21 Comments



It has never been as successful as the other DLC and expansion for Mount and blade, So in this video i will be going into why this is and if it really failed or not?

Get Amazing Discounts on Steam Games! –

Support me On Patreon –
======================================================
Business Enquiries- resonantuprising@gmail.com

Join The Discord, Play with me-

Join The Steam Group!-

Follow me on twitch-

Follow me on twitter-

Join my Subreddit, Give me your ideas/memes –

Like my Facebook page-

Production Music courtesy of Epidemic Sound:

Royalty Free Music by (for videos that make use of music tracks)
Sound Effects by (for videos that make use of sound effects)

Nguồn: https://ijetmr.org/

Xem thêm bài viết khác: https://ijetmr.org/giai-tri/

Author

meeylandofficial@gmail.com

21 thoughts on “Did Mount and Blade: With Fire and Sword Fail?

  1. Archers should be deadlier than musket. Even in Napoleon Era, they were. But it was easier to mass train musketmen. That was the reason they were picked.
    IRL. Balancing them should focus on this. An archer can cost 100 while musketman 10-15, now then it would be more realistic.

  2. I loved this game – used to equip my character with nothing but grenades and a cheap sword. Ordered gunners and archers to form a line. Then charge the enemy line directly throwing grenades into the biggest clusters. Circled around getting my horse shot to pieces then would ride like hell back to my camp to cower behind my men.

  3. Oh, the only reason I bought warband instead of fire and sword was because of the rating.. but I only do single player for mount and blade.. now I fucked up ig

  4. I have played mount and blade with fire and sword for 200 hours and never once tried multiplayer. So as someone who plays single player exclusively, here are my thoughts.

    "Calvary archers too op, muskets reload too slowly. There are no large shields counter arrows." In single player, calvary archers deal alot of damage. However, they have considerably shorter range than muskets. I usually order my musketmen to form a line and volley fire, soften the enemy up. Usually low armor units get killed by stray bullets, and calvary archers generally have low armor than other mounted units. It's all about range. From what I've seen in this video multiplayer maps are cramped and musket players have no chance to spawn together and carry out volley fire at long distances. This effectively renders musketmen useless. Yet, as someone who plays exclusively single player, I don't see the problem because heavy lancers like winged hussars can cause way more damage than any horse archers.

    "some factions do no have effective musket units, some do no have effective melee units" No army is perfect, this applies in both history and the game. The faction he was referring to is the Crimean Khanate, since the AI usually spams archers. However, mercenaries solve this issue, not to mention, each faction has 2 unique recruitable musket units. The Crimean Khanate has Janissaries and the Seymen,which are decent musket units, it's just that the AI uses them way less in favor of spamming light archers. Besides, the archers aren't that bad either. Anyone who has been out numbered by Crimean Khanate armies knows that not all the archers are killed at the beginning barrages, those archers that end up breaking through will often out maneuver and out pace muskets due to their high DPS. So it's not really a problem either, is this an effective way to win battles? Not really, but light foot archers are dirt cheap and easy to train. It's not a bad faction just because they have generally low armor units.

    "Muskets are inaccurate, take forever to load and yet can kill you with one hit" I suppose that's why I love this game, I find satisfaction in dismantling armies with disciplined musket barrages, while I command my troops behind and help kill off calvary and strays. The introduction of muskets mean that brute strength alone is not the sole determining factor of victory. Other factors such as tactics and strategy can turn the tide of any battle. This, perhaps is the beauty of with fire and sword.

  5. I experimented once in The English Civil War mod of WF&S. I created my custom grenadier regiment and gave them only grenades. They literally nuked the living F*CK out of the enemy in about a minute and a half, while those were standing in their defensive wagon circle.

    That took " tow row row row to the British Grenadiers " to a whole new level.

  6. I have about 6 times as many hours in Fire & Sword than I do Warband. I think it’s just cuz I like the time period more and how it’s somewhat based on history. It’s harder for me to get into fantasy words. Also the satisfaction of shooting someone with a wheel lock or matchlock musket is nice.

  7. I’m surprised the whole thing didn’t. Then again it has mods. People always call a shit game fun because mods. I guess when you can change a shot game from bad to good it really is good. :T why not make your own game instead of starting with this shitty one?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *