What else remains to be explained?

[vicwiz007]

So ok it's not a specific feature. What does this mean? Well maybe there are some new features which make it harder to spot enemy parties when they are on certain terrain in the world map (forests especially). The parties that wish to "ambush" stay in those areas and have high mobility so they can jump on parties. Just spitballing here...

The first blog you posted certainly makes it seem like it will be like Total War style, but that is from the old blogs Lust made right? If so, it's not the only thing to have been changed or excluded since then. The rest of the times it was mentioned in blogs it is much more vague as I said earlier.

Not trying to defend TW, just being hopeful maybe.

 

[NPC99]

Damn. I had hoped that the blog references to ambush meant something of substance. Clearly, in TW’s terms ambushing merely refers to an arbitrary reversal of roles on the campaign map. The pursued bandits can turn around and ambush us, making them the attacker with maybe a minor tweak to battle advantage stats. However, this is meaningless as it translates to nothing on the battle map. Bandits charge us to their destruction without sense or purpose. Intelligent AI would be simulated by catching a portion of the ambushed party in a true terrain trap that conferred advantages on the ambushers. Without that, Bannerlord is no different from Warband, which is extremely disappointing.

I’m also disappointed that it has taken Callum so long to admit this desite several forum discussions:

I’m sure the Gamescom videos contained instances where pursued bandit parties once into woods turned on their pursuers, but even if battle advantage was adjusted in their favour (uncertain) the fight then played out as a normal encounter battle. I’ll be disappointed if that’s all there is to ambushes. IMO a serious implementation of ambushes needs:

1. Hidden parties on the world map, in forrest/swamp/hilly terrain, that can spring ambushes when the odds are in their favour. Maybe 33% chance of prior detection if the players party has extremely good spotting or scouting skills.
2. Unique ambush battle scenes with meaningful cover (i.e cavalry proof) for the ambushers and strung out or scattered deployment for the ambushed party. Plus high proportion of ranged troops in the ambushing party - i.e. no suicidal charging out of cover.
3. Restriction of the numbers spawned for the ambushed party - trap sprung on the advance or rearguard with the remaining troops only available as later reinforcements.
4. The ability of ambushers to ghost away without further losses after suffering over 50% casualties, allowing hit & run guerrilla tactics.
5. Limitation of ambush tactics to parties below a certain size - say less than 100.

When fleeing from a larger force, it would be an interesting tactic if we or the ai could drop off our infantry at one or more hidden ambush points (hoping they remained hidden unless they could trap a smaller party) while the cavalry made their escape at full horse speed. This would of course require a detour into suitable ambush terrain. The ambush point would act as a quasi-garrison (probably infantry only), waiting for the main party’s return.

Well I can dream, can’t I. 

Ambushes wouldn't work as we imagine they would if the AI can detect every agent on the map, regardless of physical obstacles in their way. A spotting/fog of war mechanic would be very taxing in huge battles.

I can only think about scripted ambushes, like in Total War games, where an army marches on the road and the attackers get to choose where to spawn. I could be satisfied with that sort of implementation.

this is how the ambush mechnic worked in VC, and it worked well enough.

VC has a system similar to what you see on the Total War series. On a ambush the attacking army gets to charge the defending army while they are still unprepared for battle. That could mean attacking them while traveling (when the army is on a long one-two man line, not on battle formation) or their resting camp (when they may not being using all their gear).

This would be a important factor to help lighter armies (less armor) and to give a home field bonus to a faction like Battania. Can also be applied to other factions of course.

Battania is a good case because they are a very small nation, surrounded by several big kingdoms. As they live on a mountain+heavy forest region the ability to use the terrain to surprise any invaders would give them the edge on surviving (without helping them expanding outside their territory). They also have weaker fortifications.

Another cool aspect, in case this is a thingy for Bannerlord, is to attack supply wagons for sieging armies, or their hunting groups.


To oppose this mechanic you can use scouts, hire guides, divide the army, build fortified camps to protect the supply line, and so on.

weapons getting stuck isn't such a bad idea, and advance army controls might just be what we need because we should be able to ambush enemies place our men at different positions ,battles shouldn't always be armies facing each other and charging  I mean there should be some freewill and flexibility in army deployment especially ambushes should be awesome even total war manages that .Mount and Blade would murder it......

Ambushes are a feature of Bannerlord, this was mentioned in an early blog, so you will get your wish. It is a feature I am looking forward to as well. In blog 7 they also said that the Battanians like to ambush their enemies in their native forests.

TW please reconsider even if this only appears in a subsequent DLC.

 

[RKStranger]

Very good idea and it sounds practical to implement without extreme effort.

Damn. I had hoped that the blog references to ambush meant something of substance. Clearly, in TW’s terms ambushing merely refers to an arbitrary reversal of roles on the campaign map. The pursued bandits can turn around and ambush us, making them the attacker with maybe a minor tweak to battle advantage stats. However, this is meaningless as it translates to nothing on the battle map. Bandits charge us to their destruction without sense or purpose. Intelligent AI would be simulated by catching a portion of the ambushed party in a true terrain trap that conferred advantages on the ambushers. Without that, Bannerlord is no different from Warband, which us extremely disappointing.

I’m also disappointed that it has taken Callum so long to admit this desite several forum discussions:

I’m sure the Gamescom videos contained instances where pursued bandit parties once into woods turned on their pursuers, but even if battle advantage was adjusted in their favour (uncertain) the fight then played out as a normal encounter battle. I’ll be disappointed if that’s all there is to ambushes. IMO a serious implementation of ambushes needs:

1. Hidden parties on the world map, in forrest/swamp/hilly terrain, that can spring ambushes when the odds are in their favour. Maybe 33% chance of prior detection if the players party has extremely good spotting or scouting skills.
2. Unique ambush battle scenes with meaningful cover (i.e cavalry proof) for the ambushers and strung out or scattered deployment for the ambushed party. Plus high proportion of ranged troops in the ambushing party - i.e. no suicidal charging out of cover.
3. Restriction of the numbers spawned for the ambushed party - trap sprung on the advance or rearguard with the remaining troops only available as later reinforcements.
4. The ability of ambushers to ghost away without further losses after suffering over 50% casualties, allowing hit & run guerrilla tactics.
5. Limitation of ambush tactics to parties below a certain size - say less than 100.

When fleeing from a larger force, it would be an interesting tactic if we or the ai could drop off our infantry at one or more hidden ambush points (hoping they remained hidden unless they could trap a smaller party) while the cavalry made their escape at full horse speed. This would of course require a detour into suitable ambush terrain. The ambush point would act as a quasi-garrison (probably infantry only), waiting for the main party’s return.

Well I can dream, can’t I. 

TW please reconsider even if this only appears in a subsequent DLC.

 

[NPC99]

Maybe Bannerlord ambushes just repeat Warband's random bandit attacks against an isolated player in town scenes. 

 

[Orion]

Considering line-of-sight is almost certainly being carried over from Warband to Bannerlord, there's no need for a discrete ambush feature. You can already be taken by surprise by a party you didn't see coming until it was too late, and if that doesn't count as an ambush for some people then maybe a dictionary should be referenced. I wouldn't mind seeing improvements being made to this functionality, though. For instance, if you make camp then after a brief period of waiting your line-of-sight range could be increased to simulate sending out scouts around the camp. This could be useful for a player that knows a party is coming through a general area but not their exact route, as the player could then spot the target party before being spotted themselves, and possibly far enough in advance to intercept them. An ambush doesn't have to be a "Charlie in the trees" scenario necessarily.

 

[Rabies]

Damn. I had hoped that the blog references to ambush meant something of substance. Clearly, in TW’s terms ambushing merely refers to an arbitrary reversal of roles on the campaign map. The pursued bandits can turn around and ambush us, making them the attacker with maybe a minor tweak to battle advantage stats. However, this is meaningless as it translates to nothing on the battle map. Bandits charge us to their destruction without sense or purpose. Intelligent AI would be simulated by catching a portion of the ambushed party in a true terrain trap that conferred advantages on the ambushers. Without that, Bannerlord is no different from Warband, which us extremely disappointing.

I’m also disappointed that it has taken Callum so long to admit this desite several forum discussions:

I’m sure the Gamescom videos contained instances where pursued bandit parties once into woods turned on their pursuers, but even if battle advantage was adjusted in their favour (uncertain) the fight then played out as a normal encounter battle. I’ll be disappointed if that’s all there is to ambushes. IMO a serious implementation of ambushes needs:

1. Hidden parties on the world map, in forrest/swamp/hilly terrain, that can spring ambushes when the odds are in their favour. Maybe 33% chance of prior detection if the players party has extremely good spotting or scouting skills.
2. Unique ambush battle scenes with meaningful cover (i.e cavalry proof) for the ambushers and strung out or scattered deployment for the ambushed party. Plus high proportion of ranged troops in the ambushing party - i.e. no suicidal charging out of cover.
3. Restriction of the numbers spawned for the ambushed party - trap sprung on the advance or rearguard with the remaining troops only available as later reinforcements.
4. The ability of ambushers to ghost away without further losses after suffering over 50% casualties, allowing hit & run guerrilla tactics.
5. Limitation of ambush tactics to parties below a certain size - say less than 100.

When fleeing from a larger force, it would be an interesting tactic if we or the ai could drop off our infantry at one or more hidden ambush points (hoping they remained hidden unless they could trap a smaller party) while the cavalry made their escape at full horse speed. This would of course require a detour into suitable ambush terrain. The ambush point would act as a quasi-garrison (probably infantry only), waiting for the main party’s return.

Well I can dream, can’t I. 

TW please reconsider even if this only appears in a subsequent DLC.

I've just spent a very frustrating half hour or so chasing a band of deserters across Vaegir lands in Warband, to no avail. I just couldn't catch them, and I couldn't complete the quest I was on.

If there isn't going to be any ambush feature in Bannerlord, I'd at least like to see some strategic way of outmaneuvering faster parties than yours so you can force them into a fight (without ditching all your slower troops in the middle of nowhere). Maybe some way of making your troops less visible so you can get closer to them without them running away. Or maybe the ability to detach your cavalry so that you can pin them down and wait for reinforcements. Or a combination. If the game forced bandits to supply themselves with food, as war parties must do, you would have a chance of outlasting them over a long chase. Something anyway.

 

[Daiball14]

Think they just needed to clarify the infomation more because the definition of ambush can be used in many ways I think it was just a bit of misunderstanding in communication.

 

[NPC99]

Considering line-of-sight is almost certainly being carried over from Warband to Bannerlord, there's no need for a discrete ambush feature. You can already be taken by surprise by a party you didn't see coming until it was too late, and if that doesn't count as an ambush for some people then maybe a dictionary should be referenced.

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.

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.

 

[CaptainLee]

So that's extremely disappointing. Being ambushed by concealed parties on the map I felt would really have made smaller parties esp. bandits more of a threat rather than just a source of money and xp like they were in M&B. Sigh.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

Then all the information concerning the Legacy Blogs is no longer valid? How is that?

Going from:Development of this kind is incremental and behaviours need to be gradually corrected and improved over time, to include new actions. An example of this is ambushing. The mechanic and gameplay of ambushing itself needs to be developed but for a real implementation into the game, the AI needs to be programmed to make sure that lord and bandit parties also make use of ambushing in realistic ways. This adds extra layers to the development of a non-linear game like Mount&Blade, obviously creating complications but a necessary part of creating the games that we want to create and our players enjoy....

... to "The game doesn't have ambushes as a feature" and so rotundly in a random commentary on Steam...I don't know what to think honestly.
An explanation with more or less solid arguments like the one we had referring to "Can we still build castles in villages we own?" is ultimately appreciated. I would like Callum to go to the first page of this thread and with the same rotundity and unambiguousness with which it has acted in Steam to do the same here one by one with all the elements contained in the main list of this topic.

Damn. I had hoped that the blog references to ambush meant something of substance. Clearly, in TW’s terms ambushing merely refers to an arbitrary reversal of roles on the campaign map. The pursued bandits can turn around and ambush us, making them the attacker with maybe a minor tweak to battle advantage stats. However, this is meaningless as it translates to nothing on the battle map. Bandits charge us to their destruction without sense or purpose. Intelligent AI would be simulated by catching a portion of the ambushed party in a true terrain trap that conferred advantages on the ambushers. Without that, Bannerlord is no different from Warband, which is extremely disappointing.

I’m also disappointed that it has taken Callum so long to admit this desite several forum discussions:

Spoiler

I’m sure the Gamescom videos contained instances where pursued bandit parties once into woods turned on their pursuers, but even if battle advantage was adjusted in their favour (uncertain) the fight then played out as a normal encounter battle. I’ll be disappointed if that’s all there is to ambushes. IMO a serious implementation of ambushes needs:

1. Hidden parties on the world map, in forrest/swamp/hilly terrain, that can spring ambushes when the odds are in their favour. Maybe 33% chance of prior detection if the players party has extremely good spotting or scouting skills.
2. Unique ambush battle scenes with meaningful cover (i.e cavalry proof) for the ambushers and strung out or scattered deployment for the ambushed party. Plus high proportion of ranged troops in the ambushing party - i.e. no suicidal charging out of cover.
3. Restriction of the numbers spawned for the ambushed party - trap sprung on the advance or rearguard with the remaining troops only available as later reinforcements.
4. The ability of ambushers to ghost away without further losses after suffering over 50% casualties, allowing hit & run guerrilla tactics.
5. Limitation of ambush tactics to parties below a certain size - say less than 100.

When fleeing from a larger force, it would be an interesting tactic if we or the ai could drop off our infantry at one or more hidden ambush points (hoping they remained hidden unless they could trap a smaller party) while the cavalry made their escape at full horse speed. This would of course require a detour into suitable ambush terrain. The ambush point would act as a quasi-garrison (probably infantry only), waiting for the main party’s return.

Well I can dream, can’t I. 

Ambushes wouldn't work as we imagine they would if the AI can detect every agent on the map, regardless of physical obstacles in their way. A spotting/fog of war mechanic would be very taxing in huge battles.

I can only think about scripted ambushes, like in Total War games, where an army marches on the road and the attackers get to choose where to spawn. I could be satisfied with that sort of implementation.

this is how the ambush mechnic worked in VC, and it worked well enough.

VC has a system similar to what you see on the Total War series. On a ambush the attacking army gets to charge the defending army while they are still unprepared for battle. That could mean attacking them while traveling (when the army is on a long one-two man line, not on battle formation) or their resting camp (when they may not being using all their gear).

This would be a important factor to help lighter armies (less armor) and to give a home field bonus to a faction like Battania. Can also be applied to other factions of course.

Battania is a good case because they are a very small nation, surrounded by several big kingdoms. As they live on a mountain+heavy forest region the ability to use the terrain to surprise any invaders would give them the edge on surviving (without helping them expanding outside their territory). They also have weaker fortifications.

Another cool aspect, in case this is a thingy for Bannerlord, is to attack supply wagons for sieging armies, or their hunting groups.


To oppose this mechanic you can use scouts, hire guides, divide the army, build fortified camps to protect the supply line, and so on.

weapons getting stuck isn't such a bad idea, and advance army controls might just be what we need because we should be able to ambush enemies place our men at different positions ,battles shouldn't always be armies facing each other and charging  I mean there should be some freewill and flexibility in army deployment especially ambushes should be awesome even total war manages that .Mount and Blade would murder it......

Ambushes are a feature of Bannerlord, this was mentioned in an early blog, so you will get your wish. It is a feature I am looking forward to as well. In blog 7 they also said that the Battanians like to ambush their enemies in their native forests.

TW please reconsider even if this only appears in a subsequent DLC.

+5
I'm glad you got these comments back.

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

+1
Shattering comment

---
Bearing in mind that ambushes depend on the terrain, tactical ability, men at the party and that we would only need generic scenes of beach, plain, steppe, snow, desert, mountain, river and forest:

You told us that the game has three levels (Individual + Formations + Tactics) stating that in developing this new combat AI, one of our main considerations was to make sure that the players believed all the decisions that the AI could make. The AI has to make logical decisions that make sense to the player; otherwise, the system could be easily tricked and this would severely affect the user's immersion in the game.

Also that designating map areas to different types of terrain allows us to do much more than link combat scenes to certain parts of the map. It also allows us to control AI behavior (e.g., limit the areas in which certain groups of bandits move) and affect equipment modifiers (e.g., movement speed).

Followed by : the size of scenes is generally around 4 km square, which is much larger than in Warband, and scene creation is much faster. We developed lots of new editing tools for objects, terrain and flora for the scene designers to use. We have an advanced terrain system which can support up to 16 layers per scene, with no restriction on layers used per node. Also, the designers now have access to a scene upgrade level system, (a scene masking system which is used in siege scenes to allow level 1-3 castles to be placed in one scene,) and a new weather system, (which is used for creating different weather versions of the scene.) With all of the CPU and hard drive optimisations we try to achieve <1 second loading times on these bigger scenes.

And that in the video of the siege we are told that Our video begins with the deployment phase, where the player is able to place an array of siege equipment among various fixed positions outside the castle, to prepare the assault. During this phase, it is also possible to arrange troops in formations, and make full use of the order screen, which allows for splitting and merging of formations, in addition to some more detailed options including spread and ranged behaviour etc.  This enables you to cater your approach, when deciding how to assault a castle, based on, for instance, the shape of its walls or troop composition of the defending forces.


Considering all this and that Viking Conquest had this feature, yes many of us expected something like this honestly:


An official explanation would be nice...if it's not too much to ask.

 

[Callum]

Spoiler

@Orion
Thank you for commenting I didn't know, regarding Callum...(insert sarcastic joke here)

Lmao throwback to me explaining to RainbowDash how the use of the word Ambush in blogs wasn't referring to an actual feature. Sweet victory.

Do you remember which blog this was? I thought it was the Batannia blog, but no luck.

Promises and promises...We'll see what the promised features will look like....


Mount&Blade II: Bannerlord Developer Blog 3 - Unexpected Parties
Development of this kind is incremental and behaviours need to be gradually corrected and improved over time, to include new actions. An example of this is ambushing. The mechanic and gameplay of ambushing itself needs to be developed but for a real implementation into the game, the AI needs to be programmed to make sure that lord and bandit parties also make use of ambushing in realistic ways. This adds extra layers to the development of a non-linear game like Mount&Blade, obviously creating complications but a necessary part of creating the games that we want to create and our players enjoy.

Mount&Blade II: Bannerlord Developer Blog 7 - Imperial Declines
Bannerlord is set 200 years before Warband. Players who followed Warband's lore will recall that Calradia was once an empire, which declined and was supplanted by successor states -- tribal confederations-turned-kingdoms -- much as the Western Roman Empire was supplanted by early medieval states. Bannerlord lets you join those rising kingdoms at an early stage in their development, and it also lets you join the Empire. Weapons, armor, clothes and architecture should date from around 600 to 1100 AD, rather than the 13th century. There's the Vlandians, a tribe whose chieftains have become feudal lords and are renowned for their skills as heavy cavalry. There's the Sturgians, who colonized the forests of the north and specialize in axe- and sword-armed footmen. The Aserai live in the scrubland and desert oases of the south and fight on both horseback and foot. The Khuzaits, a steppe tribe that conquered the trading cities of the east, make heavy use of horse archers. The Battanians meanwhile are skilled in exploiting their native woodlands, and are deadly in ambushes, be it a shower of arrows or a screaming charge out of the trees. The Empire has spent generations honing the arts of combined-arms warfare, with cataphracts, spear formations, and archers all doing their part on the battlefield.


Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord Developer Blog 12 - The Passage Of Time
The topography of the map is not entirely consistent with Warband, in fact Bannerlord's map is somewhat more mountainous. The effect of this is an increase in the number of choke points. It will be hard to avoid conflict, for instance, when traversing narrow passes through mountain ranges that may be riddled with ambush spots or enemy patrols. Tactically, the map offers many more options for controlling areas that serve as trade routes. Battles are often fought in the game to contest key choke points with the goal of securing passage for trade caravans and other parties. As a player, it is important to consider what kind of warfare you are likely to end up in, before sacrificing relations with a faction. If your speciality is skirmishing on foot over rough terrain, you might for example avoid engaging the Aserai, who will have higher mobility in the open desert.

Spoiler: No ambushing

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.

 

[NPC99]

Spoiler

@Orion
Thank you for commenting I didn't know, regarding Callum...(insert sarcastic joke here)

Lmao throwback to me explaining to RainbowDash how the use of the word Ambush in blogs wasn't referring to an actual feature. Sweet victory.

Do you remember which blog this was? I thought it was the Batannia blog, but no luck.

Promises and promises...We'll see what the promised features will look like....


Mount&Blade II: Bannerlord Developer Blog 3 - Unexpected Parties
Development of this kind is incremental and behaviours need to be gradually corrected and improved over time, to include new actions. An example of this is ambushing. The mechanic and gameplay of ambushing itself needs to be developed but for a real implementation into the game, the AI needs to be programmed to make sure that lord and bandit parties also make use of ambushing in realistic ways. This adds extra layers to the development of a non-linear game like Mount&Blade, obviously creating complications but a necessary part of creating the games that we want to create and our players enjoy.

Mount&Blade II: Bannerlord Developer Blog 7 - Imperial Declines
Bannerlord is set 200 years before Warband. Players who followed Warband's lore will recall that Calradia was once an empire, which declined and was supplanted by successor states -- tribal confederations-turned-kingdoms -- much as the Western Roman Empire was supplanted by early medieval states. Bannerlord lets you join those rising kingdoms at an early stage in their development, and it also lets you join the Empire. Weapons, armor, clothes and architecture should date from around 600 to 1100 AD, rather than the 13th century. There's the Vlandians, a tribe whose chieftains have become feudal lords and are renowned for their skills as heavy cavalry. There's the Sturgians, who colonized the forests of the north and specialize in axe- and sword-armed footmen. The Aserai live in the scrubland and desert oases of the south and fight on both horseback and foot. The Khuzaits, a steppe tribe that conquered the trading cities of the east, make heavy use of horse archers. The Battanians meanwhile are skilled in exploiting their native woodlands, and are deadly in ambushes, be it a shower of arrows or a screaming charge out of the trees. The Empire has spent generations honing the arts of combined-arms warfare, with cataphracts, spear formations, and archers all doing their part on the battlefield.


Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord Developer Blog 12 - The Passage Of Time
The topography of the map is not entirely consistent with Warband, in fact Bannerlord's map is somewhat more mountainous. The effect of this is an increase in the number of choke points. It will be hard to avoid conflict, for instance, when traversing narrow passes through mountain ranges that may be riddled with ambush spots or enemy patrols. Tactically, the map offers many more options for controlling areas that serve as trade routes. Battles are often fought in the game to contest key choke points with the goal of securing passage for trade caravans and other parties. As a player, it is important to consider what kind of warfare you are likely to end up in, before sacrificing relations with a faction. If your speciality is skirmishing on foot over rough terrain, you might for example avoid engaging the Aserai, who will have higher mobility in the open desert.

Spoiler: No ambushing

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.

Given TW’s commitment to modding, will this abandoned feature (i.e. code etc) be made available to the modding community? In Warband, disabled features were retained within the module system,  but were commented out, allowing resurrection. However, there will be no module system in Bannerlord, meaning such abandonded features would presumably need to be made available as unsupported mods. Given such a health warning, it would either be no different from a community mod or would become a foundation for further community effort. There must be a number of abandoned features that would also be of interest. I understand that these may be incompatible with UI revisions etc. and would probably need work to implement them, but some of us might appreciate the opportunity regardless.

It seems odd that Bannerlord will be built for plug and play mods, but features that part of the community may desire are ruled out because they will impact the game experience of other players. Fun is extremely subjective, we all have different tastes.

I hope this ruling out of already developed features, which could be provided as optional add-ons, is not due to the inability of consoles to incorporate mods and a desire to make the base product the same over different platforms.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

Spoiler

@Orion
Thank you for commenting I didn't know, regarding Callum...(insert sarcastic joke here)

Lmao throwback to me explaining to RainbowDash how the use of the word Ambush in blogs wasn't referring to an actual feature. Sweet victory.

Do you remember which blog this was? I thought it was the Batannia blog, but no luck.

Promises and promises...We'll see what the promised features will look like....


Mount&Blade II: Bannerlord Developer Blog 3 - Unexpected Parties
Development of this kind is incremental and behaviours need to be gradually corrected and improved over time, to include new actions. An example of this is ambushing. The mechanic and gameplay of ambushing itself needs to be developed but for a real implementation into the game, the AI needs to be programmed to make sure that lord and bandit parties also make use of ambushing in realistic ways. This adds extra layers to the development of a non-linear game like Mount&Blade, obviously creating complications but a necessary part of creating the games that we want to create and our players enjoy.

Mount&Blade II: Bannerlord Developer Blog 7 - Imperial Declines
Bannerlord is set 200 years before Warband. Players who followed Warband's lore will recall that Calradia was once an empire, which declined and was supplanted by successor states -- tribal confederations-turned-kingdoms -- much as the Western Roman Empire was supplanted by early medieval states. Bannerlord lets you join those rising kingdoms at an early stage in their development, and it also lets you join the Empire. Weapons, armor, clothes and architecture should date from around 600 to 1100 AD, rather than the 13th century. There's the Vlandians, a tribe whose chieftains have become feudal lords and are renowned for their skills as heavy cavalry. There's the Sturgians, who colonized the forests of the north and specialize in axe- and sword-armed footmen. The Aserai live in the scrubland and desert oases of the south and fight on both horseback and foot. The Khuzaits, a steppe tribe that conquered the trading cities of the east, make heavy use of horse archers. The Battanians meanwhile are skilled in exploiting their native woodlands, and are deadly in ambushes, be it a shower of arrows or a screaming charge out of the trees. The Empire has spent generations honing the arts of combined-arms warfare, with cataphracts, spear formations, and archers all doing their part on the battlefield.


Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord Developer Blog 12 - The Passage Of Time
The topography of the map is not entirely consistent with Warband, in fact Bannerlord's map is somewhat more mountainous. The effect of this is an increase in the number of choke points. It will be hard to avoid conflict, for instance, when traversing narrow passes through mountain ranges that may be riddled with ambush spots or enemy patrols. Tactically, the map offers many more options for controlling areas that serve as trade routes. Battles are often fought in the game to contest key choke points with the goal of securing passage for trade caravans and other parties. As a player, it is important to consider what kind of warfare you are likely to end up in, before sacrificing relations with a faction. If your speciality is skirmishing on foot over rough terrain, you might for example avoid engaging the Aserai, who will have higher mobility in the open desert.

Spoiler: No ambushing

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 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.

 

[Zwade]

No ambushes in the way most envisioned them...Good job.  I suppose eight or nine years just isn't enough time.

 

[DtheHun]

Spoiler

@Orion
Thank you for commenting I didn't know, regarding Callum...(insert sarcastic joke here)

Lmao throwback to me explaining to RainbowDash how the use of the word Ambush in blogs wasn't referring to an actual feature. Sweet victory.

Do you remember which blog this was? I thought it was the Batannia blog, but no luck.

Promises and promises...We'll see what the promised features will look like....


Mount&Blade II: Bannerlord Developer Blog 3 - Unexpected Parties
Development of this kind is incremental and behaviours need to be gradually corrected and improved over time, to include new actions. An example of this is ambushing. The mechanic and gameplay of ambushing itself needs to be developed but for a real implementation into the game, the AI needs to be programmed to make sure that lord and bandit parties also make use of ambushing in realistic ways. This adds extra layers to the development of a non-linear game like Mount&Blade, obviously creating complications but a necessary part of creating the games that we want to create and our players enjoy.

Mount&Blade II: Bannerlord Developer Blog 7 - Imperial Declines
Bannerlord is set 200 years before Warband. Players who followed Warband's lore will recall that Calradia was once an empire, which declined and was supplanted by successor states -- tribal confederations-turned-kingdoms -- much as the Western Roman Empire was supplanted by early medieval states. Bannerlord lets you join those rising kingdoms at an early stage in their development, and it also lets you join the Empire. Weapons, armor, clothes and architecture should date from around 600 to 1100 AD, rather than the 13th century. There's the Vlandians, a tribe whose chieftains have become feudal lords and are renowned for their skills as heavy cavalry. There's the Sturgians, who colonized the forests of the north and specialize in axe- and sword-armed footmen. The Aserai live in the scrubland and desert oases of the south and fight on both horseback and foot. The Khuzaits, a steppe tribe that conquered the trading cities of the east, make heavy use of horse archers. The Battanians meanwhile are skilled in exploiting their native woodlands, and are deadly in ambushes, be it a shower of arrows or a screaming charge out of the trees. The Empire has spent generations honing the arts of combined-arms warfare, with cataphracts, spear formations, and archers all doing their part on the battlefield.


Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord Developer Blog 12 - The Passage Of Time
The topography of the map is not entirely consistent with Warband, in fact Bannerlord's map is somewhat more mountainous. The effect of this is an increase in the number of choke points. It will be hard to avoid conflict, for instance, when traversing narrow passes through mountain ranges that may be riddled with ambush spots or enemy patrols. Tactically, the map offers many more options for controlling areas that serve as trade routes. Battles are often fought in the game to contest key choke points with the goal of securing passage for trade caravans and other parties. As a player, it is important to consider what kind of warfare you are likely to end up in, before sacrificing relations with a faction. If your speciality is skirmishing on foot over rough terrain, you might for example avoid engaging the Aserai, who will have higher mobility in the open desert.

Spoiler: No ambushing

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.

Given TW’s commitment to modding, will this abandoned feature (i.e. code etc) be made available to the modding community? In Warband, disabled features were retained within the module system,  but were commented out, allowing resurrection. However, there will be no module system in Bannerlord, meaning such abandonded features would presumably need to be made available as unsupported mods. Given such a health warning, it would either be no different from a community mod or would become a foundation for further community effort. There must be a number of abandoned features that would also be of interest. I understand that these may be incompatible with UI revisions etc. and would probably need work to implement them, but some of us might appreciate the opportunity regardless.

It seems odd that Bannerlord will be built for plug and play mods, but features that part of the community may desire are ruled out because they will impact the game experience of other players. Fun is extremely subjective, we all have different tastes.

I hope this ruling out of already developed features, which could be provided as optional add-ons, is not due to the inability of consoles to incorporate mods and a desire to make the base product the same over different platforms.

According to this,

I don’t think going too deep into the technical details right now is a good idea, but simply put, after adding a new feature, we always analyse if it should be something that is moddable. If it is deemed to be a moddable feature, we add corresponding interfaces and maintain our default implementation in order to create room for moddable behaviour.”

I can't expect so much "room for modders" for a not implemented feature.
Welcome to the Object Oriented modding hell.

 

[Honved]

If there isn't going to be any ambush feature in Bannerlord, I'd at least like to see some strategic way of outmaneuvering faster parties than yours so you can force them into a fight (without ditching all your slower troops in the middle of nowhere).

I'd love to see an option to leave some of your party in camp, and continue the pursuit with a smaller chosen group (such as your Companions).  As long as no additional party shows up and melees your camp while you're gone, you could then go back and pick up the rest of your party and continue on.  Obviously, you'd be limited to one camp, otherwise someone would find a way to litter the map with dozens or hundreds of trained reinforcements only a few steps away wherever they go.

 

[Rabies]

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.

I get that. If they don't work well, it's better not to include them. They're fun the first couple of times, but over a long campaign they get repetitive and formulaic and become a pain in the arse. (see Total War for evidence!)

That said I do hope to see some strategic elements that allow different army compositions and sizes to have distinct advantages, so it's not just a case of grabbing as many troops at as high a tier as possible as much of the time as possible.

 

[JuanNieve]

I think it's time to leave Bannerlord and move to a new game, Bannermen  .

Spoiler

https://store.steampowered.com/app/699740/BANNERMEN/

Spoiler

XD

 

[NPC99]

I'd love to see an option to leave some of your party in camp, and continue the pursuit with a smaller chosen group (such as your Companions).  As long as no additional party shows up and melees your camp while you're gone, you could then go back and pick up the rest of your party and continue on.  Obviously, you'd be limited to one camp, otherwise someone would find a way to litter the map with dozens or hundreds of trained reinforcements only a few steps away wherever they go.

You don’t need a camp. We’ve been shown that we can leave some/all of our party in a town and come back and collect them later.

 

[DtheHun]

Sometimes it would be useful to split the party during travel, having follow/wait option would be nice too (similar to Warband escorts).

Edit:
The following option would make traveling faster (two smaller groups), but that would make them more vulnerable. Maybe the second group could join the battle as reinforcements (if the attacked party lasts out until they arrive), their delay would depend on their map speed and distance from the "ambushed" half.

Moreover, a slider between safe(one groop) / fast(multiple groops) travel would make ambushes possible without real change in battle scenes. Imagine hit and run missions - before reinforcement arrives - against small divisions of an enemy party traveling across the map in hurry. The AI could regroup them if they spot the danger in time, but it would be harder to spot a fast, small party in time.

Dreaming OFF