So, when are we returning to the pre-release map?

Users who are viewing this thread

Faustus

Recruit
a584R.png

Let's be honest, the new map isn't all that great. While it certainly looks pretty, weird reshuffling of city names, nonsensical geography, and poor game balance (especially for little old sturgia) all keep it from being truly good. On the other hand, this old map we had was pretty damn good in it's layout (though not perfect), and just needs a graphical facelift.

So, how long can we expect until we go back to it? I'm fine with it taking a while so long as it gets done eventually, but it's probably a better idea to do it before any overhauls such as the addition of roads or relocations of settlements are done, so you don't end up doing the same work twice.

Love the game btw, hoping to help improve it in any way I can to make it even better than it already is. :grin:
 

Userre

Recruit
In earnest I agree that the current map isn't perfectly balanced, but the Warband map fundamentally lacks a lot of what the current map has. It wouldn't need a facelift, it would need a rework. Given, I think the main map needs a slight rework itself, but compare reworking a map not yet made to reworking an established map, it seems simple to me the current map will be the priority.
Imo, the aserai need a third middle access point to the main map, they're too isolated. The northern portion of the map needs to be slightly condensed, it's a bit too wide right now. And the border between the vlandians and the aserai need to be broadened a bit more to encourage war, as well as the border between the khuzaits and the aserai.

In earnest I think the original Warband map, for all the hours I put on it, was just poorly designed. It had few interesting natural barriers; few chokepoints, especially in the middle of the map where they matter most; and faction balance wasn't particularly great either. The vlandians had far too many bordering factions that were willing to declare war whilst most other factions only had two relevant borders, maybe three. One of the fewsaving graces for the Warband map was that the middle city Dhirim was a hotspot such that whichever faction took it would be a war target for a few other factions. This is something nearly impossible to implement in the current map or the Warband map given the geographical lore updates and the number of factions present.
 
But this map aint filled.I can prove the 2019 era map is flat.
Mferh.png

Perhaps there is something to add from here.
Just look at that.
Oh btw i EVEN combinated maps of Calradia make sure to ( :smile: ) check it : now!
W-06W.png

Plus:The new map makes the Calradia bigger, better (not that good:???:) and Non-Warbandical also i discussed about the changed map of Bannerlord for killing the Warbands shape BUT new Bannerlord map gives the taste of beautiful 900-1000's i even felt like im watching the movie called Gladiator...i kinda agree your opinions about colours.
I rate this post to 7/10
 
Last edited:

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
So, how long can we expect until we go back to it? I'm fine with it taking a while so long as it gets done eventually, but it's probably a better idea to do it before any overhauls such as the addition of roads or relocations of settlements are done, so you don't end up doing the same work twice.

I'm pretty sure the map we have now is the final version because when people were asking about reshuffling stuff to help Sturgia, the dev said that major map changes needed permission and he wasn't likely to get it.
 

Akka

Sergeant
I certainly support 100 % the OP suggestion.
The world map is atrocious, this map was much better on every aspect (and more faithful to Warband to boot).

Please bring it back.
 
Honestly, I dislike that old map over the current. The current is more lively and older, less "Pangea" -ish.

weird reshuffling of city names,
Should be fixed.

nonsensical geography
Can be fixed.

and poor game balance (especially for little old sturgia)
When did a world- map become balanced? Different factions can have different strenghs and weaknesses where map can be in any of the two.

this map was much better on every aspect (and more faithful to Warband to boot)
I can't counter this really. 90% of my 1500 hours Warband is Viking Conquest, so Calradia is quite new to me :smile:
 

Mabons

Sergeant Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Just started up M&B the original, try comparing that map to Warband and then to Bannerlords. It's even worse. :razz:
 

Piconi

Fashionista
Section Moderator
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
We shouldn't really be comparing maps from different titles, but this 2015?-ish map has a much more appealing color palette IMO.
There were much more visible differencies between the biomes, expressed in flora and sand soil/sand colors.
Even though i think it needed even more differentiating, they actually went the opposite way - ironing the differencies out, so now in the current map i can't see the golden color of Aserai Nahasa desert, the grass has same color hue to it from Galend, to Balgard, through Onira up to Sanala.
Can't differ sandy beaches of Charas from the desert surroundings of Razih and steppes arround Akkalat.
All i'm saying is i would like biomes to be visible enough.
 

Midnitewolf

Sergeant
In earnest I agree that the current map isn't perfectly balanced, but the Warband map fundamentally lacks a lot of what the current map has. It wouldn't need a facelift, it would need a rework. Given, I think the main map needs a slight rework itself, but compare reworking a map not yet made to reworking an established map, it seems simple to me the current map will be the priority.
Imo, the aserai need a third middle access point to the main map, they're too isolated. The northern portion of the map needs to be slightly condensed, it's a bit too wide right now. And the border between the vlandians and the aserai need to be broadened a bit more to encourage war, as well as the border between the khuzaits and the aserai.

In earnest I think the original Warband map, for all the hours I put on it, was just poorly designed. It had few interesting natural barriers; few chokepoints, especially in the middle of the map where they matter most; and faction balance wasn't particularly great either. The vlandians had far too many bordering factions that were willing to declare war whilst most other factions only had two relevant borders, maybe three. One of the fewsaving graces for the Warband map was that the middle city Dhirim was a hotspot such that whichever faction took it would be a war target for a few other factions. This is something nearly impossible to implement in the current map or the Warband map given the geographical lore updates and the number of factions present.
I actually think the chokepoints are what makes Bannerlord factions so imbalanced and hate that everything is designed to channel you in this direction or that. I really would like to see a map that has more freedom to roam in all directions. Also this would prevent what happens in Bannerlord where some factions never do much or get much done to them because of how few points of entry of exit they have. I feel Sturiga gets borked alot of times because armies have such a narrow band to travel making it hard for the AI troops to move across their lands to defend themselves. Battania gets borked because there is easy access on all sides to its territory.

Ultimately though, I would just like to be able to roam over the map without having to zig zag all over the place.
 
I actually think the chokepoints are what makes Bannerlord factions so imbalanced and hate that everything is designed to channel you in this direction or that. I really would like to see a map that has more freedom to roam in all directions. Also this would prevent what happens in Bannerlord where some factions never do much or get much done to them because of how few points of entry of exit they have. I feel Sturiga gets borked alot of times because armies have such a narrow band to travel making it hard for the AI troops to move across their lands to defend themselves. Battania gets borked because there is easy access on all sides to its territory.

Ultimately though, I would just like to be able to roam over the map without having to zig zag all over the place.
I agree with what you say and propose 2 solutions to this problem.
Such narrow passages are determined by 2 factors:
1) the impassable mountains
2) the will of the developers not to allow a territory to be invaded from any point.

Solutions:
1) make the mountains passable but at a cost in terms of time (or speed), consumption of very large food and in the most serious cases (winter and party not equipped with the right skills) even some injuries, especially if you have horses / elephants and wagons (when there will be).
(Battania and Sturgia could have an advantage in these territories).
So in theory everything would be passable and traversable but only
at a high price to pay (time, food, morale, injuries) if you don't have the skills.
And if you have the skills, there is only a reduction in those penalties (for example medicine could help prevent deaths and injuries from hypothermia).
In this way the map is "expanded" even if it remains the same size.
And in my opinion the limit within which the party acquires or loses bonuses (speed, food consumption, etc.) should be made much clearer when it passes from one type of area to another.
For example, some "scouting" perks could provide more details about the surrounding terrain.

2) in order not to invade a territory from any point, the solution is not to reduce the roads that lead to a city or territory, but to MAKE that territory DEFENDABLE even if in OPEN FIELD.
And to do this it is necessary to introduce two new mechanics:
A) supply lines, of which I insert the link relating to the thread I wrote about it.
If an army needs a supply line to be able to cross a territory in peace, then it must also protect it and therefore must avoid being circumvented by a small enemy army that simply attacks the tanks of the line to interrupt the supply of food and ammunition ( and these should be bought like food).
To do this a large army must necessarily divide its forces and order the parties to keep a certain distance from the army to cover a greater area during the advance.
The front of this area would make up the combat front.
So a war would have multiple fronts and if a small army managed to outflank a large, unwary army and destroy its supply line, it would force the large army to two choices:
X) send a messenger / party to rebuild the supply line. (And must also survive in the meantime)
Y) continue the invasion and finish it before running out of food and ammunition and at most by raiding to avoid running out of food.
Z) withdraw from the invasion, redesign it and return.

B) geographical coverage and marching formations.
They help in point A to make it more immersive.

you can find both threads within this link.
Possibly, if I don't ask too much, once you have read them and only after you have read them, vote the polls.
There is one in each thread.
ECONOMY , LOGISTICS and WARFARE SUGGESTION LIST
 

Piconi

Fashionista
Section Moderator
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
What hasn't crossed my mind before, is that since this isn't a screenshot from the gameplay, it was a part of the promo material back then, there is a possibility that this map went through some beautifying filters.
Also, now i'm sure how all those colors that look amazing like this on the satellite view would actually look when we would zoom in on each biome.
What i am sure about is that i would still prefer more accentuated colors between different biomes, even if by just a bit.
 

vonbalt

Sergeant Knight
WBNWVCM&B
The new map looks pretty, that's all.

The geography makes no sense, the map is claustrophobic with how small passable areas are, they look more like MOBA lanes or something like that instead of an organic map.

Is looks too different from warband and settlements are misplaced all over it, even compared to the previous version of bannerlord's map they simply switched places around with no regards to lore.
 
Top Bottom