use go-dong's post up above and skip to 3 hours and 5 minutes, it's the same demo but muuuch cleaner
[QUOTE=SniperComZero;49882001]From the looks of it my main gripe wasn't fixed at all which is the philosophy of "if there's more than two enemies on you you will get stunlocked into fucking oblivion and die." Also the inventory looks worse as a single list rather than a grid-based system.[/QUOTE]
Good, tbh. Honestly I never had any real trouble in Warband beating two people even in multiplayer if they're significantly worse than me, but in real life, if you have, say, 3 people who know how to properly fight 3 on 1 they should be able to kill almost any single person regardless of skill. Unless that one person way, way outclasses them.
Unless you're the Jaime Lannister of gaming there is no way you can survive anything more then 3 on 1.
I'm so giddy with excitement I can't wait to start pillaging towns again and make enemies out of everyone. Was anyone else a perfectionist when it came to drafting a army?
Swadian Cavalry.
Nord infantry.
Vaegir archers.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;49900532]Was anyone else a perfectionist when it came to drafting a army?[/QUOTE]
Yes, here was my favorite composition:
Nord Huscarls
Nord Huscarls
Nord Huscarls
If you lose a battle, you didn't have enough huscarls.
I think what I want from Bannerlord the most is the ability to actually kill named npcs.
If you capture the king of a kingdom or one of his kids, execute them if you want. When the king and all his heirs are dead the kingdom breaks apart and vassals defect to other kingdoms or remain 'neutral'. I want to be able to slaughter everyone who comes my way.
I don't think there is a mod for Warband that can do that, but a man can dream.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;49900554]Yes, here was my favorite composition:
Nord Huscarls
Nord Huscarls
Nord Huscarls
If you lose a battle, you didn't have enough huscarls.[/QUOTE]
Swadian Knights for open engagements, Nord Huscarls for sieges (from any side)
Pretty much unstoppable.
[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;49900955]Swadian Knights for open engagements, Nord Huscarls for sieges (from any side)
Pretty much unstoppable.[/QUOTE]
Oh
This is why my character that practically has a full army of swadian knights wins every engagement.
good to know
[QUOTE=FingerSpazem;49900993]Oh
This is why my character that practically has a full army of swadian knights wins every engagement.
good to know[/QUOTE]
Pretty much the best knights are Swadians, best archers are vaegirs (if you count crossbowmen), best crossbowmen are rhodoks, best infantry are huscarls, there are niche khergits and best all arounders are Sarranids.
With Swadia I'm usually pillaging their towns left and right so I'll substitute their knights for Vaegir Knight.
Not as good as Swadia or the Sarranids but they are above average and can hold their own, bonus points for the fact they are cheaper to maintain.
-snipeddy snip-
[QUOTE=DaMastez;49895699]Mount and blade, to me, was always a game with so much promise that wasn't realized nearly as much as it could have been.[/QUOTE]
Did you make sure to use the huscarls? Sounds like you didn't use the huscarls.
The only thing I found missing from this game was a lack of atmosphere or any real emotional investment into the game before you form your own kingdom.
hope the difference between sp and mp is still the same.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4Wss37hw_s[/media]
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;49900671]I think what I want from Bannerlord the most is the ability to actually kill named npcs.
If you capture the king of a kingdom or one of his kids, execute them if you want. When the king and all his heirs are dead the kingdom breaks apart and vassals defect to other kingdoms or remain 'neutral'. I want to be able to slaughter everyone who comes my way.
I don't think there is a mod for Warband that can do that, but a man can dream.[/QUOTE]
The mods this game needs the most are this and total war esque command mod. The way he controls units in the video is awkward; you can tell the guy playing (an experienced dev) has issues.
The one thing I hoped for Mount and Blade was co-op campaigns where you each control independent characters
[QUOTE=FreddiRox!;49905613]The one thing I hoped for Mount and Blade was co-op campaigns where you each control independent characters[/QUOTE]
I feel like this would be amazing for sales. I would get so many of my friends to buy it. I'm just imagining having a co-op game with like 8 people, eventually all of yall coming together under the same nation except for that one guy who made his own nation and is probably going to fuck yall up.
[QUOTE=Eeshton;49913265]I feel like this would be amazing for sales. I would get so many of my friends to buy it. I'm just imagining having a co-op game with like 8 people, eventually all of yall coming together under the same nation except for that one guy who made his own nation and is probably going to fuck yall up.[/QUOTE]
Or the eight of you went your separate ways and pulled political strings leading the kingdoms to war and tearing them apart, in the ensuing chaos each of you establish your own dominions as the kingdoms of old fall and create TOTAL WAR.
Then there is the one friend who ends up becoming a bandit leader who doesn't really settle anywhere and just pillages whatever he sees.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;49900671]I think what I want from Bannerlord the most is the ability to actually kill named npcs.
If you capture the king of a kingdom or one of his kids, execute them if you want. When the king and all his heirs are dead the kingdom breaks apart and vassals defect to other kingdoms or remain 'neutral'. I want to be able to slaughter everyone who comes my way.
I don't think there is a mod for Warband that can do that, but a man can dream.[/QUOTE]
There are mods that have added this feature, at the caveat that you can permanently die and lose your save as well.
This is also one of the reasons you can't kill named lords in the base game. You can't actually die so neither can them. It'd be interesting to see M&B have a lord system like shadow of Mordor though.
I hope there's a lot more to Bannerlord than there is to the normal game. I don't know of many other games that seem to present huge amounts of depth but actually turn out as paper thin as the previous ones.
Also I hope it's not excruciating to play it at a lower level in this one. Seriously, I found that after getting far enough in a game, I just could not start a new playthrough because it is just so unpleasant to sit there grueling and getting kicked around until you get to the fun parts.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;49917437]I hope there's a lot more to Bannerlord than there is to the normal game. I don't know of many other games that seem to present huge amounts of depth but actually turn out as paper thin as the previous ones.
Also I hope it's not excruciating to play it at a lower level in this one. Seriously, I found that after getting far enough in a game, I just could not start a new playthrough because it is just so unpleasant to sit there grueling and getting kicked around until you get to the fun parts.[/QUOTE]
To be honest I actually find it to be the opposite. For me the early stages of the game when you're still building your army and your character is when the game is the most enjoyable, and usually it's once you get to the later stages where like 90% of what happens is sitting around doing pretty much nothing that the game starts to get stale.
I just hope the sieges aren't completely broken this game. First mistake was the fixed "unprotected ladder between two towers" approach, then the "Spawn equal numbers of defenders and attackers, no matter their relative size", and lastly "Don't take into account the composition of the army at all when deciding who goes on the battlefield".
Sieges were easily the worst part of the game.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49918294]I just hope the sieges aren't completely broken this game. First mistake was the fixed "unprotected ladder between two towers" approach, then the "Spawn equal numbers of defenders and attackers, no matter their relative size", and lastly "Don't take into account the composition of the army at all when deciding who goes on the battlefield".
Sieges were easily the worst part of the game.[/QUOTE]
Sieges were fun at times, but they were thoroughly unbalanced and amounted to little more than a numbers game where you throw your soldiers at a meat grinder until you have enough that it breaks. Who's got more soldiers? They win. The only real strategy towards sieges involves creating a meat grinder of your own on the castle wall for the enemy to put themselves through, and bringing the extremely overpowered war hammer and playing whack-a-mole with the enemy.
I mean I appreciate that it's not entirely unrealistic maybe I guess (any medieval warfare buffs I'm interested to know) but I doubt medievel siege battles were fucking mosh pits at the tops of ladders like it's presented as
Sieges were an ungodly nightmare, I can understand not having a RTS interface for battle but sieges is the only part of the game I think that should be acceptable.
Have a option to wait a few days and have scouts analyze the castle or city being besieged.
After that entering siege mode would put you in front of a crude map fitting of 600-1200AD era where you can plan the placement of troops, towers, ladders and so on.
Give defenders the ability to decide troop composition because oh my god if I have nothing but vaegir marksman to defend against nord huscarls running up that ladder I am well and truly fucked.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49918294]I just hope the sieges aren't completely broken this game. First mistake was the fixed "unprotected ladder between two towers" approach, then the "Spawn equal numbers of defenders and attackers, no matter their relative size", and lastly "Don't take into account the composition of the army at all when deciding who goes on the battlefield".
Sieges were easily the worst part of the game.[/QUOTE]
Because of all that bullshit though, it became very easy to cheese siege battles. Let's say there is a castle with 300 enemy defenders. I'd show up with my party of 150 elite archers and sit outside sniping them until we all run out of arrows and then we leave. We've just killed a couple hundred defenders with minimal casualties. Or I go to the same castle with 40 elite heavy infantry. The defenders say "we're 300 and they're only 40, let's go fuck them up." You get a message that says the defenders sally forth to meet your assault or something like that and you get to fight them in the open. Then your heavy infantry tears them to pieces despite being massively outnumbered. Again, 100 kills for minimal casualties. You can repeat things like this until the defenders are almost all gone and then pretty much just walk into the castle uncontested.
And another problem with sieges is that they made it impossible to starve out the defenders. It always says something like the defenders have 30 days worth of food but you can't even carry enough food with you to last long enough and if you leave to go get more food, it resets instantly.
One of their goals has been "improve sieges"
[url]https://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/5[/url]
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;49918358]Sieges were an ungodly nightmare, I can understand not having a RTS interface for battle but sieges is the only part of the game I think that should be acceptable.
Have a option to wait a few days and have scouts analyze the castle or city being besieged.
After that entering siege mode would put you in front of a crude map fitting of 600-1200AD era where you can plan the placement of troops, towers, ladders and so on.
Give defenders the ability to decide troop composition because oh my god if I have nothing but vaegir marksman to defend against nord huscarls running up that ladder I am well and truly fucked.[/QUOTE]Troop composition is determined by what order your party is listed in. Having your best troops up the top means they will spawn first into a battle, so just sort them roughly by wage.
[QUOTE=bdd458;49918552]One of their goals has been "improve sieges"
[url]https://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/5[/url][/QUOTE]
I hope so. Not to be mean but everything I saw in the video looked basically like HD Warband which would be very disappointing if that's all that is.
Oh! I'm also hoping that the living simulator aspect of it improves. I mean, ok, I don't know if this is what the game was actually going for, but I was sold on the idea that Mount and Blade was basically like a medieval life simulator where you were just some random schlub in a medieval society and your only goal was to carve out some kind of life for yourself, whether you wanted to be a gladiator, noble, merchant, bandit, or whatever. To an extent, that's true, but it's horrendously paper thin. In reality, the game might as well be a linear march. You build yourself up, work for local lords, become a noble, then conquer Calradia with them until you're powerful enough to turn against them, make your own kingdom, and conquer all of Calradia. Then you're pretty much done. Yeah, you could deliberately choose to not do any of the noble stuff and just be a merchant or something but the game isn't built around it, meaning that playing a ~master merchant~ will have you spending more time on making way less money than most nobles, travelling slowly in an endless loop of towns buying and selling goods for minuscule profit until you get fucked in the ass. Not unrealistic that the richest merchant will make less than nobles, but still horrendously boring. If you try to be a gladiator, all tournaments play the same and you'll just be doing the same thing over and over until you decide to stop. Plus, if you play a noble, you will be doing plenty of tournaments and selling and shit anyway so you again, might as well be a noble. And whether or not that's what they intended, it's kind of shitty. It's like when you play TES Arena and it has one of the most expansive game worlds in existence, only to find out that there's nothing in it at all.
Plus, the tactics just aren't rewarding or in depth at all. You can get by just fine by building a random mishmash army and mashing it against other armies, winning most of the time through sheer numbers, or you can easily optimize your army by focusing on a specific kind of troop, like huscarls. If you actually do want to do tactics, then the best strategy is almost always to just clump up together, sit on a hill if you can, and just turn in to a meat grinder, especially for cavalry units. In a siege, make it up the ladder, take over the wall, then clump up on the wall and have the spawning enemies come up stairs in to your newly fashioned meat grinder.
Well, one of the things they mentioned during the livestream was that you can set up a shop much easier and be a merchant, or you could do the illegal version of that take over criminal operations in a town :v:
Reform of the tournament mechanics would be nice.
It sucked when you got a shitty weapon you weren't skilled with and oh look the guy on the other side has a nice two handed sword and the other has a bow an arrow meanwhile you get a fucking pole.
Just have jousting, melee tournaments and archery tournaments, let us decide how we want to compete.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
