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
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.
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...
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.
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.
Except there's nothing realistic about gore and dismemberment. Literally, what we currently have is as real as it gets.
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.
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.
In my case 16 GB and SSD won't make any difference. In your case it can possibly be a solution.
Maybe promote a veteran to a companion too...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Is it? Source? i fought its more Dane and Norway inspired!