Speculating Delay, Lengthy Read

Users who are viewing this thread


Why not track population down to individual level? I expect to meet the thousands unique residents in the town streets and homes.
Okay, so the engine can't support it. Fix your engine, Taleworlds.

What they can realistically do is to keep track of the population groups based on social status and profession as in Victoria 2.
Are you sure you want to levy a couple of hundred butter-churners? When you lose them in a bloody battle, your butter exports will crash and the forefathers of Harlaus will hate you for that.



+1 to Honved and Monoolho (and a  :grin: to señor Rodrigo) regarding population mechanics.

This is the great potential of a good economic simulation where the AI draws from the same pool of resources (by the same rules) as the player: that long-drawn out wars will result in reduced manpower, smaller armies, and reduced economic output of kingdoms damaged in the war.  Just as you'd expect to see happen in reality through a period of intense war.

I can see a 'power broker' playthrough actually being possible in Bannerlord: you never join a faction or rule land directly, but instead take actions such as:
- building a criminal empire to extract rents from your enemies' towns
- buy up storefronts and crowd out the earning potential of enemy lords
- sabotage supplies and ambush caravans trading in your enemies' cities (to be fair this is also possible in Warband, but the impact on the town's economy was less easily visible)
- build up relations with key NPCs in your enemies towns and, by recruiting soldiers from them, deny them to the enemy lords

I could easily see mods adding to this.  Imagine trading guilds in the game: powerful, cross-faction organizations commanding vast wealth.  They could provide exotic trading goods, loans to set up extremely expensive but profitable enterprises, skilled workers to multiply the tax efficiency of your holdings, guild banks/HQ that hugely stimulate the economy of any town they're in. 

Imagine being able to join such a guild and work your way up the power ladder, choosing what faction to favor with economic strength.  Combine this with plentiful competing mercenaries (like the Company of the Golden Boar that's already confirmed to be a minor faction) -- these companies cost a pretty penny but bring skilled fighters to turn the tide of any war.  Of course, the guilds would be able to afford small private armies of their own, and combined with mercenaries they could even take over land for themselves (after sufficiently weakening their enemies, of course)... basically the Iron Bank playthrough.

Imagine the possibilities!


I can see the possibilities there. But some problems:

- Recruiting soldiers to deny Lords their troops would require ENORMOUS AMOUNTS of space to hold those soldiers, and multiple times that in resources.
--It would also require Recruiters to have a pretty long cooldown on recruitable troops.
--And it would definitely require a mechanic in which "disbanded troops" return as population to fiefs (maybe spread to random fiefs, instead of keeping track of where each soldier is from. It would be better, not everyone is keen on coming back home, especially when 'home' was raided 50 times since they left).
--Another thing that could help with that, but could also be problematic, would be to add a sort of roof of population: a maximum possible supported population cap for the world, because resources are finite that way. Remember all the chaos we got when we first reached 1 billion pop in 1700?
[s]Oh right, you guys are not immortal, yeah, but I do remember[/s]
.  Maybe a dynamic value according to maximum average prosperity, or a real maximum possible prosperity for all fiefs and towns that would cap the population...
Well, we could exploit that by recruiting troops and waiting for maximum pop cap again, so we could eventually multiply the maximum amount of troops, but that's where the resource economy gets in: there is a finite number of food available in the world, so troops would disband if not enough food.
Would they go back as population to fiefs, or as raiders/bandits on the map? Interesting to think about.  (You may notice I'm processing this idea while I write)
Well, if there is a maximum population for each holding, maybe make something that "kills off" the extra population in that fief if there is more people than the prosperity value can support...

Really love the idea behind social/functional groups being used to supply troops: every levy takes 5 horse breeders, 10 wheat churners, 3 butter grinders... And the economy is afflicted by that. Definitely like this, just not for release, because it sure would add another year and a half for release. But as a possible expansion pack? YES. Mount & Blade: Butter Lords - Economic Simulacrons, only $19,99!

And, well, those guilds becoming so powerful they became landowners? Maybe the coding wouldnt quite allow that, as it would defeat the purpose of a guild - a conglomerate of people and interests, instead of being a faction, a conglomerate of landowners.
But maybe the ability to hold all the income from fiefs, instead of controlling the fief, only getting its money? That could be possible for an Iron Bank-esque guild/minor faction or whatever.

Gotta always be mindful of too much daydreaming and hope


Dying Light 2、2077、Avenger are all delayed, MB2 please don't delay any more, if MB2 is also delayed, it's a ****ing disaster for players.



Spanish Gifquisition
Grandmaster Knight

After reading the delay statement about Cyberpunk, it was the first thing I thought about.


C'mon my dudes it's only January and WW3 almost started, Australia is on fire, plague from China, locust swarms in Africa, earthquakes in Turkey, I do hope we all survive till March.


Knight at Arms
There is no point in delaying an EA
There is a point because first impressions do matter. To phrase that as you did implies that every game that wanted to release in EA could technically release at any point, no matter how early in development. Which we know to not be true...

But it is as Flavius said. In this particular case it would be very strange. Given their motto, they shouldve only announced an EA release date when the game was already at a stage they would be happy releasing as EA.


Sergeant at Arms
There is a point because first impressions do matter. To phrase that as you did implies that every game that wanted to release in EA could technically release at any point, no matter how early in development. Which we know to not be true
I mean if you want to take it that way, technically yes, you can release an EA at any stage you want, how it will be recieved is something else entirely.

However i did mean it for bannerlord, since there is no way they would announce an EA date years after refusing to give any date after having delayed for 2 times. And i'm pretty sure all these big names are delaying for ps5 since it will have the function toplay backtrack ( ps4 games ) and since bannerlord isnt meant for consoles ( any time soon ) i doubt it has any reason too


"First impressions" is a good point, but I think what trumps even that is the fact that if Early Access is still a testing phase. There is no point, other than to fulfill their promise, for TW to release a testing product when they aren't ready to deal with the feedback. Why gather heaps of feedback when the game isn't at a point that they want feedback for, right?

That said, please don't delay :sad:


C'mon my dudes it's only January and WW3 almost started, Australia is on fire, plague from China, locust swarms in Africa, earthquakes in Turkey, I do hope we all survive till March.
If we're all dead they can't disappoint anyone
Comeon I have been dreaming bannerlord day and night, play beta for 200 hours, if they delay I'm gonna die no joke 😂If only we can get more promises
This is obviously just conjecture, but I don't see how they can delay. Given what has happened between that 2016 statement (We plan on getting the game in the players hands in some form this year) and now it would be incomprehensible that their product, now with an early access designation, would be delayed. The way I see it is that the early access label was put on it precisely to avoid another delay. In my mind TW is basically saying: the game isn't %100 ready but you're going to get to play it in March. Those titles in the OP were/are delayed because they aren't %100... we already know going in that Bannerlord isn't completely ready.

Whether iron or tin, rusty steel or polished silver... they kind of have to release it.
Last edited:


I'm sure it's been mentioned before but what's with the release date announcement. Only a month and the year. I can't recall the last time a game did it this way. What are they hiding? Hmmm? Tell me the truth!
Top Bottom