Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord Old Discussion Thread

  • 主题发起人 user1324865215
  • 开始时间

正在查看此主题的用户

状态
不接受进一步回复。
Kiri Kaneko 说:
What I want is a game where success or failure is down to my skill as a player in combat, command, strategy and resource management, not grind and patience and grind. I don't expect the game designers to fix all of this on my behalf so I need to impose restrictions on myself so I need ideas, some simple rules to follow. I've had a lot of ideas but its a long list of things to remember and follow and I'm concerned that when I get started I'll find I've either made an impossible game or I just find some other way to break it and it degenerates into a grind again

I recently played Crusader Kings 2 and it was so hard. Such a balanced and difficult game with so many random ways to screw you and leave you desperately trying to hold it together. I did find a way to break it eventually but it never really felt like victory was guaranteed til I held half the map and even up til that point there were time where I made a mistake and everything nearly fell apart. I want that in Mount and Blade somehow :grin:

This comment from a different thread sums up my wish for the metagameplay in single player for Bannerlord.  I'm hoping it has way more depth and complexity than warband.
 
Well, I see they posted a Caribbean Devblog  on their facebook page. I like the way you can recruit troops in that game and the town options.
 
Jesus YOUR LORD 说:
Kiri Kaneko 说:

This comment from a different thread sums up my wish for the metagameplay in single player for Bannerlord.  I'm hoping it has way more depth and complexity than warband.

Haven't played any of the grand strategy games from Paradox so I dont't know what the randomness is truly like, but I seriously don't wan't the game to have any large events with an RNG chance to happen. There's nothing I hate more in games than completely random mechanics that you can't even expect. My actions have meaning so they will cause problems, but they should be something I am able to see quite clearly beforehand if I take care in how I choose to play.
 
CaptainAndrew 说:
Haven't played any of the grand strategy games from Paradox so I dont't know what the randomness is truly like, but I seriously don't wan't the game to have any large events with an RNG chance to happen. There's nothing I hate more in games than completely random mechanics that you can't even expect. My actions have meaning so they will cause problems, but they should be something I am able to see quite clearly beforehand if I take care in how I choose to play.

In before "it's just a game" argument.

But it is how it's in real life, isn't it? Who could have foreseem the rise of the Arabic Empire in the VI century? Clearly not the romans.
 
...But it is just a game. And the rashidun caliphate only reached such a massive size so quickly because the Byzantines and Sassanids were in a state of awful management and bankruptcy.
If you're playing a paradox game and the RNG decides it's time to suck away a year's worth of some resource, it's annoying. In mount and blade it'd be infuriating (say for example, some popup tells you you just tripped over a rock and died, the end *CoughacokCough*)

Random events suck; they don't add to gameplay and if they're instant and completely unpreventable, they're not realistic either.
 
jacobhinds 说:
...But it is just a game. And the rashidun caliphate only reached such a massive size so quickly because the Byzantines and Sassanids were in a state of awful management and bankruptcy.
Even if that were true, the odds were astronomically weighed against the caliphate, and the major battles they fought they were greatly outnumbered and under equipped.  The previous poster is right, the fact that a bunch of Bedouins who were skirmishing against themselves a few years back will topple two of the greatest empires at the time... No one could foresee that.
 
The Byzantines and Sassanids had plenty of chances to take on the rashidun caliphs (whose soldiers were armed very similarly to the Byzantine ones from very early on, mind you), but crap command coupled with weakening border strength and a ton of other stuff caused by the romano-persian war made it really easy for the rashidun caliphate to expand. Not saying they didn't have some brilliant generals, but it's silly to say that the byzantines and Sassanids "never saw it coming" (although the conquest of the Levant took decades) and then use that as an excuse to add silly unavoidable events where doomstacks of enemies pop out of nowhere.

The nomads and seminomads of the region had also been a huge pain in the ass of anybody who settled in the borders of deserts. It's why the lakhmmids and ghassanids were employed -- both the Romans and Sassanids were aware that really effective fighters from the desert would rush in when they let their guard down. The 7th century was just one such case, but after the rise of Islam a lot of powerful arabs gained familial, economic or political ties with the settled world, and the constant raiding ceased to become such an immediate problem.
 
jacobhinds 说:
The Byzantines and Sassanids had plenty of chances to take on the rashidun caliphs (whose soldiers were armed very similarly to the Byzantine ones from very early on, mind you
That's not true.
The Caliphate armies were mostly composed of Light Infantry and Light Cavalry, whereas the Byzantines and Sassanids had that, plus Catarphracts, War Elephants, Heavy Infantry, and generally better equipment.  Both empires had centuries of large scale warfare experience, as well.

It's easy for you to say they could have dealt with the Caliphate, but only in hindsight.  They clearly never considered them as a legitimate threat, otherwise they would've steamrolled the Arabian Peninsula.
 
Or they weren't keen on kicking what looked a lot like a hornet's nest and prioritised more pressing threats until, in due course, it rose to the top of the list.

I agree with that randomness should be limited to small scale variables, so when the diplomacy event ticks and 3 wars start, then I can't reload and get 3 treaties and 1 totally different war instead - not just because the random seed is conserved, but because large events are governed by sensible cause and effect, rather than just the roll of a die.
 
Raoh 说:
jacobhinds 说:
The Byzantines and Sassanids had plenty of chances to take on the rashidun caliphs (whose soldiers were armed very similarly to the Byzantine ones from very early on, mind you
That's not true.
The Caliphate armies were mostly composed of Light Infantry and Light Cavalry, whereas the Byzantines and Sassanids had that, plus Catarphracts, War Elephants, Heavy Infantry, and generally better equipment.  Both empires had centuries of large scale warfare experience, as well.

The eastern romans didn't use war elephants, their infantry were mostly auxiliaries hired case-by-case from europe (the later crusaders were one of these auxiliary groups), and cataphracts were of limited use against raiders.
The sassanids were similar; their armies had been whittled down after almost a century of war, and by the time the rashidun arrived there was almost nothing left besides mercenaries and auxiliaries, who had a tendency to flee the battle the minute it wasn't going their way.

The "centuries of large scale warfare experience" were punctuated by poorly organised and inefficient militaries. The Byzantines were around for almost 1000 years, a period that saw them fielding the best armies in the middle east, and the worst, often fluctuating several times per century.

Raoh 说:
It's easy for you to say they could have dealt with the Caliphate, but only in hindsight.  They clearly never considered them as a legitimate threat, otherwise they would've steamrolled the Arabian Peninsula.

This is a video game mentality. The arabian peninsula and its inhabitants are impossible to conquer, mainly because nomads can't be conquered/subjugated if you can't catch them. The hijra is a semi-nomadic region on the red sea where the rashidun caliphate began, but even that was of no value to anybody, even the Ottomans, Abbasids and Umayyads, who conquered everything around the arabian peninsula.

It's like saying that the song empire should've just conquered all of siberia to prevent the mongol invasion. It's a fact that they knew the mongols were coming (they conquered parts of iran before they went for china), but a settled state cannot take on nomads for several reasons.

The Byzantines were decadent idiots for a lot of their history, and their armies were pitifully bad on countless occasions. It's no coincidence that the periods of territorial decline in the Byzantine empire are accompanied by rubbish dynasties or infighting.
 
Here we go
1
3x56E9B.jpg

A battle, yay. It looks rather large too.
2
SQcvmEE.jpg

A skirmish, armor looks great.
3
6jjYUej.jpg

Some fruit, Yummy
4
9XmDoRB.jpg

Main menu, pretty also.
 
LittleLegionaire 说:
Ban me http://imgur.com/a/RxNJB

So we see a rather large battle, a small skirmish, another one with a guy with big weapons admiring some fruit, and the main menu atm. Looks good if you ask me...

Interesting.
 
Compared to the screenshots Taleworlds has on the main website, these are ugly as ****.
The main menu (Probably a placeholder) is ugly.
I think and i hope these are early alpha.
 
状态
不接受进一步回复。
后退
顶部 底部