Search results for query: *

  1. An Open Letter to TaleWorlds from the Kingdoms of Arda team, and the Total-Conversion Mod Community about our concerns and frustrations with Bannerlor

    Toally agree Cybersbe. The Kingdoms mod is unable to do anything past a few basic tools. People don't want to play an unfinished game, hence why the Bannerlord playerbase is tanking. If mods are able to be developed, it will surge the game's population and size/scope.
    Yeah... but mods CAN'T be reliably developed for an unfinished game. Being unfinished means updates. Updates break mods.

    Because of this, I just can't realistically see it as a good idea to develop modding tools until the vanilla problems are fixed. Once Bannerlord is a finished game, THEN we can worry about modding.
  2. An Open Letter to TaleWorlds from the Kingdoms of Arda team, and the Total-Conversion Mod Community about our concerns and frustrations with Bannerlor

    He is confused because you claimed that Warband was finished and then you later said "The previous M&B games released unfinished to fund the rest of the development".

    It's pretty obvious what I meant. The Warband we play today is the result of many, many patches. But when it was initially released, it was in an unfinished beta state.
    (In theory, Warrider isn't the oldest version of Mount&Blade but this aside) Warrider has nothing to do with Early Access or whatsoever. EA wasn't even a thing back then. Also, comparing a game made in 2004 with three people to a game developed by 100+ people in 2021 makes no sense.
    Lol. You think just because the official "Early Access" label didn't exist meant that devs couldn't release unfinished games and patch them later?

    Also, there's more factors to consider than just the number of people. The actual size and scope have to be considered too. The planned features make it obvious that TaleWorlds is trying to do things they simply couldn't do with what they had in Warband. Furthermore, consider the fact that Warband uses only 100 megabytes of data, whereas Bannerlord uses 60 gigabytes. It takes far more than just upscaled graphics to use up so much more memory.

    But that's besides the point. The overall point is that releasing products unfinished is nothing new for Taleworlds. And those who think otherwise are ignorant to the company's history.
  3. An Open Letter to TaleWorlds from the Kingdoms of Arda team, and the Total-Conversion Mod Community about our concerns and frustrations with Bannerlor

    nick-young-confused-face-300x256-nqlyaa.jpg
    Don't believe me?

    Take a look at Warrider, the earliest version of Mount and Blade:

  4. An Open Letter to TaleWorlds from the Kingdoms of Arda team, and the Total-Conversion Mod Community about our concerns and frustrations with Bannerlor

    With OG mount and blade great mods were abandoned over years as the game evolved. When you attempt to mod an incomplete game or ask an incomplete game to be complete, this is a problem. Its unfortunate Bannerlord isnt more easily mod-able it may become so in some years. Can plan and prepare make models and textures and scenes. But maybe now is not the time for more in depth modding since game, engine and tools are not complete.

    You're basically hitting the nail on the head here.

    I am really looking forward to Kingdoms of Arda, The Old World, and all those other mods in the works.

    But as much as I want to support them in these issues they're having... I just can't.

    The fact is that Bannerlord IS NOT FINISHED YET.

    All those great mods that exist for Warband? They were mods for a FINISHED GAME. A lot of people are claiming "Oh Taleworlds just released it under the early access label to veer off criticism and make excuses for a half-assed product, Warband was better". But I'm 90% convinced that people saying that are people who joined the fandom after Warband had already been out for a few years.

    Because this is not the first time Taleworlds has released an unfinished mess of a game. The previous M&B games were also released in incomplete states, with "Early Access" sales being used to fund the rest of development. If you are so anti-early access, then not only was it a mistake to buy Bannerlord, it was a mistake TaleWorlds at all. You should've boycotted them and rendered them bankrupt before Bannerlord could even reach a concept stage.

    But back to the main point... I have tried Bannerlord mods, but they almost always get rendered unusable due to updates. I can't in good conscience ask TaleWorlds to STOP updating (that would ACTUALLY make Bannerlord a half-assed cash grab rather than something Taleworlds wants to make into a good game), so I decided to just hold of on using mods until the early access phase is finished.

    TaleWorlds needs to fix the problems that the game has, and they can't do that without breaking mods. That's how development works. The code gets changed and thus the structure the modders were working on gets broken.

    Bear in mind, Bannerlord did not have official mod support at the start, and still doesn't have Steam Workshop. TaleWorlds stated that this was because they knew mods would have problems due to their continued development.

    All these arguments on how difficult modding the game is are serving to do, in my eyes, is prove that TALEWORLDS WAS RIGHT. Modding an Early Access IS something that just can't reliably be done.

    You're essentially asking TaleWorlds to abandon development of the game and hand everything over to you... but as far as I'm concerned, that would just retroactively prove the people who claimed Bannerlord was just a cash grab right.

    So, as someone who bought Bannerlord for mods, who is looking forward to mods, who has zero doubt whatsoever that the game will get better when modders have free reign...

    I'm against you all on this matter. Bannerlord needs to have it's vanilla problems fixed. TaleWorlds needs to solve THEIR problems before they can worry about YOUR problems.
  5. A Mod to Resurrect WarBand... but with Bannerlord's Engine?

    I'm pretty sure I once saw a mod on Nexus that had this basic idea. So I think it's safe to say there will definitely be a few "classic Calradia" mods that move the setting forward in time to the era of Warband, but with the mechanics and features introduced in Bannerlord.
  6. Why does executing "nobles" make one dishonest?

    Considering Medieval standards, it does make sense for you to be considered dishonorable for executing nobles.

    To me what doesn't make sense is why it doesn't happen anyway. As far as I can tell, the player is the only one who ever executes people.

    Bluko is absolutely right saying not everyone plays by the rules. NPC lords should occasionally execute others based on their honor score. (And/or the severity of personal grudges.)

    Of course, there's also the slight matter of how nobles could and did get executed for being deemed as threats. I can think of two ways to resolve this:

    1: When nobles get captured, it may be a decent idea to implement a system where they get put on trial to determine their sentence. It could play out similarly to the already implemented system for determining kingdom laws. One of the sentences can be execution. If a noble is executed this way, no one will lose honor.

    2: If the aforementioned implementation of NPC executions is done, then it may be a good idea for a noble to get a reputation if they make a habit of executing their enemies. If they have a reputation as an executioner, then it may be reasonable for anyone who kills THEM to be acknowledged as doing what they had to, and thus having no impact on honor. (Two caveats, tho: anyone who was friends with the executioner will still hold a grudge if you kill them. And the executioner reputation can be applied to the player as well. If you aren't careful, you may find YOURSELF on the chopping block!
  7. Not playing til the game is completed

    Mods are what make this game, it doesn't seem they were too reluctant as they supported mods quickly and focused mod tools over the base game. They need mods to make up for what they lack. It's a pretty common sentiment that TW isn't handling this well or coming off as very competent developers at the moment

    It is true that Taleworlds made this game with the intention of it being mod-friendly, and that there were mods from the start. However, they didn’t officially support it right away. The official mod tools were not released until several months later (likely because they need to ensure they worked properly). And they still haven’t given Steam Workshop support.

    On another note, I wonder how many people are aware that Warband was also an unfinished mess upon release, and needed additional updates after release (funded by early sales) to make it into the game we know today...
  8. Not playing til the game is completed

    "Until Taleworlds gets their act together"?

    That's... not really a good sentiment you've got here. If Taleworlds DIDN'T have their act together, they wouldn't be releasing patches at all. They would leave the game in an incomplete state forever (and effectively prove the people who claimed "this was a lazily made cash grab released under Early Access to ward off criticism!" right).

    Look, I get the frustration. I know I've been annoyed by the number of times I've had to redownload mods because of patches. But it's an unfinished game, which means regular updates. (In fact, as I recall, this is the entire reason TaleWorlds was reluctant to support modding right away, and still hasn't released Steam Workshop support.) They are doing their jobs as game developers. And if Taleworlds stopped updating the game, imo that would make them look worse as devs, not better.
  9. SP Fantasy Warsword Conquest - New Opening Post

    @shikaka

    Actually, the latest version is the Dungeons Edition.
  10. SP Fantasy Kingdoms of Arda (Lord of the Rings for Bannerlord)

    Hopefully WB won't complain.

    But if they do, that doesn't mean you'd have to abandon the mod entirely. Just modify a few things to make it an original setting.
  11. Can we have a debate about women without getting it locked?

    Since Bannelord is based around the political crises of succession in the Roman Empire, you'd expect that women would have a growing role in these unstable circumstances. I'd imagine that the political infighting between the clans would actually bring them up the social ladder purely due chance or necessity (i.e. your husband died, or you're an important family scrambling to secure influence and status during political transitions).
    I agree with the guy who suggested that the number of women involved should remain relatively high, but with sexism mechanics included, like in Warband. That would simulate a world where women from rich families have a chance to fight more actively in the interest of their clan, but still within a patriarchal world.
    That's probably the most realistic system. That said, I feel that when it comes to NPC Women, Warband effectively was just as unrealistic as Bannerlord, just in the other direction. (NPC women were marriage fodder or companions and THAT'S IT.) It should still be possible (if not easy) for Women to achieve power, with or without your help, even with the odds against them.

    On another note, some common attitudes:

    "Women warriors were not a thing!" True, women rarely fought in battle. When they achieved power, it was usually in other ways. However, I think it's often overlooked that nobles fighting in general was uncommon. Yes, they were expected to have martial ability. Yes, there are plenty of recorded instances of them fighting or being killed in battle. However, personal combat was generally something a leader in those times only engaged in as a last resort. Generally, they would hang back and direct their troops from the back line, instead of actively fighting on the front. I am pretty accepting of women in combat in this game for two reasons: one, frontline generals are in general more common in this game then they are, and were, in real life. Two, warriors or no, Women in power did exist in the real middle ages. With Mount and Blade's minimalistic system making it unlikely that a realistic system of women becoming powerful will be implemented, I'm inclined to go "oh well, what can you do?" In regards to them leading troops.

    On the other end of the spectrum: "I want Sword Sisters!" I'm actually accepting of there being no Sword Sisters in this game. By not having any type of common troops that are female in the game, Bannerlord does create another type of realism; by making the only women show up be nobles (who have the authority to command troops), and companions (who are twice as useful as the average soldier, which a historical woman generally would have to be to get on the battlefield).

    Some people have also claimed it makes no sense from a Lore standpoint for Calradia to be less sexist than Warband. But Lady Isolla's story informs you that Swadia had a history of Warrior Queens. This does provide basis for Vlandia (which is Swadia's predecessor) being more open. There's also Battania, which is based on the Celtic tribes. I'm no expert, but since Boudicca was Celtic, I'm willing to accept Battania (it also helps that they aren't around in Warband, so you can suggest they just had a different culture). As for the Khuzaits, I dunno how they get more sexist over time, but giving women more power (in a general sense, if not necessarily in the sense of having women warriors) makes them a MORE realistic representation of the Mongols they're based on. Historically, medieval Mongolia was one of the least sexist civilizations of the time.
  12. Female Lords mod

    You should consider actually reading his article. I'll give you a hint: the vast, overwhelming majority of these women never fought, and are not claimed to have fought.

    Some of them were heads of state during wartime (and "fought" the same way that Angela Merkel "fought in Iraq"), some of them had their castles besieged while they were inside of them. Some of them are believed by historians to be fictional characters. Some of them are listed as "warriors" because there were drawings of them riding horses and holding bows. One of them is listed as a "warrior" because she was buried with a knife.

    The overwhelming majority of them were never even physically on a battlefield. This really should be obvious to you, even without reading this article at all.
    I did read the article. And considering how Mount and Blade works, I still consider it a valid argument in favor of women in battle being more realistic than some people think. (Oh, and here's an expansion pack: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Crusades)

    Your arguments are creating a double standard. If you consider leading troops to be different than personally fighting, than you should call Mount and Blade unrealistic for having nobles regularly fighting on the front lines at all. Authority equals Asskicking was not a thing in real life. While male nobles WERE expected to have a degree of fighting ability, they generally didn't fight personally, usually they hung back and let their soldiers fight for them, directing them from the back line. Fighting personally was generally a last resort, not something they actively did all the time.

    Look, it's not like I don't see where you guys are coming from. I get it, the perfect equality Bannerlord has is not realistic. Women were less likely to lead armies than men historically. That said, the opposite extreme Warband had (where women were marriage fodder and that's it) was equally unrealistic. Ultimately, the idea of women participating in warfare, even in medieval times, was not COMPLETELY without merit.

    Between the historical liberties Bannerlord already takes for the sake of fun, the limitations of the political system making it unlikely that they could implement powerful women in a more historically realistic way, and other things, I just don't see why the way women are portrayed is anything worth getting your pants in a twist over.
  13. Female Lords mod

    Ok despite knowing better I'll pitch in on this: what I would like is to introduce non-warrior lords. These are lords that don't have a martial training and lack the courage required to partake in the hacking fests that battles are in this game. They can be of either sex. If they end up fighting for whatever circumstances, they tend to stay far from contact, and tend to flee if things get a bit rough.

    I would like fewer but extremely talented female warrior characters, to reflect the fact that only the most talented can successfully go against the norms in a medieval society.

    I would like a slightly different set up than above for non-warrior clan leaders: they are expected to and will lead armies, but tend to lead from the back and have a lower fleeing threshold then warrior clan leaders.

    Technically, there are already a few non-warrior nobles, who's talent trees largely consist of non-combat talents. Rhagaea is actually one of them. She still leads troops due to game mechanics, but it isn't her specialty.

    But an any rate, this IS probably the most realistic way to implement women. (In fact, it's one of the reasons I'm fine with there being no Sword Sisters, and the only women in combat being companions and various nobles. I interpret as the only women in battle are ones who either have the authority to command soldiers due to noble status, or had to be twice as tough as the average soldier to get anyone to take them seriously.)
  14. Female Lords mod

    You are not understanding: North American Indians are relevant to the point.

    Anthropological gender roles are consistent across 99% of human history. Patriarchal influence has nothing to do with gender discrimination, the vast majority of pre modern cultures were never gender role egalitarian. Again, I invite you to read about this. There is a reason why women fought little if ever, the tribe dies out without the next years birth cycle.

    I did read about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_post-classical_warfare

    Yes, pre modern cultures were not gender role egalitarian.

    However, this did not mean Women never set foot upon the battlefield. It just meant it was less common than men. (The most accurate answer would be "less than feminists like, but more than sexists think.")

    If there's anyone who's not reading, it's you. Women were less likely to get on the battlefield than men, but plenty of them still found ways.
  15. Female Lords mod

    There's not a single culture in North American Indians that had women filling the role of the warrior, none. I suggest you do so more reading about cultural anthropology. This is not a patriarchal phenomenon, it's a product of natural selection.

    This is based on Medieval Europe (and a bit of Asia). North American Indians are irrelevant.
  16. Female Lords mod

    "Medieval gender studies"

    lol.. this "academia" just gets funnier every year.

    Hollywood portrayals of Joan of Arc lead us to believe that she fought valiantly alongside the French soldiers, but Joan was actually just the person who held the banner as the soldiers fought. This is called history, you can get your masters in Medieval gender studies and it won't change that, although some would argue otherwise. 90% of this stuff is made up nonsense, modern sensibilities/ cultural Marxism. People did not view life as a quest for gender equality during the Middle Ages. This view is for people who do not read source material.

    Joan may not have personally fought or killed anyone (though she was wounded twice), but she was indeed considered a commander.

    And while it is true that the middle ages were not a quest for gender equality, women's roles were NOT limited to being slaves for the patriarchy, despite what some people think. Women could, and plenty did, become powerful in their own rights even with the deck stacked against them. It could depend on the views of the family they belonged to, but nonetheless they had options available.

    Granted, these women generally didn't become powerful through military prowess. However, with the fairly minimalistic political system of Mount and Blade, portraying a completely realistic portrayal of women power might be beyond what it's capable of. So I think allowing them to become military commanders is a fair compromise. (That said, take a look at the abilities of Bannerlord's female nobles. Not all of them have stats for combat. Oftentimes, they are the girls who wear civie clothes on the profile screen. The ladies who ARE good fighters wear armor on the profile screen.)
  17. Female Lords mod

    I played lots of woman characters in Warband never said "man, playing a woman is really hard!"

    Eh, I guess I haven't played enough of Warband to know for sure.

    Not in that ages, and not commanding armies. This is a kind of game mainly played by men, they don't have to be so woke fo find new audiences.

    You didn't read the article I linked, did ya? There were indeed female soldiers and even commanders in medieval times. Nowhere near as many men, but still.

    At any rate, Bannerlord's system, while unrealistic, isn't as unrealistic as you think it is. Furthermore, I see it as less a matter of being woke and more just prioritizing fun gameplay over realism. (Especially considering the new clan mechanics that make it quite likely players will have less control over their character's gender after the first generation.)
  18. Female Lords mod

    Playing a woman in Warband is easier, not harder.

    If you're going for a conquer the world playthrough, yes. If you're doing a vassal playthrough, lords gain opinion slowly due to medieval sexism, making your rise to the rank of Marshal slower.
  19. Female Lords mod

    It's a woke game, like Hollywood, and as we know Roman empire,Medieval kingdons, Mongol empire, and mainly the Muslim side had many women in command...

    It's true that women were rarely treated with the same respect that men got in medieval times.

    But there were a lot more women soldiers than you'd think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_post-classical_warfare
  20. Female Lords mod

    Women never led troops in combat in medieval Europe, there isn't actually any argument to be made for this other than "it's a videogame and we felt like it."

    Not true, actually. Joan of Arc says hi.

    Also, she was not the first woman to serve in the army or even serve as commander (a number of widows fought after their husbands died). Her youth was her claim to fame.

    Ultimately, while it is true that the sexism of the middle ages meant there were less women soldiers and commanders than men, they were far from nonexistent.

    So again, while it is true that Bannerlord's equality is unrealistic, Warband was sexist to the point of being equally unrealistic. Simply making it harder, but not impossible, for women (PCs and NPCs alike) to gain power in this game is what actual realism would look like.
Back
Top Bottom