest defensive unit that in the map approaches the cart intended to protect it.
(it is not said that we can see the timer, but there is the same).
once the time has expired, the enemy appears on the battlefield at the point where he "should have come" and clearly the choice of what will happen depends on the player.
He can stay and fight or escape.
Depending on how damaged the goods and killed the guards will depend on the amount of the booty.

The attacker can decide whether or not to damage the goods based on the type of actions he takes.
if he throws a forest of burning arrows on the wagons, he risks burning everything (it will take many arrows, because it does not have to be easy).
He can also do it and then escape from the battle and slip away.
Strategic choices.

B)IN OUTPOSTS/CAMP:
attacking a supply line in an outposts / camp is different than attacking it in an open field.
It works similarly to a siege, with difficulty level depending on the garrison and the level of defenses.
In addition, the time timer granted before reinforcements from the map is shorter than in the open field.
clearly the goods are protected by a structure, so it is not damaged / obtainable without first conquering the place.


SUPPLY LINES IN RELATION TO RELATIONSHIP/FRIENDSHIP WITH TOWN/CASTEL/VILLAGES AND THEIR OWNER
as the user Terco_Viejo has suggested, the granting of permission to establish the line, or the efficiency of the same, must be linked to the relationship between the PG and the city / village / castle in question.
he also objected to the fatot that castles and villages should provide such support, so I thought to make the optional thing through a screen where you decide to which place or TYPE OF PLACE ASK FOR AUTOMATIC support.
so for example you can exclude villages and castles, except someone selected by us
It is clear that the support depends on the type of place, its economy and the relationship.
In this way my proposal binds to his objection without limiting any of the two.

the granting of the line as well as the relations with the places, I think the geopolitical condition must also be linked.
-Clearly if I am part of the faction A and you are not at war with anyone, I will hardly allow myself to establish such a line with the city of reference.
It is not excluded that it can be granted, but clearly without a specific reason that with regard to the wellbeing of the faction rather than the private one, this concession will damage the relations between the PG and the reference city until the concession is terminated.
-If instead we are at war as a faction, then it is much more likely to grant such support, with a higher tolerance threshold.
-if then we are not part of any faction, then it all depends on how much we and the city of reference are friends ... and clearly friendship must be high and the faction will evaluate our relationships with other factions and our social rank before to grant us this support.
-We could also not exclude the fact that the city of reference is so friendly that it gives us support even if the head of the faction is in disagreement, because maybe his relationship with the city is not the best ...
-In short, the conditions for preparing a revolt are within reach, if we are the one who receives the support.
-And if we are the king and someone is acting in that sense, then we must keep our eyes open on the city of reference and on those who make requests to it.

3) It is clear that each army will have its support line and it is clear that the city itself may not be able to meet the needs of many armies for a long time.
Assuming that there are 2 lines for 2 different armies and one of them loses its own, the latter can hook to that of his ally of the same faction going into one of the camps built by the latter (clearly consuming resources faster) .

SHELTER OR OUR BASE
In case you are not part of any faction and you are against someone, then an important role could take place in the "viking conquest" style shelter, evolving in base camp and maybe in castle / city, according to how the developers can decide to exploit it.
In short, an anchorage point to start from, to return to, to improve, to defend and keep an eye on.
The smaller it remains and the less it is followed, the less likely it is discovered.
It works like a mini-city and from there it is established a supply line with the same methods described above.
In this way even those who are not part of a faction can create an infrastructure that supports it but must also be defended or kept hidden.

IF WE ARE POOR
If we have no possessions, nor a shelter, which in effect can evolve to become a city / castle, then it will be the FORAGING ability to limit the consumption of food in the inventory to the constant number of party members reintegrating a part of the missing one.

These are all operations that do not take a long time, but that greatly influence the strategy on the game map, making cities, castles and villages much more important and their economies very important in order to support an army to invade a border territory .
In addition, the importance of a "marching formation" of the armies, which must protect the line or the lines, must also march trying to cover them and defend them from possible assaults on the shoulders or on the sides.

END.

I thank you for your attention, I hope you will continue this discussion in order to improve the system suggested here.
If so, when you answer, copy in your reply the parts that you share and then implemented with a spoiler style tab is what you want to change, and your change itself, so that those who want to read your arguments, will immediately to compare the change with the original and evaluate which one is more suitable.

if you consider the considerations expressed in the post worthy, then go to the link and support it.
:smile:
 

SAIF

Veteran
WBNWWF&S
very Nice blog it was great to know that foraging and raiding and counters raiding will play a significant role  in the campaign

for me, this means I can finally play like Tywin Lannister and send my dogs to burn the lands of my enemies :twisted:
 

Rhugar

Sergeant at Arms
Short but interesting.

Unless the UI is far from being done, in regards to these features. Why not give us a screenshot or two, that show these options or features  :???:
Not that the screenshot in the blog is bad, but it's just a guy with a sword held high next to a smoking village. Which I assume is just a raid.
 
Rhugar said:
Short but interesting.

Unless the UI is far from being done, in regards to these features. Why not give us a screenshot or two, that show these options or features  :???:
Not that the screenshot in the blog is bad, but it's just a guy with a sword held high next to a smoking village. Which I assume is just a raid.

I agree here. The blogs often give great details and information, but then provide only one screenshot that hardly shows off what they're talking about.
As the cliché goes "a picture paints a thousand words".
 
Rodrigo Ribaldo said:
BIGGER Kentucky James XXL said:
Every time this influence system pops up it's completely out of place and nonsensical. It's like a mana system from a bad paradox game. Why would a commander deny supplies to a part of his army just because the leader hasn't grinded enough influence yet?
Once an abstract variable is well integrated into other game systems, you'll like it for gameplay reasons. You can nitpick about realism just about everywhere, but if it's intuitive enough, you'll get over it.
I think they nicked influence from TLD. I also hated it there, as I believe in minimalist streamlined design, but the team was against dropping it. Ironically, it was me that tried to find and implement ways to earn and spend it, just to justify its existence more.

It cannibalises systems that already did the job. It's not like warband doesn't already have renown, right to rule, interpersonal relations, honour and a slew of other mechanics which are far easier to predict the outcomes of than a game-wide, inspecific system like influence.
 
BIGGER Kentucky James XXL said:
Rodrigo Ribaldo said:
BIGGER Kentucky James XXL said:
Every time this influence system pops up it's completely out of place and nonsensical. It's like a mana system from a bad paradox game. Why would a commander deny supplies to a part of his army just because the leader hasn't grinded enough influence yet?
Once an abstract variable is well integrated into other game systems, you'll like it for gameplay reasons. You can nitpick about realism just about everywhere, but if it's intuitive enough, you'll get over it.
I think they nicked influence from TLD. I also hated it there, as I believe in minimalist streamlined design, but the team was against dropping it. Ironically, it was me that tried to find and implement ways to earn and spend it, just to justify its existence more.
It cannibalises systems that already did the job. It's not like warband doesn't already have renown, right to rule, interpersonal relations, honour and a slew of other mechanics which are far easier to predict the outcomes of than a game-wide, inspecific system like influence.
That's exactly what I told the guys. Why make up a new, nebulous variable when you can make do with the old ones? What are then relations and renown for?
There's a certain kind of nerd that thinks modeling new behavior always requires new, exciting variables. Paradox has a lot to answer for, but so does AD&D and similar systems.
 

SenorZorros

Squire
The issue with a system like influence is that the devil is in the execution (as well as the details). IT can be implemented very naturally as a global "owe you one" where if you have much influence people are willing to give you things but if you get a reputation for not returning the favor (low influence) may be more hesitant. If you gain very low or negative influence they might even demand money in return because they don't trust they will get their efforts rewarded or simply refuse since you were supposed to bring your own supplies and have a reputation of mooching of the others. At the same time if it's poorly implemented you will get a stupid irrational mana cost which hampers you.

I do have to disagree that the old warband system was sufficient though, renown, honour and right to rule simply didn't fulfill the same value and to be honest weren't that interesting. While interpersonal relationships were both a tad odd and on rather untransparant. Also, a kingdom isn't ruled by doing fetch quests for your vassals.




 
I’m not a fan of the too-tall flag marking parties on Bannerlord’s campaign map. However, I’m now wondering if it’s lack of aesthetics has a game purpose. The screenshot shows a party with zero food raiding a village with a blue exclamation marked flag attached to its campaign map flag. Is this flagging the parties lack of food so the player can’t miss it? Is the party flag pole too-tall because it could theoretically carry multiple coloured warning markers at the same time, covering different problems/threats?

On influence, I’m happy to retain an open mind. Warband lacked any sophisticated factional politics. I expect influence will provide it and failure to maintain a bank of unspent influence risks the loss of a vote, by all clans within a faction, to eject your clan from the faction.
 

lolbash

Master Knight
WBNWVCWF&S
Considering that upping game difficulty will now do multipliers like increase their movement speed on world map. I don't think they are trying to simulate the real world with their influence mechanic, and thats a good thing. Real world stays in the real world, and games do what they are good at: being fun to play.
 
SenorZorros said:
The issue with a system like influence is that the devil is in the execution (as well as the details). IT can be implemented very naturally as a global "owe you one" where if you have much influence people are willing to give you things but if you get a reputation for not returning the favor (low influence) may be more hesitant. If you gain very low or negative influence they might even demand money in return because they don't trust they will get their efforts rewarded or simply refuse since you were supposed to bring your own supplies and have a reputation of mooching of the others. At the same time if it's poorly implemented you will get a stupid irrational mana cost which hampers you.

I do have to disagree that the old warband system was sufficient though, renown, honour and right to rule simply didn't fulfill the same value and to be honest weren't that interesting. While interpersonal relationships were both a tad odd and on rather untransparant. Also, a kingdom isn't ruled by doing fetch quests for your vassals.

The main problem I have is that it seems to be a currency you can literally spend rather than a value which changes over time. A king should never have zero influence, but in this game it seems like that can happen if you spend points all in one go. It means every influential action has to be accompanied by grinding, no matter your social, political, or military status.

The good thing about the honour system in warband was that it was your own honourable or dishonorable actions which changed it, so if you were honourable you would stay honourable until you did something dishonorable. If you could spend it like a currency and it fluctuated constantly, it would prevent there from being interesting passive benefits, such as other honourable lords liking you and people being less likely to refuse certain things.

Warband implemented most of its features quite poorly and there was definitely a lot of room for improvement, but adding sidequest mana is not one of them.
 
SenorZorros said:
The issue with a system like influence is that the devil is in the execution (as well as the details). IT can be implemented very naturally as a global "owe you one" where if you have much influence people are willing to give you things but if you get a reputation for not returning the favor (low influence) may be more hesitant.
Except that doing and receiving favors is a very personal business. Influence (I presume) is doing a favor for Lord X to extract a favor from Lord Y regardless of how much they hate each other.
They could have easily done this with relations - if you need a favor from Lord X, you need high enough relations and then you get a relations drop to pay for it. Inversely, you increase relations by doing them favors.
If it's faction-wide action, then you earn and spend your faction relations (or whatever it is in BL).
If it's worldwide, then renown comes into play.
 
This logistics sounds very right to me considering the scale of Bannerlord :grin:
I am sure many of you on the forum play Total War series as well given the similarities between MB and TW. So the latest TW title, three kingdoms, implements a rather simple version of logistics with a logistic measure, military supply that is influenced by lots of in-game factors, location of the army, commander, past battles, etc. As for MB, it is more like a higher resolution version of TW such that everything could be more detailed (not necessarily realistic). For example, you are concerned with every single soldier in your party instead of multiple unit blocks. The same applies to logistics. In MB, you are concerned with specific food/resources supplies as compared to a single measure.
 

JuanNieve

Knight at Arms
WBWF&SNWVC
Very nice blog. I hope when we are in a Lord's army, and he commanded us for search food or raide a village. We can let our slow troop's(infantry, archers) in the main army and out with our cavalry. Maybe we can use our influence to request some cavalry troops or horse to other lords.
 
It's important to get the right proportions of many, many different foodstuffs, so your soldiers will enjoy a balanced diet.
Too much fat? People may die of heart attacks during battles. Not enough fiber? Constipated soldiers lose morale and can't ride horses.
I hope they made the party supply system a nutrition mini-game that raises awareness.
 

John the Roleplayer

Sergeant Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
I trust that the influence system will have enough relevant features and modifiers to make it reasonable and authentic, as for instance a regular income of influence for held titles, or modifiers to influence cost based on personal relationships or past events.
 
Top Bottom