Why developers designed different cultures similar?

Users who are viewing this thread

What do you think modders aspire to be?

Go look at DE trooper's script work on medieval Kingdoms for Atilla Total War? The lead project DEV for Thrones of Britannia (Jack Lusted) was a modder on the forum for years before he was hired. My brother in law worked for Terminal Reality in Dallas Texas, he designed parts of the Ghost Busters game for X-box; he was a modder. I have been modding games for close to 20 years, you have no clue what you are talking about.

I have no clue? Ive been modding just as long as you for both Arma and have worked on M&B mod teams. Im on a team that is releasing a revolutionary pathfinding mods that completely redid the AI pathfinding system forArma3 - its revolutionary yet even that is not the same as creating the base game. My own mod EGO has over 100,000 lines of custom code -so i have a clue what im talking about. I know exactly what modding is. How many mods have been made for Mount and Blade/Warband in total -probably thousands. How many of those modders have made a replicate engine with their own models/ai/physics/ etc? Zero. The original game was made by Armagon and his wife in their garage and they had only the same exact resources as modders -and look what they developed.

Again -show me which modder in M&B has created a base engine game even on par with the first M&B -ill be waiting

Edit: Now that i reread your post your merely saying a modder has the skills to be hired as a developer to support the game -that is no feat. What im saying is they are not the same as the BASE ENGINE CREATING DEVS -the people who actual create the game from the ground up -that apples and oranges. What you speak of is trivial -merely being hired.

Also for simple 2d strategy game -that again is no feat. What i speak of are games like Warband - with all the intricacies that entails.

Just incase anyone thinks im embellishing :wink:

Here ya go
 
Last edited:
I wish they didn't **** with the armour values and troop trees in their last update then.

Yes, to be honest, there were a lot of weird changes but I like how some armors are much tankier now and how some units feel much superior than other ones. For example, legionaries or Veteran Warriors (I do not remember their new name) are now infinitely better than Vlandian Sergeants and this helps to make units more unique.

Some units look ugly and some armors’ stats do not make any sense though.
 
Remember that on release, it was usually one of the Imperial factions that snowballed and they had almost no cav in their parties. So the net effect of giving the Khuzaits tier 2 horse archers and free horses for them was "The Empire wins."
I want to believe that they know better now, but eh.

Yes, to be honest, there were a lot of weird changes but I like how some armors are much tankier now and how some units feel much superior than other ones. For example, legionaries or Veteran Warriors (I do not remember their new name) are now infinitely better than Vlandian Sergeants and this helps to make units more unique.

Some units look ugly and some armors’ stats do not make any sense though.
Those two units were always the tankiest and most capable around. I don't think much for them has changed, although the Heavy Axeman (that's the Veteran Warrior) lost his spear, which got dumped on the Spear Warrior, who replaces the Shock Trooper (which is a shame).

I don't feel like Sergeants being far weaker is much of a good thing if I'm honest. I prefer that a lot of units can serve a purpose, and now sergeants have almost none. They're truly inferior now.

And yes, quite a number of troops look crap and there are a lot of weird stats everywhere.
 
in this generation, elite soldiers will become waste when they remove their weapons and equipment. The only thing better than farmers is to run faster.
 
I think they designed different cultures similar because most different cultures were similar in the ancient and medieval period when it came to warfare. Big differences between settled cultures in contact with each other weren't in existence. The chance to have a true tribal faction and a true nomad faction with bigger differences is lost by the base M+B design of conquering settlements as core mechanic.
 
I want to believe that they know better now, but eh.


Those two units were always the tankiest and most capable around. I don't think much for them has changed, although the Heavy Axeman (that's the Veteran Warrior) lost his spear, which got dumped on the Spear Warrior, who replaces the Shock Trooper (which is a shame).

I don't feel like Sergeants being far weaker is much of a good thing if I'm honest. I prefer that a lot of units can serve a purpose, and now sergeants have almost none. They're truly inferior now.

And yes, quite a number of troops look crap and there are a lot of weird stats everywhere.

I believe that Vlandian Sergeants are pretty much the same, so they have not been nerfed but legionaries and veteran warriors got armor buffs. So not Sergeants are still decent but just not as good as Legionaries and Veteran Warriors.
 
I believe that Vlandian Sergeants are pretty much the same, so they have not been nerfed but legionaries and veteran warriors got armor buffs. So not Sergeants are still decent but just not as good as Legionaries and Veteran Warriors.
Nope, they're worse actually. Their helmets are weaker, and they lost the chance to spawn with short bills which helped them win fights against other infantry.

The only real thing they have are maces now, otherwise there's no reason to make use of them over other spear infantry options.
 
Your not making a distinction between a hired gun Dev who works on base level things and base engine coder. Do you honestly think any of these modders could design these models to fight with this combat system en masse as this game does on their own without the base engine code that lies underneath? Show me.
Honestly even if I admire the devs of this game for creating what we have here I still think the game is stale and boring, and even if they have the ability and the experience to make what they did there are so many features lacking on this game and I blame that on pure bad design, also, lets not forget a ton of workers in TW are interns, nothing wrong with that at all, but what is honestly the difference between an intern and a modder? I've seen modders work their asses off to create mods and revamp the experience, I mean, we just have to look at Warband and compare the game with or without mods. I don't care if one can create and engine from scratch or the other can't, the truth is the game is already promoting mods in the front page because the game can't stand on its own (or if it can, it's quite probable it will get boring or annoying, as it already happened)
 
lets not forget a ton of workers in TW are interns, nothing wrong with that at all, but what is honestly the difference between an intern and a modder? I've seen modders work their asses off to create mods and revamp the experience

Well if you understood my post i agree with this completely - there are modders just as talented dedicated and creative than many HIRED developers - as in support development. Its people that cant understand that modders are no where near equal to the developers who created the underlying game mechanic -they may talk big (ive seen a few here) but they cant create a single horse fighting a simple unit with real combat mechanics in an empty world. I think some of the fanbase here dont fully appreciate that and think its all something any talented modder can do -they cant. That was my simple point.

As to your overall sentiment -yes, this game needs an injection of some off the many talented modders who better flesh out the game world in a multitude of ways and i fully support them sub-contracting them out
 
I think the point, from the developer's perspective, is that they make a game that plays through without the player in a fairly balanced way, and that the interactions of the player change the way the game plays out depending on which faction they chose and how they want to play - this offers room for the widest range of playthrough types. If you want to conquer the world you can be aggressive, if you want to turtle up then you're not going to stick your head up and find only one faction left. If you want to roll play as a bandit then again, you're not going to find yourself with only one faction remaining.

People have been complaining for months about snowballing, while they've slowly tweaked the balance to prevent it without the player interaction. So of course rosters are going to balance - in a paper-scissors-rock way.

The other option for them, would be for the factions themselves to function as difficulty settings - that some factions are inherently tougher than others. But then you'd have the snowballing issue again, and limits on how a player can choose to playthrough.

So I guess I'm sorry for you that the game doesn't play exactly how you want it to, but that's a sacrifice that enables more other types of play, and greater impacts based on player interaction.
 
I'm sorry I haven't responded to this discussion for a long time.

In fact, I've been busy adjusting some of the questions I've asked in recent days.

For example, I removed imperial_ Legal and Imperial_ Menavliaton's one handed sword and give legionary wear legionary_mail.The Empire had two distinct tree of soldiers: infantry with small and medium-sized shields, with thin armor, and the menavliaton with heavy armor without shields.

All bows and crossbows have been adjusted to distinguish them by rate of fire, range and accuracy, so that shooters still pose a great threat to unarmed infantry and stopped cavalry, but reduce their damage to heavily armed soldiers. In fact, it's not a difficult job. You just need to consider all the soldiers' equipment and do combat tests every time you adjust their data, and I think I've adjusted it quite well - much better than the original.

I changed battania's soldier tree to have an archer with a long bow, making batania's cavalry light scouts with less impact damage but faster running. Skirmisher runs faster and is better at throwing and spearing, but has less armor and is not good at close combat.

Vlandia's soldiers are more equipped with chain armour, hoes and hammers, but because of their physical differences from other cultures, they run slower and have poorer combat skills. To make up for that, they had best crossbows and very good light cavalry and knights. Their weapons are even better than Empire, and horses are as good for war as khuzait. Vlandian pikeman is very weak in the game. I used to think it's because their armor is too bad and they have one handed sword to mislead AI, but it's not comprehensive. In fact, I just changed their weapons to make pikeman more useful. I equipped them with a 2.9-meter pike and removed their one handed sword. Their test performance surprised me. A team of scattered pikemans can even resist the charge of the same number of heavy knights. With the crossbowman and billman standing behind, they can effectively kill the stopped knights.

Aserai's tribesmen and Mamluk need to be more differentiated: tribesmen, for example, have better bows, better throwing skills, but only wear light armor. Mamluk soldiers have good armor and close combat skills, but as a result they run slower. All aserai soldiers are physically faster than the Empire and are better at spearing.

All of them, including sturgia's round shields. They fight with one handed axes and shield walls, and they have the best one handed weapon skills and better running skills. The top infantry are divided into shocks using heavy round shields and spears_ Troop, a javelin thrower, a veteran without a shield and a one handed axe (170 one handed), and ulfhednar with warrazor and worse armor. Archers are still sturgian's weak points, but they have hour_ Raider can throw a lot of javelins and a good druzhennik.

Khuzait has always been a culture that is difficult to adjust. A large number of mounted shooters make players tired when fighting against them. Moreover, not only are they riding archers, but their infantry and heavy cavalry are also very strong. It is unreasonable that these riding archers should use better and more powerful bows than archers. I changed their weapons so that they used short bows and archers used reverse bows. At the same time, khuzait's infantry had worse armor and weapons, lower combat skills, but strengthened their heavy cavalry, to make them more realistic, in fact, the Mongolian army, which scared the whole of Europe, had stronger engineering skills and heavy cavalry, and archery on horseback was only a tactic they used, not all of them. So I think khuzait should have better heavy cavalry than horseback archers who are more powerful than step archers.

I've adjusted the armor properties to enhance some heavy armor, which makes heavy armor soldiers perform better on the battlefield, especially cataphract. You'll find it harder to kill a heavy Knight wrapped in three or four layers of iron, especially if the knight has Cataphracts mace. After adjusting the properties of war horses, ordinary horses and camels, ordinary horses are easier to control, war horses have better impact damage and HP, camels run slower but easier to control, and war camels have higher impact damage...

I also adjusted some of the Lord's tactical skills, and I found that when the Lord's tactical skills were lower than 110, they were always too clumsy in command. When above 130, they use more effective tactics, such as deceptive attacks and multiple rallies. Improving the command level of the Lord will increase the difficulty and fun of the game, but it may also have an incalculable impact on the AI war between Lords. I don't know how to test it.

As mentioned above, I just adjust some settings as an ordinary player and easily optimize my game experience. After a period of testing, I am very satisfied with these adjustments, and I am confused by the original settings of developers. This is actually a problem that can be easily found. However, nine months later, developers are still struggling with their balance adjustment.
 
What do you think modders aspire to be?

Go look at DE trooper's script work on medieval Kingdoms for Atilla Total War? The lead project DEV for Thrones of Britannia (Jack Lusted) was a modder on the forum for years before he was hired. My brother in law worked for Terminal Reality in Dallas Texas, he designed parts of the Ghost Busters game for X-box; he was a modder. I have been modding games for close to 20 years, you have no clue what you are talking about.
I definitely don't speak for all modders, but I have worked on loads of (often quite high-profile, though not for M&B) mods in my time and have only ever done it as a creative hobby.
 
I'm sorry I haven't responded to this discussion for a long time.

In fact, I've been busy adjusting some of the questions I've asked in recent days.

For example, I removed imperial_ Legal and Imperial_ Menavliaton's one handed sword and give legionary wear legionary_mail.The Empire had two distinct tree of soldiers: infantry with small and medium-sized shields, with thin armor, and the menavliaton with heavy armor without shields.

All bows and crossbows have been adjusted to distinguish them by rate of fire, range and accuracy, so that shooters still pose a great threat to unarmed infantry and stopped cavalry, but reduce their damage to heavily armed soldiers. In fact, it's not a difficult job. You just need to consider all the soldiers' equipment and do combat tests every time you adjust their data, and I think I've adjusted it quite well - much better than the original.

I changed battania's soldier tree to have an archer with a long bow, making batania's cavalry light scouts with less impact damage but faster running. Skirmisher runs faster and is better at throwing and spearing, but has less armor and is not good at close combat.

Vlandia's soldiers are more equipped with chain armour, hoes and hammers, but because of their physical differences from other cultures, they run slower and have poorer combat skills. To make up for that, they had best crossbows and very good light cavalry and knights. Their weapons are even better than Empire, and horses are as good for war as khuzait. Vlandian pikeman is very weak in the game. I used to think it's because their armor is too bad and they have one handed sword to mislead AI, but it's not comprehensive. In fact, I just changed their weapons to make pikeman more useful. I equipped them with a 2.9-meter pike and removed their one handed sword. Their test performance surprised me. A team of scattered pikemans can even resist the charge of the same number of heavy knights. With the crossbowman and billman standing behind, they can effectively kill the stopped knights.

Aserai's tribesmen and Mamluk need to be more differentiated: tribesmen, for example, have better bows, better throwing skills, but only wear light armor. Mamluk soldiers have good armor and close combat skills, but as a result they run slower. All aserai soldiers are physically faster than the Empire and are better at spearing.

All of them, including sturgia's round shields. They fight with one handed axes and shield walls, and they have the best one handed weapon skills and better running skills. The top infantry are divided into shocks using heavy round shields and spears_ Troop, a javelin thrower, a veteran without a shield and a one handed axe (170 one handed), and ulfhednar with warrazor and worse armor. Archers are still sturgian's weak points, but they have hour_ Raider can throw a lot of javelins and a good druzhennik.

Khuzait has always been a culture that is difficult to adjust. A large number of mounted shooters make players tired when fighting against them. Moreover, not only are they riding archers, but their infantry and heavy cavalry are also very strong. It is unreasonable that these riding archers should use better and more powerful bows than archers. I changed their weapons so that they used short bows and archers used reverse bows. At the same time, khuzait's infantry had worse armor and weapons, lower combat skills, but strengthened their heavy cavalry, to make them more realistic, in fact, the Mongolian army, which scared the whole of Europe, had stronger engineering skills and heavy cavalry, and archery on horseback was only a tactic they used, not all of them. So I think khuzait should have better heavy cavalry than horseback archers who are more powerful than step archers.

I've adjusted the armor properties to enhance some heavy armor, which makes heavy armor soldiers perform better on the battlefield, especially cataphract. You'll find it harder to kill a heavy Knight wrapped in three or four layers of iron, especially if the knight has Cataphracts mace. After adjusting the properties of war horses, ordinary horses and camels, ordinary horses are easier to control, war horses have better impact damage and HP, camels run slower but easier to control, and war camels have higher impact damage...

I also adjusted some of the Lord's tactical skills, and I found that when the Lord's tactical skills were lower than 110, they were always too clumsy in command. When above 130, they use more effective tactics, such as deceptive attacks and multiple rallies. Improving the command level of the Lord will increase the difficulty and fun of the game, but it may also have an incalculable impact on the AI war between Lords. I don't know how to test it.

As mentioned above, I just adjust some settings as an ordinary player and easily optimize my game experience. After a period of testing, I am very satisfied with these adjustments, and I am confused by the original settings of developers. This is actually a problem that can be easily found. However, nine months later, developers are still struggling with their balance adjustment.
I find that a lot of the time a modder's solution to a problem is different from the solution a dev with access to the source code comes up with.
 
I definitely don't speak for all modders, but I have worked on loads of (often quite high-profile, though not for M&B) mods in my time and have only ever done it as a creative hobby.

I can think of at least 6 modders on The Total War site alone who are devs now; one of them is a lead programmer and the other one created his entire game from scratch himself. I can keep making points till I am blue in face, doesn't seem sway some on here. The evidence leads in the opposite direction.
 
I find that a lot of the time a modder's solution to a problem is different from the solution a dev with access to the source code comes up with.
Can't agree more, everyone has different views on things. For example, I think more about the characteristics of different cultures, and make adjustments in terms of race, historical prototype and playability. This is also a very subjective view.
Therefore, I would like to complain that developers have not found the essence of the existing problems. For nine months, they have only perfected the skills of characters in the development of game mechanism. Of course, the speed of bug fixing is worthy of praise. But they put too much effort into trying to achieve a "balance" in the game, and the result is that all cultures become more similar. When players (at least I) follow one country to victory, it's hard for me to be interested in experiencing other cultures. This is because I find that they are so similar that I can't find anything new. I can't feel the power struggle between families, and I can't feel the Kingdom's decision-making under different regimes. Even the combat system emphasized by developers at present is not interesting because of the similarity of the military trees of different countries.
If B-Lord can provide a more complex and diversified game world for players, it will be a great success, just like W-Band. W-band used to amaze players with its pluralistic open world, aristocratic parliament, economic development, multi-ethnic war and peace... Although it seems to us that this is crude now, it is precisely because of these "new things" mixed together that players feel that they are in a "breathing world". It seems that there are strong and weak faction settings, but can make players more involved in it. This is much better than "balancing for the sake of balance."
 
I really think that a lot of why the factions feel similar is a combination of reasons but a big reason for this similarity is the lack of Ai commander personality and the use of tactics based on culture. For example if you are fighting Empire in a battle, you would expect to fight against tactics that were used by the legions of ancient Rome, and they would feel unique and distinct as a culture on the battlefield. You could pre-script certain battle tactics and troop movements that could be assigned culturally that would do wonders for differentiating the cultures, and would make battles 10x more interesting.
 
Last edited:
I blame it on MP/captain mode, TW making everything far too similar rather then just hand crafting stuff just for MP and something more immersive for SP.
I get it, for captain mode you want all the faction's unit sets to be roughly equal otherwise X faction always stomps Y faction, Y faction just quits when they see they're Y..... But the mistake is trying to use all the same stuff for SP.

Sure on one hand people already complain about khuzaits being OP, Khuzaits bieing 1 faction with a noticeably different composition and support perk.
But I think the game would only improve if each faction had a better support strait and a OP type of unit. I'd even have each empire faction have a special unit.
Of course unit they fix Inf and Cav there's not much they do to add an OP special units. I mean they would add them and they just suck and die ASAP, unless they were a ranged unit or HA.
 
I can think of at least 6 modders on The Total War site alone who are devs now; one of them is a lead programmer and the other one created his entire game from scratch himself. I can keep making points till I am blue in face, doesn't seem sway some on here. The evidence leads in the opposite direction.
Because your "evidence" is anecdotal. There are hundred of thousand modders in the world, obviously a number of them will also be developers, the overlap is pretty large. That doesn't mean the modders are exempt from the Poe's Law.
Also, as someone said, game engine dev are another thing altogether. Most of regular dev (like me) can barely use integrated tool in VS to make software not too slow displaying spreadsheets with a few hundred rows. Game engine dev can manage to make a software displays hundred of 3D objects, each made of thousands of triangles, with interconnected influence, all the while leaving most of the computer processing available for other tasks (like AI, scripting and so on). These are world apart, even though both are superficially the same titular job.

Design and engine are completely different area.
 
I can think of at least 6 modders on The Total War site alone who are devs now; one of them is a lead programmer and the other one created his entire game from scratch himself. I can keep making points till I am blue in face, doesn't seem sway some on here. The evidence leads in the opposite direction.
You can keep making points as much as you want, it doesn't make them true. The vast majority of modders didn't create their own studio or started to work for a game company. Just because it happened a few times it doesn't become the norm.
 
Back
Top Bottom