• If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
  • Please note that we've updated the Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord save file system which requires you to take certain steps in order for your save files to be compatible with e1.7.1 and any later updates. You can find the instructions here.

If only taleworlds choosed another timeline.

Users who are viewing this thread

Akka

Sergeant at Arms
The timeline is GREAT actually.
It involves a time where a huge empire is crumbling and lots of contenders are coming in to feast on the carcass. So it means variety, a good context to have lots of war, very different factions, and more importantly a narrative support for either restoring said empire to glory or replace it.
What is there that is actually bad about the timeline ? It's basically a perfect setup for the kind of story that a player would be the hero of.
 

Ningauble

Veteran
I really like the ( albeit broad ) Late Antiquity - Early Medieval echoes.
But Calradia is not Europe, really.
Could Khuzaits translate more fittingly as Avars perhaps, not Mongols ?
Vlandians as Lombards, or Carolingian Franks, not quite Normans ?
Aserai Umayyads, or Abbasids ?

When Bannerlord actually works, mechanistically, as envisaged, would some like to then see occasional plagues erode factions strengths as a random " disrupter " and an interesting challenge to otherwise " smooth sailing "?
Along the lines of the Justinian etc plagues, that laid both the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sassanids low, opening a window of opportunity to the astonishing Arab Islamic efflorescence.
Maybe a Plague mod ?
And maybe a " Revolution from the Desert " mod ?
 
Last edited:
When Bannerlord actually works, mechanistically, as envisaged, would some like to then see occasional plagues erode factions strengths as a random " disrupter " and an interesting challenge to otherwise " smooth sailing "?

I have never seen plague in a strategy game do anything other than just wipe out player progress. If there is no interesting way to avoid or interact with a game mechanic, it shouldn't be in the game. What "challenge" is there to randomly have half your troops die?

The timeline is GREAT actually.
It involves a time where a huge empire is crumbling and lots of contenders are coming in to feast on the carcass. So it means variety, a good context to have lots of war, very different factions, and more importantly a narrative support for either restoring said empire to glory or replace it.
What is there that is actually bad about the timeline ? It's basically a perfect setup for the kind of story that a player would be the hero of.

The problem is that nothing like this happens in the game, and I don't envision the developers ever differentiating between factions on a strategic or political level other than tiny boring paradox-style stat boosts. The only thing people can hope for now is a better aesthetic, which is why it's disappointing that they went for an era typically portrayed as grey and boring.

(Funnily enough half the gear in the game is from after the period warband is supposed to be in, but that's another story)
 
Last edited:

Ningauble

Veteran
Sure, I know ( rare ) Plague would not suit many, upsetting their carefully - crafted, incremental, narrative.

But Plague could be created with ( play - enhancing ) interesting nuances of itself, it could be localised ( not necessarily a pandemic, and your culture could be already immune, or relatively less impacted ), could weaken an enemy city, or empire, or royal dynasty, open many and varied opportunities in a fluid way, just like in history, that some players might enjoy taking advantage of ......

Maybe as an " opt in " challenge, like degree of difficulty, births / deaths .....
 

TengriBless

Regular
I have never seen plague in a strategy game do anything other than just wipe out player progress. If there is no interesting way to avoid or interact with a game mechanic, it shouldn't be in the game. What "challenge" is there to randomly have half your troops die?
Even if by some minuscule cosmic chance TW adds a plague feature it will certainly be half-arsed and play like ****e, so I don't dare in my right mind suggest they even contemplate the idea. But in an ideal world where developers bothered, what's inherently incompatible with implementing plagues / diseases in strategy games?
 

MostBlunted

Sergeant Knight
If it comes (it won´t) I want to be able to throw plague bodys over the walls with my catapults when I siege a city.
 
Even if by some minuscule cosmic chance TW adds a plague feature it will certainly be half-arsed and play like ****e, so I don't dare in my right mind suggest they even contemplate the idea. But in an ideal world where developers bothered, what's inherently incompatible with implementing plagues / diseases in strategy games?

Because the whole point of a plague is that it's something you can't prevent, it affects everyone, and it's devastating. If you change any of that it's not really a plague anymore. And the problem with this is that it's antithetical to a game where you choose different strategies or react in interesting ways to stimuli. For the most part, plagues and most other natural disasters just slow down the game. Even if the game is set in the 1300s, having a plague as something you know is coming is way more of a "oh here we go again" than "wow, can't wait to get to the plague bit!!!"

Like off-map invasions and civil wars / rebellions, it's the third horseman in the "this sounds cool but actually sucks" strategy game apocalypse.
 

Younes

Master Knight
WBWF&SNWVC
Holy moly, people are really out of touch with mount and blade if they think plagues would fit in mount and blade in general. I don't even know any mods in previous titles that has done it either because of technicality or it just doesn' fit in the game as mentioned before. I believe the only module to have this feature was WFAS and even there it was limited to army attrition when you're out of food. Hell it isn't even a plague.
 

TengriBless

Regular
Because the whole point of a plague is that it's something you can't prevent, it affects everyone, and it's devastating. If you change any of that it's not really a plague anymore.
First I've ever heard that definiton of plagues. It's usually used in the sense of an infectious disease that's particularly calamitous and wide-spread. I'll talk of any typically medieval disease from now on - poxes, dysentery, consumption etc.
And the problem with this is that it's antithetical to a game where you choose different strategies or react in interesting ways to stimuli. For the most part, plagues and most other natural disasters just slow down the game.
It can be a way the world reacts to you in that certain choices render an outbreak more probable, such as:
- High death counts, refugees, or war attrition in general..
-.. Poverty, also connected to maybe low sanitation
- Increased inter-continental (/-factional?) travels
- Not taking the time to bury the dead after battles
- Poisoning water supply
- Flinging disease victims inside towns

There are much more obviously, these are just a few that readily come to mind. As mentioned before of course we don't live in an ideal world meaning that in Bannerlord water doesn't matter, battles regardless of scale leave no trace behind the region, sanitation isn't a thing and so on and so forth. Point stands though that it is possible, and can have interesting consequences and results that make the world feel real, such as:
- Characters and the world reacting to your choices as a warlord in protesting brutal biological warfare, viewing you as less honourable for not adhering to rules of war and burying the departed, governors being spoken out against for not taking appropriate measures, or rulers for dragging out destructive wars - not to mention the civil unrest
- Settlements going into quarantine, restricting entry, reflected visually in town scenes
- Armies also suffer from the effects of disease and could increase desertion rates
- Something small but interesting is that forces that have brought pestilence in their earlier conquests could induce dread in the people in their wake (radius), just a thought

This feature doesn't give you complete control on disease inflicting your domains but I don't see why it should. There's no harm from my view in the world throwing unforeseen challenges your way if it serves to make the game more immersive and enjoyable.
Like off-map invasions and civil wars / rebellions, it's the third horseman in the "this sounds cool but actually sucks" strategy game apocalypse.
If implemented badly.

Holy moly, people are really out of touch with mount and blade if they think plagues would fit in mount and blade in general. I don't even know any mods in previous titles that has done it either because of technicality or it just doesn' fit in the game as mentioned before. I believe the only module to have this feature was WFAS and even there it was limited to army attrition when you're out of food. Hell it isn't even a plague.
Why are you getting sideways with me for we're just talking, you're not in danger. Oh but you didn't mention me by name so it's all fine I guess.
 

Grank

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
If it comes (it won´t) I want to be able to throw plague bodys over the walls with my catapults when I siege a city.
You know what? We already have catapults and cows. Why can't I launch the latter with the former?
 

Bloc

Archduke
WB
Not that I advertise my own mod ( would be pointless anyway since it's discontinued ) but I already created a mod that adds plagues and diseases to Bannerlord. You can check the overall idea in here - https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/plague-and-diseases.438312/
And even though they appear based on chance, it also gives flexibility to players and AI to invest their money and time to prevent such things from hitting them hard. So it's not an unfortunate event that randomly wipes your progress but rather a possibility that can wipe your progress if you don't think ahead and ignore signs. Because it's also giving players a chance to fight with it and turn a disadvantageous situation in their favor. And keeping some things in check meanwhile - such as snowballing. I was planning to bring more interaction that player and AI could take to make it less random and more logical too, so once you go in that path, it's not always a single direction.
Example:
In the mod, when an outbreak happened, I was able to turn this to my advantage because my perks were all medicine-related and I had two doctor-like companions in my army. While enemy army slowly decimated and retreated(natural AI behavior to get more recruits), I was able to advance - normally both of the armies would suffer greatly if I didn't invest my money in proper companions.
But do I think it would be nice to have this in Bannerlord natively? Yes, but only if it was optional. Because I know not many people enjoy these things and it could very much be optional that you can select in the start of your campaign, just like death feature.


About OP's initial comment, I think the timeline is perfectly fine for Bannerlord. It's a timeline that is rich in terms of culture. The implementation itself, however, is quite weak. I mean, they could at least try to bring some form of difference between Empires and different units to certain cities with hybrid cultures.
Like, it would be nice to be able to recruit certain unique units from certain towns so that they would have some form of lore-specific backstory.
 

MostBlunted

Sergeant Knight
You know what? We already have catapults and cows. Why can't I launch the latter with the former?
yONZZFxsr5hKK_syF6ihzBfukV3ySDxDF-awOEBnEyE.jpg
 

MadVader

Duhpressed
Duke
M&BWB
Like off-map invasions and civil wars / rebellions, it's the third horseman in the "this sounds cool but actually sucks" strategy game apocalypse.
Couldn't agree more, these are my pet peeves too, but I find that there are enough players who play differently to appreciate invasions and civil wars at least, exactly because they want to slow down the game, but in fun ways.
I imagine these are no-lifers who want to play the same game indefinitely, but still have fun with it, as opposed to mentally healthy people like us who want a challenge, beat it and have a "game over you won" closure. If I really like a game, I start a new one with a different setup and not reload some eternal save where I one-shot everyone for tiny bits of dopamine.
 

Grank

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
as opposed to mentally healthy people like us
Let's not get ahead of ourselves now.

Even if the game is set in the 1300s, having a plague as something you know is coming is way more of a "oh here we go again" than "wow, can't wait to get to the plague bit!!!"
That's true. Those "super hard challenges" is only fun the first time. When it happens over and over it's easy for them to become a hassle. Your mind will turn to "right, there will be that thing," and like it or not, you'll be forced to prepare for it. If it's especially atrocious, it might even make you not want to start a new campaign altogether.
 

Ningauble

Veteran
My take on any Plague event, designed to be nuanced and actually interesting, would be that the player can indeed negotiate the challenge in a game - enhancing, if a bit out of left field, way ie opening up some opportunities to finesse surprising and pleasing outcomes after all.
Not as some random " wrecking ball " leveller.

It would be more immersive / evocative of the times, if Late Antiquity, or 14th Century, when plagues were a big part of the story.
 
Last edited:

MadVader

Duhpressed
Duke
M&BWB
Plagues would only be interesting if they are somehow referencing the real life ****show we are in with the lockdowns and other measures.
For example you can try to stop the spread of plague in your army by ordering all soldiers to wear full face helmets and some may mutiny because they "did their own research" and don't believe there is a plague.
 

Ningauble

Veteran
Well, the more you think about what a well - designed Plague could bring to your game, the more interesting it all sounds ........ just like being there.......
 

Phantom425

Sergeant
Like off-map invasions and civil wars / rebellions, it's the third horseman in the "this sounds cool but actually sucks" strategy game apocalypse.
I kinda somewhat disagree with the Civil Wars not being good for Mount and Blade, but I can see why they could suck. If all that Civil Wars do is split your kingdom in half and you have to retake all of those keeps, then yeah that would suck.

However, if there is a system where you can crush the Civil War and all the keeps are just added back into your kingdom, it would be a nice addition to the game.
 
Top Bottom