Best Mount and Blade?

[Defensivedig]

I was thinking of getting a mount and blade game because they look really fun, so.... Can anyone say which their favorites are and why? Or what are the differences between them and which are better at what, if you don't have a favorite. Thanks!

I posted this on one of the other games hubs, but htis one seems to have more players, so I figured I would post it here as well... Is that against any rules?

[Johari]

Get warband. It's the original mount and blade but better in every way(so I've heard; I've never played the original).
With fire and sword is, in my and many others' opinions, not very good - or at least, not compared to warband. WFaS is based on a novel and wasn't made by the same people that made M&B and warband.

The original M&B had some big mods, which aren't ported to warband AFAIK, but warband also has a very extensive modding community with several major overhaul mods released(floris, prophesy of pendor, 1257AD, civil war/revolution mods, napoleonic wars DLC(which was a mod known as mount & musket, IIRC), etc).

[Red Bat]

This is the best Mount and Blade. There isn't any real debate on that. Fire and Sword is a buggy mess. Most of the people who like Fire and Sword, like it as sort of a guilty pleasure.

[Sohei]

Get Warband if you are only going to get one.

[Defensivedig]

I guess I'll get warband then! Thanks!

[kaiyl_kariashi]

Fire and Sword isn't horrible, but it pales in comparison to Warband, and while it does offer more features out of the box then vanilla Warband, what you see is pretty much what you get due to having a tiny modding community.

Warband on the other hand has a HUGE modding community, and is easily worth the money in terms of replayability as well as quality of the experience. (And nearly everything F&S does can be had in Warband via modding (F&S is literally just based on a Warband mod that was picked up and given funding to polish it up a little more (similar to what happened with Napolenic Wars))).

The original M&B is basically garbage by comparison. It has a few good mods, but everything else about the game is basically an early Beta version of Warband (and pretty much all the mod developers have either stopped supporting their mods, or moved up to Warband).

[The EaglesEye]

Originally posted by kaiyl_kariashi:

Fire and Sword isn't horrible, but it pales in comparison to Warband, and while it does offer more features out of the box then vanilla Warband, what you see is pretty much what you get due to having a tiny modding community.

Warband on the other hand has a HUGE modding community, and is easily worth the money in terms of replayability as well as quality of the experience. (And nearly everything F&S does can be had in Warband via modding (F&S is literally just based on a Warband mod that was picked up and given funding to polish it up a little more (similar to what happened with Napolenic Wars))).

The original M&B is basically garbage by comparison. It has a few good mods, but everything else about the game is basically an early Beta version of Warband (and pretty much all the mod developers have either stopped supporting their mods, or moved up to Warband).

more featured? they removed creating your own faction in with fire and sword

[kaiyl_kariashi]

Yeah, overall, it has more features, but they did remove some stuff, like your nation will always be considered a Rebel of X nation, and you can't get married.

But overall, it does improve most aspects of the game. You can customize your soldiers a little, towns/villages/castles have more/better improvements, banks and player sponsored merchant caravans. Sieges are a little more dynamic, giving you extra options based on your Tactics skill (such as simply blowing a hole in the wall with sapper charges instead of having to climb ladders). Also adds more diplomatic options and some story-lines to follow.

Which is very nice compared to Native Warband....but pretty much every mod I play frequently offers that and/or more, and usually does it better.

-----------------------

So it's not horrible...but IMO it has MUCH less value for the money spent, since you'll eventually run out of stuff to do and find that there's basically no mods for it. Also the combat is rather bland IMO. Yes it's fairly realistic, but part of what makes Native Mount and Blade awesome is there are multiple ways to achieve victory, while F&S comes down to who started in the best position on the battle map and had the most guns. It's also annoying since your character has to cower at the back of the army to avoid being 1-2 shotted, which gets really boring. I enjoy playing as a commander every once in awhile, but when it's the only valid style of play for the PC...no thanks.

[Kim Jong Fun]

warband with alot of mods is what i say.

[McKushin']

Warband and Napoleonic Wars (NW). Warband is really fun to actually try on; whereas NW is really fun to mess around on because of troops like musicians etc