m&b 2

Users who are viewing this thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

king_Arthur

Recruit
what era will mount and blade 2 be based if there is one would it be elves goblins men and orcs or undead and stuff beacuse that would rock legions of the undead and Nightmare steeds. anyway will there be a mount and blade 2
 
hi

if there is M&B2 than i hope the series will continue in its (allready)traditional style, without orcs, elves, any kind of magic and such stuff! the lack of magic and fantasy maks the game that great as it is, and i hope M&B2 will continue the greatness of M&B, in the same way!!!

greetings
 
Yeah, ever since those poor old greeks were wiped out by that asteroid in 1782, Earth lost alot of it's vitality.
 
would it be elves goblins men and orcs or undead and stuff beacuse that would rock legions of the undead and Nightmare steeds.

That sounds like Warcraft. The world is full of games with elves, goblins, men, orcs and undead. But there are only a few good games without any fantasy influences.

Frankly, I'm up to here *point* of fantasy clichés. For once, I'd like to play a game without them.
 
Huzzah! I was thinking that the next one would be interesting if it was set in the same area, but during the beginnings of the gunpowder era.
 
A game with this same format in the Wild West era might be pretty interesting. Of course, then almost all the combat would be with guns.
 
Somebody suggested that M&B should focus on Russia. Surprisingly, I agree: Russia is one of those countries whose history has not been "covered" in computer games. There's a lot of stuff about Ancient Greece, Rome, Middle-Europe, Vikings, Britain, France, Japan... But very little about the East.

I think mounted combat and mounted archery would fit the East very well. Riding as a boyar against marauding huns... Or a "King of Sweden goes Novgorod" scenario...

Wait! It would have to be about Eastern Rome, the Byzantine Empire. Cataphracts, mounted archers, Varangians, ottomans, janissaries, slave traders, nomads, corrupt power politics, unforgiving warfare... I'd love to see the grandeur of Constantinople in a game!
 
I think it will be about Ottomans. There is not much game about them also they have a different style unlike European nations. I think it will be great if the new version would be about Ottomans or Turks.[/quote]
 
I think primitave guns could fit in very well with M&B... a big ole arquebus, low accuracy and range, high damage, very long reload time, and no way you could reload on a horse...

Yeah, that sounds great, maybe the napeleonic wars would be interesting, because we would have several countries involved (including Russia :smile: )

Horses could be used for the cavalry and officers of foot soldiers, and to tow cannons.

But the gunpowder age is not that interesting in my opinion because:

-who can take 2 bullets and still fight? I can imagine with arrows, especially with armor, but I wouldn't want to try :smile:
-you don't have armor and that would make it boring, because you only could get better weapons
-fights should be big, really big...maybe too big for this engine (or you would have to lower the detail)
-close combat would be less important, a lot of fights would be over a great distance
 
Well, bullets were used rarely those days - they usually used buckshot... and it mean that effective range of those is about 100 meters (then it would be stopped by most basic of armors) However, if you'll get shot up close - ouchies.
Napoleonic wars... poor ol chap, defeated everyone in Western Europe, and thought about Russia as a 'wasteland full of ignorant serfs'. He had like a half a million men when he entered the country, and like 10k when finally bugged out :smile:. That was beginning of an end for him.
If Napoleon was wise enough to stay clear from Russia, political map of the world might be drastically different. Expecially one of the Europe :smile:. And no one would dare to call French cowards or something. Not as it's right to do so now. After all, Napoleon DID defeat everyne in Western Europe, before he made the ultimate mistake.
 
Balor, buckshot as you call it was very rarely used in the entire gunpowder period. Bullets (usually made of lead) were almost universal, although totally inaccurate until rifled barrels came along. Even at 50 metre range you'd be lucky to hit your target with your average musket - I seem to remember the statistic for major battles is that for every 300 musket balls fired, only 1 will hit.
 
Well, perhaps that was in Europe. Or I'm messing something... and not that I'm saying that bushot was used exclusively. However, given the caliber of those (earlier) rifles, firing slugs from them is an overkill. And by firing buckshot you can kill or maim a few men at once.
 
Mechstra said:
Balor, buckshot as you call it was very rarely used in the entire gunpowder period. Bullets (usually made of lead) were almost universal.

Musket balls actually, bullet was not a term used in that era.

The rifles did not have to be accurate, large lines of men walked towards each other in close formation and fired at eachother, it would be hard to miss :smile: And they rarely one hit killed :wink: Disease was the biggest killer.

The caliber of the British Brown Bess was .75 not a lot in modern standards, the average reloading times during the napoleonic era for a french soldier was about 2 shots a minute(imperial guard 3/4) it was also not the French battle tactic to stay and fire volley after volley, it was march close enough, fire and engage with bayonets... Anyway, for a trained British soldier, the most professional army around in that era next to the french, it was 3 shots a minute. There were differant variations of rifles of course, those that were designed to be more accurate, hunting rifles for example, but no army could afford to buy 75,000 rifles, War was expensive enough.

Russians involvement with Napoleon from my readings were slim, the majority of the 'action' so to speak happened in Spain, France and Portugal, the only thing that stopped Buonaparte from being that major military power and controling much of Europe was the equally powerful British Empire, who dominated the seas and the worlds economy for the previous 100 years and the 150 years to come.

I dont remember ever reading about Napoleon marching half a million soldiers across half of europe to go to Russia, he did go there, and sacked and burned Moscow, and Russia granted did play a role in his first defeat, but his final defeat, where he was most dangerous and threatend europe the most with the prospect of having a total of 1 million soldiers! there was little to no involvement on the military side from Russia. The fighting took place in Spain, Portugal and France where he battled to defend occupied Spain and France from English invasion, He failed.

After all, Napoleon DID defeat everyne in Western Europe, before he made the ultimate mistake.

Britain never lost a war against him :grin: Both times he lost, it was at British hands.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom