Offspring: it's a matter of time

Users who are viewing this thread


Spanish Gifquisition
Grandmaster Knight
After the last devblog (Ruwa), Taleworlds proposes a very interesting mechanics that will be linked in the future with another; Dynasties.
In an interview from Wccftech to Armagan Yavuz about the Gamescom '18 Chris Wray asks him about "have children" and we find this statement (link):

Armagan: You can definitely marry in the game and have children. The timeframe will probably to too limited for some things. Eighteen years is a long time in our game, so for example how feasible it will be to be able to play as your children. You will have a family system though.

On the other hand, taking as reference the "Legacy blog 12 - The Passage Of Time" I quote you a suggestive phrase:

[...]One major change from Warband is how time progresses; the yearly cycle has been shortened to twelve weeks, which adds more importance to the changing seasons and ageing of characters.[...]

If indeed 84 days is the annual time lapse, we would find ourselves with a " matter of time " for the player within the game. Doing a basic calculation exercise, if we proposed to have offspring from day 1 of our experience in Bannerlord; it would take 840 days (see Ruwa) to get an in-game answer. And therefore, 1512 days (considering 18 as of legal age -within the game) to get an autonomous npc within our clan with the potential to be elgible in the long term.

What do you think about it?
Is it plausible that Taleworlds is rethinking the time scale so that the application of dynasties is a feasible option?

I don't know why, but I had the sense from the dev blog that children spawn at the age Ruwa did - Around 10 years. That'd make it much more feasible, since at 16 they could be considered adults by the medieval standards.

You'd miss the whole seeing them go from a baby to an adult, which sucks, but this isn't the Sims eitherway and we wouldn't see much gameplay regarding our child's growth, other than the simple and most direct growth (This is, you wouldn't ever see their daily lives).

That, or they could just make people age significantly faster.
Is it plausible that Taleworlds is rethinking the time scale so that the application of dynasties is a feasible option?
Doubtful because time is such a key factor in a lot of core game mechanics.

To me it seems most likely that the largest chunk of the "dynasty" system will revolve around the relationships and powerplays within and between present dynasties in the game - rather than a generational struggle ala Crusader Kings. The purpose of children would accordingly be limited to some additional flavor/fluff, slightly prolonging play value and enabling perma death. Even here there may be some issues with time, but I think it more likely that they will speed up pregnancy and growing up rather than the passage of time.
Mostly agree w/ Duh, it seems to make more sense to speed up the ageing/growing process rather than time itself in-game. Also, I doubt 18 will be the 'age of maturity, more likely 16 as mentioned, or possibly even 14 or 12. It's already apparent that people in Calradia mature quickly, or else there wouldn't be nearly enough people running around to feed the incredible slaughter machine that is Calradian politics, so that seems to be an easier thing to modify rather than the passage of time, which could mess with things such as travel time, build time, time between paying wages/receiving payments, etc.

As for Duh's assertion that offspring will mainly be useful for negotiations with already existing dynasties, whether by marriages, hostages/'wards', or a similar mechanic, I hope that's not all, but it would make sense. In WB it was too easy to take the entire map over in 2-3 in-game years, and most of my playthroughs didn't even get that far, but I'm hoping that with the speeding of time, possible speeding of the maturation process, and vastly expanded map size & number of settlements, there could be room for, if not playing as your character's offspring, at least taking them into battle/utilizing them as a leader.
Roccoflipside said:
As for Duh's assertion that offspring will mainly be useful for negotiations with already existing dynasties, whether by marriages, hostages/'wards', or a similar mechanic, I hope that's not all, but it would make sense.
That's not what I was referring to by dynasty system. My argument is that I find it more likely that the meat of the system is the existing NPCs organized in dynasties (and possibly "relatives" being generated in case of death and lack of suitable heir) vying for power while being fairly unaffected by the "offspring" aspect outside of some cases of succession. There may be more (like the ransom mechanics you described), of course, but I would caution people from expecting a huge heir management or generational system.
My apologies, I misunderstood. I'm in definite agreement that, as of yet, there has been nothing pointing towards a sweeping, multi-generational CKII style inheritance system. While I think having family members fight over inheritance would be interesting and cool, the clan system already seems to achieve that goal (mainly increasing internal politicking, while also making it more manageable). Adding the ability for inter-clan wars may make factions too fractious to actually achieve anything, and kingdom management (as well as clan management) too difficult for the player. I say let's wait until devblog "Children part 2" or whatever until we get too carried away with the idea of playing a BL campaign all the way to the time of WB (I've seen someone suggest that already).
TW already said players can start with a sibling. Why not start with a 10 year old child? Lots of medieval women died in childbirth, so this doen’t exclude a player from future marriages. The only issue is the other half of your child’s genes on character creation. Maybe you make yourself and your dead partner and see what child pops out of the mix.
If winter will be realistic as in real life, I think we will mostly simulate that time. Maybe only we will use that time for feasts and some relationship improvements with notables. If I am right, lets not count the quarter of 1512 days.
That would be somewhat dependent on where on the map you are. Warfare in the asserai desert would be much less effected by winter, while warfare in the frozen north of sturgia would be much heavier effected. Since these two areas of the map are so close, I can't imagine winter would effect warfare too much, or else certain factions would be at a constant disadvantage for part of he year (sturgians would be able to invade asserai at will during winter since no one would be able to attack them).
Are these two areas close though? We know Bannerlord map is much more bigger than WB. How much was it? 4 times, 8 times? So if a Strugia military campaign goes all the way to the south during winter, on the road they will struggle and also we know Aserai can travell desert much more easier than others. In this scenario that Sturagia campaign will be decimated by Aserai. So I guess during winter Aserai can't go on a military campaign and others can't invade them either. All in all, there won't be so much military campaign throughout the map if winter will be so tough like in real life.
Much closer than they would have been in real life. I'm assuming it still takes a day or so to ride from one end of the map to the other, meaning that, even with the shortened year in BL, a lightning fast campaign could take the Asserai by surprise. My point was also that the Sturgians wouldn't have to worry about being invaded by Vlandia, Khuzaits, Battania, etc. since they would presumably have difficulty in the winter as well, not just the Asserai, as they would hopefully be defending their territory rather than launching a counter-invasion while the Sturgians burn their lands.
But I don't understand why you think Strugia can invade others at ease during winter while others have so much terrible at it since Strugia should have much more terrible times than others at that time of the year.
2 reasons;
1: Similar to the Asserai having an advantage in movement/etc in the desert, the Sturgians would presumably have a similar advantage in their native climate, at least to the point where they are less affected by the negative impacts than their rivals.
2: In my example, the Sturgians won't have to deal with the winter weather almost at all since they're invading the Asserai in the desert. I'm assuming any major penalties would only be a concern in the far north, so as long as the Sturgians marched out of the most inhospitable areas before winter, they wouldn't be hampered by the snow/cold, but someone attempting to march into their lands would be. It would need to be timed correctly, but that's the point of being the player character, yeah?

Of course, I could be entirely wrong in my assumptions, wouldn't be the first time. This is just the way I'm seeing things since they haven't touched on weather since a blog a while back.
I think that about the timeline developers will add additional options regarding this.

I like that kind of "realism", but remembering the historical Total War (Shogun 2, Rome 2, Attila and Thrones of Britannia) that the process of maturation of the heirs it is a real punishment.

Because each season lasts a few moves and you just get tired of waiting for their heirs. But I think in constant expectation of children there are no obligations if it will be possible to adopt or invite commanders and generals to the "family".
Presumably that's the role companions fill. Seeing as clans are basically mini-factions, it would make sense that, at some point, you could promote a companion from party member to clan member, being able to field and command their own army, as well as possibly fiefs.
As far as I can tell, the day-night cycle has not been altered, only the number of weeks in a month (or it might be months in a year, I forget  :iamamoron: ). Either way, I believe the length of a day has not changed.
Roccoflipside said:
As far as I can tell, the day-night cycle has not been altered, only the number of weeks in a month (or it might be months in a year, I forget  :iamamoron: ). Either way, I believe the length of a day has not changed.

Pretty sure it has. I talked about this a while ago and I found a Gamescom video where a journalist chases a group of bandits at fast speed for over a whole day. It seemed like it took 16 seconds for the whole day to pass at fast speed compared to the ~20 seconds in Warband (which I also measured, though this time with multiple days). So at the very least days pass faster at fast speed. So days could be shorter or fast speed could be faster.

Whole days in Warband take ~96 seconds to pass and apparently Varrak measured days in Bannerlord to take 80 seconds.
Varrak said:
Lord Engineer said:
if days in Bannerlord did go for 80 seconds (I don't know where you got this number from but I would like to)

Well i just counted it from last gameplay videos  :lol:

So it does seem like the length of a day has been altered or effectively altered, at least to me.
Also when I say a whole day I mean 24 hours.
Top Bottom