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.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)!
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.
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.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.
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.