Mount&Blade 2: Bannerlord Confirmed [Interview with dev. Singil page 20]

[Ethien]

I really hope Mount and Blade 2 is going to be dramatically different than the previous games. I mean, the base game is there now they just have to develop it further along. The main appeal of Warband for me was the graphical improvements, but there wasn't to much else that was appealing outside of some other minor enhancements. I won't even get started on Fire and Sword.

1.) Sieges need to be completely revamped. Whoever thought it was a good idea that an army of hundreds would use one ladder is a bit loony. They need to let you use more siege equipment such as battering rams, catapults, ballista and even more siege towers or ladders to use. If the walls were destructible, that would be fantastic too. Rather than building the siege engines like catapults there, you can have them constructed in the city, castles, or wherever else and they dramatically decrease your travelling speed to balance it out.

2.) Better battle AI, so battles aren't just a single mosh pit and the implementation of formations. Modifications have created this, so the company should be able to provide more tangible battles rather than a concert party. In addition to a battle use for the tactics skill. As in, so many points should give you a deployment zone (Like Total War) and let you pre-arrange your men on the battlefield rather than having to use the lackluster mini-map for this or having to go there yourself.

3.) Naval battles are one of my favorite features that have been modded in and there should be a variety of ships that you can build to engage in naval battles with. I think this would add a whole new dimension of activity for people to engage in, rather than the same land battles over and over.

4.) Advanced kingdom and military management as the current system is rather simplistic without much appeal. Again there's been modifications that have added new features and elements of immersion that should be included.

5.) Outside of the illusion of having to manage your army with food and payment every week. I'd like to se the capability to personally equip your soldiers with weapons, so if you're poor, their weapon quality will reflect that. However if you're wealthier, then you'll obviously be able to afford better equipment. This can be applied on a mass scale for units, rather than specifically like for companions.

And that's generally what I'd like to see the most for Mount and Blade II myself.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

5.) Outside of the illusion of having to manage your army with food and payment every week. I'd like to se the capability to personally equip your soldiers with weapons, so if you're poor, their weapon quality will reflect that. However if you're wealthier, then you'll obviously be able to afford better equipment. This can be applied on a mass scale for units, rather than specifically like for companions.

This is already done. It's what you pay for when you upgrade soldiers.

[Shaio]

^ also with companions, which seem to count as your 13 or so personal guards that you personally equip however u want.

[Heart of Madness]

You should be able to disguise yourself as a bard and sneak into an enemy city to kill some people. (Just like Mance)

Also, I want to be able to raid an enemy's camp and burn their food stores down so that they desert or starve, and then you can come back on their rearguard 5 days later and kill them.

[Ethien]

This is already done. It's what you pay for when you upgrade soldiers.

Well, I meant actually equipping them rather than just pressing down on one key then pressing upgrade. I didn't word my meaning very well. I mean, I'd want to give my soldiers axes instead of swords, or spears instead of poleaxes, things like that.

[Shaio]

^ There was the ranger mod that added troops that were equiptable, out of a variety of weapons/armour that one could choose from, I'm surprised noone used that mods script more often to tell the truth.

I sortof like the idea of just managing with what i can cobble together, game needs some fucntion to prevent all elite armys thou, or enemy generals with small all elite armys like player tends to use.

[thespaniard]

also need to make the autocalc better
and somthing that tells a freindly army to wait up since i like to have 100-150 men in my army and for some reason the marshal is always speedy gonzalez with 25 men

[Facemelter]

I feel that Mount and Blade 2, honestly, will be the same as any other Mount and Blade game. I feel some mods would be better.

New engine or I might as well just be wasting my time playing cod if I liked playing the same engine over and over and over.

[Bolkonsky]

Everyone just yells new engine, but why scrap a perfectly good engine? Just improve upon it.

[Shaio]

Yes, there engine can probably be improved upon alot, maybe new engine if there's a third game. MnB needs more polish then anything.

[Stildawn]

First and formost... Multiplayer Co-Op and I guess non Coop campaign... This would be epic and could be easily implemented...

Secondly... They need to fix the engine, my machine which is way more powerful than the game requires runs it like absolute ass for no reason what so ever... And I am not alone the engine just randomly seems to not run well on some computers...

[Bolkonsky]

First and formost... Multiplayer Co-Op and I guess non Coop campaign... This would be epic and could be easily implemented...

Secondly... They need to fix the engine, my machine which is way more powerful than the game requires runs it like absolute ass for no reason what so ever... And I am not alone the engine just randomly seems to not run well on some computers...

While it's not great, it is pushing a lot more polys than many other games (such as the CoD franchise and BF franchise, and even TW franchise) and tracking a lot more agents. Lots of people don't seem to realize that it's a lot more hardware demanding because of the scope combined with the perspective.

[Shaio]

I notice people who mention horrible performance rarely mention there settings or how many men are in battles.


Although i will note, some sets of armour sued to cause extreme lag.

Also a co-op campaign would not be easily implemented, you'd break speed up button, pausing when not moving, infact theres alot of instances where gameplay stops on campaign map, not to mention campaigns tend to be very very long. would one allow some sort of jumping in to others worlds temporarily? i see heaps of problems with it as awesome as it'd be.

[Phier]

Would be awesome if they could realize thousands of troops like Total War games but still give you that first person experience.

My computer can handle 2000 or so in battles. I did it once. The AI really couldn't handle it and they just formed big masses of boring.

Really the AI is the biggest flaw in SP.

[Adorno1]

My computer can handle 2000 or so in battles. I did it once. The AI really couldn't handle it and they just formed big masses of boring.

Really the AI is the biggest flaw in SP.

Although the AI was never meant to handle battles with 2000 troops (did you actually mod that yourself?).
That's why there's a cap at battle size 150. Anything beyond that is at own risk so to speak.

[shikaka]

I notice people who mention horrible performance rarely mention there settings or how many men are in battles.

Although i will note, some sets of armour sued to cause extreme lag.

I usually don't do it, but for me a siege with a battle size of 60 (DX9 and medium settings) is awfully laggy. This is with 4Gigs of RAM and an 512 video card.
That's why I stopped playing Warband, and have only 1.011 installed at the moment.

[Turkeys!]

My computer can handle 2000 or so in battles. I did it once. The AI really couldn't handle it and they just formed big masses of boring.

Really the AI is the biggest flaw in SP.

That must've been one cramped map.

[Londinium]

Really the AI is the biggest flaw in SP.

That and the fact it needs more side missions, more in depth RPG features, more in depth politics and international relations etc. It's a great base to build on but once you get to a certain stage it just feels like a constant grind rather than having the novelty and wonder of the first 10/20 hours which are a pretty unique gaming experience. The AI is not -that- bad, certainly didn't stop the game becoming one of the largest indie hits of the past few years.

[shikaka]

That and the fact it needs more side missions, more in depth RPG features, more in depth politics and international relations etc. It's a great base to build on but once you get to a certain stage it just feels like a constant grind rather than having the novelty and wonder of the first 10/20 hours which are a pretty unique gaming experience. The AI is not -that- bad, certainly didn't stop the game becoming one of the largest indie hits of the past few years.

In my opinion the it is not true. M&B doesn't need more in depth politics or RPG features.
If someone wants to mod them in, it will happen. (just see for example the policies of Sword of Damocles).

M&B is a fighting game, and the developers should focus on fighting. That means better usage of system resources (less lag), more scene props, more weapon models, more clothing models, and perhaps extra modding tools.

[Shaio]

Different sorts of mounts, chariots... Wagons? Different battle types like ambushes and raids(burn there food and run away).

Better terrain generation., since some maps it comes up with are horrible to fight on.

Formations and basic tactics that can be given as orders pre battle or even as defualt battle order. ( like charge enemy left or charge enemy center, long flanking attack, short flanking attack, or harras.) along with formations u can make heroes lead, and send off to do things on map. Like right click on enemy party and order your cavalry to catch and engage them so your army can catch up.)

Ability to withdraw and get away at any point if your the smaller faster party.