Siege and ranged weaponry suggestions from a professor of military history.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
John Shepard

John Shepard

Regular
Old Guard
Humble suggestion from a professor of military history down in Florida. This is a rather long entry so I'll break it down right now for those not seeking more work during their online school time.

Siege:
-Elevate all castles so that the approach is at an incline. Castles were set up in strategic locations, not in the middle of a field, if it could be helped.
-As such, holding a castle could be done by a few dozen men and the enemy would suffer huge casualties. Siege towers should not be allowed during Sieges. (make it an option, so people have the freedom to choose)
-Battering rams should take considerably longer to get to their targets, and may I add; depending on the engineering skill they should be far better armored.

Bows:
-Increase, double their damage output.
-Stamina, historically it wasn't a matter of ammunition (although certainly lords would attempt to save money) but it is physically impossible to let loose 100 arrows during a battle. Your arm wouldn't allow it.
-Foot Archers price to upgrade (not in maintenance) should be horribly expensive. It took years for a someone to develop the strength, not the skill, necessary for using warbows.

Crossbows:
-Crossbow output increased to match war bows, but decrease their firing rate to roughly 2 bolts per 10 arrows shot.
-No limitation in how many shot besides quiver count.

Any of the suggestions above, in regards to ranged weaponry, apply to bows used on horseback. These are categorized as short bows and were falling out of style, if they hadn't already during this time period. Shortbows and compound bows are only effective against chain and leather, or a combination thereof. In the medieval period, anything with a cheap padded gambeson left short bows obsolete.

Horse Barding and overall armor:
-Unarmored horses should be highly vulnerable to missile fire, on the other hand barding should negate most missile fire. (depending on where the barding doesn't cover) Same to apply to the top tier cavalry units. For Balancing purposes, I'd suggest only the top 2 tiers of cavalry to be near immune to missile fire (not the heavier crossbows)

The information below is the longer version that outlines the suggestions above. Thank you for a great game and I hope to see continued effort in patching it.

To the developers and modders, the following are suggestions that would (hopefully) meld together realism and enjoyable mechanical roleplay. These suggestions are based on pieces of historical data that anyone can find evidence for. So without further delay, I promise to keep it short.

Sieges:
First and foremost, warfare during the medieval period, the early and the middle of these times, was extremely small in scale; at least in comparison to classical times.

1-Increase, substantially, the incline of the ground when in castle sieges. Castles were meant to be able to be held by far fewer men successfully. The terrain it was selected to be built on, heavily favored the defenders. This made approaching it on foot an extremely difficult task, let alone attempting to bring a siege tower to it.

2-Eliminate siege towers from castle sieges. Castles were often manned by a few dozen men in order to uphold the principal of economy of force. Only during dangerous times was it fully manned. Bringing a ram to its gates was an extreme under taking.

3-Ram speed substantially decrease in castle sieges (the incline of the terrain should simulate this).

These are simply suggestions, that despite many others that could be made, elevate castles to the military obstacles they truly were.

Missile troops:

Bowmen vs Archers. Historically quivers were delivered in batches, these batches would tend to vary from 20-30 in a quiver. Does this mean that you can't pack more arrows per quiver? No, of course not. But the issue with bows, which most games utterly miss, and is annoying point to me is: can bows can be used forever without drawbacks? bow require "dexterity" or "finesse" rather than sheer brute strength and force of will. Crossbows have the drawback of a slow reload (and I do not exaggerate, they are slow to reload) , which comparably it roughly translates to 2-3 bolts for 10+ arrows shot. This is for crossbows with comparable strength to warbows.

Ammo wasn't necessarily the limiting factor for bowmen, it was the energy. A bow requires more brute force than fighting with a sword does. Sword fighting is more closely related to skill, dexterity and control than brute strength. You can parry and swing in different angles, at different times from different stances and accomplish different results. Bows, but more importantly warbows require brute strength. A bowman would typically fire a couple dozen arrows at most. Partly due to time constraints, but mainly because it takes a huge effort to actually use one.

Suggestion:
Overall Shields should negate missile fire. Firing 15 arrows to a shield doesn't do much to its integrity, believe me I've done it.
Segmented, or Plate armor basically renders bows useless to the chest and head regions. Now during the time the game is set, bows were still highly effect if they hit any of the limbs, since the arrows and bolts could penetrate those.


-Can stamina be introduced, or better yet, re-introduced as it was in Viking Conquest.
i.e: I can give you a full 5-6 feet warbow, that is the only one decently capable of penetrating scale, (against chest plate it does little mind you), and you would be unable to shoot that more than 30-40 times. Even if I brought quiver after quiver, your arm would just not allow it. Now, after years of practice (veteran troops), an increase to this limitation is perfect.

-WarBows used by infantry to have their damage increased substantially (this would be compensated by their limited use). Consequently, increase the price of foot archers rank 3+ to multiple times that of a crossbowman.

During the time this game aims to replicate, warbows were an extremely deadly weapon. Not because they were the medieval equivalent of a light machine gun, they were more akin to an artillery piece. Not difficult to load, although if trained not slow, but takes a huge toll on whomever is using it. I do not wish to understate how difficult it was to field large forces of bowmen that were efficient at killing something bigger than a fox. Unlike a skill, which through repetition and instinct can be learned and improved upon in weeks or months, drawing a bow requires brute force. This process takes years, not weeks, to accomplish. (I am not suggesting making bowmen takes years to train, a simply large hike to troop cost would suffice, but not mainteance)

-Crossbows: Increase their killing power substantially, and lowering the reloading speed.

Not cheap to manufacture, but extremely fast to field. Knights and nobles found it 'unfair' that a peasant could have so much killing power without much training. But that is what technology does, it diminishes the training skill floor of a weapon while retaining lethal power or increasing it.
Not much needs to be covered here, as most individuals who play know the essentials behind a crossbow (slow to shoot, same power as a warbow, if not more).

-Horse armor/armor/shields
To balance the aforementioned, unarmored horses would be rendered useless in a direct charge against bowmen, but those with metallic bardings would be heavily resistant to it. Same should apply to infantry and shields. There are plenty of historical pieces where bowman exhausted their entire supply and were left utterly spent of energy, and the enemy simply lowered their shields and attacked.

This however should not be misunderstood with arm and leg armor. Body armor during the period this game is set was getting highly efficient but extremely costly. Armor to the limbs was still not as good and a warbow hitting your limb of "plate" would penetrate and cause horrible injuries.

Fun Fact: arrow injuries weren't "pulled", the cleanest way to fix an injury was first to push the arrow through.

These are the suggestions in regard to logistics and ranged weaponry that I have. Mods have tackled others, for example the mods that make cavalry charges far more deadly. If you've never ridden a horse before, I can help you imagine:
Picture how it would feel having an average sized car 3,000 lbs ram you. Cut the weight in half and you have an average sized warhorse, without counting the weight of the rider, both of the armors and whatever weaponry which multiples the kinetic force of the impact to a single point...you get the idea.

Thank you for the patches, thank you for a wonderful game. The sieges and the idea that logistics was so "good" to be able to field such tools so often just hits me the wrong way. Were they found in the medieval period? Yes! However, not as often as we think they did. Hence why it was so expensive to take fortified structures, which the aforementioned changes should increase gameplay balance that will add further difficulty to sieges, while giving us a historical, yet brutally fun aspect to the game.

What aspect you may ask? Think! Think very carefully before you commit to a siege. Destroying the enemy in detail (piecemeal) should be a far more preferable alternative than a siege. Sieges in the medieval period were not like in the classical period, where tens of thousands of men could build wonders of military engineering. Medieval warfare was far smaller in scale, but no less deadly.
 
Last edited:
"During the time this game aims to replicate, warbows were an extremely deadly weapon. Not because they were the medieval equivalent of a light machine gun, they were more akin to an artillery piece. Not difficult to load, although if trained not slow, but takes a huge toll on whomever is using it. I do not wish to understate how difficult it was to field large forces of bowmen that were efficient at killing something bigger than a fox. Unlike a skill, which through repetition and instinct can be learned and improved upon in weeks or months, drawing a bow requires brute force. This process takes years, not weeks, to accomplish. (I am not suggesting making bowmen takes years to train, a simply large hike to troop cost would suffice, but not mainteance)."
Would not the archers that we have available in recruitment have already spent their childhood and young adulthood training with the bow? Not unlike medieval England's law that yeoman practice the bow on Sundays, they would be purposefully groomed to be archers without additional cost to the crown because it was apart of normal yeoman life. I imagine it was similar with the Celts and Romans with the latter being more structured. Also, fielded archers would also be used in a volley without the ability to precisely target small (single human sized) enemies.
Just the opinion of a lifelong archer from Mississippi.
 
Last edited:
fireraizer said:
Would not the archers that we have available in recruitment have already spent their childhood and young adulthood training with the bow? Not unlike medieval England's law that yeoman practice the bow on Sundays, they would be purposefully groomed to be archers without additional cost to the crown because it was apart of normal yeoman life. I imagine it was similar with the Celts and Romans with the latter being more structured. Also, fielded archers would also be used in a volley without the ability to precisely target small (single human sized) enemies.
Just the opinion of a lifelong archer from Mississippi.
Click to expand...

That entirely depends on the culture of the area. Such generalized examples are inaccurate at best, as it exports a single 'national' practice to other nations.
So let me take this wonderful opportunity for learning, though rather than a wall of text I'll break it into bullet point format. If any fellow experts in the educational field wish to pitch in by all means.
1-Were most individuals across national boundaries hunters?
2-Can you train those already using smaller bows (to hunt foxes, hare etc) to use a bow twice, if not more, as powerful.
3-Can societies train multiple specialty troops?
-=-=
-Most individuals aren't hunters at this point, not in the capacity you imagine. The hunters we envision often hunted what they were allowed to hunt, small game. For this, an extremely smaller bow would be required, 40-60lbs.

-This leads to the second point you make, "grooming". Archery, as you can attest yourself, isn't a martial art.
Unarmed or armed martial arts where finesse plays more of a role than brute strength. Pure muscle mass is required when using war bows, and we have to make the distinction from short bows which are more like their cousins the compound bows for mounted ranged units.
In the end, the raw strength isn't something you can build in a few months for the necessary requirements of operating a war bow.

-Which leads me to the last point, "national" tradition. It takes an entire nation to set up, either willingly or by chance, a specific method that indoctrinates a younger population into a specific fighting style. Greeks weren't known for their archery, they were known for their carpentry and foot troops. Rome wasn't known for its archers, since they were farmers and thus favored infantry troops. Celts, through raids and mobile combat were renowned horsemen. That isn't to say they didn't have other troops that could be levied from their home base, but we have to take into account limited manpower. Once you raise a contingent of "X" troops, you no longer have that manpower to go elsewhere. Many individuals in England were renown to practice archery, but that was because they grew up doing so.

Ultimately, no all nations should have access to war bows. They didn't have the cultural or traditional base to draw from. Or we could give the options for all nations to do so but be it extremely expensive for it takes time.

I'm more of a proponent of choice, so I side with the latter.
 
John Shepard said:
That entirely depends on the culture of the area. Such generalized examples are inaccurate at best, as it exports a single 'national' practice to other nations.
So let me take this wonderful opportunity for learning, though rather than a wall of text I'll break it into bullet point format. If any fellow experts in the educational field wish to pitch in by all means.
1-Were most individuals across national boundaries hunters?
2-Can you train those already using smaller bows (to hunt foxes, hare etc) to use a bow twice, if not more, as powerful.
3-Can societies train multiple specialty troops?
-=-=
-Most individuals aren't hunters at this point, not in the capacity you imagine. The hunters we envision often hunted what they were allowed to hunt, small game. For this, an extremely smaller bow would be required, 40-60lbs.

-This leads to the second point you make, "grooming". Archery, as you can attest yourself, isn't a martial art.
Unarmed or armed martial arts where finesse plays more of a role than brute strength. Pure muscle mass is required when using war bows, and we have to make the distinction from short bows which are more like their cousins the compound bows for mounted ranged units.
In the end, the raw strength isn't something you can build in a few months for the necessary requirements of operating a war bow.

-Which leads me to the last point, "national" tradition. It takes an entire nation to set up, either willingly or by chance, a specific method that indoctrinates a younger population into a specific fighting style. Greeks weren't known for their archery, they were known for their carpentry and foot troops. Rome wasn't known for its archers, since they were farmers and thus favored infantry troops. Celts, through raids and mobile combat were renowned horsemen. That isn't to say they didn't have other troops that could be levied from their home base, but we have to take into account limited manpower. Once you raise a contingent of "X" troops, you no longer have that manpower to go elsewhere. Many individuals in England were renown to practice archery, but that was because they grew up doing so.

Ultimately, no all nations should have access to war bows. They didn't have the cultural or traditional base to draw from. Or we could give the options for all nations to do so but be it extremely expensive for it takes time.

I'm more of a proponent of choice, so I side with the latter.
Click to expand...
If the time it takes to train someone from using a 40-60lb bow to a 80-100lb bow (which I believe was the most common range of warbows with 120lbs being about the maximum without the substantial stamina penalty you spoke about making them impractical), the substantial cost you propose would make sense. The brute strength you mention is certainly necessary when using warbows as you must push yourself between the bow and the string instead of drawing the string toward you from the bow as with the "hunting" bows civilians used.
I agree it's a generalization. As with everything else, culture is a deciding factor for which weapons become a mainstay. The cultures in the game that do field archers would have the "national" tradition in place to create a pool of ,at least, partly trained recruits. Eventhough hunters were not commonplace, they were present. The time it takes to build the strength of a hunter with a 40-60lb bow to the strength it takes to use a warbow would be substantially shorter than recruits that have no experience.
 
Good history but anything they fit in has to also fit with all the other game limitations. Players don't have a year to take one castle.
 
Mount and blade was never intended to be historically accruate for gameplay purposes. There's your answer to everything you listed.
 
hruza said:
It was also not intended to be unhistorical and inaccurate. That's answer to your non-answer to everyting.
Click to expand...

Yes it was, since this game is not based on historical events. There's a difference between authenticity and historical accuracy. This is not a realism game. If you want pure accuracy, go play Kingdom Come Deliverance. This game has staged itself for authentic purposes, not accuracy purposes.
 
Last edited:
Proton said:
Yes it was, since this game is not based on historical events. There's a difference between authenticity and historical accuracy. This is not a realism game. If you want pure accuracy, go play Kingdom Come Deliverance.
Click to expand...

"Medieval" in not just event, it's whole historical period:

Experience the medieval combat & kingdom building sandbox game.
Click to expand...


Realistic Economy
Click to expand...
See the availability of goods ebb and flow in a simulated feudal economy, where the price of everything from incense to warhorses fluctuates with supply and demand. Turn anarchy to your advantage by being the first to bring grain to a starving town after a siege or reopening a bandit-plagued caravan route.
Click to expand...


...just few quotes from developers that prove you wrong.
 
Some nice ideas, but things like buffing archers will literally delete any army I come against. I already massacre half the enemy before they get to me.
 
Terrible ideas, making a game more realistic with even more buffs to archers and armour wouldn't be fun.

John Shepard said:
1-Increase, substantially, the incline of the ground when in castle sieges. Castles were meant to be able to be held by far fewer men successfully. The terrain it was selected to be built on, heavily favored the defenders. This made approaching it on foot an extremely difficult task, let alone attempting to bring a siege tower to it.

2-Eliminate siege towers from castle sieges. Castles were often manned by a few dozen men in order to uphold the principal of economy of force. Only during dangerous times was it fully manned. Bringing a ram to its gates was an extreme under taking.

3-Ram speed substantially decrease in castle sieges (the incline of the terrain should simulate this).
Click to expand...

You can then delete sieges form the game entirely if you want them to be impossible and boring. Rams are slow already and siege towers still leave you vulnerable because they are just 3 ladders close together.

John Shepard said:
Stamina, historically it wasn't a matter of ammunition (although certainly lords would attempt to save money) but it is physically impossible to let loose 100 arrows during a battle. Your arm wouldn't allow it.
Click to expand...

Stamina system kills fun in Mount and Blade. I don't want my archers to sit on their arses because they fired 20 arrows and want to go home.
 
I always find it funny how people, even out of good will, want to implement mechanics that would completely wreck the game's balance in a sacrifice to realism.
Yes, In real life battles lasted for hours, even days, in the game they last for 10 minutes at best. Yes, sieges lasted for years, not days. But it is a game. And as far as this game balances fun and historical authenticity, I am somewhat happy with the way it is structured. One of the only things I would change is increase values of armor, so that make high tier troops survive longer and tank more arrows.
 
John Shepard said:
-Can stamina be introduced, or better yet, re-introduced as it was in Viking Conquest.
Click to expand...

Without AI that takes stamina in to account, it's a bad idea. AI will just exhaust itself sending soldiers running across the map. As was the case in VC. AI in the game isn't the best already, adding another complex factor to work with will just make things worst.


John Shepard said:
-WarBows used by infantry to have their damage increased substantially (this would be compensated by their limited use). Consequently, increase the price of foot archers rank 3+ to multiple times that of a crossbowman.
Click to expand...

I don't have sources at hand, but as far as I remember, crossbowmen were as expensive as bowmen to hire and maintain in English armies during 100 Year's War. There was no difference in salary between the two. Despite popular belief, crossbow wasn't mass peasant weapon that you can give to anybody and he will be instantly effective with it. Yes, from purely technical point of view, crossbow is easier to learn, because it does not require physical training warbow do (bows of high draw weight). However that's not the only factor that makes a soldier. In war, far more important factor then weapon skill is discipline, morale and experience. Medieval armies been composed of peasant masses equipped with supposedly cheap weapons like spears are another popular myth. With few exceptions, peasants are worthless in field battles, because they have no discipline and no morale. They are good only for running at first opportunity and disorganizing your own army. And last myth -spears were not as cheap as another popular myth tells. I saw price of a sets made of spear and a shield from Medieval Novgorod and they costed equivalent of a cow or two. Far beyond ability of an average serf to afford.


John Shepard said:
During the time this game aims to replicate, warbows were an extremely deadly weapon.
Click to expand...

Not more deadly then any other Medieval weapon. Arrow generally cause smaller wounds then spear, sword or axe, simply because of it's dimensions. So you can say that they were less deadly. It was certainly more likely to survive arrow hit then a spear trust.


John Shepard said:
During the time this game aims to replicate, warbows were an extremely deadly weapon.
-Crossbows: Increase their killing power substantially, and lowering the reloading speed.

Not cheap to manufacture, but extremely fast to field. Knights and nobles found it 'unfair' that a peasant could have so much killing power without much training.
Click to expand...

Peasants did not have crossbows. Medieval crossbowmen were highly valued professionals that were payed not less then good Welsh longbowman. As for been "unfair", that's another myth. Every ranged weapon was considered unfair by nobles, because it did not require close contact and "valor" required to engage in close contact fighting. It can be shoot from a "safe" distance to the target. For the same reason it was considered "unfair" already in antiquity. Famous Spartan saying after battle of battle of Sphacteria where force of Spartan hoplites was defeated by Athenian skirmishers: "The arrow would indeed be worth a lot, if it could pick up only brave. His point was that it was chance that determined who was killed by stones and arrows." Thucydides IV.40

Regarding "unfairness" of crossbow, famous ban of crossbows made by Pope Innocent II at the Second Lateran council is often cited. Problem is that it is not cited in full, for Innocent banned not just crossbow, but bows too.

John Shepard said:
During the time this game aims to replicate, warbows were an extremely deadly weapon.
-Horse armor/armor/shields
To balance the aforementioned, unarmored horses would be rendered useless in a direct charge against bowmen,
Click to expand...

Unarmored horses directly charged against bowmen repeatedly through the history and they were not rendered useless. On contrary, cavalry usually came on top in such situations. Bowmen had chance only when placed behind obstacle or fortification. Like for example famous English stakes at the battle of Agincourt. It's true that horse is a big target, but it's fast and mobile target and therefore much harder to hit then stationary or slow target. And bow is accurate only at close distance, plus relatively slow speed of arrow makes it especially inaccurate against moving target. You can see that in bow hunting. Mobility of a cavalry also allows cavalry to choose time and place of attack, and that means place and time most favorable to cavalry and not the bowmen.

John Shepard said:
During the time this game aims to replicate, warbows were an extremely deadly weapon.
This however should not be misunderstood with arm and leg armor. Body armor during the period this game is set was getting highly efficient but extremely costly. Armor to the limbs was still not as good and a warbow hitting your limb of "plate" would penetrate and cause horrible injuries.
Click to expand...

The problem of the game is that it mixes armors and weapons from very different eras. Plate armor (full plate or brigandine) did not exist during era of the game and hand and leg protection was rare. Hand and leg protection depicted in the game would actually be very effective against arrows. It just did not exist during that period.

John Shepard said:
During the time this game aims to replicate, warbows were an extremely deadly weapon.
Fun Fact: arrow injuries weren't "pulled", the cleanest way to fix an injury was first to push the arrow through.
Click to expand...

That's not true. Cleanest way to fix arrow injury was dependent on the character of the injury, where and how arrow was struck. Pushing arrow through vital organ would do more damage then pulling it out, potentially killing the patient. It also depended on the type of arrowhead. Bodkin arrows with their narrow heads were not the same as a broad head arrows. There were situations where pushing made sense and there were situations where pulling out made sense. There were instruments and ways to pull even broadhead arrows out of the wounds without causing large damage. For example there are references of feathers been used to pull arrows out. It's not clear how exactly it was done, but it was suggested that hollow quill was inserted in to the wound and run on to a arrow head end, one quill per one end, which then allowed arrow head together with quills to be pulled out without it causing additional damage and enlarging the wound cavity.

John Shepard said:
During the time this game aims to replicate, warbows were an extremely deadly weapon.
If you've never ridden a horse before, I can help you imagine:
Picture how it would feel having an average sized car 3,000 lbs ram you. Cut the weight in half and you have an average sized warhorse, without counting the weight of the rider, both of the armors and whatever weaponry which multiples the kinetic force of the impact to a single point...you get the idea.
Click to expand...

No need to imagine, here is video of it:



Horse had to be put down because of the injuries it have suffered, rider ended up in the hospital. Horse isn't car, it's living being and fairly fragile being at that. And while it might be heavier then men or woman, Newtons third law still apply to it: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Horse is been hit with the same force it hits the woman.

Warhorse was means of transportation, not a weapon. And very expensive transportation at that. It wasn't used by suiciding itself and it's rider by colliding in to things.

John Shepard said:
-Can stamina be introduced, or better yet, re-introduced as it was in Viking Conquest.
Thank you for the patches, thank you for a wonderful game. The sieges and the idea that logistics was so "good" to be able to field such tools so often just hits me the wrong way. Were they found in the medieval period? Yes! However, not as often as we think they did. Hence why it was so expensive to take fortified structures, which the aforementioned changes should increase gameplay balance that will add further difficulty to sieges, while giving us a historical, yet brutally fun aspect to the game.

What aspect you may ask? Think! Think very carefully before you commit to a siege. Destroying the enemy in detail (piecemeal) should be a far more preferable alternative than a siege. Sieges in the medieval period were not like in the classical period, where tens of thousands of men could build wonders of military engineering. Medieval warfare was far smaller in scale, but no less deadly.
Click to expand...

Sieges in the medieval period were exactly the same as during classical period. Yes, the scale on average was smaller, because warring sides on average were smaller. But that apply both for the attackers and defenders. Therefore while attackers could not put out the same effort as some very large classical armies, they did not need to, cos defenders were less numerous as well. Siege warfare was very common in the Middle Ages and they certainly knew how to do it. Including building different siege equipment.

The siege model in the game is highly simplified and not very realistic, but it does capture essence of the siege warfare in it's basics well. Attackers would block off (or at last try to) fortification and then start building engineering works, which included trenches, both assault trenches (as close to walls as possible, from where attacks would be launched) and earthworks where siege engines would be constructed and which should have given engines and their builders some protection. In case of siege towers, that would include building ramps all the way up to the walls and moving those towers through those ramps -process that was much, much slower then depicted in the game. It took days to move tower to the walls. Defenders would on their part try to frustrate attackers by trying to destroy their equipment, by shooting at it and it's builders and personnel, undermining it (tunneling under and then collapsing tunnel) and by surprise attacks out of the fort. Such process could take months or even years, therefore when possible, attackers would sometimes try to either take fortress by storm from the go, trying to rely on swiftness and unexpectedness or by trickery. That sometimes worked, but often did not and they had to do it the hard way. And that included engineering.

Crusades are great examples of siege warfare during Middle Ages and demonstrate high level of engineering craft.


Proton said:
And during this medieval period was their a place called calradia with a castle's named Mecalovea and Praven, and factions named Swadia and Sturgia? No, because they are based on authenticity not historical accuracy.
Click to expand...

First of all, authenticity is:

a: worthy of acceptance or belief as conforming to or based on fact
b: conforming to an original so as to reproduce essential features
c: made or done the same way as an original
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authentic

So authenticity in the Medieval game is literally historical accuracy.

Second of all, Calradia might be fictional, but it's fictional Medieval country, Mecalovea and Praven are fictional Medieval castles and towns and Swadia and Sturgia are literally based on Medieval Rus and Carolingian Empire. Caladria, Praven and Strugia did not exist, but Medieval towns, castles and kingdoms did. Which is why there are no cars in Praven and Strugia does not have president.

Now we all understand that MB isn't 100% authentic Medieval game, does not intend to be 100% authentic and nobody here suggests it should be. OPs point is to improve authentic Medieval features that are in the game to better reflect their Medieval character. That's all.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Siege battles are weirdly bad for the defender
Replies
18
Views
553
Vaan2020
Keyboard and Mouse Only
Replies
0
Views
105
Madgax
Any updates on the bugs implemented in latest release?
Replies
19
Views
397
k86
Back
Top Bottom