KC:D also wont be cookie cutter, let the brain dead ai army come to you while you pull of some basic flanking move and cut them to pieces rinse and repeat 6 gorillion times type battles either.
Oh you played the release version already? Neat!
Every battle ive seen so far looks identical to the ones in war band, which involve exactly what i said above. Sieges add some nice new things, but a couple new features is pretty pathetic for how long this game has been in development.
So again… you played final game?
Nope. And if im wrong and they make battles more interesting, and complex than they were in war band, i’ll withdraw my criticisms. But based on the footage now, it’s not a game i would sink more than 30 hours into, because it essentially looks like a reskined war band with fancy siege mechanics.
see the difference? bannerlord/mount and blade has become irrelevant due to stagnation. it doesn’t do anything exceptionally well anymore compared to modern offerings. whereas kingdom come is a first, and best, at numerous things in a video game.
I think I will play both for different reasons.
Me too, I will also play both
MB is a more “flexible” game. You can create many variations, through modifications. All this is waiting - the ability to create their own modifications. With blackjack and girls.
Since I started this thread I think it’s only fair to plug myself yet again haha
I recently did a video covering the history of the game for any newcomer to the series, have a wee look!
Not sure why the “Captain mode” is being marketed as a new thing to the M&B series, they had a nearly identical feature in Warband called commander battles. Granted the Captain mode seems to have a few new features, but the core of the game mode is certainly not new.
Also what’s with the armor? They were at least decently realistic in the previous games, now it looks like fantasy trash for the most part.
not just stylistically, but the armor also looks like ass from a proportion and aesthetic standpoint. they look like those giant styrofoam things they market to children on halloween. it’s so easy to improve any medieval or medieval fantasy game, just give them armor that resembles the real thing human beings actually wore. not robot armor from cheap 70s budget movies
I’m not keen on some of the new armour either, particularly some of the high tier Battanian stuff. I think they like to lump too many extra bits on the highest tier troops to give them markedly more protection than the lower tiers, so there are quite a few troops with both mail/scale plus a lamellar vest over the top or something worse such as random bits of leather or bulky chest belt things (Battanians). But there are some very nice looking armours too, such as some of the Khuzait lamellar. My favourite armours in the game are plain Vlandian mail shirts and some of the imperial scale (both seen in older videos).
Choosing between this and Kingdom Come is to me, as many others have said, a strange idea. They are significantly different, and Bannerlord will undoubtedly offer a greater range and customisation of large battles than KCD; that’s just unavoidable due to the type of game each title is. The combat system is also different and while Bannerlord doesn’t require you to lock on or anything, the realism in sword play and the polished graphics of KCD is second to none.
The commander battle mode was in the Napoleonic Wars DLC only, not Warband. By the way, anyone who has watched the E3 videos thoroughly and thinks that the AI is not much different than Warband’s needs to play Warband and remind themselves!
Not true, they were single player commander battles in warband.
Please explain how the AI acts differently.
Single player commander battles? Do you mean Custom Battles, where the player takes control of an army? I presume so since the only other single player modes in native Warband are the full sandbox and the tutorial. How is that anything like a commander battle, where multiple players each control a small group of NPCs?
The AI uses formations. The infantry of both sides (which were not player controlled in the E3 battles) met without breaking formation (to fight as individuals before the lines met, which would have happened in Warband). The cavalry of both sides guarded the flanks of their respective armies and returned to those flanks in between engaging enemy cavalry. At the start of the Vlandian video, we see the enemy Imperial cavalry approach the player cavalry on the player army’s left flank. They fight, and whilst they do so the player team’s infantry continues onwards towards the enemy army, though the xbowmen stay behind to fire on the enemy cav. This is a clear difference to Warband, where the enemy cav would have headed for the largest and nearest group of targets and would have gone straight at the infantry. All the player team’s AI would have tried to attack that cavalry.
Once the enemy cav have been seen off, the player goes back to the left flank of his army and we see enemy cavalry repositioning on the same flank, while its infantry is in a tight formation on a rise in the centre. The enemy cav then charge the player cav, while the player team infantry is attacking the enemy infantry centre.
I know that telling you all this is probably in vain, since you could easily have recognised these features yourself and, presuming you can remember what a Warband battle is like, you would already know that there are big differences. I think you are set on denigrating M&B because you erroneously see it as a competitor to KCD, or perhaps just resent people raving about M&B when you believe the combat system to be better in KCD (I reach this conclusion because medieval combat is the most obvious feature the two have in common).
i’m not choosing between them and you’re assuming we see bannerlord as competition. bannerlord isn’t on the radar for me.
By the sounds of it, I think you’ve missed the point of the discussion in this thread, so no need to get on the defensive…
Just about everyone here is a fan of the medieval genre. Meaning, games that in some shape or form are representative of that period (be that in a fantasy, romanticized, or realistic setting) are of interest to the community here. Which is the root of why this thread was created
This is a place for people to share their opinions and make commentary. That’s all this is… I for one really want M&BII:B to be an enjoyable and entertaining sandbox game like it’s predecessors. But like many here, I’m struggling to get past the fact that at least visually the game is looking less and less impressive every time we see it. Maybe that will be different if / when it ever releases
Some people have talked of choosing between them, but why assume I was including everyone in the thread in each thing I said? I made a reference to the comment you made about armours, that is all (and I largely agreed with what you said), I wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth. Having said that, I look at the author of the screenshot comparison, headed ‘No. Contest’…and it’s you! Those words unambiguously suggest that you think there is a choice to be made between the two games (for gamers in general, not you personally, as you state), that you see Bannerlord as potential competition. While I’m on the matter, although KCD is unarguably the more realistc and better looking game in general, especially screenshots (though I really like some of Bannerlord’s graphics, and I’m not won over yet by the appearance of combat in KCD as much as I am impressed by it), this isn’t really a surprise or worthy of comment, is it? Because they are different types of game; M&B is not an Elder Scrolls type RPG always in third or first person in a 3D world, and it is not geared towards having deep conversations and varied experiences in that 3D world, plus of course when it does use a 3D world it generally has far more people in it than KCD will. So it’s not really worth comparing them graphically, is it?