M&B had peaked with F&S, apparently

Users who are viewing this thread

I was reading some articles on M&B Fire and Sword wiki (never played it myself), and realised just how many features that've been suggested lately are mentioned and present in the game. How in-depth they are - whether they even exist - I don't know. To give some examples (add 'apparently' to all these sentences):

- Mercenary camps, where you can hire mercenaries talking to the captain and CUSTOMIZE THE GEAR OF YOUR MERCENARIES??? WHAT MORE HAVE I MISSED OUT ON? Well there's more ...

-
"Capturing of castles has become more difficult to achieve by force, so the game offers new siege options, such as bribing a guard, poisoning the water supply, or blowing a hole in the wall to provide an advantage based on the player's tactics skill. "
Wai- wha really? You can what?

-
Another new option is the choice to build a 'wagon fort' fort from the camp menu. A wagon fort is a triangle-shaped barricade which can be jumped over by horses (although the AI will not do this) but forces infantry to go around it.
AAAH STOP IT HURTS

-
  • They can send companions to town academies to learn new skills.
    [*]Merchant guilds offer loans and interest on deposits, along with bounties should you fail to pay back your debts.
    [*]Unique weapons and armor can be crafted from smiths at the town center.
    [*]Taverns are frequented by the usual visits from travelers, heroes, booksellers, and mercenaries, but also by pub visitors, who may be looking for a fistfight.
    [*]Players can also organize their own Merchant Caravans to earn profits through trade.
    [*]
Okay well they added at least two of these, I hope we can expect to see the other ones and more soon then? Right? Right TW? You're working on it right?

-
Guards: elite troops which can only be recruited from a Personal Guard Commander and/or Heavy Cavalry Commander.

Mercenaries: elite troops which can be recruited from a Mercenary Commander. They cannot be recruited from Mercenary Camps or taverns.

Special soldiers: special troops which can only be recruited in a few fortifications. The commanders vary.

Tavern mercenaries: Mercenaries that can be recruited from taverns. They can best militia but not regulars.

Camp mercenaries: Mercenaries recruited from mercenary camps. Their stats are always lower than similar faction troops but their equipment can be customized.

*Commanders are found in castles/cities by going to the option "Go to the town center". You must be a lord/vassal/mercenary of that faction to access the commanders. There will often be rumours about commanders, which can suggest what troops are available to be recruited. You must come back to the same commander four days later to pick up your troops by clicking ""I want to recruit some men."

There are- There are commanders? And mercenary captains? If I had read this some months ago I would probably think these features were from the future Bannerlord. Where the **** were all these features in Warband, IN BANNERLORD (but they're coming soon I hope, thanks to TW's excellent communication with the community about their plans and goals I feel assured and motivated to support the game further, right?)


- Regional Mercenaries: specific for certain Towns and Fortresses.

Region-specific units? No ****ing way.




That's it, if these articles are true, then M&B has peaked years ago. And I didn't even know it. Unless the author was trolling. I would've said it couldn't get any better but since Taleworlds have been so communicative in telling us about the development process I've no doubt Bannerlord will surpass any M&B game in no time. Just as soon as they're done with making the game less fun.
 
Last edited:

AxiosXiphos

Sergeant Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Did you ever play fire&sword...? Sounds like you didn't... if you did you would not have made this thread...
 

Kniggit

Squire
WB
0/10 OP writing about a game they haven't even played, and comparing it to a game that isn't even complete yet.
 

StewVader

Your take is spot on. But prepare for the "ITS EA DUDE! JUST BE PATIENT - SO MANY FEATURES ARE COMING" crowd. However, we have no idea if the game is 80% done or 20% done, so all of those people are just talking out of their rumps!
 

StewVader

0/10 OP writing about a game they haven't even played, and comparing it to a game that isn't even complete yet.

Yep. Here go. First of the "IT'S EA" crowd. As if that absolves them for all of the current bad design decisions, and lack of communication, to include the absence of any development roadmap.

A roadmap keeps them accountable. Right now, they have our money and we have...well we have something, with no idea if its baked, half baked, or not even in the oven.
 

Jhaerik

Banned
Ehh I'm not fond of firearms in melee combat focused games. Just like I'm not all that fond of the Bannerlords early dark age setting. Personally I'd like to see the original Mount and Blade remade in the Bannerlord engine with the old skill system and what they learned from their mistakes in this one. I kind of just see Bannerlord as an engine test at this point. I'm sure someone will eventually make something similar to this happen through modding, but then... is it really Bannerlord anymore?
 
Similar story with VC. TW has a weird relationship with the people it hires to improve its game, they do a good job and get sales, M&B fans get accustomed to the improvements, and then they proceed to completely ignore all of it in the next iteration.

I often wonder if its driven by an ego WELL WE DIDN'T MAKE THESE CHANGES SO THEY ARE GHETTOIZED TO DLC ONLY type mentality.
 
Ehh I'm not fond of firearms in melee combat focused games. Just like I'm not all that fond of the Bannerlords early dark age setting. Personally I'd like to see the original Mount and Blade remade in the Bannerlord engine with the old skill system and what they learned from their mistakes in this one. I kind of just see Bannerlord as an engine test at this point. I'm sure someone will eventually make something similar to this happen through modding, but then... is it really Bannerlord anymore?
My thoughts exactly. I would much prefer a mid-to-late medieval era M&B, with it's crossbowmen taking cover behind their pavise shields, mighty halberdiers at the gates, lines of pikemen ready to impale the enemy cavalry... all fascinating stuff but no, instead we get studded leather and cloth armor in a 11th century setting. I could not think of a more boring timeline.
 
My thoughts exactly. I would much prefer a mid-to-late medieval era M&B, with it's crossbowmen taking cover behind their pavise shields, mighty halberdiers at the gates, lines of pikemen ready to impale the enemy cavalry... all fascinating stuff but no, instead we get studded leather and cloth armor in a 11th century setting. I could not think of a more boring timeline.

This is where y'all lose me. Its got diddle to do all the meaningful features. You can create a good game in pretty much any era of history.

You, and some other people like that period. I personally prefer this period. That's not a meaningful criticism. In Warband, people like me had to get our aesthetic fix from mods and DLC, this time around there will certainly be later-medieval mods (and probably DLC). You could also take lots of the good features from Viking Conquests and insert them a late medieval setting.

Personally speaking, if you want to criticize the lack of certain features, one shouldn't lump ones own aesthetic criticisms in the mold. That's where I hop off this train, as I'm really happy with the setting but unhappy with the ignoring of key M&B improvements.



I thought you believed in constructive posting?
:roll:
Actions always speak louder than self report.
 

Jhaerik

Banned
My thoughts exactly. I would much prefer a mid-to-late medieval era M&B, with it's crossbowmen taking cover behind their pavise shields, mighty halberdiers at the gates, lines of pikemen ready to impale the enemy cavalry... all fascinating stuff but no, instead we get studded leather and cloth armor in a 11th century setting. I could not think of a more boring timeline.

I might be wrong but isn't this set even earlier than that? I'm not exactly a history buff but this seems more like some weird mash up of everything between the 6th and 11th centuries. That said I don't believe it was called "the dark ages" because it was particularly interesting...

Frankly I'd even prefer a game set in the middle of the height on Romes power around 100AD. At least it would feel unique to M&B and Warband. Bannerlord's setting just feels like a gimped version of those two titles.
 
This is where y'all lose me. Its got diddle to do all the meaningful features. You can create a good game in pretty much any era of history.

You, and some other people like that period. I personally prefer this period. That's not a meaningful criticism. In Warband, people like me had to get our aesthetic fix from mods and DLC, this time around there will certainly be later-medieval mods (and probably DLC). You could also take lots of the good features from Viking Conquests and insert them a late medieval setting.
That wasn't really a criticism just expressing my thoughts on the choice of timeline. I still prefer a late medieval setting but it's okay if you don't, the devs have made their choice. Except they haven't made their research, apparently, in the gameplay and in artwork you constantly see leather armour, cloth swinging around for no apparent reason, you would expect to see pretty much everyone in mail armour, or the khuzaits more commonly in plated mail / scale, but it seems they are the exception and leather tunics dominate the battlefield now. Are there any gambesons even? Either there aren't or there is too little that I don't even remember. In any case, more brigandines, more (plated) mail, more gambesons, less thin cloth and leather, thank you very much.

I would still much rather have bascinets though...
 
That wasn't really a criticism just expressing my thoughts on the choice of timeline. I still prefer a late medieval setting but it's okay if you don't, the devs have made their choice. Except they haven't made their research, apparently, in the gameplay and in artwork you constantly see leather armour, cloth swinging around for no apparent reason, you would expect to see pretty much everyone in mail armour, or the khuzaits more commonly in plated mail / scale, but it seems they are the exception and leather tunics dominate the battlefield now. Are there any gambesons even? Either there aren't or there is too little that I don't even remember. In any case, more brigandines, more (plated) mail, more gambesons, less thin cloth and leather, thank you very much.

I would still much rather have bascinets though...

Fair enough. I do agree the inconsistency is a bit of a shame, and personally speaking, given the game isn't a historical simulator I wouldn't care if they mixed in a bit of plate and pike to try and hit more aesthetic preferences, since there isn't much historical accuracy to be preserved.

There's way less gambesons then there should be, and I would agree with you entirely that for the era, there could be better representation.

I might be wrong but isn't this set even earlier than that? I'm not exactly a history buff but this seems more like some weird mash up of everything between the 6th and 11th centuries. That said I don't believe it was called "the dark ages" because it was particularly interesting...

Frankly I'd even prefer a game set in the middle of the height on Romes power around 100AD. At least it would feel unique to M&B and Warband. Bannerlord's setting just feels like a gimped version of those two titles.

In once sense its set in the 1000's but in another sense its clearly including elements from a wider range of history. So arguably there's no "true" setting that maps onto our history.

I have to object though, in academe nobody uses the term "the dark ages" anymore and its a term that came out of ignorance of the era. I totally respect if you personally just don't find that era interesting, but pretending that its objectively boring is erring on the side of inserting your preferences as fact. There are certainly eras of history that for whatever reason don't excite me but I refrain from trying to assert that they're factually just uninteresting.

I do agree, though, that a M&B game set in the height of Romes power would be really fun & would be able to better utilize (some) of the concepts in BL, at the expense of sacrificing some others. I was always surprised of all the Warband total conversion mods nobody ever really managed to complete a solid singleplayer Rome mod.
 
Fire and Sword was pretty fun for what it was, but i never played it over warband. The guns were neat but did get kind of annoying after a while as you would be killed pretty easily by them. My favorite feature of the game was being able to order units via a noble in your castle, and also invest gold to train units garrisonned.

I think the biggest turn off for me in that game, despite all of the quality of life improvements, was that eventually villages wouldn't let you recruit if you were independent, you pretty much had to use mercenaries or join a faction. I never really understood that.
 

Jhaerik

Banned
Fair enough. I do agree the inconsistency is a bit of a shame, and personally speaking, given the game isn't a historical simulator I wouldn't care if they mixed in a bit of plate and pike to try and hit more aesthetic preferences, since there isn't much historical accuracy to be preserved.

There's way less gambesons then there should be, and I would agree with you entirely that for the era, there could be better representation.



In once sense its set in the 1000's but in another sense its clearly including elements from a wider range of history. So arguably there's no "true" setting that maps onto our history.

I have to object though, in academe nobody uses the term "the dark ages" anymore and its a term that came out of ignorance of the era. I totally respect if you personally just don't find that era interesting, but pretending that its objectively boring is erring on the side of inserting your preferences as fact. There are certainly eras of history that for whatever reason don't excite me but I refrain from trying to assert that they're factually just uninteresting.

I do agree, though, that a M&B game set in the height of Romes power would be really fun & would be able to better utilize (some) of the concepts in BL, at the expense of sacrificing some others. I was always surprised of all the Warband total conversion mods nobody ever really managed to complete a solid singleplayer Rome mod.

That is just arguing symantics though as some people clearly do still use the term. I and many others still prefer the term "the dark ages" to "early middle ages" and it's just as accurate as long as both parties know as to when you are referring. It's no different that referring to a soft drink as soda pop, soda, pop, or a soft drink. Different terms all referring to the same thing spoken by different circles. I'm sure in another 10-15 years they'll be calling it something else, as well as something else in 20-30 more. Regardless I think we both know what's being discussed here.
 
So M&B Fire and Sword was a game with all kinds of promised features that weren't delivered or were poorly implemented?

This is the criticism of the OP?

... because Bannerlord isnt done? Released, but not done.
 
Top Bottom