What are your must-have mods you can't play without that you'd like Taleworlds to implement into the base game?

Users who are viewing this thread

black_bulldog

Knight at Arms
WBWF&SVC
is it true what they say over at the page in nexusmods though?

they say swords are useless with this patch. that there are horrible faction inbalances..


i keep reading a lot of praise for this mod here on these forums but no criticism at all. i installed it for a few minutes and realised it had messed up my whole economy whereby a pugio cost like 15k and long swords 2k.. so ya..

can you comment on the negatives of this mod as well? at the end of the day its meant to be a game if every battle is going to last 5 hours and ill be forced to use maces and swords are just for decorative purposes then i dont see the point. if batanians will just run over their neighbours on every save then whats the point
Use it yourself and form your own opinion and stop worrying about what other people say, maybe you'll like it and maybe you won't. It's not like it costs anything except a bit of time and effort.
 

Honved

Knight
Blunt weapons never were better against anything.
Weapons with higher cinetic energy were better at inflicting damage because, well, higher energy. But it had nothing to do with them being blunt, and in fact they were pretty much never blunt - maces were flanged, flails were spiked and so on. It's always about 1) higher energy and 2) smaller surface of impact.
Blunt is by definition the least efficient way to deal damage.
That works to an extent (as said, most maces had flanges, ribs, or other shallow projections, but concentrating damage onto a small area puts a lot of stress on the object doing the damage. Sharp objects tend to break, bend, or blunt when they hit another hard object. The limitations of metallurgy at the time dictated the development and use of weapons with enough material directly behind the point of impact to survive for multiple uses against armored opponents.

Consider that many swords of the period had a sharp edge and a blunt edge, the former to slice and dice those unarmored or lightly armored peasant masses, and the blunt side to crease or dent armor on the occasional better equipped opponent. In later medieval times, many Germanic sergeants carried maces, primarily to engage other armored knights, while the bulk of the formation carried swords for multi-purpose use. Sharp swords used against hard metal armor had a distressing tendency to notch or break, so even the sharp sides often had a rather steep taper from a fairly thick center. As metallurgy improved, blades got longer, thinner, and lighter with the same or greater durability.

Axes used a heavy lump of metal, widening out behind the sharp edge,.to provide strength, and a long handle to provide the leverage to generate momentum. The Roman gladius was most effective as a stabbing implement, with a thick diamond-shaped profile to the blade and a short taper to the point. Making it longer would have made it a lot heavier and slower, or else a lot weaker. Polearms were already coming into the forefront by the timeframe of M&B, which could generate sufficient momentum at the business end to damage even the heaviest armor one could reasonably carry, and firearms eventually took that a step further, putting an end to the dominance of the heavily armored mounted knight.

Swords should be "somewhat" effective against heavy armor, but not as effective as blunt weapons, which in turn should be significantly less effective against lightly armored or unarmored opponents. While "blunt" weapons were rarely "totally blunt", they still relied on mass and kinetic energy more than concentration of force. In practice, it wasn't entirely practical to make a weapon that was "too sharp" (and thereby too fragile) or "too blunt" (to the point where it didn't concentrate energy on a small enough point to defeat armor).
 

Shaxx

Squire
Diplomacy (civil wars, alliances, non-aggression pacts, messagers etc)
Succession (different succession laws for each kingdom/culture)
Pacemaker (faster passing of time to make the dynastic system of the game more important like in Crusader Kings)
Realistic Battle mod (better AI, formations, armors and weapons that work as closely as possible to how they should)

Definitely can't play without those, they make the game 99% of what i wanted it to be from the start.
It is important to note that as far as I know (1.59 last I played) Succession and Diplomacy have mid/late game compatibility issues with their civil war systems colliding that causes CTDs. You can get around this by disabling one or both civil war systems.

Also Succession and Pacemaker have a compatibility issue, mainly that Pacemaker's 'days per' feature interferes with time based election cycles from Succession and basically they don't work but everything else worked fine. I do not recall if leaving that feature at the default value fixes the problem, I do not think it does.

...whose goal to make the game a button pressing menu headache I disagree with. This game is for quick action and smashing skulls. TaleWorlds have developed it that way, and it does appeal to the masses which is good.
Too compex™ Too compilated™
 
Last edited:
Use it yourself and form your own opinion and stop worrying about what other people say, maybe you'll like it and maybe you won't. It's not like it costs anything except a bit of time and effort.

"other people" have supposedly used the mod for dozens if not hundreds of hours and are in a good position to tell it how it is. it also doesnt cost them nothing.


i am really immersed in my save and would have to put it aside to play this mod and find stuff many people here have likely found already but are not disclosing.


in any event, i caved in and did install the mod and have been using it for the last couple of days.


i uninstalled the AI MODULE fairly quickly because it did not respect my choices in the new OoB system. as such it was GAME BREAKING and had to go.


the COMBAT MODULE i admit its an IMPROVEMENT over the vanilla game. its pretty much what i had always hoped for in this game: namely that epic battles would be epic and silly battles would last for a few seconds. spending thousands of denars on armor should make a difference and its satisfying that now i have to play more strategically when before i could swing a sword at an IMPERIAL CATAPHRACT and cut in in half.

that being said, its NOT without issues.

some of the prices of gear and weapons are totally NONSENSICAL. daggers cost upwards of 15k and the THAMASKENE STEEL TWO HANDLER costs something like 3k.

i have seen numerous items - shields mostly - that are BETTER IN EVERY SINGLE STAT to others but cost significantly less.


so this is off putting for me of course. it just doesnt make sense and breaks the immersion.

its a shame when a game has to lean on modders so much to get the basics right because it will obviously bring all these other issues along. modders are not so detailed oriented or professional they focus on the olive and not the whole pizza when they create their mods. as long as the issue they want resolved is resolved its fine for them - regarldess if something else doesn't quite work as before.

all in all though, its an improvement.
 

CrazyElf

Sergeant
See, this hardcore realism is what I do not want in the game. If someone picks archer as their class, they should be able to perform well against any and allt. If someone wants to use a sword they should be able to with great effect. Realism isn't always good for gameplay or RPG.

Archers in the base game effectively mean stacking them makes a "balanced army" not very useful. It's the worst of both worlds - a single class is OP and it's not very realistic.


Swords and bows work fine in RBM, I use them all the time. People seem to be hung up on the fact that the starter sword doesn’t work on top tier armor, especially when you have 30 prof in one handed. But once you get those top tier swords and 100+ prof you deal good damage, you just won’t one shot anyone (outside looters), which is the point of the mod.

And to be honest the bows in RBM could still use some further tuning down imo. Maybe it’s just the way proficiency scales, but I’m regularly one shotting medium infantry with a bow, and two shotting high tier troops in the mod. The only troops I cant two shot are elite cataphracts, unless the ride straight at me.


I'd be open to further nerfing bows in RBM as well.

Blunt weapons never were better against anything.
Weapons with higher cinetic energy were better at inflicting damage because, well, higher energy. But it had nothing to do with them being blunt, and in fact they were pretty much never blunt - maces were flanged, flails were spiked and so on. It's always about 1) higher energy and 2) smaller surface of impact.
Blunt is by definition the least efficient way to deal damage.

None of this changes the fact that maces are more effective than swords versus armored targets. I think that yes, the game has simplified what they call blunt damage, but it doesn't change the fact that maces were a better choice against armor. Maces are still classified as blunt weapons - both in game and in real life.

As far as blunt damage - warhamers and the like did rely on blunt damage for damaging armor. They did concentrate their damage on a small point, but they are still blunt weapons. Blunt weapons are the most effective way to damage an armored target, though a case could be made that cutting weapons do better against unarmored targets.



Furthermore, note my original quote - I was discussing polearms. None of what you said invalidates my quoted point - that polearms are a better weapon overall. That is why through the middle ages, they began to dominate until the age of the musket.
 
Last edited:

Ironic Golem

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBNW
I think the point with blunt was just that them being blunt doesn't itself manifest any particular abilities (and why would it, reality is not a video game where "blunt" is a magical property), just that such weapons had different design and weight+balancing, which facilitated better crushing through an armor.
Which I mean, he explains with how the actual relevant part is concentration of force and more energy on the impact site, no?
Even that medieval war hammer has a pointed tip on the more hammer-y side.

The point of saying all this though is dubious; I think we largely understand such things, and it's just being shorthanded or mentally waved away to "blunt damage", and Honved's post was a good expansion on it. Though I guess I am unsure what Akka's original post was trying to do - I felt it was just a response to a specific comment, not like trying to convince anybody that maces or polearms etc weren't superior to swords in beating up knight-nerds.
 

Akka

Sergeant at Arms
The hell are you talking about

What definition is that?
Either you didn't bother to read the message you quote, which spells out explicitely the answers to these question, or you're too stupid to understand basic english and easy concepts.
In both case you're wasting my time. Shoo.

---

None of this changes the fact that maces are more effective than swords versus armored targets.
And that's nothing to do with them being blunt and everything with them being fast weapons with all their weight on the top end (i.e. : maximum force with a pendulum motion), which is exactly what I was saying in my post.
The problem of mixing both is that we get ridiculous effect in the game, with weapons becoming "armor piercing" because they are "blunt" (so club, fists and training weapons somehow...) while in most of those case, being blunt was due to being low-quality instead.
As far as blunt damage - warhamers and the like did rely on blunt damage for damaging armor. They did concentrate their damage on a small point, but they are still blunt weapons. Blunt weapons are the most effective way to damage an armored target
If they concentrate their damage on a small point, then by definition they are not blunt, they are piercing. That's sort of the entire definition of "blunt".
Also, again, no "blunt" is not the most effective way to damage anything. It's the LEAST effective way, again by its very definition, because it spreads the force on a larger area.
Furthermore, note my original quote - I was discussing polearms. None of what you said invalidates my quoted point - that polearms are a better weapon overall. That is why through the middle ages, they began to dominate until the age of the musket.
I don't disagree with this. I'm just annoyed at the tendency of people on this forum to blithely go with the "blunt = anti-armor" absurdity, and support the complete ridiculousness of the game where blunt COMPLETELY IGNORES armor, making half the gear just useless fashion.

@Ironic Golem
Thanks for understanding what I was saying.
I explained in a bit more details what was my point above.
 
Last edited:
Either you didn't bother to read the message you quote, which spells out explicitely the answers to these question, or you're too stupid to understand basic english and easy concepts.
In both case you're wasting my time. Shoo.
Alright Mr. Edgelord where the **** did you give a concrete definition of the "word blunt", then? "Blunt is by definition the least efficient way to deal damage", could either mean that the definition of the word leads you to the conclusion that it's less effective, or that the literal definition of "blunt" is a less effective means of doing bodily harm. One of these is less retarded of a claim than the other, but not by much.
Blunt weapons, by definition, are meant to cave in into the armour by brute (mechanical) force, and furthermore the sheer force from the hit alone can seriously daze or harm an opponent in armour even if the armour itself is only slightly dented, this as opposed to edged weapons, which will have to physically pierce through the armour to inflict any injury. And it's damn tough penetrating plate armour, it's almost like they were made for that purpose..
Edged weapons don't have the sheer weight behind them to deliver as powerful strikes, but blunt weapons do. Differing ****ing uses, mate.
And what "sharp" bits certain maces seem to have, aren't really sharp. They're meant to accentuate the weapon's ability to bash into and deform armour, not for cutting into them. Even on bare skin, they wouldn't get very deep, if at all, but still do some serious damage internally, which is the whole point. If you really wanted to be able to stab, you'd have a small stick on the end, which few maces did.
 
What's the point of arguing here about realistic weapons and what not? We all know from history that swords mostly were a sidearm and a way how to show how prestigious and rich you are (+ duel) in medieval times (12-15th century), on real battlefield maces and polearms were the way how to take down knights and men-at-arms.
Fact, no point to argue further.
Saying that - this thread is about mods.
 

Hairy Yahoo

On probation
Pacemaker, just wanted to try the game after a long break, no year length slider implemented, Pacemaker is not compatible goodbye.
 

ziomek24

Regular
It should be possible to change the settings of the game / campaign or it should be possible to change the culture of settlements. Why should the Sturgia that conquered the Empire recruit Imperial soldiers from its new settlements? TOTALLY NO SENSE!
 

CrazyElf

Sergeant
I don't disagree with this. I'm just annoyed at the tendency of people on this forum to blithely go with the "blunt = anti-armor" absurdity, and support the complete ridiculousness of the game where blunt COMPLETELY IGNORES armor, making half the gear just useless fashion.

None of this changes the fact that:

Blunt (and your arguments aside, mace weapons are considered blunt weapons) > pierce > cut against armored targets.

Should maces be a 1 hit KO against armor? Nope. But should they be more effective against armor than swords. A great deal more effective IMO (cut weapons should be quite ineffective and do little damage against an armored enemy unless hitting unarmored regions or weak spots in the armor).


Armor should provide partial protection against blunt weapons. The game should reflect that.


What's the point of arguing here about realistic weapons and what not? We all know from history that swords mostly were a sidearm and a way how to show how prestigious and rich you are (+ duel) in medieval times (12-15th century), on real battlefield maces and polearms were the way how to take down knights and men-at-arms.

Ultimately it comes down to the direction we want the developers to take in the game. That is the whole point of the thread. What mods are so great that they belong in the base game?

Many of us here want RBM to be the in the base game. Judging by the responses here, a large number of posters believe the game would be a vastly improved experience if it were incorporated into the base game.

In regards to the sword comment, judging by some of the responses in this forum, this is not as well known as you think.

There are a few other mods that I think should be incorporated, most notably diplomacy and improved garrisons and serve as a soldier, but RBM is one of the most important.
 
Last edited:

skoonting

Recruit
they say swords are useless with this patch
They are. Swords are basically relegated to the trashbin because they can't pierce any armour, and seeing as even mid-tier troops are pretty heavily armoured, there's no reason to ever use swords. A mace is going to be just as good against unarmored troops anyway, so not like there's a real downside to using blunt weapons. Even axes have this problem to an extent, because they're a middle-ground between swords and maces, i.e a middle ground between "useless" and "useful".

I like RBM, but as someone else pointed out, "realistic" doesn't necessarily make for good or fun gameplay.
 
Many of us here want RBM to be the in the base game. Judging by the responses here, a large number of posters believe the game would be a vastly improved experience if it were incorporated into the base game.
It would not be vastly improved, only according to a group of people. But it would remove RP elements of choosing which weapons you can play with, which is bad.

Besides, I doubt TW will implement it fully, as it would ruin gameplay for some. So tough luck, eh lads?
 

Ironic Golem

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBNW
A mace is going to be just as good against unarmored troops anyway,
I believe swords do appreciably more damage here, and overall have much more reach than maces, but I'm not in a situation to give hard facts here - Bannerlord isn't super conducive to easily comparing this.

I still carry a sword in RBM. Maybe that'll change eventually, dunno.
 

AngryPanCake

Veteran
Personally, I don't think a game developer should "implement mods".
They should continue their efforts on creating a stable vanilla platform that players can customize as they see fit to "improve" gameplay the way each one of us think it should be.
I recently (2 days ago after 230+ hours of game play) started using mods and so far it has been been a positive experience. It seems like the game lends itself to easy modding and the installation is very simple compared to other games.
So, I really think mods should be left to the player's discretion.

My two cents.
 
They are. Swords are basically relegated to the trashbin because they can't pierce any armour, and seeing as even mid-tier troops are pretty heavily armoured, there's no reason to ever use swords. A mace is going to be just as good against unarmored troops anyway, so not like there's a real downside to using blunt weapons. Even axes have this problem to an extent, because they're a middle-ground between swords and maces, i.e a middle ground between "useless" and "useful".

I like RBM, but as someone else pointed out, "realistic" doesn't necessarily make for good or fun gameplay.

Been playing with it for the past few days and two handed swords are still fun though.
 
Top Bottom