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

<p>Hi, all! For our seventh installment of the Bannerlord developer blogpost, we'd like to talk a little about our plans for factions, and how this fits into our evolving thinking about Mount&Blade as a sandbox game.</p></br> Read more at: http://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/8

 

[Eske]

Really, I think you either have a frantic RTS game like Command & Conquer, or an in-depth RPG like M&B with some strategy elements. Sure, Bannerlord could have in-depth strategy too, but not at the cost of sacrificing its RPG side. You can't have some players micromanaging their character, villages and troops, or leisurely exploring a town - while others are frantically laying waste.  And as above, I don't see how constantly slowing down or pausing gameplay for the faster players would be anything other than infuriating.

The best shot at campaign multiplayer IMO would be pure co-op, meaning players coexist in the same party and same battles. Like a traditional party-based RPG. There's some serious depth to be explored there with M&B's unique battle system. Your best fighter leads his heavily armoured infantry through the centre, occupying the enemy while your best horsemen leads his cavalry around for a charge into their exposed flanks. Your best archer and his skirmishers circle the battle, picking off the unwary.

Outside of battle... In a lord's hall, let the silver-tongued player conduct diplomacy. At the market, let the savviest player barter for supplies. On the world-map, hand control of the party to the most-skilled pathfinder. Until your talented tracker alerts you of the bandits ahead - and you relinquish control to him for the chase.

Competitive RTS with a tenuous alliance - we've seen that a hundred times before. Why not play to the game's strengths and make something unique and properly co-operative?

 

[Carrion]

"You can't have some players micro-managing their character, villages and troops, or leisurely exploring a town - while others are frantically laying waste."

In my ideal "bannerlord" it would be up to the players to strike a personal/gamplay balance. Furthermore I completely disagree that a strategic game cannot be merged well with a rpg in bannerlords context, in fact I think it's perfect.

Why not though? or why not have multiple modes or settings depending on the spesific community preferance?/ or even develop the game so that a varriety of players are able to get what they want out of a SP or MP modes?

Why would you want to limit bannerlord to a single MP coop campaign game mode + classic arena and not have the option of MP vs/coop campaign? As if one excludes the other...

There is no way a one size fits all is going to result in the highest satisfaction level among the community, look at the current game modes and variety of servers. That being said, even if bannerlord disappoints the crowd who want true strategic rpg multiplayer campaign experiance with VS and COOP there will be other games, either way I'll still play bannerlord though I will be dissapointed.

A good exsample of "time scaling" is CK2 or other RTSs that have pause/play/etc. Most games have a "game speed setting" and a difficulty setting. Another option could have no dynamic scaling altogeather and just lock it at a decent fraction of the current speed.

 

[Do not look here]

Why not making game that is everyone's dream? Well, lack of resources may be among the reasons.

 

[Cookie Eating Huskarl]

So everyone, empty your trust funds and your parent's bank accounts as well while you're at it and send it all to Armagan. That way Armagan will relieve you of your sins of impatience and waiting and you'll be made happy forever. You can trust me because Armagan is love and Armagan is life.

 

[Alp Scotlander or Gimli]

ok ur funny

 

[Eske]

In my ideal "bannerlord" it would be up to the players to strike a personal/gamplay balance.

How so? Settings for that particular server? (e.g. I dunno, 30 second menu time-out, town menus only instead of town exploration?). Or just verbal house rules with a poll to kick flouting players? I'm open to the basic idea, but once you start introducing practical restrictions it doesn't sound so much like the campaign anymore (maybe my examples aren't very good though, there might be better ways). I can see two friends managing OK, but potentially a server of 4, 5, 6 strangers all butting heads... It just makes it more stark how the battle system is made for vs. multiplayer and the campaign is not. I have no opposition to the game-mode being included, but if it was one or the other (due to time/resources) I'd personally prefer one-party co-op. If it was both, then obviously that would be far more awesome.

 

[Willhelm]

Please can the shaft of a pike be a physical thing. Phalanxes and pike blocks are ineffective when the enemy can walk through the wall of pikes to just hit you.

 

[HannesFury]

Please can the shaft of a pike be a physical thing. Phalanxes and pike blocks are ineffective when the enemy can walk through the wall of pikes to just hit you.

This. Also have them damage where the actual edge thrusts, not along the wood shaft.

Naturally, this goes along the way of shields blocking merely where they're supposed to.

 

[FrisianDude]

camp followers (e.g. clerics and soldier's wives),

For that matter, blacksmiths and farriers, fletchers, poleturners, washers, etc

 

[Eske]

camp followers (e.g. clerics and soldier's wives),

For that matter, blacksmiths and farriers, fletchers, poleturners, washers, etc

Dancers or turners?

Seriously though, first time I've heard that term. The shame.

FrisianDude, were soldier's wives very common? Popular culture always led me to think of prostitutes following soldiers around, not their spouse (if they were likely to have one).

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Depends how long the campaign was. And nomadic peoples tended to bring their entire family to war with them.

 

[Eske]

Depends how long the campaign was. And nomadic peoples tended to bring their entire family to war with them.

True that. I think some professional soldiers were the reverse. If I recall, Roman legionaries weren't usually allowed to marry. That might apply to the Calradic Empire.

 

[MerlinTheHappyPig]

Just wanna say again...
ADD IMPALING!

 

[Adorno]

ADD IMPALING!

Vlad are you talking about?

 

[Tybalt_]

ADD IMPALING!

Vlad are you talking about?

You're not even trying.

 

[Slayton]

Just wanna say again...
ADD IMPALING!

Hello Romanian fanbase

 

[Skeggjold]

Bannerlord will be an automatic buy, anyway.

Just don't let yourselves put in less sandbox for more theme park 
Quests are nice but we've got plenty of them in any other game, and we're not inconditional fans of these games.

 

[Manu_La_Canette]

camp followers (e.g. clerics and soldier's wives),

For that matter, blacksmiths and farriers, fletchers, poleturners, washers, etc

Dancers or turners?

Seriously though, first time I've heard that term. The shame.

FrisianDude, were soldier's wives very common? Popular culture always led me to think of prostitutes following soldiers around, not their spouse (if they were likely to have one).

Wives following armies were common thing in some cases : the 16th c. Germanic Landsknechten used to travel Europe with their wives and children along.

So, when will we be able to take part in the looting of towns, killing innocent villagers or hitting them with clubs and making them slaves, that would be a nice little bonus.
Sea raids would also be a nice feature, is there going to be more elaboration on the sea in this game seeing as it was an interest in WB?

Yeah, plundering and slaughtering rebellous peasants and burn down their hovels would add sooo much immersion. I mean that's what lords did back then, it should definetly be in the game, with modification of your karma and morale malus to ennemies because of your cruelty, if you cut down an old guy or a chick and so on.

I did this as a lord on Persistent World module, back on Union Server: We repelled an uprising from the Richfield's peasants that called a powerfull Lord to their help because I used to tax the village and use their ressources (as a Lord do ). Then I called my host and raided those villagers *****es chasing them in hay stack and cutting them as they tried to hide in their homes. That feel was so awesome after that rebellion I want this in SP!

 

[Carpra]

I hope they will release it this year   

2nd quarter of 2015, at minimum. 

 

[Cookie Eating Huskarl]

So, when will we be able to take part in the looting of towns, killing innocent villagers or hitting them with clubs and making them slaves, that would be a nice little bonus.
Sea raids would also be a nice feature, is there going to be more elaboration on the sea in this game seeing as it was an interest in WB?

Yeah, plundering and slaughtering rebellous peasants and burn down their hovels would add sooo much immersion. I mean that's what lords did back then, it should definetly be in the game, with modification of your karma and morale malus to ennemies because of your cruelty, if you cut down an old guy or a chick and so on.

I did this as a lord on Persistent World module, back on Union Server: We repelled an uprising from the Richfield's peasants that called a powerfull Lord to their help because I used to tax the village and use their ressources (as a Lord do ). Then I called my host and raided those villagers *****es chasing them in hay stack and cutting them as they tried to hide in their homes. That feel was so awesome after that rebellion I want this in SP!

To add to immersion, should one of those tension messages pop up (Swadian Villager A from village a accuses Vaegir Villager B from village b) and you raid one of the villages, you should get positive relations from the other village even though you'll get negative relation from both village's lords (which is already a thing in Warband).