Cool, but the game isn't emulating the 14th century. It's a weird mix of emulating the fall of Rome and the 11th century. I see you constantly on the forums just ****ting them up, complaining, not suggesting anything and answering to posts with trivia not related to the original point.
Don't @ me either because I won't reply.
It's not true. I've made many suggestions, but all I see, stubborn ppl who tell me, yo, the reality is different, the game is great!
Look at history!
And I'm like... what? In the first place we should think how to make the game better. We can give examples from reality, but not to fight over a silly argue and instead bring up some ideas how the game should work. Maybe who knows, we find something interesting ideas.
For example I just gave an example how the Lords AI should function, because their armies are too weak in late game and it becomes boring and with no challenge.
Instead getting positive answers like, ok maybe the AI system is not quite ok. Maybe it should be more complex, I find like.. no... the game is ok! You are ****ing on the game.
This is just fanboy behavior. A guy told me, no! We don's need more weapons, you are wrong, the game is in early middle age!
I'm like... what? Voulge is from 15th century and all the troops. So see? There is no point maybe in discussing anything here.
I will try to make a more conclusive post about AI balance and itemization. Maybe they will get it right, because right now it's worse than Warband as experience. Or maybe, you will come on that thread too, to tell me how the reality is and the AI is fine! Right?
