• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

coldcell

Private
1 Badges
Jan 27, 2007
14
0
  • Prison Architect
Hi all,


I'm planning to get Mount & Blade. I played it once in 2010 and it was a great experience. However now I see there are 4 different versions of M&B?

I was thinking to get M&B: Napoleon Wars because based on release date, it is the latest. However when I looked at Steam store, I see there's the original, Warband and Fire & Swords version. So are these 3 all different scenarios based on the same game or what?

Edit: to clarify, I'm planning to play the game 75% SP and 25% MP.
 
Last edited:
Mount and blade is the original, warband is a stand alone expansion that improves on everything and adds multiplayer, theres no reason to buy the original if you have warband. warband is a must have game, and really you should get it before anything else in the series.

Napolionic wars is a multiplayer only expansion based in the napolionic era. it was originally a mod for warband, but was so popular, it got licensed and improved on and now its become an expansion. i recommend if you like warband multi, though it is quite different. it requires warband to play, wont work with the original or with fire and sword.

Fire and sword is similiar to warband but with added guns, most people i've spoken to think this is the weakest title. multiplayer isn't as popular as warband either, so this one is up to your tastes. stand alone again, so i'd only get it if you really like warband.
 
Warband is the game you want.

Fire and Sword is a bit more modern, but the quests and the world seem slightly less balanced. Napoleonic War is 100% MP. And "plain" Mount and Blade is the oldest.
 
One minor note; there are some mods which are only available for the original M&B (especially if you can find and deal with .903), not Warband.

And, personally, I consider them worth it.