This game is MUCH harder than Fire and Sword

[Closet Deadpooler]

The combat in this game is much more difficult than fire and sword, and I don't understand why people say its easier than FS. Trying to connect with a weapon on horse back in this game is a nightmare, and the enemies always seem to get preference in deciding whose blow connects. If I charge into a mounted enemy on a horse with a spear strike prepared, I lose the attack and get stunlocked by my horse's rearing up movement. Then I get shot by the AI because guess what? They don't get stunned. Don't even get me started on whom the game favors in a duel of couched lances.

Maybe I'm missing some trick here? I mean there isn't gun powder but dodging bullets is easy compared to this.

[psychotron666]

You kidding? This game is ridiculously easy compared to fire and sword.

Horse back enemy killing is easy af. That's how you can take down a hundred dudes yourself by kiting them and killing them off horseback.

Try using first person view if you're having trouble connecting on horseback. Because you should be able to run around the battlefield and barely if ever get hit while doing so

[Swote]

The longer spear connects first, it's not random. The combat is decently hard but definitely not more than fire&sword. That's because you are punished hard for your tiniest mistakes there. In warband, you can even dodge arrows coming straight at you in reasonably long range.
Connecting weapons is also not that hard, you just have to get used to your attacks and your field of attack. Get some higher reach two handed weapons if you're having that much problems.

[Closet Deadpooler]

I'm not kidding. I was able to take out groups of 10 or fewer bandits in FS with just a horse and a sword, and barely get hit. I get knocked on my ass if I do that in this game. I got beaten by 20 mountain bandits vs my 29 strong party, I've done a couple games on FS without losing a battle, but in WB I lost 3-4 times right at the start.

It seems like attacks have a much harder time connecting in 3rd person vs FS. I haven't tried first person yet but I'll check it out.

[ULTRA]

Uhhh but you just get shot in WFaS and there's basically nothing you can do about it other than crouching in a corner with maxed out shields

[Morkonan]

Originally posted by Closet Deadpooler:

...
It seems like attacks have a much harder time connecting in 3rd person vs FS. I haven't tried first person yet but I'll check it out.

I haven't played F&S, but as far as combat in M&B goes, my experience with standard M&B and then across a number of mods with differing animations and weapons dictates that...

It takes time to acquire the instincts and muscle memory whenever you load up any mod or version of Warband.

Perhaps there's a difference between the weapons you're using? Maybe the stats of the horse are different? Skills matter in M&B, so perhaps there's a significant difference there? Maybe your enemies are using weapons you're not used to?

We tend to think of this kind of game as a character with certain abilities picking up a weapon or a piece of gear and there won't be much of a change in our gameplay experience. We'll get more damage or a faster attack or something with a "better" weapon... But, that is very far from the case in Warband. Every darn thing matters. A point or two of weapon length can throw all our acquired muscle-memory and favorite moves "off." Then... "WTF I CAN'T HIT @$%$! THIS SWORD SUCKS!" :) We find a weapon that has a bit better swing-speed and reach, but significantly lower damage than what we've been using and all of a sudden... "it's the most awesomest weapon evar!"

It will just take some time to get yourself adjusted to the new and different experience, IMO. I don't know what the significant differences are between the two experiences, so there could be something obvious that I'm missing. By and large, though, every time I start a new mod or switch to a different mod after playing the same one for a long time it takes me awhile to get used to that mod's specific animations, weapons, etc.

PS - Third-Person is the way to go with combat in M&B aside from the occasional sniping with a powerful bow, depending on what one likes for that. (I generally never leave 3'rd person. It's much better for a realistic combat-awareness experience. The "tunnel-vision" of first-person just doesn't feel "realistic." :) )

[LaserGuy]

Originally posted by Closet Deadpooler:

The combat in this game is much more difficult than fire and sword, and I don't understand why people say its easier than FS. Trying to connect with a weapon on horse back in this game is a nightmare, and the enemies always seem to get preference in deciding whose blow connects. If I charge into a mounted enemy on a horse with a spear strike prepared, I lose the attack and get stunlocked by my horse's rearing up movement.

If your horse is rearing, that means you weren't aiming correctly. Just like in real life jousting, you can't charge your horse straight at the enemy rider; you need hit parallel to them so that you keep your momentum... Ramming your horses together will just injure your horse (or they'll buck away like in the game). Likewise, you can't use basically any melee weapon off the front of your horse, you can only attack opponents on the sides of you, and how effective you are is dictated significantly by the length of your weapon.

That said, using a polearm on a horse definitely does take a bit of finesse to get the timing and orientations right. Personally, I've been using a two-handed axe while mounted instead of a polearm in my most recent playthrough and have been quite happy with it.

I got beaten by 20 mountain bandits vs my 29 strong party, I've done a couple games on FS without losing a battle, but in WB I lost 3-4 times right at the start.

Unit level matters. Basic level recruits are mostly worthless against even a lightly armed/armored opponent, and the stronger bandit types (sea raiders, any of the mounted types) can beat equal numbers pretty easily, but will lose once you get a few veteran troops. At the start of the game, be sure to check the tavern to see if there are any mercenaries to recruit. Even being able to get one or two hired blades or mercenary horsemen as the backbone to your army can make a big difference.

Sometimes you can just get kind of screwed at the start of the game if a strong bandit group spawns immediately outside the starting town. At worst, you may need to wait a day or two for the local lord to come out and chase them away. I think the safest starting area is probably Swadia since their bandits are very weak, though Nord is probably the most lucrative since Sea Raiders drop very out-of-depth gear quite early in the game.

[Polar the Bear]

If you have a 29 man army fighting a band of 20 mountain bandits. There are 2 things that you are doing

1. Your difficulty is stupid high for some reason. Maybe change it? Vanilla this games combat is a breeze and a grind. If you have a decent 2 handed sword you can take out legit armies by yourself

2. You may just be used to wFaS. (or just suck )

Honestly dude wFaS is harder just because of black powder. This game unless your sieging a castle filled with Rhodok Sharpshooters. Its stupid easy

[ULTRA]

To be fair, I'm pretty sure I could just kill 20 mountain bandits solo with a non-combat character on the hardest difficulty (149%) as long as I had a horse and a bow or crossbow

So it's more likely #2

[Security Cam #7]

WFaS is much harder. A bullet will one shot you and pistols are stupidly overpowered (nearly the same accuracy as a musket but twice as fast with reloading plus you can use a shield with it and there is no range limit for bullets so you can basically snipe with a pistol). Bows in WFaS are OP too, troops often don't have any shields and one headshot with a bow and a guy is dead. You also carry more ammo with a bow and are shooting much faster.

[ricklong]

Here's the funny part - they both use the same combat engine.
I'm going to agree with the people above that it might just be a case of the little things throwing you off.

Now as far as the lance goes ... lance is my favorite tournament weapon. If I start in Praven and King Butter has a feast, its like giving myself a ton of starting cash. There are a few tricks to it tho:
1 Never get caught in traffic. You always need to keep moving.
2 Don't couch a lancer coming at you. EVER. Couching is for horsemen not facing you or for guys on foot.
3 If you couch, you need to be turning slightly as you hit so you can obey Rule #1.
4. For head on against a lancer, you want to have your horse aimed to pass the other horse, then aim to the OUTSIDE of the other guy (aim like you're hitting his imaginary friend). As you start your thrust, turn your horse away, which pulls your blow into your opponent while making him miss you.
5. If somebody is chasing you on a horse, cut the turn and thrust on the early side. Its harder to parry. Your more likely to hit the horse's head than the rider, but if the horse goes down, problem solved. If its a crowd of horsemen chasing you, do this to the guy that defines the corner to get around the group. Unfortunately it means your dinging a different guy each time, but occasionally one will try to eat your lance. Just make sure you follow Rule 1.

All that said, I almost NEVER take a lance on the battlefield (OK, except in Pendor because Demonic Magni). If I want a weapon with reach, I take a bow (or a crossbow if a non-combat build). For the blade I take for ride-bys, I usually pick the longest one I can find - your velocity gives you plenty of damage and you can learn to adjust to your weapon's speed.

[Morkonan]

Just a note: A player that is often using a melee style (lance/other) from horseback NEEDS to pay attention to the "Charge" value of the horse... Players running a battlefield-tank-style of combat character need to focus on Charge, Hitpoints and Armor for their mount. The only thing I generally experience my mount "rearing" to is a tree or if I miss the chance I was taking to force some other horsebound tub-of-lard to have his mount rear up and stall his charge/escape. (Generally, easily done after a bit of practice and knowing the right circumstances.)

Spear sorts of attacks > Couched Lance in a crowded battlefield unless one is going up against Demonic Magni... Mangises? Manguses? Big_Scary_Armored_Demon_Dudes_Who_Are_Very_Angry_At_Players_of_PoP :)

(Even then, a Jatu Honor Lance is very awesome and has the spear attack animations)

[Closet Deadpooler]

It's probably what you guys said, I was using a spear on horseback to try to charge other enemies on horseback and having a really hard time lining it up. I switched to a mostly mounted army and I like it a lot better. I'm also using a bastard sword instead of the spear.

I just made myself so mad in this last battle though. I was going to recruit some prisoners after sieging and beating a 349 man garrison, and I clicked DONE instead of recruit! I missed out on captives and recruits, I was so mad. lol

[njkkfish]

on max difficulty in fire and sword i took the map by standing behind the soldiers and zig zagging to avoid gun fire.

in mount and blade i have taken most of the map but my playstyle is very different i can still get up close or on horse to defeat my enemies.

[Security Cam #7]

Get a steel shield. It blocks bullets

[Tuidjy]

Fire and Sword is not so much easier or harder than Warband, it is simply different. Thus, when you switch from one to the other, it takes time to adjust, and figure out what works.

Some major differences:

1) Companion relationships are much more complex in WF&S.
2) Companions, in general, are not as simple to properly level into powerfouses in WF&S.
3) Swords, in general, are much simpler to use in WF&S, and more generally useful.
4) Ranged weapons are much more deadly in WF&S.
5) Making money is completely different between the two games, and more reliable in M&BW
6) The player character can single-handedly win fights reliably in M&BW.
7) Properly customized troops in WF&S can trivialize most battles.
8) The storylines in WF&S can help a player progress much quicker, if he knows them well.
9) The procedural diplomacy in M&BW can help a player progress safely, if he knows it well.

Etc...

A lot of the combat differences are due to the fact that WF&S was based on the original M&B, and not on Warband. Those who, like me, remember the transition between the two, may recall the whining and gnashing of teeth when veterans of Classic had to adjust to the timing, reach, etc. of the Warband model.

We survived.