BacCompany3
Sergeant
Very interesting, offtopicness. I learned alot, thanks for the links to Museum videos. 
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Users who are viewing this thread
- Status
Sergeant
okashiikessen
Recruit
One of the things I'm hoping for most is to implement a few new features where battle prep is concerned. Let me map out my initial battle lines. Give orders BEFORE the battle starts so that I'm not pressing keys like a madman to get the orders in and still manage to steer my horse. Let me see a minimap of the battleground with at least a portion of it visible to me so I can tell my troops where to make their stand, and what formations to use, right down to telling the archers to stand behind infantry, and specifying that Nords should group on the flanks, while I assemble Cavalry for a charge behind a ridge on the far side of the map.
Then: Sieges. Sieges need more work. On the offensive, I should be able to build catapults & trebuchets, battering rams. If a tower or ladder manages to get a decent foothold, I should be able to send a squad over to the gatehouse and try to open the gates. Meanwhile, defenders should also have more options available: murder holes with hot tar, ballistae, catapults inside the walls, the ability to push ladders over or set fire to siege towers. Not to mention assembling a cavalry force for a sortie. At a fair amount of risk, naturally.
And perhaps the presence of these siege engines could vary somewhat by nation.
Also, the endgame needs cleaning. I still haven't "finished" my first playthrough of Warband. I can't get the last damned faction to surrender. I own everything. Their lords are pretty much riding around by themselves and setting fire to villages. Maybe a dozen of the little bastards. And my bloated armies can't catch them. There's got to be a way to make the game realize that, at this point, it's over. There's NO way that this last little faction can come back from this.
Multi-faction battles - three sides, all at war with one-another, could blunder into one massive battle. How epic is that?
I'm not happy to hear there'll be no co-op, but I can always hope to see that implemented down the line.
It would be nice to have the Campaign AI improved a bit. Your faction doesn't really make any progress until you can manage to get yourself named as Marshall because the AI just rides all the armies around in a circle, and doesn't really develop much of a plan. It just kind of pulls your defenses from everywhere else so your fiefs are sitting ducks. AI Marshall should be able to tell specific Lords to go here and watch for incursions while the bulk of the army heads directly for a ripe target. AI Rulers should also be able to bide their time. They may decide to go to war with another faction, but delay the announcement until they see that faction is also warring with a third faction. Factions should also be able to declare alliances, which could have some really exciting results: World War Calradia?
The sky is the limit. I'll be picking up this game no matter what the final decisions are. Why not take some risks and make it as big as possible? I'll put up with delays to ensure quality. I just want that badass final game.
Then: Sieges. Sieges need more work. On the offensive, I should be able to build catapults & trebuchets, battering rams. If a tower or ladder manages to get a decent foothold, I should be able to send a squad over to the gatehouse and try to open the gates. Meanwhile, defenders should also have more options available: murder holes with hot tar, ballistae, catapults inside the walls, the ability to push ladders over or set fire to siege towers. Not to mention assembling a cavalry force for a sortie. At a fair amount of risk, naturally.
And perhaps the presence of these siege engines could vary somewhat by nation.
Also, the endgame needs cleaning. I still haven't "finished" my first playthrough of Warband. I can't get the last damned faction to surrender. I own everything. Their lords are pretty much riding around by themselves and setting fire to villages. Maybe a dozen of the little bastards. And my bloated armies can't catch them. There's got to be a way to make the game realize that, at this point, it's over. There's NO way that this last little faction can come back from this.
Multi-faction battles - three sides, all at war with one-another, could blunder into one massive battle. How epic is that?
I'm not happy to hear there'll be no co-op, but I can always hope to see that implemented down the line.
It would be nice to have the Campaign AI improved a bit. Your faction doesn't really make any progress until you can manage to get yourself named as Marshall because the AI just rides all the armies around in a circle, and doesn't really develop much of a plan. It just kind of pulls your defenses from everywhere else so your fiefs are sitting ducks. AI Marshall should be able to tell specific Lords to go here and watch for incursions while the bulk of the army heads directly for a ripe target. AI Rulers should also be able to bide their time. They may decide to go to war with another faction, but delay the announcement until they see that faction is also warring with a third faction. Factions should also be able to declare alliances, which could have some really exciting results: World War Calradia?
The sky is the limit. I'll be picking up this game no matter what the final decisions are. Why not take some risks and make it as big as possible? I'll put up with delays to ensure quality. I just want that badass final game.
BacCompany3
Sergeant
But I wanna command my troops while I fight, since Im commander. what better way to watch the battlefield than with someone in my face.Scully said:
/s/
Guys what are you talking about, this is no modern strategy game where you have uav's all over the place, pre-battle orders are okay, but the whole backspace thing is even ridiculous. You must see the battle from where you are, that's all. Don't forget we are at the year of 1200's.
.-.
.-.
deutrino
Regular
128th_Can said:
The core of all M&B games is the combat. I play them since v.808, and developers always somehow manage to grasp (and to add) the best little features that make the biggest difference. Before that I couldn't even imagine combat system, so refined and so well thought out.
Still, all other areas of the game - like battlefield tactics, army commands, sieges, building your kingdom, characters, menus, AI - need improvement. Basically the devs can go in every direction (RTS or RPG) and the effect on the gameplay will be only positive.
Of course, multilayer guys think this a waste of time - all they want is:
A)better graphics
B)more multilayer options
C)better combat mechanics (I can't imagine a better one, since this one has been improved for 5-7 years by now, but may be the devs can. Will see.)
For good or for bad, Taleworlds raised the bar pretty high for themselves, and now people expect triple A title. The way to deliver AAA game is to deepening the experience/the gameplay, and more multilayer options can't do it, only improving singleplayer can. So - why not enhance the strategy elements, since this can be only beneficial?
deutrino
Regular
Minimaps can be turned on and off, you know? In almost every f*cking game that have them. Why that should bother you at all? If you don't like them - turn them off. But I can bet that if the AI becomes smarter, and attempt to outflank you for once, you would love to have that better view on the battlefield.
more options = good
less options = bad
more options = good
less options = bad
deutrino said:
Calm down omg. It bothers me because it is VERY unrealistic in a game which takes place in 1200's.
Yes, I have never used that feature(backspace), but of course if you can't manage to control your soldiers you can use it, but pro's use non-minimap
Still think adding this to game is ridiculous tho.
Edit - shhh be quiet, ragnor is looking at this topic.
deutrino
Regular
I can live with or without minimaps just fine, but this is my line of thoughts:
Q: Can M&B become better with more strategy elements?
A: Yes.
Q: Which one is the best strategy/tactical game out there?
A: Total War Series.
Q: Is the TW interface constantly improved and refined for the last 10 years?
A: Yes.
Q: Does TW have minimaps?
A: Yes.
Q: Is it just a coincidence?
A: No.
Q: Is it good for M&B2 to borrow some features of one of the best series out there?
A: Yes.
Q: Should M&B2 just copy them blindly?
A: No.
At the end of the day M&B2 has only three directions possible to expand:
1) Exploration/Adventure - think of it as Skyrim dungeon looting and traveling around the world in first person, exploring new places and fighting different enemies one on one. As a sandbox this looks natural direction, but it is not so easy to be done. Almost every solo game have a stealth system, and I am not sure this is what M&B needs most.
2) RPG elements - it already have decent amount of them. Going for pure RPG game is not recommended because this requires very specific writing skills, a ton of experience is needed to be done right, and voice acting is expensive. Even then might not work. Last but not least M&B (and the fan base) has noting to do with "changing dresses", but has everything to do with combat, armies and conquest. This leads us gradually to the next possibility:
3) RTS - What is the first game that comes to mind similar to M&B? Total War right? Absolutely different genre, but still the same feeling. I think this will be the easiest of all three directions to go and the one with the biggest positive impact on the gameplay.
On the other hand, M&B manage to create it's own genre, without borrowing anything from anybody. May be I just don't have the imagination of the developers. We will have to wait and see.
Q: Can M&B become better with more strategy elements?
A: Yes.
Q: Which one is the best strategy/tactical game out there?
A: Total War Series.
Q: Is the TW interface constantly improved and refined for the last 10 years?
A: Yes.
Q: Does TW have minimaps?
A: Yes.
Q: Is it just a coincidence?
A: No.
Q: Is it good for M&B2 to borrow some features of one of the best series out there?
A: Yes.
Q: Should M&B2 just copy them blindly?
A: No.
At the end of the day M&B2 has only three directions possible to expand:
1) Exploration/Adventure - think of it as Skyrim dungeon looting and traveling around the world in first person, exploring new places and fighting different enemies one on one. As a sandbox this looks natural direction, but it is not so easy to be done. Almost every solo game have a stealth system, and I am not sure this is what M&B needs most.
2) RPG elements - it already have decent amount of them. Going for pure RPG game is not recommended because this requires very specific writing skills, a ton of experience is needed to be done right, and voice acting is expensive. Even then might not work. Last but not least M&B (and the fan base) has noting to do with "changing dresses", but has everything to do with combat, armies and conquest. This leads us gradually to the next possibility:
3) RTS - What is the first game that comes to mind similar to M&B? Total War right? Absolutely different genre, but still the same feeling. I think this will be the easiest of all three directions to go and the one with the biggest positive impact on the gameplay.
On the other hand, M&B manage to create it's own genre, without borrowing anything from anybody. May be I just don't have the imagination of the developers. We will have to wait and see.
lordJehovah
Grandmaster Knight
Sorry, but what did you just mean to say in your post?
deutrino
Regular
Pachinko said:
1) M&B is all about combat, but even with the best combat system, the game can become dull
2) M&B gameplay lacks RPG/Strategy/Exploration elements anyway, so enhancing any of them can be only a good thing
3) RTS is the way to go
4) Sorry if my English is so bad. I can't see my mistakes.
lordJehovah
Grandmaster Knight
Yeah, now that's much clear. No need to get shy, though.
Mr.X
deutrino said:
Q: Is M&B a strategy game?
A: Nope.
Q: What's the best board game out there?
A: Lets pretend its Risk
Q: Is Risk constantly improved?
A: No, it's perfect
Q: Does Risk have turn-by-turn play?
A: Yes
Q: Is that a coincidence?
A: Nope.
Q: Is it good for M&B2 to borrow some features of one of the best series out there?
A: Yes
Q: Should M&B2 just copy them blindly?
A: No.
At the end of the day, M&B can go in any direction they want. The 3 standard game types you mentioned are not the only ways for games to be played, and it is not the way M&B has been set up. It has small elements of all three, but in the end it is an open world, free roam game.
You can't just enhance everything. And enhancing random things isn't always a good thing. The game needs to make sense. There's no point in having extremely advanced ways to place and command your troops when the AI of each bot is really stupid. There's no point in having really intelligent bots if you can't control them a little bit. And, devs have only so much time and resources, right? So if they only develop one aspect of the game and neglect the rest of it, that wouldn't work out too well. So no, it can't "only be beneficial" to pump strategy elements into an open world medieval combat game. There's also the style of the gameplay to be considered. As much as I think 128th_Can's "It's the 1200s" is stupid, it sorta relates to this. I don't think the whole "realism" thing he's going for is really important when it comes to developing UI. Stronghold games are set in medieval times and they have battle command features and stuffs. But if a bunch of strategy tactical UI bs was plugged into this game, it would probably feel less and less like a combat game. It would probably also make individual combat less important, and individual combat has always been the core of the game. You can say "oh well if you don't like it, don't use it", but that's pretty bull**** because if the strategy elements and AI and all that stuff are implemented the way you want, it would almost because necessary to play out battles like you play them out in Total War. So I can't just "ignore it" because then I wouldn't be playing the game. If you really want all those elements, play Total War. M&B is a different game, with different goals and a completely different playstyle.
deutrino
Regular
Good answer. Very good answer.
Now imagine a Total War game, in which the player can switch from TW camera view to first person view (M&B) and can fight in the melee just as in M&B. (If I was in EA's board of directors, I would have bought M&B engine long ago and somehow will make the two work together.) How much room will be left for M&B on the market? None.
Somebody will do it soon or a later, and if the combat is done well enough (better than War Of The Roses) M&B will be dead. And I don't want this. I want Taleworlds to continue to grow.
Now imagine a Total War game, in which the player can switch from TW camera view to first person view (M&B) and can fight in the melee just as in M&B. (If I was in EA's board of directors, I would have bought M&B engine long ago and somehow will make the two work together.) How much room will be left for M&B on the market? None.
Somebody will do it soon or a later, and if the combat is done well enough (better than War Of The Roses) M&B will be dead. And I don't want this. I want Taleworlds to continue to grow.
- Status
Similar threads
