I was already thinking that i am the only one with this opinion. I played F&S and never found it inferior to Warband, except the thin map, story and cultural background.
F&S was awesome in the possibilities it provided - and because of blackpowder and volley orders battles where often much more fun than the constant and boring looter farming of Bannerlord. M&B is made as a sandbox, but a sandbox where you cannot control the way your own troops are equipped (at least as king) is not complete. F&S did many things wrong, but no one can seriously complain about the possibilities you had combat- and armywise. Obviously it wouldn't even be hard to implement, but it would offer so many more possibilities of playing the game, so many ways of experimenting. Same with the siege possibilities: Realistic, immersive, fun - and as the equipment customization not even mandatory for those who want to stick to the Warband way.
Why not do a playthrough with heavily armoured pikesmen? Or with light, skirmishing archers with axe and shield? Or with highly trained longbowmen, accompanied by light lance cavalry? No one can deny the huge amount of replayability and immersion, when one of the perks of being a king is being able to customize that much, instead of basically doing the exact same thing like as lord. Given a realistic pricing of equipment and a good AI even historical authenticity would be guaranteed. Still you should keep in mind that never in history turkish horse archers, english heavy riders, celtic skirmishers and byzanthine cataphracts fought against eachother that geographically close and that warfare would probably have developed completely different if they had.
F&S was awesome in the possibilities it provided - and because of blackpowder and volley orders battles where often much more fun than the constant and boring looter farming of Bannerlord. M&B is made as a sandbox, but a sandbox where you cannot control the way your own troops are equipped (at least as king) is not complete. F&S did many things wrong, but no one can seriously complain about the possibilities you had combat- and armywise. Obviously it wouldn't even be hard to implement, but it would offer so many more possibilities of playing the game, so many ways of experimenting. Same with the siege possibilities: Realistic, immersive, fun - and as the equipment customization not even mandatory for those who want to stick to the Warband way.
Why not do a playthrough with heavily armoured pikesmen? Or with light, skirmishing archers with axe and shield? Or with highly trained longbowmen, accompanied by light lance cavalry? No one can deny the huge amount of replayability and immersion, when one of the perks of being a king is being able to customize that much, instead of basically doing the exact same thing like as lord. Given a realistic pricing of equipment and a good AI even historical authenticity would be guaranteed. Still you should keep in mind that never in history turkish horse archers, english heavy riders, celtic skirmishers and byzanthine cataphracts fought against eachother that geographically close and that warfare would probably have developed completely different if they had.
Last edited: