Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord Developer Blog 12 - The Passage Of Time

Users who are viewing this thread

Hello Bannerlord blog regulars and newcomers. In this entry, we are once again responding to your demands to hear more about single player gameplay - specifically, looking at the overworld map and some of the improvements made there. We revealed the map at Gamescom and mentioned some new features in the last blog. Here, we'll take what we've revealed and go into some more detail.

Read more at: http://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/14
 

kraggrim

Marquis
WBM&BWF&SNWVC
Yeah, it's maybe a bit too abstracted. Can't think of a solution though. You could separate skill tiers and equipment tiers, but would complicate things. Instead of 5 tiers of a troop you could have 5 of equipment and 5 of skills. But this makes a total of 25 possible stacks, rather cumbersome really. Maybe you could have those 5 skill tiers hidden within the equipment tier stacks or something, might work like that.
 

Quidfit

Recruit
Smorkin said:
My comment was more about map aesthetics

I'm not saying that roads are unrealistic or nonsensical I just don't think they would be asceticly pleasing or add to the game. I feel like most armies would end up walking well off the road,  and if they did walk on the road they would be constantly be overlapping eachother which would make it harder to pin the unit you want to target. I feel that bandits would constantly be chasing people off the road. And if you consider how off the scale of the cities vs the size of armies are the road couĺ easily just be to small to see.
 

Dest45

Knight at Arms
WBVCNW
What do you guys think about custom troops? Selecting the kind of gear each tier uses and their skills. Which would affect their hiring price/upgrade/upkeep
 
Dest45 said:
What do you guys think about custom troops? Selecting the kind of gear each tier uses and their skills. Which would affect their hiring price/upgrade/upkeep

I'd love to have a custom troop system. I always thought it kind of sucked that I could only mix and match other factions troops if I was starting my own kingdom, except maybe using mercenary troops, but they were too expensive and hard to find to be reliable. Maybe the way it could work is that each tier of troop has a point budget with which you buy weapon proficiency and equipment, the higher the tier the more points.
 

SenorZorros

Squire
I kind of don't really want it. but that's mostly because I though that the fire and sword system was not that good and because it still showed how screwed up the gear costs are.
also, I like the diversity in equipment you get with the standard troops. it looks better and feels more realistic than everyone wearing the same.
maybe it would work if you specify role, equipment, culture and a specific budget in either points or money. then the troops would buy their own equipment using said constraints which could give the best of both worlds.
 

Askorti

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WB
When we talk about units, the first thing they should do is get rid of the Warband system where you recruit a peasant and level him up to a knight. It's too gamey and nonsensical.
The right way to do it would be to recruit troops at villages where you get cheap peasant units with just one or maybe two upgrades (peasant -> spearman/hunter)
Then you recruit a bit better troops in cities (standard infantry with spearmen/swordmen, crossbowmen, maybe some light but relatively expensive cavalry)
And then the best units you recruit at castles: cavalry(men at arms, squires), experienced infantry and veteran crossbowmen/archers that can be upgraded to knights and "elite" troops.

Basically, instead of a single big tree you get three smaller ones that make much more sense. That would be much more historically accurate and in my opinion, more interesting and balanced.
 

jeehwanlee99

Regular
KuroiNekouPL said:
When we talk about units, the first thing they should do is get rid of the Warband system where you recruit a peasant and level him up to a knight. It's too gamey and nonsensical.
The right way to do it would be to recruit troops at villages where you get cheap peasant units with just one or maybe two upgrades (peasant -> spearman/hunter)
Then you recruit a bit better troops in cities (standard infantry with spearmen/swordmen, crossbowmen, maybe some light but relatively expensive cavalry)
And then the best units you recruit at castles: cavalry(men at arms, squires), experienced infantry and veteran crossbowmen/archers that can be upgraded to knights and "elite" troops.

Basically, instead of a single big tree you get three smaller ones that make much more sense. That would be much more historically accurate and in my opinion, more interesting and balanced.

actually, knights and nobles are often, by definition, landowners. So the stuff you mention are too marginalizing a "class" to its stereotypical belonging.

Also lets not forget that this period, amongst others, is a time of constant warfare. Social castes and classes often mix and mangle during times of war. An example is the Warring States Period (both China, 2AD, Korea, 7AD, and Japan, 15AD) where common foot soldiers often achieved a generalissimo or a noble status through their services in war or their meritocracy, so as far as I see it, the "single-level"ing system is just as unrealistic as what you mention
 

hiul

Sergeant at Arms
kraggrim said:
While we're on this subject, MitchellD has just announced a rather interesting mod called [WB] Persistent Troop Identities. Not tried it yet but it sounds intriguing.

look interesting maybe bannerlord can steal take that idea  :lol:
btw i hope the auto resolve will be fix in bannerlord or remove it if impossible to fix
and another is hoping it won't become rebel simulation and maybe able to send spy to sabotage, assassination, and kidnapping like sending some companion with some troop for the infiltration
 

SenorZorros

Squire
maybe it would be interesting if pheasants recruited at villages and/or townsmen recruited in the poorer parts of town would have their own "militia" troop tree which would indeed be fairly limited and by giving them to a trainer (for a fee) or a party member with high training you could turn them into soldiers which would have their own tree which would be akin to the trees we have atm. off course you could also try to hire soldiers directly as mercenaries in taverns. if you are the lord of a city/castle or another authorized person you could also be able to hire recruits (lowest level soldiers) at a city/castle barracks.

this could also give an interesting distinction between trained and untrained troops. militia should be cheaper but less skilled and less disciplined. high-level militia might be stronger than a comparable-level soldier but still lack discipline making them excellent fighters but weak soldiers. after all high-level militia have a lot of experience but little training.

what also might  be interesting is for high-level soldiers to need their own retinue. in reality knights never fought alone. they had pages and squires and often also supporting units. a good example are the 14th and 15th century lances
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lances_fournies
 

Askorti

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WB
jeehwanlee99 said:
actually, knights and nobles are often, by definition, landowners. So the stuff you mention are too marginalizing a "class" to its stereotypical belonging.

Also lets not forget that this period, amongst others, is a time of constant warfare. Social castes and classes often mix and mangle during times of war. An example is the Warring States Period (both China, 2AD, Korea, 7AD, and Japan, 15AD) where common foot soldiers often achieved a generalissimo or a noble status through their services in war or their meritocracy, so as far as I see it, the "single-level"ing system is just as unrealistic as what you mention

I must say, I've never heard of a peasant who couldn't read or write becoming a knight with all the honors associated with it. At least not in Europe. Any examples of that? Or do you mean commoners as in rich people like merchants who were given noble titles? Because in this case I can agree. But a peasant rising to such status is completely unthinkable. That's why I came up with the division, because it just doesn't make sense for a peasant to be able to rise this much. One might gain some wealth from warfare, sure, but from a peasant to a knight? That's way too big a stretch. And especially for it to happen on such a scale, it seems like in Calradia every knight used to be a peasant before he was recruited by an army...
 

SenorZorros

Squire
is there a way to tag people?

anyway, considering the knight debate. I think this is mostly a matter of semantics. looking at the function they have they would probably be man-at-arms but taleworlds did not really use very realistic names (Mamelukes anyone?) anyway. also, what would you call the fourth tier swadian cavalry unit :wink:.
 

The Meddling Monk

Master Knight
WBNWVCM&BWF&S
SenorZorros said:
what also might  be interesting is for high-level soldiers to need their own retinue. in reality knights never fought alone. they had pages and squires and often also supporting units. a good example are the 14th and 15th century lances
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lances_fournies
I think they should have that.  1257 A.D. used the lance system, and I actually really liked it.
 

Askorti

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WB
SenorZorros said:
anyway. also, what would you call the fourth tier swadian cavalry unit :wink:.
Simple, I would've split their cavalry into light and heavy cavalry. So the current men-at-arms would become light cavalry, while current knights would become heavy cavalry. Of course there would be some equipment changes going on too.
That's exactly what I've done every time I felt like customizing any mod I was playing at the time.
 

SenorZorros

Squire
KuroiNekouPL said:
SenorZorros said:
anyway. also, what would you call the fourth tier swadian cavalry unit :wink:.
Simple, I would've split their cavalry into light and heavy cavalry. So the current men-at-arms would become light cavalry, while current knights would become heavy cavalry. Of course there would be some equipment changes going on too.
That's exactly what I've done every time I felt like customizing any mod I was playing at the time.
actually, for the light/heavy cavalry thing I'd like to see several branches. not just levels.
 

loonyreaper

Recruit
M&B
You do realize you cant actually call this mount & blade II right? The second game was warband, because warband was not an expansion but a separate game it is the second M&B, calling this II means your trying to sweep either the original or warband under the rug.
 

ToyBoat

Sergeant
loonyreaper said:
You do realize you cant actually call this mount & blade II right? The second game was warband, because warband was not an expansion but a separate game it is the second M&B, calling this II means your trying to sweep either the original or warband under the rug.

Yeah, where would you get the idea to call it Mount & Blade II?!
banner_1.jpg

edit: wait, were you actually telling the devs what they can call their game? I thought it was in response to some forum post lol
 

Shidan

Sergeant at Arms
WF&SM&BWBVC
loonyreaper said:
You do realize you cant actually call this mount & blade II right? The second game was warband, because warband was not an expansion but a separate game it is the second M&B, calling this II means your trying to sweep either the original or warband under the rug.
Actually Warband was an expansion, a standalone expansion. They're actually a fairly common thing. Just because you don't need the base game doesn't make it any less of an expansion.

Besides, the developers can call it what they want regardless. If they wanted to call it Mount and Blade 7, who are we to argue?
 
Top Bottom