<p>To all interested and uninterested parties, let it be known that we at TaleWorlds are making a new game, by the name of Mount&Blade II: Bannerlord. It is the next in the Mount&Blade series and a prequel to Mount&Blade Warband. This is the third entry in our Developer Blog, talking about making the game to whoever wants to listen. Thisweek we're talking about the campaign team, developers of the game's single player mechanics and gameplay. The team formerly known as “Team 3”...</p></br> Read more at: http://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/4
Mount&Blade II: Bannerlord Developer Blog 3 - Unexpected Parties
- Thread starter captain lust
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
FrisianDude
Archduke
and the Rhodoks were, contrary to belief, never based on ONE faction, but more a scraping together of things from all over 'rope.klarum said:"you can assign every Calradian kingdom to a region of medieval Europe."
Please do let me know where you would assign the Khergit Khanate and the Sarranid Sultanate sultanate in Europe...
FrisianDude said:and the Rhodoks were, contrary to belief, never based on ONE faction, but more a scraping together of things from all over 'rope.klarum said:"you can assign every Calradian kingdom to a region of medieval Europe."
Please do let me know where you would assign the Khergit Khanate and the Sarranid Sultanate sultanate in Europe...
I cannot think of a place that only used Crossbowmen and Spearmen, seems they are at a bit of a disadvantage.
The Italian city- states of upper medieval period were more famous for this exactly. It is yet not true that they had no cavalry at all , only that it could not compete with that of the Holy Roman Empire (most probably Swadians in carlandia). The only ones that really had almost no cavalry to rely on, were the Vikings (Nords).Carlos Danger said:FrisianDude said:and the Rhodoks were, contrary to belief, never based on ONE faction, but more a scraping together of things from all over 'rope.klarum said:"you can assign every Calradian kingdom to a region of medieval Europe."
Please do let me know where you would assign the Khergit Khanate and the Sarranid Sultanate sultanate in Europe...
I cannot think of a place that only used Crossbowmen and Spearmen, seems they are at a bit of a disadvantage.
Jason L. said:The Italian city- states of upper medieval period were more famous for this exactly. It is yet not true that they had no cavalry at all , only that it could not compete with that of the Holy Roman Empire (most probably Swadians in carlandia). The only ones that really had almost no cavalry to rely on, were the Vikings (Nords).Carlos Danger said:FrisianDude said:and the Rhodoks were, contrary to belief, never based on ONE faction, but more a scraping together of things from all over 'rope.klarum said:"you can assign every Calradian kingdom to a region of medieval Europe."
Please do let me know where you would assign the Khergit Khanate and the Sarranid Sultanate sultanate in Europe...
I cannot think of a place that only used Crossbowmen and Spearmen, seems they are at a bit of a disadvantage.
Only the Norse, I though it was the Celts (unless chariots), Gaels, Saxons, wait, what time period are we on about.
FrisianDude
Archduke
And none of that has to do with the M&B factions. 
+1FrisianDude said:And none of that has to do with the M&B factions.
They are a mix, not exact ripoffs, you can't go stealing stuff from the romans, it's copyrighted
Aethelflaed
Sergeant
To come back to M&B...
What I would like to have as a feature is a coop mode. One player could host the game and up to a certain number of friends could join in and lead their own Warbands. Everybody could join one or the other faction, hold their own castles, fight together or against each other, try to win the heart of the same woman, found their kingdom together or several kingdoms... Great thing would be, if you could also play on your own with the save game od this coop mode if the others couldn't join in or did`t want to continue. The AI would then play for the other players. Once the others would like to join in again, you could continue with the old save game... just an idea that occured...
What I would like to have as a feature is a coop mode. One player could host the game and up to a certain number of friends could join in and lead their own Warbands. Everybody could join one or the other faction, hold their own castles, fight together or against each other, try to win the heart of the same woman, found their kingdom together or several kingdoms... Great thing would be, if you could also play on your own with the save game od this coop mode if the others couldn't join in or did`t want to continue. The AI would then play for the other players. Once the others would like to join in again, you could continue with the old save game... just an idea that occured...
FrisianDude
Archduke
But I don't want to play as chicken.
Aethelflaed
Sergeant
FrisianDude said:
Every player could have the save games though... so every player could host the game from time to time... you would have to agree to one save game before you started though... got some real world friends that play Warband as well... would be great to play with them... or on a LAN party...
Eske
Veteran
Aethelflaed said:
This would be an amazing possibility. I think a lot of people are especially hoping for co-op. With the way the campaign map was in previous games, I think separate player parties will struggle to coincide attacks and fight in the same battles. Maybe the first player to engage an enemy has a "wait" option to give his ally time to join? I don't know if this gives an unfair or unrealistic advantage to the players over the enemy AI. Or maybe, parties can form groups which are then directed by one player on the map and fight as one.
Also, the pause feature when you're not moving would have to be scrapped, I guess (except in instances where no players happen to be moving). I think a lot of events and parties might pass players by (or indeed attack them) while they're trying to do some micro-management, and personally I'm hoping for a lot more depth in that sense e.g. political intrigue (Crusader Kings 2 stylee, but more accessible) and RPG elements (a more fleshed-out living world with interesting non-war factions and people to interact with).
The faster pace wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing to everyone's tastes - might just become a more frantic RTS game (Red Alert, Age of Empires) in campaign multiplayer than it is in single player.
There are bound to be some awesome solutions anyway. I'm quite interested in the possibility of co-op within one party on the map. In effect this would be a friend or two fighting in your party during battles, maybe having their own assigned responsibilites and ranks (I dunno, treasurer, armourer) they can perform while you navigate the map, and hopefully having their own player characters in the party (preferably not just picking up a random AI soldier or companion).
How about, players near the man initiating the battle join in, and if they're not close enough, they can play as one of the Soldiers in the mans army 
Or maybe, the battle happens in real time, but that would give the chance for one of the 'friends' to backstab him.
Or maybe, the battle happens in real time, but that would give the chance for one of the 'friends' to backstab him.
Aethelflaed
Sergeant
Eske said:
I think you could leave it like it is. Let the battles take place in real time. On the map the battle would appear like a battle in single player and other war parties can join in later. That would make thinks much harder in my opinion. Wouldn't be possible to take out one after the other Warband with a small group of fighters. I have taken out armies lord after lord after lord... and of course other human players could wait and join in at the end..... to make the other player appreciate their help more or to have an easy go on your enemy... there are loads of examples in history for that (Blücher in Waterloo for example... wanted Wellington to bleed for a while, that the English knew what they had in the Prussians). The Warbands would just join at the next round of the battle. What a Feeling to think that you've won the battle and suddenly the enemy has some reinforcements...
dburgess95
Recruit
Firstly, thank you very much to the developers for first pioneering your systems of combat, horse-riding, lords and fiefs, etc which I had long wished to have before finding M&B. I am a young historian with a deep and fussy interest in those areas.
I have some suggestions (please take them as well meaning).
The most important breakthrough that you need is a deep role playing system. I loved the mechanics, and thoroughly enjoyed the good historical mods, but the thing that I sorely missed was the aliveness and heart. If there could be more dialogue options, more personality and relationships with people it would make a world of difference. Imagine if you could make even one close friend in the game, or have an in depth romance story with a lady, falling in love and winning her over, a courtesy and chivalry element. Less repetitive dialogue, more consequences good and bad, warmer personalities. It would only require some imagination and more emphasis on character building. I understand that you are a private company and have worked very hard, so I am totally patient and understanding about the graphics and game play. I realize you may have a long road to Skyrim quality, but honestly, these simple initiatives will put you on the gaming map. Many people are keen to try a medieval game, but a lack of spirit will put them off. Thank you so much for your time, and I hope this comes across the right way.
I have some suggestions (please take them as well meaning).
The most important breakthrough that you need is a deep role playing system. I loved the mechanics, and thoroughly enjoyed the good historical mods, but the thing that I sorely missed was the aliveness and heart. If there could be more dialogue options, more personality and relationships with people it would make a world of difference. Imagine if you could make even one close friend in the game, or have an in depth romance story with a lady, falling in love and winning her over, a courtesy and chivalry element. Less repetitive dialogue, more consequences good and bad, warmer personalities. It would only require some imagination and more emphasis on character building. I understand that you are a private company and have worked very hard, so I am totally patient and understanding about the graphics and game play. I realize you may have a long road to Skyrim quality, but honestly, these simple initiatives will put you on the gaming map. Many people are keen to try a medieval game, but a lack of spirit will put them off. Thank you so much for your time, and I hope this comes across the right way.
ThatOneSwadianDude
Regular
i'm glad to see that i'm not the only one who had this idea before,Aethelflaed said:
sadly, it wuld take hours and hours of scripting and coding
klarum said:You guys are sitting on the best game franchise of its genre of all time!!! Your combat system is amazing, the characters, items and locations are gorgeous. Please, please make this game what it should be! Flesh out the world, include lots of quests (quest chains, rise to power quests, trade quests, diplomacy,.. MORE MORE), include more kingdom management options, lots of them! The strategic layer of the game should be far more easy to expand than the combat/interface. It is just lines of text with dialogues and options, come on! Include more battle commands and formations!
If modders can do these things you can do it even better. With simple text mods have created great kingdom management options, diplomacy options, new quests,... Please make M&B II complete and the best game ever!
Look at Paradox and their Crusader Kings/Europa Universalis franchise. For a long time they have been niche games that only extreme strategy lovers would touch, but when they decided/could really invest in their games they became main stream games that are all over the gaming news. They went from being obscure strategy titles to launching a new era of strategy gaming on the PC. You can do the same for the action/strategy simulation! In Crusader Kings the core gameplay (managing your dinasty and conquering land) did not change, same as the combat in M&B only needs minor improvement, but then they redid the UI to be more player friendly and more important included lots and lots of events that make players feel like each game is a unique story they create and the game just blew in sales. This is what you can do. Flesh out the locations, those beautiful locations you have shown in the screenshots? Give is something to do in there! Make more quests and events! Lots and lots of them! Marriages, treason, random events, opportunities to be a hero or to be a scoundrel. Make each game play a unique story that gives us the feeling it is ours, we live it, and it will be different that anyone elses. Do this and you will make the best game ever!
I believe you can do it!
I share your views and your enthusiasm on this subject, Klarum.
Don't get me wrong, EU4 and CK2 are two of my all time favorite games. Still, I have never had more fun in my entire life playing any single player game than I did with Mount and Blade Warband. Bannerlord has so much potential that it makes it even hard to imagine what it will be like.
The foundations are solid and have already been set in Warband. All TaleWorlds need to do is expand even further that glorious and truly unique delicious game into something better.
To be honest.. It has so much potential I can almost guarantee I will be disappointed. But if they just fix the modding aspects to the max everything will be fine because the community can fill the gaps. OH even better I hope they get that workshop thing from steam which make getting mods so easier!!
