Originally posted by Stray952:

TLDR: So, I ask everyone: What would you implement to make the overworld navigation part of the map more engaging and dynamic?

I love Bannerlord. I am on a hiatus until War Sails comes out and there are a lot of design choices that changed in beta that I don't agree with. It is still a unique and amazing game.

The one part of the game that feels very dated and out of place is the way the player navigates the world. Bannerlord simulates the kinetic damage of 400 men swinging weapons simultaneously in battle which TaleWorlds has basically mastered. However, the most impactful decisions players make in their overall game isn't how 30 legionairres behave when shot at by 10 Fian archers, it is where you go, when, how fast you move.

The context determined by the overmap (when you fight, how many enemies and what type) often predetermines a battle.

There's very little for the player to decide except to flight or flee, and the Ai operates on the same principle, meaning that decisions made on the overmap lack a feeling of decisiveness, and instead feel very drawn out, tedious and rubber-band-y.

I was playing Star Ocean: Second Story R recently when I realized that this game published in 1998 had more overmap engagement than Bannerlord. In SO:2, you can use individual skills like scouting to reveal or hide from enemies, gain an advantage by attacking from the rear, forage for supplies as you move, and even set other characters on the map to 'bodyguard,' meaning that they will block equivalent strength enemies (giving you time to flank or flee) or engage in rear attacks when they have the advantage.

So, I ask everyone: What would you implement to make the overworld navigation part of the map more engaging and dynamic?

SO2 is one of my favorite games, but the 1998 version did not have any of those things you mention. Those all came about with the 2023 (2024?) remake. It did have Scouting that would either increase or lessen encounters, but that's it.

I use the Reinforcements mod. It allows the AI to join battles the player is in. As time advances in the battle, AI parties from further and further out can join in. This can be good or bad for you. I greatly enjoy it because I have to take into account the surrounding area before I fight, because an easy win can turn into a loss. Higher scouting is a great help so I can see more of the map before I get into a fight.

Bannerlord has their own version of the Bodyguard mechanic. If you or the AI is in danger, they will run to a nearby ally of sufficient strength to fight together. Their tooltip even says "Running from enemy party to ally party/settlement".

As far as the map goes, give the AI more ability to maneuver. In the game, they go in straight lines, following the shortest path to their objective. The player can make minute adjustments to roam, allowing them to get around enemy forces instead of just running away.

Disband AI armies if they are being chased by a superior force. Maybe one party gets captured, but that's better than the whole army. Let AI armies discharge one party from the army so it can chase down a faster enemy unit and hold them down for the main force to appear.

Be willing to give up on sieges that cannot be won. If too many defenders are appearing outside, the AI should give up the siege if no allied reinforcements are coming. As it currently is, the AI is just in a countdown to being defeated by defenders.

The player also has the advantage of Hoovering up all nearby units - friend and foe - into their battle. Let those AI parties decide if they want to join, like when the AI fights the AI.

Roads that increase speed, ambushes that have a likelihood of succeeding based on both involved parties skills as well as the terrain meaning a shortcut through woods will more likely let you get ambushed, control zones for castles so that armies can not just walk past them but frontier fortifications actually serve a purpose and border defence is actually possible instead of playing whack-a-mole.
And a better battlemap-loading or generating systems so that you actually get bridge battle maps for example when you fight on a bridge on the overworld map. Bonus points if both parties actually spawn in on opposing ends of the bridge and not just to the side of it.

I've thought a lot about how to make the map more engaging.

I think the activities that happen on the map should be abstracted into an additional logical layer so that you can engage with them.

In example, you can currently embargo the western Aserai by placing a hostile party near the land bridge at pseudo-Strait of Gibraltar. The convoys and villagers hoping to pass you will just keep bouncing off the visual range of your party and never make it to their destination. It is a neat simulation aspect but not particularly engaging.

Now, imagine that this route was instead an icon on the map that logically represented the heavily traveled corridor. You could then click on the icon, and decide how to engage with it. In example, set an ambush, extort convoys, etc. Likewise, if you get information saying that such a trade corridor is being extorted, you can fight to clear it and/or contribute troops to surveil/secure or some other counter act.

Now imagine that the entire map has a layer of these abstracted logical relationships between different locations. The AI is already making these decisions, they're just not formally represented to the player. If they were, it would open up the possibility for a lot of contextual action.

Lets say you're preparing to siege Lord Farquad's castle that is supplied by a nearby town. You could then select the logical supply route and choose to harass it. Now, Farquad must decide to secure the route or take a de-buff to supplies and morale. If he does act to secure the route, you are now in a position to fight them in more favorable context.

LIke I said, the Ai is already making these kinds of decisions. You can, of course, kind of do the same thing now by raiding a village or attacking villagers - but this is very squishy and indefinite.

Originally posted by Stray952:

TLDR: So, I ask everyone: What would you implement to make the overworld navigation part of the map more engaging and dynamic?

I love Bannerlord. I am on a hiatus until War Sails comes out and there are a lot of design choices that changed in beta that I don't agree with. It is still a unique and amazing game.

The one part of the game that feels very dated and out of place is the way the player navigates the world. Bannerlord simulates the kinetic damage of 400 men swinging weapons simultaneously in battle which TaleWorlds has basically mastered. However, the most impactful decisions players make in their overall game isn't how 30 legionairres behave when shot at by 10 Fian archers, it is where you go, when, how fast you move.

The context determined by the overmap (when you fight, how many enemies and what type) often predetermines a battle.

There's very little for the player to decide except to flight or flee, and the Ai operates on the same principle, meaning that decisions made on the overmap lack a feeling of decisiveness, and instead feel very drawn out, tedious and rubber-band-y.

I was playing Star Ocean: Second Story R recently when I realized that this game published in 1998 had more overmap engagement than Bannerlord. In SO:2, you can use individual skills like scouting to reveal or hide from enemies, gain an advantage by attacking from the rear, forage for supplies as you move, and even set other characters on the map to 'bodyguard,' meaning that they will block equivalent strength enemies (giving you time to flank or flee) or engage in rear attacks when they have the advantage.

So, I ask everyone: What would you implement to make the overworld navigation part of the map more engaging and dynamic?

the whole issue with changes is mount and blade is a game that isnt new. Gamers expect it to have particular mechanics, if anything is changed the amount of angry people will be huge.
I for one could totally enjoy for the overland map mechanic to be completely changed.
And i also want the battles to become better. What exactly TW will do i dont know.
Ships has been done by many studios and it gets old really fast, at least for me.
I hope they add multiplayer modes with ships, could be real great. Many options how to make it, but requires servers and as usual you never know how many players will even try it.
Maybe they go the safe route and just keep most of the things the way they are, add some menus for the diplomacy crowd where you can press a button to boost your morale on ships with a fancy sound and particle effect on the screen, name the leader of the nords ragnar for nostalgia points and thats it. As long as they keep the game as moddable as it is with the option to select which version to play on, they will get my money.

Originally posted by Geistermeister:

Roads that increase speed, ambushes that have a likelihood of succeeding based on both involved parties skills as well as the terrain meaning a shortcut through woods will more likely let you get ambushed, control zones for castles so that armies can not just walk past them but frontier fortifications actually serve a purpose and border defence is actually possible instead of playing whack-a-mole.
And a better battlemap-loading or generating systems so that you actually get bridge battle maps for example when you fight on a bridge on the overworld map. Bonus points if both parties actually spawn in on opposing ends of the bridge and not just to the side of it.

Good suggestions, especially the borders one, I'm new to bannerlord (just got 70ish hours in warband) but I played a lot of other strategy/grand strategy games, like EU4, many total wars, before you delclare war in those games you can prepare, you can have a general idea of where the enemy will attack from, you can garrison your troops in a strategic way so that you can defend your border cities/forts for a long period of time.
In bannerlord there's almost 0 strategy outside battles, you declare war on someone that is in a war with one or multiple factions but you can't have any idea of where the enemy armies are because they have free movement over the entire map all the time, forts and cities are just there waiting to be sieged. They don't provide any strategic value, the AI either avoids them if it knows it can't siege them or sieges them if it thinks it's possible to conquer it, that's it, same for cities.

I'm enjoying the game as I said in another thread, I really like the sandbox aspect of the game, being able to play freely in the game world, but there's like 0 strategy when I decide to declare on someone, it all comes down to something like this all the time "oh look the aserai who have 12k strength are at war with 3 other factions who all have at least 8k strength, I'm declaring on them hoping their armies are far away while I snatch a couple of cities and forts from them"

As fastforward above me said, the game isn't new so not much will change and it's ok, I like the game, I just wish It had more ways for the player to use different strategies, mostly in the world map, the battles are extremly good tho.