[parsehtml]<p><img class="frame" src="https://www.taleworlds.com/Images/News/blog_post_27_taleworldswebsite.jpg" alt="" width="575" height="290" /></p>
<p>Last week, we had a look at the politics, history and personalities of the three imperial factions. Now we'll see how they'll be represented in-game.</p></br> [/parsehtml]Read more at: http://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/46
Dev Blog 15/02/18
- Thread starter Callum
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Dethikus
Banned
Gurkhal said:I can't speak for anyone else, naturally, but I would think that troops will be kind of similar but that they go more Byzantine than Western Roman Empire, for which I'm actually rather happy as I like Greek more than Latin. And honestly I expect it be more about political mechanics for each Imperial faction rather than the specific troop types that sets them appart. The split in three was after all only a short time ago and not triggered by ethnic differences within the Empire. Thus to much differention would, in my opinion, not make much sense.Dethikus said:I was a little worried about this, thinking they might just be 3 carbon copies of the same roster, hopefully not. At least with the minor factions it will mix things up a little. Also I remember a early concept art of a empire soldier, and it had a much more western roman look to it than the byzantine we've seen everywhere else. I wonder was it changed to be like the east, or will there be those western troops in there somewhere?
The concept art/troop I was talking about;
Yeah I realize they're going more Byzantine, I don't think I worded my question clearly enough. I'm asking if anyone has seen that troop in any screenshots or is it safe to guess they trashed that concept art and went a different route?
& yeah the split thing makes sense, but 3 factions with the exact same roster of troops isn't the coolest idea. The minor factions help make them stand out from each other at least. Also one specializing in a different role than others would help add some difference.
Gurkhal said:Dethikus said:Desuo said:It'll be interesting to see how the Imperial factions, both minor and major, react to one another in terms of combat and tactics. I feel as if the Western Empire, led by Garios, will have the most established military. I can't wait to get into the game and talk with these Emperors to see what they're all about
I was a little worried about this, thinking they might just be 3 carbon copies of the same roster, hopefully not. At least with the minor factions it will mix things up a little. Also I remember a early concept art of a empire soldier, and it had a much more western roman look to it than the byzantine we've seen everywhere else. I wonder was it changed to be like the east, or will there be those western troops in there somewhere?
The concept art/troop I was talking about;
I can't speak for anyone else, naturally, but I would think that troops will be kind of similar but that they go more Byzantine than Western Roman Empire, for which I'm actually rather happy as I like Greek more than Latin. And honestly I expect it be more about political mechanics for each Imperial faction rather than the specific troop types that sets them appart. The split in three was after all only a short time ago and not triggered by ethnic differences within the Empire. Thus to much differention would, in my opinion, not make much sense.
My thoughts exactly.
I think it makes complete sense for the factions to feel similar.
Dethikus said:Gurkhal said:I can't speak for anyone else, naturally, but I would think that troops will be kind of similar but that they go more Byzantine than Western Roman Empire, for which I'm actually rather happy as I like Greek more than Latin. And honestly I expect it be more about political mechanics for each Imperial faction rather than the specific troop types that sets them appart. The split in three was after all only a short time ago and not triggered by ethnic differences within the Empire. Thus to much differention would, in my opinion, not make much sense.Dethikus said:I was a little worried about this, thinking they might just be 3 carbon copies of the same roster, hopefully not. At least with the minor factions it will mix things up a little. Also I remember a early concept art of a empire soldier, and it had a much more western roman look to it than the byzantine we've seen everywhere else. I wonder was it changed to be like the east, or will there be those western troops in there somewhere?
The concept art/troop I was talking about;
Yeah I realize they're going more Byzantine, I don't think I worded my question clearly enough. I'm asking if anyone has seen that troop in any screenshots or is it safe to guess they trashed that concept art and went a different route?
& yeah the split thing makes sense, but 3 factions with the exact same roster of troops isn't the coolest idea. The minor factions help make them stand out from each other at least. Also one specializing in a different role than others would help add some difference.
No, I haven't seen any direct screenshots.
I would think that the "frontiersmen" minor faction will be your best bet as they would seem to represent the Germanization of the Western Roman Empire during its later centuries. I think they may have a more Western Roman feel to them if that's what you're looking for.
White Lion said:
I think 50% sounds fair.
If we would talk about history mass routs happened very frequently, and not routing was the exception rather than the norm.
The mass routs often started as early as soon as one side noticed they were losing more men than the other, and that could be as early as 10-20% casualties.
Most soldiers who died did not die fghting, they died routing. That's where the army lost most men.
Just pointing out Callum said they have not yet decided whether they will attend Gamescom this year, and all the info posted in the other thread was from 2017, so we really have no idea about that. Anyway, as many people have been clamoring for more gameplay footage, if they were to attend perphaps that would be their reason, to show a good section of gameplay footage to a large audience, but that's just speculation at this point.
As far as routing troops, I agree that most people died during the rout not the battle, but I'm not sure that would make the most fun gameplay. I enjoy sticking to history and realism when possible, but I wouldn't want every battle being thirty seconds of fighting and three minutes of chasing down running enemies. It seems like shock, such as cavalry charges and the like, play a large role in determing this, which is cool as it requires you to use certain tactics to break the enemy rather than just having better troops (or putting friendly damage lower so your opponents die more quickly).
As much as I would love to hear a release date from TW, at this point I would rather wait and hear an official, definite date. They've given us vague goals before, and weren't able to meet those goals (nothing wrong with that, stuff happens all the time), but they have yet to give us a hard date because they aren't done with their product yet. When it's ready they'll let us know, and hopefully it will be so amazing that we'll all (even those saying they're "done with the game" or whatever) can't pass.
As far as routing troops, I agree that most people died during the rout not the battle, but I'm not sure that would make the most fun gameplay. I enjoy sticking to history and realism when possible, but I wouldn't want every battle being thirty seconds of fighting and three minutes of chasing down running enemies. It seems like shock, such as cavalry charges and the like, play a large role in determing this, which is cool as it requires you to use certain tactics to break the enemy rather than just having better troops (or putting friendly damage lower so your opponents die more quickly
).As much as I would love to hear a release date from TW, at this point I would rather wait and hear an official, definite date. They've given us vague goals before, and weren't able to meet those goals (nothing wrong with that, stuff happens all the time), but they have yet to give us a hard date because they aren't done with their product yet. When it's ready they'll let us know, and hopefully it will be so amazing that we'll all (even those saying they're "done with the game" or whatever) can't pass.
I mean, all the dead soldiers makes you wonder about the Calradian population and how they are able to replenish armies so fast but still, its a lot better than soldiers routing all the time. We want to fight battles. That is the main selling point of the game afterall.
Roccoflipside said:As far as routing troops, I agree that most people died during the rout not the battle, but I'm not sure that would make the most fun gameplay. I enjoy sticking to history and realism when possible, but I wouldn't want every battle being thirty seconds of fighting and three minutes of chasing down running enemies. It seems like shock, such as cavalry charges and the like, play a large role in determing this, which is cool as it requires you to use certain tactics to break the enemy rather than just having better troops (or putting friendly damage lower so your opponents die more quickly
Yes I know. Which is why I think 50% is a nice number, at least for the peasants. This will make them unreliable and not suitable to form a great army. which gives yet another reason to go with quality over quantity. Seeing how armor doesn't give as huge of an advantage as it did in real life, I think this is a fair compromise to increase the cost effectiveness of high-tier troops.
It is also worth to notice that routing wouldn't work as in real life anyway, since battles in real life lasted quite a long time considering how low the casualties were. Because real life peasants would not be too keen on actually attacking the enemy. Imagine you're in a formation, standing with you spear and shield. You feel safe and protected. Why would you open yourself up to the enemy to attack? I imagine the frontline battles, when not involving mercenaries and trained soldiers, to be pretty half-assed and most people did not dare to attack to fiercely. This cannot really be represented in-game.
Calradia's common population is 95% pregnant women and their children; the great faith gives everyone at least twins, quick births, and nobody dies of diseases, provided these people all hide from the player character, so known for the erratic way he/she moves around. Every good woman needs to have a minimum of fifty sons to get into heaven/provide meat for the eternal skirmishes.
Serious mode; I think routes would be interesting in that you can choose who to prioritise in the chase down and how you could take actions to restore morale and bring your men back to the fighting. Maybe you could even gain honour for not slaughtering your fleeing foes, at least in the eyes of people who respect that (I admire the pragmatic lords)
Serious mode; I think routes would be interesting in that you can choose who to prioritise in the chase down and how you could take actions to restore morale and bring your men back to the fighting. Maybe you could even gain honour for not slaughtering your fleeing foes, at least in the eyes of people who respect that (I admire the pragmatic lords)
I really hate to say this, but I think probably the only question in most people's mind is WHEN DO WE GET TO PLAY IT. This is starting to approach Duke Nukem levels of development. Everyone on this forum would pay you to play the game we saw in demo videos from last year. We appreciate your attention to detail. We appreciate how much time and effort you've put into this. I want to give you my money. Just finish it, please.
Or don't! I've played games on steam that that been in "Alpha" for nearly 5 years! Some of my favorite games are a continual work in progress. That's fine! Just give us SOMETHING. Some kind of idea of a release date. A month. A quarter. Even a YEAR you think this game will be done.
I can't help but feel I'm not the only fan who is frustrated by the epic length of the development process.
Or don't! I've played games on steam that that been in "Alpha" for nearly 5 years! Some of my favorite games are a continual work in progress. That's fine! Just give us SOMETHING. Some kind of idea of a release date. A month. A quarter. Even a YEAR you think this game will be done.
I can't help but feel I'm not the only fan who is frustrated by the epic length of the development process.
stilljester said:
Look here son. You're not the first, and you won't be the last. But for the love of God please stop asking for a release date already
I think they should make a rule of it.
Not that you get banned for asking, but that you have to drink. The moderators will open up a video chat with you and ensure you take your shot.
Too young to drink? Well, you just had to make it difficult for us all.
I wonder if empire troops will get that morale loss when you're fighting other parts of the empire. Morale was never really a big issue for me, but it was always strange to have one group less happy than another.
Not that you get banned for asking, but that you have to drink. The moderators will open up a video chat with you and ensure you take your shot.
Too young to drink? Well, you just had to make it difficult for us all.
I wonder if empire troops will get that morale loss when you're fighting other parts of the empire. Morale was never really a big issue for me, but it was always strange to have one group less happy than another.
Yeah, well the fact that the game was announced 6 years ago sure makes me want to reach for the bottle.
xdeath2ux
Recruit
That would be great if you were taking your army (leaving your territory vulnerable but yet knowing that you have allies in your area) and invading an enemy location and then all of a sudden you get notified that one of your allies has attacked you due to something you may have done in the past that your ally has now decided to takes action for. Or maybe an AI system where it can possibly change based on how strong your army us, how wealthy you are, how loyal you are, and if any of those settings change on your end creates a higher chance of losing an ally? That would make it interesting and challenging so basically you think you have an ally but when your at your weakest you will know who your true allies are?
