Bad Reviews for WFAS

[Archonsod]

What is there to nail down exactly? From what I've experienced the combat in WFAS is the same as Warband except everyone is wearing funny hats, and there are guns, both of which I can easily obtain in Warband with 0.5 seconds of messing with a text file.

The obsolescence of melee infantry and the specialisation of cavalry. Simply adding guns to Warband achieves neither.

 

[GenericSoldierX]

What is there to nail down exactly? From what I've experienced the combat in WFAS is the same as Warband except everyone is wearing funny hats, and there are guns, both of which I can easily obtain in Warband with 0.5 seconds of messing with a text file.

The obsolescence of melee infantry and the specialisation of cavalry. Simply adding guns to Warband achieves neither.

Those already exist, I take it you played exclusively as part of the nords, on foot, at 20% difficulty in MB?

Melee infantry is 100% useless in Warband, cavalry runs them over like nothing and they're even effective in sieges as well, I can take over all of calradia with an army of swadian knights/men at arms easily, same thing with khergits or any other cavalry-centric armies, infantry is basically useless in every MB game, WFAS just adds guns to the mix and further destroys what little was left of melee infantry.

 

[PANTERA.]

Blah blah blah Derpity derp derp.

Why are you in the F&S section again?

 

[GenericSoldierX]

Blah blah blah Derpity derp derp.

Why are you in the F&S section again?

To express my opinion, why are you here? Other than to derail the thread and flame me?

 

[Chappiest]

 

[PANTERA.]

I think everyone got an idea of your opinion in the last like 10 post of bashing.

We get it.

I think you did a pretty good job of derailing it yourself.

Good day sir.

 

[Archonsod]

Those already exist, I take it you played exclusively as part of the nords, on foot, at 20% difficulty in MB?

No, can't stand the Nords. Always went with Swadia or the Sarranids.

Melee infantry is 100% useless in Warband

Learn2play.

 

[GenericSoldierX]

Those already exist, I take it you played exclusively as part of the nords, on foot, at 20% difficulty in MB?

No, can't stand the Nords. Always went with Swadia or the Sarranids.

Melee infantry is 100% useless in Warband

Learn2play.

Ah yes, selective reading, the most basic form of trolling, we have dismissed that claim.

Melee infantry is 100% useless in Warband, cavalry runs them over like nothing and they're even effective in sieges as well, I can take over all of calradia with an army of swadian knights/men at arms easily.

 

[PANTERA.]

Oh man, you guys smell that???


Smells like...irony.

 

[caddux]

Melee infantry is 100% useless in Warband, cavalry runs them over like nothing and they're even effective in sieges as well, I can take over all of calradia with an army of swadian knights/men at arms easily.

Congratulations for making it the easiest way. I took Calradia a couple of times with my mixed army of cavalry, archers and infantry, on 100% dificult. And it's a lot more fun than doing the "only cavalry" way. You should try sometime if your narrowmind permits it.

 

[Archonsod]

Ah yes, selective reading, the most basic form of trolling, we have dismissed that claim.

You being able to take over Calradia with cavalry is what we call anecdote, not evidence. I submit that it's just as easy to conquer it with Huscarls, or for that matter Rhodock spearmen. It's not a hard game.

On the other hand, most of the time I play online it's always infantry players who tend to top the scoreboards, not cavalry or archers.

Smells like...irony.

Distinct whiff of retard if you ask me.

 

[GenericSoldierX]

Congratulations for making it the easiest way. I took Calradia a couple of times with my mixed army of cavalry, archers and infantry, on 100% difficult. And it's a lot more fun than doing the "only cavalry" way. You should try sometime if your narrowmind permits it.

Yeah sure, I'm narrow minded because I play the game the way I enjoy, some people enjoy faster-paced gameplay (like me), other people enjoy slower-paced gameplay (like Archonsod?), and you (and I'm sure others) enjoy everything combined together, stop complaining about how people play video games.

Also, there's archer cavalry in the game too, you're not limited to melee combat while using a horse.

You being able to take over Calradia with cavalry is what we call anecdote, not evidence. I submit that it's just as easy to conquer it with Huscarls, or for that matter Rhodock spearmen. It's not a hard game.

On the other hand, most of the time I play online it's always infantry players who tend to top the scoreboards, not cavalry or archers.

Yes, you can take over everything with huscarls or spearmen, but cavalry can do everything they can do, while being significantly faster and doing more damage (in the form of lances and the speed damage increase), the game was designed around cavalry anyway (Mount & Blade), we weren't talking about difficulty, it's about wither or not infantry is obsolete, and they are.

And online is online, the maps are usually designed around infantry, not cavalry, so obviously they're going to work better there.

 

[Archonsod]

The only maps designed around infantry would be the siege maps.

 

[GenericSoldierX]

The only maps designed around infantry would be the siege maps.

You know what, I'm just gonna leave, you keep ignoring large parts of my posts, Bye.

Write this up as another one of your trolling successes.

 

[nox]

Melee infantry are not at all useless - they have the best shields and the best melee skills.  In perfect hybrid field armies they are the skirmish walls that prevent enemy cav from disrupting my ranged units.

They are a good forward line to lay out to soak up missiles, and nothing stands against them toe to toe 1 on 1.

Cav are more utilitarian, but one on one the elite infantry is going to have an edge over your elite cav.

if anything, this game is much more forgiving about ranged units because they carry secondary weapons, which in the period they did NOT.  If a musketman got rushed, he could beat someone over the head with his musket.  He didn't have a fine sword hanging by his side to draw.

To really reflect the period, ranged units need to lose their backup weapons and cavalry needs to be significantly more expensive.  Horses really were and are a precious commodity because they have to be raised, trained and the men who ride them are paired with them.  It's a bigger cost than you would probably imagine.

To be fair though, horses were like nuclear bombs in melee combat - a factor that few games, and mount and blade in particular have never really done justice to.  A 1600 lb horse trained to kick you and trample you  - running at you foaming at the mouth mounted by a guy with heavy steel armor... well, plenty of well trained armies actually broke and ran before the cavalry even got to them.

 

[TatteredBanners]

What is there to nail down exactly? From what I've experienced the combat in WFAS is the same as Warband except everyone is wearing funny hats, and there are guns, both of which I can easily obtain in Warband with 0.5 seconds of messing with a text file.

The obsolescence of melee infantry and the specialisation of cavalry. Simply adding guns to Warband achieves neither.

Those already exist, I take it you played exclusively as part of the nords, on foot, at 20% difficulty in MB?

Melee infantry is 100% useless in Warband, cavalry runs them over like nothing and they're even effective in sieges as well, I can take over all of calradia with an army of swadian knights/men at arms easily, same thing with khergits or any other cavalry-centric armies, infantry is basically useless in every MB game, WFAS just adds guns to the mix and further destroys what little was left of melee infantry.

That's because of terrible AI. I can take an army of Nord Warriors + and annihilate a calvary force on like 140% difficulty settings. I remember in Warband having an Army of like 77 soldiers, like 47 Huscarls and 30 Nord Archers and I managed to hold off 3 Swadian Lords I think combine they had about 200+ with about 40+ cav all together.

I didn't win that battle but I did manage to deplete nearly their entire force before a stray arrow knocked me out.

It's all about commanding your troops properly and using terrain. With that in mind Huscarls destroy cavalry.

 

[GenericSoldierX]

Melee infantry are not at all useless - they have the best shields and the best melee skills.  In perfect hybrid field armies they are the skirmish walls that prevent enemy cav from disrupting my ranged units.

They are a good forward line to lay out to soak up missiles, and nothing stands against them toe to toe 1 on 1.

Cav are more utilitarian, but one on one the elite infantry is going to have an edge over your elite cav.

if anything, this game is much more forgiving about ranged units because they carry secondary weapons, which in the period they did NOT.  If a musketman got rushed, he could beat someone over the head with his musket.  He didn't have a fine sword hanging by his side to draw.

To really reflect the period, ranged units need to lose their backup weapons and cavalry needs to be significantly more expensive.  Horses really were and are a precious commodity because they have to be raised, trained and the men who ride them are paired with them.  It's a bigger cost than you would probably imagine.

To be fair though, horses were like nuclear bombs in melee combat - a factor that few games, and mount and blade in particular have never really done justice to.  A 1600 lb horse trained to kick you and trample you  - running at you foaming at the mouth mounted by a guy with heavy steel armor... well, plenty of well trained armies actually broke and ran before the cavalry even got to them.

I agree completely, though I don't like infantry, and I think they're kinda worthless, they still have some uses, I just prefer having a very fast army.

About the ranged units and the prices of cavalry, yeah, they need their sidearms removed and cavalry definitely need their expenses raised, both in WFAS and Warband.

That's because of terrible AI. I can take an army of Nord Warriors + and annihilate a calvary force on like 140% difficulty settings. I remember in Warband having an Army of like 77 soldiers, like 47 Huscarls and 30 Nord Archers and I managed to hold off 3 Swadian Lords I think combine they had about 200+ with about 40+ cav all together.

I didn't win that battle but I did manage to deplete nearly their entire force before a stray arrow knocked me out.

It's all about commanding your troops properly and using terrain. With that in mind Huscarls destroy cavalry.

Yeah, usually when my cavalry get surrounded by the more elite infantry they lose, but the majority of the time I have enough cavalry and can simply overrun them, it doesn't help either when the majority of the enemy's forces usually contain archers and weaker infantry, I dunno maybe I just get lucky, I usually play on 90% and above difficulty.

 

[nox]

Melee infantry are not at all useless - they have the best shields and the best melee skills.  In perfect hybrid field armies they are the skirmish walls that prevent enemy cav from disrupting my ranged units.

They are a good forward line to lay out to soak up missiles, and nothing stands against them toe to toe 1 on 1.

Cav are more utilitarian, but one on one the elite infantry is going to have an edge over your elite cav.

if anything, this game is much more forgiving about ranged units because they carry secondary weapons, which in the period they did NOT.  If a musketman got rushed, he could beat someone over the head with his musket.  He didn't have a fine sword hanging by his side to draw.

To really reflect the period, ranged units need to lose their backup weapons and cavalry needs to be significantly more expensive.  Horses really were and are a precious commodity because they have to be raised, trained and the men who ride them are paired with them.  It's a bigger cost than you would probably imagine.

To be fair though, horses were like nuclear bombs in melee combat - a factor that few games, and mount and blade in particular have never really done justice to.  A 1600 lb horse trained to kick you and trample you  - running at you foaming at the mouth mounted by a guy with heavy steel armor... well, plenty of well trained armies actually broke and ran before the cavalry even got to them.

I agree completely, though I don't like infantry, and I think they're kinda worthless, they still have some uses, I just prefer having a very fast army.

About the ranged units and the prices of cavalry, yeah, they need their sidearms removed and cavalry definitely need their expenses raised, both in WFAS and Warband.

That said though, war trained horses need to kick and trample.  I know, everyone would cry how overpowered they are - and guess what?  They were hated by infantry in the period because they were truly a holy terror.

 

[GenericSoldierX]

Melee infantry are not at all useless - they have the best shields and the best melee skills.  In perfect hybrid field armies they are the skirmish walls that prevent enemy cav from disrupting my ranged units.

They are a good forward line to lay out to soak up missiles, and nothing stands against them toe to toe 1 on 1.

Cav are more utilitarian, but one on one the elite infantry is going to have an edge over your elite cav.

if anything, this game is much more forgiving about ranged units because they carry secondary weapons, which in the period they did NOT.  If a musketman got rushed, he could beat someone over the head with his musket.  He didn't have a fine sword hanging by his side to draw.

To really reflect the period, ranged units need to lose their backup weapons and cavalry needs to be significantly more expensive.  Horses really were and are a precious commodity because they have to be raised, trained and the men who ride them are paired with them.  It's a bigger cost than you would probably imagine.

To be fair though, horses were like nuclear bombs in melee combat - a factor that few games, and mount and blade in particular have never really done justice to.  A 1600 lb horse trained to kick you and trample you  - running at you foaming at the mouth mounted by a guy with heavy steel armor... well, plenty of well trained armies actually broke and ran before the cavalry even got to them.

I agree completely, though I don't like infantry, and I think they're kinda worthless, they still have some uses, I just prefer having a very fast army.

About the ranged units and the prices of cavalry, yeah, they need their sidearms removed and cavalry definitely need their expenses raised, both in WFAS and Warband.

That said though, war trained horses need to kick and trample.  I know, everyone would cry how overpowered they are - and guess what?  They were hated by infantry in the period because they were truly a holy terror.

Hopefully something like that gets implemented in MB2.

 

[Stepsongrapes]

That said though, war trained horses need to kick and trample.  I know, everyone would cry how overpowered they are - and guess what?  They were hated by infantry in the period because they were truly a holy terror.

Agreed.  A lot of people complain about cavalry being overpowered in Warband, on a one-to-one basis.  There's absolutely no problem with that- it should be like that. 

The problem is that Warband makes it way to easy/cheap to field an army of all heavy cavarly.  They should be uber-powerful, but also uber-rare.  Warband got the uber-powerful part mostly down.  It made availability way too high.