Recent content by Xiphos

foxyman said:

olliewilliams01 said:

...dang. ok thanks. are there any other mods out that use this?

Click to expand...

The Ranger's Apprentice by Earl of Swadia is using this. It's out already.
Men of Steel by MISHO is using this. Also out.
Hari Ragat: medieval SE Asian mod by dariel. WIP.
Avarice of the Exiled by Arch3r. WIP.

Click to expand...

Nice list . . . now we just need to proselyte this out to Prophesy of Pendor, Sword of Damocles, etc . . .

I don't think they're necessary.  I agree that the idea of very light cavalry would make appropriate skirmishers to blunt the force on the main line - but the current AI wouldn't use them that way.  It would probably use them to chase around other (heavier) cavalry, which would otherwise be more likely to find themselves jammed up in the Rhodok spear-mob.

The player could use them more effectively - but if you're playing Rhodok, you have the option of recruiting any of your own cavalry for that purpose.  That, or use your own horse and break up the mob yourself.

I find it ironic that he ended the article with interest in how Taleworlds would have done with an Oblivion-sized budget.  I own Oblivion - I bought it as soon as it came out.  That was also about the time that I caught wind of M&B.  I never finished Oblivion - and I've never stopped playing M&B.  I find Oblivion to be far more bland than M&B - every battle feels exactly the same to me.  There's no strategy, no maneuvering, nothing all that exciting.  That, and the sigil-stone quests in there were incredibly monotonous.

If you're looking at the game graphically then yes, Oblivion is definitely the better game.  Depth, level of control, and more uncertainty make M&B my preference, though.

That said . . . I would love to see how M&B would look with an Oblivion budget . . .

the_shifty said:

Bike jousting. That's something I've always wanted to try. So no one's going to drink a toast in celebration? 

Click to expand...

I prefer to eat toast . . . but I do that every morning.  Maybe, for an event as special as M&B v1.0 . . .

What I love about this is that the OP expresses his frustration at a very difficult situation, and the rest of the thread is people expressing jealousy at the epic battle to come. 

Mountainsides are typically very hilly.

As to foothills/mountainsides - I'd much rather fight in foothills than to strain up a sheer mountainside.  These things aren't always gentle slopes, you know (again, dependent on the composition, age, and origin).  I've driven heavy trucks up mountain passes, and have to hairpin zig-zag all the way up and down (and the way down, if you don't use gears properly, will eat up your brakes in no time).  Fighting nearer the bottom is much more fun anyways - there's more room for everyone to maneuver.

If anything - as Gravitor said - the terrain is too forgiving.  Cavalry especially should not be able to climb the stone-colored, steep-angled slopes.

Some graphical indication of the unit type you have selected in battle without going to the "Backspace" strategy map.  Something small and simple, running up the bottom right corner above the health bar.  Maybe a sword, bow, and horse that has a border around it when the unit is selected.  Would work the same for "5" - selecting more than one.

I linked to those pictures because they're places around where I live that demonstrate that mountain ranges can be rocky.  Again, how rocky/smooth mountains and terrain around them are depends entirely upon the age, composition, and origin of the mountains in question - but rocky mountains are not unrealistic.  "Everyday" I wake up and see my mountains, which are very rocky.  There's really no such thing as "normal" mountain ranges - there are different types all over.  That pic you showed looks not quite as bad as one I linked to, which shows people standing on a little peak off the side of a mountain.

The city I live in sits alongside a mountain range on one side, and plains on the other.  The city is built around hills and ridges similar to ones we see in the game.  I wish it wasn't - I cycle to work!

I tried again to chase some mountain bandits into the mountains for a skirmish:



For some reason, they wouldn't go any higher - I chased 'em back and forth, but this is as high up the mountain as they would go.




Start of the battle - my men spawned in a snug little valley between two slopes.




Mounted mountain bandits came from the other side of this hill . . .




The battle's nearly over - this pic looks like one of the ones I posted earlier.




We won (no losses - had to gloat a little there), and I went up to the peak in the last pic to look out over the battlefield.  This does not at all look extreme.  It looks like one of the valleys between mountains here at home.

Finally, here's a link to a pic of a mountain a couple of hours from here - even the bottom half of the mountain is rocky, with steep slopes everywhere:

http://outdoors.coloradosprings.com/traildetails.php?id=92#

@Mr. Colada
I was the one with the specific examples from here in Colorado - and they're quite common on this mountain range, at least (the largest in North America).  Sure it doesn't take place in Colorado - it takes place in an imaginary world dreamed up by Armagan . . . so why are we having this "realistic/unrealistic" argument about a work of fiction?  My point is that the mountainous region is not unrealistic - there are plenty of examples in my backyard.

This whole thing is a matter of opinion - do you think the game pics I posted are extreme?  I don't.

Carolus, you're really making this debate more personal than it needs to be.  Relax.  It's not about him, and it's not about you.

I guess I'll go back to my claim that it is a matter of opinion.  I haven't seen any unrealistic terrain, and so would ask to see screens of such as well.  To be honest - with the variety of landscape on the planet, I think someone would be hard-pressed to find landscape in the game that is not at all similar to something we could find here.  Look up Garden of the Gods in Colorado for an example of rough, jagged, out-of-nowhere type rock formations.  My only concern with the game is that a horse would likely be allowed up one of those . . . but that's treating extremely rough terrain as passable, which seems opposite to the issue at hand.

I thought parts of it were a little too much.  The sword twirl was interesting the first few times, but got old really fast.  It would look cool every time if it only happened after some crazy cool combat (ok, *twirl*, on to the next one) - but I can't see that ever happening.  The overhead chop did seem to start way too far back, too - almost as though you're curling the weapon around your back.

Good work and great concepts, though.  I couldn't do it.

spectre: said:

How about doing this the other way around, telling your RPCs to fetch food from a nearby vilage?

Click to expand...

I think I'd prefer this - then you get to stay with your men in the event the enemy sallies or reinforcements arrive.  More use for the Trade and Looting skills, I'd imagine.

Love it (and the idea of new M&B art)!  Gives additional options for both attackers and defenders.  Beautiful.  I'd also like, if I'm the only one besieging a castle, to be able to garrison troops there to maintain the siege while I go run for some food quick-like.

I've thought the same thing.  I go a couple of days without playing, load up, and think to myself, "Ok, so what was I doing?"  I also set goals or plans when leveling up either the PC or NPC's, and then forget what the plan was the next time I get to add skills/attributes.  So notes would be useful even then.  It would be great to have this feature.

So I'm going to reply to this and tell you I just sought out four consecutive battles in two mountainous locations, and that I never once saw a camel, humps, or pimples.  Then I'll say everything I saw looked completely natural, and mimicked landscapes I've seen exist in the natural world.  Then you'll say "No it's freaking not," and I'll return with "Yes it freaking is," and you'll retort "No it's freaking not" . . . and we'll both have convinced each other of nothing.  Sounds subjective to me.

Avoiding the area is not a fix, nor a workaround - from what many have said here, it's historical.  Fighting in mountains is meant to be difficult and completely different from fighting in hills or on plains.

The point does not stand - in fact, there hasn't been any defense of the point for a few pages.

If the pics above don't show that the terrain is "natural looking," I would submit that the interpretation of what is "natural" is very subjective, and then none but the developers have the right to demand any specific type of form or landscape.