I know from looking at some other threads that their is a debate about whether fire and sword is better than warband. I am thinking of buying a mount and blade game and I'm not sure which one I should get. Could you guys please advise.
-
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.
Warband would edge it for me, I'm playing FS because its fresh new map new companions etc. WB has far better mod support which is a big issue for many ppl. Also WB allows you to carve out your own kingdom, where FS reverts to the original MB only allowing you to be a rebel leader. Still they are both so cheap why not get both?
I went back to Warband after playing WF&S a little while.
WF&S is supposed to be the polished version of the release that was made earlier on the Polish/Russian market. But it really does not feel like a polished game at all. The glaring bugs that were present in the release version didn't help, namely the one where troops could not upgrade. But even with a patch it felt far from finished. Reading on the TW forum it seems that the scripts are the ones from the original M&B, while some scripts made for WB are superior. Strangely they didn't bother to upgrade those. Also some things feel unbalanced, especially the economy. Getting offered 5k for a captured lord when one velvet caravan gets me 75k-100k is just strange.
I'll likely come back to it after a few more patches since I didn't mind the era, and I like the historical setting and some new aspects like the recruiting system.
WF&S is supposed to be the polished version of the release that was made earlier on the Polish/Russian market. But it really does not feel like a polished game at all. The glaring bugs that were present in the release version didn't help, namely the one where troops could not upgrade. But even with a patch it felt far from finished. Reading on the TW forum it seems that the scripts are the ones from the original M&B, while some scripts made for WB are superior. Strangely they didn't bother to upgrade those. Also some things feel unbalanced, especially the economy. Getting offered 5k for a captured lord when one velvet caravan gets me 75k-100k is just strange.
I'll likely come back to it after a few more patches since I didn't mind the era, and I like the historical setting and some new aspects like the recruiting system.
Buying the two will always help to amortize the costs of developping systems that are going to be used in both games. Very likely, the next iteration in M&B series will take from WF&S as some WF&S mechanics fit even more M&B settings and reversely, WF&S next iteration will borrow from Warband and so on.
Consider Warband and With Fire and Sword's relationship to be like that of Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 2 Special Forces. With Fire and Sword is fun, but the bigger, more fleshed out, and fun game where the engine truly shines is Warband for sure.
And finally to quell the rumors - 99% of 1.134 Warband mods WILL work with With Fire and Sword.
And finally to quell the rumors - 99% of 1.134 Warband mods WILL work with With Fire and Sword.
I bought both at the same time and Warband has been my major interest, it's much better in my opinion.
With Fire and Sword is about on par with some of the community mods created for Warband, it's nice, and it's good to support the company, but Warband is the game.
With Fire and Sword is about on par with some of the community mods created for Warband, it's nice, and it's good to support the company, but Warband is the game.
I have played both WB and FS for quite some time. I prefer FS, because I greatly enjoy the "historical" setting and the game feels more alive now. As others have mentioned before, FS is unbalanced in many ways (economy, gunpower) but it doesn't ruin the game. Of course it could have been better, but my choice is definitely FS. WB is only better for battles in my opinion (because there's no gunpower). But FS battles are still very enjoyable and gunpower can be an enriching thing, too.
Warband is the much more polished game. It also gets a ton of points in that there are many different mods for Warband. whereas Fire and Sword doesn't have many (yet).
I prefer Warband personally. F&S would be nice if it had a Thirty Years War mod though...
I suspect because F&S was first developed for the original M&B and then converted to the Warband engine.
I might be in the minority here but I actually enjoy F&S's battles more. Gunpowder, fewer upgrade tiers and faster, less-armored troops just give battles a smoother pace, and I like how trading is handled. Warband is more fully-featured though.