Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord Old Discussion Thread

[Frosty]

Hey, I thought that interview was enough for a month.

What interview? What did I miss? It's not buried under 92 pages of nothing is it?

It's in the first post.

 

[Mad Vader]

Ctrl-leftclick and the whole unit will be /used/. If you want to train, move or anything else - cntrl-leftclick... or maybe shift. One of them. In Native.

Jesus Christ... have you guys ever played native in your lives? NO, you CANNOT move the whole unit from/to garrison with ctrl-leftclick or shift-leftclick or whatever. You HAVE to move ONE BY ONE. Please, check your facts before posting.
As for training, yes, that is true. But I was talking about managing the garrison.

Mass transfers of troops to/from garrisons really work that way. Shift moves 10 troops in a stack, ctrl the whole stack.
Please, check your facts before raging.

 

[Trueten]

Jesus Christ... have you guys ever played native in your lives? NO, you CANNOT move the whole unit from/to garrison with ctrl-leftclick or shift-leftclick or whatever. You HAVE to move ONE BY ONE. Please, check your facts before posting.
As for training, yes, that is true. But I was talking about managing the garrison.

Stop this madness. You do can move the whole batch of units with one ctrl+lmb click. Go try it yourself before posting.


Edit: MV ninja'd.

 

[RalliX]

Only 1.011 M&B couldn't do the ctrl/shift clicking.
This caddux fellow is clearly confused.

 

[Lumos]

I don't play mods, and I believe that Shift and Ctrl both work for garrison management.
Shift may not work for troop training though.

 

[caddux]

Ctrl-leftclick and the whole unit will be /used/. If you want to train, move or anything else - cntrl-leftclick... or maybe shift. One of them. In Native.

Jesus Christ... have you guys ever played native in your lives? NO, you CANNOT move the whole unit from/to garrison with ctrl-leftclick or shift-leftclick or whatever. You HAVE to move ONE BY ONE. Please, check your facts before posting.
As for training, yes, that is true. But I was talking about managing the garrison.

Mass transfers of troops to/from garrisons really work that way. Shift moves 10 troops in a stack, ctrl the whole stack.
Please, check your facts before raging.

Well, then I must have a pretty bugged game, because not only I've played more than 1000 hours of WB, but I also double checked that in game before posting...

 

[Mad Vader]

You have to shift/ctrl-click on the take/give button after selecting a troop stack. Maybe that's the source of confusion.

 

[caddux]

Ok.I was so disturbed by this that I went in game just to give it one more try. And for the first time I realized that you have to ctrl-click on the "Give" button. Even after so many hours playing this game, I never thought of that! I only tryed that by ctrl-clicking on the units name! Shame on me. I'm sorry guys. And thank you! My life is going to be easier from now on, when managing garrisons.

edit: MadVader, I only saw your post after I just wrote mine! You were completely right! Thanks!

edit 2: Now, thinking about why my brain never thought of clicking on the give button, I think that maybe it's because one of the first things you learn in the game is that you can move inventory itens by ctrl-clicking them. I think that's why my brain always told me to ctrl-click on the units name, not on the give button!

 

[Ringwraith #5]

Now, thinking about why my brain never thought of clicking on the give button, I think that maybe it's because one of the first things you learn in the game is that you can move inventory itens by ctrl-clicking them. I think that's why my brain always told me to ctrl-click on the units name, not on the give button!

Understandable. M&B is a lot of things, but consistent in its controls and UI it most certainly ain't. That's one of many things that I hope they're going to improve in the sequel.

 

[Cliroj]

Hayır, Türkçe bilmiyorum ve öğrenmek istemiyorum. Oh god... it's already happening.

Anyway eurh, enough about me. Continue discussing the lord of banners. Personally I think it's going to be really good and I'm going to tell all my friends about it. You guys too right?

ill tell only the chosen ones

You sir, made my day.

 

[Maan]

Interesting ideas, but the Khergits, however they lived outside Calradia, invaded and took over the Calradian towns that they now possess, so it makes sense that they control them. Many (maybe all) major nomadic invasions in history result in the nomads running cities, including of course the Mongols. In fact sedentary civilisations were sometimes the descendants, or ruled by the descendants, of nomadic invaders (I think Persia is a good example of this, if I remember rightly nomads invaded, supplanted the previous rulers and were eventually replaced themselves by later nomadic invasions). That said, a purely nomadic faction would be a cool addition to the series. If they wanted the devs could move the timeline forwards or back and have the Kherigts be a faction without cities (maybe with decisions to be made on how they govern cities once they do capture them during gameplay).

Good point! As the devs said something about giving us "more of Calradia" it wouldn't be too farfetched to actually include the nomadic khergits; or maybe even another culture that is nomadic. Baheshtur talks about the khergits coming over the mountains, "growing soft" in their cities and eventually succumb to a new generation of khergits that come from over the mountains. In this instance he only names them as khergits but the nomads that live past the mountain could in theory be many different tribes and/or cultures. (Compare to the "barbarian" hordes that brought upon the fall of west rome). So I think the inclusion of a nomadic faction is plausible, even without changing the timeframe that much.

However; if they do change the timeframe say forward, could mean they somehow try to include the idea that Calradia actually was united again (as if by the player). Maybe we'll actually see a new bigger map, with a united Calradia, the land or islands the Nords came from, this "mystical" Geroia and several other countries around. Interesting.
But I certainly hope they think of making other differences between the cultures than just the appearence of towns and soldiers, no matter how big and different the new map will be!

Nevertheless, the basic suggestion is very valid: M&B needs more depth in its world.
Right now, all the factions actually play and feel the same. Only things changing are troops and clothes worn by city/village workers. You have the same (somewhat shallow) politics, same improvements, etc.

Since someone mentioned X3: that game has a lot M&B could use as thought-fodder.

Immagine a less static world, where you can actually build lots of things on the map: build a lumberjack camp near the forests, a farm in the plains, a mine in the mountain... maybe even road with inns, fords/bridges that charge tolls, and the like.
Now, you have caravans moving goods from and to this places. Armed patrols protecting the caravans/routes.
Over time, you can improve them. A farm could first be fortified against raids, then grow into a full sized village. A ford could become a bridge, then a fortified bridge. You could build a mountain fort/castle and charge tolls from whoever cross it.
Now, think all of this... with the AI doing it. The world evolving while you play. How many possibilities would that open?
Also, that would accomodate for different styles of play. You could build a road to help caravan move faster, because you are a merchant prince; or you could build them for military reasons.

Sure, building the AI to manage things *this* complex is a pain in the ass, I know. Still, that would add a *lot* more gameplay value to the game. Right now, things are so static...

 

[Mad Vader]

That would be Mount and Blade 3: The military-industrial complex.

 

[omzdog]

If you're going to introduce long term economic industry you should introduce inheritance the premier reason for acquiring wealth in those ages.

 

[Orion]

That does't make any sense, Omz. Think about it. Why would my primary reason for acquiring wealth be to pass it on when I'm dead? Wouldn't I rather acquire wealth and then live a comfortable life with it before I died? Even inheriting wealth from someone else isn't a primary motivation for acquiring more. Hell, it's almost a disincentive to acquire wealth. You already got it from somebody else without doing a thing, why should you work harder to get more?

 

[MadocComadrin]

Because on a whole, having wealth/land to pass on meant that you were living comfortably. That, plus the much higher sense of collectivism during medieval times meant that the dynasty overall received more importance than the individual.

 

[Suspicous Pilgrim]

Yeah, not too many people had the philosophy "all for me and none for my children".

 

[BacCompany3]

Because on a whole, having wealth/land to pass on meant that you were living comfortably. That, plus the much higher sense of collectivism during medieval times meant that the dynasty overall received more importance than the individual.

I agree with you, and btw your pop up drawing scared me a bit lol

 

[omzdog]

Death and inheritance has been overlooked in MnB.
Both were the reasons for the instability of thrones since Dark/Middle Age and even titles and land like Kingdom Marshal and fiefs remains underdeveloped in MnB. It goes along with politics.

 

[Orion]

Yeah, not too many people had the philosophy "all for me and none for my children".

But all too many people love putting words in my mouth. Quote that, if you would, or shut up.

Because on a whole, having wealth/land to pass on meant that you were living comfortably. That, plus the much higher sense of collectivism during medieval times meant that the dynasty overall received more importance than the individual.

But the act of passing it on probably isn't the primary motivation to get it in the first place. Just because passing it along implies possession doesn't mean passing it on is the motivation for possession. Did this forum pass a ban on logic that I missed?

 

[Fehnor]

all people love putting in my mouth.