Search results for query: *

adrakken said:

That is incorrect as the term is used by different historians for different reasons. It was the Dark Ages because of the Religious approach towards reason and learning which is why the end with the age of ENLIGHTENment. Then some use it because of the near complete LACK OF HISTORICAL records hence we are in the "dark" about events in that time period... lol...so about that "education" comment of yours...haha

Dark Ages (historiography) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Click to expand...

Read the last paragraph of the very article you linked.

Jhaerik said:

That is just arguing symantics though as some people clearly do still use the term. I and many others still prefer the term "the dark ages" to "early middle ages" and it's just as accurate as long as both parties know as to when you are referring. It's no different that referring to a soft drink as soda pop, soda, pop, or a soft drink. Different terms all referring to the same thing spoken by different circles. I'm sure in another 10-15 years they'll be calling it something else, as well as something else in 20-30 more. Regardless I think we both know what's being discussed here.

Click to expand...

I disagree, its not just "semantics".
Bad terminology leads to bad and sloppy thinking. Language is a tool that should be used with care and precision.
There's a reason why people who study this stuff for a living choose to use different terminology.

You're free to use an outdated laypersons term - that's entirely your business - but the insistence and defense of gives the impression that your entire attitude towards the period is laden with your own biased disinterest in it. Its fine to find some things more interesting than others, its the charade that this is somehow anything beyond personal fancy is silly.

In my industry, if you show up and use language we stopped used 30 years ago because "you know what I mean" I'm going to think you're sloppy and incompetent and liable to cause an accident. Thankfully, internet disagreements don't really have any tangible consequences when you're sloppy with them.

Zydrate said:

That wasn't really a criticism just expressing my thoughts on the choice of timeline. I still prefer a late medieval setting but it's okay if you don't, the devs have made their choice. Except they haven't made their research, apparently, in the gameplay and in artwork you constantly see leather armour, cloth swinging around for no apparent reason, you would expect to see pretty much everyone in mail armour, or the khuzaits more commonly in plated mail / scale, but it seems they are the exception and leather tunics dominate the battlefield now. Are there any gambesons even? Either there aren't or there is too little that I don't even remember. In any case, more brigandines, more (plated) mail, more gambesons, less thin cloth and leather, thank you very much.

I would still much rather have bascinets though...

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I do agree the inconsistency is a bit of a shame, and personally speaking, given the game isn't a historical simulator I wouldn't care if they mixed in a bit of plate and pike to try and hit more aesthetic preferences, since there isn't much historical accuracy to be preserved.

There's way less gambesons then there should be, and I would agree with you entirely that for the era, there could be better representation.

Jhaerik said:

I might be wrong but isn't this set even earlier than that? I'm not exactly a history buff but this seems more like some weird mash up of everything between the 6th and 11th centuries. That said I don't believe it was called "the dark ages" because it was particularly interesting...

Frankly I'd even prefer a game set in the middle of the height on Romes power around 100AD. At least it would feel unique to M&B and Warband. Bannerlord's setting just feels like a gimped version of those two titles.

Click to expand...

In once sense its set in the 1000's but in another sense its clearly including elements from a wider range of history. So arguably there's no "true" setting that maps onto our history.

I have to object though, in academe nobody uses the term "the dark ages" anymore and its a term that came out of ignorance of the era. I totally respect if you personally just don't find that era interesting, but pretending that its objectively boring is erring on the side of inserting your preferences as fact. There are certainly eras of history that for whatever reason don't excite me but I refrain from trying to assert that they're factually just uninteresting.

I do agree, though, that a M&B game set in the height of Romes power would be really fun & would be able to better utilize (some) of the concepts in BL, at the expense of sacrificing some others. I was always surprised of all the Warband total conversion mods nobody ever really managed to complete a solid singleplayer Rome mod.

Zydrate said:

My thoughts exactly. I would much prefer a mid-to-late medieval era M&B, with it's crossbowmen taking cover behind their pavise shields, mighty halberdiers at the gates, lines of pikemen ready to impale the enemy cavalry... all fascinating stuff but no, instead we get studded leather and cloth armor in a 11th century setting. I could not think of a more boring timeline.

Click to expand...

This is where y'all lose me. Its got diddle to do all the meaningful features. You can create a good game in pretty much any era of history.

You, and some other people like that period. I personally prefer this period. That's not a meaningful criticism. In Warband, people like me had to get our aesthetic fix from mods and DLC, this time around there will certainly be later-medieval mods (and probably DLC). You could also take lots of the good features from Viking Conquests and insert them a late medieval setting.

Personally speaking, if you want to criticize the lack of certain features, one shouldn't lump ones own aesthetic criticisms in the mold. That's where I hop off this train, as I'm really happy with the setting but unhappy with the ignoring of key M&B improvements.

adrakken said:

/THREAD

Click to expand...

I thought you believed in constructive posting?

Actions always speak louder than self report.

Similar story with VC. TW has a weird relationship with the people it hires to improve its game, they do a good job and get sales, M&B fans get accustomed to the improvements, and then they proceed to completely ignore all of it in the next iteration.

I often wonder if its driven by an ego WELL WE DIDN'T MAKE THESE CHANGES SO THEY ARE GHETTOIZED TO DLC ONLY type mentality.

kweassa said:

Except there's nothing realistic about gore and dismemberment. Literally, what we currently have is as real as it gets.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I'm not talking about fantastical gore, but I'm sorry I've worked on job sites where we use machinery less dangerous then the weaponry in this game and have seen fingers and hands go by-by. If you think nobody ever lost a hand or a finger in combat, even if not the most common wound by a long shot, I think you're generalizing and simplifying a very complex "thing" that happened.

I've seen, in real life, someone lose a finger to an axe. That's not a fantasy, that's reality.

What we have is basically blood splattering textures. That isn't "as real as it gets", not at all.

Is the mod on Nexus a good representation? No. Constant decapitations are silly. That's not what I asked for.

Do you think how Javelins are simulated in BL as as "real as it gets"? I've never seen one take one to the chest but I bet their chest doesnt just stain red a little bit in a random pattern.

kweassa said:

Appealing to the fantasies people have, can be a good selling point, yes. But as much, not appealing to fantasies and keeping it real, is also a good selling point. That's what this game is based on, and I don't see a reason to change that and start including fantasy depictions.

Click to expand...

I reject your premise.
Some gore is "fantastical" some gore is not.
I am not interested in fantastical gore.
I am interested in realistic gore.

Don't strawman my argument.

kweassa said:

Not when there's nothing to be really gained for putting in that extra effort. If the game starts appealing to one brand of fantasy, then what's to stop others? Dual wielding. Fantasy armors and weapons? Great sword bigger than a horse? Whirlwing attacks? Bikini armors. Magic? Dragons? Who gets the say in which fantasy should be allowed and which should not be?

It's simply not that kind of game.

Click to expand...

Okay, now this is just slippery-slope fallacy strawman city. You're not replying to anything I've said or implied and are jousting your own fantasy argument in this last bit.



I'm going to be blunt: You assumed a whole bunch of implications from my post.
If you want to argue this isn't a good use of Dev resources, or that the type of realistic dismemberment is really hard to model and just not feasible then yeah, you probably have a decent argument I'd respect, but believing Bannerlord is peak realism and accusing me of wanting dragons is a pretty **** response.

Realistic gore would be nice. The game would be greatly improved the more battles move from uncanny valley robotic bot-beep-boop tincan men to feeling like a struggle of life and death between individuals. Realistic gore with rare dismemberment would be a one piece of that pie.

Literally every game in the universe basically lets you turn this stuff off if it is off-putting to you, and that always should be case because player choice about their experience is good.

MauledByABeer said:

This editor works pretty well already so I don't know if I would want it to be a high priority but it would be nice to have some more customizability without having to tab out of the game and go to a website.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not noticing any pixelation using banners from this editor. Its become pretty popular, if you look on Reddit pretty much everyone uses it.

Which is why TW should wake up and just add this feature to the base game, add in more symbols, its super low hanging fruit that would impress us all.

andycott said:

In my case 16 GB and SSD won't make any difference. In your case it can possibly be a solution.

Click to expand...

So just to clarify: An HDD is a hard-disk. HDD stands for "Hard Drive Disk". SSD stands for Solid State Disk, I'm not sure if you made a typo in your post and I'm being patronizing but I thought I'd clarify just in case.

Not to be argumentive, but if you solved your issue with a defrag, then I'd say likely an SSD would undeniably make a big difference. Also RAM usage is related to HDD's/SSD's in the sense that if your on 8gigs of RAM, your computer is going to try and run virtual memory off your HDD/SSD to compensate since 8gigs isn't enough. Off an HDD this process is going to be way, way, way clunkier and induce game stuttering at any settings. Both increasing your RAM and converting to an SSD addresses this issue, which it sounds like you're having.

I'm not trying to tell you how to spend your money, though, but I am a big advocate that upgrading to an SSD & 16gigs ram is one of the best bang-for-your-buck upgrades out there.

Get an SSD and make sure you have 16gigs ram before committing to more expensive upgrades. So many issues are from HDD's and RAM but people get fixated on CPU's and GPU's.

To put it this way; For very little money you can upgrade RAM & an SSD and experience performance improvements across the board when using your computer for more mundane stuff. If you drop a ton of money on a new GPU/CPU, you'll rarely utilize its max capacities, and if you run them off a system with an HDD and limited RAM you'll never be able to effectively utilize them because something else is going to bottleneck first.

After getting a chance to test BL on a few different machines, I can run the game smoothly with pretty "meh" CPU's and GPU's, and the settings allow me to tweak things within range of their capacity. Anytime I'm on an HDD or limited RAM there is at least some unavoidable stuttering that no setting adjustments impact at all.

Tutui said:

Looks nice.
Maybe promote a veteran to a companion too...

Click to expand...

That would be so much fun, actually. Imagine say you have a T6 unit that's been with your army for a while, like a Bannerknight, Beserker, whatever, maybe you could pay a nice hefty sum of gold to "companionize" them. Its a singleplayer game so things don't need perfect balance, but I think if you made it take a while & cost a pretty penny it'd be limited enough.

I like features in M&B that enhance the natural/organic/emergent story-creation of the game.

Maneuverer said:

Not really, most old eastern-european principalities were truly influenced by Northeners or were ruled by Norsemen kings. I am fine with the Norse influence through Sturgia as a faction. Point I am trying to make is the Norse round shield were not used on by cavalry, they are extremely difficult to hold on horseback. I do not think it's appropriate to change a historically accurate aspect of the game that does not affect game mechanics to just please "muh vikings" crowd.

Click to expand...

I agree with you in terms of history (and well everything in this thread in terms of shields). I don't object to the idea of a Nordic-influenced Russian faction at all. Just, speaking personally from perspective, the way its been handled in BL doesn't seem very thought out. It really feels like TW went neurotic with it, when compared to say the lore of a faction like the Aserai which feels consistent in whats been attempted. That's not really neither here nor there in regards to anything.

People like you who make threads like this boggle my mind.

TW is capable of its own decision making process.

Do you think the Dev's boot up the forums in the morning and go "WHELP SMATTLEPATTLE WANTS A WOUND SYSTEM, GUESS THATS WHAT IM WORKING ON TODAY!"

You realize they have a suggestion subforum right?

What do you think you are accomplishing here?

The whole point of Early Access is to solicit community input on the game that they had the faith to pay for in an incomplete state.

There is NEVER, EVER, EVER a reason to end discussion. People are adults - they can tune in and out as discussion suits them. Censoring people out of insecurity is just so mind-boggling stupid, even in something as trivial as a video game forum.

I don't have an issue with fast moving bandits. Why do you need to chase down every party? If you want to hunt mounted bandits, because say they're near your holding, slap some men in a garrison and take 20 soldiers/companions on horseback.

I'd rather not have this game nerfed into a covid-quarantime simulator where we all stay at home in our sweatpants.

Androme1 said:

Well, that citation is fanmade and not official. It makes it sound like the Sturgian culture sprang out of initiative by the in-game Nords, which is not the case. The role of the Nords in the foundation of the Sturgian principality is as mercenaries, mirroring the use of norse mercenaries in the foundation of Kievan Rus, which the faction is inspired of.

Click to expand...

That citation isn't really claiming anything, its as vague as the devblogs are. Its not like the lore of this game is particularly fleshed out and well established. It was just a link to show the earlier poster that I was replying to no, Sturgians are not a pure Danish/Norweigan inspired faction. That's it.

If you read the official devblog, its not like TW has some master world building narrative, they're just trying to appease people by making a fun gameplay faction and then post-hoc justify it. None of this fleshes out in gameplay, its not like you recruit Nordic mercs & Russian villagers, its pretty vague backstory. The lore is inconsistent from Warband to Bannerlord for obvious gameplay reasons. To be frank, one can reasonably speculate, the only reason the Sturgians are Nordic influenced at all is because people would throw a hissy fit if they couldn't emulate vikings.

Askorti said:

I don't have a problem with veteran units being recruitable from villages. It just means that the guy I'm recruiting used to be a soldier before he settled down in that village, and now I'm just pressing him to service once more. It's not like 100% of people living in cities or villages have never been to war.

Click to expand...

I mean, fair enough, I don't really have an issue with that either, but that's not really my point here.

LordNeuro*Srb said:

Thx for replay. Went on page and read about the mod , problems instaling and running the mod. I use vortex, but it need fixed louncher, and mod lib wich is not updated and not working on beta.

Damn looks like there in no easy fix for it, and didnt know about age problem for marriage until no women talking with me about it.

Well i hope sombady will make a mod soly for it and not to affect sva games.

S!.

Click to expand...

ModLib is compatible with beta, it won't crash the game. I have it on my load order. Double check to see if the author put out a beta specific fix.
I used fixed launcher & the mod runs fine. I personally find Vortex is just a hassle and its easier to manage things manually.

Meraun said:

Is it? Source? i fought its more Dane and Norway inspired!

Click to expand...

Everyone being titled "Boyar" should be a big hint.

But, to clarify: https://mountandblade.fandom.com/wiki/Sturgia

"The principality's history began when Nordic traders and adventurers migrated from the northeast territories seeking land and wealth, and eventually formed diplomatic and marriage alliances with the native tribes of the Sturgian region, merging the two cultures together into something new, with a violent, warlike but also mercantile mentality. "

Its a mash up of the both. The idea is arguably to hark back to the intermix of the two. Its not a bad idea but way more people are into Vikings then Russians so it gets handled awkwardly.

I'm... I'm just not attracted to you.