M&B had peaked with F&S, apparently

Users who are viewing this thread

Pythagoras

Regular
I was already thinking that i am the only one with this opinion. I played F&S and never found it inferior to Warband, except the thin map, story and cultural background.

F&S was awesome in the possibilities it provided - and because of blackpowder and volley orders battles where often much more fun than the constant and boring looter farming of Bannerlord. M&B is made as a sandbox, but a sandbox where you cannot control the way your own troops are equipped (at least as king) is not complete. F&S did many things wrong, but no one can seriously complain about the possibilities you had combat- and armywise. Obviously it wouldn't even be hard to implement, but it would offer so many more possibilities of playing the game, so many ways of experimenting. Same with the siege possibilities: Realistic, immersive, fun - and as the equipment customization not even mandatory for those who want to stick to the Warband way.

Why not do a playthrough with heavily armoured pikesmen? Or with light, skirmishing archers with axe and shield? Or with highly trained longbowmen, accompanied by light lance cavalry? No one can deny the huge amount of replayability and immersion, when one of the perks of being a king is being able to customize that much, instead of basically doing the exact same thing like as lord. Given a realistic pricing of equipment and a good AI even historical authenticity would be guaranteed. Still you should keep in mind that never in history turkish horse archers, english heavy riders, celtic skirmishers and byzanthine cataphracts fought against eachother that geographically close and that warfare would probably have developed completely different if they had.
 
Last edited:
Reputed Tavern in Warzaw
Me: Lets raise our glasses for the Tsar...
Everyone else in the Tavern:.. why you dirty spy!

I did have a lot of fun with the troops and the fighting.

Was a fun game but they lacked support and/or customers and very few mods were ever made. There are some small and some large annoying things in the game, it needed some serious fixing and balancing, but that stopped to early. The land its played on and the names of the Warlords also makes it a bit estranging for non natives. It did for me, I was often like "who is this guy again?"
 
I was already thinking that i am the only one with this opinion. I played F&S and never found it inferior to Warband, except the thin map, story and cultural background.

F&S was awesome in the possibilities it provided - and because of blackpowder and volley orders battles where often much more fun than the constant and boring looter farming of Bannerlord. M&B is made as a sandbox, but a sandbox where you cannot control the way your own troops are equipped (at least as king) is not complete. F&S did many things wrong, but no one can seriously complain about the possibilities you had combat- and armywise. Obviously it wouldn't even be hard to implement, but it would offer so many more possibilities of playing the game, so many ways of experimenting. Same with the siege possibilities: Realistic, immersive, fun - and as the equipment customization not even mandatory for those who want to stick to the Warband way.

Why not do a playthrough with heavily armoured pikesmen? Or with light, skirmishing archers with axe and shield? Or with highly trained longbowmen, accompanied by light lance cavalry? No one can deny the huge amount of replayability and immersion, when one of the perks of being a king is being able to customize that much, instead of basically doing the exact same thing like as lord. Given a realistic pricing of equipment and a good AI even historical authenticity would be guaranteed. Still you should keep in mind that never in history turkish horse archers, english heavy riders, celtic skirmishers and byzanthine cataphracts fought against eachother that geographically close and that warfare would probably have developed completely different if they had.
The Crimean Khanate did have old school heavy cavalry with armored horse and lancer, they also did have horse archers and foot archers and musketeers.
 

voronius

Sergeant
Sounds like I have to try F&S, i have the whole collection on Steam, but somehow i stopped at warband with POP.
I heard viking conquest is good too and has more features than warband. I should try those 2.
 

Dionaea

Veteran
Sounds like I have to try F&S, i have the whole collection on Steam, but somehow i stopped at warband with POP.
I heard viking conquest is good too and has more features than warband. I should try those 2.

Viking conquest is good but don't expect to be soloing armies and bandit groups. You really rely on your troops in that one
 
Top Bottom