Opinion on world map and factions

Users who are viewing this thread

echoco

Recruit
I don't know if it's just me but I'm not very happy with the way the map and factions are set up. This isn't just an Early Access issue, because faction location and map layout are pretty much set.

Map
I feel like a lot of the space on the world map is wasted.

Ostican and Rovalt are two large towns located in an isolated region of the map with a castle up north. Strategically the castle and Rovalt should switch places so that it can protect the passa to to both towns. There shouldn't be two town there anyway, it's a very narrow area dominated by impassable mountains.
Further south and West you hae Drapand. A single village pretty much isolated, even from the castle named after it. Idealy Pravend could be moved into the area (and be closer to where it was in Warband) and Rovolt moved to a place a little north of where Pravend currently is to more evenly spread out Vlandian towns.

Stugia
Man these guys had it bad. They're predominantly foot army and their territory spans the width of the world map. Looking at the map their towns are around twice the distance apart compared to Battanian towns. I could rationalize it as the north having less fertile land so towns needs more land to support it. But I just feel like Sturgia would benefit a lot from making their territory more compact. Maybe half the area it currently covers. The usual choke points might work in their favor if they didn't have to cover such a large area. They also borders four factions, making extra hard for them to defend their territory.

I think the gap betwen Nevyansk Castle and Revyl shold be a solid connection. The water mass to the east of it wold become a lake but it would make more sense for teh castle to belong to Sturgia. Otherwise switch position of Nevyansk castle and Flintolg castle and it shold make more sense.

River delta between Lageta-Rhotea-Ortysia
This river looks nice, apart from the eastern arm turning abruptly south at Jalmarys, this looks weird. The main issue is the lack of bridges here. Compared to Battania's compact and easily traversed land, the Western Empire has trouble responding to seiges because they have to move around rivers and mountains all the time. Its weird how people of Calderia never thought of building a bridge north of Arpotis (village), and south of Nideon when the area sits between three towns and should have been well developed to promote trade. Compared to Veragos Castle with four bridges near it, and Epicrotea with six crossings near it, the West Empire seems like it has a thing against bridges.

Oristocorys Castle
The most useless castle there is. What was the point of building a castle here? If there was a passage along the coast to Zeonica, it would make perfect sense but there isn't. As the map as is this castle would make more strategic sense in place of Arpotis.

Phycaon River
I feel like there should be a bridge between Phycaon and Spotia. It's such a long stretch of river that had to be moved around.

The mother of all mess
The river network from Akkalat down to Husn Fulq doesn't make sense at all. With so much water around (fresh water at that) it should be swamp land or fertile farm land, instead it's arid. Think of the Nile, that one river created a streatch of fetile land cutting through its desert surroundings. This is the one area I think TW must rework. The weirdest thing is it's two separate rivers running in parrel. It might make more sense if there's a mountain in between them. The complicated river also doesn't seem to do much since there are bridges crossing it in close proximity so it could have just been a single river. I'm not sure about this but I think this river and the distance between Aserai and Khuzait land might be why Khuzat is so powerful.

That inland sea between Varnovapol and Argoron could be toned down a little, it seems like a wasite of space considering a great big area north of stugia went unused (crop that off and save some memory maybe?).
I also dislike how the botom left and right corners of the world map is uninhabited. There could be three towns in each of those corners, bringing Aserai and Khuzait closer. I really don't like how un-utilized the bottom third of the map is. Compared to how compact the middle band is the bottom, especially when the bottom corners looks more fertial than Asserai in general

Factions
Ideally I'd like to see two more factions created. One in the north so Sturgia could be more compact to the west. The new northern faction could hold territory from Balgrad to Baltakhand. Khuzait would move down a little to be closer to Aserai so that they might fight some.
The other faction would take half of Aserai territory opened up by the corners. With both corners opened up there could be five to six towns in the south, enough for another faction. The trouble would be to come up with two more distinctive cultures.
 
The factions are a big let down for me. None of them are memorable or attaching.

The Nords were my favourite in WB, but in Bannerlord after 200 hours played I just don't care about or prefer to play with any of them.
 
My opinions:
1. Too many mountain ranges, major rivers, and other obstacles.

I don't know why they decided to chop up the map into corridors the way they did, but it looks a little strange to have impassable mountains littering the continent. Especially for the central Midlands portion of the empire: it is supposed to be prime horse country but is still ringed by mountains, cut by rivers and dotted by thick forests. Maybe Turkey looks like that in real life (never been there) but it is a really jarring shift from Warband's map.

I strongly suspect that it was made that way on purpose to support the planned and later cut ambush mechanic, because a wildly accessible area makes it hard to pull off an ambush. The enemy could use any number of routes so the odds of them choosing yours is low.

2. Too small for its scope.

You can traverse the entirety in under a week. There is hardly an unoccupied stretch of land, except in the extreme southern portion. Everything is packed in close enough that it feels like they were compelled to make sure no matter which part of the map you were on, there was a settlement somewhere on the screen. The Battanians are stuffed into a compact area, then given about 25% more villages than they should have.

The end result is things feel closed-in, even though the map is technically much bigger than Warband's.
 
@Terco_Viejo has a very good map suggestion. I think it is a better version than current bannerlord map. Terco, could you please post the link here? I tried finding it on suggestions but could not find it.

Gracias
 
My opinions:
1. Too many mountain ranges, major rivers, and other obstacles.

I don't know why they decided to chop up the map into corridors the way they did, but it looks a little strange to have impassable mountains littering the continent. Especially for the central Midlands portion of the empire: it is supposed to be prime horse country but is still ringed by mountains, cut by rivers and dotted by thick forests. Maybe Turkey looks like that in real life (never been there) but it is a really jarring shift from Warband's map.

I strongly suspect that it was made that way on purpose to support the planned and later cut ambush mechanic, because a wildly accessible area makes it hard to pull off an ambush. The enemy could use any number of routes so the odds of them choosing yours is low.

2. Too small for its scope.

You can traverse the entirety in under a week. There is hardly an unoccupied stretch of land, except in the extreme southern portion. Everything is packed in close enough that it feels like they were compelled to make sure no matter which part of the map you were on, there was a settlement somewhere on the screen. The Battanians are stuffed into a compact area, then given about 25% more villages than they should have.

The end result is things feel closed-in, even though the map is technically much bigger than Warband's.
I can't remember how much larger they stated BL world map was but considering a good third of it was unused it does feel clustophobic int eh central area.

I didn't say anything about Battania because I looked at it as a balancing tool. Putting everything in so close together makes it easier to defend despite being surounded.
 
@Terco_Viejo has a very good map suggestion. I think it is a better version than current bannerlord map. Terco, could you please post the link here? I tried finding it on suggestions but could not find it.

Gracias
Here you are Mi buen Señor. :wink:

frMzw.jpg

Link to post
 
My opinions:
1. Too many mountain ranges, major rivers, and other obstacles.

I don't know why they decided to chop up the map into corridors the way they did, but it looks a little strange to have impassable mountains littering the continent. Especially for the central Midlands portion of the empire: it is supposed to be prime horse country but is still ringed by mountains, cut by rivers and dotted by thick forests. Maybe Turkey looks like that in real life (never been there) but it is a really jarring shift from Warband's map.

I strongly suspect that it was made that way on purpose to support the planned and later cut ambush mechanic, because a wildly accessible area makes it hard to pull off an ambush. The enemy could use any number of routes so the odds of them choosing yours is low.

2. Too small for its scope.

You can traverse the entirety in under a week. There is hardly an unoccupied stretch of land, except in the extreme southern portion. Everything is packed in close enough that it feels like they were compelled to make sure no matter which part of the map you were on, there was a settlement somewhere on the screen. The Battanians are stuffed into a compact area, then given about 25% more villages than they should have.

The end result is things feel closed-in, even though the map is technically much bigger than Warband's.
I agree with every single thing said here.
Make the map bigger, less dense, more natural and above all LESS WALLED-IN !

In fact, I made the same kind of complaint about it.
 
I'm just waiting for the mod that creates a map of Brittania/Western Europe to play. Hopefully, it won't be the time period of the Vikings again, since that is so over-done. I would prefer a Western Europe, "Fall of Rome" map so I can take over the free world as Niall of the Nine Hostages.

Until then, the map has limitations. It's still fun and will be more fun once they have the game mechanics done.

Personally, I don't care about the map because that is something that modders will do better than the developers. Let the developers worry about finishing the game.
 
The trouble would be to come up with two more distinctive cultures.

Something Persian-inspired comes to mind due to the Byzantine feel of the Empire. Specifically, I’m thinking of the Sassanids so heavy cavalry, archers, and elephants. I’d also love to see more done with the Jawwal though I don’t think a kingdom fits with their lore

Of course, they could always add the nords since I think lore-wise they’re supposed to invade sometime shortly after the current time period. Personally, I’m sick of Vikings in games but they seem like a safe bet. They could be distinguished from Sturgia by having more of an emphasis on infantry - honestly just porting the Warband troop tree would probably be sufficient.

As long as I’m shamelessly rattling off my wish list, I’d like to see the imperial factions each get their own troop trees. The differences could be largely cosmetic, of course with maybe one troop variant per tree - a better legionary for WE, a more aristocrat-feeling NE heavy horseman, and keep the cataphract as is for the SE.
 
Back
Top Bottom