Mount & Blade vs. Chivalry



  • Some of you here may have played Mount & Blade or Warband, and you may have thought how similar these games are to Chivalry. Mount & Blade was a game series developed by TaleWorlds, the original released in 2008 and the most popular, Warband, released in 2010. It was always a pretty under-the-radar game but in my opinion the best medieval warfare game ever released. I’d really like Chivalry to take up things that Mount & Blade did, such as the unique blocking and attacking perfected in Mount & Blade, and the mounted combat. For those of you who have played Mount & Blade, I’d like to hear your opinions on the two games.



  • I don’t even know where to begin on this one. But I shall endeavor to try.

    Mount and Blade and Chiv are totally different games in execution. (Think ARMA vs COD, yes they are shooters but they are completely different in scope.) You actually WANT the blocking from M&B put here? The blocking in this game is both easier and more fluid. But I can see where your coming from, because yes M&B (C-rpg especially) had a more technical fighting system but it was more clunky and slower paced. Good for that game but would be TERRIBLE here.

    Horses?! Do you REMEMBER the overpowered and stupid mechanics of horses in EVERY game that has had them? Because nothing is better than getting lanced from behind by a MW Destrider that is so fast you can’t actually hear the horse before its WAY to late. Why not ask for horse crossbowmen while we are at it . Also the maps don’t favor horses at all they are far to small. Bottom line horses in chiv would be the WORST thing in the world to happen to this game.

    If you want a more “realistic” approach to hack in slash by M&B, but if you want a game that is easy to get into, a ton of fun, and has hidden depths that are delightful when you understand them.

    As an aside I would love more armor/helmet customizations M&B has a great selection of armor and weapons and you could really make your guy look the way you want. In C-rpg at least. I’m confident that we will get some more options in the near future .



  • @Sarpton:

    I’m confident that we will get some more options in the near future .

    Indeed we will! The devs have heard the communities desire for em, and they want to deliver. :D



  • @natei:

    in my opinion the best medieval warfare game ever released. I’d really like Chivalry to take up things that Mount & Blade did,

    Yet here you are.

    Instead of asking Chivalry to become another game, why not just go play Warband? There’s no need to have two clones on the market.



  • @Sarpton:

    Mount and Blade and Chiv are totally different games in execution. (Think ARMA vs COD, yes they are shooters but they are completely different in scope.)

    I think they’re quite comparable. M&B is a bit slower, bigger scaled and more tactical while Chivalry is more about the plain action.

    You actually WANT the blocking from M&B put here? The blocking in this game is both easier and more fluid. But I can see where your coming from, because yes M&B (C-rpg especially) had a more technical fighting system but it was more clunky and slower paced. Good for that game but would be TERRIBLE here.

    Right, the blocking in Chivalry is fine as it is.

    Horses?! Do you REMEMBER the overpowered and stupid mechanics of horses in EVERY game that has had them?

    Horses are not overpowered in Warband. Pick a war spear and you will get any horseman. They’re clearly underpowered from a realistic point of view.

    Also the maps don’t favor horses at all they are far to small. Bottom line horses in chiv would be the WORST thing in the world to happen to this game.

    I’m still hoping that Chivalry will grow. I want big siege maps with many players just like in Warband. Horses are okay but I wouldn’t deperately need them in Chivalry. Pretty sure they won’t be implemented in this game anyway.

    If you want a more “realistic” approach to hack in slash by M&B, but if you want a game that is easy to get into, a ton of fun, and has hidden depths that are delightful when you understand them.

    So you’re saying that M&B is more realistic than Chivalry? Interesting… I thought it was the other way around.

    As an aside I would love more armor/helmet customizations M&B has a great selection of armor and weapons and you could really make your guy look the way you want. In C-rpg at least. I’m confident that we will get some more options in the near future .

    Absolutely agree!

    @JHoersten2:

    Instead of asking Chivalry to become another game, why not just go play Warband? There’s no need to have two clones on the market.

    There’s a need to have one really great medieval/melee fighting game on the market. And if M&B has some good things Chivalry could learn from, it should.
    I personally don’t want to play M&B for the great mods and modes and Chivalry for the fighting mechanics and better atmosphere. I want one game to fill the empty spot in my medieval loving gamer heart. ^^



  • Don’t get me wrong, I love Chivalry, and I love Warband, I just think that Warband had a lot of things to it that made it a great game and, in my opinion, the greatest medieval warfare game. Chivalry can take that title too, eventually. The game could use improvement at the moment is all I’m saying.
    Horses in Warband were not at all overpowered. Yes, you had speed and a damage bonus when you decided to attack, but any player with a weapon longer than a sword could take you down and any player who knew a downblock from an upblock could parry a lance stab. I suppose that it is pretty unlikely that Chivalry will introduce mounted combat but we can dream. :)
    I also like the blocking system in Chivalry, I just think that Mount & Blade did it better. Warband fighting techniques–learning to block, feint, chamber, parry, clutch, will take any player ages to master. Not because it is complicated, but because it requires reflex and attention. Chivalry is a game so focused on medieval melee combat that I was surprised to see it used the same system as Skyrim and Oblivion; the old “press RMB and block all attacks.”
    Also, there are the little things we see in Warband that I’d like to see in Chivalry, such as smashing someone’s shield after its taken a lot of damage, and unique damage types (piercing, blunt, cutting). I think that Chivalry would be a better game if it took things that Warband did and made something similar.



  • @Siegbert:

    @JHoersten2:

    Instead of asking Chivalry to become another game, why not just go play Warband? There’s no need to have two clones on the market.

    There’s a need to have one really great medieval/melee fighting game on the market. And if M&B has some good things Chivalry could learn from, it should.

    Wrong. Competition and diversity spurs development. For one game to simply be “the best” does nothing for the gaming community in the medieval genre market. Choice, options, and uniqueness allow more product to be offered to the consumer, giving us the ability to purchase what we individually like best. The gaming developers need to expand and find ways to make their products different from others, not the same.

    He likes Warband more.
    I like Chivalry more.

    Because there isn’t only one game, we can purchase different titles and both be happy.



  • M&B is not slow depending on game speed. It’s actually the more skillful game of the two.

    CRPG is for noobs.

    Chivalry is fun.

    That’s all.



  • Mount and blade had great features at the time. In hindsight I find many of them flawed, like the blocking system.

    It was unique and skilled based which I liked a lot but it was also a very frustrating and clunky mechanic without a good control setup and a steep learning curve. I found that blocking with mouse directions to be imprecise. Blocking with movement keys was more reliable but it severely limited your movement as it made it impossible to block upwards while moving backwards. This blocking system was more designed for one versus one fights, when you were fighting more then one the blocking was unforgiving. Blocking in Chivalry works about as well whether you are fighting one opponent or several. By that I mean it’s more difficult but still very possible. In Mount and Blade it would require very fast fingers to block two different types of attacks at once.

    It seems the developers of Mount and Blade aren’t happy with it either as I’ve read that in M&B2 they are redoing it completely in favor of a more parrying based block system where you block by leading your opponents strikes away or some such.

    The blocking in Chivalry isn’t perfect but it’s a step in a better direction I think. The blocking controls are more intuitive and do about the same thing when it comes down to it. Block different directions by looking in that direction. I would welcome more depth though. Countering, disarming etc. Chambering in Mount and blade was one of my favorite features.



  • I found that blocking with mouse directions to be imprecise. Blocking with movement keys was more reliable

    Yeah…no.

    Movement key blocking is inefficient compared to mouse. Connecting your block to your movement limits your footwork which is stupid for you to do.

    The blocking system in M&B also makes 2v1ing or 3v1ing easier. The Timing based parry in Chiv skillcaps you to some extent.

    You will never be able to win a 2v1 vs two skill opponents unless you are lucky. It doesn’t matter how hard you try. Any outcome that turns favorable for you is because they made stupid mistakes not because you played well.



  • @MUSASHI:

    The blocking system in M&B also makes 2v1ing or 3v1ing easier. The Timing based parry in Chiv skillcaps you to some extent.

    This is not true. You could only block two attacks if they were both stabs for example. You can also hit multiple opponents with one swing in CMW, while you cannot do so in M&B. These two facts lead to 1vs2+ being “easier” in CMW compared to M&B.



  • I may just be bad at Chivalry but I’ve found that I get clusterfucked much more often here than in M&B.



  • I wish I could say Chivalry is a great improvement vs Warband, but NOT. For me Warband, even being a game made some years ago, is by far better. Much more reality and a game without any bug, nice framerates, and perfect net code. Warband also offer a much more relaxed gameplay and game modes based on strategy and thinking, not the crazy experience you have in Chivalry. I dont say Chivalry will never be as good as Warband, but for the moment is way behind.

    But not only Warband is better, I also like WotR (War of the Roses) rather than Chivalry, and what is weird for me is that it seems like most players prefer Chivalry, maybe because the gore and the easy way to play it.



  • @kdaber:

    I wish I could say Chivalry is a great improvement vs Warband, but NOT. For me Warband, even being a game made some years ago, is by far better. Much more reality and a game without any bug, nice framerates, and perfect net code. Warband also offer a much more relaxed gameplay and game modes based on strategy and thinking, not the crazy experience you have in Chivalry. I dont say Chivalry will never be as good as Warband, but for the moment is way behind.

    But not only Warband is better, I also like WotR (War of the Roses) rather than Chivalry, and what is weird for me is that it seems like most players prefer Chivalry, maybe because the gore and the easy way to play it.

    I have to ask if you like 2 other games better than this, Why are you in these forums or playing this game? It makes no sense.



  • @Sarpton:

    @kdaber:

    I wish I could say Chivalry is a great improvement vs Warband, but NOT. For me Warband, even being a game made some years ago, is by far better. Much more reality and a game without any bug, nice framerates, and perfect net code. Warband also offer a much more relaxed gameplay and game modes based on strategy and thinking, not the crazy experience you have in Chivalry. I dont say Chivalry will never be as good as Warband, but for the moment is way behind.

    But not only Warband is better, I also like WotR (War of the Roses) rather than Chivalry, and what is weird for me is that it seems like most players prefer Chivalry, maybe because the gore and the easy way to play it.

    I have to ask if you like 2 other games better than this, Why are you in these forums or playing this game? It makes no sense.

    Do I really have to explain to you that a player can like two games but think that one is better?



  • @Falc:

    @MUSASHI:

    The blocking system in M&B also makes 2v1ing or 3v1ing easier. The Timing based parry in Chiv skillcaps you to some extent.

    This is not true. You could only block two attacks if they were both stabs for example. You can also hit multiple opponents with one swing in CMW, while you cannot do so in M&B. These two facts lead to 1vs2+ being “easier” in CMW compared to M&B.

    This is not true. You could only block two attacks if they were both stabs for example.

    Nope because unlike in Chivalry if I block an attack I’m not forced into a short hitstun. (And parry itself is in animation that needs to play out. M&B block is not) I can quickly block one attack and quickly turn and block another if i try hard enough. In Chivalry this is impossible if I’m already committed to parrying 1 attack, the other player behind or to the side of me gets a free hit.

    It’s not that my reaction speed isn’t fast enough to block that other attack. It’s the fact that the game doesn’t allow you to do so. It skill caps you in that way.

    The key word is skilled players.

    You can also hit multiple opponents with one swing in CMW

    If I’m playing opponents that don’t parry obvious attacks like that then I can do anything and win ;)



  • M&B simply has a more intricate and complex fighting system. And honestly, I think it’s way better. Chivalry is a nice streamlined approach to what Mount & Blade did, but doesn’t compare. I mean, there’s no glancing blows in the game, for christs sake. It appears that in this game, even if you have no momentum in your swing, you are capable of dealing full damage. Having played M&B for years, I’ve come into this and have topped the scoreboards of all the TDM and FFA matches I’ve played yet. Now I’m just awaiting the sorely missing duel mode. The average player in this game at the moment (possibly due to the Steam sale, which I purchased the game during) doesn’t even seem to take advantage of feinting. I think duel mode will bring more attention to the game’s combat system so that it will receive better balancing and tweaking.

    EDIT: And having said these things, I don’t think that I’m a good player or that Chivalry is a bad game. It’s just I feel like the combat doesn’t really overcome its gravitation towards hack-and-slash gameplay. No matter what mode, what class - who ever can spam attack the fastest with proper feinting, parrying, and stamina management will end up with the most kills. As much as the game needs a duel mode, I feel like it’s not really balanced for it in any meaningful way. I’ll just wait and see I guess.



  • @t1337dude:

    It’s just I feel like the combat doesn’t really overcome its gravitation towards hack-and-slash gameplay. No matter what mode, what class - who ever can spam attack the fastest with proper feinting, parrying, and stamina management will end up with the most kills.

    This statement made no sense. If you are spam attacking, how can you properly feint and parry AND manage your stamina? You are either spam attacking and not doing anything else or you are properly playing the game as intended. And if you are doing all these things properly consistently…doesn’t that mean you deserve to have the most kills? Also there are other elements besides “hacking and slashing”, such as throwing axes, archery, fire pots, smoke pots, shield use/shield bash, kicking, range management, etc. There are different styles of combat depending on what weapon you pick. Do you want to go in with fast strikes up close, or do you want a big weapon and rely on throwing off your enemy’s timing. Add into the mix the fact that you can have 2-3 guys coming at you at the same time and the combat isn’t so easy or simple as you make it sound. You can’t outblock everyone like Superman, so you have to choose who to block and how to move.

    M&B and Chilvary are different beasts period. By focusing on UNMOUNTED, small scale combat, it becomes much more in your face and personal. Which system is better comes down to what is more enjoyable to you. People have been wanting this kind of gameplay for years and now that it’s here they are taking it for granted how pretty well executed it is so far.

    Have guys ever played street fighter? There will always be button mashers, and you can tell who they are. They are pretty easy to beat as they dont block or use effective combos, or any special moves.



  • @t1337dude:

    M&B simply has a more intricate and complex fighting system. And honestly, I think it’s way better. Chivalry is a nice streamlined approach to what Mount & Blade did, but doesn’t compare.

    It’s just I feel like the combat doesn’t really overcome its gravitation towards hack-and-slash gameplay

    I recently bought the M&B series in a steam sale, after hearing so much about it. I’m really enjoying the complex mechanics, and I agree that chivalry might seem a bit simple in comparison - but I have to say that doesn’t make either game ‘better’. Chivalry is a great hack 'n slash; it’s comparatively easy to get into and fun to play, whereas M&B (in my very recently formed opinion) is a bit intimidating initially, and the combat (though often very skilful) can feel clunky and unsatisfying.

    Complexity doesn’t always make for a fun game, though - for you, it might, but I find Chivalry’s pick-up-and-play style more engaging, personally, and of the two, it’s been the only one so far to genuinely raise my heart rate.

    Edit:
    @ATF_E1:

    Which system is better comes down to what is more enjoyable to you.

    This, essentially.



  • To put it short, Chivalry is more of a brutal hack-n-slash game with a touch of skill here and there. Mount&Blade is more tactical and realistic.

    I’d say Mount&Blade is better, but that wouldn’t be entirely true. After playing for over 2 years it has lost its touch to me and I don’t see myself ever playing it again. I’ve simply seen and done everything there is to do. Chivalry is able to put down a more lengthy experience for me (or at least I think so at this point). It’s able to refresh itself each round and I feel like no matter the time, Chivalry will not become bland or boring.


Log in to reply