Napoleon or Fire and Sword?

[gleofrocga]

I'm wondering, which would be better? I prefer to play singeplayer rather than multiplayer.

Thanks.

[fluppi]

As far as I know is Napoleon MP only

[.Monty.]

Napoleon is much better

[King Chubbles]

Fire and Sword has single player, Napoleonic wars is a multiplayer-only expansion to warband.

[gleofrocga]

Originally posted by fluppi:

As far as I know is Napoleon MP only

Oh you can't do anything like the AI custom battles?

[King Chubbles]

Originally posted by Keyes:

Originally posted by fluppi:

As far as I know is Napoleon MP only

Oh you can't do anything like the AI custom battles?

You can do custom battles but that is the extent of it. No single player campaigne/sandbox.

[gleofrocga]

Originally posted by King Chubbles:

Originally posted by Keyes:

Oh you can't do anything like the AI custom battles?

You can do custom battles but that is the extent of it. No single player campaigne/sandbox.

And can you do Custom Battles on Fire and Sword? If you can I'd probably get that since it has a campaign.

[ok7675774575]

Yes fire and sword has custom battles

[JellyStorm]

Honestly, if I were you, I'd rather pick Napoleon, Fire and Sword feels more like a dumbed down version of Warband but with guns sadly.

[I'm Him]

I feel With Fire And Sword gets alot of undeserved hate. Yeah they dumbed it a little down by removing some features, but all the gameplay mechanics from warband are still there. Many people complain about the firearms but honestly I never got their opinions. Most people cry about getting instakilled by a gunshot and how combat options are limited because of how powerful muskets are (you cant rush in anymore etc.), but I never had any problems with it. People, just adapt your tactics. Its that easy.
Its more of a personal thing really, Im a big fan of that era and prefer it to the medieval setting of warband, also WFAS is historically accurate and Im somewhat of a history buff. Warband is still great in its own right, but dont act like the other game has nothing going for it.

[DaftCanuck]

Fire and Sword is just harder to get used to. Adapt your tactics based on what troops you have and you will do fine. I love getting cavalry and troops with guns. Make em line up and shoot the enemy as they approach, take your cavalry and flank the enemy thus stopping them from getting many shots off.
Make sure to stay on your horse and be on the move to avoid being shot. Save up and buy some good armour and you wont worry about 1 shots anymore.

[BaSzabi]

.

[bifutake]

they're both great so buy both, but if you can afford only one of 'em and prefer sp, go with fire and sword which has a single player campaign, just like native warband. napoleonic wars is mp-only (plus custom battles in single player).

[gleofrocga]

Oh and another question, in the custom battles, how many maps are there for each game respectively? I saw in the trailer for NW, that there were 35 maps, would that be in custom aswell? And what about WFAS? And is there a way to increase the unit cap in both?

[Cuba]

Go for napoleonic, fire and sword isn't worth your money.

[il]

Fire and sword is absolute ♥♥♥♥, and napoleonic wars has no single player.
Just spend your money on something else.