Dev Blog 19/04/18

[parsehtml][IMG]https://www.taleworlds.com/Images/News/blog_post_36_taleworldswebsite.jpg[/IMG] Medieval warfare was as brutal and terrifying as you might imagine. Soldiers fought for their lives in ferocious hand-to-hand combat using a variety of different weapons to protect themselves and defeat their opponents. Polearms, swords, maces and axes were used to devastating effect and anyone unlucky enough to be on the receiving end of a blow from one of these vicious weapons of war would certainly know about it. [/parsehtml]Read more at: https://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/56

 

[Intel Guardian]

Dagger thrusts bypass all armour? Just a thought. 

 

[Do not look here]

(now I mention this though, it could have some use in towns if it is ever against the laws of any town for people to carry larger weapons around. Or simply to look nice on the belt of a lord or merchant when walking the streets).

Now that you mentioned that, I started wondering if the second outfit would come into play as something else than just a roleplay thing. Is the 'civilian' outfit still a thing? I recall seeing the button in the inventory screen, but it would be nice if they'd talk more about it. It would be interesting if certain actions were available only if you don't bring your biggest guns, it always irked me how bandits across Calradia unanimously decided a lone wanderer clad in plate and wearing half the armoury on them is a prime target for midnight robbery. Maybe the shady side of town would be hiding if you'd come in ready for battle?

I digress, tho, weapons blog, fun. Not totally sure how to feel about longest weapons being dropped on switch, never been an user, but I have to wonder how it will work with the M&B's AI. We'll see.

 

[Innocent Flower]

Actually, you know what? I'm really disappointed that spears are going to suck **** for infantry again. It's not fun, it kills variety, and It's not realistic either.


Daggers and spears might as well have been "we'll disappoint once more" only thing of merit in this blog:

Pike drop.

 

[DanAngleland]

Callum, when you say that it's almost harvesting season, are you hinting that the game is coming in some form in the near future? A very juicy line to drop indeed. On the other hand, in Warband, harvesting season never came; the peasants constantly referenced the season just around the corner, never to fall. Are you going full meta and confirmed Bannerlord never?

I interpret it as a simple humorous reference to the phrase occasionally spoken by farmers in Warband when in the dialogue screen, nothing more. Farming tools served as weapons for some 'soldiers' in M&B and Warband, and it is natural for the same to be true in Bannerlord.

Actually, you know what? I'm really disappointed that spears are going to suck **** for infantry again. It's not fun, it kills variety, and It's not realistic either.

What makes you think they will be bad?

 

[Jason L.]

隐藏

Well, I think it's debatable that this blog will be of much interest even to complete newcomers to the series, apart from a couple of points; the welcome fact that large polearms such as pikes will automatically drop to the ground when you cycle to a sidearm- this is a nice concession to the hopes and suggestions of people like me and one which I think will make for a subtle improvement in multiplayer gameplay, as well as being a simple enhancement to immersion.

Then there is this; "You need to control the space between you and your opponent in order to successfully land hits with the head of the axe". It sounds as if we will no longer see people being sliced in two by wooden axe shafts, something I don't think had been confirmed; I really hope this is the case. Of course the mention of pikes also confirms their inclusion in the game, something that couldn't be taken for granted given the broad period of history being used as inspiration for Bannerlord's weaponry. Overall though, an underwhelming blog.
I do agree that that daggers

In Warband, you start out with a sword and they're common as muck and very easy to get hold of if you lose your original one. So there's no point in ever using a dagger.

Will Bannerlord make more of a feature of them? If they're best use is in close quarters to accurately find the chinks in armour, how will that be reflected in the game? Will they ever be more useful than swords?

I think it would be nice if you could attack repeatedly with them in quick succession, maybe 25% or 50% more frequently than with the average sword, to make up for their short reach and inability to block incoming attacks. Or perhaps they have adjusted either footwork or the way weapons are swung in some way to make short weapons more useful at close range, something that in practice I don't think was often the case in Warband (it was almost invariably, in my experience, better to use an arming sword or longer sword than a mace or even short sword). I very rarely bought them in Warband, and whenever I tried equipping them in battle I never found them as useful as a sword, so it would be nice if they could be given some usefulness. I wonder if they still take up the same weapon slot as larger weapons as well, or have their own special slot; if the former is the case then I doubt anyone but the most committed role player would bother carrying one (now I mention this though, it could have some use in towns if it is ever against the laws of any town for people to carry larger weapons around. Or simply to look nice on the belt of a lord or merchant when walking the streets).

  I do agree that daggers should be taken care of in both ways mentioned.

  They should be very faster to "reload" an attack as tendentially short weapons should be faster anyway with the variant of balanced or unbalanced playing an important role.

Also the length of a weapon and its  width should be proportional to their ability to parry.

On the other hand it is extremely nerfing that daggers have no ability to parry at all. Also they should not take away a weapon slot.

  Some of these might be difficult to implement but in the other hand it is inconvenient to carry a dagger as it is (and in warband also), while every soldier, even of the lowest and as far as the highest rank, possesed one. It is "part of the uniform" of the medieval soldier I think.

  Maybe a distinction between items carried  on belt or in the back is needed. Not to mention the horse saddle.

My suggestion  should be : 3 belt slots ,  2  in the back , 2 on saddle. Obviously a spear can not be carried on belt.

 

[NPC99]

Then there is this; "You need to control the space between you and your opponent in order to successfully land hits with the head of the axe". It sounds as if we will no longer see people being sliced in two by wooden axe shafts, something I don't think had been confirmed; I really hope this is the case.

Blog Weapon Physics 2:
Impact Point
For swings, damage depends on the location of the impact point on the weapon. When showing weapon statistics in the inventory, we simply show damage as if the attack connected at a point a few centimetres below the tip. During combat we take the impact point from the position of the weapon and the target, so it is not necessarily near the tip. So for example, an axe that advertises itself as having 80 damage can deliver much less if it hits the target near the grip.

https://steamcommunity.com/games/261550/announcements/detail/2819679329371591672

 

[lolbash]

why the hell are people pushing to buffing ****ing daggers? Have you ever seen a knight fight with a kitchen knife? No its because they straight up suck and they should stay that way unless you want to see heavily armored guys getting janked by peasants carrying 5 dollar daggers

 

[Footbeard]

Callum, when you say that it's almost harvesting season, are you hinting that the game is coming in some form in the near future? A very juicy line to drop indeed. On the other hand, in Warband, harvesting season never came; the peasants constantly referenced the season just around the corner, never to fall. Are you going full meta and confirmed Bannerlord never?

I interpret it as a simple humorous reference to the phrase occasionally spoken by farmers in Warband when in the dialogue screen, nothing more. Farming tools served as weapons for some 'soldiers' in M&B and Warband, and it is natural for the same to be true in Bannerlord.

Ah, you just think he means harvesting people on the field of battle? That's a very reasonable and rational answer. Rats.

why the hell are people pushing to buffing **** daggers? Have you ever seen a knight fight with a kitchen knife? No its because they straight up suck and they should stay that way unless you want to see heavily armored guys getting janked by peasants carrying 5 dollar daggers

I mean, any self respecting knight would keep a dagger on his person, primary purpose being to stab through armour slits during a grapple, many other soldiers would carry a dagger for similar reasons. I don't think the dagger needs a block but chambering should still be doable with a dagger like in Warband. Chambering as a mechanic seems to be buffed if the feints are nerfed as reported; it's easier to see what's telegraphed without having to hard read. It'd also be a neat mechanic if the overhead swing with a dagger was a downward stab motion so daggers would have 2 slashes and 2 stabs. I look forward to seeing some dagger wielding maniacs in MP.

I find myself surprised at looking forward to playing a light infantry/scout role with sword, spear, shield and high mobility. The spacing seems to have come so far since Warband.

Bring on Bannerlord 

 

[Lagstro]

Now my suggestion is making weapons like War Hammer or some Military Picks to have such modes that change the side of the weapon, so you can use the blunt side or piercing side for example.

That would make them more versatile and a plausibly effective choice despite their short range. You'd use the higher damage piercing side against lightly armored opponents, and switch to the slightly lower damaging blunt side against medium or heavy armored opponents. It would be great if they dealt more base damage, to make up for the range, but they shouldn't also be faster than swords. More damage and speed would make them too strong, especially in the hands of people with low ping that are the least hindered in using footwork and range effectively. Keep their speed on par with swords, and give them a situational damage boost to make up for the short range.

Actually, you know what? I'm really disappointed that spears are going to suck **** for infantry again. It's not fun, it kills variety, and It's not realistic either.

What do you propose be done to make spears more effective without making them OP? Even as they are now, not having one in competitive play is suicide for your team. Spears in warband are far from useless. They are the only effective tool against cavalry, and even the preferred dueling weapon for some people because of it's speed when used without a shield.  They are also pretty much the only weapon used competitively to "shield-stun" aside from maybe lances every now and then. They are the most effective tool to team up on someone with because of that. Does that not force the need for weapon variety?

If you make spears as useful as swords when used with a shield by allowing them to stab in all 4 directions and remove their blocked stab stun... then what idiot would ever pick a sword when they can use a spear that would deal high piercing damage, and would always be ready to stop incoming cavalry too? That would be what kills variety, because then swords would become obsolete in this game and everyone would be running around with a spear as it would be the most effective weapon in all situations. As it is now, you use a one-handed weapon (usually a sword) for general combat, and use spears for special roles that a sword can't be used for, such as stopping cav and shield stunning opponents for optimal teamwork kills.

 

[Crowcorrector]

The people here who think knives are inherently inferior and will always lose to a sword.... have clearly never met Karl foookin' Tanner...

 

[Wilhelmus Van Laecken]

why the hell are people pushing to buffing ****ing daggers? Have you ever seen a knight fight with a kitchen knife? No its because they straight up suck and they should stay that way unless you want to see heavily armored guys getting janked by peasants carrying 5 dollar daggers

Buffing daggers in a balanced way is a good thing. I for one don't want them to be just useless dress-pieces like they were in warband.

If done right daggers seem like they can be lots of fun.

Also, er, yeah.. Knights used daggers.. 

 

[SenorZorros]

I think the best buff for daggers would be to make swords and axes have a minimum range so that if you manage to get close up with a dagger they have to either pull theirs or get away. Blocks... I'd not disable them but make them more difficult to due to lower hitbox instead. Of course you would need the new invention of pointing your sword forward so people can't just charge with a dagger.  maybe a alternative stance which holds the weapon more in front of you but makes it do less damage?

 

[hiul]

will this make polearm restricted as a main weapon ? or can only equip one pike type (no secondary pike as new side weapon) ?

Another thing to note about polearms is if they are too large, such as with pikes, then they will be dropped to the ground if you switch to your sidearm.

Thanks for implementing this feature.

For the harvesting season, which agricultural product you were refering Callum so we can guess the release date. Yeah, I know I am not funny.

it make me want to have farming in bannerlord play as dirty poor peasant.

I have a suggestion regarding weapons:

Remember in Warband when you have a Great Long Axe, you can press X to change it's mode to two-handed / polearm.

Now my suggestion is making weapons like War Hammer or some Military Picks to have such modes that change the side of the weapon, so you can use the blunt side or piercing side for example.

yeah, maybe as an option to change stance ? so it can also make mordhau or halfswording style for certain sword too.

 

[Harmi]

That info about daggers means that there will be a mission where you need to assassin the king or prison guard or some vassal.

I love the fact about axes. I believe it means that if enemy is too close, you cannot damage them with an axe or spike. The biggest and most annoying bug I warband is that the weapons are too lethal by logically wrong way.

 

[Salmonsy]

why the hell are people pushing to buffing **** daggers? Have you ever seen a knight fight with a kitchen knife? No its because they straight up suck and they should stay that way unless you want to see heavily armored guys getting janked by peasants carrying 5 dollar daggers

Daggers were probably the weapon that killed the most knights. Of course you don't win a fight with a dagger, you just finish it with one. Straight up fighting with a dagger is probably a good idea if you want to be killed, though.

 

[Roccoflipside]

隐藏

Formal battles between rival lords and their armies is not the only type of combat you find in M&B.

Like Warband, Bannerlord will probably feature peasants fighting outside the context of being fodder for a large-scale army - so for those occasions the game needs to include these improvised weapons as well as the specialised battlefield ones.

I wasn't implying that. I said that I just provided some info on real historical battles.

Yeah, so a lot of times peasants were not allowed to own their own weapons for fear of them revolting against high taxes, having no say in what the lord/etc. did. When called to war, some would be outfitted by their lords, some would have enough money/goods to acquire some decent gear, and many would re-purpose farm tools, such as scythes, pitchforks, basically anything with a blade or sharp end. Additionally they were most likely not put in the front lines, rather placed behind the better equipped and trained professionals, where they could add depth to the formation, allowing the formation to withstand better punishment, and possibly swelling the ranks enough to cause fear in the other army. In the case that the enemy army broke, they could charge and cut down fleeing enemies, and in the case that their army was breaking, they could plug a hole in the line. So, obviously untrained, under-equipped farmers would not be ideal troops, but they definitely had their place on the battlefield.

Now, onto other ways they could be useful: scouting, raiding, skirmishing, and foraging. These tasks typically don't require the strongest, best equipped soldiers, and you typically wouldn't want to risk them when you could send a bunch of farmers to do the job. In summary, farm tools were absolutely used on the battlefield, and even more so beyond just the field itself.

No, I disagree with basically everything you said.

First off, where did you even hear that they were not allowed their own weapons? I haven't heard it. It doesn't make sense, and history speaks against it. Just look at the Battle of Visby (which btw is a goldmine for peasants armors of the 14th century), where the peasants did have both weapons and armor. Not just limited to gambesons, they had mail and coat of plates too. Peasants were very much allowed to have weapons and armor, and as I said probably required to do so.
So they would have no need to repurpose their farming tools.

'They were put behind better trained professionals'

No, this is the one thing you did not want to do. First of all, professionals during that time referred to mercenaries, since they were the only professionals around.
Second off, putting peasants behind professional troops is the worst thing you can do. The main point of the trained mercenaries were that they knew their way around a battlefield. They knew how to really work in a formation. You told them to move around a battlefield, and they would do so without an issue whatsoever.

Peasants were the complete opposite. They did not know how to move around. If they tried, they'd probably end up ruining the formation. They did not want to move either. So putting them behind the mercs would just ruin the one single advantage the mercs held (well asides from their better gear and training, but still a huge part). They could definitely not 'plug a hole in the line' as you put it, because they were the first ones to rout. If they got a chance to run away, they did. You couldn't expect them to do anything tactical, other than stand in a shieldwall and poke the enemy to death.

And tying back to the point, farm tools had no use there, since the formations would consist of peasants and mercenaries separately. And the peasants would have spears, shields and gambesons. The wealthier would have mail or even coats of plates in the 14th century onwards (or brigandines if we're talking 15th century, and even solid breastplates later on). As proven by The battle of Visby and other findings in later medieval battles

Scouting? Raiding? Skirmishing, with peasants?
No, for reasons stated above. They aren't trained for that. They were not mounted. They would ether mess it up, get themselves killed or simply desert when the commander was not looking. They did not want to be there after all

Knights were the ones who would do those roles. They were mounted. They had the best equipment around. They faced basically no threat raiding and skirmishing, unless the enemy lord sent his knights. And then it would be a matter of who could kill most of the enemies shock force.
If you sent peasants to raid, they would simply get overrun by a few knights. Knights, did not simply get overrun by a few knights.

Keep in mind, and I mentioned this, I'm not talking about them in the Bannerlord context. I'm fine with them there. Just trying to paint an accurate picture of real medieval battles.

Ok, so let's say you want to raid a small village. You're going to send your best knights to do it? Cool, I'll send maybe one knight along with a bunch of farmers, to fight a bunch of farmers. I don't think knights, who tend to be about honor and rank and privilege, would want to go on a raiding mission. You could use mercenaries, as you mentioned, but they were not the only professional soldiers in the time period. Most lords would have had a "professional" garrison of guards and whatnot, and most kings would have had some form of "professional" levies. Mercenaries would have actually formed a small part of the overall army, as they would have been much more expensive and actually less reliable.

As far as peasants not being able to have their own weapons, this comes down to regional and time specific laws. Some places and times, yes, people were required to have access to certain level of weapons, while at others they were forbidden from having weapons at all. Basically, a decentralized state that is under attack and needs all the help it can get will be more likely to allow/require the common man to have his own weapons, while a centralized, powerful state (more likely to have its own somewhat professional army) will worry more about the weapons available to the common man.

If you take a scythe and detach the blade, then turn it 90 degrees and reattach it you have a basic pole-arm with both a piercing and cutting end, making it arguably more effective than just a common spear. Just because a tool has a purpose that's not strictly warfare doesn't mean it won't harvest men as easily as it harvests grain. And, just like you change the use of the tool, you're changing the use of the man. Tell him he can earn more money, food, possibly even a spot with the nobility (even if it's a lie) and a peasant might just do what you ask him to, especially if he feels he's fighting for his family and home.

I also very much disagree that putting farmers behind more professional forces ruins the ability of the entire formation. Assuming you hand a farmer a shield, spear, and gambeson, is he still not just as ineffective as he was before? Why would you create an entire formation of ineffective fighters when you could split them up and have them shadow more experienced troops? Plus, all it would take would be one, maybe two large battles and the farmer now has a basic understanding of formation movements and tactics, and that's assuming that you don't train the farmer outside of the battle.

Most movies/shows/etc. like to show a lord/king/whatever with a huge armory full of identical/similar arms and armor. Why? So you don't get confused as to who is who. A lord/king would supply equipment for his guards, perhaps his best troops, and, if he had anything left over, maybe the most promising recruits. Most other people would be left with whatever they could scrounge or create themselves. The feudal system is not very conducive to having a well-trained, well-equipped, professional army. Yes, in the later medieval era, with the rise of nation-states and more centralized economies, a king could afford to equip his army better, but in the earlier era, which BL takes place in, power was much more in the hands of the lord, who did not control an entire nation's economy, and could not raise as large of an army due to population concerns and the need to have people to raise crops.

Sorry for the long post, but I'm not convinced that peasants were useless on the battlefield, let alone they wouldn't have used their own tools/weapons (assuming they couldn't get their hands on anything better). If you have evidence/proof, I'd like to see it, as I know there's always more to learn, but I'm just not buying it with the info I have.

I know they're Asian rather than European, but many of what we consider martial arts or "ninja" weapons, i.e. nunchuks and sai's, started out as agricultural tools that the peasants, who were not allowed to own their own weapons, converted to use against the samurai. Just some food for thought.

 

[Karkurdu]

Will there be brothels in the game with naked prostitutes and etc or so much for realism?

 

[lolbash]

Buffing daggers in a balanced way is a good thing. I for one don't want them to be just useless dress-pieces like they were in warband.

If done right daggers seem like they can be lots of fun.

Also, er, yeah.. Knights used daggers..

Daggers were probably the weapon that killed the most knights. Of course you don't win a fight with a dagger, you just finish it with one. Straight up fighting with a dagger is probably a good idea if you want to be killed, though.

So what you're suggesting is that every single time I kill someone in Bannerlord I have to switch to my knife and stab him on the ground to make sure he stays dead?

Is that what you call fun gameplay for you? Because having to purchase a second weapon and manually pin down and stab a knight with a knife sounds tedious, boring, and stupid when I could be spending my time raiding, killing archers, having epic duels, or fighting big battles.

Sure cool daggers can kill knights, but mount and blade combat is too fast for stupid unfun crap like having to switch to a different weapon to kill a person.

The realisim mob here pisses me off. Thank god for Taleworlds for not making these guys game developers and focusing on FUN>REALISM, the most important aspect of any video game

 

[Roccoflipside]

I think that people aren't saying they want to switch to a dagger to make sure the opponent stays down (although, in some ways that could be interesting gameplay) as much as, if TW wants to include daggers, making them more useful. Has nothing to do with gameplay vs. fun as much as making a resource that's available in the game a viable choice for players

 

[Cpt. Nemo]

That info about daggers means that there will be a mission where you need to assassin the king or prison guard or some vassal.

Uhhhhhh were did you read that?