1. That's not that bad. It simulates to at least a slight degree that often cavalry stopped in front of unwavering blocks of infantry (at least in later centuries when we have more detailed reports about cavalry warfare, it can be transferred to earlier periods), and then probed out possible gaps or fell back. If the cavalry would be unstoppable or the mount killed all the time, it would be even worse. I would tone down the timespan in which the rider is helpless after getting stopped.Yes the game is not ready to be released.
There are still several battle issues.
1. Inertia should not be ignored . A cavalry charging in full speed can be stopped instantly by 1 hit without causing much damage to both side.
2. Collision is broken. My attacks always got blocked by allies but I can get hit by enemies at the same time. Also, a soldier with a small shield should not be able to block attacks from a large area for his allies.
3. The charge command does not make any sense. Pretty much it's telling soldiers to quit formations and fight on their own.
That is not totally unrealistic because cavalry seemingly partly fought this way at some stages of some battles, from time to time we get glimpses reported of such situations. For example at Bevevent 1266 AD there was a lengthy melee combat between mounted "knights". And while the mace was not much in use in the 11th c. AD of our world, later in the 14th, 15th and 16th century it was often attributed to fully armored men-at-arms on horse, so seemingly there was a use for it in close distance cavalry melees.Cavalry should be renamed to "mounted infantry". It is a much more appropriate description of how they function at present - charge to enemy cavalry, sit around hitting each other with weapons, BUT on horseback.
Yep. People generally don't care who rules over them unless there is food on the table, beer in tavern, taxes are fair a no religion/culture propaganda is shoved down their throats. This cultural -3 penalty in game is a joke....
In most strategy games there is some mechanic that gives you a penalty for ruling over people of a different culture or religion, usually because developers dont know what else to do with the religion mechanic other than a public order penalty. This has given people the impression that this was true in real life as well. But considering the crusaders never faced any muslim unrest, and muslims ruled over majority christian populations for centuries with no serious issues, I think that idea has to be retired.
They didn't.The English exercised prima nocte with Scottish commoners to "get rid of the Scottish taint".
1. That's not that bad. It simulates to at least a slight degree that often cavalry stopped in front of unwavering blocks of infantry (at least in later centuries when we have more detailed reports about cavalry warfare, it can be transferred to earlier periods), and then probed out possible gaps or fell back. If the cavalry would be unstoppable or the mount killed all the time, it would be even worse. I would tone down the timespan in which the rider is helpless after getting stopped.
Cultural stuff may be irrelevant in modern times, but certainly not at the time the game is portrayed. And religion was a big BIG factor. You could get stoned, crucified, set alight, burnt alive, drowned, ect. all in the name of religious differences in the early middle ages. Spanish Inquisition ring a bell? The French slaughtered thousands of Huguenots, and those were their OWN people.
prima nocte
Cultural stuff may be irrelevant in modern times, but certainly not at the time the game is portrayed. And religion was a big BIG factor. You could get stoned, crucified, set alight, burnt alive, drowned, ect. all in the name of religious differences in the early middle ages. Spanish Inquisition ring a bell? The French slaughtered thousands of Huguenots, and those were their OWN people. The English exercised prima nocte with Scottish commoners to "get rid of the Scottish taint".
No, I think cultural differences were very real in the time BL and -3 might have been the least of your concerns when attempting to rule a foreign settlement.
Looking purely at the crusades, it is true that many Muslim inhabitants of the "Holy Land" did not have any issues with the Christian conquerers, as long as they did not interfere in the practice of the religion.
And many Christian lords allowed their knights to fight for, or be employed by Muslim lords, as long as it did not involve their holdings, or interfere with their duty to the Church.
The cataphracts still should make impact on the enemies instead of getting stopped from full speed instantly by some wooden polearms. It is funny to see that the mount did not take much damage, the riders did not fall off their mounts, and the wooden polearms did not break, and the enemy formation did not get scattered at all.1. That's not that bad. It simulates to at least a slight degree that often cavalry stopped in front of unwavering blocks of infantry (at least in later centuries when we have more detailed reports about cavalry warfare, it can be transferred to earlier periods), and then probed out possible gaps or fell back. If the cavalry would be unstoppable or the mount killed all the time, it would be even worse. I would tone down the timespan in which the rider is helpless after getting stopped.
Known issue, they won't fix it because it was put in there intentionally.By the way, my mount also got stopped from full speed when it got hit on the side. I did not charge at the enemies face to face. Nothing was in front of me but I got stopped.
Prima nocte is not made up. Also known as "Droit du seigneur", and abolished by Ferdinand II of Aragon in Article 9 of the Sentencia Arbitral de Guadalupe in 1486. It was mainly symbolic, yet did exist according to several scholars studying the early middlle ages. [In The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State in 1884, socialist Friedrich Engels argued it was real and had an anthropological origin. In 1930, Scottish legal scholar Hector McKechnie concluded, based on historical evidence, that the practice had existed in Scotland in early times. Italian scholar Paolo Mantegazza, in his 1935 book The Sexual Relations of Mankind, said that while not a law, it was most likely a binding custom].Prima Nocte is made up.
Prima nocte is not made up. Also known as "Droit du seigneur", and abolished by Ferdinand II of Aragon in Article 9 of the Sentencia Arbitral de Guadalupe in 1486. It was mainly symbolic, yet did exist according to several scholars studying the early middlle ages. [In The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State in 1884, socialist Friedrich Engels argued it was real and had an anthropological origin.
If prima nocte is indeed fiction, why did Ferdinand II of Aragon have to abolish it in 1486 (Article 9 of the Sentencia Arbitral de Guadalupe ), which were laws intended to free Catalan catalan peasanst from the so-called "evil customs".
@Kentucky 『 HEIGUI 』 James - your assumption is just that, an assumption. And please do not make statements about my knowledge of the situation, boet, you don't know me at all.
Who is the 14-year old naïve here?
OMG please no, ruin but please let Buck Breaking be real!Do you think Buck Breaking is real too?
I was too afraid to ask what buck breaking is and... well.OMG please no, ruin but please let Buck Breaking be real!