Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Your Bladestorm Idea's

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,032

    Default Your Bladestorm Idea's

    What would you like being improved upon, added or even changed drastically in the next expected Bladestorm game? I would like:

    1. An easier viewing map.

    2. Being able to choose your own mercenary default weapon of choice. Such as a bow or pike instead of always a sword.

    3. Cutscenes in the middle or throughout the game rather then just at the start and end.

    4. Being able to unlock the characters as playables.

    5. Better voice acting.

    6. A more diverse range of missions. Such as protecting someone, defecting mid-battle, aiming to kill a foe whilst being vastly outnumbered and supporting the supply-lines, etc.

    7. A more interactable environment. An example; Able to climb up upon castle walls and fire arrows with archers via ladders. Another being; Smashing castle walls and gates with elephants, etc. Also, a more variety of terrain and cycle weather changes.

    I like those mounted paths in Bladestorm because of the strategy you can undertake, but there are too few of them.

    8. Better balances in unit usage and to not let horses dominate 80-90% of the game when using them. Also, more attacks would be nice.

    9. A SP transfer system.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,138

    Default

    Well...since you've already said most of them, I'll just say the few that I can think of, and perhaps add to yours

    Firstly, well...this idea is kind of loosely based upon what your able to do in Fable and Fable2, and that is pretty much the free roam aspect, in the Bladestorm scene, you could just wander from battlefield to battlefield at your own leisure...and also to get to the taverns, you could go to one of the larger cities, or forts, castles, whatever, and enter the tavern through there(or press start and select it from the menu )

    Some thing that I think could be improved upon would be your own mercenaries involvement in the cutscenes, sure your the main focus of half of them, but in all of them, you do nothing, you just sit there...not making a single sound, and not one bit of emotion shown, no matter what the situation(this actually annoyed me at times).

    Now in relation to LDZ's 4th idea, perhaps at the start you could be given the choice to be either your own mercenary, or one of the characters that you would usually meet in the game. So if you wanted to be completely for the French side(like me) you could chose to be someone like Joan of Arc, La Hire or de Richmond, and vise versa. So when you wanted do be pretty much completely detatched, you can be your own merc, but still go for which ever army you want to win

    I think thats enough for now...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    149

    Default

    Because I've barely played it, all I'd like is it to be easier to understand. Me no understand Bladestorm.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    34

    Default Continuity Between Successive Battles

    While there seems to be some continuity between successive battles in a region when the sides are relatively balanced, I find it frustrating to have completely subjugated a region in one battle only to return later and find some of the same cities now under enemy occupation.

    Also it would be nice if the regions were better linked - completely subjugating one region ought to shut down / convert one of the entry points in a neighboring region.

    Maybe some sort of three stage entry point might be in order tied to key cities in each region as follows:

    1) If (at the start of the battle) the key city in both regions is French, the entry point is French in both regions.

    2) If (at the end of the battle) one of the key cities is taken by the English, then at the next relevant battle, the entry point is French in the region of the English city and English in the region of the French city.

    3) If (at the end of that battle) the second French city is taken by the English, then in the following battle, the entry point becomes English in both regions.

    ie The key city or cities in one Region affect the entry point in the adjacent region (cities would be better since you would have to take say all three to affect a change).

    Trouble is that this would be rather one sided, so maybe at the end of your battle, a "pools panel" style result of the battle(s) in other regions could be made to simulate the actions of other forces.

    The extension of this idea would be that you can only fight in a region if you occupy at least an entry point and/or one of the cities. The English could theoretically be driven all the way back to the Normandy / Brittany coast and the French to say (demonstrating lack of French Geographical knowledge) entry points in Gascony or Champagne.

    Of course, where the key battles could fit into this is another matter. Maybe I'm looking for Bladestorm Empires?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,138

    Default

    @civiliza: So what your trying to explain is really more like the Empires games? is that it? because that would be an interesting variation of the BLADESTORM game, but I guess it wouldnt really be all that great if it was just England vs France for control.

    In the Historical version, you could do that, but for an empires type thing, what if each of the generals(Joan of Arc, Edward, etc) each take control of an area, acting as like its own kingdom. The generals that have 'sidekicks' can stay together though, like John Chandos with Edward, You Ji with Arthur and Marie with Phillipe and so on.

    Throughout it, you could hire mercenaries to use in battles, and the better classed mecrs(crap=no names, good=Magnus, Karen etc) the more you would have to pay for them.

    Once you really start to think about it that way, I think it could really be done pretty good

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    34

    Default Viva La Revolution (aka Bladestorm Empires)

    @God Like Phoenix - Hmm, must admit I hadn't though it that far through - I can see where you're coming from, but somehow the idea of France's individual leaders creating mini Kingdoms and fighting each other doesn't quite gel with my (admittedly vague) conceptions of the war.

    Or do you mean the leaders vying for interest in the names of their respective countries? ie while the Duke Of Flanders wouldn't invade the Champagne region, he would be prepared (against a rival bid from the Champagne region) to hire mercenaries to "liberate" English occupied cities in the Champagne region.

    Ooh! Sounds like a potential nest of vipers. Machiavelli anybody?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    34

    Default Shot down in flames

    The more I think about it, the less feasible Bladestorm Empires becomes. The fundamental problem is that Empires works from the top down - the person doing the strategies then gets to fight for them. Bladestorm works from the bottom up, the mercenary has no say over the strategies, and can switch sides at whim.

    I just wanted a mode in Bladestorm where the mercenary can consistently drive forward one side's objectives Maybe fighting for the other side as necessary to learn new skills and/ or obtain new weapons.

    FRESH IDEA ALERT

    Since the main character switches sides frequently, how easy would it be to introduce some concept of trust at the individual NPC level. The more you fight well alongside an NPC or come to their rescue, the more likely they are to come to your rescue. Conversely the more times you defeat an NPC, the more likely they are to come looking for you on the battlefield as an opponent or abandon you as an ally.

    Maybe contracts could go up on a notice board together with a list of signatories so that you could choose to fight with certain characters or avoid fighting against them.

    It would also be good if you could hire some of the mercenaries yourself (at exorbitant prices) to act as bodyguards and vice versa - yes, I know that there is one such contract, but with the trust aspect it could add an extra dimension. Repeatedly succeeding as someone's bodyguard could improve their trust levels.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,138

    Default

    Firstly, please dont double post, next time, please use the edit function, thanks

    Secondly, the way I was explaining it may have been a tad confusing...yes, there would be quite some difficulties in doing a BLADESTORM:Empires game. What I was suggesting was that if there were someway to split the regions up even further, then the regions could be split between the English and French generals.

    In DW4:E and SW2:E (only E games Ive played ) you are given the choice for Historical or random scenarios, I was thinking of something similar to that. For the Historical version, England would have the majority of the Aquitaine region, and bit of Normandy, Brittany, Flanders and Gascony, while the French has the rest. As for the way the characters are used, each can have its own region(s) but under a permanent alliance of that country...or if merc...nothing ^^

    When it comes to the Random or Fictional scenarios, each character could act as its own Leader, much like what you can do in the other Empires games, where you can buy out other characters, from either side, and try to take over the overall area which in this case in France. So for example, I might want to use Magnus or Diane, so I would start as a leader of lets say the region that surrounds Bordeaux, with random other characters(generics etc) filling the rest of the regions. From there, it would play out much like the other Empires games, so theres the strategy phase, movement, battle...and so on, and that would go on untill you win or lose...does that make more sense?

    ----

    Ok, about your "trust" idea, I think that it would be a fairly brilliant addition to the game, should another one be made ^.^ . Im just trying to think of another game that utilises such a thing...the one that really pops into my head right away is the SSX snowboarding series. If you attack people, they start to hate you and attack you back, and so on, thats sort of the only game in which I've seen something like that...I think?

    Ok...I'll take a break for a bit...let other's speak

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,032

    Default

    Oh yes, that trust idea sounds good and such a simple concept that can be introduced. Great ideas and discussion guys.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    34

    Lightbulb A Matter Of Trust

    @God-Like Phoenix. The trust element (or at least missions based on the idea) also appeared in DW5XL's Destiny Mode.

    I could see individual NPCs reacting or trusting differently. eg

    Yoshimasa? would trust honourable actions and (initially at least) a willingness to "Come home with your shield or on it". He wouldn't care whether or not you fought against him as long as you fought well.

    Some NPCs would be quick to anger, quick to forget, others slow.

    Some would be total pragmatists - they wouldn't go after you, but they wouldn't support you either.

    I can imagine that some - like say Lord Chandos would never forget a slight.

    Some would be biased for one side or another - they would make all sorts of allowances if you did dubious things in the name of their side, but come down hard on betrayals of that side.

    Which brings me to betrayals.


    I think that having accepted certain missions / requests, there might occasionally be a follow on scene where you were offered more money by an agent to complete a counter mission.

    If leading reinforcements, you could hand them over to the other side. Thus making an enemy of the person who made the original request, and an ally of the agent.

    Likewise, if defending a town, you could instead attack it.

    In both cases, it could work like DW5XL where you would have to meet the agent on the battlefield to enable your own defection.

    If the defection had to happen on say the first day of a battle, you would then have to complete the rest of the battle with your former allies very much against you and with no option to retreat.

    This could then lead on to a story arc where you had to defend your home village against the reprisals of the force you betrayed. In addition you would have a degree of infamy.

    Once you have become infamous, you would no longer be given trust type missions until you have "worked off" your infamy. Infamy could only be "worked off" by undertaking nasty contracts like taking a town deep in enemy territory on the first day and holding it until your allies can link up with you, or attacking a high ranking opponent who would have a number of bodyguards.

    Each successive betrayal would give you a higher level of infamy to "work off".

    Furthermore, if you betrayed say a French village, then in future battles, you could no longer regain health or lead units from that village when on the French side. The English in that village would support you, but the French wouldn't.

    All of this in the longer term background of individual NPCs trust levels and reactions to your actions.

    INFAMY, INFAMY (THEY'VE ALL GOT IT IN FA ME)
    Last edited by civiliza; 08-03-09 at 08:07 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •