Something thats always bugged me....the timeline.

[FuzzTightBeer]

In M&B I the timeline is so weird. Its not so much the actual timeline but the scale/timelapse.

What looks and feels like months and years is really only days and weeks.

Want to siege a castle...6 hours to build siege engines/mechanics

Time stands still while in battles.

Crossing the world can take as little as an hour(in gametime).

Things just happen in hours/days that should be scaled to weeks/months/years.


Fast forward to M&B II.

I am assuming the same scale will be applied to this new game.

Things that make zero sense to me.

Game is set to 200 years in the past.

Your character can age and die. Your offspring can continue where you left off.

With a difference of only 200 years thats next to nothing when we can play as different generations. 50 years for your char, 50 for your childs, 50 for theres....all the while the time scale in game will progress in days and weeks yet our char has a chance to die of old age?!?!

Then on top of that, lets say you complete the game in 100 years. you own everything and are the ruler of all.

That gives 100 years for the entire kingdom to fall apart, multiple factions to crop up and entire new civilizations to populate the world before we reach the part when our M&B I character and story begin.

I just dont get it.

It seems more realistic to put the game a 600-1000 years in the past and change the in game time scale to progress much faster.


TL:DR Timescale is ef'd. Time scale progresses in days yet our char can die of old age. Its like 1 day=1/4th a year.

[FuzzTightBeer]

Originally posted by ⚔ Hikers are terrorists:

So you want to ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ wait 6 months for a siege.

Yes but not in the sense of how days pass for M&BI.

Speed up the timescale/timelapse. Make it so a week/few days feels like a day(current M&B I cycle).

[FuzzTightBeer]

Am i the only one that it feels weird to of conquered an entire world starting from a nobody in 365+ days? Im just throwing a random number out, even if it was 3650 days(10 years) that still feels insanely weird when the game is set in this time period.

[FuzzTightBeer]

I mean look at it this way. If the game kept its current timescale and i made a young character(18) he would/could die of old age in 1825 days(5 years). 1825 days in mount and blade 1 is a helluva long time.

That just seems really effing skewed to me.

200 years=7300 M&B 1 days.

[Flippy]

I dont like the dieing of old age in a video game and some other suggestions that do not have a place in a game like this, but I think a more realistic timeline is a good idea. Sim ftw.

Look at the LOTR movie some of the guys were fighting and they were quite old. What age are these guys expected to be dieing of old age? 40 years of game time or so should be more than enough to have realistic timeline and characters not die of old age. Realisticly how old is the character when they start?

[Le Leon]

With foot troups you crossed in Warband a distance over 1000 km in 3 days. Prepare a siege took 48 hours, so 2 days. Huge mismatch.

In 365 Warband days i normally own several cities with a good amount of right to rule and more honor than the first 3 AI honor nobles together. Freaking mismatch.

I think a battle should consume world time, too.

I prefer aging. F.E.: If a character ages normally so he can max be able to stay alive for old 200-300 Warband days. Then he dies at lvl 20 and his son can rule after him, starting at around 50-60% of level of father.
Means the starting char cannot rule the world easily in a lifetime from point zero. So his family should follow his steps and rule after first char died.

We don't know if BL has a family system like "The guild" or what is possible when character dies. Perhaps he dies after 2000 warband days, what should be enough for several hundred game hours. An amount that most players never reach on a save. I normally stopped at max 500 days, because the AI ♥♥♥♥♥♥ me up and it was too frustrating to handle the own lords and their stupidity. Also no army on map could stand my main army and so i traveled from siege to siege, nothing else anymore. It's just to early to cry about aging.

[Flippy]

Originally posted by Le Leon:

With foot troups you crossed in Warband a distance over 1000 km in 3 days. Prepare a siege took 48 hours, so 2 days. Huge mismatch.

In 365 Warband days i normally own several cities with a good amount of right to rule and more honor than the first 3 AI honor nobles together. Freaking mismatch.

I think a battle should consume world time, too.

I prefer aging. F.E.: If a character ages normally so he can max be able to stay alive for old 200-300 Warband days. Then he dies at lvl 20 and his son can rule after him, starting at around 50-60% of level of father.
Means the starting char cannot rule the world easily in a lifetime from point zero. So his family should follow his steps and rule after first char died.

We don't know if BL has a family system like "The guild" or what is possible when character dies. Perhaps he dies after 2000 warband days, what should be enough for several hundred game hours. An amount that most players never reach on a save. I normally stopped at max 500 days, because the AI ♥♥♥♥♥♥ me up and it was too frustrating to handle the own lords and their stupidity. Also no army on map could stand my main army and so i traveled from siege to siege, nothing else anymore. It's just to early to cry about aging.

This sounds like garbage. In every possible way. So the main character fights till he dies? You expect him to fighting at 95? Or you dont care about the sim at all?

I really cant stand someone trying to ruin a game publicly. Pretending to be a fan and you hate the game with a passion. Disgusting.

There are already a couple topics on this forum I wont even look at because of the digusting nature of them and yet you have to troll this topic as well?

Go away.

On the topic of an iron man mode where if the character dies in battle or where ever the game has to be restarted, thats something worth looking at.

[Le Leon]

Originally posted by Flippy:

This sounds like garbage. In every possible way. So the main character fights till he dies? You expect him to fighting at 95? Or you dont care about the sim at all?

I really cant stand someone trying to ruin a game publicly. Pretending to be a fan and you hate the game with a passion. Disgusting.

There are already a couple topics on this forum I wont even look at because of the digusting nature of them and yet you have to troll this topic as well?

Go away.

On the topic of an iron man mode where if the character dies in battle or where ever the game has to be restarted, thats something worth looking at.

It's very unlikely that he reaches 95 years at year 1200. With luck it's 65-70. And i never said a concrete age nor have i trolled somewhere like you did it to me.
But hey if somebody has an opinion, why don't take his words and make a dramatic change of an example of it and give his words a new expression. Better go to bed and read again, when you are awake. *head-shaking*

I also said, if you read all, that nobody knows what BL brings with aging. I told, how i see a possible aging system compared to warband parameters.

And yeah my game hours on warband show the hate of the game, my tired friend...

You don't need to troll me again, i'm out of this thread. Please troll the next guy.

[cniht]

To the OP though.

Did you ever really play that far beyond say 1000 days? Which is only 3 years? I mean you could yes. However, I don't remember my warband timeline ever going 5 years deep prior to mopping up the map.