Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord Old Discussion Thread

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Star forts also don't have vertical walls.

In the face of siege weapons it was often earth walls which were most effective, and even in the age of cannon you see wooden fortifications mking a comeback. There are at least a couple of sieges i can think of where the defenders replaced damaged stone walls with piles of dirt and completely hampered enemy progress becuse dirt doesn't crumble. There is also the practice of hanging matresses over the side of a wall to prevent missile damage.

In many places wood was less feasible simply because you needed big trees and they had a tendency to burn down or rot, while stone walls could potentially last for centuries with no maintainance. Most medieval castles and cities were never assaulted even once, so the strength of the walls only had to be suggested to potential attackers rather than proven.

 

[cherac]

I came across it many years ago while playing age of empires three , the description of the palisade included something of that sort about fresh wood faring better against the metal balls than stone and  a mound of compact sand is always stronger than a stack of stones its common sense..

 

[Mamlaz]

Earth walls were usually replaced everywhere by stone, regardless of access to wood, has to be a good reason for it.

Or am I wrong and someone has an example or a source stating otherwise?

Is it really the case that wood/earth was replaced simply because of flammability?

 

[JuJu70]

Earth walls were usually replaced everywhere by stone, regardless of access to wood, has to be a good reason for it.

Or am I wrong and someone has an example or a source stating otherwise?

Is it really the case that wood/earth was replaced simply because of flammability?

Earth walls can be easily overtaken by cavalry, that's how Vladimir in Russia was taken by Mongols. Unless of course the place was on the hill, it was winter and the defenders figured out to dump alot of water on hill slopes. 

 

[Cpt. Nemo]

Spoiler

Star forts also don't have vertical walls.

In the face of siege weapons it was often earth walls which were most effective, and even in the age of cannon you see wooden fortifications mking a comeback. There are at least a couple of sieges i can think of where the defenders replaced damaged stone walls with piles of dirt and completely hampered enemy progress becuse dirt doesn't crumble. There is also the practice of hanging matresses over the side of a wall to prevent missile damage.

In many places wood was less feasible simply because you needed big trees and they had a tendency to burn down or rot, while stone walls could potentially last for centuries with no maintainance. Most medieval castles and cities were never assaulted even once, so the strength of the walls only had to be suggested to potential attackers rather than proven.

All excellent points, and I am in complete agreement. Well said.
Another point about castles after gunpowder: As cannons became stronger and stronger, many nobles basically gave up on the idea of building walls strong enough to resist cannon fire, and started building more elegant, and indefensible castles that look like Cinderella's.

I came across it many years ago while playing age of empires three , the description of the palisade included something of that sort about fresh wood faring better against the metal balls than stone and  a mound of compact sand is always stronger than a stack of stones its common sense..

You're using the small description of a palisade from a video game as a source? The idea of a mound of sand is similar to earthworks though, so no argument there.

 

[msamm]

With all the discussion going on about castles, thought of posting this here. I am sure quite a few people might have already seen this, but a hat tip to the creator!! Some of the most amazing renditions of wooden and stone castles I have ever seen in a game.

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?topic=115163.0

 

[Meevar the Mighty]

You don't build a moat around a temporary fortification, not without a huge army of men to do it for you and a very good reason to do it- ie, a nearby huge enemy army. The French and Normans had neither, these were permanent fortifications. What's more, building a motte (large artificial hill) takes a lot of time and manpower as well. They were local defences for lords to keep safe, primarily from Vikings (whose invasions of France occasionally numbered many tens of thousands of men). I don't know if any stone ones had been built, but in the 9th-11th centuries I would be surprised if the vast majority in France weren't still wooden for the most part.

I basically agree with this, though imo the threat of viking raids was probably not highest on the list of reasons for building a castle in most places. Internal strife or the anticipation of internal strife may have been the most immediate reason for many of those castles, while others may have been erected to protect from raids and invasion from various neighbouring powers, of which the vikings merely happened to be among most successful in their assaults on Frankia, a claim which doesn't necessarily put them among the most anxiously considered in the construction of castles. It rather suggests that the urge to build anti-viking castles was lower than that which was required. In Britain though, they very likely were the leading cause of fortification until he Conquest, though internal conflict was something of a constant in Britain too.

Yes it was permanent fortifications and ancestors of castles as we know it dungeon and all that things. For more info just read wikipedia in 11th century they started to build dungeons towers in stones. So as DanAngleland said 9th-11th century is wooden fortress age. There was few cities with stone walls it was remains of Roman fortifications. Wooden walls were weaker but it was easier and faster to rebuild.

The Franks built a few in the late C10th, but it seems only to have really taken off there or anywhere else in Europe in the C11th (in the Medieval period, anyway).

Maybe people just ran out of the larger trees usfule for building walls with? 

Nah, I stand firmly in the conviction that stone is just better, but wood/dirt is easier to build forts with.

Caesar built his humongous Rhine river bridges in less than 10 days lol.

I will look into this topic a bit later, I am very curious as to how long it took to build wooden forts in comparison to stone ones.

Be sure to look at the Peloponnesian War. Thucidides talks in a reasonable amount of detail about building times and manpower used for various constructions in that war. A few important examples are as follows:

Spoiler: Or the ones I remember well enough to look up anyway

The impromptu fortification of Pylos took 40 ships (my translation says the "soldiers" of these ships which might mean ~600 hoplites, but I assume the full crews participated, putting the number at 4000 or so) 6 days, without any metal tools, shifting stones by hand and having to carry mortar in lumps on their backs, as they didn't have suitable containers to hand. They left behind 5 ships as a garrison and this arrangement was sufficient to repulse the full force of the Spartan army and navy, who, after their defeat at Pylos, which they deemed uncomfortably close to home, sued for peace. Tragically, no agreement could be reached and the war continued.

The encirclement of Plataea, using a method similar to that in your Roman video, took the Spartan army 70 days and nights. On the number of workers, Thucidides just says that "considering the size of the force engaged in the work, they expected that the capture of Plataea would not take long". One could guess from the number given for the previous expedition that the number was similar and something in the order of 1000 hoplites. The natives of Plataea built their own counterwalls using a similar method and managed to keep up with the Spartan force, while also conducting other work-intensive countermeasures, such as tunnelling to undermine the encircling wall. Most of the women and children and all of the slaves were evacuated at the beginning of the siege, along with the elderly and infirm, leaving behind a brave garrison of 480 men and 110 women, who were apparently tasked with their cooking. Both sides were able to inflict heavy damage on the opposing walls, but neither side could push through to victory. Some time later, 220 Plataeans built ladders and made a daring escape over the Spartan walls and in doing so, reduced the attrition within Plataea. Eventually those left behind ran out of food and surrendered their city. The women were made slaves and the 215 or more remaining men were subjected to a show trial and executed.

Before the war, in 479 BC, Themistocles went personally and alone to Sparta to distract and stall the Spartans from interfering with the fortification of Athens that he had planned. The entire population of Athens worked on the new walls, which were built in a tremendous hurry from rubble and from buildings of every sort, public and private, even tombs. Every stone was placed in the wall in the order that it arrived, shaped or not. Thucidides doesn't say how long it took, but my assumption would be a matter of days, given that Themistocles claimed that he was simply waiting for the other representatives to arrive from Athens and all the while, messengers were running back and forth from both sides to report on what was happening. Shortly afterwards, Piraeus was fortified at leisure, with a wall thick enough for two wagons to pass and filled not with rubble, but large blocks of cut stone. These walls were somehow clamped together with iron and lead and seem to have been built some time in the same year, which was already at its close.

The chronology given for the original long walls built thereafter between Athens, Piraeus and Phalerum strongly suggests that they were built during the campaign season of one year. The Spartans sent a force to do battle with the Athenians in Boeotia, as part of an effort to discourage the building of the walls, while their spies in Athens worked to the same end. The Athenians marched their entire army to meet the Spartans and fought a battle at Tanagra, in which the Spartans were victorious, but didn't stay to press any advantage. The walls were completed 62 days after the battle. My guess would be that they had been under construction for about the same amount of time. The number of labourers doesn't come up in Thucidides' account, but it seems that building the long walls didn't upset normal life and goings on in Athens and clearly, army operations continued during the construction.

The temple at Delium was fortified in 2-3 days by a force from Athens. They dug a ditch and used the earth to make a rampart, atop which they built a wooden wall, filled with rubble from nearby buildings which they had torn down. They also built wooden towers where they thought necessary. They left a small garrison of ~300 cavalry to defend the place and unaware of a Boeotian force of 20,000 coming against them, began to return home. They had equal numbers to the Boeotians and turned to do battle, but being caught unawares, they were outmanoeuvred and routed, fleeing in all directions as night came. Some were cut down, but most escaped and many joined the 300 cavalry fortified in the temple. About 1000 Athenians and 500 Boeotians fell in the battle. Over the following 3 weeks, the Boeotians were reinforced by Malian slingers and light troops and 2000 Corinthian hoplites. They tried several strategems, which go undescribed, but eventually built a giant flamethrower by sawing a log in half, iron-plating it and joining it back together again, with a cauldron at the breech. With some bellows, they blew into the cauldron through a narrow tube. With this, they explosively launched burning coals, pitch and sulphur at the defenders who were forced to retreat while the Boeotians burned down their walls. Most of the defenders escaped to their ships, but some were killed and ~200 were taken prisoner when the Boeotians stormed the place.

 

[Rungsted93]

Wow guys i just got accepted into the Bannerlord test build!!
I took a screenshot since everyone here thinks i'm trolling.

https://s22.postimg.io/5shc2a6o1/Bannerlord.jpg

It should be said that this is an empty village scene which is WIP. I'm testing out to find errors in terrain, colliders etc. Also there's no lights yet.

 

[Cpt. Nemo]

Wow guys i just got accepted into the Bannerlord test build!!
I took a screenshot since everyone here thinks i'm trolling.

https://s22.postimg.io/5shc2a6o1/Bannerlord.jpg

It should be said that this is an empty village scene which is WIP. I'm testing out to find errors in terrain, colliders etc. Also there's no lights yet.

 

[Varrak]

Wow guys i just got accepted into the Bannerlord test build!!
I took a screenshot since everyone here thinks i'm trolling.

https://s22.postimg.io/5shc2a6o1/Bannerlord.jpg

It should be said that this is an empty village scene which is WIP. I'm testing out to find errors in terrain, colliders etc. Also there's no lights yet.

He may be right though, google image search gives nothing

 

[msamm]

Wow guys i just got accepted into the Bannerlord test build!!
I took a screenshot since everyone here thinks i'm trolling.

https://s22.postimg.io/5shc2a6o1/Bannerlord.jpg

It should be said that this is an empty village scene which is WIP. I'm testing out to find errors in terrain, colliders etc. Also there's no lights yet.

The character armor looks nice. Kind of gladiator look!

 

[cherac]

Wow guys i just got accepted into the Bannerlord test build!!
I took a screenshot since everyone here thinks i'm trolling.

https://s22.postimg.io/5shc2a6o1/Bannerlord.jpg

It should be said that this is an empty village scene which is WIP. I'm testing out to find errors in terrain, colliders etc. Also there's no lights yet.

judging from the texture quality and lack of lighting he designed it himself with blender or some other software.(I know you designed it yourself thats why you stated there was no lighting good work I'm impressed ,)

 

[ToyBoat]

y'all are something special to think that's actually bannerlord

 

[Jostino]

Wow guys i just got accepted into the Bannerlord test build!!
I took a screenshot since everyone here thinks i'm trolling.

https://s22.postimg.io/5shc2a6o1/Bannerlord.jpg

It should be said that this is an empty village scene which is WIP. I'm testing out to find errors in terrain, colliders etc. Also there's no lights yet.

Nice 3D creation dude. Now stop.

 

[[Rei]]

Wow guys i just got accepted into the Bannerlord test build!!
I took a screenshot since everyone here thinks i'm trolling.

https://s22.postimg.io/5shc2a6o1/Bannerlord.jpg

It should be said that this is an empty village scene which is WIP. I'm testing out to find errors in terrain, colliders etc. Also there's no lights yet.

LOL

 

[Lumos]

The picture looks faintly familiar to that "Black Death" game that's on Steam right now (of which I've seen one single video). Perhaps only the assets have been sourced from there, or from asset packs if it's indeed a scene.
At any rate, Rungsted, because you perhaps don't know, lighting in games isn't usually something you add manually to every single scene instance. Can you imagine how much work that'd be? Especially not if you've got a scene creation tool that's full of features, as we saw a long time ago. Besides, the camera is off-centre - not how Bannerlord looks - and there are lights, as evidenced by the ****ing shadows. And, as I'm sure there was a quote from some movie somewhere, "I'm not a little mushroom, and I don't feed on ****".
Besides, Boy Who Cried Wolf, even if this was as true as truth itself, nobody would believe you on the basis of having seen nothing but lies from you. Stop trying, it's pointless.

 

[ToyBoat]

the game in the picture is Chronicles of Elyria, now let's try to stay on topic

 

[Rungsted93]

Allright guys you got me ^^ It's a game i'm doing in Unity

 

[cherac]

Allright guys you got me ^^ It's a game i'm doing in Unity

Joke or not , you have earned a reputation as a liar , you have talent, it would be a shame to have that tarnish your image. Anyway your pic has brought my mind onto something, has there been any info on tournaments in bannerlord?

I have a few suggestions on the gameplay:

1. Lords should be easily identified or found on the battlefield or during sieges ( a big red dot on the minimap or a crown icon over their heads might solve this)

2. During sieges lords shouldn't charge in with everyone else , at the beginning of the assault they should be seen on their horse behind their men , and should only join after the siege equipment have breached the walls , this is more realistic and reduces the chance of the lord being killed by some unknown soldier , I know most of us would enjoy killing or knocking the lord unconscious ourselves . Because we can't have lords dying in every siege or intense fight , or leave it to computer calculations like in warband we must have control over this feature , or better still only players can kill lords npc's can only knock them unconscious  .

 

[Kehlian]

It is even known that wooden walls fared better against canon balls than stone walls .

I'm going to need a source for that. There is a reason why star forts were made of stone, not wood.

I think the stone walls were more of a trend  than a technical standpoint . These walls were build for their neatness and owning one carried a much more offensive aura to the attacker than the wooden counterpart  .

No. Stone walls were not built because they looked cool and intimidating. Stone was preferred because it was extremely stronger. Stone walls were far more expensive and time consuming to create than wooden walls, requiring a different set of skills to gather raw stone, cut it into shape, transport it, and build.
And of course, they were filled just like wooden walls were.

You guys KNOW that most stone walls were built on top of wooden walls, right ? They just put mortar and stone around already existing wooden walls, to benefit from both worlds. Armed concrete is generally made from the same method, but with more sustainable materials.

Also, the littles holes you find that regularly dot the walls are holes to put scaffholders in it, for repairs. Stone walls were resistant, but they also needed to be worked on regularly. (visited one a month ago, a lot of very interesting infos during the tour ^^)

The best defence for a moat/fort/castle was terrain height. They used stairs, slopes and height to get the advantage on the ennemy. So inside a fort, stone or wood didn't really matter, what mattered was to guide the ennemy footmens through a "maze" (wasn't really that but I don't find a better word) of stairs or slope around, so the archers could fire, and serfs could throw stones on them while footmen were on the "funnel" (again, don't know if there is another word for that, had to google this one). Because even with stone walls, ennemies entering a fort during a siege was very common. Ennemies winning even dispite that fact, though, wasn't as much.

For the outer walls, stone was prefered because it could be built higher, and thus resist tripods attack (what we call in french Couillard, means Ballsy, because of the shape of the stuff)

Though it was a very expansive weapon to build, and not really used until medieval era, even then, having more than 4 of them on a siege was considered overkill.

Wood was easier and faster to build forts with, used mostly on temporary forts (even during the roman empire and all the way to late 900's, which seems to be technology-wise what bannerlord is), stone was prefered (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Roman_architecture#Stone), but wood was really more accessible on the field in Britannia and other war scenes. It was also really resistant, but couldn't be built too high, and because fort/moat were preferably built on hills to benefit from the defence advantage, wooden walls couldn't protect the "keep", as I don't find better word for it.

Stone was used later in castles because of that particular reason, beeing able to protect the keep from siege engines.

Also, I am not 100% sure of all the sources I used to post this, it's hard to be sure as there isn't much records on that, but in my country there is a lot of ancient castle tours, and they all pretty much say the same thing.

Sorry if the english isn't perfectly accurate, I'm not english native, but tried my best.

Now can we have a bannerlord release date ?

Wow guys i just got accepted into the Bannerlord test build!!
I took a screenshot since everyone here thinks i'm trolling.

https://s22.postimg.io/5shc2a6o1/Bannerlord.jpg

It should be said that this is an empty village scene which is WIP. I'm testing out to find errors in terrain, colliders etc. Also there's no lights yet.

When a dev tells you to stop, just stop, mate. You are embarassing yourself.