Even battles are not ready for release

Users who are viewing this thread

czarny

Veteran
Fixing battles is in progress, don't worry guys :wink:
 
This is a truly great suggestion. Frankly I think a faction should NOT ever give you access you their best troop lines (specifically the noble lines, like Fians) unless you were a SWORN vassal. This would in itself help create a much better balance.
I think it would have actually have been neat if noble troops could only be bought with influence. But more would have to be done for that to work and I think TW is set in their ways now sadly.

When last did you fight a battle against ANY lord where their troop mixture was not a complete buffet of foreign delicacies? So basically EVERY enemy zerg has the same flavour - even when you can not in your wildest fantasies get the "logic". Battanian Fain Champion/Khan's Guard/Elite Cataphract speaking: "So, my faction was invaded by your faction and took many of our fiefs. Here is my greatest desire, based on those facts, me (as a noble) want to join YOUR party (because you know, I have no cultural pride....)".
As others have said, people really did have multicultural armies, the Byzantines being the biggest fans of that lol. Nothing to do with wokeness or whatever buzzword you wanna throw out, its pragmatic reality to use the best troops in the regions you've expanded into.

It used to be close to this way, because of the way generating troops went, you needed high relations with a powerful (200+) landowner to get access to them. The AI could cheat a little and grab a few that way but their relations never went up. The reason it changed was because those troops were hard to get. Everyone complained about how much of a chore it made the game to recruit more, so TW changed things so it was any rural notable with no power requirements.
One of the few times TW listens to suggestions, and it just makes the whole game worse.
 

Taveren

Regular
WBWF&S
As others have said, people really did have multicultural armies, the Byzantines being the biggest fans of that lol. Nothing to do with wokeness or whatever buzzword you wanna throw out, its pragmatic reality to use the best troops in the regions you've expanded into.
Wokeness (or anti-wokeness) is not my agenda.
I am more after a diverse battle experience, where every battle is not very similar to every other battle scenario.
It is true that many empires had foreign troop units I admit, yet it would be (in my opinion) more enjoyable in the long-term if there was a variety involved in enemy engaments.
For instance, the lore suggests that the Sturgian Prince insulted the Battanian ruler. So, perhaps this could lead to a cultural schism where Battanians refuse to fight for the Sturgians (unless converted via being held prisoner long enough - mind games, indoctrination and all that). So maybe a small % would (program to have <5% faction spill).
Or perhaps there could be aligned factions, where there would be regular 'borrowing' of troops (e.g. Khuzait horse archers to compliment the Sturgians having none).

Variety is the spice of life.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
Yes, but turcopoles were often recruited from native Christians, or even from Europeans. So in that sense they shared major cultural traits with their recruiters. "Turcopole" really just meant "armed in the manner of a Turk". The Crusader states were largely maintained by mercenaries, the Templars and Hospitallers, and a constant influx of Europeans immigrating from the west. Not from local recruitment of people from a totally different culture, for the most part - though it certainly occurred to an extent.
Turcopoles were mostly local natives, some of whom were Christian but many were not. And most weren't Europeans in origin; the Frankish settlers and descendents were only a plurality of the Crusader army after the First.
IIRC different languages such as Palaic and Dryatic (?) etc., are mentioned.
Just look at place names and high-ranking lord titles and it's pretty obvious different languages are used.
Palaic is a dead language in lore. Place names don't mean much but fair enough on titles.
The cultures are evidently quite different which is why we get that massive punishing -3 penalty to loyalty for having a settlement governor of the incorrect culture.

And although the game's systems fail to bear this out
, rulership systems are different in-story too.

Language barrier therefore probably does exist but is abstracted for the purposes of gameplay when communicating with army leaders, like it is in almost any game set in the real world.
Why would you switch from considering game mechanics in abstract, then using them as direct evidence, then go back to abstraction again? Especially when we know the reason that the culture penalty was introduced -- to help support rebellions as a specific gameplay mechanic and assist in keeping snowballing in check.
Vlandia and S. Empire are hereditary monarchies, N. Empire is like the senatorial Principate/late Republic, W. Empire is like a populist Dominate, Khuzaits/Battania/Aserai are loose confederacies where central authority is barely tolerated or exercised through force, trade or high kingship, and Sturgia is a principality.
At any rate, Khuzaits are not a loose confederation and neither are Aserai. Monchug outright says that if people don't like his rule, they can **** off and go back to being poor on the steppes, since his daddy gave him the title and his granddaddy created it. The loose portions are the subfactions (for all the good it does the worldbuilding...) and the ruling clans in both factions are still hereditary (in lore, at least).
 

xdj1nn

Knight at Arms
WBWF&S
Turcopoles were mostly local natives, some of whom were Christian but many were not. And most weren't Europeans in origin; the Frankish settlers and descendents were only a plurality of the Crusader army after the First.

Palaic is a dead language in lore. Place names don't mean much but fair enough on titles.

Why would you switch from considering game mechanics in abstract, then using them as direct evidence, then go back to abstraction again? Especially when we know the reason that the culture penalty was introduced -- to help support rebellions as a specific gameplay mechanic and assist in keeping snowballing in check.

At any rate, Khuzaits are not a loose confederation and neither are Aserai. Monchug outright says that if people don't like his rule, they can **** off and go back to being poor on the steppes, since his daddy gave him the title and his granddaddy created it. The loose portions are the subfactions (for all the good it does the worldbuilding...) and the ruling clans in both factions are still hereditary (in lore, at least).
the lore doesn't point out as Sturgia being a centralized principality as such we had with Kievan Rus. In fact, the description and lore behind Sturgia and Ragnvald is exactly pointing at an elective kingdom, obviously inspired by Norse ting elections for kings and high kings among Jarls. Basically a Scandinavian Elective if you will. The oddity is calling it a principality, having a central ruler and a lore pointing towards norse succession laws mentioning a contained revolt among the nobles because Ragnvald wants to control everything (in other words doesn't respect the Ting). To add salt it also uses the Slavic title for the lords, it's very uncanny, same goes for their cultural armor, weapons and clothing, where we notice a strong mix of both WB Vaegir + Nord packed into a single culture when their own lore stated that the nords invaded after the empire was gone (?!?!?!!) My guess is that they didn't want to add nords yet wanted to cater for the potential wider audience fan of "Vikings" tv show :lol: :lol:

I'd rather have a more sound cohersive lore and the nords invading instead of that, which I still believe will be among the future DLC considering the culture lists in the encyclopedia (we have three cultures that aren't in-game as of yet, only minor faction troops among those), my guess is that one will be the nords invading sturgia and vlandia, the desert ppl one invading the south and the other I'm not sure, didn't look closely, though with sargot being moved to the wrong spot it makes hard to see how that will turn out, I really had hoped they'd fix the map before release, and it clearly ain't happening... Apparently they'll stick to the crap balance for settlements, spawn-zones and pathing, sure we can play however, but the reality is that the most efficient and less-time consuming options are very narrow due to that.
 
Last edited:

five bucks

Knight at Arms
Turcopoles were mostly local natives, some of whom were Christian but many were not.
Okay, what percentage are we talking? And out of that percentage, how much of the Crusader armies did they compose?

Looking at Hattin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hattin it looks like there were only 500 Turcopoles out of ~20,000 soldiers. If even half of the Turcopoles were Christians, that means that Muslim native people only comprised ~0.5% of the Crusader army then.


"As we have seen, many (though not all) Turcopoles were recruited from Christian-ized Arabs and Turks."
Why would you switch from considering game mechanics in abstract, then using them as direct evidence, then go back to abstraction again? Especially when we know the reason that the culture penalty was introduced -- to help support rebellions as a specific gameplay mechanic and assist in keeping snowballing in check.
Your original argument for culture-blended AI armies was the lore, arguing that cultures are blended in the lore: "As far as Bannerlord goes, these guys all speak the same language, have the same religion (none) and share a similar culture."

My response is that cultures are not blended in the lore/setting and are also not blended in the gameplay mechanics.

That's why.

The language thing is abstracted because it has to be in pretty much any game that deals with language - it would be extremely annoying to have to learn 6 different languages or get translators to be able to play a video game. Everything else in the game mechanically and in-lore shows that Calradia's cultures are very different and separate, "freeze-dried and plopped into the game as monolithic entities" as someone once said. Therefore the language not having a unique mechanic is solely an abstraction for the purposes of fun (or, more likely just an oversight).

If culture penalty was solely an anti-snowballing measure then it wouldn't be called culture penalty, it would be called "new ruler confusion" or something like that. But it isn't. Hiring a Battanian governor is enough to placate a Battanian town, who otherwise hate you for being Vlandian.
At any rate, Khuzaits are not a loose confederation and neither are Aserai.
From ingame Aserai encyclopedia:
"Today, with the waning of the empire, the Aserai have agreed to form a confederacy under a sultan chosen from the richest of the clans, the Banu Hulyan. But everyone knows the dance has only temporarily been stopped, and at the right moment it will begin again."

In other words, the Aserai are a loose plutocratic confederacy held together by popular consent.

From Khuzait ingame encyclopedia:
"He imposed discipline on the ruling clans, forcing them to ride to war on his command instead of simply whenever they wished. But after his death, the spirit of unity that he inspired was lost. His descendants still rule the khanate. But some of the other Khuzait leaders chafe under the authority of the current khan, Monchug, and others dream of becoming khan themselves."

From Khuzait devblog:
"Urkhun died, and though his descendants still rule the Khuzait Khanate, the other clans feel that they should be the ones to raise the nine-horsetail banner that symbolizes the supreme authority."

In other words, the Khuzait khanate that was only kept together solely by the threat of force, not arguments to legal authority or claims to some kind of right (like Aserai/N.Empire/S.Empire) or even popular consent. Perhaps they are not literally a confederacy, but they are certainly distinct from most other factions in that regard.

Point is, the rulership systems are different, and in addition to everything else I said, it is pretty clear that the game's cultures are very distinct.
 

Danny5

Squire
Y'all don't understand, warband was better because it was set 210 years before bannerlord. Which means that bannerlord is ancient when compared to warband. So as the years went by, every feature that we see in warband was slowly being bought, they all learnt they're lesson!
 

Taveren

Regular
WBWF&S
Y'all don't understand, warband was better because it was set 210 years before bannerlord. Which means that bannerlord is ancient when compared to warband. So as the years went by, every feature that we see in warband was slowly being bought, they all learnt they're lesson!
Surely you mean after, as in at a later date in history?
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
Okay, what percentage are we talking? And out of that percentage, how much of the Crusader armies did they compose?

Looking at Hattin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hattin it looks like there were only 500 Turcopoles out of ~20,000 soldiers. If even half of the Turcopoles were Christians, that means that Muslim native people only comprised ~0.5% of the Crusader army then.


"As we have seen, many (though not all) Turcopoles were recruited from Christian-ized Arabs and Turks."
Wikipedia link, impressive, very nice. Let's see what its source for that claim says, shall we?

Thomas F. Madden, Crusades: The Illustrated History doesn't actually discuss the Crusader's army composition at Hattin:
USCbVNq.png

That's it. The entire battle is covered in two pages of the book and the word "turcopole" doesn't appear anywhere in that short chapter. Or, indeed, anywhere else in the book at all. Regardless of that, somehow "numerous light cavalry," a non-specific claim in both number and origin, becomes the very specific "500 Turcopoles" on Wikipedia. There are people who get on Wikipedia specifically to spread bull****, knowing full well most people don't have access to the sources they claim to be citing.

Stop using Wikipedia.

On a more humorous note, on the very same page of Madden's book there is this sidebar:
qAAGgpE.png

Definitely were some multicultural medieval armies.

Your original argument for culture-blended AI armies was the lore, arguing that cultures are blended in the lore: "As far as Bannerlord goes, these guys all speak the same language, have the same religion (none) and share a similar culture."

My response is that cultures are not blended in the lore/setting and are also not blended in the gameplay mechanics.

That's why.
They are blended in gameplay mechanics though? Every faction operates the exact. same. way. Troops have no issue burning down anyone else's ****, even their "native" culture. They also don't mind being thrown in together. There are zero penalties for cross-cultural relations at all with one (1) exception, the aforementioned town penalty. Signing onto a different faction? Sure, no problem. Companions with different backgrounds? No issues. TW actually removed one other cross-cultural bonus/penalty set when it re-did the romance convos awhile back (or at least I haven't seen it lately); it used to be if you had a similar facial appearance as the girl you were wooing, it gave a different dialogue during courtship, something about you being a handsome one or something. If you had a different faction's features, she'd call you ugly and you'd need a bit more luck in convincing her.

In short, I didn't use game mechanics because most of them exist to support the living world aspect of BL, rather than any kind of world-building.
The language thing is abstracted because it has to be in pretty much any game that deals with language - it would be extremely annoying to have to learn 6 different languages or get translators to be able to play a video game.
I played a game (an actual RPG) as far back as the nineties where language was treated more or less realistically, Twilight 2000. If you didn't have someone in your party who spoke the local language, you were **** outta luck. In most others, it isn't characters all translating back and forth, it is a bridge language ("the common tongue") that everyone important enough to have lines conveniently speaks.
From ingame Aserai encyclopedia:
"Today, with the waning of the empire, the Aserai have agreed to form a confederacy under a sultan chosen from the richest of the clans, the Banu Hulyan. But everyone knows the dance has only temporarily been stopped, and at the right moment it will begin again."

In other words, the Aserai are a loose plutocratic confederacy held together by popular consent.

From Khuzait ingame encyclopedia:
"He imposed discipline on the ruling clans, forcing them to ride to war on his command instead of simply whenever they wished. But after his death, the spirit of unity that he inspired was lost. His descendants still rule the khanate. But some of the other Khuzait leaders chafe under the authority of the current khan, Monchug, and others dream of becoming khan themselves."

From Khuzait devblog:
"Urkhun died, and though his descendants still rule the Khuzait Khanate, the other clans feel that they should be the ones to raise the nine-horsetail banner that symbolizes the supreme authority."

In other words, the Khuzait khanate that was only kept together solely by the threat of force, not arguments to legal authority or claims to some kind of right (like Aserai/N.Empire/S.Empire) or even popular consent. Perhaps they are not literally a confederacy, but they are certainly distinct from most other factions in that regard.

Point is, the rulership systems are different, and in addition to everything else I said, it is pretty clear that the game's cultures are very distinct.
None of this is reflected in the conversations you have with the various clan leaders. In the case of the Khuzaits, Tulag of the Arkits says his clan is loyal to the Urkhunait dynasty. Mesui says she likes a strong khan because they keeps the clans in line.

This is the same game where it simultaneously jumps through hoops to say that slavery is defintely, most assuredly illegal in most of Calradia but then not only gives you a companion with a slave background (She-wolf) but also a repeatable mission where you're enslaving people.
 

xdj1nn

Knight at Arms
WBWF&S
Y'all (...) they all learnt they're lesson!
warband was better because it was set 210 years before bannerlord
After*;
Better in what regard? It had more advanced tech, that's about it. Nothing "better", in fact I was curious at first at how they'd explain away the massive chunk of land missing in WB, than they've moved Sargot to a non-sense area and shuffled multiple territories and cities in a very non-logical way.
The places that are in both BL and WB that I can remember right now are:
Charas (Shariz in WB), Ocs Hall (Uxkhall), Sargot (Sargoth), Pravend (Praven), Varcheg (Wercheg)
All of which are missplaced and breaking "continuity", they even fail to represent the roles they did in Warband (like Praven was a port trading town, in BL it's not even close to shores), even from a lore perspective. Also the distance between said settlements can't be explained off by "scaling" so it's really bothersome to look at the map trying to figure out any sort of connection between the games. Only the northwestern part is somewhat the same, everything else changed, while important towns were shuffled or completely deleted (Reyvadin & Suno for instance). Revyl's currently in the exact spot of Wercheg, Varcheg is in a odd place where it can't be crossed with neither Rivacheg nor Curaw, etc... It would also mean that the Khergit basically conquered the entire imperial territory (also doesn't make sense, becaue conquering lands won't magically demolish architecture nor turn it into steppes)

Also, the most paramount town which was always the richest in WB was Dhirim, and I can't cross reference it with anywhere in the map, always assumed it was probably the "imperial economical capital" or something. 🤷‍♂️

Considering these details, I can't really grasp comparing the games or even thinking they belong to the same setting. Too much was changed and too many mistakes done for it to be even salvageable. We can basically consider WB a prototype, yet it still surpasses BL in depth, which makes things even more awkward.

As the OP states, it's true, they are releasing a half-broken game with half-content, it isn't the most positive scenario for fans (us), as I've said before, it'll take years if even possible for TW to regain my trust, and likely that's truth for most...
 
Last edited:

Taveren

Regular
WBWF&S
We can basically consider WB a prototype, yet it still surpasses BL in depth, which makes things even more awkward.

As the OP states, it's true, they are releasing a half-broken game with half-content, it isn't the most positive scenario for fans (us), as I've said before, it'll take years if even possible for TW to regain my trust, and likely that's truth for most...
This seems to be the way of it unfortunately. So many games in recent times have followed this formula of beautification + simplification leading to gaming enjoyment decline.
Examples:
Skyrim - visually much improved from Oblivion, yet the game was dumbed down in every imaginable aspect - factions, gear, magic, etc. Saved by modders who improved on every imaginable aspect...
Dragon Age - DA Inquisition prettier but worse than Dragon Age II, which was prettier (marginally) but worse than Origin in terms of depth of gameplay. Again mainly saved by modders.
Mass Effect Andromeda - don't get me started on this one.
 

xdj1nn

Knight at Arms
WBWF&S
This seems to be the way of it unfortunately. So many games in recent times have followed this formula of beautification + simplification leading to gaming enjoyment decline.
Examples:
Skyrim - visually much improved from Oblivion, yet the game was dumbed down in every imaginable aspect - factions, gear, magic, etc. Saved by modders who improved on every imaginable aspect...
Dragon Age - DA Inquisition prettier but worse than Dragon Age II, which was prettier (marginally) but worse than Origin in terms of depth of gameplay. Again mainly saved by modders.
Mass Effect Andromeda - don't get me started on this one.
100% agree, but you didn't mention the woke nonsense in DA2 and DAI which topped off the reason why I've boycotted Bioware so many years ago. They seem to love hiring some self-inserting bigotted woke writers in all of their works. It started only so slightly with ME2, but than things went bat**** insane over the years, totally out of control. Origins had a really compelling premise and writing, and the bunch hired for DA2 and DAI made sure to basically destroy everything. Much similar to what happened with "Rings of Power" just now. Crap untalented and incompetent writers hired who happen to be woke, I always wonder if these ppl are like that out of a guilty conscience, and to be honest I strongly believe that's the reason.

I'm mostly a pacifist, but these ppl have existed since ages ago and I always felt like using their heads as bob training busts. Today it's hard for me to imagine a scenario where I meet some of these in person where I won't be extremely violent, I hate these ppl for way too many reasons.
 

Orion

Still Not Worthy
Global Moderator
M&BWBWF&SNW
Would have actually solve the whole **** show but apparently it was changed prior to release per MP testers demand and Taleworlds made some last minute rework to please the competitive scene so it end up with the current version spear we got in vanilla. They also have some working spear formation but was removed because it was too effective, they clearly have a ability to make it work but nothing seems to past their quality control.
Slow your roll, buddy, the "last minute rework" for competitive was for spears rearing horses on nonsensical angles. It made them functionally closer to Warband spears. The issue with spear infantry & cavalry AIs is that they don't understand how to utilize thrusting polearms effectively. This is deliberate, as spearmen did use them well for a while (as you mentioned) but this capacity was reduced because it made cav feel weak. On the other side, cav AI have always been ineffective because they have never had proper timing on their attacks. Clearly the damage potential is there, as cav is widely considered OP in MP, but the AI just doesn't utilize it at all. For infantry there is a similar problem with attack timing (for spears) and distance control for longer weapons which both strongly reduce damage output for these classes. Archers appear to do disproportionate damage in SP, but the reality is that their damage output is not impacted by as many factors as melee. If melee AI of all kinds could use their weapons effectively, we would likely see a return to the heavy cav meta for SP party composition as cav has the highest alpha strike potential and heavy cav have considerable staying power.
 

geala

Squire
This is a truly great suggestion. Frankly I think a faction should NOT ever give you access you their best troop lines (specifically the noble lines, like Fians) unless you were a SWORN vassal. This would in itself help create a much better balance.

When last did you fight a battle against ANY lord where their troop mixture was not a complete buffet of foreign delicacies? So basically EVERY enemy zerg has the same flavour - even when you can not in your wildest fantasies get the "logic". Battanian Fain Champion/Khan's Guard/Elite Cataphract speaking: "So, my faction was invaded by your faction and took many of our fiefs. Here is my greatest desire, based on those facts, me (as a noble) want to join YOUR party (because you know, I have no cultural pride....)".

There should be a block programmed to stop foreigners recruiting noble, or elite soldiers from enemy factions, especially ones they are in current conflict with. Recruits & peasants sure, those chaps have to eat and will serve any master. But not nobles, and not trained soldiers. They can get employment by their own lords.
...

I have a similar situation in my current game composition because I use "True Armies of Calradia" for the troop trees (I changed a lot of armor to make them even less armored) which utilizes "Adonnay's Troop Changer" and has a config which allows you to make recruiting only parts of the units possible by foreign invaders. I changed the config this way, so now foreign high tier troops in the armies mainly come from prisoners.

This is only possible because "True Armies of Calradia" has several troop trees, so you cannot create a T5 from a simple cheap recruit, also several high tier noble units can be made base units and unavailable for other factions.

I like it very much. I since long had removed Khan Guards and Fians from my game but recently I gave (a kind of) Fians back to the Battanians who are a bit weak with armor and could use a well armored T6 noble with a bow + twohander (although they have regular archers too). I could not recruit this unit as non-Battanian player even if I wanted. To be clear, in the normal mod you can recruit foreign nobles if you like (I think many like it).
 
Last edited:

Sweynforkbeard

Sergeant at Arms
I like it very much. I since long had removed Khan Guards and Fians from my game but recently I gave (a kind of) Fians back to the Battanians who are a bit weak with armor and could use a well armored T6 noble with a bow + twohander (although they have regular archers too). I could not recruit this unit as non-Battanian player even if I wanted.
Personally I dont really like limitations across cultural lines. As it is it already predetermines what I will do in a game.

"I am Battanian, hence I will ultimately join one of the neighbors of Battanian and use their armies to capture my future Battanian fiefs."

Anything else is just inefficient. It just kills of some of the potential spontaneity that might lead to an interesting different path in the game.
 

Brano

Sergeant at Arms
One could ask a question, why did the game developers went on with this fictional land of Calradia at all.
History itself writes the best scenarios. Imagine semihistorical RPG with M&B combat based on history in mid to late 11th century.
1. Norman (Vlandia) conquest of anglo-saxon (Battania) Britain in 1066, can you prevent it? Or help it to happen?
2. Spread of islam and turks (Aserai) in the lands of eastern roman empire (Empire), leading to battle of Manzikert in 1071. Can you prevent it? Or help it to happen?
3. "Viking" era on decline, raise of Slavs (Sturgia), principalities of Russ, kingdoms of central europe created by bohemian Przemyslids, polish Piasts, hungarian Arpads conquering lands of former Great Moravia settling down and leaving their former steppe lifestyle. Struggle between old pagan believes and newly rising christian religion.
4. And in this turmoil ever present steppe peoples like Pechenegs and Cumans (Khuzait) constantly attacking everyone in the west as ever present scourge from the steppes.

All of this on a best map ever created = map of the real world that make sense.
 

xdj1nn

Knight at Arms
WBWF&S
One could ask a question, why did the game developers went on with this fictional land of Calradia at all.
History itself writes the best scenarios. Imagine semihistorical RPG with M&B combat based on history in mid to late 11th century.
1. Norman (Vlandia) conquest of anglo-saxon (Battania) Britain in 1066, can you prevent it? Or help it to happen?
2. Spread of islam and turks (Aserai) in the lands of eastern roman empire (Empire), leading to battle of Manzikert in 1071. Can you prevent it? Or help it to happen?
3. "Viking" era on decline, raise of Slavs (Sturgia), principalities of Russ, kingdoms of central europe created by bohemian Przemyslids, polish Piasts, hungarian Arpads conquering lands of former Great Moravia settling down and leaving their former steppe lifestyle. Struggle between old pagan believes and newly rising christian religion.
4. And in this turmoil ever present steppe peoples like Pechenegs and Cumans (Khuzait) constantly attacking everyone in the west as ever present scourge from the steppes.

All of this on a best map ever created = map of the real world that make sense.
🤷‍♂️

my guess is that the original M&B was meant to be an fantasy RPG of sorts, and as such the lore and world were created from scratch, though Armageddon dropped that idea mid-development and went for what we see in WB basically.

BL being a "prequel" he seemed to intend to bring "continuity" into the series (observable through the first BL map that we never played at), issue being that they've basically destroyed both pre-established lore and even geography in the process (which made the entire setting make absolutely zero sense).
I can dig both NP, yet I do feel that this half-baked world space, settlement positioning and lore should either be changed entirely since they've basically destroyed all continuity, or it should've stuck to the original even if with massive scaling and additional bodies of water. As is, ti's simply bad imo...
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Grandmaster Knight
f melee AI of all kinds could use their weapons effectively, we would likely see a return to the heavy cav meta for SP party composition as cav has the highest alpha strike potential and heavy cav have considerable staying power.
This will be really great if it gets fixed or a stable mod for it comes!
 
Top Bottom