[parsehtml]<p><img class="frame" src="https://www.taleworlds.com/Images/News/blog_post_106_taleworldswebsite.jpg" alt="" width="575" height="290" /></p>
<p>In this week’s blog, we will be showing you some raw gameplay footage from Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord’s vast sandbox campaign. This particular video was captured from the demo we took to this year’s Gamescom, which put a heavy emphasis on large battles and sieges, dropping the player in the mid-game of Bannerlord’s campaign with a sizable warband of troops.</p></br> [/parsehtml]Read more at: http://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/126
Dev Blog 12/09/19
- Thread starter Callum
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
CKyHC
Question. The castle Verescand is on the mountain and not by the lake. This is still a stub and not his scene huh?
Wonderful work of the group of developers of the single player.
I think I remember that they said you can change it completely.LeChat said:Am I the only one annoyed by the amount of logs destroying our field of view and polluting the screen?
Compare to the light and softly disapearings logs in Warband?
I love the video and I'm getting seriously hyped, and I don't even like EA. Why where both battles so dark? Was it coincidence and that they were at night?
William De Normandie
Recruit
Why is Derthert such a seemingly chill dude?
Can anyone confirm that we're able to deactivate those ugly looking white arrows indicating the direction of attack? Totally destroying the atmosphere while seeming rather useless to me ...
Regarding the singleplayer:
- I love most of the new features; seems like everything got much more complicated (in a good way) while the new interface looks pretty straight forward and easy to handle.
Regarding the multiplayer (I know, kind of off-topic ...):
- This will be a worthy successor of warband once they've fixed most of the strange animations (which often seem worse than those in warband). I know that we're still seeing pre-release gameplay, so this is likely to change.
- Ensure precise hitboxes (I'm not in the beta, so I cannot really complain/make objective statements; but from what I've seen in videos, there might be some issues).
- Allow precise control of movement/attacks while not breaking the smoothness of the animations (probably the hardest task; again only got the impression from youtube gameplay that there might be room for improvements).
(- looks like throwing weapons still suck, so it will be up to the modders to create things like "throwing lances" again haha; the throwing mechanic seems to be even worse than that of warband -> room for improvement?!)
I guess I would be satisfied if Taleworlds would just copy Warband and just improve on those three aspects. This would keep me happy for plenty of years of great multiplayer experience.
@Taleworlds: Keep up the great work; I'm happy that you finally ran out of money and were forced into early access (I don't like the idea of early access though). This should prevent you from wasting time on features that are anyways removed by Armagan afterwards
.
Regarding the singleplayer:
- I love most of the new features; seems like everything got much more complicated (in a good way) while the new interface looks pretty straight forward and easy to handle.
Regarding the multiplayer (I know, kind of off-topic ...):
- This will be a worthy successor of warband once they've fixed most of the strange animations (which often seem worse than those in warband). I know that we're still seeing pre-release gameplay, so this is likely to change.
- Ensure precise hitboxes (I'm not in the beta, so I cannot really complain/make objective statements; but from what I've seen in videos, there might be some issues).
- Allow precise control of movement/attacks while not breaking the smoothness of the animations (probably the hardest task; again only got the impression from youtube gameplay that there might be room for improvements).
(- looks like throwing weapons still suck, so it will be up to the modders to create things like "throwing lances" again haha; the throwing mechanic seems to be even worse than that of warband -> room for improvement?!)
I guess I would be satisfied if Taleworlds would just copy Warband and just improve on those three aspects. This would keep me happy for plenty of years of great multiplayer experience.
@Taleworlds: Keep up the great work; I'm happy that you finally ran out of money and were forced into early access (I don't like the idea of early access though). This should prevent you from wasting time on features that are anyways removed by Armagan afterwards
.
They could probably change that by simply removing the red and green banners behind the text and replacing it by just colouring the letters, just like in warband, much nicer
LeChat said:Am I the only one annoyed by the amount of logs destroying our field of view and polluting the screen?
Compare to the light and softly disapearings logs in Warband?
ManuelMarcel
Recruit
To be honest the losses in sieges are absurdly low. It doesn't feel like something challenging at all. Where's the fun in that?
And also: the enemy lords were near the castle, but it seems they didn't take part in the defence I just don't understand why (well, maybe becouse they knew they would be sloughtered in the siege, becouse it's so easy for the attackers to take the castle).
Next thing: resistance in pillaged village. Seriously? Peasants of a village have the courage to oppose a 500 men army? And the joy of such a battle is rather doubtfull. But if it was made up just to show us how it looks like than OK.
Not sure about the detailed info of the kingdom you are at war with. From one side it's great to have it. From the other it brings down the element of uncertainty of what to expect. Imagine an important great battle, don't you wanna have doubts of what to expect next from your oponent (was it a fatal blow or is it possible that he has a second army? Can I rush to lay a siege to a key city, or should I rather take more carefull steps? It's realistic and joyfull to have such doubts).
The field battle feels rather like a chaotic slaughter of waves of enemies with no cooperation, than an organised battle, where you can make use of tactical moves.
And also: the enemy lords were near the castle, but it seems they didn't take part in the defence I just don't understand why (well, maybe becouse they knew they would be sloughtered in the siege, becouse it's so easy for the attackers to take the castle).
Next thing: resistance in pillaged village. Seriously? Peasants of a village have the courage to oppose a 500 men army? And the joy of such a battle is rather doubtfull. But if it was made up just to show us how it looks like than OK.
Not sure about the detailed info of the kingdom you are at war with. From one side it's great to have it. From the other it brings down the element of uncertainty of what to expect. Imagine an important great battle, don't you wanna have doubts of what to expect next from your oponent (was it a fatal blow or is it possible that he has a second army? Can I rush to lay a siege to a key city, or should I rather take more carefull steps? It's realistic and joyfull to have such doubts).
The field battle feels rather like a chaotic slaughter of waves of enemies with no cooperation, than an organised battle, where you can make use of tactical moves.
i think with the higher number of soldiers on the field, it'll make sense to disable that altogether for the most part, and in small skirmishes it won't be as annoying. i almost never had damage info turned on in warband, either.
on another note, i feel as though, now that we have a date next year for early access, waiting is somehow even more difficult. i think i might even skip the blogs at this point.
on another note, i feel as though, now that we have a date next year for early access, waiting is somehow even more difficult. i think i might even skip the blogs at this point.
ManuelMarcel said:
I think it can be safely assumed from the battle at the end of the video that the game was being played on very low difficulty settings. I believe I heard a dev say in a Gamescom interview that currently attackers lose 1.5x as many troops as defenders during sieges on average, but it's not that surprising sieges would be somewhat easier than Warband considering all the new avenues of assault that attackers have.
I dont know how I feel about the current state of this mid game. Everything just seems to be... easy. I'm sure the difficulty can be raised, but here are some problems I had with the game from gamescom and this vid.
- In the castles blog released over a year ago, they mentioned layered sieges, and we got to see the cool layout in the vid(though the scene wasnt in line with the map) yet the AI never actually took advantage of that, preferring to hold the outer wall until ultimate retreat.
- WTF are the lords doing in counter??? It was really cool to see lords sort of gang up in defiance in front of the castle gates(between the defenders and attackers on the map) so I assumed maybe there would a local resistance of nearby lords joining the defense... and then nothing. Even when the player lead the assault on the castle, there were literally 4 lords making an army of 400+ that just didn't join. Unless it is an unfinished feature, I don't know what to say other than disappointed. We got to see the siege camp of the attackers so I was hoping maybe when the lords attack, not only will the nearby lords join, but the defenders will sally with lords, thereby making the attackers the defenders holding the choke points in the siege camp. Or perhaps once you lead an assault, the nearby lords will in turn join in the scene, only coming from behind as opposed to being held up in the walls.
- Horses and Infantry formations mean jack all. Especially in the gameplay from rocket beans (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-4Zd3YWVGI&t=837s), in the pitch battle where they were outnumbered by over 100, the Khuzaits literally by just having horsemen absolutely destroyed the empire army. Because of how the AI handles spears, referring to the combat ai in a dev blog also over a year ago, the individual AI and the Formation AI just arent working together, allowing for easy pickings from the mounted Individual AI.
- Moving back to sieges, I was kind of really sad to learn that when a besieging army is attacked, not only does the garrison of the besieged castle not join in side of their faction, but the battle dosesn't take place in the siege camp, or even in view of the castle/town(for authentic and immersion reasons).
Moving to the interface, while a step up from Warband, personally I feel that it is simply too informative. While Warband was very "learn it yourself" Bannerlord seems to be "No, not that way, follow me". There is too much hand holding and the UI suffers. For example, while I like the army feature of having different armies form up, the management is just stupid. Influence has simply too much influence in that regard(hear me out). From what we have seen from gamescom, as soon as you spend that influence to convince a lord, he will join no strings attached. On top of that, because it literally only takes 1~ day to form an army of 500+, sieges(oddly enough) take way too much time. While it dosent seem to be the case for the AI, the fact that the player can tell how far other lords are means that he can essentially quickly form an army(given he has enough influence which you seem to get in bulk even only after 1 battle. This means countering sieges is easy as opposed to warband where either you as marshal, or the AI as marshall, can call for the bannermen, but because there are so many things such as lords rutting more men, or my favorite; "I am not accompanying the realm because I can do greater deeds" you are never guaranteed an army that can go toe to toe with the enemy marshall.
-Next up, the army compositions. What the actual, no words. In most of the vids I watched with large army battles, in the feed its literally just "x recruit" forever. Where are the professional armies, where are the minor factions aiding their faction? But above all else, what is the tactical AI?? Referring back to that rocket bean video, it was cool to see the horse archer delegated formation wreak havec among the archers, but why did infantry proceed to advance without any protection? There would be no point other than suicide which is what happend. Although it looked cool seeing cavalry smash from both the side and the back, there was simply no challenge.
-Lastly, Although I dont want to assume I cant help but worry with what they did with the massive massive battles. What do I mean? In Warband you had the vassal who would lead the entire army, and late game whoever that was, you would have an army lead by one dude facing off(whether it be to stop a siege, start one, or raid a village) and the other faction with another massive army. From personal experience in native, the most i've had was 3600 vs 2800. Crazy numbers, but if we use the logic of bannerlord, the marshal system has been replaced with the army system. So even though you might have in general more large scale battles 500~ vs 500~, it feels like there will be no possibility for decisive battles. Its a shame, and I know maybe in late game when you get very influential lords in all factions(lords facing off each leading 2000~ men each, it still isnt necessarily a decisive battle, because if we once again refer to the war page of bannerlord, in the relative strength in which I assume is manpower, both vlandia and the empire had 9000~ each, so even though whoever wins the 4000 man battle, that army would be hard pressed to continue any further ventures into enemy territory due to loss.
Anyway, just my analysis, love to hear any arguments or clarifications.
- In the castles blog released over a year ago, they mentioned layered sieges, and we got to see the cool layout in the vid(though the scene wasnt in line with the map) yet the AI never actually took advantage of that, preferring to hold the outer wall until ultimate retreat.
- WTF are the lords doing in counter??? It was really cool to see lords sort of gang up in defiance in front of the castle gates(between the defenders and attackers on the map) so I assumed maybe there would a local resistance of nearby lords joining the defense... and then nothing. Even when the player lead the assault on the castle, there were literally 4 lords making an army of 400+ that just didn't join. Unless it is an unfinished feature, I don't know what to say other than disappointed. We got to see the siege camp of the attackers so I was hoping maybe when the lords attack, not only will the nearby lords join, but the defenders will sally with lords, thereby making the attackers the defenders holding the choke points in the siege camp. Or perhaps once you lead an assault, the nearby lords will in turn join in the scene, only coming from behind as opposed to being held up in the walls.
- Horses and Infantry formations mean jack all. Especially in the gameplay from rocket beans (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-4Zd3YWVGI&t=837s), in the pitch battle where they were outnumbered by over 100, the Khuzaits literally by just having horsemen absolutely destroyed the empire army. Because of how the AI handles spears, referring to the combat ai in a dev blog also over a year ago, the individual AI and the Formation AI just arent working together, allowing for easy pickings from the mounted Individual AI.
- Moving back to sieges, I was kind of really sad to learn that when a besieging army is attacked, not only does the garrison of the besieged castle not join in side of their faction, but the battle dosesn't take place in the siege camp, or even in view of the castle/town(for authentic and immersion reasons).
Moving to the interface, while a step up from Warband, personally I feel that it is simply too informative. While Warband was very "learn it yourself" Bannerlord seems to be "No, not that way, follow me". There is too much hand holding and the UI suffers. For example, while I like the army feature of having different armies form up, the management is just stupid. Influence has simply too much influence in that regard(hear me out). From what we have seen from gamescom, as soon as you spend that influence to convince a lord, he will join no strings attached. On top of that, because it literally only takes 1~ day to form an army of 500+, sieges(oddly enough) take way too much time. While it dosent seem to be the case for the AI, the fact that the player can tell how far other lords are means that he can essentially quickly form an army(given he has enough influence which you seem to get in bulk even only after 1 battle. This means countering sieges is easy as opposed to warband where either you as marshal, or the AI as marshall, can call for the bannermen, but because there are so many things such as lords rutting more men, or my favorite; "I am not accompanying the realm because I can do greater deeds" you are never guaranteed an army that can go toe to toe with the enemy marshall.
-Next up, the army compositions. What the actual, no words. In most of the vids I watched with large army battles, in the feed its literally just "x recruit" forever. Where are the professional armies, where are the minor factions aiding their faction? But above all else, what is the tactical AI?? Referring back to that rocket bean video, it was cool to see the horse archer delegated formation wreak havec among the archers, but why did infantry proceed to advance without any protection? There would be no point other than suicide which is what happend. Although it looked cool seeing cavalry smash from both the side and the back, there was simply no challenge.
-Lastly, Although I dont want to assume I cant help but worry with what they did with the massive massive battles. What do I mean? In Warband you had the vassal who would lead the entire army, and late game whoever that was, you would have an army lead by one dude facing off(whether it be to stop a siege, start one, or raid a village) and the other faction with another massive army. From personal experience in native, the most i've had was 3600 vs 2800. Crazy numbers, but if we use the logic of bannerlord, the marshal system has been replaced with the army system. So even though you might have in general more large scale battles 500~ vs 500~, it feels like there will be no possibility for decisive battles. Its a shame, and I know maybe in late game when you get very influential lords in all factions(lords facing off each leading 2000~ men each, it still isnt necessarily a decisive battle, because if we once again refer to the war page of bannerlord, in the relative strength in which I assume is manpower, both vlandia and the empire had 9000~ each, so even though whoever wins the 4000 man battle, that army would be hard pressed to continue any further ventures into enemy territory due to loss.
Anyway, just my analysis, love to hear any arguments or clarifications.
Not to counter any other of your points, but the minor factions seemed to be related only by geographical location to its major. Most of them are actually at odds with their 'parent' faction, like the ones that 'preserve the old ways' or are secret societies, while others are more of a mercenary companies.JustinTime49 said:
It's still sad to not see any of them, though, I hoped that maybe you could call them to aid against common enemy, but maybe that wasn't a feature ready to be presented yet.
EDIT: it's not perfect yet, lots of archers seem to be still baffled by such possibility, but is it only me or do they try to actively search for and use the cover during sieges?
MedievalMayonnaise
Recruit
I'm kinda worried about siege difficulty. In Warband a siege felt like a very daunting enterprise (probably because our army is stupid, but still), here it seems much easier. I do feel like a lot of weight and brutality overall, so to speak, has been removed since Warband. Hopefully this is something mods can fix
Wow, this game looks really epic and I really want to play it, but it's a shame it was only in March 2020 I apologize for the mistakes, if any, but my English isn't good.
I apologize for the mistakes, if any, but my English isn't good.
