Difference Between F&S and WB?

[XSevSpreeX]

So what gameplay differences are there in terms of how in depth it is? Obviously this one is based in Europe rather than in Calradia and there's firearms, but what about what it's possible to do? What new role-playing opportunities are there? WB added the ability to own your own kingdom and mods like Diplomacy give you more diplomatic options. Some WB players were wanting more role-playing options, like being a mercenary for example. There wasn't much reason to be one in WB because the pay wasn't as good and you don't get any fiefs. Same idea with being a bandit. Some were wanting more strategic options that you can perform prior to a battle or a siege (poison enemy food supply for example). It would be fitting to repeat my question again, but that would just be repetitive, you guys get the idea of what I mean I think.

 

[Mitchmon]

everything, With Fire and Sword is based off the very first mount and blade, it has nothing what so ever to do with Warband.

 

[decoy26517]

Basically WB is good, and F&S isn't worth buying.

 

[Mitchmon]

Basically WB is good, and F&S isn't worth buying.

I would not say its not worth buying, I mean Its pretty fun its just didn't use warband as its base game. Its multi is fun though and I find the use of guns a little bit fun? eh besides there will be mods!

 

[Caba`drin]

it has nothing what so ever to do with Warband.

No, it runs on Warband's .exe (engine) essentially, so in-battle behavior is from Warband (how you give orders, etc) as is party management (you can divide your troops into 9 different custom divisions) and the multiplayer is as in Warband plus a TDM with bots (Captain mode).

Where Mitchmon is correct is many of the single player on-map campaign scripts seem to be based on the original M&B, so there are the limitations people commonly mention like no player kingdom and no marriage.

 

[XSevSpreeX]

Where Mitchmon is correct is many of the single player on-map campaign scripts seem to be based on the original M&B, so there are the limitations people commonly mention like no player kingdom and no marriage.

Bleh, after having more depth in WB I don't think I can go back to essentially playing a mod of the original M&B that only changes weapons, armor, and factions. Doesn't sound like a buy to me then.

 

[Mitchmon]

yea well I hate it when you start a battle and for some reason you have 25 men while the other person have 83... when you have 100 men.

 

[StinkyMcGirk]

So what gameplay differences are there in terms of how in depth it is? Obviously this one is based in Europe rather than in Calradia and there's firearms, but what about what it's possible to do? What new role-playing opportunities are there? WB added the ability to own your own kingdom and mods like Diplomacy give you more diplomatic options. Some WB players were wanting more role-playing options, like being a mercenary for example. There wasn't much reason to be one in WB because the pay wasn't as good and you don't get any fiefs. Same idea with being a bandit. Some were wanting more strategic options that you can perform prior to a battle or a siege (poison enemy food supply for example). It would be fitting to repeat my question again, but that would just be repetitive, you guys get the idea of what I mean I think.

I'm still discovering everything, but from what I've seen so far, you can join a kingdom and impact a different history, or be a bandit, or be a mercenary.  Role-playing wise, you're not going to like this more than the other titles unless you're into the history surrounding the title.  Here, as a mercenary, your incentive / income is going to be from raiding villages and caravans.  In that sense, it's financially more lucrative than Warband.  Same idea with being a bandit.

That said, the best source of income is starting caravans.  Caravans are HIGH risk, extremely high reward endeavors that just make you money without dealing with politics.  I think the aim of the game with the new merc camp recruitment and quick money-making options is to get you into the politics (pick a side) and fighting ASAP.  In that sense, the macro-game is very much improved over Warband.  I also like the better balance between infantry, ranged, and cavalry.  We all know how cavalry was king in Warband... I don't think that's the case at all anymore.

What F&S lacks is much needed improvements to A.I.

So... there's a greater improved depth of strategy with this title, and you spend less time training armies - more time fighting.  That's all good.  But if you were looking for better graphics, physics. gameplay, role-playing, and A.I...  it just isn't there.

 

[Caba`drin]

yea well I hate it when you start a battle and for some reason you have 25 men while the other person have 83... when you have 100 men.

1) Their party must be much bigger.
2) Tactics skill adjusts the balance. Lords tends to have a good deal of it.
3) What does this have to do with the OP's question?

 

[XSevSpreeX]

I think the aim of the game with the new merc camp recruitment and quick money-making options is to get you into the politics (pick a side) and fighting ASAP.

That is along the lines of what I was asking. Can anyone expand on this? 

In that sense, the macro-game is very much improved over Warband.  I also like the better balance between infantry, ranged, and cavalry.  We all know how cavalry was king in Warband... I don't think that's the case at all anymore.

That's definitely interesting for gameplay and good to know.

What F&S lacks is much needed improvements to A.I.

So... there's a greater improved depth of strategy with this title, and you spend less time training armies - more time fighting.  That's all good.  But if you were looking for better graphics, physics. gameplay, role-playing, and A.I...  it just isn't there.

While those things aren't exactly what I was looking for, it's worth knowing.

 

[Mitchmon]

It just in warband battles seem to always be balanced.

 

[angrytigerp]

OP, for your question about how the army building works: Basically, you go to a merc camp, hire a company of infantry or cavalry (you can choose ranged or melee) and select how many you'll take (gives you all the options along with pricing). Then, when you have an army, you can ask the merc captain for upgrades. You'll say something like "I want to buy armor" and he says "here's what I've got:". You're then given a dialogue choice of a number of armors sorted by price, and you buy by the 'unit' -- making these stats up, but let's say you buy a breastplate for 1000 silver, all your men get it. The same thing goes for helmet, weapons (ranged or melee), shields, etc.

However, I am myself unclear on whether the upgrades apply to ALL army units, or just ones hired from that camp, or just that faction (camps will only have one faction hire-able), or...

 

[original]

However, I am myself unclear on whether the upgrades apply to ALL army units, or just ones hired from that camp, or just that faction (camps will only have one faction hire-able), or...

I can confirm that upgrades apply to the ones you currently have, and the future ones that you hire.
The Muscavite Marksmen initially had bow and arrow, but after I upgraded their ranged weapons to pistols, the ones in my army all have it, as well as the new ones I hire.

 

[angrytigerp]

However, I am myself unclear on whether the upgrades apply to ALL army units, or just ones hired from that camp, or just that faction (camps will only have one faction hire-able), or...

I can confirm that upgrades apply to the ones you currently have, and the future ones that you hire.
The Muscavite Marksmen initially had bow and arrow, but after I upgraded their ranged weapons to pistols, the ones in my army all have it, as well as the new ones I hire.

So... is it by faction, then, or troops? What I mean, is, does it apply to all Muscovite Marksmen? Or all Muscovite ranged troops? Because I don't recall an option to select which troop type to upgrade.