Keep your spirits up, in a couple of years we will be playing prophesy of pendor with bannerlord graphics. It's still great to play today anyway. Have fun!Alright, time to play Prophesy of Pendor again. See y'all in a couple of months...
Keep your spirits up, in a couple of years we will be playing prophesy of pendor with bannerlord graphics. It's still great to play today anyway. Have fun!Alright, time to play Prophesy of Pendor again. See y'all in a couple of months...
Never played it. Honestly y'all have hyped it up for me to the point where I kinda HAVE to.Alright, time to play Prophesy of Pendor again. See y'all in a couple of months...
Never played it. Honestly y'all have hyped it up for me to the point where I kinda HAVE to.
Haven't seen VC Reforged or Blood Eagle but - in all seriousness - vanilla VC is worlds better than even modded BL.Bannerlord so far is an appealing - looking facade, evidently awaiting modders ( but not TW! ) to develop a building behind it, if they ever can.
So, if Bannerlord is not the current " best MB ( SP ) experience ", what is ?
Could it be VC Reforged, with the Blood Eagle ( 4.2.5 ) mod ?
( Bannerlord is sometimes compared, unfavourably, with VC on these pages )
Or perhaps TLD ?
This.I'm still hoping a real studio will make a game like Bannerlord
Yeah Battle Brothers is great in general but a lot of the design is clearly autism-influenced.I spent 3 hours once killing the kraken only for the fight to not end after I killed it, leaving me to have to redo the whole thing.
I deleted the game off my PC after that XD XD
How is M&B's combat stupid or grindy?Battle Brothers, by far.
It is pretty much Mount and Blade with most of the stupid or grindy parts removed, combined with actual good writing and a scope focused on the fun bits.
I didn't say combat specifically but off the top of my head, stuff like high-tier armor poofing most of the time in M&B because they couldn't/wouldn't balance the game around full loot. In BB, you can reliably get that armor. Or M&B always having a clearly superior unit type that isn't balanced against anything else in the game world; Warband had Swadian Knights (or Sarranid Mamluks) while Bannerlord has almost any flavor of high-tier archer you care to name. The man-sandwich of WB sieges was about as dumb as it gets.How is M&B's combat stupid or grindy?
You didn't get my point and neither does your point have anything to do with combat.I didn't say combat specifically but off the top of my head, stuff like high-tier armor poofing most of the time in M&B because they couldn't/wouldn't balance the game around full loot. In BB, you can reliably get that armor. Or M&B always having a clearly superior unit type that isn't balanced against anything else in the game world; Warband had Swadian Knights (or Sarranid Mamluks) while Bannerlord has almost any flavor of high-tier archer you care to name. The man-sandwich of WB sieges was about as dumb as it gets.
Grindy is the only way to describe the end-game of M&B; to do a full conquest, you literally have to chew through every single settlement on the map. In Warband, you had to do it against literally respawning hordes of enemies, which made it feel like the worst slog in the world to accomplish. In Bannerlord, they aren't as awful about that but there are a lot more settlements to take. In either case, it gives the impression that actually conquering was less a coherent goal and more of a thought exercise.
What is your point then?You didn't get my point and neither does your point have anything to do with combat.
If you build the max int female char like I do and have 14 engineer you dunk the AI's head in the toilet with instant siege's. They can spawn in cheat troops all day they still got no fiefs leftGrindy is the only way to describe the end-game of M&B; to do a full conquest, you literally have to chew through every single settlement on the map. In Warband, you had to do it against literally respawning hordes of enemies
Yeah, I did that. I had a skilled-up Engineer, a steady supply of trained troops and it was still grindy completing a world conquest in WB. Although part of that was the mechanic of having a faction's remaining lords slowly pile into their last holdings and sit there, so by time you went to take down the last one or two of their castles, the garrisons were 900+ men or whatever stupid amount they could get up to in there which meant those siege assaults took like 2 hours+ to resolve, each.If you build the max int female char like I do and have 14 engineer you dunk the AI's head in the toilet with instant siege's. They can spawn in cheat troops all day they still got no fiefs left
Free husband garrisons to endlessly swap out wounded troops sets and keep going.... the AI be trying to call tech support on you
And the post you originally responded to didn't mention combat to begin with:You didn't get my point and neither does your point have anything to do with combat.
The word "combat" is not in there.It is pretty much Mount and Blade with most of the stupid or grindy parts removed, combined with actual good writing and a scope focused on the fun bits.
If you build the max int female char like I do and have 14 engineer you dunk the AI's head in the toilet with instant siege's. They can spawn in cheat troops all day they still got no fiefs left
Free husband garrisons to endlessly swap out wounded troops sets and keep going.... the AI be trying to call tech support on you
I'm still hoping a real studio will make a game like Bannerlord
It implicitly did.And the post you originally responded to didn't mention combat to begin with:
It implicitly is for the combat in Battle Brothers is turn-based, therefore it has nothing to with that of M&B, hence my question in response to him claiming that Battle Brothers is "pretty much Mount and Blade with most of the stupid or grindy parts removed" which means -among other things- that M&B's combat is "stupid or grindy".The word "combat" is not in there.
By "real studio" I imagine @Fate is talking about one that actually develops games instead of molesting digital sheep on top of a giant pile of our money.Sorry mate but this is fantasy speaking. Im assuming by "real studio" your talking about the major AAA title producers? Well trust me if they did decide to venture in this niche they would most likely try and recruit the highest level coders as taleworlds as they have an enormous head start in terms of a foundation for a game of this type. I know people here used to dream that the producers of Cyperpunk "would destroy" Taleworlds should they chose to one up them. This simply is not how it works and look how they failed at delivering in their own niche -how in the world are they going to just come in and dominate in a a totally foreign one?
I get the sentiment but really it would be another small indie or solo team that would most likely develop something really creative that could be a contender against Mount and Blade. The AAA guys are overrated imo and most of their games are microtransaction garbage that have ruined plenty of great titles like Battlefields and Rainbow Six
By "real studio" I imagine @Fate is talking about one that actually develops games instead of molesting digital sheep on top of a giant pile of our money.
Otherwise agreed: I wouldn't trust a AAA dev to compete with TW. At this point, it's clear that modders are better at making MB than TW is... if one could afford to buy a working engine, then they'd blow TW out of the water. That "if" is pretty much implausible, from what I understand.
Hmm... apparently the Brytenwalda team is working on a post-apocalyptic FPS/RPG:
If they were in charge of BL... or even just contracted to fix BL... the game would be worlds better.
Maybe in your head, but not in the real world.It implicitly did.
It implicitly is for the combat in Battle Brothers is turn-based, therefore it has nothing to with that of M&B, hence my question in response to him claiming that Battle Brothers is "pretty much Mount and Blade with most of the stupid or grindy parts removed" which means -among other things- that M&B's combat is "stupid or grindy".