Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord

[Higher Animal]

And that quote doesn't even exist.

"It's all skill, your action gameplay"

 

[hivemind]

wow what huge conceptual change compared to warband

 

[thesheeep]

wow what huge conceptual change compared to warband

I think Higher Animal has broken my sarcasm detector, so:

 

[Bohrain]

So is the release date before or after the heat death of the universe?

 

[RhodokMasterRaceOfficial]

that new horse archer footage has got me like

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

stats never had a direct influence on damage in M&B.

There is Power Strike skill that increases damage by 8% for each point invested.

 

[Latelistener]

I hope the release will be smooth, without all this console shit and Denuvo.
From there they can go suck the console dick they want so much, sell themselves to Zenimax, put a super DRM on their games that burns storage devices, when users try to install mods, and make mobile Angrylords. I don't care.
Judging by the smoke, this will surely happen soon, so I just hope we will get this last game before shit will hit the fan.

 

[Tacgnol]

stats never had a direct influence on damage in M&B.

There is Power Strike skill that increases damage by 8% for each point invested.

Also, I'm fairly sure strength had at least a minor impact on damage.

If you ever fucked around and set a character's strength to something stupid (like say 3000), attacks would do several hundred damage.

Edit: Stupidly high agility would also make your attacks and movement crazy fast.

 

[hivemind]

yeah agility influenced attack speed

str gave you HP but I'm not sure about dmg desu

anyhow int + cha were only viable stats imo

 

[thesheeep]

stats never had a direct influence on damage in M&B.

There is Power Strike skill that increases damage by 8% for each point invested.

True. That's not what I meant, though. Poor wording on my part. What I meant were the base attributes, which only raised limits for your skills (which could then, like Power Strike, influence your damage).
Either way, looking at the wiki, I was wrong.
Strength does increase the damage, though not a lot seemingly (it is called a hidden bonus). I didn't even know that, always just raised strength to lift skill limits.

The way I always got it was that strength allowed you to properly use a weapon. And once properly used, that's it, you can't get better directly by raising strength.
Maybe that is how it works in M&B2, though? If it is, my being wrong was a good preparation

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

yeah agility influenced attack speed

str gave you HP but I'm not sure about dmg desu

anyhow int + cha were only viable stats imo

Strength lets you raise skill that increases the damage, it also lets you raise the skill that boost your health and the skills that improve bow use. It is also a requirement for weapons and you get a 1 hp boost of for each point invested in strength.

Agility is the weakest stat, but not by that much. If you want to make an archer or a foot soldier, then you have to invest in it.
Intelligence is an attribute that is the most useful. It would be challenging to make a viable build without it.

Attributes and skills in M&B are realty well balanced. You always want to invest in more skills that you have points for. The character system is so good, that it pains me very much to see it scrapped, because that system got the fundamentals right and it needs only incremental improvements.

 

[Alienman]

wut

Is that scrapped? Where did you read that?

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

It looks like skill are now improved by using them, not by skill points. Look up a a few posts up.

 

[Zanzoken]

I wrote this a year ago about the problems M&B has with the overworld:

1) The AI needs to use more experienced troops.

2) The AI needs better battle tactics.

3) Kingdoms need to work together better.

4) Wars need to be more decisive.

How much of it have they addressed? Only #2 which is probably the least important point. And we don't really know anything more about that than we did last year.

The strategy layer is what will determine whether I buy this day one or 75% off. I am pretty disappointed they resorted to more combat teasers at E3 instead of actually demonstrating the mechanics of the game.

 

[Merlkir]

1) Don't understand what you mean.
2) Seems so.
3) Nobody knows.
5) Nobody knows.

(with the exception of 2), and even that one, these seem to be very moddable)

 

[Serus]

I wrote this a year ago about the problems M&B has with the overworld:

1) The AI needs to use more experienced troops.

2) The AI needs better battle tactics.

3) Kingdoms need to work together better.

4) Wars need to be more decisive.

How much of it have they addressed? Only #2 which is probably the least important point. And we don't really know anything more about that than we did last year.

The strategy layer is what will determine whether I buy this day one or 75% off. I am pretty disappointed they resorted to more combat teasers at E3 instead of actually demonstrating the mechanics of the game.

Ad 4 Absolutely not. The kingdoms in game are already small (3~4 citieis, few castles), and there are only 6 (5 in bannerlord ?). If you make the wars more decisive one war can cause a kingdom to be crushed. Not to mention it makes little sense in context of quasi-medieval setting. In a mod that has a significantly bigger map it can work but in vanilla game - no.

 

[thesheeep]

Still no release data.
Ugh.

My bet is on 2018. Earliest.
Maybe they want to wait until it looks as outdated as M&B 1 did on release

 

[hivemind]

the important question is how long until prophesy of pendor gets ported

 

[Zanzoken]

4) Wars need to be more decisive.

Absolutely not. The kingdoms in game are already small (3~4 citieis, few castles), and there are only 6 (5 in bannerlord ?). If you make the wars more decisive one war can cause a kingdom to be crushed. Not to mention it makes little sense in context of quasi-medieval setting. In a mod that has a significantly bigger map it can work but in vanilla game - no.

Not decisive in the sense that every war causes a whole faction to be defeated. But think of how it happens in vanilla M&B.

- The war starts randomly. The enemy faction is at full strength, but often the AI just rides around dispersed, looting and waiting for you to beat them up.
- But suppose they manage to pull together and attack a serious target. A big battle happens and your side wins. Nice going! Except the AI lords all get away and next week they are back with a fresh army of trash mobs.
- Repeat ad nauseam. The enemy kings usually won't offer peace no matter how bad they are losing. So you either have the patience to grind down the whole faction or you take it easy on them and eventually get a random offer to end the war.

I think this could be a lot better. What if wars happened for a reason, and factions had clear goals of what they are trying to achieve. Then the AI could generate a viable strategy of how to accomplish those goals. When the defining clash finally happens and one side wins, the losing kingdom can't just reload. They have to scramble to keep fighting -- maybe by hiring mercenaries, or bribing another kingdom to join their side -- or sue for peace.

Look at something like CK2 in comparison. There's a lot of room for M&B to grow.

 

[Zanzoken]

Has anyone ever conquered all of Calradia in vanilla? It takes a really really long time and is more an exercise in patience than meaningful challenge.

 

[Valky]

Has anyone ever conquered all of Calradia in vanilla? It takes a really really long time and is more an exercise in patience than meaningful challenge.

In Warband I did.

 

[Infinitron]

http://www.pcgamer.com/hands-on-with-mount-blade-2-bannerlords-thrilling-large-scale-combat/

Hands on with Mount & Blade 2: Bannerlord's thrilling large-scale combat
Subtle changes and a serious step up in quality promises to make Mount & Blade's combat even better.

The first time I saw a regiment of horse archers crest a dune, kicking up a cloud of sand that masked their numbers, I realized that Bannerlord wasn't just a prettier Mount & Blade. The combat is still built upon the same foundation—by flicking my mouse during an attack, I can determine the direction my character swings his sword. But a host of subtle changes and a major step up in presentation makes the action more satisfying than it ever did in Mount & Blade: Warband. With a quick command, I instructed my own cavalry unit to follow me and we charged headlong into the enemy horse archers before they could turn around to retreat. My spear caught one soldier and he toppled from his horse in a spray of blood. And all I could think was, dammit, why doesn't this game have a release date?

It's been nearly five years since Bannerlord was first announced. And during E3, I finally got a chance to play it for myself. The wait has been a tough one—the Twitch chat seemed particularly frustrated (and eager) during the Bannerlord presentation at the PC Gaming Show—but Bannerlord is coming together extremely well. Taleworlds was only showing off the combat, which is a small portion of everything that comprises a Mount & Blade game. But if it's indicative of how the rest is coming along, I have very high hopes.

During the first part of my demo, I was dropped into an arena to test my mettle against waves of spawning enemies. As someone who has played an embarrassing amount of Warband, I felt immediately at home with Bannerlord's demanding combat. But enemies were noticeably less foolhardy in attacking me than in Warband. Improved AI means that, one on one, enemies tend to put up a much better fight. Instead of just rushing me and exposing themselves for a quick kill, they seemed to be more cautious and chose their attacks more carefully.

One of the biggest changes to the combat is the introduction of directional shield blocking. In Warband, shields were powerful because they could block attacks no matter the direction. That's still true, but now skilled swordsman are rewarded even more than before. When matching a directional attack with the same directional shield block, shields take less damage. It's imperative that you block properly with a shield so that aggressive foes don't quickly hack it to pieces.

Another new improvement to combat is chain attacks, which not only offer more offensive options but also look fantastic. Bannerlord is still firmly rooted in methodical combat, but seeing my character twirl his sword over his head as he repeatedly hacked at an enemy's face was really fun to watch. Getting the hang of them, however, will require some practice. When flicking the mouse in a direction to initiate an attack, you have to flick the mouse in that same direction but also hold the attack button immediately after your first attack connects. It's hard to explain, but after a few minutes chain attacks wove themselves into the rhythm of attacking and blocking that I love in Warband.

Oh captain, my captain
Both of those changes are small and will only be fully appreciated by Mount & Blade veterans. Taking to the field in a proper full-scale battle is where Bannerlord's improvements really take effect. While hand to hand combat in Warband was relatively easy to grasp, the overarching tactics of its massive battles were not. The obtuse interface made giving commands a real pain—especially for new players. Bannerlord's new interface is a lot easier to understand and work with and, for apprentice tacticians, the new sergeant system greatly relieves the burden of commanding a hundred soldiers.

As part of a more complex military hierarchy in Bannerlord, it's now possible that you won't be the one calling the shots during a fight. Instead, as a sergeant, you'll have a unit to command directly but you'll receive orders from a commanding officer. I was slightly disappointed to find out those orders are more like suggestions, as there's no consequence for ignoring them entirely and doing your own thing in battle. That seems like a bit of a missed opportunity since the bigger political metagame of Warband was all about juggling favors for various lords as you climbed the ranks. Still, having an AI general issuing commands offers a sense of direction for players who struggle with the chaos of clashing armies.

I played through three separate fights during my demo, each one placing me in command of a cavalry unit. During the battle, my general would frequently bark orders at me toprotect flanks, charge enemy units, or fall back when things got too heated. The orders were never overly complex, but I enjoyed having someone else call the shots while I focused on leading my unit and skewering enemies.

It was in these bigger battles that the improvements to Mount & Blade's visual and audio presentation really excited me. As I already said, horses kick up clouds of sand that add a great deal of visual noise to a fight on desert terrain. I'm not sure if it could ever be used strategically, but it's a gorgeous effect all the same.

Where Warband relied too much on ragdoll effects, Bannerlord mixes them with traditional animation, making attacks feel more vicious and deadly. When I charged into an enemy unit on horseback, soldiers collapsed and twisted under the stampede of hooves, armor crunching as they shrieked in pain. I raked my sword across a soldier's face and he spun with the force of the blow, dropping his sword to clutch his wound as he fell dead. It's this kind of attention to the moment-to-moment violence that makes combat in Bannerlord completely absorbing. When my allotted time for the demo was up, it was hard to leave. I just wanted to experience the thrill of a mounted cavalry charge again and again.

Everything Taleworlds has shown us of Bannerlord is promising, but it's reassuring to finally get my hands on it and know that it's not all for show—at least with the combat. It's evident that a lot of love has gone into this sequel and the result is that Bannerlord doesn't feel as janky or B-tier as previous Mount & Blade games. No one at Taleworlds was willing to reveal even a rough window of when the game would launch (despite my persistent asking). If Taleworlds can also improve on the social simulation and overarching strategy the same way they're improving the combat, the wait will be worth it.

 

[Pentagon]

Looks really good. Very excited.

Not sure why the Codex is so against increase-with-use systems. Such things almost never worked well in tabletop games because of the bookkeeping required, but computers are very good at bookkeeping. And it has a very natural progression ("I am better at casting fire magic because I have cast a lot of fireballs."). The weakness comes when it's easy to grind such skills, since a certain portion of gamers will do stuff that isn't fun if it is more optimal. This is why I never liked the consequence-free arena in Warband, since there was no reason not to grind up a level 20 character in a single in-game day. But just because the system doesn't work in certain types of games (Such as Elder Scrolls games) doesn't mean it's in inherently poor system, just that a designer needs to make sure it works within the kind of game he or she is making.

Outside of arena grinding, increase-with-use worked very well in Warband, since fights had a lot of risk in them, and increasing the skill cap required the investment of precious points. I don't know how well such a system will work outside of combat in Bannerlord, but since the changes to the campaign mode are still largely unknown at this point, I'll withhold judgement until more is revealed.

 

[Raapys]

But it didn't really "work well", it was just completely bland and uninteresting so you never bothered paying much attention to it. Oooh, two hours of play and my polearm skill went from 239 to 240. Joy!

 

[thesheeep]

There were people fighting in the arena for something else than cash?
I found it to be the most reliable income source for fighter characters.