There's the original mount & blade, then mount and blade warband and mount and blade with fire and sword.

Should I play the original first, then warband then fire and sword or just warband and forget about the rest?

Because I see the devs is releasing new content for warband but not so for other version, so other version sucks?

I did a bit of research on these for a while before deciding which of them to buy in the last sale (or if I should get them all.) My conclusion was that, for me, it made the best sense to play Mount & Blade first and then Warband, and that I would probably skip the other installments all together. Mount & Blade has been great so far, definitely don't skip it.

Warband is generally considered the best one, but you should probably play the others too .

Yes

So play a bit of the original and fire & sword as a tutorial then dive into warband?

All up to personal preference, I suppose. I plan to play all of the original, and then play Warband. And not play any Fire & Sword, Napoleonic Wars or Viking Conquest (they sound like they got lamer and that the first 2 will have all I'd want.)

I would suggest to play them all.
I have played first one as it was free on release and liked it very much.
Warband has nice mod community too.

Napoleonic war and viking conquest is warband DLC, so won't them improve warband? Ok goodbye time. Sob I cannot finish my backlog......

Napoleonic Wars is a multiplayer-only DLC expansion pack for Mount&Blade: Warband featuring the last years of the Napoleonic Wars.

For me if I enjoy a game then it's good and if I don't then it's bad.
:P

certainly!

I played the original for a little while, and then moved onto Warband. I remember thinking that I should've done that from the start. From what I can remember, Warband is pretty much an improvement on the original in every single way. You can invest in industries, marry and officially start your own kingdom, to name some examples. Also, there is a new faction and a vast new desert area added to the reshuffled map.

I have read that there are some pretty cool mods for the original though, which might be a reason to start with the original over Warband.

Don’t buy the original Mount & Blade. The sequel Warband is basically Mount & Blade + and has more features like the option to start your own kingdom. It’s also more supported by the developers and community. I consider it the most essential of the games and the best starting point for new players.

Fire & Sword and Viking Conquest are considered a step backwards by a lot of fans and much of their appeal is dependent on how much you enjoy the settings since they take a turn towards historical fiction and allow you to interact with real figures and factions in the 17th century Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or mid-9th century Denmark.

One bright spot in the games following Warband’s legacy is Napoleonic Wars, a multiplayer-only (if that’s your thing) expansion which has classical music, a hilarious tutorial, and some cool game modes where you command a regiment (ok it’s usually like 10 men). I particularly enjoy seeing roleplayers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYHlFtGN0JE&index=14&list=FLxOra-qjdsM4oq7i9KRq6pA

U WAT?

Viking Conquest is awesome, vanilla Warband is too easy, VC makes it harder. Also VIKINGS and pseudohistoricality.

Fire&Sword is pointless. Area is small, story is better to get off history books and sienkiewisczczczc's books(can't spell Polish names, too hard for me)

Napeolic Conquest is Multiplayer DLC

Original M&B is Warband with worse graphics and some less optimized gameplay.

Or if you start playing all the M&B gaes, then start from the original, as you'll miss some options from Warband