<p>Happy New Year to those operating on the Gregorian Calender and a round, warm hello to all. “Blog!”, they cried and it was written. 2013 has been a year of growth for us at TaleWorlds and with each passing month, work intensifies on Bannerlord. The new year has already started with the achievement of 100,000 likes on our official Facebook page. It feels like a great milestone and we'd like to thank everyone for all the support. Now let us tell you a little bit more about making Bannerlord.</p></br> Read more at: http://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/5
Mount&Blade II: Bannerlord Developer Blog 4 - Flexible Entries
- Thread starter captain lust
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
famousbwd
Recruit
jacobhinds said:Meh, i still see the same skinny-ladder-into-a-choke-point deal. When i heard it was about sieges i expected siege engines etc, but i suppose I'm just being overenthusiastic.
Inanch-Bilge said:"A little longer" we will see how little is it
Graphics are fine, what are you guys expecting for a game simulates some 100+100 battles.
Shogun II total war supported tens of thousands of soldiers with far better graphics, but with less lag than warband. It's not just the graphics that make mount and blade lag - it's the combat. Battles can lag even if you aren't looking at anyone.
You don't see the siege tower behind that ladder?
T0RTUG4
Recruit
Inanch-Bilge said:
And a sneaking system should be built. with the A.I. being able to sneak well, not like skyrims stupid crouch sneaking. But something more realistic, with ducking, hiding, leaves cover, hugging walls, dust, etc... something that could be used for ambushes, so you could hide until the right moment before springing your traps (Also add traps) and the enemy would be unarmed and unprepared.
Is there any news on the campaign map? 
Not that I've seen (and I follow development regularly).
I think i remember them saying the BL will ship with built on editing tools so that even modding noobs can start doing their thangs.
Apparently addressing the largest problem with Native sieges (one point of entry) isn't considered an improvement by some people. 
"So what, we had ladders before!" Correction: you had one ladder before. "Siege towers aren't anything new!" Correction: Siege towers are new, and you can put them right next to your collection of ladders and get into castles through several different points at once, which is a very significant gameplay improvement over Warband.
Battering rams would also be cool, and something I think would actually be relatively simpler to implement and inherently more balanced than siege artillery.
"So what, we had ladders before!" Correction: you had one ladder before. "Siege towers aren't anything new!" Correction: Siege towers are new, and you can put them right next to your collection of ladders and get into castles through several different points at once, which is a very significant gameplay improvement over Warband.Battering rams would also be cool, and something I think would actually be relatively simpler to implement and inherently more balanced than siege artillery.
So it can be boiled down to you expected siege engines and destructiable environment/scene props.
I think we're all hoping for that. Might still happen. But even several ladders (most common siege equipment)
and siege towers in a siege opens up whole new strategic posibilities and shows the AI has been reworked.
I think we're all hoping for that. Might still happen. But even several ladders (most common siege equipment)
and siege towers in a siege opens up whole new strategic posibilities and shows the AI has been reworked.
Multiple ladders or siege engines, imo, would give the attackers too much advantage without allowing the defenders to throw ladders down or set them on fire.
Not in the two screenshots in this blog.Austupaio said:
The first one shows troops with raised shields by a ladder lying on the ground, and in the back climbing a ladder and siege tower.
In the second one archers are aiming down from the barricades.
Lord Brutus said:
Uh, The Defenders would have defensive artillery on the walls and in the towers, We want things as real as they can be I think even the old platform had more promise then the dev's put into it. SO yes, burning towers, using Greek fire um tunneling under walls, battle field wicker shields on the map, ALL siege artillery, both arrow and stone throwing and both simple and protected rams. different sizes of siege towers and By the way, we had more then one ladder in WF@S SO that's not NEW....and um I think if memory is right we had 2 ladders even in WB
Again not NEW. I'm sick of the bum rush to the walls I want to take the walls down not just be there when the attack Is ready that's boring.arctan
Recruit
Be cool if we had volley commands added to our commands list. Just a couple, like:
1. Fire at 45' (max range)
2. Fire at 30'
3. Fire at 15'
To allow you to deal casualties at a better range even with lower quality archers (they'd fire +/- a few degrees based on their skill) based on your own skill. Possibly the ability to assign volley fire command to a specific npc? Officer npcs with leadership stats that made decisions for you and controlled a division would be really awesome. Especially if you could give them more advanced orders (before combat). Those would be things like 'defend division A', or 'attack enemy archers'. You'd still be able to take direct control of them, and give it back to the officer at any time through your F-# commands menu. Neither of these would be too terribly hard to implement. Enemy/ally lords already have AI to draw upon, just weight it based on their leadership skill and your specific order, and volley firing is just fire at your current facing at specific angle.
Also, they've got a special animation for climbing soldiers. Not sure how difficult it would be to add some 'handles' to the sides of siege towers and just give soldiers a special animation for grabbing them when they get close. Pretty minor change, but apparently a pretty major immersion change. The siege towers don't even really need special landing pads, those wooden decks aren't really going to do that much damage to stone anyways, just make it so that the soldiers enter a special division and can be commanded, then just when they take the tower close enough to the wall it drops wherever it happens to end up. That'd be a lot more complex, because they'd have to take the siege towers off of tracks, but should still be doable. Putting up ladders after that would be fairly easy. Make them like siege towers, requiring soldiers to push them and getting set up on the wall, just with different animations. It'd basically be the same code, with different animations attached.
Iono. None of this is probably as simple as I think, I've only ever done low level development. But it's not necessarily as hard as a lot of people think it could be either. Just some thoughts on additions that would add immersion, and how seems logical yet simple to implement them.
Game NEEDS more advanced pre-battle screen. Yes, screens with buttons are irritating and immersion breaking. But they can also be necessary. Unless the F-# command gets waaay more advanced, you need the ability to set up advanced formations before battle. You need the ability to split your divisions into smaller formations (and a functionality to keep them split, during the battle) based on your current needs. "Oh, they have lots of cavalry, I'm going to need pikes everywhere" versus "Oh, they don't have any cavalry, I'm going to put my pikes behind two ranks of regular melee troops, so they hit on the charge but don't all end up dead in the battle". The soldiers wouldn't even spawn there. They'd spawn and then run to where you told them to go. They'd spawn more intelligently, with all the troops in the same formation spawning in the same files and adjacent ranks. That way a player using very advanced orders isn't going to finish them all before the cavalry of a players simple charge order hit. You'd actually gain strategy, order cavalry to charge, fight for a small amount of time, then retreat. Disrupting enemy preparations and allowing you to gain ground on them.
Again, just thoughts. But I'd find such a game to be very appealing. Also, IMO, villages shouldn't be factional based on who owns the associated castle. I'm sure that if a lord rolled in, offered them protection and reduced taxes, and they hated their lord enough, they'd be completely on board. Granted, the previous lord isn't going to be happy with the new one about this. Feifless lords would get something to do, and perhaps if killing bandits near a village gave them reputation with it, they'd get useful too.
Also, if ambushes are truly being added, you need to have marching orders for your army. A simple screen that you basically just specify what divisions or types of troops march where. So when you get ambushed you get no pre-battle plan. Simply where your troops were when you got there. These marching orders would also possibly be used to determine where your troops spawn at the start of a battle? Be a heck of a lot better than a huge square of dudes.
Also, for the people saying that single player doesn't matter. I'd bet that a good two thirds of their buyers will not touch multiplayer for more than an hour. It's not always that appealing. Some times actual content and complex, long-term, objectives can be funner. Quality of your game shouldn't be based on the quality of your matchmaking system, IMO games like that often have the worst quality communities on the internet. That's worded poorly, but should get the point across.
Also, with the argument about modding. There are some mods which basically every player agrees are necessary. Said mods will be implemented as the new vanilla at least, if not improved upon. Or taleworlds will have failed terribly. They shouldn't need listing.
Sneaking. Clearly required on the campaign map, it should also be somehow made possible on the combat map. Even just the addition of small bushes and vision obstructions with crouching soldiers so as to prevent players from sighting soldiers in specific areas, to allow traps and the like to be used. Similarly, soldiers and formations should not turn automatically to face the enemy. Orders should be added to force the player to control this. How do my men know where the soldiers on the other side of that hill are moving? As long as even a single man has a direct line of sight a command to face the enemy formation should be available, and they should announce it somehow. Need a separate command to rotation your entire army with respect to their current orientation to each other, multiple divisions the same, and single divisions on their center axis.
Need player defined formations. Simply a menu that lets you draw up where ranks and files go (and in what order, if enough troops are not present) so that players can create custom formations. Allow specific unit types to be associated with specific positions. Like putting archer-skirmishers in front of straight archers, or pikes in every second or third rank behind melee troops.
The ability to lay traps, creating a largish region (based on a skill use and time taken) in which every lord other than the layer (and possibly lords he has somehow warned of the danger) have a small chance every small amount of time to have a soldier hit a trap and become wounded (or, depending on the nature of the trap, loose his horse). The traps would deteriorate after time (wildlife), and there would be chances for lords to spot the traps based on their own skill and receive a warning. Not know the actual boundaries, just know that they're in a trapped area. Come on subterfuge and sabotage!
Also, ladders and towers in the same siege are not a new thing. I have no idea where, but I have at least one distinct memory of a siege in warband where a very narrow ladder spawned next to where the tower landed. Also, not sure if this was floris mod, but I've seen destructible gates that you could cut down. So clearly battering rams are a thing which could be implemented. Heck, even without one some wooden doors might be possible to take down with axes and blunt weapons.
On another thing, if adding occupiable positions to the siege towers became a thing, perhaps they could be added to the walls? Giving each arrow slit a number of archers (probably two) that can 'attach' to it, and use it more intelligently. It isn't a smarter AI, but it'd be an improvement. If you use restricted positions like that then the new animations are easier to create and implement. Also, one shot siege equipment should be possible. Boiling oil over the gate to deal serious damage to units attempting to ram the gate, for example. These would need to be constructed in advance of the battle (though possibly could be made during the siege, if you happen to have the time before they decide to attack). Similarly, the attacker would get options to prepare such things. If siege equipment is added it needs to have a very long re-attack time though, or it's going to be game breaking. Guaranteed. Don't care how realistic it may be, the ability to kill a score of enemy troops from beyond arrow range will be game breaking. Heck, having archers is already game breaking in a siege =D.
Lot of words, I'm very tired and slightly medicated. Sorry. TLDR: List of ideas.
1. Fire at 45' (max range)
2. Fire at 30'
3. Fire at 15'
To allow you to deal casualties at a better range even with lower quality archers (they'd fire +/- a few degrees based on their skill) based on your own skill. Possibly the ability to assign volley fire command to a specific npc? Officer npcs with leadership stats that made decisions for you and controlled a division would be really awesome. Especially if you could give them more advanced orders (before combat). Those would be things like 'defend division A', or 'attack enemy archers'. You'd still be able to take direct control of them, and give it back to the officer at any time through your F-# commands menu. Neither of these would be too terribly hard to implement. Enemy/ally lords already have AI to draw upon, just weight it based on their leadership skill and your specific order, and volley firing is just fire at your current facing at specific angle.
Also, they've got a special animation for climbing soldiers. Not sure how difficult it would be to add some 'handles' to the sides of siege towers and just give soldiers a special animation for grabbing them when they get close. Pretty minor change, but apparently a pretty major immersion change. The siege towers don't even really need special landing pads, those wooden decks aren't really going to do that much damage to stone anyways, just make it so that the soldiers enter a special division and can be commanded, then just when they take the tower close enough to the wall it drops wherever it happens to end up. That'd be a lot more complex, because they'd have to take the siege towers off of tracks, but should still be doable. Putting up ladders after that would be fairly easy. Make them like siege towers, requiring soldiers to push them and getting set up on the wall, just with different animations. It'd basically be the same code, with different animations attached.
Iono. None of this is probably as simple as I think, I've only ever done low level development. But it's not necessarily as hard as a lot of people think it could be either. Just some thoughts on additions that would add immersion, and how seems logical yet simple to implement them.
Game NEEDS more advanced pre-battle screen. Yes, screens with buttons are irritating and immersion breaking. But they can also be necessary. Unless the F-# command gets waaay more advanced, you need the ability to set up advanced formations before battle. You need the ability to split your divisions into smaller formations (and a functionality to keep them split, during the battle) based on your current needs. "Oh, they have lots of cavalry, I'm going to need pikes everywhere" versus "Oh, they don't have any cavalry, I'm going to put my pikes behind two ranks of regular melee troops, so they hit on the charge but don't all end up dead in the battle". The soldiers wouldn't even spawn there. They'd spawn and then run to where you told them to go. They'd spawn more intelligently, with all the troops in the same formation spawning in the same files and adjacent ranks. That way a player using very advanced orders isn't going to finish them all before the cavalry of a players simple charge order hit. You'd actually gain strategy, order cavalry to charge, fight for a small amount of time, then retreat. Disrupting enemy preparations and allowing you to gain ground on them.
Again, just thoughts. But I'd find such a game to be very appealing. Also, IMO, villages shouldn't be factional based on who owns the associated castle. I'm sure that if a lord rolled in, offered them protection and reduced taxes, and they hated their lord enough, they'd be completely on board. Granted, the previous lord isn't going to be happy with the new one about this. Feifless lords would get something to do, and perhaps if killing bandits near a village gave them reputation with it, they'd get useful too.
Also, if ambushes are truly being added, you need to have marching orders for your army. A simple screen that you basically just specify what divisions or types of troops march where. So when you get ambushed you get no pre-battle plan. Simply where your troops were when you got there. These marching orders would also possibly be used to determine where your troops spawn at the start of a battle? Be a heck of a lot better than a huge square of dudes.
Also, for the people saying that single player doesn't matter. I'd bet that a good two thirds of their buyers will not touch multiplayer for more than an hour. It's not always that appealing. Some times actual content and complex, long-term, objectives can be funner. Quality of your game shouldn't be based on the quality of your matchmaking system, IMO games like that often have the worst quality communities on the internet. That's worded poorly, but should get the point across.
Also, with the argument about modding. There are some mods which basically every player agrees are necessary. Said mods will be implemented as the new vanilla at least, if not improved upon. Or taleworlds will have failed terribly. They shouldn't need listing.
Sneaking. Clearly required on the campaign map, it should also be somehow made possible on the combat map. Even just the addition of small bushes and vision obstructions with crouching soldiers so as to prevent players from sighting soldiers in specific areas, to allow traps and the like to be used. Similarly, soldiers and formations should not turn automatically to face the enemy. Orders should be added to force the player to control this. How do my men know where the soldiers on the other side of that hill are moving? As long as even a single man has a direct line of sight a command to face the enemy formation should be available, and they should announce it somehow. Need a separate command to rotation your entire army with respect to their current orientation to each other, multiple divisions the same, and single divisions on their center axis.
Need player defined formations. Simply a menu that lets you draw up where ranks and files go (and in what order, if enough troops are not present) so that players can create custom formations. Allow specific unit types to be associated with specific positions. Like putting archer-skirmishers in front of straight archers, or pikes in every second or third rank behind melee troops.
The ability to lay traps, creating a largish region (based on a skill use and time taken) in which every lord other than the layer (and possibly lords he has somehow warned of the danger) have a small chance every small amount of time to have a soldier hit a trap and become wounded (or, depending on the nature of the trap, loose his horse). The traps would deteriorate after time (wildlife), and there would be chances for lords to spot the traps based on their own skill and receive a warning. Not know the actual boundaries, just know that they're in a trapped area. Come on subterfuge and sabotage!
Also, ladders and towers in the same siege are not a new thing. I have no idea where, but I have at least one distinct memory of a siege in warband where a very narrow ladder spawned next to where the tower landed. Also, not sure if this was floris mod, but I've seen destructible gates that you could cut down. So clearly battering rams are a thing which could be implemented. Heck, even without one some wooden doors might be possible to take down with axes and blunt weapons.
On another thing, if adding occupiable positions to the siege towers became a thing, perhaps they could be added to the walls? Giving each arrow slit a number of archers (probably two) that can 'attach' to it, and use it more intelligently. It isn't a smarter AI, but it'd be an improvement. If you use restricted positions like that then the new animations are easier to create and implement. Also, one shot siege equipment should be possible. Boiling oil over the gate to deal serious damage to units attempting to ram the gate, for example. These would need to be constructed in advance of the battle (though possibly could be made during the siege, if you happen to have the time before they decide to attack). Similarly, the attacker would get options to prepare such things. If siege equipment is added it needs to have a very long re-attack time though, or it's going to be game breaking. Guaranteed. Don't care how realistic it may be, the ability to kill a score of enemy troops from beyond arrow range will be game breaking. Heck, having archers is already game breaking in a siege =D.
Lot of words, I'm very tired and slightly medicated. Sorry. TLDR: List of ideas.
Austupaio said:Well, thank you, Orion for pointing out that I shouldn't complain because instead of one ladder or one siege tower, we now get TWO ladders AND a siege tower.
This is so exciting, I'm about to pre-order.
Oh you can complain all you want. I'm just saying you're being disingenuous with your complaint because it's not just one ladder or one siege tower anymore, and just because it's not catapultsandtrebuchetsandmangonelsohmy doesn't mean it's an insignificant change.
Orion said:Austupaio said:Well, thank you, Orion for pointing out that I shouldn't complain because instead of one ladder or one siege tower, we now get TWO ladders AND a siege tower.
This is so exciting, I'm about to pre-order.
Oh you can complain all you want. I'm just saying you're being disingenuous with your complaint because it's not just one ladder or one siege tower anymore, and just because it's not catapultsandtrebuchetsandmangonelsohmy doesn't mean it's an insignificant change.
I met this really cute girl while playing WB that I think I should Introduce you to, I believe she called herself something like the iron maiden, I believe a night inside of her will change your whole out look on the world including the beauty of siege siege engines
Don't get me wrong, I think siege artillery is awesome in so many ways. I also think Warband already has overpowered bows and crossbows in singleplayer. As an archer, I can easily account for half of the kills in a castle siege in Native, while defending or attacking. The only limitation is that I can only kill one person at a time. Siege artillery would multiply my effectiveness, making sieges horribly boring and repetitive, unless you just like watching numbers count up. If that's the case, you should look into cookieclicker.
