What else remains to be explained?

[DanAngleland]

With all due respect Callum, this sounds like the typical generic improvised response you've got us used to around here...
Very much in agreement with NPC99's comment.

I'm disappointed about the feature being dropped, but his reason for it sounds very plausible and the most likely one for me; it doesn't sound like a lie. What other option is there? They never tried implementing the feature at all? Considering their apparently never ending time frame that doesn't seem likely. It's a shame we are only hearing about it now though. It seems appropriate, in a negative way, given that in recent blogs we've heard about other features being changed in a streamlined way...

 

[HUMMAN]

I am sad there will be no ambush, but i look it positive that TW decided on something and game is getting shaped.

 

[CaptainLee]

I do wonder what specific problems were had with the implementation of ambushes, was it the battlefield mechanics of them or the frequency with which they could be used? I always thought the best way was to add it as a medium or high level of the 'Roguery' skill rather than everybody being capable of it. Maybe set that against the tracking skill of the ambushee to determine if it is successful. If not a normal battle happens, if so the ambushed army get a morale penalty and start closer to your lines.

Meh.

 

[vicwiz007]

My guess is the "fun" part was the kicker, and maybe players were getting annoyed by being forced into tons of battles against little bandits. I don't know much of what it would take to implement, but I imagine it could be done easily in some form.

While I  know some people looked forward to them, personally it's no surprise to me that they weren't fun/didn't work and I don't care about them. Even in Total War I don't think they're necessary, especially because of how rare a meaningful ambush battle is. Though, we shouldn't compare it to Total War so much as theyre very different games.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

I do wonder what specific problems were had with the implementation of ambushes, was it the battlefield mechanics of them or the frequency with which they could be used? I always thought the best way was to add it as a medium or high level of the 'Roguery' skill rather than everybody being capable of it. Maybe set that against the tracking skill of the ambushee to determine if it is successful. If not a normal battle happens, if so the ambushed army get a morale penalty and start closer to your lines.

Meh.

It would be interesting to know that answer...however I think they have solved it with an "after implementing it, we found that it didn't really work well", issue resolved.

It's just that everything led to this thing that you comment on and more when we were told about skills. If you don't have enough Tracking, Roguery, Tactics and Strategy skills it's logical that you can't ambush and if these are high level you can avoid being ambushed... A little disappointed and at the same time seriously worried that Taleworlds is "simplifying" everything. I don't want to think about discarding features because on a console they wouldn't eventually work well...no..I don't want to think about it.

 

[Honved]

I can easily see what might not be fun about them.  The TLD mod added hidden Ranger parties for Gondor, and those could chase and ambush evil parties.  At low character level, you would be attacked CONSTANTLY by them, as they would pursue you (unspotted by you) back to some distant camp or town, and then ambush you the moment you stepped out to go somewhere.  You couldn't avoid them because you had no way to know if/when they were in your area (and that area often covered half the map).  Once you got enough manpower and/or skills and weapons to deal with them, they avoided you and were irrelevant for the rest of the campaign.  Basically, it was just an early-game annoyance for anyone playing an evil character (either getting jumped and butchered constantly by high-level archers who could one-shot you and your party with complete impunity, or else reloading 5-10 times in a row before you could figure out how to get away from them), while not adding much to the game unless you played a Ranger character.

 

[HUMMAN]

I dont think observing illegal terrain is hard, its mountains, forests.. When you go outside of mainstream roads and city surroundings, you should have a chance to get attacked by parties, and way you observe them should be according to tracking skill etc. For an example, in Pokemon games when u walk in bushes(special terrain to catch pokemons) you get  a chance to fight a pokemon.

 

[Orion]

In Warband, enemy parties attack you if you are weak enough. You are only a surprised if your lack of attention or inadequate scouting skill leaves you blind.

That doesn't actually relate to what was said. Relative strength of the parties doesn't matter, what does matter is how they engage. You can definitely be ambushed by a stronger force, as them being stronger doesn't preclude them from ambushing you.

As for dictionary definitions:

A surprise attack by people lying in wait in a concealed position.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ambush

Warband line-of-sight doesn't have enemy parties lying in wait in concealed positions.

Given Viking Conquest had ambushes their absence in Bannerlord is a retrograde step.

Not within line-of-sight = not visible = practically concealed. If they see you coming (or just know where you are, 'cause AI does that sometimes) before you see them, they could certainly be waiting for you without you knowing about them or their location. I admit I'm making a bit of a stretch with this argument, but the concept of an ambush isn't entirely foreign to the game.

If we want to be very picky about it, then you can absolutely 100% be ambushed by thugs upon entering a city scene.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

I dont think observing illegal terrain is hard, its mountains, forests.. When you go outside of mainstream roads and city surroundings, you should have a chance to get attacked by parties, and way you observe them should be according to tracking skill etc. For an example, in Pokemon games when u walk in bushes(special terrain to catch pokemons) you get  a chance to fight a pokemon.

- Stop right there. This is an ambush!
- A wild Callum has ambushed you

隐藏: Original ambush gif

I'm not afraid, I know Callum has a very developed sense of humor. 

 

[Gurkhal]

Ambushing was a planned feature, however, after implementing it, we found that it didn't really work well with the way our sandbox plays out, and ultimately, it wasn't much fun for the player.

With the risk of talking crap from an uninformed position.

I am very, very sorry to hear this. One of the biggest problems with M&B:W was that the engine was giving advantage to heavy troops over light ones, given that light troop tactics like raiding and ambushing are pretty much impossible to pull off (double so with the impossibility to do economic damage to the enemy). So I feel that this may, not per necessity but judging from experience from M&B:W, make it so that heavier army lists will dominate medium or light-focused ones and there won't be much that light troops can do about it.

But as a final say I know the game isn't out yet and I have faith in that the TW team will provide a great product to us, even if we didn't get this particular feature.

 

[Noudelle]

Ambushing was a planned feature, however, after implementing it, we found that it didn't really work well with the way our sandbox plays out, and ultimately, it wasn't much fun for the player.

With the risk of talking crap from an uninformed position.

I am very, very sorry to hear this. One of the biggest problems with M&B:W was that the engine was giving advantage to heavy troops over light ones, given that light troop tactics like raiding and ambushing are pretty much impossible to pull off (double so with the impossibility to do economic damage to the enemy). So I feel that this may, not per necessity but judging from experience from M&B:W, make it so that heavier army lists will dominate medium or light-focused ones and there won't be much that light troops can do about it.

But as a final say I know the game isn't out yet and I have faith in that the TW team will provide a great product to us, even if we didn't get this particular feature.

What does that have to do with the engine?
The game mechanics didn't encourage/support these things but that's not the fault of the engine.
Warband's engine was **** in many regards but I just don't see how what you mentionned relates to that.

 

[Gurkhal]

Ambushing was a planned feature, however, after implementing it, we found that it didn't really work well with the way our sandbox plays out, and ultimately, it wasn't much fun for the player.

With the risk of talking crap from an uninformed position.

I am very, very sorry to hear this. One of the biggest problems with M&B:W was that the engine was giving advantage to heavy troops over light ones, given that light troop tactics like raiding and ambushing are pretty much impossible to pull off (double so with the impossibility to do economic damage to the enemy). So I feel that this may, not per necessity but judging from experience from M&B:W, make it so that heavier army lists will dominate medium or light-focused ones and there won't be much that light troops can do about it.

But as a final say I know the game isn't out yet and I have faith in that the TW team will provide a great product to us, even if we didn't get this particular feature.

What does that have to do with the engine?
The game mechanics didn't encourage/support these things but that's not the fault of the engine.
Warband's engine was **** in many regards but I just don't see how what you mentionned relates to that.

Well, I am not nor do I pretend to be a game developer or know much about computers, software or hardware, so its entirely possible that I used improper terminology.

What I wanted to say was that in the game where a pitched battle decided by who can drive the enemy off the field is the norm then heavier troops will naturally have an advantage over lighter troops as skirmishing and hit-and-run attacks are not as viable tactics as closed ranks and all-out engagement of the enemy. From my experience, that is.

What this means is that you can't really, or at least I've never seen it, catch an enemy at a disadvantage or suprise them, and then leave the battlefield having caused harm before the enemy can bring their heavier but slower forces to bear. Both sides are always equally ready for battle and facing each other and that means from my experience that light troops will have a disadvantage. There's just no way for them to stand up to heavier troops in a prologed engagement and there's no, again in my experience, way to offset this by adding other factors against the enemy, such as suprise.

 

[JuJu70]

Ambushes easy to code. here someone did this as WIP, never finished I guess

 

[killer-blead]

I'm not afraid, I know Callum has a very developed sense of humor. 

I hope it's further developed than Bannerlord

 

[Terco_Viejo]

We take for granted the doubt about criminal operations since we have explanation of the consequences of a gameplay with criminal aspect. (Dev Blog 07/02/19 Crime and Punishment)

Now we know what consequences our criminal acts could have, but the question is...what criminal acts can we carry out?

Developer Blog 13 - Weekending
When we wander into the backstreets, we are confronted by a group of thugs and the dialogue is automatically initiated by the gang leader. The main advantage of engaging in crime is to make money quickly. It is cheaper and provides a faster return than a legitimate business. However, engaging in criminal activity while rising up the ranks of a faction increasingly puts the player in a difficult position. Regardless, the player can still choose to take part in criminal activity, at any time, even as a King; there are always costs and benefits.
[…] If he doesn't have sufficient income to do so, he may decide to take action, which could be anything from raising taxes on his peasants to setting up a criminal enterprise.

Dev Blog 08/11/18
Slums and backstreet - Dangerous places where smugglers and bandits gather to make money by illegitimate means, diminishing the resources and taxes of the town.

Developer Blog 15 - Valuable Relationships
A crucial change, in the nature of the quests themselves, is that the majority of quests, in Bannerlord, have multiple potential outcomes. As an example, when a character in a town tasks you with clearing out some thugs, who are occupying a local alley, upon meeting the gang, you are presented with a counter offer: go back to the quest-giver, extort money out of them for questioning the gang's authority and keep the profits for yourself. You can even clear out the thugs, as requested but instead of handing control back to the townsfolk, install your own men in the alley and begin a new criminal operation.

PCGamer April 06, 2017 (link)
Getting to know an important NPC doesn’t just confer a recruitment bonus. Later in the game, your friends will offer extra services. “For example,” says Yavuz, “if you need to kidnap someone, that will be much easier if you have some friendly NPCs in the town. They open up opportunities for mischief.” The service is based on the type of NPC you befriend. “Merchant NPCs give you an advantage in trading. A gang leader can give you advantages in ‘special operations’,” Yavuz says.

 

[RoboSenshi]

I think I might be stretching this but are we able to control two or more parties at once. Watching some of the Campaign videos and in the clan page the higher tier your clan is, the more parties it can have.

Could that mean that we could be able to switch between parties? Maybe give command of half your troops to your clan member and send him off to fight? And I don't mean using chats to send him/her off like "Form a party and go raid village x". I mean physically click on a different party of your clan and move it around like your own.

If there's anything on this floating around I'm sure Terco (TW's own Sherlock Holmes) will find it. If not, I guess you can add it to the list.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

I think I might be stretching this but are we able to control two or more parties at once. Watching some of the Campaign videos and in the clan page the higher tier your clan is, the more parties it can have.

Could that mean that we could be able to switch between parties? Maybe give command of half your troops to your clan member and send him off to fight? And I don't mean using chats to send him/her off like "Form a party and go raid village x". I mean physically click on a different party of your clan and move it around like your own.

If there's anything on this floating around I'm sure Terco (TW's own Sherlock Holmes) will find it. If not, I guess you can add it to the list.

The real Sherlock is NPC99 (aka google man), in the past I took information from him and commented on it in Spanish forums. Regarding what you say...very little information about it...just the screenshot. It is plausible that a family member or companion is the ones who lead the other parties.

We commented here together with other interesting topics 

 

[NPC99]

I think I might be stretching this but are we able to control two or more parties at once. Watching some of the Campaign videos and in the clan page the higher tier your clan is, the more parties it can have.

Could that mean that we could be able to switch between parties? Maybe give command of half your troops to your clan member and send him off to fight? And I don't mean using chats to send him/her off like "Form a party and go raid village x". I mean physically click on a different party of your clan and move it around like your own.

If there's anything on this floating around I'm sure Terco (TW's own Sherlock Holmes) will find it. If not, I guess you can add it to the list.

The real Sherlock is NPC99 (aka google man), in the past I took information from him and commented on it in Spanish forums. Regarding what you say...very little information about it...just the screenshot. It is plausible that a family member or companion is the ones who lead the other parties.

We commented here together with other interesting topics 

I’ve seen nothing to suggest that parties belonging to the players clan will operate any different in Bannerlord to the vassal parties belonging to the player faction in Warband. i suspect the option to add a new party requires you to allocate a companion or relative to lead it under ai control. Hopefully, Bannerlord will allow us to give these parties more sophisticated orders.

 

[RoboSenshi]

Thanks NPC (The real TW MVP). I guess the multiple party thing needs explaining.

I certainly HopeTM they do something different like what I suggested. Switching between parties in your clan like Total War would be a genuinely cool new feature. If extra clan parties are controlled the same way as Warband, it'll be very disappointing. To keep it level you could have it so that you can only fight on the battle map with your clan leader. If you're controlling your second party it can only be auto resolved.

 

[NPC99]

Thanks NPC (The real TW MVP). I guess the multiple party thing needs explaining.

I certainly HopeTM they do something different like what I suggested. Switching between parties in your clan like Total War would be a genuinely cool new feature. If extra clan parties are controlled the same way as Warband, it'll be very disappointing. To keep it level you could have it so that you can only fight on the battle map with your clan leader. If you're controlling your second party it can only be auto resolved.

Multiple parties can be aggregated into a single moveable/controllable army on the campaign map.
https://steamcommunity.com/games/261550/announcements/detail/1457336536714336332