-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Does the Bannerlord map make sense, when compared to that of Warband?
- Thread starter Cèsar de Quart
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
From the steam description:
Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord is the eagerly awaited sequel to the acclaimed medieval combat simulator and role-playing game Mount & Blade: Warband. Set 200 years before, it expands both the detailed fighting system and the world of Calradia.
Don't mind it.
The old map was too simple. We don't need to keep it forever.
Sure, the new map looks better, but did they need to move the cities around that much?
Oh, I thought that Bannerlord happened somewhere around the 800's, don't know why.
I will just repeat myself because clearly it needs to be repeated: As we can clearly see from the map that we have, this is a re-imagination, and continuity in geographical terms was not the goal.
Khamai
Recruit
Probably needed by game design. It's maybe sad for the timeline, but I hate when timeline limits things. Using a new world could be a better solution.
I call it the "game order problem", timeline and technologies don't go in the same ways... So prequel has better graphism, more possibilities and should use it, but we already made the "future"... So incoherences will rise.
And with another world name (like Raldacia), there is no more problem. So, I really think that using a new world could be a better solution. Hope you understand my point.
Biggest and most fair problem you folks seem to have is related to town names. I was on top of it for quite some time, but during the last phase while balancing out trade routes and faction interaction choke point I messed up some of them. That's completely on me. It is a very easy thing to change but it also comes with risk of breaking save games, so unfortunately we are stuck with southern sargot for now.
apart from that, the main change is water masses around the map, and more prohibiting use of mountain ranges and rivers. apart from being visual elements, they are also most important tools that we had to crate natural boundaries that would be more believable. Beyond that it also give us more opportunities, and most importantly give you the players more sense of a journey between rivers and canyons and valleys instead of double clicking (or click+3) straight lines between cities.
Though there are limits, and decisions we made along the way, like varcheg being a sturgian town, and pravend in relation to it would not be neighboring towns like it was in warband.
one last thing, the anatolia comparesent, I was not here when warband map was made, but for the new one and the onld and to some extent warbands map, I can give an insight. Yes being a turkish company we surely did even if only unconsciously did took inspriation from the land we know, but thing is anatolia with its posisiton that sits between three continents, having 2 different coastal climates one being mediterenian other Baltic sea like black sea, to the west mountain ranges that allow sea winds to penetrate deep into the land similar to , while in the east great and high mountain ranges, similar to urals, and in the middle steppes that are reminiscent of western asia steppes, Anatolia is kinda a micro Euroasia.
apart from that, the main change is water masses around the map, and more prohibiting use of mountain ranges and rivers. apart from being visual elements, they are also most important tools that we had to crate natural boundaries that would be more believable. Beyond that it also give us more opportunities, and most importantly give you the players more sense of a journey between rivers and canyons and valleys instead of double clicking (or click+3) straight lines between cities.
Though there are limits, and decisions we made along the way, like varcheg being a sturgian town, and pravend in relation to it would not be neighboring towns like it was in warband.
one last thing, the anatolia comparesent, I was not here when warband map was made, but for the new one and the onld and to some extent warbands map, I can give an insight. Yes being a turkish company we surely did even if only unconsciously did took inspriation from the land we know, but thing is anatolia with its posisiton that sits between three continents, having 2 different coastal climates one being mediterenian other Baltic sea like black sea, to the west mountain ranges that allow sea winds to penetrate deep into the land similar to , while in the east great and high mountain ranges, similar to urals, and in the middle steppes that are reminiscent of western asia steppes, Anatolia is kinda a micro Euroasia.
Last edited:
That is noice, i don't mind it for now, as long the names will be changed, and the towns will be placed back to their original place later on, in a bigger patch. I like the new look of the map though.
Is there an "official" list of which cities are supposed to be where? Just so players who care about immersion and RP continuity can reference it for peace of mind?
For example, is Nevyansk or Flintolg Castle the site of "Sargot"/Sargoth? Is Ocs Hall supposed to be Uxkhal, Suno, Praven, or something else? etc
You don't have to fix it right away, and I for one would rather have bugged names than a broken save - but a "canon" ruling on what goes where (and maybe some stories about why some major features have changed, like the bulk of Vaegir territory having been underwater 200 years ago) would be very much appreciated!
Last edited:
Yep- there are some room for expansion on the current map as well but I am most curious about some of the islands... mods back for M&B were able to introduce ships and trade caravans over the ocean with small skirmishes on board the ships but on the old map it was a stretch to really go anywhere other than the 'Baltic' on ship while in the new map the long distance trade routes would make way more sense.
The place names alone doesnt mean anything. Rhodoks are Northern Italian states with Swiss influence. Crossbows, Pavise shields, Pikeman and mountains indicates that they are inspired from Northern Italian and Swiss states. And the fact that they are neighbouring Swadia (German states) also shows that. Yeah they may have some inspiration from Lithuanian names (I strongly doubt it because Rhodes island is more likely) but nothing else is inspired from Lithuania or Poland.
Ah, so does that mean it might change? I'd like that.
I hope that you will bring back Veluca. It was my favourite city, and quite well fleshed out thanks to companion dialogue, not to mention Lord Kastor.
I always thought of Calradia as being similar in size to Anatolia, which gave a good sense of scale to the world.
The new Calradia seems substantially bigger. Which reminds me to ask a question:
Does the world's climate change drastically between BL and WB, or have you just rearranged Calradia? On one hand, Charas might be Shariz (or Chelez?), and Jalmarys could be Halmar. On the other hand, there are villages in the steppes in the east that have the same names as some Vaegir villages, so it could also be that the peripheries of Warband Calradia has just been moved further out, with new stuff in the middle.
Edit: Also, where's Zendar?
Last edited:
The sea in the south dried out and turned into desert that Saranids live in during Warband. The Imperial area is the Khuzait steppe in Warband. Further north/East is Vaegir land. Nords occupy these hook.
For many reasons, usually the simplest ones - game balance, fun factor, mechanics, etc.
Distance, speed, pacing, etc. are all affected. So you need to change your geometrics accordingly.
Thanks for answering. To me, it always seemed like some city names got swapped (especially after looking at the old development maps). I don't mind having my save broken if that fixes some things, but there are obviously more pressint matters, like heraldry and companions being very barebones still.
As for city name swaps, the ones that are the most obvious are:
Lageta > Jalmarys (to match Halmar)
Pen Cannoc > Seonon (to match Suno)
Dunglanys > Marunath (I think Dunglanys was supposed to be Dhirim at some point, but got name-swapped for Marunath. The old dev maps seem to agree)
Zeonica > Poros (to fit Baryye)
The issue of where is Sargot could be resolved by either making it the "future name" of Car Banseth (which makes sense, some guy Sargot des Tuy conquered it and changed its name, for example), or the new name of Rovalt, while Car Banseth becomes Curow. Then, Sargot should change name to Veluca (or its Vlandian verson, Velgar or whatnot).
At least, that's what I think.
They don't sound Italian AT ALL. They don't sound Greek (Rhodes Island) either. I will fight anyone who says so. Pistols at dawn.
Their elective monarchy is taken straight out of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth. It's not much, but it's not nothing...
Last edited:
Similar threads
