If only taleworlds choosed another timeline.

Users who are viewing this thread

htlaets

Which genius had the idea to settle bannerlord in this age? The "transition" age between antique and medieval is so boring, i also hated this time period in total war series, because it's "neither fish nor fowl" so to speak.
We neither have pike/spear formations, slingers, chariots, elephants of the antique, nor do we have full plated heavy knights of the high medieval age. Instead, we have this weird, muddled and mixed dark age fart.
The antique or renaissance/early modern era would have been a fresh breeze, especially in battle gameplay,
One can only hope that there will be a DLC soon which is settled in another age.
 
It's kind of true that the early medieval period lacks some of the cool-looking stuff of other time periods, but on the other hand it's a very underdone setting and I'm glad TW did something different to the same high mediaeval or sci-fi settings which make up 80% of all games out there.
Blunted is right, if you want something different just wait for mods, or get into modding yourself, as it's a bit late to complain now, they aren't going to rebuild their aesthetic from the ground up.

What would be more constructive is finding pictures of cool-looking things from this historical period that the artists could add. You might be surprised by what you find!

The early medieval period might not have, for example, the full body plate armour of the high period or the lorica segmentata of antiquity, but some visually impressive things were done with lamellar, and also cloth patterns, helmets, ornamentation on mail, and especially decorated shields. There's still some room for Bannerlord to expand on those things.

We neither have pike/spear formations
Actually the Byzantines did! The Menavliatoi used their weapons as pikes in the front row to repel cavalry charges, according to the Tactica.
Taleworlds just needs to change the menavlion from a weird swinging polearm to an actual pike, and make it braceable.
 
Last edited:
I think OP was going for an original thing to complain about as everything else was already done.
The choice of period and failworld's utter incompetence in seeing it through has been talked about quite a lot actually. Many including myself reasoned they should've stuck with the high to late period of roughly Warband's time with all its variety of choice and glamour. And then there are the Jacobins of the community who wanted something as radical as the pike and shot age (good luck with that). The migration period being an already vastly complex epoch in all aspects of itself makes it a difficult one to implement and given this studio's allergy to actually committing to any of its ambitions is it any wonder they botched it? We have ancient celts of the Republican period, schismatic claimants of Rome (?), a horrendous blend of everything stereotypically Turkic, Kievan Rus because.. why not, Normans who are just all over the place (no pun intended), and regular old Sassanids, I guess they ran out of creativity there or something. Good thing too because they're by far the most comprehensible faction from a historical point of view.
So either you do an ancient-medieval age of Barbarian invasions and fall of "the Empire" (they must've spent half the development time coming up with that name), an early to high period of schisms and recognisably medieval aspects, or my personal choice of the late period for reasons I shouldn't have to elaborate on. Whatever the **** they did here in bannerlord though, is not it.
Actually the Byzantines did!
The who?
 
If Taleworlds made decisions based on focus groups, we would have Vikings against shining knights in plate armor against samurai against Roman legionnaires.
The time period of Bannerlord is niche and I count that as a positive (I'm biased pro-Byzantine though, and so are Turks).
Maybe we could blame the inconsistencies in art design on lack of art direction and second thoughts about niche time periods, i.e. trying to cram in recognizable lore and gear to draw in more players, at the expense of anachronicity. Apart from lack of art direction, this is a reasonable compromise to make a game like Bannerlord.
 
Last edited:
If Taleworlds made decisions based on focus groups, we would have Vikings against shining knights in plate armor against samurai against Roman legionnaires.
FH_STD_Capsule_V2-1920x1080-600f70a9c129d67934f6747c3c5195787aa2553f.jpg
 
Nah, love the time period and its only way you can really get the sort of 'ultimate showdown of ultimate destiny' thing going on.

Granted, TW could have had some much better art direction. The stuff right now is all sorts of wack, but its too late to fix at this point.

The Eastern Romans who persisted beyond the Western Roman Empire's fall? They actually had pikes of a sort.

Actually the Byzantines did! The Menavliatoi used their weapons as pikes in the front row to repel cavalry charges, according to the Tactica.
Taleworlds just needs to change the menavlion from a weird swinging polearm to an actual pike, and make it braceable.
I think a longer menavlion already exists in game. Don't know if it can actually be braced though- all I know is that its long and just straight up weaker than the short one the elite menavliatons have.

Still, outright turning them all into pike would be a detrminent to their power lol.
 
Epic battles 1000 vs 1000 in the Late Medieval?
Those will come in mods. Different timelines are best suited for modding in the first place. Just look at Warband. If anything, when it comes to DLC I don't think that TW will release different timelines, rather more nations. However, that is just speculation.
 
I mean imho this timeline has been chosen because it fits to the game's engine which allows only small battles.
 
Genuinely don't talk about history, let alone talking about Rome, if you don't know who the Byzantines were.
I may just be in an argumentative mood but I'm compelled to ask who you think you are to permit me to speak on any topic? Never mind that, it's been clarified by the other fellow that he was in fact meaning to say Eastern Romans and not "Byzantines" - denizens of the ancient backwater town of pre-east-west-schism. In which case I take no issue with his original claim claim abouts pikes - in the case of Eastern Romans you'd be hard pressed to find an armament or tactic they didn't utilise at one point or another, a millennia is a long time.
Ofc there were exceptions, but most of the conflicts were much smaller than in the Late Medieval ages, more like clash of warbands
Depends what you'd consider "conflicts" I suppose but I'd say that by and large that's an inaccurate statement. Field battles themselves were likely an exception, and unless we're talking raid parties or feuding principalities, royal armies of tens of thousands aren't all that out of the norm. Field battles should happen less often, be larger in scale and more decisive in service of historical accuracy, and that of course is the opposite of what we currently have.
 
Never mind that, it's been clarified by the other fellow that he was in fact meaning to say Eastern Romans and not "Byzantines" - denizens of the ancient backwater town of pre-east-west-schism.
The Byzantines were the Eastern Romans. Anyone who knows the smallest amount of Roman history knows that name.
Good thing too because they're by far the most comprehensible faction from a historical point of view.
It doesn't really matter if they're not really comprehensible from a historical point of view. As long as they look as if they fit the same aesthetic, and have a similar level of technology as the other factions, they should work. Another thing adding onto this is that the nations need to look pretty different in terms of aesthetics, which Bannerlord does well.

While the game is advertised as a medieval RPG, it can take artistic liberty. It doesn't claim to be a 1 to 1 retelling of all tactics and cultures of the age, so it has some wiggle room with the factions. Making them all seem different is important. And, with this time setting, they can explore factions that really don't get as much love. The Byzantines, for example, are the inspiration for the Empire, and the Battanians get their own design. The Sturgians also get really nice armor as well. This setting doesn't get as much love in other pieces of art, and it is nice to see it in this game.

And I know the three Empire factions will be brought up in terms of looking different, and I can't disagree there. One of my issues with the game is that three factions are essentially the same.
 
The Byzantines were the Eastern Romans. Anyone who knows the smallest amount of Roman history knows that name.
Still odd to see you try and demean my knowledge of the facts when you know next to nothing of me. That being said, all there is to know about the word "Byzantines" in connection with the Romans is that it was a pejorative term fabricated by the German intelligentsia (doubtless you would have us call them Germany as well, but they were in fact called the Holy Roman Empire) to demote Eastern Roman Empire's claim on Rome's legacy thereby exalting their own. There hadn't been a Byzantium (which is a city that would later be named Constantinople in the 400s and become the seat of Roman emperors) for a thousand years by the time Eastern Rome was wiped off the map, not even mentioning the fact that the term "Byzantines" would become the dominant exonym centuries after the Ottoman takeover. Literally everyone called the Eastern Romans either Romans or Eastern Romans, including the Eastern Romans. It's an incorrect, misleading, even disrespectful and pejorative term that has no place in serious discussion. I rest my case.
 
Back
Top Bottom