Thank you for the feedback

Users who are viewing this thread

Volund said:
The issue I have is this game is Viking Age which means weapons like long-handled axes, Atgeirs, Kesjas, etc should be allowed in the game, and it wouldn't be ruining accuracy, as they were used in the Viking Age, looking at Sagas and archaeological evidence, you've got a lot of those weapons popping up around the 10th century, which means it's probably not incorrect to think they could have been used in the 9th. 
Examples?
Look at Njal's saga (960 - 1020 AD), Eyrbyggja Saga (10th Century), or Egil's Saga (850AD - 1000AD).

Not trying to get on anyone's nerves about it, I just like debating this kind of contention point. Though one thing I'd really like to see, is wolf/bear pelts over the head, or some such, I know it'll probably never happen, but that drawing when I faced the berserker just made me want it so much more!

Viking Age lasted about 3 centuries. The game is based on early phase and it doesnt spawn decades. It starts: 867

9th to 11th century has a huge change in weapons and battle tactics. It is the transition period between levies to the age of knights (who in a big way are the new viking).

We had a few posts from the DLC guy that is responsible for the historical research. He explains using facts what were the points behind these decisions. Anyone curious should at least go and read a couple articles from wikipedia.

 
BTW, if you want 2handler to be not common, you can do with by adjusting troops inventories. Everyone on the battlefield (single player game) will represent your historically accurate troop equipment.
But player is not an average warrior. Eventually he became a hero and a famous commander. And in this case I don't see any reason why the game should limit him in such way "no 2handlers. period". I understand why there is no 2 handed swords. But i don't understand why such hero cannot order to make a 2h axe for himself? It's not that hard to make it in that time.
 
But i don't understand why such hero cannot order to make a 2h axe for himself? It's not that hard to make it in that time.

Are you gonna bring design templates with you?  :razz:
 
JuJu70 said:
But i don't understand why such hero cannot order to make a 2h axe for himself? It's not that hard to make it in that time.

Are you gonna bring design templates with you?  :razz:

Making axe weapon wasn't rocket science, just ad longer staff and little bigger axe part than one-handler, done.
 
Brytenwalda takes place centuries before the Viking Conquests, yet boasts more armor and weapon types.  Come on man.
 
abadgaem said:
Brytenwalda takes place centuries before the Viking Conquests, yet boasts more armor and weapon types.  Come on man.
Well, the archeological record for the period Brytenwalda depicts is actually richer than for the VC period, thanks to the pagan or superficially Christian funeral practices prevailing at the time.
 
Adorno said:
Furrnox said:
Where is the throwing axes? Where is the 2 handed axes? Where is the variation in armor?
Combat and use of weapons is based on history.
Generally weapons were not used with two hands,
And you would not throw (away) your axe.

Sure about that?

Then the bonde-army pushed on from all quarters. They who stood in front hewed down with their swords; they who stood next thrust with their spears; and they who stood hindmost shot arrows, cast spears, or threw stones, hand-axes, or sharp stakes.

Helgi turned to meet him, and had a wood-axe in his hand, and said, "Still the old one will dare to look at and face weapons" and therewith he flung the axe at Thorgils, and the axe struck his foot and a great wound that was.

He throws Þorvald his axe, which came down on his head and he fell down dead at the walls.

On 2h axes, as far as I can tell, you have the Irish equipped with a full array of expanding swords based on a single worn example that was probably straight to begin with, but not a single 2h axe in the game? It's kind of unbelievable.
 
Can we please stop using 13th century literature as if it were a valid historical source for the 9th century? Especially when the setting of that literature is the 11th century?
 
Juhnimus said:
I saw pagan priest say Walhalla when its supposed to be Valhalla in sp. Seeing it written like that really hurt my nord soul.

I saw pagan priest say Wololo... no, wait. Wrong game.
 
It's also realistic how everyone looks like human bulls! The breeze in the trees & grass is also very realistic especially since nothing else is effected.

Thinking outside the historical box is something thats been made very nicely! Well done!

I'm glad to have spent my last hard earned money on this polished game!
 
Mr.Milker said:
Oh **** off, would you? Passive agressive bull****.
It's okay man, you don't have to get upset. They might have just been having fun with the situation. You act as if they were attacking you personally.
 
Greetings to you all players and dev team of this project. I must report that I'm congratulating you for the new DLC. I read many negative comments , too many maybe ... I installed yesterday in my laptop, which isn't no bright new machine any more, and it runs smoothly with some acceptable lag. I didn't play much (didn't have the time) and so far I've just noticed some missing horse messes. Even if some minor details need to be dialed with, it is obvious that the project has been worked hard and with much care for the details. New appearance and so many new features ... I liked it. Sure you will fix the things gone wrong and everything will be O.K. :wink:    
 
Jason L. said:
Greetings to you all players and dev team of this project. I must report that I'm congratulating you for the new DLC. I read many negative comments , too many maybe ... I installed yesterday in my laptop, which isn't no bright new machine any more, and it runs smoothly with some acceptable lag. I didn't play much (didn't have the time) and so far I've just noticed some missing horse messes. Even if some minor details need to be dialed with, it is obviousthat the project has been worked hard and with much care for the details. New appearance and so many new features ... I liked it. Sure you will fix the things gone wrong and everything will be O.K. :wink: 
I'm not sure if he is kidding or not.  :eek:
 
- Made the AI worse
- Made the combat worse
- Bad dialogue
- Horrible lag, ruining the smoothe experience that is Mount and Blade
- Uninspired arsenal of weapons and armor, ruining the game experience because of socalled historical accuracy
- Unfinished map. Visually there might be more than 300 cities, castles and villages, but with no real, unique content to them. This DLC becomes an excellent showcase of why quality beats quantity ever time.

This was just off the top of my head. I am sure there is much more to add.

What little good this DLC adds - I actually really like its attempt to be historically and geographically accurate, as well as it adding a single player campaign with a story - is overshadowed  by the fact that this is an unfinished game. The developers are either incompetent, or this is just a shameless attempt to cash in on an otherwise great franchise. Either way this addition to the series gives Mount and Blade a bad name.
I really, really like Mount and Blade. Usually I dont preorder or buy at all, but I prepurchased this DLC in good faith because I wanted to show my appreciation, and because I trusted the company behind it to deliver. It did not.

I guess I'll make my money back by not paying for Bannerlord, though. Paying you again would be to encourage the act of promising something that you cannot deliver. I hope other people think this way as well.
 
Germanic Celt said:
What about armour variation? In Brytenwalda there were lots of different types of chainmail, now we just have mail and byrnie.

A somoene said there's less to draw from, especially if going for historical accuracy.

Lenny posted this pic, you can see plenty of different models. Might not be easy to see the variety in game with textures low and graphics problems.

2if7yh2i3ig4.png
 
Back
Top Bottom