</br> Read more at: http://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/9
Mount&Blade II: Bannerlord Developer Blog 8 - Engine Power [VIDEO]
- Thread starter captain lust
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
PoisonCourtesan
Count
Still, it is not a historical game. It's historically inspired fantasy and if you count back to the early stages it was low fantasy.
Ulreijk the Frisian
Regular
True that. Historical inspiration is still a great tool to get the imagination of the player goin. The Nords, Sarranids and Khergits but also the rather classical European factions clearly have their counterparts in history. Of course the gameplay itself is way more important, especially since there will be loads of mods anyways.
Still I'm glad that the scenario is going in that direction!
Still I'm glad that the scenario is going in that direction!
People are failing to understand dimension and area. The map has an area of 225 km^2, i.e. how many square blocks of 1km x 1km can fit into it (hint: 225). The dimensions of the map are thus 15 km by 15 km (another hint, (15)(15)=225).
Thus if you were on a horse at the edge of the map and wanted to go to the opposite edge, assuming a speed of 24 km/h at a canter (don't want to gallop with the horse, you'll exhaust it in no time this way.
), without factoring in time compression it would take you 37 and a half minutes to cover the map from north to south or east to west.
The confusion results from the fact that mathematically there isn't really an unambiguous way to give a designation to a particular square area and say it is "x km squared" and mean that it has "x km dimensions on all sides", because someone can easily interpret that square to be x km in area instead, because km squared and square km mean the exact same thing mathematically. The easiest way to avoid any ambiguity is to state its dimensions and from this you determine its area. Combining math with language is not always the easiest thing.
Thus if you were on a horse at the edge of the map and wanted to go to the opposite edge, assuming a speed of 24 km/h at a canter (don't want to gallop with the horse, you'll exhaust it in no time this way.
), without factoring in time compression it would take you 37 and a half minutes to cover the map from north to south or east to west.The confusion results from the fact that mathematically there isn't really an unambiguous way to give a designation to a particular square area and say it is "x km squared" and mean that it has "x km dimensions on all sides", because someone can easily interpret that square to be x km in area instead, because km squared and square km mean the exact same thing mathematically. The easiest way to avoid any ambiguity is to state its dimensions and from this you determine its area. Combining math with language is not always the easiest thing.
The Blessed Gerard
Sergeant
but only in 2016...
Eske
Veteran
Ulreijk the Frisian said:
Yes, please.
Also, zmogusnr1 mentioned war chariots...
Yes, please.
But not the pretend scythed ones. The coolest thing I read about chariots was how the ancient Britons used their light chariots to make their high-rank warriors extra mobile. The driver zooms in, drops the warrior off and rushes back in if needed. Also, passengers with javelins. You want co-op? There's your goddam co-op.
Scythed chariots did exist and were fairly effective, but they probably weren't used in Britain very much.
I don't know how chariots would be implemented though. There could be up to seven agents (four horses, three humans) on a chariot, so what if the driver or the horse in the middle dies? It'd look incredibly weird if they went the total war route and had them all die at the same time.
I don't know how chariots would be implemented though. There could be up to seven agents (four horses, three humans) on a chariot, so what if the driver or the horse in the middle dies? It'd look incredibly weird if they went the total war route and had them all die at the same time.
jacobhinds said:
Have it act like the horses in warband when the rider is killed? Perhaps have it go out of control and the other two riders fall off? Have it function with reduced efficiency until all of the passengers are killed?
Wow! The game looks way better in motion than in the screenshots. Way better than I was expecting to be honest.
The editor is night and day over the old one, so many awesome little usability features it was missing. The spinning wheel script trigger/custom variables made my brain explode, I can already see how nuts you could go with something as simple as that.
Damn you, the wait just got harder, if that was possible, arg.
The editor is night and day over the old one, so many awesome little usability features it was missing. The spinning wheel script trigger/custom variables made my brain explode, I can already see how nuts you could go with something as simple as that.
Damn you, the wait just got harder, if that was possible, arg.
Eske
Veteran
jacobhinds said:
Why not just have the whole chariot engulfed in a fiery explosion?
I keed, I keed.
Does sound a little tricky if one of the horses dies. I'd be very happy with a two-horse light chariot. If one horse dies I'd say the chariot comes to a halt. The other horse could still be mounted (okay, long and fiddly to unharness in real life but Maximus did it in front of all those people in the Colosseum and that was basically science). If the driver died, the horses assume the AI of any single riderless horse in Bannerlord until someone else takes up the reins. We've solved it. Now they have literally no excuses. Eske expects.
kpetschulat
Banned
Where's the new DLC?
Ulreijk the Frisian
Regular
Varrak said:
I'm quite sure that you will need a dedicated graphics card to have it run with full graphics (2-3 GB). And I guess at least 8GB Ram wouldn't hurt either, but you'll have time to worry for that in 12-18 months...
ThegnAnsgar said:People are failing to understand dimension and area. The map has an area of 225 km^2, i.e. how many square blocks of 1km x 1km can fit into it (hint: 225). The dimensions of the map are thus 15 km by 15 km (another hint, (15)(15)=225).
Thus if you were on a horse at the edge of the map and wanted to go to the opposite edge, assuming a speed of 24 km/h at a canter (don't want to gallop with the horse, you'll exhaust it in no time this way.
The confusion results from the fact that mathematically there isn't really an unambiguous way to give a designation to a particular square area and say it is "x km squared" and mean that it has "x km dimensions on all sides", because someone can easily interpret that square to be x km in area instead, because km squared and square km mean the exact same thing mathematically. The easiest way to avoid any ambiguity is to state its dimensions and from this you determine its area. Combining math with language is not always the easiest thing.
I see you're confused by the fact that when you write x km2, you might think that it could be phrased in English as x (square km) or as x (km squared), when the correct usage is to say x (square km) and (x km squared). You can't use square km to refer to dimensions and vice versa. If you go to a shop and ask to be delivered 50 metres squared of tiles for your bathroom floor, which you know to be 10 x 5 metres, or your dentist follows instructions to bore a 10mm square hole in your tooth, you are in trouble.
Uh, no. It clearly doesn't. The exponent when discussing area or volume (squared or cubed) is conventionally applied to the unit, not to the scalar. The reasoning for why this is so should be clear. A kilometer is a unit of length, hence the exponent in this case is applied to kilometers, thus 225km2, which when factored yields 15km x 15km. Your interpretation would only be correct if they had said 225km quantity squared, which would be (225km)2 or 225km x 225km, as is the conventional way to express an exponent applied to a product (225km is a product).Meevar the Mighty said:
It's not my "theory," it's grammatical convention.
Great video.
Meevar the Mighty said:ThegnAnsgar said:People are failing to understand dimension and area. The map has an area of 225 km^2, i.e. how many square blocks of 1km x 1km can fit into it (hint: 225). The dimensions of the map are thus 15 km by 15 km (another hint, (15)(15)=225).
Thus if you were on a horse at the edge of the map and wanted to go to the opposite edge, assuming a speed of 24 km/h at a canter (don't want to gallop with the horse, you'll exhaust it in no time this way.
The confusion results from the fact that mathematically there isn't really an unambiguous way to give a designation to a particular square area and say it is "x km squared" and mean that it has "x km dimensions on all sides", because someone can easily interpret that square to be x km in area instead, because km squared and square km mean the exact same thing mathematically. The easiest way to avoid any ambiguity is to state its dimensions and from this you determine its area. Combining math with language is not always the easiest thing.
I see you're confused by the fact that when you write x km2, you might think that it could be phrased in English as x (square km) or as x (km squared), when the correct usage is to say x (square km) and (x km squared). You can't use square km to refer to dimensions and vice versa. If you go to a shop and ask to be delivered 50 metres squared of tiles for your bathroom floor, which you know to be 10 x 5 metres, or your dentist follows instructions to bore a 10mm square hole in your tooth, you are in trouble.
Um, you did not understand at all what I said.
x (km squared) and (x square km) are the exact same thing mathematically. It is a measurement of area. There is absolutely no difference between the two when it comes to math. The problem is that the way you are intending to use it, is rather ambiguous, and math is intended to remove ambiguity.
And yes, if you have a bathroom floor that is 10 x 5 metres, 50 metres squared of tiles will most certainly give you the exact amount of tiles that you need (though not enough if you make a mistake). Unless you're speaking to an absolutely insane person who has no understanding of area, and if they can't even understand area, they should not be working in a hardware store/home centre.
