Recent content by Illinest

Its not intuitive.

Go fight a horde of river pirates by yourself (as i am fond of doing) The targeting system will randomly switch on you and when you think youre blocking right, youll actually be blocking left on the new target. then you get hit twice even though you thought you were gonna be all cool and block em both.

I can understand if this doesnt bother the typical shield user, but i like using two handed sword and the game completely screws me sometimes.

i'm less frustrated now, and I feel I should add that it's more a problem that I have with BLOCKING attacks right now. I think that it would be easier to block attacks if this system was employed.

@ Zwaps - I regret that you read my tone as hostile. No hostility was intended.

As for the question of military tactics, Sun Tzu was reknowned as a military genius many centuries before the fictional setting of Mount & Blade. Discipline was one of the tenets that he preached, and by all accounts he got exactly what he asked for out of his men. I mention this only as a proof of the long life of the concept of discipline.

Although I am not so dense as to misunderstand your argument (this at Alesch too...) regarding the difference in discipline levels between unit types, I as a roleplayer cannot be expected to be satisfied with troops that don't do what I tell them to do.
If I wish to roleplay a great leader, you can be certain that the troops that DON'T listen to my orders will be executed and replaced with troops that DO listen. I do not feel that the incompetance of the AVERAGE commander in this time frame is reason enough to limit me from being a GREAT commander.

@ Alesch - I have no intention of roleplaying an incompetent leader. If you wish to allow your troops to disobey orders, feel free.
I run a tight ship.

Please don't read my tone as angry, I just don't think that the players should be expected to suffer poorly disciplined troops, even if there are historical examples.
When my troops meet the army of Lord Humptydumpty in the field of battle, the superior training of my battle masters will win the day.

If you feel strongly enough about the disorganization of your army, perhaps a better answer would be to make this aspect of leadership into a trainable skill. I will put skill points into leadership and will have a resultant army which listens to my every order. You can neglect the leadership skill and have an army that doesn't listen to you.
Then, we are both happy.

zwaps said:

I disagree.

What I like about MB right now is the approach to realism, meaning that they will not stand in line and follow every order.
In real combat, as a leader, you have to be present and repeat your orders constantly. This is totally fine with me.

But, as you said, is HAS to make sense.

If you are winning an Infantry battle and your guys charge after the enemy (which, by the way, runs), then it is cool.
But, as you said, if the archers charge 20 dark knights, you just feel stupid. As a group of archers to stay together in a certain position is absolutely right, but don't expect 20 peasants to stand in a perfect formation, waiting for those 25 knights to crush into them.

Click to expand...

As a former member of the US Navy, I completely disagree with your statement "In real combat, as a leader, you have to be present and repeat your orders constantly."
It doesn't take THAT much training to get a group of individuals to "turn on a dime". My bootcamp division was well coordinated in a number of complex manuevers within 2 months of the start of training. The manuevers were marching orders rather than battle formations, but I guarantee that every man in the division would have done exactly what he was told if a competent senior officer had said...
"Follow"
"Charge"
"Dismount"

Although I will allow for variations in group action due to the effects of morale or improper training, a group of veteran fighters (as I assume Dark Knights to be) would have been trained to follow orders quickly and without question even before they were first allowed to touch a sword.

That was the basis of my "RUN!!!" thread but....

Armagan said:

Sorry. I'd like to keep the game controls as simple as possible. I don't think sprinting is such a critical feature as to warrant an extra button, not to mention a lot of extra work.

Click to expand...

I have already made my case for sprinting, but perhaps there is hope that if enough people make the request then there is a chance we will see it someday.
There was also a very valid support raised....

Tsuken said:

It does add quite a lot of possibilities, but a lot of complicated things with that as well. AI has to be updated, animations have to be added, balance issues have to be solved, controls have to be added, etc. Not to mention the impact on gameplay. Maybe the addition adds realism and fun, but it's going to cost too much time and effort to get it in right.

Click to expand...

But I must respectfully disagree with some of the assumptions. I have the run key set to Left Shift when I play Call of Duty and it is a seamless and natural motion for me to hold the key down with my pinky while I ASDW move.
As far as the effect of adding the sprint feature to the game, I think that I am highly qualified to speak on this matter.
I was a competitive ladder match regular in the original Call of Duty, which released without the ability to sprint. I never felt that a sprint feature was necessary within the context of the game. The game was fun, balanced and felt natural.
I was also a ladder match regular in the Call of Duty expansion. The expansion introduced the sprint feature to the gameplay, and the gameplay was transformed in ways that I never would have expected. I can no longer play the original Call of Duty because the game feels unfinished without a sprint feature.

I say this with total confidence, that the players of Mount & Blade will LOVE the sprint feature if it is ever implemented.
I think that the simplest ideas are often the best, and what could be simpler than adding a degree of strategy to movement itself? By implementing a sprint feature in conjunction with a stamina bar, you will be adding a level of passive continuous resource management to an aspect of the game which formerly had been little more than a simple excercise in "connecting the dots" as you travel from point to point.

I can only ask the community to remember that Mount & Blade is a game which is fun even when the graphical effects are unfinished and the taverns are little more than grey rectangles. Adding a sprint feature to the game will add enjoyment on a more fundamental level than a graphical tweak or a new type of armor could ever achieve.

:heart breaks:

Q: "well why don't you cry about it?"

A: "I already am..."

To be perfectly honest, I wouldnt want to try to approach 8 crossbowman across open terrain in real life. Would be a very bad idea I think.

Best solution for this might be to equip your troops with shields and horses, but if I'm not mistaken the game doesn't support this yet.
You might alternately take an equal sized force equipped with crossbows and try a ranged battle......
?

I admit that I haven't played the game enough yet to know what is possible, I can't even figure out how to couch my lance yet!

Kniggit said:

Ok, i guess that would be ok


Im usualy a foot soldier kinda guy, and i usually wear heavy armour. My biggest oppoent is Swad Deserters. Usually they spawn in some lil valley and STAY there, and my men wont step up to the ridge to open fire on them, i dont fancy having to run down there by myself, wear my ass down so much i cant even swing at some bolt spewing wanker who can run faster

And dont tell me to wear light armour, i wouldnt last a second against those guys in light, they usually take out my reinforced steel shield quickly

if there was a check box titled "Realistic Effects" that you can activate or deactivate, that would be fine, Realistic Effects would include, stamina, jumping, friendly fire, etc

i dont mlike the idea of bieng pelted with bolts trying to chase dumbasses cuz my men are cowards

Click to expand...

See now that sounds like a good experience to me I think I can see where we differ on this... I think it is a good thing that some enemies are better suited to oppose you than others. That kind of mismatch is exactly what I like about this scenario.
In your particular case, I would think that the answer would be to take a horse with you into battle against the Swads. Even if sprinting were enabled, the horse would allow you to close with your opponent without having to switch to a lighter set of armor. You can always dismount from your horse if you don't like to fight that way.

I think that if you design the game in such a way that a heavily armored knight wielding a lance and riding a warhorse will ALWAYS have an advantage against ALL other troop types, then everyone will probabably build the same character. But if you have a troop type that is strong against the heavily armored knight, then it is no longer a simple decision to go with that equipment loadout, and the balancing of disadvantages is precisely what will make the game fun.

The samurai carried a long katana and a short wakazashi as a pair but the pair had as much spiritual significance as actual tactical value.

Also reference this website...
http://www.japanfile.com/sport/martial_arts/iaido.shtml
Iaido - The art of drawing the sword. Samurai fights were over very quickly.

Personally, if I had to fight in a battle and was offered a full armories' worth of weapons, I would grab the biggest, sturdiest shield possible and a short, light sword.
If I saw you grabbing a sword in each hand, I'd probably make a special note to stay away from you lest I get stabbed.

The solution is already there, there is a "sound effects" slider and a "music" slider.

OR it could be implemented but then balanced out by the addition of my "sprint" feature!!!!!!!! (shameless plug)

(making it harder to run someone down but more damaging when you do)

OddjobXL said:

Aside from horses jumping objects and obstructions (never tried jumping mounted in M&B yet) I can't think of a use for jumping at all really in M&B. Especially if it ever gets in multiplayer mode. Folks will just be bunnyhopping like mad hoping to throw off archers and other goofy stuff.

Click to expand...

Bunny hopping was easily solved in Call of Duty by having a refresh time between jumps. If you tried to jump consecutively, each successive jump would be lower than the jump before it. They also implemented a slight pause on each landing so that in game terms if you jump while you are being targeted by a skilled player, he will just aim where you are about to land and hit you easily.

To be perfectly honest, even before the bunnyhop solution was implemented I would have an easier time shooting a jumper than someone who kept his feet and ducked back and forth.

But now that I have defended the point again, I think I should point out that even I (who started the thread) do not wish to keep pushing an idea like this where it clearly doesn't have majority support. We can go another route, I think....

I can agree with that. This game begs for jousting.