more like couched lance powergaming: the game, if you "spin your wheels in the mud" you might not be bright enough to play such incredibly high level games as fricking vanilla warband
I wish NW had a singleplayer campaign. The commander mode (or whatever it was called) where you command a group of AI troops in multiplayer was fun. That and there's always that primal thought of "what I wouldn't give to have a single grenade" while walking up a siege ladder and being body-blocked by 50 dudes on both armies.
I know there's mods and shit that do guns and stuff, but there's something to me about playing a mod from a rando that thinks he knows about developing rather than a buch of Turks that think they know about developing. They both do a good job at pretending, but at least one of them has shipped a game or two.
Frick, if I can have my cake and eat it too, a gun-centric variant of Bannerlord would be just as good.
Is the sequel good?
It depends on what you like about the first. Combat and troop ordering is improved, making giant and moronic weapons with blacksmithing is fun when you finally grind up enough skill and weapon parts to make what you want, battles can be fricking huge, I think the skill trees add a nice bit of flavor to the game, and the controls are a bit less jank.
Diplomacy and stuff leave a bit to be desired, voice lines are something I miss, I don't care for the caricature look of the NPCs, some aspects still feel rushed or unfinished, horses are improved but charges still lack that devastating "oomph" they should have (though the ability to do pike braces is pretty nice when you can pull it off), and I think the fact that your main character can die of old age is kinda lame (though some people like the dynastic aspect).
Overall, I'd say the game on offer is adequate, rather than scant. It feels like a sequel, but also feels different enough to have people fully on one side of the fence or the other.
For what it's worth, I like it. Mods improve a lot of some of the issues I mentioned, but I figured it was fair to point them out since mods can break due to updates.
>playing a mod from a rando that thinks he knows about developing rather than a buch of Turks that think they know about developing.
NW was originally a mod anon
>morale is jank and ensures you pretty much can't have a large army >ai refuses to go on an offensive, whenever the ai decides to gather is always to wait in the capital or raid a shitty village
You're legit moronic if you get filtered by morale, it's affected by three things >Don't lose battles >Give your troops plenty of different kinds of foods >Leadership skill
get good.
okay bro
I will drink from your skull
just turn down the difficulty
It's not a hard game, OP.
It's not but he describes it well
more like couched lance powergaming: the game, if you "spin your wheels in the mud" you might not be bright enough to play such incredibly high level games as fricking vanilla warband
people use lances?
Based warband filtering instant gratification zoomers
I wish NW had a singleplayer campaign. The commander mode (or whatever it was called) where you command a group of AI troops in multiplayer was fun. That and there's always that primal thought of "what I wouldn't give to have a single grenade" while walking up a siege ladder and being body-blocked by 50 dudes on both armies.
I know there's mods and shit that do guns and stuff, but there's something to me about playing a mod from a rando that thinks he knows about developing rather than a buch of Turks that think they know about developing. They both do a good job at pretending, but at least one of them has shipped a game or two.
Frick, if I can have my cake and eat it too, a gun-centric variant of Bannerlord would be just as good.
It depends on what you like about the first. Combat and troop ordering is improved, making giant and moronic weapons with blacksmithing is fun when you finally grind up enough skill and weapon parts to make what you want, battles can be fricking huge, I think the skill trees add a nice bit of flavor to the game, and the controls are a bit less jank.
Diplomacy and stuff leave a bit to be desired, voice lines are something I miss, I don't care for the caricature look of the NPCs, some aspects still feel rushed or unfinished, horses are improved but charges still lack that devastating "oomph" they should have (though the ability to do pike braces is pretty nice when you can pull it off), and I think the fact that your main character can die of old age is kinda lame (though some people like the dynastic aspect).
Overall, I'd say the game on offer is adequate, rather than scant. It feels like a sequel, but also feels different enough to have people fully on one side of the fence or the other.
For what it's worth, I like it. Mods improve a lot of some of the issues I mentioned, but I figured it was fair to point them out since mods can break due to updates.
>playing a mod from a rando that thinks he knows about developing rather than a buch of Turks that think they know about developing.
NW was originally a mod anon
>morale is jank and ensures you pretty much can't have a large army
>ai refuses to go on an offensive, whenever the ai decides to gather is always to wait in the capital or raid a shitty village
Skill issue
I have literally never had an issue with morale. Just buy food and don't lose battles
>He doesn't take good care of his army
>He isn't the marshall
Ngmi
You're legit moronic if you get filtered by morale, it's affected by three things
>Don't lose battles
>Give your troops plenty of different kinds of foods
>Leadership skill
Is the sequel good?
Curious about this too, it was getting updates last I remember.
One of the best games ever made. A masterpiece.
Thats Darkest Dungeon 2.
with a rh*dok pig standing behind the car (he's enjoying every moment of it)
bump