Warband: Not Large Scale

[Demonic Spoon]

I keep hearing a lot of complaints and suggestions coming from pseudo-historians. People who complain about how fights in Warband play out frequently make suggestions that WB battles should be more like historical fights. I've even heard people use Medieval Total War 2 in these arguments.

I was just in another thread where someone complained that archers were "Too accurate", and that they should be "laying down fire into massed enemies".



I think people are missing a critical point. Most servers in Warband have <50 people. There's one European server which sometimes has more than a hundred, but that's about the limit. Know why archers snipe specific targets instead of volleying into masses of enemies, or why you don't have complex formations or other things pseudohistorians think should be in the game?

There aren't enough people.

Warband will never simulate large-scale medieval battles because the game can't support that many people fighting at once. Even if it could it would be boring and virtually devoid of player skill.

If you want to argue realism, keep some perspective.


Thanks, and back to your regularly scheduled programming.

 

[Forgin]

Besides, it's not like Total War scale battles happened very often during mediaval times.

 

[Flash Vium]

Well, you CAN have huge battles without many players, since there's bot-support. Too bad not many people like playing with bots :[

 

[RalliX]

Well, you CAN have huge battles without many players, since there's bot-support. Too bad not many people like playing with bots :[

That's what SP is for my friend, the wholesale slaughter of databits. Also, the OP is a good person. 

 

[kahael]

Not to mention that in real battles at least there would be someone appointed that would give orders to the others, and they would follow those orders.
Online...with other people... that won't happen.

 

[Sovereignty]

Well, you CAN have huge battles without many players, since there's bot-support. Too bad not many people like playing with bots :[

I agree.

Well, you CAN have huge battles without many players, since there's bot-support. Too bad not many people like playing with bots :[

That's what SP is for my friend, the wholesale slaughter of databits. Also, the OP is a good person. 

But it's not the same. Using armies of 100 bots per team in MP allows you to give every player command of a few bots, and the two teams can pit their armies against eachother using cunning strategy and coordination. In SP, the AI just runs straight at you and impales itself on your outstretched spear.

 

[Pistol Pete]

Even if it were practical to have large scale battles with bots or not in Mount&Blade Warband, most computers can not handle thousands of men running about the field.
Plus I think it would be boring as heck. Can you imagine playing as a soldier who has to keep to the rear of a formation? You may not even see action!

OP has a good point, and for that I thank thee.

 

[Nikolai Alexandre]

Warband is on a tiny scale, thats why its called Mount and Blade: Warband and not Mount and Blade: Grand Army.  I know alot of people want to feel part of something bigger, and you can still get that in multiplayer with 60 players.  If we had more than that, the game would be too slow to enjoy that massive amount of players.

 

[silentdawn]

It is possible to simulate a larger scale battle by fighting in a narrow area like between the buildings in the nord towns.

 

[Kleidophoros]

Just 1 thing;

I was just in another thread where someone complained that archers were "Too accurate", and that they should be "laying down fire into massed enemies".

Your avarage real life archer is accurate and doesn't just blind-fire into masses.

 

[Vaelius Noctu]

I'm a fan of history. But in history there were also small battlefields.
I think it was an better Idea make more different battlemaps and make them more Interesting, so more Players would join.

 

[LordDaem]

People that want realism?

I wonder why they weren't asking for body parts to go flying as you hacked through crowds of people

 

[Vaelius Noctu]

What arguments are also raised anyway, it's brainless to delight in a massacre.
I like Mount and Blade even if I would want more trade and politics. The violence stops here limited. I want to see any guts or brains splashing.
Realistic means more depth and coordinated action, not blood.
More blood only want players who have a brain as a mud lump.^^

 

[Demonic Spoon]

Your avarage real life archer is accurate and doesn't just blind-fire into masses.

Well yes, that was more or less my point. I have NO ARCHERY EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER, formal or otherwise, and yet when I tried it I could hit a man-sized target about 20-30 feet away using a ****ty bow.

 

[Schemer]

I agree about bots. I wish more servers had them, especially siege ones for huge battles. Then the player could maybe be given more gold throughout the round, so you can get good armour to make yourself a bit more than all those average every-day NPC soldiers.

I'd do it myself, but the dedicated server files are too confusing with all the server options. Where's a GUI to work with? I'm not used to modding this game.

People that want realism?

I wonder why they weren't asking for body parts to go flying as you hacked through crowds of people

Contrary to popular belief, it's actually much harder to sever a human head or limb than most people think. Especially in the medieval times with how everybody was wearing armour. About the only time a limb would sever was if somebody was on a horse, charging at full speed, and had his sword leaning down ready to slice through enemy soldiers. Then off comes the arm, if the sword is sharp enough or his armour is dull enough. Among other similar scenarios. So it would actually be less realistic in most scenarios to have limbs flying all over the place, and it wouldn't really be worth the effort to implement if it didn't happen often enough. Plus, it could make the game harder to run, so some people wouldn't even have it enabled.

 

[dochtorgajo]

There are already too many things that either cant be simulated or were simulated but because of someone whining were altered to much worse state. And battle size is good I think battle were rare skirmishes much more frequent as it is ingame and even then in large battle as fighter anyone would at the same time care just about his survival among few hundreds enemies and not wondering how does whole battlefield look like from eagle perspective I suppose. Dealing with many parties one by one and dividing bigger enounters into smaller ones you take place in is on the contrary good I think.

 

[Knight of the Rose]

Yes thanks OP,  your point simply points out its even MORE annoying when you are trying to have a nice 20 v 20 and get some good melee action to have to face 8 out of the 20 people shooting arrows at you and having your melee interrupted every single goddamn time by robin hood who can place an arrow into a 3 v 1 and head shot you and miss his 3 companions.  BORING.  Would be MUCH MORE FUN if rather than 12 v 20 and 8 archers it was just straight up 20 v 20.  The hilarious part is these people actually think they can get higher kill counts by using a bow.  Bow is much slower in getting kills than simply running out and slaughtering people (at least in TDM and Siege,  not the boring Zzzzz battle mode).  IN fact most TDM or siege armies consisting of more than 20 percent archers always tends to lose and be overrun.  WONDER WHY?

 

[mobotium]

Because their stupid and cant shoot properly.

No ofence.

 

[CryoNomad]

Well, you CAN have huge battles without many players, since there's bot-support. Too bad not many people like playing with bots :[

That's what SP is for my friend, the wholesale slaughter of databits. Also, the OP is a good person. 

Well, I won't disagree sir, but I do like the option that when people die they take over a bot. Gives people more lives per round.

 

[Gabeed]

I keep hearing a lot of complaints and suggestions coming from pseudo-historians. People who complain about how fights in Warband play out frequently make suggestions that WB battles should be more like historical fights. I've even heard people use Medieval Total War 2 in these arguments.

I was just in another thread where someone complained that archers were "Too accurate", and that they should be "laying down fire into massed enemies".



I think people are missing a critical point. Most servers in Warband have <50 people. There's one European server which sometimes has more than a hundred, but that's about the limit. Know why archers snipe specific targets instead of volleying into masses of enemies, or why you don't have complex formations or other things pseudohistorians think should be in the game?

There aren't enough people.

Warband will never simulate large-scale medieval battles because the game can't support that many people fighting at once. Even if it could it would be boring and virtually devoid of player skill.

If you want to argue realism, keep some perspective.


Thanks, and back to your regularly scheduled programming.

You're absolutely right, and it's something many modders could learn from.  Too many mods focus on a a region that is far too large for the scope that Mount and Blade is intended for.  Honestly, I think the implementation of sieges was not necessarily a step in the right direction for this game--it goes against the skirmish-based warfare that M&B largely is.