So I was watching this playthrough series last night and started wondering about the factions in Warband (and Bannerlord).
As we know, the factions in MnB are inspired by real-world cultures and factions, i.e. Swadia\ Vlandia are West Europe, Khergits\ Khuzaits are Asian steppe cultures, etc., and of course we all know that the setting is intentionally anachronistic, and therefore unrealistic. But the games don't portray a high-fantasy world with magic and unrealistic events and geography, so, as far as anyone should be concerned, the factions, as they are, should have developed naturally in-universe. But there's a problem with this, as then there should have been more cultural overlap between them, things like adopted gear and near-border subcultures between two main-factions, or factions sandwiched between two other factions should have had traits from both. It's actually something that I've noticed quite a few people were trying to address via mods (mainly for Bannerlord, but some Warband mods as well, I don't remember which ones, though), but in vanilla it's just what it is. I mean, if there were to be some kind of geographical feature preventing significant contact between two factions, it's one thing, but in most cases, there isn't one.
The Empire is inspired by, and based on the real-world Roman Empire. The Romans were famous for adapting to, and adopting the military practices of their neighbours. This was what allowed them to gain the upper hand in battles and continuously expand. The Calradic Empire, by comparison, doesn't do that. Is it a jack-of-all-trades, yet doesn't seem to take any direct inspiration from any of its neighbours. I mean, it's located smack-dab in the middle of the continent, it borders pretty much every other faction (minus the Nords, though they did interact historically), yet none of its troops are actually specialised to fight against the neighbours' preferred military styles. Realistically, the eastern provinces of the Empire would have had mounted archers and lancers in lighter armour, to keep up with the highly-mobile steppe horselords, maybe have heavily-armoured pikemen to counteract horse charges. Yes, the Eleftheroi are kinda this, but they're a minor faction, not part of the Empire's military, and fight just as much against the Empire, as they do fighting for it (even if their lore states that they're defending the Empire from steppe peoples). Accordingly, the western provinces should have had heavy shields and arm and leg armour to counter the Battanians' falxes and bowmen, as well as heavy cav and xbowmen against the Vlandians, who use heavy armour and horse charges. Northern provinces would have had something to counter the Sturgians, plus the cold weather, and the south would have something for the Aserai and the hot weather. And so on, and so fourth. I suppose it makes sense for them to be less adapted to the Sturgians and Aserai, given the literal seas between the Empire and them, but still, historically there have been direct interactions, including hostile ones, and there are land-bridges, and sailing still exists.
Vaegir units are effectively a mixture of Nords and Khergits. Just like the Nords, Vaegirs wear mail armour, fight with axes and swords, and have good infantry. From the Khergits they have medium cavalry, lamellar and leather armour, sabres, and excellent archers (also, no pikemen or lancers?). The geography checks out, too, since the Nords invaded them from the north-west, and the Khergits invaded them from the south-east (not everyone knows it, but the territory of the Khergit Khanate originally belonged to the Vaegirs, so they've had plenty of time to adapt to their combat tactics, and even adopt some, doesn't explain the architecture of former-Vaegir-now-Khergit fiefs, though). The biggest problem with the Vaegirs, though, is that by directly adopting the gear and tactics of their main two neighbours, they kinda don't have an identity of their own. I mean, what do they have that's unique to them? Mounted axemen and infantry archers? (I've just realised they're the reverse of their main enemies' focus - Nord axe infantry and Khergit mounted archers) From a meta standapoint the Vaegirs actually share their troop tree with the Swadians, because in Warrider there were only these two factions, and they were designed to be pretty-much equal (Swadians have lancers and xbowmen, Vaegirs have mounted axemen and archers - that's the main difference), plus in the old lore the Vaegirs seceded from Swadia. Yet the Vaegirs's gear and tactics haven't changed much since then, even before the Khergits became a proper faction, so the Vaegirs being what they are, from a meta perspective, actually has nothing to do with either the Nords (that didn't yet exist), or the Khergits (who were a minor faction in-game, and newcomers to Calradia in the lore). Still, the meta aside, the Vaegirs being sandwiched between the Nords and the Khergits, and adapting and adopting tactics, gear, and units makes perfect sense, and their identity actually comes from that mixture, as well as the "Swadian clone" foundation. That, and them descending from Sturgia with its archer infantry and noble cav.
In the lore the faction is literally a mixture of invading Nord warriors and native Sturgian tribals. However, in-game the "Sturgian" element is hardly fleshed out, whereas the "viking" element isn't significant enough to influence anything (compare the similar units of Sturgia and Nordwyg, and it's not even a contest). I mean, yes, Sturgian cavalry is alright, and is arguably the faction's purely-Sturgian element (since Nordwyg has no cav units at all), but it's hardly enough. And then there are the Vakken that, at least in terms of lore, have been living next to the Sturgians for generations, so you'd think there'd be some overlap between the two, but no. Seriously, Sturgia has the Vakken, who have good archers, it also borders Battania, Nordvyg, and the Khuzaits, three factions with the best archers in the game, and yet Sturgian archers are only 'decent'. Yes, we can argue that Battanian Fians are a noble unit, and therefore can afford expensive training, and the training regiment might even be a state secret, hence why no neighbours can match-up (a weak argument, really), but the Nords literally brought their military traditions to the Sturgians, so where are the Sturgian Sky-Gods Chosen? As to the Khuzaits' influence, it's not a thing. Realistically, there should have been two subcultures in Sturgia, with the west being more infantry-focused, having to deal with Battanians, and the east being more cavalry-focused, having to deal with the steppe peoples. Except that the steppe peoples weren't even an issue for the most part, because before the Sturgians had to deal with them, they had to deal with the Iltanlar, who lived in the mountains and didn't really have cavalry, so it wouldn't be until the Sturgians dealt with them that they'd have to deal with the steppe tribes. But since the Khuzait Khanate has only recently formed, and effectively came upon the Iltanlar like a storm and crushed them, the Sturgians had no time or opportunity to properly adopt to fighting a cavalry-focused faction. The only reason they weren't immediately crushed, I believe, is because they've had their own cavalry units (it's actually weird that the Sturgian Otrok tree has cav units, when lore-wise they're supposed to be lesser Nord nobles, and Nords don't have any cavalry; but maybe they're actually lesser nobles because they're Sturgians? You know, Sturgian tribal nobility? Less influential than the Nord-descended nobles, but still nobles? Doesn't explain why they have Varyag\ Vaegir units in the tree, then, since the Varyags\ Vaegirs are literally Nord mercenaries in Bannelord's lore... Eh, I'm overthinking it). Anyway, my point is that Sturgia sucks as a mixed culture, because it doesn't fully commit to its strengths, and it sucks as a standalone culture, because it's not fleshed-out properly.
The Rhodoks stand out among the other factions in both Warband and Bannerlord, because they: a) actually adapted to, and adopted their neighbours' tactics, and b) did so to both strengthen themselves, and to mock their neighbours. From the lore we know that the Rhodoks were a tribal people living in south-western Calradia, subjugated by the Swadians, and who only established an independent kingdom after the individual known as Grunwalder came to them "from over the hills", and taught them to fight and resits the Swadians. Who was Grunwalder? We don't really know. He may have been a disgruntled Swadian, or an Imperial. Why? Because these are the only factions to use crossbows (do the Aserai have xbow units? I don't remember), and tribal Rhodoks would have realistically used slings, thrown spears or bows instead. But it doesn't really matter. The point is that he taught the Rhodoks to fight in an organised fashion. And when they became successful, they've established their own kingdom. Their chieftains declared themselves 'counts', to mock the Swadians, who pride themselves on having counts. Their form of government is a medieval republic, which is most likely a holdover of their tribal traditions, but also, possibly, a nod at Grunwalder's influence, especially if he was an Imperial (the Empire had a senate that elected the Emperor). The issue with Grunwalder being an Imperial is that it'd imply that the Empire collapsed relatively recently, whereas, the way people talk about it in-game implies that it's happened quite awhile ago (Bannerlord, whether you believe the two games to be set in the same continuity or not, is set some 200 years prior to Warband, and one of the big choices in story mode is whether or not to save the Empire. Since the Empire is gone by Warband's time, we can safely assume that the canon choice is to destroy the Empire, but that would still make Grunwalder too old for Warband time, since the Rhodoks only seceded from Swadia relatively recently, compared to even the arrival of the Khergits and the Nords to Calradia. Yes, I'm aware that Warrider's\ Classic's old lore doesn't count anymore, but it kinda does, since the Khergits taking the south from the Vaegirs is canon in Warband, and we know that the south belonged to the Vaegirs from Warrider, so it's kind of all over the place). Anyhow, besides adopting xbows and the title of 'count', the Rhodoks have also learned to use spears to break Swadian horse charges, and blunt weapons (and xbows) to counter Swadian heavy armour. Best of all is that since they're the underdog, the Swadians didn't need to adopt their tactics. After all, Swadians do still have infantry to charge the Rhodoks when the cavalry gets wrecked. Likewise, the Rhodoks don't really need to adapt to the Sarranids, because their land border is pretty small, and there's very little back-and-fourth between them in terms of territorial changes. Besides, the Sarranid troop tree is likewise a copy of the Swadian troop tree, but with archers, so if the Rhodoks can resist the Swadians, they can sure as hell resist the Sarranids. And, in the end, the Rhodoks retain their cultural identity pretty well, far better than the Vaegirs, even.
And now the question is why I haven't spoken about the other factions' adaptation to their neighbours, and why their identities aren't being put into question. Well, it's simple, really:
The Khergits\ Khuzaits are steppe peoples, and they've developed pretty much in isolation from the rest of Calradia, coming from beyond the eastern steppes. They don't really need to adapt to others' fighting styles, because they focus on swift horseback combat, including use of mounted archery. Even on the worst of days this is pretty effective in open battles. The Khuzaits are actually better than the Khergits because they have dedicated infantry, which gives them an advantage in horse-unfriendly terrain, but since most of Calradia is plans anyway, it's barely an issue. And while the Khergits are pretty squishy, they - just like the Khuzaits before them - do use siege equipment to conquer towns and castles, or else rely on raiding the nearby villages to starve out the defenders without actually having to go into the meatgrinder themselves.
The Nords\ Nordwyg developed in isolation from the rest of Calradia, being separated from it by the ocean. I agree that it's strange that they did not actually adapt to the Swadians (in WB) and the Khuzaits (in BL), having no cav units, no xbowmen, and no pikemen. But there are two things to consider: in Warband, they are mostly separated from the Swadians by a mountain range, so their main interaction is with the Vaegirs, whom they can effectively fight even with the Vaegirs' cavalry; and in Bannerlord, they only share a small land border with the Khuzaits along the Jumne river, and the area is mostly cliffs and forests, so the Khuzait terrain and numeric advantage is severely hindered. Add to that the Nords have the advantage on the sea, which means they'll be effective in fighting pretty much anyone in naval combat (and the Khuzaits have no marine troops at all, at that).
The Sarranids/ Aserai likewise developed mostly in isolation from the rest, being separated from them by mountains (Warband) and a sea (Bannerlord) respectively. Yet, in spite of this, their troop trees are actually fairly all-rounded, allowing them to mostly counter a Rhodok or Khuzait advance (if one should happen), and fight the Empire toe-to-toe (because both factions are all-rounders). Since War Sails, the Aserai don't even have a land bridge with Vlandia any more, so no immediate need to counter them, but even before that, there was only a tiny land bridge, and also the WEmpire, that would have likely been keeping Vlandia busy (or vice-versa). The Sarranids' main enemy is the Khergit Khanate, but there's a mountain range separating them, with only three access points. That, and the Sarranids's troop tree, as mentioned, is fairly adequate to deal with the Khergits, sometimes even more so than that of the Vaegirs.
The following are actually special cases.
Vlandia was originally established by mercenaries from Balion that came to Calradia, received land, brought in more of their people and their own fighting traditions, and later started expanding aggressively. Vlandia's foundation developed in isolation to Calradia, but it developed its approach to fighting the Calradians by simply observing them before actually engaging. Vlandia didn't need to adapt its units to the occasion - because they're already fairly well-rounded - just how it would use them: mounted units and xbows against the Empire, infantry, mail and big shields against Battania. Simple as.
Swadia, as the descendant of Vlandia, has merely improved upon the existing traditions. However, if we look at Calradic history, we can see that Swadia has actually become stagnant. If Vlandia conquered Battania, pushed the Sturgians east, and possibly even had a hand in destroying the Empire, Swadia just inherited the territory, but was unable to prevent the secession of the Vaegirs and the Rhodoks, and later lost land to the Nords (in Warrider Swadia controled Sargoth and Tihr, don't remember about Wercheg; Warband's companions don't actually say whom those lands belonged to, only that the Nords attempted to take Rivacheg from the Vaegirs, so there's technically no contradiction). The Vaegirs copied Swadian military tradition and put their own spin on it, the Rhodoks learned to directly counter the same traditions, and the Nords were literally like nothing else the Swadians have faced before (yes, in BL there's lore that Nords do live in Northern Calradia - Vlandia and Sturgia - and yes, the Nords did influence the Sturgians, but in the long run, both were just a drop in the ocean, as the Nords living in Calradia back then were either civilians, or diluted by Sturgian tradition, whereas Swadia has to deal with pure Nords, who pushed it south, beyond the mountains). And, as any Warband player knows, Swadia is getting absolutely wrecked in 90% of playthroughs. In meta terms it's because of its geographic position and the way the game's AI is programmed (holding feasts to improve relations after losing territory), both of which result in snowballing, but outside of meta, Swadia is losing because it's stagnant, because its enemies have learned to fight it in particular (Vaegirs, Rhodoks), or are just too "alien" for it to successfully resist (Nords, Khergits, Sarranids).
Battania. This one's the most clear case of why adapting is important. Battania, just like the Empire and Swadia, is surrounded by everyone. It doesn't help that its neighbours are actually bigger. Just like the Rhodoks, the Battanians' major advantage is their terrain: mountains and forests. These mostly protect the realm from enemy cavalry, but their units are largely ill-equipped to fight heavily armoured infantry, being mostly glorified peasants with scythes (I don't remember, but I think they don't even have non-noble ranged units?). It doesn't help as well that Battanians are a quarrelsome people, fighting each other often times even more than their enemies (at least in the lore). Yes, their falxes are great against heavy armour (at least in the real world, I'm not sure in-game); yes, they have cav (kinda useless in their own terrain, eh? Not great cav, either); and yes, their Fian Champions demolish everyone in most scenarios (noble top-tier unit, not used enough), but if we look at the lore, Battanians have gone from being one of the most populous peoples on the continent to being a tiny quarrelsome kingdom, barely held together and surrounded by hostile great powers. Battania is canonically meant to lose, because not even mention of it exists by Warband's time, and the fact that it has no specialised units to counter its enemies is kind of indicative of this. It failed to adapt from day one, and this failure ultimately leads to its destruction. It's actually pretty strange, because there's that one Battanian companion who claims that Battanian youths often fought for the Empire as levies, so they should have adopted Imperial military traditions at least to some degree. But I guess we can thank Calabitch for his 'Battania First' policies.
So, in the end, what am I getting at? Honestly, I've been writing this for so long that I no longer remember. I guess my point is that the worldbuilding in Warband was a bit better than in Bannerlord, because the factions' military cultures showed overlap where it mattered (Vaegirs taking from Swadians, Nords, and Khergits to survive; Rhodoks learning to counter Swadians), or had plausible reasons to be different (Nords and Khergits developing in cultural isolation from their neighbours; Nords and Sarranids having a geographic borders that prevented immediate exchange). In Bannerlord the overlap just doesn't work (Sturgia), or doesn't exist (Battania, Empire, Vlandia), with the sole deciding factor in the development of military traditions being relative geographic isolation (Khuzaits, Nords, Aserai, also Vlandia).
We all know the siege meta: get an army of Nord Huskarls and capture every castle and town in Warband, and get a huge army and swap siege equipment back and fourth until you tear the walls down and overwhelm the defenders in Bannerlord. Except that this is for attack sieges, what about defense sieges? Obviously there's a meta for that as well: get all the Rhodoks in Warband vs use siege engines against enemy troops and and toss thrown weapons as enemy siege engines. ??? Profit!
But here's the thing, as closer to realism (I think) and as full of QoL features the sieges in Bannerlord are, once you get the hang of the meta, they quickly become trivialised (attack sieges are actually very easy). Warband, by comparison actually requires you to grind and occasionally boss the defenders around for best results. Sure, you can recruit Rhodok Sharpshooters or Nord Huskarls, but what if you don't have immediate access to them? You have to make do with what you have, and that's where the challenge comes, the AI being what it is.
In my latest run I was RP-ing a steppe nomad that accidentally joined Swadia as a merc, then strategically left service, then joined the Khergits only to end up having to defend Narra twice in (almost) a row. We got overwhelmed the first time and lost the town, then retook it, then had to defend it again, successfully this time. And let me tell you, nothing I ever did in Warband beat that feeling of winning the siege as a defender. The Khergits are pretty squishy, we all know that, so there we were: squishy, low morale, and my warband consisted of some 70 low and mid-tier troops, and we were being attacked by the Vaegirs. Most of our troops died in the battle, and when the handful of those left started cheering out of nowhere, it felt like a genuine victory. At that moment I felt like the defenders of Jerusalem in Kingdom of Heaven, when Saladin agreed to end the fighting without bloodshed. It was euphoric. Bannerlord just doesn't give me that feeling. It's not a case of "bannerlord bad", it's more a case of "jank vs polish", and how overcoming jank feels like a proper achievement.
What do you think? Any similar stories to share? Maybe BL gives you that feeling instead?
I've not seen anyone talking about it on here.
I've downloaded the game yesterday and have been playing it for almost 9 hours straight. The game wears its inspirations on its sleeve: you've got a huge underground base after some disaster like in Half-Life; the setting is "communist" Czechoslovakia like in HROT (plus there are a bunch of references; technically it's set in Czechia, but I won't spoil it); the progression is akin to Dusk, with you moving between levels in a linear fashion, and the silent protagonist making occasional comments via on-screen text; Fallout - in one level you have to open a huge revolving bunker door to get out to the surface, there's a lot of green goop, mutants, etc. There are notes scattered all around that you can read, I forgot which FPS popularized it, but anyway. Also, I think another source of inspiration was those indie horror games where you're stuck in a room and have to do the same task every day, with each day increasing the difficulty. It's not a gameplay inspiration, more of a vibe inspiration, I think.
There are quite a few weapons to choose from: wrench, pistol, two shotties, AK, EMP rifle, regular rifle, minigun, grenades, crossbow... though I'm not crazy about some of them (the EMP rifle sucks, but its necessary for some puzzles). One thing that really annoys me is how the weapons are grouped: the AK, EMP rifle, and the single shotty are #3; the rifle, the SSG, and the crossbow are #4... And yes, each weapon (sans the shotties) has its own ammo type, so the grouping makes even less sense.
The plot: You are a "worker" in an underground nuclear power plant. Something happens and the whole place starts falling apart. You wake up in your cell and have to get out. As you go, you come across various notes that tell you about the installation and what happened, about yourself (potentially), and how this world functions in general. Some of it is scary, some is silly, but it kinda works.
Regarding enemies, you get at least three types of guards (two in hazmat suits, one in some kind of blast armour), mutants (rats, giants spiders (can be swapped out in the options), "zombies", and "human experiments"), and robots (sentry drones, turrets, miner robots, security robots, walking mortars). There are also bosses, and while they're still "shoot it until it dies", they each have some gimmick to them.
The maps range from bunkers to mines/ caves, to prisons, to offices, to surface areas, and, yes, sewers as well. There's even a level where you can ride a tram! All in a very brutalist\ communist style. Some maps are corridor-heavy, others are more open. You get secrets in each level (though most are pretty easy to find) as well as interactable objects (you can pick certain objects up; toggle radios, tv-sets, and lamps on/ off; flush toilets; toggle water faucets on/ off, open/ close certain containers, etc.). And yes, some maps have puzzles where you need to use the EMP rifle, and timed sections where you have to kill waves of enemies until a timer runs out.
Music is kinda minimalistic, often blending into the background ambience, but it's there. And other times it starts blasting, to suggest that enemies are actively chasing you.
Anyway, I was initially intrigued by the game when I saw the trailer, but now I can safely say that the wait was worth it! I've yet to beat it, though (I have no idea how long it's supposed to be, thus far I've beaten two bosses and have just unlocked the "human experiment" enemies).
Just went to moddb to look for some mods and came across this. Apparently it's Wolf3D but from an isometric POV. Sounds interesting, though I've not tried it.
In vanilla Oblivion the armour design for fur is different for males and females. Males wear a "cuirass" whereas females wear a tshirt with a fur "chestplate". The Remaster changed the female design to be more consistent with the male one (totally not to desexualise it, like it did with the rest of the divergent armour designs), but the problem is that the female variant is a legit type of armour that was apparently used by certain peoples around the world way back when. The Meso-American Ichcahuipilli comes to mind, although it's more of a padded vest. Still, I imagine that a padded chestplate also existed as a cheaper alternative or something. Regardless.
I wanted to make a mod for myself that expands on fur armour, adding several standalone variants, like in Skyrim, but so far the fur armour mods I'm finding are either focused only on the male variant (i.e. fitting it for the female body), or changes the male or female variant to be completely different (i.e. turning the female variant into a "fur bikini"). New male variants of fur armour mostly just remove the sleeves, or are made for specific body types, like bodybuilder or roberts, and none of them take the female variant as a base.
So, are there any good unique fur armour variants that are consistent and not oversexualised?
It is a truly legendary mod from back in the old days, but honestly, I never understood what it was supposed to be about. Like, is it an intricate inside joke? A socio-political commentary? A glorified shitpost? A what?
Also, Gangs of Glasgow for Bannerlord, when??
Awhile back I've made a post where I've complained about how Bannerlord's version of Calradia was huge but kinda underwhelming (among other things).
Having not played Bannerlord much since 1.3 (because I don't want my computer to burn down), I went back to Warband. It's fun, Warband is still great, but something that I've actually realised is that, since Warband's Calradia is more densely packed (and smaller), it actually limits the stories the player can tell about their character.
Bannerlord's Calradia is big, and while it doesn't feel much different when you're traversing it, there's still a lot there, because TW actually put a bit more effort into the worldbuilding and lore. Towns, some castles, and villages have flavour text. Companions, as shallow as they are, do have backstories steeped in this world. But it's not just the settlements and companions, it's also the geography: mountains, rivers, valleys, they all have names and backstories. The Digital Companion (while not worth the 5-6 Euros) adds to the lore and worldbuilding. And you, as a player, can come up with a backstory for your character based on it all. Is your character the son of a Noyan's Guard? Is she the daughter of a Battanian merchant? The child of a desert bandit? Maybe they have Palaic ancestry? Maybe they're from the remnants of the Iltanlar that have been living on a remote part of Mt. Iltan? Maybe they've come through an inter-dimensional portal opened by the monolith found in that one Nordwyg village? So many possibilities, and all have some kind of lore basis. The fact that your character is supposed to be a native of Calradia gives an added layer to character creation: maybe your character's a child of an exiled member of a Sturgian clan? They don't know you, but you know them, and now you might want to destroy them for exiling your parents, or else do the opposite: go out of your way to protect them against enemies. (I only wish BL had the option to be a foreigner in Calradia, so you could replicate WB's experience of being a full stranger, because it doesn't make sense for your character, a native of, say, WEmpire, not to know at least one WEmpire noble).
In Warband, you mostly get flavour text during character creation (when you select one of the capitals at game start), some quests, and by talking to your companions. Anything else you have to either come up with by yourself (which is why we have gems like Harlaus's butter addiction, or Jeremus being God Incarnate), or rely on beats from older versions of the game (i.e. the Black Khergits, Dark Knights, the Undead), which, as far as the game's officially concerned, never existed. It severely limits your roleplay options. The fact that you're a foreigner to Calradia sounds good on paper, but where are they from? If we don't know anything about the world beyond Calradia, how well can our character fit into the world? Yes, imagination is good, but it wouldn't be lore-accurate, would it?
So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that while Bannerlord feels more shallow mechanically, all the lore and flavour text, however basic they might be, give you more options to immerse yourself into the world, so it kinda makes up for it.
No, it's not one of those "AI = bad!!!" posts, rather it's a bit more specific.
I've noticed that in these AI conversation mods everyone is very verbose and very cryptic at the same time. It doesn't matter if you're talking to a highborn lord or some back alley scum, they all talk with the gravity of a prophet preparing for the end times. I get that the AI is written to immerse you into a fantasy setting, but I feel like it'd work better for a high-fantasy game than for the more grounded setting of MnB.
Does anyone else's immersion break from this?