Platoons?

[olliewilliams01]

Hey, i have looked all over the place for a complete list of single player warband features and differences from mount and blade, but i just cant find it. the main thing i'm wondering is if in this version you can assign men to squads or platoons. You know, so you can group together units instead of just having "infantry" "archers" and "cavalry". Like honestly this is a dealbreaker for me, because the form ranks mod is too complicated in my opinion. the china battlefield system is much better, but still not perfect. So yeah, I'm thinking that if i find out that you can assign people to platoons, i would buy the game, but if not, i don't think i will because in my research it seems too similar to mount and blade original. I mean multiplayer seems nice, but i just dont have a good enough connection for it to work i dont think.

 

[Nameless_Terror]

You can assign groups 1-0. thats 10 groups. You can not separate same type units, but you can have for instance Swadian knights one group, sarranid another, vaegir another, or combine cavalry, archer and infantry groups for different task. You have more command options if you chose to use them.

 

[tyrannicide]

I cannot possibly imagine how the ability to assign troops to custom groups, or the lack of it, could tip the balance towards either buying or not buying the game.

It sounds like you're grossly misunderstanding that feature. It's a nice for sure, but it isn't that big a deal.

 

[olliewilliams01]

alright, thanks. i'll probably get this now. that was a dealbreaker because i like strategy games, and not having different units kind of destroyed a lot of the strategy aspect in my opinion. and if you don't think that that was a big reason to get this new version, what was?
Thanks for the replies!

 

[Kellick]

I can understand that. The strategy options(or actually this is tactical...maybe operational?) could use a bit of improvement.
All in all I think this is a great game even if it is somewhat of a diamond in the rough.

Did you check your TCP/IP settins?
Yes Ollie.
Enable cookies?
Yes Ollie.
Do you want this dog?
No thank you Ollie.

 

[zimbabwe]

To be fair, the original M&B's simplistic grouping did cause some problems. Your companions joining the infantry meatgrinder if their horse got killed for one, and the general lack of fine control for us control freaks generals. It's a bit of a nitpick but if your toon is a CHA/INT specialist you really do spend a lot of time just watching the radar and arranging your groups, so more options is better.

The Warband method generally works really well - I can finally have my horse archers separate from my heavy cav and spears separate from swords. Most importantly though, I can assign my surgeon to his own group and have him sit out of the hairy fights.

Unfortunately it's twitchy for me during sieges - Doc Jeremus often ignores my order and charges with the Doppelsoldners. I find that the only reliable way to give custom group orders in a siege is to select the unit on the radar screen and give the order with the mouse. No other combination works... if I use the keyboard to either select or give the order, the order text shows up but the unit usually ignores it.

 

[Nameless_Terror]

Just remember that you have to deal those orders FAST. The enemy can take a minute or can be on you almost immediately. There are mods to offset that, but enough said.

Unless you divide the groups formations have to be done manually (infantry and archers will stay in the same line if they are in the same group. Useful when trying to get x amount of infantry to guard archer pockets) other than maybe dividing the groups into 2 for a flank, I don't do much with the extra command slots.

If you get the battle size mod, it can become more important because you then can design your attacks more thoroughly, but for default 150 dividing a whole bunch of soldiers into squads means that some or all of the squad will be lacking soldiers. keeping it simple is, as in all strategies, best. I personally am a strategy game player with few exceptions.

The enhanced battle commands are definitely a good addition to the game. I bought the original and a month or so later warband when I found out about it. Had I seen the warband first, I would not have even looked at mount and blade. They are very similar but there are many minor tweaks that are nicer imo.



I never have problems with orders being ignored in a siege. Although on the odd occasion I do have a soldier disobey an order, I will shoot him in the head with an arrow. I know the ai can't acknowledge this, but it feels like they are following orders more effectively afterwards, so I do it if the occasion arises.

 

[tyrannicide]

alright, thanks. i'll probably get this now. that was a dealbreaker because i like strategy games, and not having different units kind of destroyed a lot of the strategy aspect in my opinion. and if you don't think that that was a big reason to get this new version, what was?

Well, first off, M&B is not a strategy game by any means. It's an action game with some RPG elements and few tactical ones.

I couldn't tell you any specific reason to buy it. For one, I never had the original M&B, only played it at a friend's once and then got Warband straight. There are a few threads with lengthy argumentations about how M&B:W is superior to M&B (or not), but that's just tedious. In my opinion and overall, it's well worth its price, that's all.

Cf. what the others said about the command system. It's just that I got the kind of feeling from your OP that you were overestimating the feature. If you wouldn't enjoy M&B:W without it, I doubt you'd enjoy it with it, and vice-versa.

 

[Nameless_Terror]

To be honest I understand the command menu being a deal breaker. It was a big issue for me, but not a deal breaker. I understand where you are coming from so I think you would consider it worth it.

In the end that is for you to decide. You have to decide what you want to do. It lived up to what I hoped for it. If you are hoping to turn it into a strategy game, won't happen. As long as your expectations are within the confines of the game, you're good. Go get it.

 

[Kellick]

To be honest I understand the command menu being a deal breaker. It was a big issue for me, but not a deal breaker. I understand where you are coming from so I think you would consider it worth it.

In the end that is for you to decide. You have to decide what you want to do. It lived up to what I hoped for it. If you are hoping to turn it into a strategy game, won't happen. As long as your expectations are within the confines of the game, you're good. Go get it.

Yeah, well said.

Myself I demo'd this game my usual fashion (bootleg and hacked exe) and I had a perfectly working copy of 1.113 (well as perfectly working as a bug-ridden piece of software can be) and I thought this game was worth buying and so I did. Is it perfect? No. Is there room for improvement? Yes. Are the devs working on it? Sometimes

I've gotten a lot of hours of enjoyment out of this game and I expect to get many more. 30 bucks just barely pays to take the wife to a movie and buy some popcorn and a couple sodas, that is just a couple hours entertainment.

 

[Velax]

This game is weird that way. Must be one of the buggiest and obviously uncompleted games I've ever played, yet I can't seem to stop. Been playing for almost five years now, and I might stop playing for a few months here or six months there, but I always come back.

 

[Kellick]

This game is weird that way. Must be one of the buggiest and obviously uncompleted games I've ever played, yet I can't seem to stop. Been playing for almost five years now, and I might stop playing for a few months here or six months there, but I always come back.

Daggerfall had that effect on me.