Maybe this is cheating but...
Viking Conquest
For Bannerlord I honestly wouldn't mind playing one lower battle size until mods flesh out the combat/tactical play more, but because of how broken reinforcements waves work it simply isn't ideal.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Tactical decisions on the battlefield should play a bigger role in deciding the tide of battle
- Thread starter 1115141208114
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Viking Conquest
For Bannerlord I honestly wouldn't mind playing one lower battle size until mods flesh out the combat/tactical play more, but because of how broken reinforcements waves work it simply isn't ideal.
2 ladders wouldn't make the sieges in Warband last like they do in Bannerlord. The pace of the battles are much slower in Warband sieges.
Bannerlord has no battles like this, it's sad. Sorry double post.
Translation: It would be too complicated and require actual work from the devs, meaning more man hours eating into profits.
I honestly don't understand how some seem to deny the accumulated heritage. Before Bannerlord it was not our beloved Warband, but after it we had WFaS, Napoleonic Wars and VC / VC Reforged. A videogame saga like M&B should not include all the features of previous titles and improve them as well as implement new ones? I ask... Looking at the latest VC title, why don't we have all those tactical commands attached to the new ones in Bannerlord? Well, neither we don't have the VC ambushes, we can't form a camp, worldly activities like hunting... I'm not even talking about naval combat anymore...
All that and more what I can't remember, along with the features of the best mods; don't you think ALL OF THIS should have been implemented in the Bannerlord foundations? I can't but be amazed at what comments of some...
All that and more what I can't remember, along with the features of the best mods; don't you think ALL OF THIS should have been implemented in the Bannerlord foundations? I can't but be amazed at what comments of some...
Does anyone else remember VC sieges and how decent they were? Much better than dreadful Warband sieges. And yeah, it's not as ambitious or as good a concept as Bannerlord sieges, but at least they work in execution. Which the same can't be said about Bannerlord.
This is just such a damn joke, I played Bannerlord back to back with VC and it's just embarrassing how much Bannerlord fails to impress by comparison.
This is just such a damn joke, I played Bannerlord back to back with VC and it's just embarrassing how much Bannerlord fails to impress by comparison.
I agree 100%. VC is a much better game.
It isn't cheating but it is important to appreciate that VC had a limited diversity of weapons (there was a single two-hander in the game) compared to even Warband and the relative balance of troop types was very different from either title. The cavalry, even top-tier Frankish riders, was pretty squishy and there really weren't proper horse archers in the game (IIRC), just mounted javelins that weren't particularly accurate. VC was very much privileging the shieldwall above all other tactics as a result.
Also it is sorta wild seeing people lauding VC because I was lurking here when the game was first released and it was a very different energy lol
Last edited:
There were no horse archers in 9th century England lol.
Uh, I didn't say there were?
You said "proper horse archers" there can't be those in VC.
Ya I totally get it, and VC was really in a bad place until Reforged.
Still, if we want to talk about game reception, then BL is really being put off the hooks. Despite EA, this is still supposedly around at least 5 years worth of development. If we compare the fact that VC has had way less than that timeframe, created by more or less modders... but I digress.
In terms of weapon and unit variety, right now in BL that clearly dosen't make much a difference. Each faction except for the Khuzaits play the same, however if you were to change some scripts like giving a tier 2 HA unit for the Empire, you will see that they will use the same tactics. In BL, there simply aren't any noteworthy tactics performed by the AI. One playthrough in, and you have essentially experienced the full potential of AI strategy for the game in its current state.
Yeah it's weird to use VC as a shining example when it had (and still has) some really bad game design and a launch just as bad as bannerlords. I may just be biased because I hate brytenwalda with every fibre of my being, but I know I'm right. If you like Viking Conquest even a little bit you suck big donkey doodoo.
I think people are just using it because it's the only warband singleplayer expansion which was worth a damn, but there are far more well designed warband-like games you could use instead.
There can't be proper horse archers in VC. Your point is moot.
Huh? You're joking.
The fact that you believe that people think that the only WB total conversion worth a damn is VC just shows ignorance.
-PoP
-The Last Days of the Third Age
-Perisno
-Medieval 1212 AD
Just some big names out there that provide the SP experience.
Anyway, we are talking about battle design. I have no doubt that by full release BL will be objectively better than it is now battle wise, but right now there is very minute improvements to tactical combat from previous installments, never mind current BL mods.
...my point was that there weren't horse archers in VC, which made balancing the combat easier.
He said "expansion" not total conversion or mod. Expansions are paid content.
VC was nowhere near as bad as Bannerlord was at release. The things people were claiming about it when it came out was drastically different from my launch date experiences. I may have just been lucky, but I can't imagine it being anywhere near as bad as Bannerlord during launch. Launch day Bannerlord was so broken it was funny.
That makes that even worse...
I thought that he might have meant that, but I really thought it was just miscommunication because the other alternative is WF&S, and everyone in the community believes that to be the "worst" out of the franchise. Unless, that is to say, he himself believes WF&S to be objectively superior to VC, there would be no point in comparing WF&S with BL since we have VC at a higher pedestal.
Similar threads
