Scabbards and weapons on belts. We f****ing need them.

Users who are viewing this thread

Invisinerd

Recruit
This game is awesome. I think we can all agree on that. It is also both in its art and its combat the most realistic medieval combat game available anywhere, anytime. I think we can also agree on that. But where the hell is my scabbard? We have a quiver, the arrows don't just apear out of nowhere. When I draw my sword it just pops out of my back. When I draw my axe or mace, the same sh*t happens. When I draw my shield THE SAME SH*T HAPPENS. We. need. to. see. our. arms. on. our. persons. even. when. stowed. for. the. game. to. be. realistic. OH BRILLIANT MODDERS! PLEASE HELP ME!
 
Seriously dude, chill. People didn't carry their scabbards on them during battle, you can trip over them, they get smashed (and usually cost alot of money, money people didn't always have).
The closest thing you'd see are weapon frogs (Basicly a leather loop you put your weapon through on your belt), others used back sheaths for longer weapons (Think Braveheart).
Even then, your not going to be pulling a Great Sword off your back and live through it if someone is trying to kill you. Anything you can trip over, or the enemy can hook a weapon onto and damage is a liability in battle.
 
RR_Raptor65 said:
Seriously dude, chill. People didn't carry their scabbards on them during battle, you can trip over them, they get smashed (and usually cost alot of money, money people didn't always have).
The closest thing you'd see are weapon frogs (Basicly a leather loop you put your weapon through on your belt), others used back sheaths for longer weapons (Think Braveheart).
Even then, your not going to be pulling a Great Sword off your back and live through it if someone is trying to kill you. Anything you can trip over, or the enemy can hook a weapon onto and damage is a liability in battle.
What? While it's true that footsoldiers with only one weapon didn't carry sheaths into a conflict for which they had time to prepare, it is absolutely not true that cavalrymen and footsoldiers who carried secondary weapons, or where thrust into sudden, unexpected combat did not carry sheathes. Knights, for example, generaly started combat with a lance, which, for obvious reasons, was often lost or broken. They would then draw a secondary weapon, an axe or a sword or a mace or something similar. The sword would have to be carried in it's sheath to avoid damaging horse or ride, as well as protecting the sword itself when it was not being used. Also, if a group of soldiers was traveling and suddenly became part of a conflict, of course they would have their scabbards. Thats what they're for. Ready storage in case of unexpected use. As for great swords, they where never carried in a sheath onto a planned engagement. Since it is very bad policy to store a sword in a scabbard when it is not being worn, the only times one would have a sheath would be when it is possible that combat may occur. Backsheathes where not realy very common at all. Long weapons where carried in hand to battle, or they where stored in an easier to access location. A frog was often used along with a scabbard to avoid wear and tear on the frog, unless the weapon was a hafted one such as an axe or mace. All I would like to see is my weapon hanging at my side when I'm not using it. It makes much more sense than mysticaly drawing a weapon from my back when there wasn't one there to begin with.
 
You expect too much realism. Also, were this to happen you would still be disappointed and angry about it. Why? Spears. Where would you carry an extra spear or staff if your character was a footsoldier with a spear and sword/mace/whatever. Where would you put a huge pointy stick so it wouldn't take away from your mobility, or stick into the ground.? I, for one don't need to see my weapons to know what I have.
 
Yeah... If you were so set on having realism, we shouldn't be able to carry more than a small weapon on our backs/belt, and you wouldn't be able to just put your shield away, nor carry 8 throwing axes, etc.

You see my point. This is one aspect of the game that is better off not being realistic.
 
I do not think it important but I would think it a cool effect just to have a scabbard on your hip in town.
 
I'd like to see something akin to how quivers work. If you have a sword in your immediate battle inventory (or whatever the four weapon spaces are called) then you should see a scabbard with your sword in it. When you actually have your sword equipped.. the scabbard would be empty (this is almost exactly how quivers currently work). I'd also like to see hip-quivers, which were popular with shorter arrows and quarrels/bolts.


But it's not really a huge deal -- just a small 'realism detail' that would be nice. But asking for a totally realistic weapon storage system is a huge can of worms, I think.




----

If you owned a scabbard -- you wore it into battle. And pretty much anyone that could afford to own a sword could also afford to own a scabbard. There is no evidence that men removed their scabbards before battle. And to be honest, it's absurd to think they would.

And speaking from experience, no -- scabbards do not 'get in the way' when fighting if they are worn correctly, even the type on shoulder-baldrics that hang over the left leg.


Scabbards worn on the back were wholly uncommon and were only used for relatively short, curved swords -- I.E. only in Arabia and its surroundings.

The item in Braveheart is a baldric. And it's necessary to note that a weapon cannot be -drawn- over the back from a baldric.. the baldric actually has to be removed for the weapon to come free easily. Large weapons like that would be carried into battle as there was no functional way to wear them comfortably to where they could still be easily drawn and used -quickly-.

Also.. frogs are not designed to hold swords. They're designed to hold -scabbards- or -sheaths.- If you're jamming a sword directly through a frog, you're using it incorrectly.
 
Can 'O' Soup said:
You expect too much realism. Also, were this to happen you would still be disappointed and angry about it. Why? Spears. Where would you carry an extra spear or staff if your character was a footsoldier with a spear and sword/mace/whatever. Where would you put a huge pointy stick so it wouldn't take away from your mobility, or stick into the ground.? I, for one don't need to see my weapons to know what I have.
That's exactly why we shouldn't be able to carry more than a single polearm in battle, and if you'd want to switch into another weapon, you should be forced to drop the polearm.
 
i think a small lack of realism for the sake of having a fun game is ok. it really wouldn't be as fun if you had to drop weapons when you wanted to switch. i think it doesn't really matter to have a scabbard or not, the point is that your fighting a battle.
 
Can 'O' Soup said:
You expect too much realism. Also, were this to happen you would still be disappointed and angry about it. Why? Spears. Where would you carry an extra spear or staff if your character was a footsoldier with a spear and sword/mace/whatever. Where would you put a huge pointy stick so it wouldn't take away from your mobility, or stick into the ground.? I, for one don't need to see my weapons to know what I have.
Hence a mod. I would be more than happy being able to carry only two or perhaps three weapons if it would be more realistic. To me, more realism makes the game more immersive, and therefore more fun. I also don't think that modding this would be very difficult at all. Appart from swords, the weapons wouldn't even need new modeled sheathes, axes and maces would just hang there, like in Everquest II. Shields would be worn on the back when not used, but that wouldn't require any extra modeling either. Spears and staves would have to be dropped when switching, but hey, thats what it would be like in real life. Also, while were on the subject of realism, shields break, why doesn't armor become damaged over time and need repair, not to mention weapons. I don't quite know how to take your last sentance. An insult to my inventory management skills? :smile:
 
RR_Raptor65 said:
others used back sheaths for longer weapons (Think Braveheart).

No, do not think Braveheart! Ok, weapons may have been carried on the back, but only during transit. You won't be able to draw a weapon from your back. Mel Gibson had a special device made for him in Braveheart, allowing him to do so. But historically, the scabbards of such weapons would be discarded before battle and you would carry it in your hands.

Edit: I see you beat me to it, Damien :smile:
 
There most certianly were scabbards worn during combat. I remember a while ago I was watching an archeological dig on TV where they uncovered a celtic (I think it was) chain link belt that was designed so that the scabbard the was hung off it wouldn't be able to swing infront of a person while they were running. Well that's my two cents.
 
Edit: I see you beat me to it, Damien

I'm like a gunslinger of medieval knowledge!


So.. a medievalknowledgeslinger. That doesn't flow as well as I'd like.


they uncovered a celtic (I think it was) chain link belt that was designed so that the scabbard the was hung off it wouldn't be able to swing infront of a person while they were running. Well that's my two cents.

I'm not aware of any "chain link" belts.. but by the year 800 C.E. most scabbard belts were being designed to hang the scabbard at a permenant angle -- which would keep the scabbard out of your way in movement or combat.
 
Chain link belt? Uncomfortable as hell...
You want a mod where you have to drop your glaive to pull out your bastard sword? Screw that, I'll carry my glaive, and shield, and bastard sword, AND polehammer, thank you.
ALL invisible.
 
*Doh*

Well I guess any portal to the universe of Weapons and Shields will do, as long as it's of reasonable size. That WOULD explain the lances coming out of nowhere.
 
Back
Top Bottom