The thing is that we're not talking about just the weapons, but pretty much everything to my, somewhat limited, knowledge of the Renaissance.
To start with the basis of M&B is private armies. The player, and presumably lords, recruit, support and lead their armies entirely on their own and supported by what means they can privately raise and use these armies as they themselves see fit with command over them coming inheritant from their position as landowners. This military has its loyalties to their commanders and the player can use them at will and don't answer to higher authorities in any significant way. I mean not showing up for a campaign with your troops gives you some worse relation but no more.
In the Renaissance I don't see this level of private influence over the army. To my knowledge the days were long gone when the Counts of Anjou and Duke of Normandy could wage private wars and raise their own armies from their own lands and command these forces as they themselves saw fit. If they didn't like the king they could use their private armies against said king or fight each other for lands and wealth.
To my knowledge armies in the Renaissance were funded by taxes collected by the central government, the military has its primary loyalty to the king who pays them and leaders are picked for their commands, they don't inherit with their ranks. And troops are organized in a way where the commanders don't inherit the title. Its entirely possible to be a major landlord in the Renaissance and never come close to a military experience, the same is far less true of the early and high Middle Ages.
This means that instead of the system in M&B so far with private armies, the troops are not really raised or payed by the player. The player is appointed by the king and expected to serve that king's instructions with the king's troops. If the player don't, well he'll get removed from command and there won't be a whole lot of stuff he can do about it as the troops are primarily loyal to the king and not their present, and replacable, commander.
You are however right that it could presumably be done. But I think it would involce so incredibly much work that I don't know how many teams would be willing to sink in enough hours to redo essentially every part of the gameplay to be closer to a Renaissance era. Sure you could run it as a medieval one, but I would imagine that the gameplay won't feel at all like the Renaissance era have work very differently so that, like with "Fire and Sword" the experience is kind of stunted in that sure, the've got firearms and stuff. But all other parts of the game has a medieval system and feel to it.
It`s always been a problem with WB and more modern settings. At some point the lords running about with their 60 man retinues just doesn`t really cut it anymore. But in the renaissance there was actually a huge private sector military. Mercenary companies comprised an unusually large portion of for example 30 year`s war armies. The private army of Wallenstein had a 100 000 troops at one point. Since BL is going to feature independent merc companies as minor factions, this privatization would probably be simulatable. The other advances in war such as the chain of command and the increasing role of supply lines will probably be harder. Certainly the game`s reliance on noble NPCs would pose a problem.
reading all this argument reminded me that years back I've imagined a game which combined CK2 with M&B, that would be the most epic game ever, and would likely have support for all of these things. Still, that would be a hell of a massive game, and I don't think any developer has the means to pull something that size off! hahaha
Still, just imagine what we've seen so far about BL combined with the intricate politics and massive map in CK2! hahaha That would be freaking epic
reading all this argument reminded me that years back I've imagined a game which combined CK2 with M&B, that would be the most epic game ever, and would likely have support for all of these things. Still, that would be a hell of a massive game, and I don't think any developer has the means to pull something that size off! hahaha
Still, just imagine what we've seen so far about BL combined with the intricate politics and massive map in CK2! hahaha That would be freaking epic
That would be my wet dream and I think a lot of people discussing family mechanics have been toying with the same idea. I would be hard to pull off, though. I`m hopeful that BL will have dynamic civil wars and regime changes.
Are other good timeframes to explore in DLCs
A DLC inspired by KCD
War of Roses(exist a game with same name)
Mongol Invasion of Europe
Crusades
Teutonic Crusade
Baronial Wars
100 Years War
Wonder why is it always the pike and shot era thats left out. Not a biased opinion but its the most underrated era so why not try something different. Do all people find it so uninteresting?
The thing is that we're not talking about just the weapons, but pretty much everything to my, somewhat limited, knowledge of the Renaissance.
To start with the basis of M&B is private armies. The player, and presumably lords, recruit, support and lead their armies entirely on their own and supported by what means they can privately raise and use these armies as they themselves see fit with command over them coming inheritant from their position as landowners. This military has its loyalties to their commanders and the player can use them at will and don't answer to higher authorities in any significant way. I mean not showing up for a campaign with your troops gives you some worse relation but no more.
In the Renaissance I don't see this level of private influence over the army. To my knowledge the days were long gone when the Counts of Anjou and Duke of Normandy could wage private wars and raise their own armies from their own lands and command these forces as they themselves saw fit. If they didn't like the king they could use their private armies against said king or fight each other for lands and wealth.
To my knowledge armies in the Renaissance were funded by taxes collected by the central government, the military has its primary loyalty to the king who pays them and leaders are picked for their commands, they don't inherit with their ranks. And troops are organized in a way where the commanders don't inherit the title. Its entirely possible to be a major landlord in the Renaissance and never come close to a military experience, the same is far less true of the early and high Middle Ages.
This means that instead of the system in M&B so far with private armies, the troops are not really raised or payed by the player. The player is appointed by the king and expected to serve that king's instructions with the king's troops. If the player don't, well he'll get removed from command and there won't be a whole lot of stuff he can do about it as the troops are primarily loyal to the king and not their present, and replacable, commander.
You are however right that it could presumably be done. But I think it would involce so incredibly much work that I don't know how many teams would be willing to sink in enough hours to redo essentially every part of the gameplay to be closer to a Renaissance era. Sure you could run it as a medieval one, but I would imagine that the gameplay won't feel at all like the Renaissance era have work very differently so that, like with "Fire and Sword" the experience is kind of stunted in that sure, the've got firearms and stuff. But all other parts of the game has a medieval system and feel to it.
You bring up a fair lot of good points. Reworked Native with guns and pikes wont do, however like you said "it would involve so incredibly much work that I don't know how many teams would be willing to sink in enough hours to redo essentially every part of the gameplay to be closer to a Renaissance era". There are hundreds of modders who do even crazier things (I guess it wouldnt be harder than making a whole storyline like Viking conquest)
True, however something like a stricter marshal system with consequential effects wouldnt be entirely impossible. I imagine this will be featured even in base Bannerlord aswell, or having lets say either having the King give orders straight to you, ie join this army, go occuppy this town etc, or the senior general. If you dont, you face the bad consequences
Another thing, players will have to be somehow forced to join up forces with other lords. I assume in Bannerlord a player on his own wont be able to recruit as many troops to be effective (but I might be wrong on this, I always thought things are going to be massive compared to Warband), and to success he will have to create armies together with other vassals (but if the player wishes to stay home, he can and defend instead)
This will force the player to listen to higher authorities. In both cases if s lord is a senior commander of the army, the player will have to follow his orders, and the commander will be scripted to always be more active on campaigns rather than staying in his town and feasting. If a player is the senior commander, he will have to be active, otherwise the lords might leave the army and troops might get lower morale, leading to their desertion.
From what I remember, if armies dont do well enough, they get disbanded, so that would be another way to make the player more active.
But again, not all commanders have to be strictly active, they can stay home defending the state.
This is in a certain way true but depends on the situation. For instance in the Thirty years war (some time after Renaissance but I imagine similar cases would happen earlier aswell) Albrech von Wallenstein, an Imperial commander raised an entire army paid by himself, the money gaining from his estates and occupied territories
Another thing, a good chunk of the armies were made up by mercenaries (with many officers being mercenaries aswell), which I imagine again were paid by the commander who recruited them, so probably not always by the government, therefore I assume pledged loyalty to the commander. A mercenary army does not have to listen to the government but to the highest bidder whos in need of this mercenary army. But all of this would depend on the war you want to portray
True but again depends on the case, if you are a mercenary (not fully part of a kingdom. Assuming this will still be a thing in BL) you pay the soldiers yourself, if you become a full vassal you have to listen to orders from superiours (like I wrote above). If the soldiers are mainly mercenaries, they listen to the one who recruited them and pays them (so its not big of a deal to them if you dont listen to your monarch), if they are national troops, they listen to orders from the superiours and expect you to lead them and carry out these orders. If you dont, you do get removed
So in the end there would have to be made much bigger differences between national troops and mercenary troops unlike in Warband
I was focusing more on the early modern period though, but renaissance era wars are interesting aswell.
My knowledge is limited aswell but this is what I gathered from what I've read. I agree many of the things wouldnt work in Bannerlord though. But I still think it would be very enjoyable, provided the mod is polished enough and filled with interesting features to entertain
M&B is too personal and intimate for fit with Renaissance in which king is central authority, also few has nerves to redo BL for P&S fantasy of some. I've says again arguments
Sincerely some believe as middle ages means knights smashed their heads, but epoch was about a system which allow independence of vassals. How was MA in other regions? In Arab-speaking countries culture was superior to that of Europe even to life from these states nowadays, also Muslims not were lightly armoured as Sarranids, they field ghulams and mamelukes against knights. I not like fashion in pike-and-shot era because was too extravagant with heavy wigs, large brimmed hats and grotesque bots
Yet theres people who had nerves to make an entire storyline for VC or make a Star wars mod with entirely reworked gun system, or Parabellum with working planes dropping bombs??
Knights smashing their hads was just a metaphor. No idea what MA stands for,
How does this not look grotesque
but this does?
Not sure whats the issue with brimmed hats, its not like medieval hats were designed by some mastermined either
Virtually no wigs worn by regular soldiers, perhaps by a monarch and some other high ranking individuals but certainly not soldiers.
Im sick of seeing Vikings, they are oversaturated in the commin media and are boring to play as. They have nothing interesting about them as all their last interesting bits are overrepresented and beaten to death by Hollywood.
Im sick of DLCs too.
Just like how there will eventually be a Samurai Japan mod by an Anime Weeaboo, there will eventually be some infectius Norseaboo with an unhealthy obsession for Vikings will eventually mod in Nord invasion. No need for 15 dollar dlc for a faction reskin and lame world event that is counteractive to the idea of Mount and Blade open world sandbox where every action can be naturally controlled and have natural consequences.
If we are to get DLC, I prefer that if it were gamechanging features such as the already popular Coop and Naval battles. And preferably set in unexplored mines of other cultures.
Why not have an expansion set in the eastern world of Calradia? Have them take Inspiration from Mongolian culture, India, China, the Middle east. This can boost love for the Aserai and Khuziats to Western audiences by giving them more representation and see new interesting gameplay mechanics set in a different world that is a fresh break from Western Europe.
Or we can just wait until Bannerlord comes out, instead of fantasizing about ways for Taleworlds to empty our wallets with hundreds of expensive DLC, before that game is evem released.
Because nobody cares about about the cultures you mentioned, people who watch anime do, but others dont. Also why do you sound so mad? Its not really a problem of other people you do not like vikings. Calling a nord invasion DLC a lame event [insults removed] you have no idea how they could implement it, invasions worked great in PoP, stop spitting poison because you have a bad day. If you dont like something, thats great, not everybody has the same taste but insulting others indirectly is extremely sad.
As far as a Roman-era dlc, setting it in the era of the first triumvirate could be interesting (and would closely resemble vanilla BL, making it easier to do. Three main Empire factions duking it out with a bunch of smaller factions around the outside that could jump in at any time and take advantage of an opening.
Another idea that could take advantage of things implemented in BL (mainly the back-alley/crime parts) would be some sort of mafia mod. One faction controls the map, but each city has its own mafia, and you have to do quests/get them to join/annihilate the competition, all while avoiding the forces of the main faction that rules the country. Eventually you may even be able to replace some of the "governors" of the cities if you get enough relation/whatever.
Wow very rude and egoistic of you. Going through several forums etc. I can say the majority is sick and bored off Norse Neanderthalers and all their boring culture and architecture.
Vikings were too overused but their culture is boring and uninteresting at all. Medieval Scandinavia will be a better idea for a DLC set in time of Haakon V, sure with British Isles
I would accept the 'overused' part if the game did not have Knights, which is by far the most overused thing ever. Vikings got a popularity boost by the show on TV, their culture is amazing and much more interesting than most cultures. The only bad thing in games and media nowdays is the lack of celts.
Every has his opinions, but Vikings not are for my tastes, I not criticize none. Celts not were represented nowadays because in late 90s and early 2000s was Braveheart and AOE2 in vogue. Are many underused cultures such as Mongols, Cumans and Rus
Every has his opinions, but Vikings not are for my tastes, I not criticize none. Celts not were represented nowadays because in late 90s and early 2000s was Braveheart and AOE2 in vogue. Are many underused cultures such as Mongols, Cumans and Rus
I'll give you the Cumans and Rus could use some exposure, but I feel the Mongols are pretty prevalent in media and whatnot. As far as Celts, I'd like to see more accurate portrayals. Braveheart is not accurate, nor is it truly Celtic, rather the odd mix of Celt, Pict, Norse, and slight Anglo-Saxon that was Medieval Scotland. As far as ancient Celts, it seems they're almost exclusively the dirty hairy barbarians fighting the hero Romans, or just slaves in the Roman machine. The only problem with attempting an "accurate" portrayal is there's just so much we don't know about ancient, or even early medieval Celts, and some of the things we do have are only from Roman sources, quite possibly trying to demonize their enemies.
Hey, is there any information on if there will be another Viking Conquest mod yet? I want to play as my ancestors, please........I actually am very interested and would even pay full price for an upgraded VC dlc.
Hey, is there any information on if there will be another Viking Conquest mod yet? I want to play as my ancestors, please........I actually am very interested and would even pay full price for an upgraded VC dlc.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
