Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord

[Metro]

If I execute an honorable lord I am at war with, will my vassals or my lord if I have a liege disapprove of my killing? That will be kinda dumb, they should approve of anything that helps damage their enemies.

Not really, they could decide your a douche not worth following!

 

[ERYFKRAD]

If we execute Harlaus, butter trade will grind to a halt.

 

[Modron]

If we execute Harlaus, butter trade will grind to a halt.

What RK did to his prisoners with various lover's lab grade mods for warband was more effective. Let's just say they had no honor left.

 

[Alienman]

If we execute Harlaus, butter trade will grind to a halt.

No more butter on the Swadian toasts!

 

[PulsatingBrain]

they should approve of anything that helps damage their enemies.

Not necessarily. Don't forget that many Kings in those days considered themselves to be chosen by God, and the ruling class considered themselves well above common men. Executing a Lord might well be seen as a massive overstep, even if only for self-serving reasons.

 

[Spectacle]

Not necessarily. Don't forget that many Kings in those days considered themselves to be chosen by God, and the ruling class considered themselves well above common men. Executing a Lord might well be seen as a massive overstep, even if only for self-serving reasons.

Especially since the enemy might want to retaliate by executing any lords from your faction that they capture. Suddenly the war isn't all fun and games anymore for the nobles. Suffering is only supposed to be for peasants.

 

[PulsatingBrain]

Exactly, that's what I meant by self serving reasons. Making it clear that Lord execution is out-of-bounds is a way to keep yourself safe too.

 

[IDtenT]

What about the player being executed if he's a criminal and are capture?

I guess you can keep play taking over as a clan member, no clan survivor means game over.

Mmm? Did I miss something? You won't play as an adventurer in this game?

 

[PulsatingBrain]

I guess you can keep play taking over as a clan member, no clan survivor means game over.

I thought they mentioned taking control of your children in the event of your death.

 

[vota DC]

What about the player being executed if he's a criminal and are capture?

I guess you can keep play taking over as a clan member, no clan survivor means game over.

Mmm? Did I miss something? You won't play as an adventurer in this game?

Unlike old title you won't be a Total stranger this time you start with enemies and with your own clan, you will have Brothers and sisters since day 1, and of course you can have children too. No idea of start without relatives will be possibile, in last gamescom you had them.

 

[Metro]

Mods will fix it.

 

[moon knight]

I guess you can keep play taking over as a clan member, no clan survivor means game over.

But so the player can actually be executed like all the other npcs, is that confirmed?

 

[vota DC]

It isn't confirmed. Even player death isn't confirmed 100%, we could have bad surprises like Castle Building. For now being captured Is similar to first first game, even lowborn bandits don't execute you.

 

[Zanzoken]

The new Influence mechanics should be the currency behind executions, campaigns, and pretty much else everything you can do as a player. Interpersonal relationships need to be more complex than the simple -100 to 100 linear scale in Warband.

Influence should be gained by winning battles, capturing fiefs and enemies, siring children, and otherwise being a badass. Then you can spend that Influence when you need help, or you want to do something drastic, shady, or unpopular to further expand your power.

Something like an execution should cost Influence, since although maintaining the countenance of nobility is important, sometimes motherfuckers just need to die. But the consequences of an execution are where it can get interesting. The ripple effect should really be calculated individually for all characters in the world. Some things to consider:

1) The relative Influence between the player and the AI lord to be executed. If you are more famous and powerful than the other guy, then the Influence cost should probably be less but you may get a reputation for being a bully. However if you are just some pissant vassal near the bottom of the food chain, then to execute a king could be a major faux pas, and get you indicted for treason. Or perhaps it could be just what you need to jump start your own monarchy? There is a lot of room to experiment here.

2) The relationship between the player and everyone else in the world. People who like you won't be as bothered, and for people who hate you, it's just more fuel on the fire. So the like / dislike factor affects the magnitude of the change in your relations.

3) The relationship between the AI lord and everyone else in the world. People who love this guy will obviously react very negatively. People who hate him might actually end up liking you better. His clan will be pissed, but what if he has a brother who hates him and conveniently gets to take over his fiefs now that he is dead? This type of thing should play a role.

Hopefully "honour" will only have a minor role. Nobles talk a lot about honour, but it's only the perception of being honourable that they care about. In reality you have to be a ruthless bastard to be an effective ruler, or at the very least, willing to get your hands dirty when the need arises. The mechanics need to account for play styles on both ends of the morality spectrum.

 

[Turisas]

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,384455.msg9120710.html#msg9120710

Seems like it has finally moved into the first phase of testing.

 

[Garbage]

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,384455.msg9120710.html#msg9120710

Seems like it has finally moved into the first phase of testing.

Cool, looking forward to that November 2075 release date.

 

[Merlkir]

Yeah, a few members of our (TLD) team got to play it yesterday, I think.
I'll be getting an invite too, I'm told.
(it's a MP beta though, not SP yet.)

 

[Metro]

Fuck multiplayer.

 

[PulsatingBrain]

Dev Blog 13/06/19
13 Jun @ 10:03pm - Callum

Greetings warriors of Calradia!

During battles, hierarchies are of key importance: keeping the chain of command intact and knowing exactly who is in charge is vital… especially if that someone is you! That rang especially true in medieval times when the chain of command was also a reflection of how society was ordered as a whole.

In Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord, politics and tactics can overlap as well, and you won’t always be the one in command of every army you’re fighting for. In the early and middle game, you will usually find yourself following an army led by a king or a high ranking noble. When this army enters battle, you may be able to take the leadership of one of the formations, but which formation you may lead has to be determined realistically, so we came up with a system for that.

For determining who will lead what, the game first assigns a seniority rank to each lord present, including the player. Calculation of the rank takes into account clan renown and power, and of course, faction rulers are given a huge boost to reflect their position within the realm. The system also takes into account the leader of the army itself, as well as, the number of troops that each lord has brought to the field of battle.

The lord with the highest rank is selected as the commander for the battle. Following this, captains are allowed to choose the formation they will lead in order of their rank. For NPC lords, an AI routine selects the most appropriate formation (usually the largest and most prestigious one remaining).

When it’s the player’s turn to choose, the game displays the menu above. Formations led by higher ranking lords are shown as locked and may not be selected. Players may select any of the remaining ones, or choose not to lead any formation at all (entering the battle as just a warrior with no special responsibilities). Once the player makes a choice, any remaining AI lords are also assigned to their choices in the order of their rank. Players may then review this order of battle and then click done if satisfied with how things look.

Conversely, if the player has the highest rank and is assigned as the commander, then they will be given total control over the entire army during the battle. In this case, the player is still shown the menu but can’t change anything and just has to proceed after reviewing the information.

We feel that the order of battle system helps to provide players with a sense of a greater power structure that one would expect to find in a medieval society. It eliminates these strange scenarios where prestigious lords and rulers are commanded by some random lord’s nephew. It also helps to give players a sense of progression as they rise through the ranks to become a renowned lord that commands both respect and, well, more troops!

Discuss this blog post HERE

Facebook[www.facebook.com]

Twitter

Website[www.taleworlds.com]

Facebook[www.facebook.com]

Twitter

YouTube

Twitch[www.twitch.tv]

 

[moon knight]

Incredible that they still won't give to the player the possibility of play as a soldier and enlist in an army

 

[Modron]

Play Gloria Sinica if you want that, one of the various starting backgrounds gets conscripted for a while.

 

[PulsatingBrain]

Incredible that they still won't give to the player the possibility of play as a soldier and enlist in an army

Seems like that pretty much covered by the option to choose no leadership position in battle, and enter as a normal warrior

 

[unfairlight]

I just hope they'll simulate actual battles with the autofight feature instead of whatever they had with the original. I don't want to have 5 killed, 2 wounded after my 200 party went up against one knight.

 

[Jimmious]

Even though I agree, I always felt like that was an incentive to go for manual battles

 

[Butter]

Battles are the most fun part of Mount & Blade. I don't think they needed to add further incentive to partake.