Real-Life DLC or Expansion: Michael the Brave

Users who are viewing this thread

Akfiz

Recruit
Maybe a social experiment as well.

TW has prioritized a different revenue model by targeting different audience with Bannerlord. Releasing another product (like the one you propose) for a "moderately wealthy" (using an euphemism) prospective playerbase of the Balkans would be contrary to TW's very principles of business. Instead, you might anticipate (if so) an expansion revolving around China, because it is where money really is flowing.

Also, excuse me for double-posting.

I also look down on WFaS with utter disdain and contempt, as it is an example of a really bad product hastily released to capitalize on people with inferiority complex. Such playerbase would derive their sense of pride from history-glorifying products, instead of focusing on their nation's future and economic strength (Turks, Poles and Serbs are fine examples of nations doing so). That being said, WFaS was released because TW thought in monetary terms; that is why a mediocre product got its chance whereas many others (better made) did not.

Here is my brutally honest review of WFaS taken from this topic: https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/breakdown-of-wfas-difficulty-options-1-143.440994/. No more WFaS-like standalones/ DLCs for fairness's sake (towards better teams with better modifications but with limited economic appeal)!
So instead on focusing on Polish nationalist with an inferiority complex TW should have focused on Chinese nationalists with an inferiority complex because they are richer? I have to wonder how many of the buyers are nationalists or simply people who enjoy a good story. Despite not being a Pole, I enjoyed the WFAS storyline a lot, even the alt-history Ukrainian and Russian stories. It's fun to have a context for a game, rather than just swinging the sword for the sake of it, and have an epic & awe-inspiring story while at it, but you don't need to be of a certain nation to enjoy a certain story as long as it's good. And yes this comes from a Romanian guy who made a series of DLC suggestions about Romanian rulers, but the reason I find these stories good is because of what happened in them, not because they are Romanians. Unifying 3 small principalities bordering 3 of the world's greatest powers is no easy feat, even if it lasted for less than 1 year.

While WFAS had some bugs, it was likely due to the small team of developers. And the gameplay as well as new mechanics of guns and grenades were fun in spite of the bugs. The only thing I dislike is that the map was too plain, I would have wished more flavor with winter in Russia and steeps in Crimeea. As well as a consistent 4 villages per town and 1 village per castle like in Warband. Napoleonic Wars is basically the same except no Singleplayer and the guns have lower accuracy and slower reload to make them less arcade-y. Which is with ups and downs, since Warband is not a simulator game to begin with.
My WFAS suggestions: https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/final-updates-for-m-b-warband-and-m-b-wfas.391923/

If they go for China, which they probably will for economic reasons as you say, I hope they don't make the Romance of the 3 kingdoms. It has been overused in gaming. There are other interesting periods from Chinese history. The problem with that is that China's government can be quite restrictive in terms of the products on the Chinese market especially when it's about China, so TW needs to get approval from the Chinese government first.

What other better made products? If I remember correctly, Viking Conquest was originally a mod as well. A lot better than WFAS, which got a chance.

It's nice that you like obscure history, I do too. But most people who buy Bannerlord DLCs don't. They want their Vikings and Anglosphere-centric history like Brytenwalda and Braveheart.

Oh, it's me then and not him being obscure outside Romania. I guess you didn't need that wall of text to introduce him!

That's weak. Or maybe Hunyadi is too Hungarian and not Romanian enough? You are obviously pushing for a national hero here, and not out of objective appreciation, most visibly and irrationally when comparing him to history's greatest generals. It's a very predictable Balkan thing to do and it sucks.
With Fire and Sword is a perfect example that people don't want only western-centric history. As for the Vikings, they have already been used.

I need that wall of text because not everybody is from the Balkans or likes history. Unlike you who claim to check both points and never heard of him, yet he was regionally significant enough to be mentioned in an one hour video about the summary of the Ottoman Empire.

That's lovely. You claim that John Hunyadi is a much better choice because he's more famous & was a defeater of Taleworlds' ancestors, as opposed to Michael the Brave & Dracula who were pretty much the same? Michael the Brave having his first victories over the Turks in the first 30 minutes of the video you didn't bother to watch before giving an opinion about something you don't know.

If you want to push for "X was better", at least come up with arguments that aren't equally valid for the ones you try to argue against, it makes all your talk of "objective appreciation" a scam.

You nailed the next one too. Hunyadi came from a Romanian noblemen family that converted to Catholicism, so techically speaking you could classify him as well as a Romanian hero. Anyway, technicalities aside, I push so much for a national hero that my favourite suggestion is about the Ottoman Conquests.

Michael the Brave, won a lot of battles with fewer troops of lower quality, on a constant basis. The greatest gap being the Battle of Calugareni where the Ottomans had 10 times as many units. It's presented in the video! (spolier alert: I did not made the video) and I did not write the comments form that video where he is literally called "one of history's greatest generals".

So don't talk about "objective appreciation" when you don't even look at the facts and come with "it's from the Balkans so everything about him must suck" horse lens. Lack of popularity doesn't equal lack of skill, but his battles speak for themselves.

The only reason you hate on him it's because he was Romanian, if it was Bismark doing the unification of Germany your opinion would be very different. But because it comes from a small country he couldn't possibly be one of history's greatest generals. This kind of narrow-minded hater thinking where everything that goes against your "big country -> good military leaders, small country -> bad military leaders" stereotype must be propaganda or exaggerations is also a very predictible thing to do and it sucks.

The sad part is that you didn't even watch the video, everything you say comes from preconceptions rather than the actual facts themselves, he could have won against the Ottomans, Austrians and Polish combined and it wouldn't matter to you, because you wouldn't actually bother to look at the facts. And that says it all.
 
Last edited:

Clsy

Squire
WBWF&S
@Akfiz
if you really want a DLC thing about some random romanian guy then maybe you could assemble your own development team and create it yourself
taleworlds do have the histroy of leaseing(?) the game out to have people who then sell their own conversion
whatever it is i don't know, but with the passion and knowledge you got here i am sure you could create a magnificent product
 

Akfiz

Recruit
@Clsy While I would love to work on such a product, it would take a development team and a lot of money to invest, both of which I lack.

For the time being, I simply gave an idea about some possible DLCs, if this doesn't come to pass at least some mods will probably be made about it.
 
While I would love to work on such a product, it would take a development team and a lot of money to invest, both of which I lack.

For the time being, I simply gave an idea about some possible DLCs, if this doesn't come to pass at least some mods will probably be made about it.
You can bet some mods are going to be made about it, but they will be about the glory of the Ottomans and in Turkish, not about some plucky Romanian.
Basically, if it's obscure and you really want it, you'll need to do it yourself.
Being an "idea man" posting shower thoughts is very demanding and avoiding the hard work of actual modding is not as simple as it sounds! :razz:

What other better made products? If I remember correctly, Viking Conquest was originally a mod as well. A lot better than WFAS, which got a chance.
VC was not a mod, it was a DLC from a ground up, made by the team that made the Brytenwalda mod.
With Fire and Sword is a perfect example that people don't want only western-centric history. As for the Vikings, they have already been used.
WFaS was the least popular of the Mount and Blade expansions, its only advantage was that it came first and people looking for more Mount and Blade had only WFaS as the only official choice (apart from mods).
Vikings are overused and that's EXACTLY why we will have a Nord Invasion DLC for Bannerlord. You may be personally tired of them and so am I, but a lot of people want more of them. Vikings in games for the last decade are what zombies in games were before them.

I need that wall of text because not everybody is from the Balkans or likes history. Unlike you who claim to check both points and never heard of him, yet he was regionally significant enough to be mentioned in an one hour video about the summary of the Ottoman Empire.

That's lovely. You claim that John Hunyadi is a much better choice because he's more famous & was a defeater of Taleworlds' ancestors, as opposed to Michael the Brave & Dracula who were pretty much the same? Michael the Brave having his first victories over the Turks in the first 30 minutes of the video you didn't bother to watch before giving an opinion about something you don't know.
My whole argument about Hunyadi is that he is both more famous and recognizable AND historically relevant. (Not any straw man you try to pin on me,.) Hunyadi is objectively a better choice for a history game. If you don't recognize this, I don't know what else to say. I brought up Hunyadi as a test for nationalism and you failed it. :smile:
I didn't watch your video as those videos are typically full of misleading trash (was it made by reputable historians or fanboys or some random youtubers that did their "research"?). I checked the wiki and read your post and that should be enough.

The only reason you hate on him it's because he was Romanian, if it was Bismark doing the unification of Germany your opinion would be very different. But because it comes from a small country he couldn't possibly be one of history's greatest generals. This kind of narrow-minded hater thinking where everything that goes against your "big country -> good military leaders, small country -> bad military leaders" stereotype must be propaganda or exaggerations is also a very predictible thing to do and it sucks.
That's the inferiority complex talking, trying to be a victim. I'm okay with Romanian heroes as I'm okay with Hungarians or others, I don't have preferences or traditional Balkan ethnic hatreds. Bismarck is a poor comparison as he was far more historically significant and successful.
What I object to is nationalist fervor that tries to distort reality and hype their historical figures to create a national myth. In this case, Mike is viewed as a Romanian nation builder by Romanians (just like Bismarck for Germans), so you can expect Romanians to be quite emotional and not very objective about his life and significance.
 
Last edited:
Have we left out the DLC where Montenegro takes over the known world?
It is better to make a mod in which Serbian Empire takes over Calradia (sic, for the sake of not wasting much time on it).

To begin with, the title of this topic explicitly implies that the thread's content will revolve around economical approach to business, aimed to maximize profits. Out of many non-commercial modifications/ modules for M&B franchise, there were only a few elevated to commercial release by TW (a publisher).

While WFAS had some bugs, it was likely due to the small team of developers. And the gameplay as well as new mechanics of guns and grenades were fun in spite of the bugs. The only thing I dislike is that the map was too plain, I would have wished more flavor with winter in Russia and steeps in Crimeea. As well as a consistent 4 villages per town and 1 village per castle like in Warband.
I know what I am saying and I can attest to my words since I am the one who got to know WFaS when it first was released. The standalone (sic) game premiered in 2009 only in Poland and it ran on original M&B engine. In 2010 and after Warband's release, it was ported to Warband engine with an expansion called 'Savage Fields'; bugs were disposed of, the game was accomodated to Warband's modding standards (BRF files, ModSys) and multi-player was added. In 2011, the game and its expansion were released world-wide on digital platforms.

I acquired it in 2011 (the 2009 version) and it was my first game from the franchise. It was so buggy the gameplay was awful. The only thing that was working was combat (on the other hand, it was pre-made and hardcoded by TW and WFaS's developers could not break it even if they wanted to do so). It was hastily released despite it being a semi-finished product (just like M&B was after 3 years of beta in 2008; not to even think about Bannerlord). It corroborates my statement that the game was just meant to capitalize on Polish people's pride, with little actual content but with a great deal of patriotic imagery, be it verbal or visual. You likely got to play the 2011 version, which was improved in comparison to its predecessor. There were many other mods which were better, but served no greater economic interest to be considered good enough to commercialize. WFaS got barely any new innovations, its scripting and assets were terrible. Here is a video I shot more than a decade ago; it sums up the experience.
So instead on focusing on Polish nationalist with an inferiority complex TW should have focused on Chinese nationalists with an inferiority complex because they are richer? I have to wonder how many of the buyers are nationalists or simply people who enjoy a good story. Despite not being a Pole, I enjoyed the WFAS storyline a lot, even the alt-history Ukrainian and Russian stories. It's fun to have a context for a game, rather than just swinging the sword for the sake of it, and have an epic & awe-inspiring story while at it, but you don't need to be of a certain nation to enjoy a certain story as long as it's good.
As I stated before, China is where money is flowing and TW has already prioritized money with Bannerlord instead of filling a niche out. It might be reasonable to anticipate that TW will expand where profits are assured and the Balkans will not satisfy the company's needs. Every nation is rather interested in its own history and actually, any portrayal of a country's history translates into greater profits in that state. Think about marketing and publishing deals as well. Do not force TW to adopt your point of view only because you deem your story good enough to constitute a foundation of a commercial product.
Being an "idea man" posting shower thoughts is very demanding and avoiding the hard work of actual modding is not as simple as it sounds!
MadVader, an experienced modder, is correct. We both know modding from inside. We also know that ideas are worthless and execution is what really matters. Anyone can give ideas (think of all such posts demanding mods featuring lightsabers, aliens, mutants, anime-like graphics, zombies, ninjas, vikings, Serbian warlords, Polish winged hussars, Turkish janissaries and else), but there is not many people to actually take their time to create something. Ideas can be written in minutes whereas modding takes months.
So don't talk about "objective appreciation" when you don't even look at the facts and come with "it's from the Balkans so everything about him must suck" horse lens. Lack of popularity doesn't equal lack of skill, but his battles speak for themselves.

The only reason you hate on him it's because he was Romanian, if it was Bismark doing the unification of Germany your opinion would be very different. But because it comes from a small country he couldn't possibly be one of history's greatest generals. This kind of narrow-minded hater thinking where everything that goes against your "big country -> good military leaders, small country -> bad military leaders" stereotype must be propaganda or exaggerations is also a very predictible thing to do and it sucks.
Me and MadVader are mature enough - I guess - to understand that emotional intelligence is important as well when it comes to discussions about history. We have already encountered many instances of inferiority complex (especially prevalent in Poles, Turks and Serbs and to a lesser extent, members of other nations as well) and we tried to test you. The important lesson in lifetime is not to treat history as a device to derive pride from; it should serve as a lesson. Do not be caught in the spiral of allegations and suspicions towards others only because they challenged you. Words can be written at no cost, so if you make a thread 'for free', expect others to respond 'for free'. It all is a 'free-for-all' (it is an idiom in English, in case you do not know). Companies think in monetary terms, so we should ponder it too.

Concluding, you are free to make such a mod and it will be alright. But please, do not force anyone to adopt your stance in commercial terms. The Deluge is a perfect example of a non-commercial Warband mod made by Poles which was started by people willing to reconcile historical setting with good gameplay experience. Such works are a good way to promote history only if they are good. Quality matters, so if you want to promote Michael the Brave's glorious deeds, you cannot end up as an idea-maker.
 

eddiemccandless

Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
I support a DLC on Dracula, but only it if includes Van Helsing. And we really should not be too demanding towards the developers at TW, let us not forget that the stakes are high, and so are, I assume, their bosses.
 

Akfiz

Recruit
My whole argument about Hunyadi is that he is both more famous and recognizable AND historically relevant. (Not any straw man you try to pin on me,.) Hunyadi is objectively a better choice for a history game. If you don't recognize this, I don't know what else to say. I brought up Hunyadi as a test for nationalism and you failed it. :smile:
I didn't watch your video as those videos are typically full of misleading trash (was it made by reputable historians or fanboys or some random youtubers that did their "research"?). I checked the wiki and read your post and that should be enough.
And my counter-argument is that he's not more famous and recognizable and historically relevant. It's not straw man when you actually made that argument:

"Janos Hunyadi, a much more famous figure, and defeater of Taleworlds' ancestors." - MadVader, 2021.

If you would like John Hunyadi more than Michael the Brave or Dracula, that's perfectly fine, your choice. But don't come up with arguments of why John Hunyadi is better that are equally valid for Michael the Brave and Dracula as well. It's like arguing Ford is better than Dodge because it has 4 wheels.

You can say nothing, you can make an unfounded bold assertion yet again or come up with evidence why John Hunyadi is indeed more famous and unlike Michael the Brave and Dracula, is in fact a defeater of Taleworld's ancestors. My money is on the second one.

Those videos typically full of misleading trash have their sources listed in the description and both channels are about general history. So I would rule the "fanboys" out (sorry), and given the way they butcher the Romanian pronunciation I'm afraid there's no conspiracy to exaggerate the deeds of Michael the Brave, unless they took it to the next level and pretend they aren't Romanians. :shock:

That leaves only reputable historians or random Youtubers that did their "research". Given that they posted sources at the end, they did some research. Either way, they did more research that you since you've never even heard of him, and their sources were books not the wiki.

That's the inferiority complex talking, trying to be a victim. I'm okay with Romanian heroes as I'm okay with Hungarians or others, I don't have preferences or traditional Balkan ethnic hatreds. Bismarck is a poor comparison as he was far more historically significant and successful.
What I object to is nationalist fervor that tries to distort reality and hype their historical figures to create a national myth. In this case, Mike is viewed as a Romanian nation builder by Romanians (just like Bismarck for Germans), so you can expect Romanians to be quite emotional and not very objective about his life and significance.
This line: "I object to is nationalist fervor that tries to distort reality and hype their historical figures to create a national myth" pretty much validates my point.

It's not the inferiority complex talking, it's simply talking to a hater which jumps to the conclusion that quote from myself "it comes from a small country he couldn't possibly be one of history's greatest generals". You didn't even bother to check what he actually did, his battles, but outright reject this possibility because it's not compatible with your views. I'm talking facts you're talking preconceptions.

The point I was making, was not that Bismark and Michael the Brave's situation was similar. But that if I posted a similar topic about Bismark instead, you would never have been like "this is clearly and exaggeration created for propaganda purposes and a national myth".

You are absolutely right, you can expect Romanians to be quite emotional and not very objective about his life and significance. Except those videos were not made by Romanians.

Even if you'd watch the videos and saw his battles, your reaction would probably be trying to find excuses for every victory of his, because he can't be that good, since the idea that he was objectively a brilliant commander would go against your ideas that small counties are full of nationalists that try to distort reality and hype their historical figures to create a national myth.

Which I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm saying it doesn't always happen, to be narrow-minded on the side of "this can't possibly happen" is not so different from being narrow-minded on the opposite side. Just as you can expect Romanians to be quite emotional and not very objective about his life and significance due to their nationalism, you can expect automatic nay-sayers to be equally emotional and not very objective about his life and significance due to their preconceptions.
It is better to make a mod in which Serbian Empire takes over Calradia (sic, for the sake of not wasting much time on it).

To begin with, the title of this topic explicitly implies that the thread's content will revolve around economical approach to business, aimed to maximize profits. Out of many non-commercial modifications/ modules for M&B franchise, there were only a few elevated to commercial release by TW (a publisher).

I know what I am saying and I can attest to my words since I am the one who got to know WFaS when it first was released. The standalone (sic) game premiered in 2009 only in Poland and it ran on original M&B engine. In 2010 and after Warband's release, it was ported to Warband engine with an expansion called 'Savage Fields'; bugs were disposed of, the game was accomodated to Warband's modding standards (BRF files, ModSys) and multi-player was added. In 2011, the game and its expansion were released world-wide on digital platforms.

I acquired it in 2011 (the 2009 version) and it was my first game from the franchise. It was so buggy the gameplay was awful. The only thing that was working was combat (on the other hand, it was pre-made and hardcoded by TW and WFaS's developers could not break it even if they wanted to do so). It was hastily released despite it being a semi-finished product (just like M&B was after 3 years of beta in 2008; not to even think about Bannerlord). It corroborates my statement that the game was just meant to capitalize on Polish people's pride, with little actual content but with a great deal of patriotic imagery, be it verbal or visual. You likely got to play the 2011 version, which was improved in comparison to its predecessor. There were many other mods which were better, but served no greater economic interest to be considered good enough to commercialize. WFaS got barely any new innovations, its scripting and assets were terrible. Here is a video I shot more than a decade ago; it sums up the experience.

As I stated before, China is where money is flowing and TW has already prioritized money with Bannerlord instead of filling a niche out. It might be reasonable to anticipate that TW will expand where profits are assured and the Balkans will not satisfy the company's needs. Every nation is rather interested in its own history and actually, any portrayal of a country's history translates into greater profits in that state. Think about marketing and publishing deals as well. Do not force TW to adopt your point of view only because you deem your story good enough to constitute a foundation of a commercial product.
You can take the hasty development as being a small team or as only looking at it for the profit. You choose the latter, but at the end of the day it's a theory.

I don't necessarly see a correlation between being full of bugs early game and wishing to capitalize on Polish nationalism. If anything, I see a correlation between being full of bugs early game and being a small team of developers with not that many resources at their disposal.

Did they do it for money? Yes, the more time in development the bigger the costs. If you release it early, even if the early version is buggy, you can at least get some income to continue the development, therefore the hasty development. And at the end of the day, as it stands right now With Fire and Sword is fairly finished. Not perfect, but I wouldn't call it a game full of bugs either.

Yep, I played the 2011 version, that thing never happened to me, if it did, I would have fallen of the chair laughing.

I'm not trying to force anything, I simply gave a suggestion.
MadVader, an experienced modder, is correct. We both know modding from inside. We also know that ideas are worthless and execution is what really matters. Anyone can give ideas (think of all such posts demanding mods featuring lightsabers, aliens, mutants, anime-like graphics, zombies, ninjas, vikings, Serbian warlords, Polish winged hussars, Turkish janissaries and else), but there is not many people to actually take their time to create something. Ideas can be written in minutes whereas modding takes months.

Me and MadVader are mature enough - I guess - to understand that emotional intelligence is important as well when it comes to discussions about history. We have already encountered many instances of inferiority complex (especially prevalent in Poles, Turks and Serbs and to a lesser extent, members of other nations as well) and we tried to test you. The important lesson in lifetime is not to treat history as a device to derive pride from; it should serve as a lesson. Do not be caught in the spiral of allegations and suspicions towards others only because they challenged you. Words can be written at no cost, so if you make a thread 'for free', expect others to respond 'for free'. It all is a 'free-for-all' (it is an idiom in English, in case you do not know). Companies think in monetary terms, so we should ponder it too.

Concluding, you are free to make such a mod and it will be alright. But please, do not force anyone to adopt your stance in commercial terms. The Deluge is a perfect example of a non-commercial Warband mod made by Poles which was started by people willing to reconcile historical setting with good gameplay experience. Such works are a good way to promote history only if they are good. Quality matters, so if you want to promote Michael the Brave's glorious deeds, you cannot end up as an idea-maker.
Again, I am not denying that it's easier said than done. But I'm not the one who said "go ahead and make this a mod", I simply made a suggestion about a possible DLC. Some users argued that this would work as a mod, an user suggested that I can create a mod myself, and I told him that I don't have the money on the team.

I never asked anyone to make this a mod. Then MadVader came and pointed out that it's easier said than done. So yeah, he is correct, except I never said otherwise. He's arguing against a point I didn't make. :roll:

What exactly was the test? MadVader's half-baked arguments that are equally valid for the ones he tries to argue against as a test? I'd make a Trump joke about the test being rigged like the elections but that would probably spiral in off-topic discussions.

The point is, when you make a test starting from the premise of "this is clearly a distortion of reality and a national myth" it's like scientists starting with confirmation bias. And the argument tests you give don't make sense, in this case for John Hunyadi, you're going to be called out that they don't make sense. Which I did, and MadVader took that as a clear sign of pushing for a nationalist myth.

Maybe this test would have been more accurate if the arguments pushed by MadVader would actually make sense? If he wanted to insist on John Hunyadi to test me, he could have focused on things that aren't equally valid for the ones the tries to argue against: like a John Hunyadi's campaign would include a lot more states, would include game mechanics with the Papacy or would be a campaign focused on coallition of armies form various kingdoms.

But even that would break the test he was trying to make in the first place since John Hunyadi's dynasty was a former Romanian family converted to Catholicism and Wallachia with Vlad II (Dracula's father) was right between Hungary and the Ottoman Empire and participated in the crusades, so even that campaign wouldn't lack Romanians.

Thank you for advice, but be careful that you don't jump on the other side of the extreme yourself. When Poles, Turks and Serbs promote their pride in their history it's inferiority complex. When Russia, UK, France and US promotes their pride in their history it's simply facts. Michael the Brave here is an exaggeration a distortion of reality out of nationalist fervor. On the other hand, Russia single handedly won World War II and saved Europe, nevermind the supplies from US and UK, the fact that they were allies with Germany until they were attacked or that if you would ask Eastern Europe, their "saving" isn't exactly what one would call a saving. UK on the other hand was a protector of Europe who fought the nazi alone in desperate times. Nevermind that before that, they broke their guarantees of independence to Eastern European countries which allowed Germany and USSR to expand and they didn't attack from the West when Germany was fighting Poland as promised, they didn't fight until they had to. I'm not denying Russia or UK's contributions in World War II, I'm just saying things aren't that black & white. But in their case, it's not an inferiority complex because they are big nations.

For example, and I'm saying this as a guy from a country that was oppressed by the Turks. The British and French Empire where quote "the good guys", nowdays colonialism is bad, but there are still plenty of Brits and French who look back with pride at their imperial history, and the rest of the western world is like "yeah, you were a great power". But when a Turk does the exact same thing about the Ottoman Empire "you were an evil empire", "you should be ashamed of yourself", etc. There seems to be a case of double standards here rather than an inferiority complex from one side.

The history we learn in the west is western-centric and everything else is "nationalist bias". While I agree that it's difficult to present a purely unbiased history, especially on a national scale, we shouldn't automatically deem our version as objective simply because it's the status quo and everything else that tries to challenge that as inferiority complex. Yes, there are cases of exaggeration. There are also cases of not exaggerations but truth. For example, US seems to get a bad rep recently for what it did in the Middle East. But does it also get a bad rep for what it did in the Cold War? no, US was a champion of democracy fighting the evil Soviets! And while I agree that US was morally better than USSR, US was far from an angel, looking at South America and Vietnam. Anyway, I think the point was already illustrated.

TL;DR - what's more narrow-minded, to believe that nothing is an exaggeration or that everything is an exaggeration based on where it comes from or who says it? I would argue both are narrow-minded, who is bigger is irrelevant. Best thing to do is take information as it is and be skeptical about it originally, so you can check it's merit and validity later. But to jump to the conclusion that "this is clearly true" or "this is clearly false" for it doesn't fit with something I think about that place is narrow-minded in my opinion.

Huh, when did I gave the impression that I am forcing anyone to adopt my stance? I simply posted a topic, which as you said, it's for free.
 
And my counter-argument is that he's not more famous and recognizable and historically relevant. It's not straw man when you actually made that argument:

"Janos Hunyadi, a much more famous figure, and defeater of Taleworlds' ancestors." - MadVader, 2021.

If you would like John Hunyadi more than Michael the Brave or Dracula, that's perfectly fine, your choice. But don't come up with arguments of why John Hunyadi is better that are equally valid for Michael the Brave and Dracula as well. It's like arguing Ford is better than Dodge because it has 4 wheels.

You can say nothing, you can make an unfounded bold assertion yet again or come up with evidence why John Hunyadi is indeed more famous and unlike Michael the Brave and Dracula, is in fact a defeater of Taleworld's ancestors. My money is on the second one.
I'll just focus on this point as I have no desire to expand the battlefield (I could, but don't think it's important)
The statement about Hunyadi doesn't say he's the sole defeater of Turks or even better at it than Michael, which is your straw man you keep pushing to make me look unreasonable.
He is historically more significant and recognized figure, despite what you may wish was true, and that is and was my claim. His accomplishments were well known across Europe and the Balkans, while Michael's concern was limited to the Romanian provinces. I didn't make Michael do this to denigrate Romanians as small fish, this is all factual.
So Hunyadi is objectively more significant and known, both advantages if Taleworlds ever decides over him and Michael as DLC protagonists. (Which they NEVER will, they already have their own plans and are not looking for ideas.)

Maybe this test would have been more accurate if the arguments pushed by MadVader would actually make sense? If he wanted to insist on John Hunyadi to test me, he could have focused on things that aren't equally valid for the ones the tries to argue against: like a John Hunyadi's campaign would include a lot more states, would include game mechanics with the Papacy or would be a campaign focused on coallition of armies form various kingdoms.
And? Why are the bigger scope, the coalitions, and the Papacy suddenly a problem when you demand a basically scripted campaign for Michael, which is so not sandbox Mount and Blade?
If anything, Hunyadi game mechanics would add more features and enrich the game and you know this.
This kind of argument is a proof that you are not objective and would grasp at straws to prop up your Romanian hero.

Now how do you pass the Hunyadi nationalist detection test, you ask? Easy, you admit he's more important, but you are simply more interested in Michael and hope more people would be. You don't argue against obvious truths like you still do, you straight up admit a preference.
 

Akfiz

Recruit
I'll just focus on this point as I have no desire to expand the battlefield (I could, but don't think it's important)
The statement about Hunyadi doesn't say he's the sole defeater of Turks or even better at it than Michael, which is your straw man you keep pushing to make me look unreasonable.
He is historically more significant and recognized figure, despite what you may wish was true, and that is and was my claim. His accomplishments were well known across Europe and the Balkans, while Michael's concern was limited to the Romanian provinces. I didn't make Michael do this to denigrate Romanians as small fish, this is all factual.
So Hunyadi is objectively more significant and known, both advantages if Taleworlds ever decides over him and Michael as DLC protagonists. (Which they NEVER will, they already have their own plans and are not looking for ideas.)
You didn't say that he's the sole defeater of Turks, which would be more unreasonable than it currently is, but you did list "defeater of Turks" as a reason why he's a better option.

Ok, so you went for the second option, as expected. What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. John Hunyadi is not more famous and recognizable and historically relevant, despite of what you may wish was true.
And? Why are the bigger scope, the coalitions, and the Papacy suddenly a problem when you demand a basically scripted campaign for Michael, which is so not sandbox Mount and Blade?
Have you played Viking Conquest? You can have a campaign more and a sandbox mode. And while the campaign mode as some quests, it's basically still a sandbox game. I thought this goes without saying.
If anything, Hunyadi game mechanics would add more features and enrich the game and you know this.
This kind of argument is a proof that you are not objective and would grasp at straws to prop up your Romanian hero.

Now how do you pass the Hunyadi nationalist detection test, you ask? Easy, you admit he's more important, but you are simply more interested in Michael and hope more people would be. You don't argue against obvious truths like you still do, you straight up admit a preference.
Yes, which is exactly the reason why I listed them as arguments you should have used in favor of John Hunyadi if you were objective. But you didn't, instead you used arguments that are equally valid for Michael the Brave. Pointing you that you didn't really care for a better option, you just wanted it not to be Michael the Brave.

Yes, I know this? You know why I know this? because that's exactly what I said in the comment you just replied to. :lol:

I can't help but be amused when you come up with arguments that make no sense for John Hunyadi, I reply with a list of arguments you should have actually used if your goal was to actually argue that a John Hunyadi campaign has more potential rather than just bash on Romanians, and then you're like "you see, that would enrich the game, this is clear proof you're not objective". That's rich.

I never said those are problems, talking about straw men, I said those are the kind of things you should have argued for if your argumentation was actually honest.
 

Akfiz

Recruit
Perhaps.

Also I want a DLC on Camillo Benso Conte di Cavour, he is a very well known and important historical figure that no one outside of my country ever heard about so it should be done.
Well, then, if that's what you want go ahead and make a suggestion.

If they don't want your suggestion, fine, but at least you put it out there and are aware of it in case they are interested.

Just make sure you send me a link so I can be a d.ck about it.
 
You didn't say that he's the sole defeater of Turks, which would be more unreasonable than it currently is, but you did list "defeater of Turks" as a reason why he's a better option.
Never said it was a reason, you just assuming that because it helps you, a typical straw man.
It's tiresome to pull my quotes, but here they are proving you wrong.
My whole argument about Hunyadi is that he is both more famous and recognizable AND historically relevant. (Not any straw man you try to pin on me,.)
Note there is no "because he was defeater" here, you just wish there would be.
A better suggestion would be a DLC/mod about the campaigns of Janos Hunyadi, a much more famous figure, and defeater of Taleworlds' ancestors.

Ok, so you went for the second option, as expected. What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. John Hunyadi is not more famous and recognizable and historically relevant, despite of what you may wish was true.

Yes, which is exactly the reason why I listed them as arguments you should have used in favor of John Hunyadi if you were objective. But you didn't, instead you used arguments that are equally valid for Michael the Brave. Pointing you that you didn't really care for a better option, you just wanted it not to be Michael the Brave.
You are just getting more irrational with every iteration.
Let's narrow this down to a single, unambigious issue to avoid strange mental gymnastics and face the problem head on.
You don't think that Hunyadi is more important than Michael.
This is delusional if you believe it and torpedoes your integrity. It also teaches us about the danger of nationalist fervor.
I don't have to prove it to you that Hunyadi is more famous (which you seem to demand), this is obvious to anyone with a shred of integrity and intelligence.
 

eddiemccandless

Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
I would like to be a duck about your inability to comprehend the difference between "what" and "why".
Oh no, I made a typo. You totally got me there! Please have mercy.

Why so serious though? Surely you are not shocked that someone will pull your leg in here over a topic such as this one :smile:.
 

Lord Irontoe

Master Knight
I find it quite amusing that there's this big debate about which obscure Balkan national hero Taleworlds is never going to make a DLC about. My own vote for DLC that will never happen goes to Theodoros Kolokotronis, the hero of Greek independence.
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
I too was going to write an equally long ode to why Taleworlds should make the DLC “ Brave SirRobin”

here’s the cliffs
 

Akfiz

Recruit
Never said it was a reason, you just assuming that because it helps you, a typical straw man.
It's tiresome to pull my quotes, but here they are proving you wrong.
You did use that as a reason, but it's good to see that you changed your mind and now are looking for a way out. :grin:
Note there is no "because he was defeater" here, you just wish there would be.
Nice straw man, but that was not the quote in question and you know it.
Hint: It's a quote from your very first reply and a quote that I posted previously. I guess you must have missed it.
You are just getting more irrational with every iteration.
Let's narrow this down to a single, unambigious issue to avoid strange mental gymnastics and face the problem head on.
You don't think that Hunyadi is more important than Michael.
This is delusional if you believe it and torpedoes your integrity. It also teaches us about the danger of nationalist fervor.
I don't have to prove it to you that Hunyadi is more famous (which you seem to demand), this is obvious to anyone with a shred of integrity and intelligence.
Yep, let's narrow it down without all the mental gymnastics:
- I presented you a video with a summary of the Ottoman Empire's history. In that one hour video, presenting over 500 years of history, Michael the Brave was considered important enough to be worth mentioning.

- You presented me how little history you know, couldn't even find a proper reason why a John Hunyadi's campaign would be more interesting.
- You presented lack of integrity: when I told Veledentella what you should have actually said if you wanted to make a case for that, you jumped in "yes, you see, you're right, this is why John Hunyadi's campaign would be more interesting and you are a Romanian nationalist".

Effectively, you couldn't do your homework, I did your homework, and you tried to use the homework I did against me. :lol:
Nevermind that the very things you said towards me in an accusatory tone, like it was some breakthrough discovery, is exactly what I told Veledentella in the comment you just quoted.

We could have had a discussion on what kind of game mechanics and features would add John Hunyadi's crusade vs Michael the Brave's unificaiton. But I might as well have a monologue since you were incapable of providing such arguments due to lack of history knowledge and tried to use the ones I provided against me like it's your conclusion anyway.

So, I'm sorry, but you couldn't offer any reason why you're a trustworthy source, so far your lack of knowledge was matched only by your arrogance and lack of integrity. So if you have no evidence you might as well leave the same way you joined the discussion, with nothing important to add.

This is delusional if you believe your word alone is worth anything. It also teaches us about the danger of black&white thinking.
You don't have to provide evidence as you don't care about facts or evidence as long as your confirmation bias is satisfied, this is obvious to anyone with a shred of integrity and intelligence.
Oh no, I made a typo. You totally got me there! Please have mercy.

Why so serious though? Surely you are not shocked that someone will pull your leg in here over a topic such as this one :smile:.
You are forgiven. I am a mercyful god.

Why shouldn't I be serious? It's a matter of life and death, haven't you heard of the danger of nationalist fervor? What if Italians, Poles and Turks all decide to suggest DLCs with some obscure figure from their own history? the website crashes, TW no longer has money to keep up the server, the company shuts down, no more Mount&Blade 3 or DLCs for Bannerlord, and all because of nationalist fervor.
 
Top Bottom