Recent content by Akfiz

*makes a statement that there were banits in the Roman Empire*
*turns into a philosopical discussion about banits*
Not that I don't like it.

I would define bandit as someone who lives outside the law & uses violence to take other people's possessions.

A raider from tribe X, has a cultural background and a state of their own, that is different from simply being Roman/former slave and being a bandit.

Bandits of the Roman times were the terrorists of today in terms of buzzwords. But that doesn't stop real bandits/terrorists from existing. There were Romans and former slaves who decided to live outside the law and make a living by violently taking other people's possession.

They were not oppressed people for a former tribe conquered by the Romans or a vassal state like Thracians, Egyptians, Jews, looking for independence (which I also suggested to be added in the game, because it would lead to some really cool moments).

Ah, Jesus, that bloody bandit! Can't wait to be robbed by Jesus in the game. "My men will a word about your belongings, my son".

I see your point about being multiple type of bandits simply because everyone the Romans didn't like were bandits, but I also see that you agree with me that there were real bandits within the Roman Empire.

I remember reading this book on the Byzantine Empire, and somewhere, I don't remember when but it was shorlty before the time of Basil II "the Bulgarslayer" the Emperor wanted the troops to construct a fort, and the troops said "we are soldiers, not builders"... man, it made me think exactly of this moment with Caesar's civil war and how the troops would often build walls and fortifications during the battle.

Kind of like this:

And it made me think, man, how bad Rome has fallen.

I think it's a bit unfair to say that " The romans had about 750 years to clean up their act and alter history in their favor" because in those 750 years there were people including Emperors who lived & died. They didn't have continuity. Our modern world has a lot more continutiy because the laws have a whole different meaning so the laws in the perception of the common man evolves and now with technology everything can be saved. Where as in the Roman times, all it took was 1 bad Emperor to lose Germania, another to decide to fully retreat, and another who decided to fully retreat from Pannonia up to the Carhaptian mountains after the previous Emperor basically conquered that for him.

And there's also the civil wars, lots of civil wars. One could argue that lack of constant civil wars was the reason the Early Roman Republic was so successful and saw so many technological advancements. There was a lot more stability back then.

And eventually Rome would fall so bad that everyone and their mothers could be Emperor if he was a General and his troops agreed he should be Emperor, no more "royal family, etc". And for an Emperor to last more than a year it became a challenge.

Such a system is doomed to failure, you could have a great Emperor once or twice to save the Emperor from utter colapse due to civil war and barbarian invasion. But constant instability leads to poverty which leads to the eventual fall of Rome.

And the Praetorian Guards, my god, why weren't they disbanded like moments after they killed the first Emperor. 1/2 Emperor would meet his end at the hands of the Praetorian Guards, and the next Emperor wouldn't disband them.

I'm not sure why the Varangian Guard of the Byzantine Empire were so loyal while the Praetorian Guards of the Roman Empire were so... not.

" The ones who did Great are the ones who's periods are remembered."
*doubts in Nero and Caligula*

TengriBless said:

Understatement of the bloody C

Click to expand...

I think it's because Mount&Blade is at its core a warrior-immersive game. You immerse yourself and the focus is on the warrior and the battles, with a greatly done open-world that allows you to interact with the castles and the lords. It's a game mainly about fighting and immersing yourself in the world, not about opening & closing tabs after tabs of diplomacy and looking online on how to properly set your economy. I don't think a lot of people expect Civilization when playing Mount&Blade and for many that over focus on diplomacy may ruin the game.

Roy1012 said:

Let’s fix the game before thinking about money grabs?

Click to expand...

Not saying start working on a DLC now, this is really a long-term suggestion.

Wulfric said:

Source?

Click to expand...

While the Roman Empire gives us the impression of "a better age of a more civilized time", it really was not. Sure, when it comes to art that is the case, and when it comes to the army as well. Soldiers were in equal measure builders to the point where these jobs were undistinguishable. Build a camp from Mount&Blade? How about build a fort.

But the social element was pretty much the same as in Medieval Europe. Rome had more civil wars than pretty much any state I read about, and I read about a lot.

Julio-Claudian said:

I really don't think this game suits the classical Roman world. Aside from the total lack of anything naval and the fact that you can barely field a full cohort let alone full legions, no diplomatic relations between factions, no differences in government etc. the game is too medieval/feudal and small scale.

Click to expand...

Viking Conquest had naval combat. Mount&Blade itself is a miniature yet simulator of the medieval world. In the medieval age, minor nations could muster 10.000 - 20.000 soldiers while major ones even up to 100.000 - 150.000 soldiers, but these are not the numbers used in Mount&Blade.

And they don't need to, Mount&Blade's objective is to immerse you in that world and make you feel part of that world. To be a simulator of that world in a way that you can live in and interact with the world. You need to "live" in the Roman Empire and they don't need realistic troop count for that, just enough to make it feel a massive battle.

There are diplomatic relationships between factions, although minimal.

Differences in government can be added, I don't think either extra differences in government or extra diplomatic relationships are needed for a good Roman Empire game, but even if you think that what you think is the reason "this game can't work" is not so difficult to implement. Viking Conquest had tons of features that Warband didn't have. The same can be done with a Roman Empire DLC for Bannerlord.

Veledentella said:

After a useless thread with Michael the Brave, here comes another useless suggestion by Akfiz. This time, however, it is much shorter and, therefore, better. Good job, one day maybe I will find the courage to read it!

@MadVader, look who has come out of obscurity to haunt us again.

Click to expand...

Ah, yes, the trolls are at it again.
Imagine entering someone's home and then complaining that they are haunting you. You know you can not click the topic, right? you are allowed to do that, and will spare you all the haunting.

Good thing you spawned your associate, at least one of you is competent in trolling. Hey, MadVader, I think you should ditch Veledentella, he is mostly dead weight.

danEN said:

they actually spent time designing and came up with this

Click to expand...

Why not?

It's certainly not the best fantasy map I ever saw, but also certainly not the worst. I'd say they did a decent job mixing elements such as desert, plains, forest and snow in one place while making the map stil look somewhat unique. Most fantasy games just copy-paste a part from real world (looking at A Song of Ice & Fire and Warhammer Fantasy).

It's not Lord of the Rings, but better this than a copy of the Lord of the Rings map.

I only wish we had different spawn locations depending on the culture chosen, like in Warband.

Bahtiyor997 said:

I personally have no arguement against people from Romania and the country itself. I am sure others feel the same too.
I am very interested in the country's history, in fact and i am very astonished of their successes against foriegn rules that includes Ottomans, Poland etc. The region, Balkans itself has some great history, and i never compare it to other European or Asian countries including mine. The story is very unique and a bit tragic too.
But,that's video games we are talking about and their main aim is entertainment not some deeply serious historically nerd stuff. Even they claim they are inspired by real life and people, they mainly try to achieve fun, a bit of less violence compared to what happened actually and mend your minds when we get bored ot tired...
What if they think, Romance od the three kingdoms is the next setting? I say sure, as long as the game is fun and keeps from being bored.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about 2 others.

I'm not trying to turn this into a historical novel either, but I thought I needed to give a lot of information about Michael the Brave to explain why it would be fun for him to be added in the game, and to be accurately portrayed in case he is indeed added.

As for the gameplay part. His storyline would involve a lot of war and a lot of sieges. Which I think it would be the focus of the campaign and quite entertaining.

If you want to take the historical path:

ACT 1.
- You start out as the Prince of Wallachia, join the Holy Leauge against the Ottoman Empire in 1954. (Austria, Transylvania, Moldavia, Wallachia vs Ottoman Empire). So things start pretty optimistic, the "you can't lose" kind of thing. (it was then that Michael the Brave came close to Constantinople [waiting for Veledentella and MadVader to call this propaganda], but was forced to retreat due to lack of supplies and the Ottomans counter-attacked in force)
*gameplay-wise: a lot of battles and castles given/taken between Wallachians and Ottomans in Bulgaria; eventually the Ottoman army gets stronger and stronger and he's pushed back*

- Then eventually, Transylvania (Sigismund Bathory) and Moldavia (Stefan Razvan) come with reinforcements. The 3 combied armies basically rekt the Ottoman advance in Wallachia.
- But shortly after, Austria and Transylvania negociate a truce with the Ottoman Empire and Stefan Razvan is replaced by Ieremia Movila who becomes an Ottoman vassal. So Michael the Brave suddenly finds himself alone against the Ottomans.
- He chooses to make peace gaing favorable terms, being allowed to keep the fortifications on the Danube.
*a lot of battles and castles given/taken between the Wallachians and Ottoman Empire in this period*

ACT 2.
- Transylvania (now Andreas Barothy) wants to put a pretender in Wallachia (Simion Movila), making a deal with the Ottoman Empire.
- In exchange, Michael the Brave makes a deal with Austrian Emperor Rudolph II, so that he becomes governor of Transylvania in his name, being in his interest as Andreas Barothy swore featlhy to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
* war between Wallachia & Transylvania*

- Michael the Brave wins Transylvania. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth proposes that Michael the Brave would be a vassal of the Austrian Empire and Polish-Lithuanian in exchange for the Moldavian crown and recognition of himself and his heirs over the Carpathian Principalities. (essentially giving him all 3 principalities but as a vassal of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth)
- Michael the Brave refuses and attacks Moldavia.
* war between Wallachia (now with Transylvania incorporated) & Moldavia*

- Michael the Brave wins but Ieremia Movila escapes (he'll be back).
*ACT 2 completed, Michael the Brave becomes de facto ruler over all 3 Romanian principalities as an independent nation*

ACT 3.
- Although Michael the Brave still refered to himself as vassal of Emperor Rudolph II, he still refered to himself as "King of Transylvania and Wallachia" and began to negociate his position in Transylvania with Emperor Rudolph II, he wanted to be direct ruler of Transylvania instead of governor in Emperor Rudolph II's name, and equally claimed the Partium / Crisana region as rightful part of Transylvana. This angers the Austrian Emperor.
* eventually, the Polish attack in Moldavia and the Austrians in Transylvania*
* Hungarian nobles revolt against him in Transylvania*

- Michael the Brave loses and retreats to Wallachia where he loses some more.
* The Polish don't stop at Moldavia and attack Wallachia as well*

- Michael the Brave leaves for Vienna to negociate with Emperor Rudolph II. The Emperor eventually gives him money to make an army of mercenaries and retake Transylvania, for the Hungarian nobles also revolted against him.
* Michael the Brave fights and defeats the Hungarian nobles in Transylvania*

Meanwhile: Michael the Brave's son, Nicolae Patrascu, retook control of Wallachia from the Polish and went with the army to support him in Transylvania.

- Michael the Brave makes the decision to split from the forces of Italian-born general Georgio Basta and head for Transylvania to become "King of Transylvania" again.
- Emperor Rudolph II gives order to Georgio Basta to hire some of the mercenaries from Michael the Brave's camp to do it.
* It could lead to a last stand kind of mission where you eventually die anyway, or may avoid assassination; in the latter case, with reinforcements from your son, you can make a new effort to reconquer Transylvania and Moldavia*

- Michael the Brave dies, the end.

Anyway, evereything is in the original post, this is just an idea of how a lot of things from there can be implemented in the game. The reason why I think it would be fun it's because it has a lot of territorial changes and battles going on in a short amount of time.

Now, a lot of alt-history stuff can happen, and in fact I'm counting on that, it would be more fun to do alternative stuff and see what happens, rather than follow Michael the Brave step by step.

MadVader said:

Furthermore, only Romanians are worthy enough to make a game about the greatest warlord of all time (K/D 7!) who happens to be Romanian too. And I'm not talking about Ceausescu or Ion Antonescu who also must be in the top ten for objective reasons.

Click to expand...

No, Romanians are not allowed to make any suggestions about anything, they are too Romanian for that. It's only a display of arrogance when a small country does it. If a similar suggestion would have been made for someone from US, UK or France, that would be another story.

And Michael the Brave wasn't even a great general. He only had like what, 9 major victories while being outnumbered in all of them? Every self-respecting general does that. The battle of Calugareni where he won with 15.000 troops against 100.000 ? Yeah, sounds nice, but you see, he's Romanian, he clearly can't be that great.

Military achievements don't matter, you can't be a great general if you come from Romania. And who would want to play a campaign where you are outnumbered all the time?

NPC99 said:

Modding demands a lot of time and effort, so I agree that actions outweigh ideas. However, we all had to start with an idea for inspiration and mockery isn't any way to encourage someone to take the leap from theory to practice.

Click to expand...

You seriously thought Veledentella and MadVader have the slighest intention of being helpful? If anything, his mod has more content than I originally expected.

Bahtiyor997 said:

Every one from every corner of the world wants a mod/dlc/game about their "nation builders". It's been a long time since I have wanted a game or mod or dlc about Tamerlane, Mukhammad Shaibani, Babur, Abdulla Khan II.

Click to expand...

Exactly my point. But according to Veledentella and MadVader that's a crime. Merely trying to boosting your nation's worthless pride, so sit down you nationalist extremist. Pfft, posting a suggestion about your historical figure? you're one step away from becoming a fascist.

Apologies in advance if you're from one of the big and popular countries that totally deserve it. It's not nationalism in that case, it's just how things are.

Bahtiyor997 said:

Should I make a long post and argue with people? No.
It's the developers or modders' decision that ultimately matters. As a history nerd, I appreciate playing them and in the end, I prefer historical video games than recent films, tv shows and talk shows full of nationalistic propagandas.

Click to expand...

But how do you make the developers and modders aware of that? by making a post about it.

Personally, I don't know anything about Tamerlane, Mukhammad Shaibani, Babur, Abdulla Khan II. So if you'd made a post about them, it would be great to give as much information as possible about them.

My post was off with nationalistic propagandas, there were some communist-era movies about Michael the Brave where he would be a self-sacrificing hero seeking to liberate the Romanains from Transylvania, when in fact, when he conquered it he secured the support of the Hungarian nobles, who betrayed him later but that's another story, he did extend the Wallachian Orthodox Church to Transylvania which has angered the Catholics in Transylvania (Hungarian & German, even some of those who originally joined him), but he also brought some nobles from Transylvania to Wallachia seeing to incorporate Transylvania's much more advanced feudal system in Wallachia.

And the parts about him where he basically went to the Austrian Emperor Rudolph II, who he had recently just fought, and just waited there until Rudolph II had need of him. Or that in his final moments he actually tried to go for Alba-Iulia to become quote "King of Transylvania" again, which caused Georgio Basta to order his assassination, not gonna see that in those movies. As you can see from the original post, the sources I used aren't even Romanian for that exact reason.

But even without that propaganda embellishment, his story is pretty "against all odds" at all turns, not only militarily but also politically. Which is why I think would make a good campaign.

However, this will not discourage ignorants from calling it "nationalistic propaganda" because "what else would it be?" with no clear reason except their gut feeling because "it couldn't have happened in Romania so it must be propaganda", their gut feeling being a product of their prejudice.

Adrivan said:

@MadVader @Akfiz

Lol, did this thread just turn into a Hungary vs Romania debate?.... I'm disappointed guys, you can both do better than that.
I'm from Transylvania and never had issues getting along with any hungarian people. We really need to drop this nonsense.

Click to expand...

I have no issue getting along with Hungarian people either, but some people would rather hate than come up with something good on their own. MadVader came up with John Hunyadi as a better alternative, when I pointed out that all the reasons he listed why John Hunyadi is a better choice than Michael the Brave also applies to Michael the Brave, he called it "Romanian nationalism", talking about projection.

I guess it could be Romanian nationalism if you ignore all the facts and only focus on the part where Michael the Brave can't be that good because he comes from Romania.

Veledentella said:

Concluding, action is more valuable than words. We, players, do not want to spend time on reading; we want to spend time on playing. Making a modification with interwoven historical elements is not a sign of boosting a nation's worthless pride (oftentimes performed by people with conspicuous inferiority complex with respect to their nation's history) as it enriches experience of many. Writing long messages in order to preach one's own beliefs regarding their own country's history might be considered, however, otherwise since its only aim is to impose one's view on their readers; it is deemed by us, players, a display of arrogance.

Click to expand...

Ah, the spokesman of the players is here!

Since you are talking in the name of every player, I have a quick question for every Mount&Blade player: If you, all of the players, don't want to spend time reading, but want to spend time playing, why are you visiting the forums?

I would think that the players want to spend time reading when they are visiting the forums, and spend time playing when we are starting the game, but I couldn't have been more wrong.

Damn, Mount&Blade could be more popular than Counter-Strike, too bad all the players are confused and come to the forums when they want to play a game.

Mr.spokesman, please tell this to "we, the players": If your intention was to spend time playing, I don't think visiting the forum was the way to go. You have to start an app called Mount&Blade. Hopefully this will solve a lot of the confusion.

Using your logic, every game/mod ever made is a sign of boosting a nation's worthless pride: Call of Duty? boosts USA's worthless pride. Viking Conquests? boosts Scandinavia's worthless pride. With Fire and Sword? boosts Poland's worthless pride. We should only make games in fictional universes to avoid boosting a nation's worthless pride.

Funny how you're accusing me of nationalism but can't stop thinking in nationalistic lens. Ever since your first comment on this topic, your criticism never had anything to do with something about Michael the Brave, the validity of the facts presented or the implementation of the campaign. It was mainly about: "waagh, Romanian nationalism, nay!".

I don't care that you are allergic to nationalism, but when your sole reason for rejecting something is because it comes from a certain country, you may want to Google the term "xenophobia" and see whether it applies to you.

By the way, xenophobia was a central element of 19th century nationalism, so congratulations on being a nationalist without trying to be one!

The spokesman in you is back again. Just for the record, if aliens invade Earth I don't want you to speak in my name, so don't use the phrase "we, the humans" please.

Ok, let's follow your flawless logic and see where it goes. So, I should not write long messages in order to preach my beliefs about my country's history, because it will be deemed by every player of Mount&Blade ever a display of arrogance. Correct?

So, let's assume, out of nowhere, that I want to make a suggestion for a DLC. About a historical figure that is only known in Eastern Europe, and not even there by everyone case in point MadVader. In order to explain why this historical figure would be great for the game, I would need to write some text about it, right? BUT, if I write some text about it, it's a display of arrogance because it's preaching my own country's history. So, what do I do? It's a catch 22.

Need to write some text to explain the figure. Can't write some text because it's a display of arrogance. Since you're the one who thought of all of this, do you have any solution to this catch 22? Or maybe that's the entire point of your flawless logic. That there's no way out of it and I should stop doing it.

Very convenient, I'll give you that. By the way, you should boycott Activision, it's an American company making games about Americans to promote their country's worthless pride. They are not allowed to do that! Such display of arrogance, I know.

Sarcasm aside, if you're offended by person from country X making a suggestion about historical figure from country X, you either have an issue with country X or a snobbish sense of superiority, as there is objectively no reason to be offended by it or take it as a display of arrogance.

My post wasn't a display of arrogance, you're simply projecting your shortcomings on me, that's why it comes across as arrogant to you, despite the post objectively not being arrogant.

For example: Someone makes a suggestion about Tamar the Great of Georgia. Most people see it as a cool suggestion and judge it for what it is, the worth of the suggestion itself and the historical elements in it.

While "we, the players" can only think in terms of flags and nationality, either being offended by it because "how can those peasantly lowly worthless Georgians even consider doing such a thing", it hurts your ego to think that the Georgians even dare to rise to your standards, only Germany, US, France, UK are allowed to do these.

Or see it as a display of arrogance because of a personal sense of superiority "look at those Georgians, they think they have the history to match up our deeds, they are not as important as the Turks, the British, the French, screw them". It hurts my head to even project being such xenophobic, must be hard to live with it.

And before you ask, I think Tamar the Great of Georgia would make a great Mount&Blade campaign, just like Michael the Brave.

To conclude, such circular reasoning with no substance, might be considered, however, otherwise since its only aim is to impose one's view on their readers; it is deemed by us, players, a display of arrogance.

So please, stop projecting next time you try to be xenophobic.

five bucks said:

@Akfiz noticed your thread on the lore connection between factions, this is a mix of headcanon/real canon that can provide a full explanation if you're interested

Click to expand...

Wow, thank you for your work!

Roy1012 said:

557 days since Early Access. That’s 13,368 hours (remember that stupid book you had to read in middle school that said you will become a “master” if you practice something for 10,000 hours?), or 802,080 minutes, or over 48 million seconds. To the TW simps/defenders, I’d just like to ask this question: do you really think that is an appropriate amount of time for what we’ve gotten throughout Early Access, which, at the best and most generous interpretation, is minuscule?

To put this into perspective the development of Bannerlord has been over 4,000 days. That’s pathetic for what we have. At this point, I have a new theory: TW is roleplaying as the Ottomans during the siege of Candia, the longest (over 21 years) siege in recorded history. Maybe they have been convinced for some reason Crete will be annexed to Turkey if they drag out development? Idk, it’s a better explanation than what we’ve been fed.

Click to expand...

Yes, yes, it all makes sense now. It's a plot, Taleworlds is secrelty owned by the government of Turkey and Bannerlords is just part of their informational warfare against the people of Crete, soon the Bannerlord players from Crete will give up and move, Turkey will annex the island and replace the whole population with Turkish players. But why the rest of the world you ask? -snipped- It all makes sense now! How couldn't I see this clear connection between Taleworlds and the government of Turkey, not even the fake moon landing is as obvious as this one!

Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James said:

The difference in effort between making a post (even a 2000 word one) and making an overhaul mod is a factor of thousands. I say this as someone who's done both.

Click to expand...

I agree.

Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James said:

I think the main problem people have with your post is that it's a ultra-specific request that nobody except you cares about, and it almost comes across as arrogant to insist that you were serious about it rather than just shooting ideas around.

Click to expand...

The reason I made the post very specific is that Michael the Brave is an obscure figure and I needed to present why his campaign would be interesting. In handsight, I should have made a shorter summary.