Mount&Blade II: Bannerlord Developer Blog 7 - Imperial Declines

Currently viewing this thread:

Orion

Still Not Worthy
Global Moderator
M&BWBWF&SNW
Best answers
0
MitchellD said:
On the topic of making castles important, they really ought to have castellans who govern in the lord's place while he's out doing other things. A big part of this should be that they will grab a portion of the garrison and ride out in defense of villages when they get raided, which would prevent the very annoying situation of lords with tiny parties running around raiding everything with no opposition. They could also handle recruitment, training and feeding of the garrison, all subject to preferences laid out by the lord. Food should no longer magically remain at 30/100 days worth until a siege occurs but actually consist of stocks that are depleted according to the size of the garrison (and perhaps rationing policies, with garrison morale also being a thing) and replenished via the castellan sending out caravans with a guard drawn from the garrison. This would make location actually matter a whole lot more; trying to feed the garrison of a castle stuck deep in enemy territory would be a nightmare as the caravans are continually intercepted, resulting in a loss of part of the garrison and the funds provided for purchasing food every time. There could also be the option to harbour peasants when a village can't be defended, which would mean further depletion of food stores but quicker restoration of village prosperity when they return.

Managing a castle you own would mean sitting down with your castellan and sorting out budget constraints on food, recruitment and training, rules on how much of the garrison can be taken out for defending villages, ration policies, limits on harboring peasants, etc instead of just "hmm, do I want a prisoner tower?" Furthermore, there'd be extra strategic options like pulling a Theon; drawing out part of a castle's garrison with a raid and then besieging the castle while it's weakened. For this reason, many lords may elect to never defend their villages because they deem the safety of their personal household far more important than those filthy peasants.
^ All of this. Many of these things are just assumed in Warband, like castle/city food supply. They're not actual systems in the game that the player can influence or be influenced by. If they were fully implemented systems rather than simple placeholder values, then they could also be tweaked to balance several aspects of the game (such as garrison size, which as it currently stands is very easily exploitable). It would be much more interesting if garrisons had morale and sustenance requirements just like the troops in your party. Of course you don't want to run around grocery shopping for your garrison and party all the time, so as MitchellD said there should be a means by which to automate these housekeeping/maintenance tasks. He suggests to do it through an NPC, which makes perfect sense, though I'd like to add that if the player is married then their spouse might also be chosen to do it instead, to avoid paying a castellan.

Furthermore, if castle food stores are determined by caravans and villager parties visiting them (as they should be), then sieges become an actual choice rather than "do I sit here and wait 100 days for the enemy marshal to show up, or do I assault the castle and lose a bunch of men?" You could decrease the amount of stores in a city by raiding their supply caravans for a while before laying siege, making it a viable option while still being more time-consuming than an assault. The difference between that and what we have now is that now, if you maintain a siege, you're stuck on a city in fast-forward and if you break the siege for any amount of time then the city automatically replenishes its food. You could be on day 98 when the enemy marshal shows up, but if you walked away from the city to fight him then you're going to have to wait another 100 days to starve that city. The army you killed will be back by then.
 

jeaguer

Recruit
Best answers
0
.
Easy to fix ,a castle or town can only repenish over some time ,
a break in the siege for a day or so wouln't change the force or the supply ,it could change the moral of the guarnison
if the relief force is defeated it would crush the castle will to fight
 

joei160.

Sergeant
WBNWVCWF&SM&B
Best answers
0
MitchellD said:
I don't know why people are asking for stealth. Mount & Blade is primarily about raising and managing an army to take on a campaign of your choosing. It does large battles excellently (though there's always room for improvement), but could benefit greatly from a lot of extra depth with regards to diplomacy, economy, lord relations, fief management, etc. The character running around on their own doing things like pickpocketing has nothing to do with the core gameplay and isn't playing to the strengths of the series. Bannerlord shouldn't emulate Skyrim or whatever some of you guys seem to want it to be, it should build on Mount & Blade's unique style of gameplay that has been excellent so far and has potential to become even better. Please don't ask the devs to move the focus away from what they do best and towards what other games do. Warband is by far the greatest game I have ever played due to its unique gameplay, I want Bannerlord to maintain that, not become a standard RPG
Totaly agred. Mount and Blade is a very original game and has other lackings, such as deaph, economy, fief management, lord relations, ROADS, EXECUTION AND SLAVERY!!! etc. Bannerlord should improve what is already great in Warband (wich was also my favorite game ever!!) and not try to become something else.

Maybe ambushes and night attacks, but not pickpocket and backstabbing, please. That's not assassin's creed.
 

LordFalcon666

Recruit
WB
Best answers
0
Very nice Blogpost ! :smile:
Hope to read more soon(er than 4 months, even if only a screenshot of work in progress ^.^)

Just one thing from me as "hope you do"... Don't eff up the Combat system. Make it as good looking as you seem fit, but if it feels sluggish as War of the roses or Chivalry, it would be sad.
I like the Warbands fast response on the melee system attacking and blocking. It adds a flavour of skill to the game :smile:

Kind regards

LF666
 

Geoseogan

Regular
M&BWBWF&SNW
Best answers
0
PLEASE! No more over powered axes!  Axes were never this powerful in combat as they are in Mount and Blade (both fast and damage shields, and for longer reach, use a long axe) and if they could, what about factoring in the possibility of the axes getting wedged and stuck into the opponent's shield?  Then there's steel shields currently in Mount and Blade, steel and plate.  Why are axes also efficient against those?  Axes should not be that fast and have x2 damage. 

Also, what heraldic horse cloth or heraldic horse armor?    :cool:

And will the Saracen-archetype (Vlandians? The first image on the blog post looks like a Saracen town and the first faction listed under the image are the Vlandians) have any round shields available to their infantry with their scimitars?  Besides cavalry.  And I mean on multiplayer and the foot soldiers on SP.  Heh, at that point, it would just be nice to be able to customize your soldiers and have various weapons and armor you can select for them to use, armor and weapons being based off of what is available from that tier, for more customization in your army. 

I really like hearing about the clan system, I want to see feuding lords within a kingdom fight or try to usurp the throne.

One more thing, as anyone mentioned a multiplayer sandbox open world that's the same as singleplayer?  Currently in Warband, when a player enters combat, the rest of the world freezes.  Well, I think it would be cool, in both a MP sandbox and SP, for the world to not stop moving, thus allowing more allies or enemies to join the battle (passing by while the battle is active), just like how the player can roam around and join an ongoing battle that the NPC has.  Although the time of day and night may not be proportionate to battle time since the map moves at a speed of 'x' hours per minute.



Thanks for reading, and I can redo this post later on.  I'm just too eager to wait and post until I'm well rested!

 

MitchPTI

Veteran
Best answers
0
JaredThinks said:
One more thing, as anyone mentioned a multiplayer sandbox open world that's the same as singleplayer?  Currently in Warband, when a player enters combat, the rest of the world freezes.  Well, I think it would be cool, in both a MP sandbox and SP, for the world to not stop moving, thus allowing more allies or enemies to join the battle (passing by while the battle is active), just like how the player can roam around and join an ongoing battle that the NPC has.  Although the time of day and night may not be proportionate to battle time since the map moves at a speed of 'x' hours per minute.
I don't think such a system would be plausible for MP for exactly the reason you provided: the map moves too fast compared to battles, so you couldn't have people battling and other people on the map at the same time. I would like to see it implemented in SP with the map moving at a speed that's equivalent to real time in a battle so that other lords could potentially join a battle midway through. It would be great fun holding out in a tough battle and then feeling excitement and relief as "REINFORCEMENTS HAVE ARRIVED" heralds a sudden charge from allied cavalry.

That said, I don't know if it's possible to have the game simultaneously handle a battle AND everything happening in the overworld and if it is, it would hit performance pretty hard. There's a good chance that it's just not plausible in either mode, so I wouldn't hold my breath, no matter how cool it would be.
 

Momoel

Recruit
Best answers
0
Hello good people, there is something that worries me about the multiplayer, exp and levels WoR style that might give me an advantage over new players (murder of the fun), should remain as in previous games where skill decides who wins . A noob should be able to cope with a veteran with the same opportunities, I understand that this sort of thing will appeal to more casual gamers as well as kill streaks, Tripwire attempt this with the Red Orchestra 2 and the result was the anger of those who love the first game. I implore you in the name of the old and new gods Do not try to do this kind of business practices that have been brought by this monstrosity full of acne and racism, called CoD. I have 2000 hours in Warband and still enjoy battles and sieges with limited lives for defenders, I feel love for this masterpiece which has been a landmark in the history of video games.
 

TheGME

Veteran
M&BWBNW
Best answers
0
No stealth. Very bad idea.

What I'd like is a better intro quest line which is what they're seeming to be doing!
 

Oyclo

Sergeant
Best answers
0
JaredThinks said:
One more thing, as anyone mentioned a multiplayer sandbox open world that's the same as singleplayer?  Currently in Warband, when a player enters combat, the rest of the world freezes.  Well, I think it would be cool, in both a MP sandbox and SP, for the world to not stop moving, thus allowing more allies or enemies to join the battle (passing by while the battle is active), just like how the player can roam around and join an ongoing battle that the NPC has.  Although the time of day and night may not be proportionate to battle time since the map moves at a speed of 'x' hours per minute.
This would be nice, but it would require another layer of control too.  Real armies would have scouts out, if the scouts saw an approaching army you should get a messages in your battle saying "Sire, and enemy force of X men is approaching quickly from the north!" and have the ability to withdraw from battle etc. 

Its one of those things which might get too many layers of complexity to do properly. 
 

Paronomasia12

Master Knight
M&BWBNWWF&S
Best answers
0
Not really related to anything currently being discussed, but there are many features in (or at least mentioned) Brytenwalda I'd like to see in native Bannerlord. For example a plague and famine system, camp followers (e.g. clerics and soldier's wives), tripping over, gore and breaking weapons.
 

MaHuD

Section Moderator
WBM&BNWWF&SVC
Best answers
1
@jaredthinks,
What you want is exactly the reason why MP coop can't work. it would require severe re-balancing and will turn the game into a very very slow paced thing. The only way that I see reasonably working is a one party kind of setup where all players are in the same party and they can take turns in being the leader, but there are no menus so the players have the opportunity to walk around in towns, villages and camps to do their own little side quests.



As for the logistical suggestions by MitchellD I fully support those!
 

Kadoken

Sergeant
Best answers
0
I think there needs to be new collision systems in place. You can't reliably push people back in Warband, which shows in siege battles. Also, I feel like a stamina system like Chiv should be in place so one can't block forever.
 

Carrion

Veteran
Best answers
0
MaHuD said:
@jaredthinks,
What you want is exactly the reason why MP coop can't work. it would require severe re-balancing and will turn the game into a very very slow paced thing. The only way that I see reasonably working is a one party kind of setup where all players are in the same party and they can take turns in being the leader, but there are no menus so the players have the opportunity to walk around in towns, villages and camps to do their own little side quests.



As for the logistical suggestions by MitchellD I fully support those!
Nonsense, your preferances dosen't overided the reality that yes it could work, all that has to be changed is the time scale and travel speeds. If the Devs don't do it then the modders, if possible,  will because this is exsactly what the community wants, MP campagain with independent player controlled teams, preferably in a persistent world hosted by a dedicated server. We had a form of co op with WSE and brytenwalda but to be quiet honest everyone knows it was quite lacking.

Another solution to the time scale problem is to have two automated modes with a slight transition/ramp: whenever someone gets into a battle the campagin side time scales down to realtime untill that battle is over.

I can think of a few other ways to do it, either way if bannerlord is going to be as moddable as they claim then they should allow for the community to strike it's own balance. Not every game mode is going to be for everyone, but please don't try and ruin it for the rest of us.
 

Eske

Veteran
Best answers
0
MaHuD said:
@jaredthinks,
What you want is exactly the reason why MP coop can't work. it would require severe re-balancing and will turn the game into a very very slow paced thing. The only way that I see reasonably working is a one party kind of setup where all players are in the same party and they can take turns in being the leader, but there are no menus so the players have the opportunity to walk around in towns, villages and camps to do their own little side quests.
I agree and this is what I really want in any case. There seems to be big demand for a multiplayer campaign, but it might be useful to distinguish what people really mean by that. For example...

Pure Co-op: Travelling the world map as a single party. Fighting in the same battle or exploring the same settlement. Managing your own character development, potentially upgrading your own designated troops (for example one player might lead an archer group, another a cavalry group). The option to specialize in certain party skills. Relatively easy to implement without overhauling the previous system.

Complete Multiplayer: Moving as independent parties on the world map - perhaps with an option to join-up as above. Able to simultaneously fight in separate battles and explore separate settlements. Potentially raise separate kingdoms. Attack, ally or betray one another. Unable to implement without overhauling the previous system.

I can imagine the latter option is more popular - after all, it's more complete and would keep all camps happy. But if not, I think a lot of people (myself included) would probably be very happy with the pure co-op option.
 

MaHuD

Section Moderator
WBM&BNWWF&SVC
Best answers
1
Carrion said:
Nonsense, your preferances dosen't overided the reality that yes it could work, all that has to be changed is the time scale and travel speeds. If the Devs don't do it then the modders, if possible,  will because this is exsactly what the community wants, MP campagain with independent player controlled teams, preferably in a persistent world hosted by a dedicated server. We had a form of co op with WSE and brytenwalda but to be quiet honest everyone knows it was quite lacking.

Another solution to the time scale problem is to have two automated modes with a slight transition/ramp: whenever someone gets into a battle the campagin side time scales down to realtime untill that battle is over.

I can think of a few other ways to do it, either way if bannerlord is going to be as moddable as they claim then they should allow for the community to strike it's own balance. Not every game mode is going to be for everyone, but please don't try and ruin it for the rest of us.
I have thought of the slowing the time down, but it would be heavily dependent upon how many players would be playing and how visiting of castles, villages and towns is handled. Whilst obviously it is possible (everything is possible), I just don't see it happening like that. cRPG strategus seems far better than such a system, not only to mention it would require a lot of system behind it all to keep it running. Sure if it was for 5 players it wouldn't be much of a problem, but would it be worth to build all of it for only 5 players?
 

MaHuD

Section Moderator
WBM&BNWWF&SVC
Best answers
1
That's what he said. But how often would any of the players be in a battle, town, dialogue or some other screen/place that would require the game to slow down? Constant speed changes are very annoying to a player.