Hi!
1st I’d like to say that this game looks AWESOME!!!
Secondly, I’d like to express my disappointment at the latter half of your “combat” video. Sure, the combat system looks like the best thing since the invention of the wheel (bypassing sliced bread altogether, cannibalizing the toaster, and flippantly crushing underfoot anything related to bacon, haggis, and deep-fried things), but you expressly said that "there will be no Strategy elements, you’ll just be fighting for your life…"
My good sir, what madness is this???
I agree heartily with the “fighting for your life” thing. I like that, quite abit. But I was REALLY hoping this game would give me a chance to take Mount and Blade and magnify it about a thousand times: so I can ACTUALLY WALK AROUND EVERY CORNER OF A WORLD I RULE. Not that you have to implement “King” mechanics, after all, the character is a Blacksmith, and that’s not the focus of the game, but would you at least consider adding in a battlefield strategy mechanism/ a “war” thing where the AI leads campaigns and occasionally devastate villages without your consent? PLEASE??? I’m not asking for full-on first person Total War, just the ability to command battles/raise troops etc. It would probably triple the already considerable epicness of your game.
I think it’s all going to depend on what kind of story they’re aiming to tell. There are reasons why you’re not commanding units in battle, assuming that’s the way it ends up as (which is how it does look so far).
If there’s no purpose to a village simply being torn apart, I doubt it’s going to happen.
1 Like
Hey @Strategos,
I don’t know how familiar you are with the story, but it was clearly stated before, that you’ll take part in one or two big battles, yet you’re the one receiving and not giving the commands. I don’t know of any statements regarding giving orders to single NPCs in your group. But since I’m not part of the team I can’t tell you anything about it. Also this game is a pure RPG, not a mix of RPG and strategy.
Just wait for Mount and Blade 2. This will hopefully satisfy your and my need for RPG mixed with strategy in Medieval surroundings.
Cheerio,
Yuusou
3 Likes
Sadly it looks like it. I was just wondering about a ruler AI that wouldn’t wait for the player to act: where, as in M+B, rulers start and fight wars on their own accord, rather than just part of the story. The player would then literally be dragged, kicking and screaming, into whatever fight their betters decided to go about. Just thinking, since the story does begin when the player’s village is attacked…
To answer you: I’d be glad to play this game in a purely RPG setting. Just looking for that whole “living world” experience, where politics make themselves not story- politics. And yes, I waiting for MB2
Anyway, that’s enough of my spamming. Replying to my own post twice is a bit excessive.
Cheerio (I like that closing, mind if I snatch it?)
Strategos
1 Like
This game is nothing like Mount and Blade. Apples and oranges.
The only similarity is the general setting = medieval. Apart from that M&B and KCD are completely different games.
The focus for this game as an RPG is already big enough. It’s almost certainly already too big. Adding more stuff to the formula just makes everything watered down and shallow without any real depth. A game should always have a clear vision and concept. So I personally can’t sign your petition, sorry. I even think every strategy should be banned from this game.
3 Likes
another person did not read a single piece of information in the faqs
I’m looking forward to M&B:Bannerlords too but issuing commands in real time totally conflicts with the limited number of battles. I assume there going to be scripted in large part. I doubt they want the player to completely turn around the historical battles. It would be much cooler to witness a smoothly running scripted battle. Of course there’s also the issue of Rank, why should the person borne to a blacksmith be giving commands to a significantly large group of people that could make a difference in the battle?
That said I think decisions made before the battle, in dialog for example could slightly modify the battle. Maybe in the same fashion as the ‘Suicide Mission’ in ME2. You shouldn’t be able to turn the battle around completely but there still could be a different outcome that matters to the player character on a personal level.
Instead of the tactical role of commanding mass numbers of people Warhorse is going for immersion. You’ll actually be in the midst of one or two great battles; experiencing the chaos and fear of mass combat. I personally prefer this and think it will be exciting. So I cannot sigh your petition as there are plenty of strategy games out there but a precious few immersive RPGs.
This is not suppose to be next Mount and Blade. I think you would love that game, look for it. There is all you want. If you already know MaB, then it’s the best you can play. KCD is RPG, it will not be better couse it’s kinda different type of game.
IIRC the game takes place in an area around 3km square. I don’t think that’s large enough to support random destruction of settlements - there’d be none left by the end of the game. Also, you have to bear in mind that this is not a ‘medieval simulator’, but an RPG based on real historical events - so if a village was destroyed in the game that wasn’t in real life, that might get in the way of the story.
As for commanding battles, the devs have stated that this isn’t going to happen, since the character’s social standing is too low. A handful of men, perhaps; a whole army, no.
2 Likes
We also shouldn’t forget that this is a first person game. It’s not the best perspective to command other people or even a whole group or army.
But I could think of some “strategic flavor” like planning a city defense or siege with other (more important) people on the map. Perhaps the local lord asks you for your opinion since you’ve proven yourself in combat before and impressed him and act as some sort of advisor. This way you could for example position some troops on a map before a combat even starts and your decisions (for example which buildings or gates should be hold at all costs, whether civilians/women should support the guards in fighting, which defense measurements and weapons should be used and so on) could lead to different outcomes of the actual battle. And you - as the advisor of the local lord - would of course be made responsible for your advices e.g. if someone important died or some buildings were lost (or the whole town). That would fit nicely to the RPG vision of this game imo. 
Commanding stuff like MaB… That would be feature crepe. and that would likely end up delaying the game.
So I say no, not in act 1 anyway.
having to make some decision during cutscene. like attack the gate or the walls could work. (but since your are a blacksmith and not a lord it is likely not up to you)
Depends on when in the game you are. Later in game you’ve probably proven your worth, although not being a nobleman.There are definitely options to bring you in a position to be of value for the lords and leaders…
I agree with you mostly but I don’t think strategy should be completely banned. Making up a random scenario in my head; your liege who trusts you sends you on a mission to hunt down bandits or a wild bear and assigns you a couple men to accompany you. You should be able to lead them in tracking down this beast/bandits. I think it would be completely realistic especially if your character were to become a trusted man or your liege.
This might not really happen in the first act though, but we will see.
And how do you want to control your soldiers in first person view??? How do you want to give them orders? I personally can’t of any good solution to that problem. In a third person game you have some options but translated to a first person games the same solutions seem to be strange and not very functional.
The point here is that in a third party game you can move the camera with the mouse without moving the sight of the character. So you can point and click at certain points to give orders without the need to look there as well. In a first person game camera and sight are the same. And your sight is really restricted. So for example you can’t look around edges or behind obstacles. Controlling a group like in a third person game would be less functional in a first person game imo…
I think you could get the option to make out a plan and decide who is at which position and who’s giving the signal (preferably our hero). Even in Mount and Blade you can control your units in first person view. There might be options to control your units whether it’s about movement or combat.
Another possibility could be voice control. Giving controls via microphone is not that difficult. There Came An Echo is a nice game project in the making that is completely controlled by voice. Microsoft offers an SDK for this feature.
Hey folks. Sorry to disappoint you but we are not planning to install any strategy element so far. The only strategy, if you want to call it like that, is the freedom to choose how you want to solve problems (remember knight, thief, bard). But any other element like commanding units, manage sieges, build or train units or stuff like that are out of question.
4 Likes
I like the way you could issue commands in SWAT 4. But it’s mostly inside structures and might not work so well on on an open field. They had a lot of commands for units to use and always proposed the most likely one depending on what position the mouse was hovering over. Going through the menus is much faster than in M&B and doesn’t really take your attention away from playing your character IIRC.
I get that strategy is out of the picture but tactics technically aren’t the same thing. Strategy is the overall campaign planing and tactics method to achieve an objective (wikipedia link). Anyway if there aren’t that many missions where you have lot’s of followers I don’t think a complected system for issuing commands is helpful.