Slartibartfast的最近内容

Sir Devlyn 说:

A little Raven meets the Court Jester.  It was the whole Vassal with the Village that got me going. 

点击展开...

Good old Danny Kaye. One of my favourite films. Thanks for the link. 

ronamjack 说:

I just wondered if it's possible to give equipment that I've gathered up to my 'normal' soldiers (who aren't characters) rather than just letting them get massacred armoured in cloth while I've got several fine chainmail hauberks in the baggage...

点击展开...

Apparantly so - although I've not tried this myself yet. http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,51962.0.html

Duker 说:

Lord Kinlar 说:

Calradians had never seen a horse before, until Duker came up on his white courser. 

点击展开...

Exactly! ....... plus it's fun to just murder everyone.  I was getting a bit tired of chasing other mounted guys around, it took too long.  And it's fun commanding everyone on a horse, and then if they look like they need a hand you just rush on in.

点击展开...

You could mod it so that no-one else had a sword either and then it would truly be Mount and Blade (both singular).

Or just mod it so there are no troops at all. Job done. No need to chase anyone at all then.

Once you're sworn vassalage to a king you get the option to request each town/castle you conquer be given to you. Quite often the king will give it to someone else - at which point you can either accept the decision and hope he give you the next one or renege on your oath and keep the town.

sirinan 说:

Has to be a record - wildly enthusiastic to thoroughly disillusioned within a day.

点击展开...

"I have something to say. It's better to burn out than to fade away".

Josshill 说:

Thanks! Also, I had a quest to get 6 Vaiger Horsemen. Can you tell me what to upgrade them to after Footmen?

点击展开...

All the faction troop trees are on the wiki  - see http://strategywiki.org/wiki/Mount%26Blade/Vaegirs for the Vaegir tree.

Eogan 说:

The thing that really bugs me about M&B is that the head & neck don't line up with the naked torso at all, especially if you're holding a 2-hander.  Especially since about the only time you notice is at the beginning of the game in the Training grounds, I think it's a serious flaw.

Really, the big problems with M&B graphics have a lot more to do with awkward-looking animations than with textures or models (although some of those need work).  All in all, I don't think 'dated' is the word.  Previous generations of graphics simply could not match M&B.  It's really just a matter of M&B looking like the initial groundwork was layed by an amateur couple who had never really done that kind of project before.

点击展开...

I think you're right; dated is the wrong word. When I first statred playing the game it looked very amateurish (the turtorial and early game). And I don't really have any experience of the latest crop of 3D games. Guild Wars is about the most up to date I'm used to. What I did notice, however, is that a lot of the models in M&B look ugly or awkward. However, once you get into it some the beauty starts to come out. Its almost like more work has been put into the higher level armours and the sky textures which you don't really notice when you start playing. And the naked torso bit on the training ground bugs me too - the neck line and when you swing the area where the arms join the torso just look wrong.

Sparkz 说:

gotta admit after a further 10 hours of playing... this game is uninstalled...

im just soo fuming at the game... blown about 50 hours+ time playing it in just 4 days... and i do actually hate it now

in fact im a hardcore gamer but where theres no rewards i do give in.... after all that time playing, hours iv stayed up too late and nearly fallen asleep at work, times i have missed doing other things to play it... and for what? control of 1 small castle and a village...

点击展开...

The best games aren't the ones that are easy - the best games are the ones that you have to fight to solve. If you could take over the whole map in less that four days playing then most people would play it once or twice and never come back. Try a different approach and you'll find you have more success. But each to his own I guess...

Shaddam 说:

I suppose what I like more about mount and blade than say the Total War games is that it allows your troops to fight without you commanding their every move, and puts me in the battle as one of them. I also enjoy the way I am part of the fighting, battles are something that I enjoy, rather than something that just drags the game out. I found that with the Total War games, while the battles were pretty, I quickly grew tired of them, and just started automatically resolving the battles, in effect making it a rather poor version of civ. This was around the time I started losing interest in that game

点击展开...

It's interesting how people differ. I hated MTW because it caused me to spend too much time on the strategic map commanding every singel move of non-military units I had no interest in but loved the battles. Civ I never got into because I found the way it forces you to cycle through your units, bouncing round the map highly distracting to the formation of any grand strategy.

But I agree - the strength of M&B is the way that you can get right in amoung your troops and trust them (to an extent) to fight effectively round you.

Shaddam 说:

If they are going to work on Mount and Blade 2, should there be a place to discuss features that the community would like to see in the game?

点击展开...

Well; given the amount of community involvement in the first game and the feedback they got through these forums, if they were to develop M&B 2  the answer to that is probably yes (but they've already got a pretty good idea of what people might think).

Shaddam 说:

I agree with all of these. There are also possibly other ideas out there that are great ideas. I have enjoyed many games such as, Civ 4, Age of Empires 2, Total War 2, Stronghold 2, The settlers, Oblivion, Morrowind, the sims, and others. With the current framework laid down with Mount and Blade and with additional work all the best game play elements of my favorite games could come together.

I feel like Mount & Blade is the first step in that kind of a game. One that is not an RPG, not an RTS, not a base sim game, but all, and does it well in both the single player mode and multiplayer mode.

点击展开...

When Shogun Total War first came out that was pretty much what I thought too. It was the first game to combine a turn-based economic and strategy type wargame with a real time tactical combat engine and with sufficient finesse to make you feel like you were controlling a well-drilled army rather than the undisciplined rabble that was norm for all the copycat RTS engines of the day. Sadly few other developers seem to have picked up on the strengths of TW, and the TW series itself seems to have gone down an approach of increasing the complexity of the strategic map without giving the player adequate tools to cope with the inevitable micromanagement. It remains to be seen if they fix this in Empire. Mind you, Rome TW was still a total blast to play.

But, that said, we are much closer to having all the elements of the 'perfect wargame' in place now than ever. It just needs a project of sufficient vision, drive (and lets face it funding!) to make it happen. A game which has a decent economic and grand strategy element without that taking up so much of your time that you never get to fight, has the ability to field and control large armies - avoiding the twin RTS bugbears of them either dissolving unnecessarily into undisciplined rabble and getting themselves killed or standing around vacantly while their neighbouring units get slaughtered - and still allows you to get right down in amongst your troops and feel like you're part of the action. Oh well. We can dream. Sticking a decent strategic level on top of M&Bs tactical excellence would be a good first step. The other glaring problem which needs a solution is how to adequately simulate much larger armies than can be effectively rendered by the 3D engine - because the 'reinforcements that spawn at a fixed point on the battlefield' which both TW and M&B subscribe to is far from ideal.

Mage246 说:

I wonder what it's like on the other side of Earth. Are they all evil on that side? Horrible mutants, rendered blind and albino by the lack of sunlight? Inquiring minds wants to know.

点击展开...

I think they all died when the atmosphere froze.

Having a dungeon is pretty handy too as a place to keep enemy Lords.

WrathofWoe 说:

2. I've seen posts speaking about equipping your troops, how do you do this? I'd like to give some of my soldiers different shields, mostly so that I can get them to use the same one, this goes for weapons as well. (Answered by Lord Shields)

( The NPC's can be equipped with custom gear (that's been mentioned to you already) but there is a thread somewhere around here that allows you to change the code and equip your entire army. You can change the gear but will lose that gear if they are upgraded, or if you lose those troops. Search around for the thread.)

点击展开...

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,51962.0.html - is the thread with the tweak to equip troops like NPCs

WrathofWoe 说:

6. Are ransom requests totally random? Sometimes they offer my 7000 and then later on when I capture the same lord again ( I have capture rate changed to 40%) they only offer 2000. Is there any way to make sure that I get more? Why are they only giving me 2700 for there king?

点击展开...

I beleive if you refuse the first offer the next one will be higher - but you will lose honour.

animematt 说:

I personally dont have many archers, but since I am now seiging, they may be useful.
I also might suggest keeping some infantry around them to act as guards.
Now that I have a good source for archers, I may use them more.

点击展开...

For my latest character I've tried an archer only party. Just using Vaegir Marksmen and bow equipped NPCs. I haven't got to seiging yet but I have been surprised by how devastating they can be without backup. Certainly fun, anyway.

Bellum 说:

I'm sure they've got plenty of impossible to understand mathematical calculations to back everything up. They're scientists. Impossible to understand math is their forte.

点击展开...

I think that the point in this case is that not only do they have the math (which in the case of gravity is actually not quite so impossible to understand on the scale of things - much more accessible than quantum physics!) but they have a lot of observational data too.

So what the article actually demonstrates is that although the theory has existed for ages, this particular group of scientists have now done a shedload of observations, compared the observations with the theory and come up with a good enough match to proclaim that as 'confirmation'.

Of course the theory could still be flawed since gravity math which works well enough predicting the motions of bodies in our solar system gives predictions which aren't even close for other galaxies, hence the whole 'dark matter' fudge factor.