Recent content by Cale

SenorZorros said:

dr4gunov said:

Greatswords before the 15th century saw little use, since, well they did not have much use. They're big, unwieldy, and you still can't cut through metal armor (be it mail, or a helmet, or something else). So you ended up using them like giant clubs, and then what's the point?

The reason why they became more used in the later 15th century and especially in the 16th century is because of the meta of pike formations. Greatsword usage would be to swing them in circles  in front if you to knock pikes away and disrupt the formations, and once that was done you drew your sidearm and started actually fighting.

Click to expand...

You should have added "in Europe".
Because 2h swords had their use way before 15th century.
For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhanmadao BC anti cavalary 2h sword
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changdao elite infatary 2h sword used to break enemy formations

Also, it is really implausable to assume such sword could have existed in, say, Viking Age? Dane axes had simillar application to this Changdao - to break shield walls using advantage of reach and high relative power. It was however way cheaper and more practical to forge long axe or poleaxe than to cast such a long blade. But in Calradia, there might have been different factors in play.

Click to expand...

1. I'd say europe is the default assumption since it's the setting of mount&blade. yes, Calradia is europe with the names switched, get over it.
2. large axes just work way better than large swords and there are no factors which can change that. there is no practical reason to use them. at the same time I'd argue this is a staple of the genre, adds content and is wanted enough that an exception can be made as long as they are worn properly... on the side.

Click to expand...

Metallurgy is the other factor, making a steel of consistency quality of that size is really difficult and Viking methods did not approach it.

SenorZorros said:

I''d agree but to be honest the sword on his back is squarely in frankly ridiculous territory...

Click to expand...

It's a bit big, but it isn't going to the floor so it's not the same size as the man at least and is relatively thin. I'm willing to hand wave it personally since the developers already said their whole inclusion was a hand wave in the first place.

Anyone else only just noticing Humphrey in the background of the front-facing picture looking like he's stalking the guy?

The Easy nine said:

Madijeis said:

Just your regular longsword sir.

Click to expand...

No, that is a Greatsword
A longsword is shorter, worn at the hip and did not appear until the 13th or 14th century

And at last, if you have mail coifs (and I see no reason why you should not) please make them proper. They should cover the chin, not hang off it. It looks stupid when they do.

Spoiler

This is bullcrap:

This is proper (and sexy):

Click to expand...

Actually, the term longsword in Medieval contexts refers to a longer-grip for two handed use. Most of what you see in medieval manuals deals with using these swords (half-swording etc as well). What you're describing is mostly an Arming Sword or Knightly Sword.

'Great Swords' where that is a term would mostly be applied to the frankly ridiculous swords you start to get as Pike-Blocks become more of a standard tactic so your Zweihanders, Claymores and Flamberges etc.

Longsword in terms of a one handed weapon is mostly a invention of Mr Gygax along with Chainmail rather then Chain or Maille.

Also coifs were open below the chin, they would have been slightly tighter to the neck then is usually seen nowadays but a ventail would be used to cover the lower face when required (basically a square of mail with a leather backing that could be tied up like a surgical mask.

Why not both?

I would probably want/expect a handful of 'proper' companions with stories etc and then a way of recruiting random companions (like find them hanging out in taverns or merchant caravans or something) in order to fill 'sergeant' roles with larger armies or run castles in the end game.

Yep, those are definitely scabbards....

Do wish throwing spears/Javelins would be carried in the shield hand rather then in a bag on the back but I get that this might make shield physics etc a bit of a nightmare or cause clipping issues when you're blocking (looking like you're stabbing yourself in the face).

Out of curiosity, is it possible to carry your ships with you or to send them back to a port rather then leaving them beached somewhere.

I'm assuming not but as I'm currently running between East Anglia and Ireland fairly regularly just wanted to check.

John C said:

Kentucky James said:

That's because it's been left unkept for several centuries. Castles had roofs, painted walls (some were bright pink, many were whitewashed), and were generally in or near a town. The only reason they look like ruins in a video game or film is because they would probably be unrecognisable to both 3D artist and player if depicted in their contemporary form.

Click to expand...

Exactly. The medieval era is too often depicted as drab, dirty and dismal. There should be a lot more colour to it.

Click to expand...

While I agree with the point in general about the period, I'm not sure castles are where I would choose to draw the distinction. While some may have been painted or whitewashed not all were and there are castles which have been continuously occupied - like Windsor Castle, which don't look that different in terms of their walls. Modern windows obviously added but I mean the stonework.

Innocent Flower said:

Oh cool, something sensible to discuss.
When I said batanians are doomed to fail, I meant it in a "well, the closest thing we have to battania in warband is forest bandits, who were explicitly said to have ties to them. Whilst most of the other factions survive and evolve into a warband full-faction counterpart. There's got to be a reason for batanians to be the loser, and a tech disadvantage is a good reason but doesn't make a hundred percent sense in the context of where batania is located.

Everything else you've said I agree with.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, personally I'll just tweak my head canon. After all, there are *a lot* of Forest Bandits! Who knows how many hidden settlements there still are in the deep woods.

Rackie said:

Innocent Flower said:

I get that the Battanians are doomed to fail, but it would be really easy for them to just hire an engineer to build them forts competitive with everyone else. There's not much sense restricting yourself to wooden castles when you could readily access stonemasons from any direction. It's a weird fantasy sort of thing to have a huge technological disparity between neighbours, and I don't think M&B is that high enough of a fantasy to ignore that. It'd be much cooler if talewords though about what would be the logical result of "batanian" culture at a current tech level than just restricting them to what their inspirations died with.

Click to expand...

But there were wooden fortresses in real life. At the same time as stone ones.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why everyone thinks the Battanians only get wooden fortresses. The screenshots already show stone walls, built in concentric rings.

They're not saying the Battanians are going to be out done by other factions, just that they're taking the themes of Celtic design and applying them to a period they never reached.

Besides, the actual Celts used stone all the time. Large settlements and cities in France included stone walls prior to the Romans arriving and you can see hut circles from the bronze age in stone on Dartmoor and in the Hebrides that have survived millennia. There's even a whole family of large stone towers on the Hebrides that pre-date the Romans in some examples (may have religious significance rather then defensive but could easily be used by an artist to make towers).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broch

Finally, wooden castles didn't fall out of use because they didn't work or were burnt down (have you ever actually tried to set fire to non-treated wood without lighters, firelighters, gasoline etc? Now do it with people shooting at you while that wood is stuck in the wet, damp ground of northern Europe) but because they're a bastard to maintain. Wood rots, stone doesn't.

You can build a wood fortress in as little as a year with enough hands, but you'll have to replace broken/rotten timbers for the rest of your life.

Spend a decade building a stone castle though and you'll never need to touch the walls except for the odd post-siege repair.

I always found the majority of Horse-Archer (rather then lancer) Khergits did this in Warband.

The Easy nine said:

About the first one, not too many castles were built that way. Indeed, I don't even know of any, but they probably existed. Most of them however were built not to protect a position but to protect the people inside of them, which would generally be the lord.
.

Click to expand...

Castles are as much about projecting power and maintaining positions as they are about defending the occupants. For example, the Welsh border castles were built by the invading Anglo-Normans to deny access and subdue the eastern stretches of Wales (The Welsh Marches to the Normans), Dover Castle was built above the port city that lies closest to Europe in Britain so any invading force would have to take a longer path or else deal with the defenders in order to secure a beachhead.

Edinburgh was founded by Saxons after they had defeated the native Britons/Scots (Burgh being an Anglo-Saxon word for fortress or fortified settlement) and wanted to impose themselves upon the populace.

Europe also has a whole tradition of 'bridge-castles' which literally would be a castle built over a river crossing to both defend it and force crossing merchants to pay taxes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge_castle

Basically you could build a castle purely as a show of how wealthy you were and to defend yourself (some Scottish highland castles qualify) but most rulers would be seeking to use all that investment in time, money, men and resources to also give themselves a tactical advantage.

Rainbow Dash said:

Cale said:

.or maybe the Level 1s will be fairly simple so they scale along with the player?

Click to expand...

scaling is the worst gameplay feature to have ever been implemented in skyrim, lets not have that in warband...

Click to expand...

My point was more that army size tends to be somewhat linear in Mount & Blade. I.e the longer you play the bigger it gets so by this logic the AI, given a long time frame to work with, will probably have upgraded a lot of castles to Level 3 by the time you have an army the size capable of taking down one.

Interesting, makes me wonder about how high level you'll have to be to start sieging castles. I mean, it's a delay in Warband but obviously you can get to it pretty quick whereas here it seems like you'll need pretty advanced armies...or maybe the Level 1s will be fairly simple so they scale along with the player?

Hmm definitely looks pretty cool, either way. Also does make me wonder how the player (and their party) fits in during Sieges when you might just be a handful of guys supporting the king or whoever else. Just run into combat and hope their strategy works?

Personally I don't love the idea that creating wall breaches on the campaign map creates casualties for both sides as, at least in Warband, the AI casualty calculations are always ridiculous compared to actually being able to fight a battle.

Still, might just happily use battering rams and ladders and leave the fancier stuff to the Romans Calradians.