Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord Old Discussion Thread

Users who are viewing this thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Speaking of ragdolls, why did they ditch the original ragdolls from M&B? They were much better than they are now in warband. Now they kinda feel weightless. Back then people used to fall with much more force especially from horses.
 
Lord Kite said:
Speaking of ragdolls, why did they ditch the original ragdolls from M&B? They were much better than they are now in warband. Now they kinda feel weightless. Back then people used to fall with much more force especially from horses.

I definitely second this.
 
Jesus YOUR LORD said:
Meevar the Mighty said:
It's a strange mix. The legionaries seem kind of middle Western Roman Empire, but just about everything else - the castles, great helms etc are from the same general period as M&B and WB.

I quite like the mixture.  Having a historically accurate game would ruin the M&B lore as well as limit ability to diversify factions, equipment and experiences.  The crumbling empire is a fantastic backdrop to a grand narrative and is a broad setting that is rarely used in games.  There are all sorts of ways that you can incorporate the reasons for the decline into quests and gameplay (on a strategic level).  Decadence, corruption, over-reliance on slavery, stretched boarders and fragile leadership could all be themes to be pursued in the single player game if Taleworlds have the time / money / energy to flesh out the single-player side of the game.

They must! They simply have to lean more on the M&B singleplayer game since it represents a unique taleworlds concept and has very much potential.

If they want to get praise and good critics for Bannerlord, they will have to improve quests and diplomacy, deepen the storylines, landscape interaction and charakter relations. 
 
M&B & warband were authentic enough for me, but I would also like Bannerlord to have more content while maintaining Mount and Blade style of game.
 
I think its very apparent that TW is trying to make the Byzantine/Roman faction have some elements from each of the factions of Warband. Its almost like the Warband factions took some of the Byzantine/Roman culture when they invaded; which makes perfect sense.
 
Outlawed said:
I think its very apparent that TW is trying to make the Byzantine/Roman faction have some elements from each of the factions of Warband. Its almost like the Warband factions took some of the Byzantine/Roman culture when they invaded; which makes perfect sense.

Warband factions didn't invade for the most part, they simply did what happened to the real Western Roman Empire - broke off or rebelled. It's not them taking the Empire's technology, it's the Empire combining theirs, which is also true to life.
 
Yeah, kind of. Idk that the crossing of the Rhine constituted a rebellion, exactly, but certainly most of the parties involved with the fall of the empire were intimately involved with the empire and Roman culture beforehand.

The Calradian empire seems to have elements from both the Western and later Eastern Roman empires and it also has a combination of internal factions and external enemies acting against it.

I'd kind of prefer if all of the factions were earlier, to meet the late Roman median of the Calradian empire, but that's because I particularly like the migration period.

If the game were completely based around 600 AD or thereabouts, all of the cultures (except maybe the Sarranids) would look quite similar. It would also be a lot of work to make even one decent migration period faction.

These fibulae are each associated with a migration period group that corresponds with a faction in M&B. Good luck working out which is which.

lN-xt.png


(thanks+sorry to image copyright holders)

Answers: Vaegir (Sclavenic), Rhodok (Langobardic), Khergit (Hunnic), Swadian (Frankish) and Nord (Vendel)

+1 for expanding the arena. How about chariot races? :mrgreen:
 
Tork789 said:
I only hope that there will be that kind of lance:
dpdI5EA.jpg
This image implies that pikemen would use 3m spears against horsemen with 4m lances.
Which is rubbish, unless the pikemen weren't expecting to have to deal with such a lance.
 
Rallix said:
Tork789 said:
I only hope that there will be that kind of lance:
dpdI5EA.jpg
This image implies that pikemen would use 3m spears against horsemen with 4m lances.
Which is rubbish, unless the pikemen weren't expecting to have to deal with such a lance.

Well, pikes and other polearms were constantly made longer to outreach the enemy's ones, so I think that such a situation would be plausible and even somewhat common.
 
Rallix said:
Tork789 said:
I only hope that there will be that kind of lance:
dpdI5EA.jpg
This image implies that pikemen would use 3m spears against horsemen with 4m lances.
Which is rubbish, unless the pikemen weren't expecting to have to deal with such a lance.
A lance can always be made longer than a pike, since for cavalryman it was a one-off weapon and could be made hollow inside and thus longer but less durable, while for pikeman it should've been firm enough to withstand attacks as long as possible, ideally - until the end of battle. So if we're speaking about the arms race, lance would have longer reach in the end.
 
blackthursday said:
Tork789 said:
Lumos said:
Tork789 said:
So if we're speaking about the arms race, lance would have longer reach in the end.
That's where bows come into play. :razz:
That's where shields and armour come into play.
That's where catapults come into play. I was going to say guns.

I'm not so sure about that. If you put a man with a pike against a man with a catapult, I'd bet on the pike guy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom