Rameusb5的最近内容

Feanaro 说:

Just so you guys know, there's an entire continent worth of countries in Europe. It's not just England and France. We could talk about those countries, instead of rehashing Agincourt for the nth time. Just once. Only once, I promise.

点击展开...

Exactly.

Everyone points to Agincourt/Crecy and says how dominant the longbow was.

Frankly, there were maybe 3 or 4 battles in the entire Middle Ages where the bow played a difinitive role MAYBE.

Considering the number of ACTUAL battles fought between the fall of Rome and the (arguable) start of the renaissence, I'd say that bows have had a miniscule impact on the overall battlefields of the Middle ages.

Erwin 说:

Rameusb5 说:

What I meant is that they weren't called "bastard" swords at the time.  WE call them that, but I think it's a term that comes from Fantasy RPGs.

点击展开...

Well yeah, but most swords weren't called what we call them today. Does it really matter? I mean, we don't have ye olde Englishe in the game either, and it's exactly that - a question of language, nothing more.

点击展开...

Don't get me wrong... I'm not one of those guys who runs around screaming "there's no such thing as chainmail!!!"

But the concept of a "Bastard" weapon has brainwashed the entire gaming world (RPG and video) into thinking that most weapons can ONLY be used with one or two hands, and only this magical variant called the "Bastard" sword could have this ability.

Hence M&B has this flawed concept as well.

There are no "Bastard" weapons because pretty much ANY weapon can be wielded with one or two hands unless:

1. It's too heavy to be wielded one handed (Zwiehanders and Huscarl Axes for example).
2. the grip won't allow for two hands (sabers and rapiers).

It's entirely true that during the later middle ages (Oakschott type 12 and on I think) that there were "longsword" versions of swords that were specifically designed to be wielded with two hands.  But that doesn't mean that the smaller swords could not be used two-handed or that the larger swords required two hands to use.  The concept of a truly dedicated two handed sword is a pretty late invention, and one that (to my knowledge) existed primarily in Germany in the later 14th century, which is pretty late in the game as far as swords go.  (oh, and the Scottish Claymore, which I have no idea what time period it was developed and used)

NikkTheTrick 说:

Rameusb5 说:

I have to conceed that the "Bastard" sword (a totally made up word, by the way) is the most convenient sword in the game.

It allows you to combine a two handed and one-handed weapon into one slot, which is pretty useful.

点击展开...

Actually the second sentence is exactly where the "bastard" part comes from. Basically, when one uses Bastard Sword, hands are "unmarried" - sometimes they go together and sword is used with 2 hands. Other times they are apart and sword is unsed only by one hand. A child that has unmarried parents is a bastard.

点击展开...

What I meant is that they weren't called "bastard" swords at the time.  WE call them that, but I think it's a term that comes from Fantasy RPGs.

And I still stand by my statement that MOST of the one handed weapons in this game should be able to be wielded two-handed.

Jericho 说:

Rameusb5 说:

I was kind of hoping that the city/town siege problem would have been fixed by now.  All it needs is a taller ladder.

And I'd ask that they add multiple ladders, but that's just gravy.  The city sieges are pretty useless now because you HAVE to cheat to succeed.

点击展开...

What do you mean you have to CHEAT to succeed? Please define how you cheat to win in a siege.  Besides the obvious
control+F4? 

点击展开...

Call me girly, but I have a hard time killing off over 200 troops all by myself.  If my men were with me, no problem.  But they just stand there at the top of the ladder looking stupid.

So in my game, I hop the ladder and start killing the defenders, but I eventually take enough damage that I have to use the health cheat.

I have to conceed that the "Bastard" sword (a totally made up word, by the way) is the most convenient sword in the game.

It allows you to combine a two handed and one-handed weapon into one slot, which is pretty useful.

I kinda wish that EVERY weapon allowed you to do this.  I mean, why CAN'T I wield my morningstar with both hands for more damage?

When comparing swords to other weapons, I'd agree they're the best.  They have the best overall speed/reach/damage.  Sure, a great axe does more damage, but is just WAY too slow.  Pole arms have reach and damage, but are again too slow.  In fact, I believe that swords are the fastest weapons in the game.

I was kind of hoping that the city/town siege problem would have been fixed by now.  All it needs is a taller ladder.

And I'd ask that they add multiple ladders, but that's just gravy.  The city sieges are pretty useless now because you HAVE to cheat to succeed.

DarkAnd 说:

Rameusb5 说:

Whereas the Vaegir's high ranking infantry ALWAYS have 2 handed weapons (and thus no shields).

点击展开...

Are you blind???

点击展开...

Well, in your pic it shows 2 out of 10 Vaiger guards actually wielding their shields.  The others simply have them on their backs, which I have found means they don't get used.  So I'll stand by my statement that the Vaiger infantry uses less shields than the Swadian Infantry.

I'll recant my "ALWAYS" statement and substitute "mostly," if that makes you happy.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in love with Swadia.  In fact every time I play them the nobles spend 99% of their time hiding in their forts, which irritates me to no end.

But I think given the choices of infantry, I prefer Swadia to the Vaigers.  Because of the shields.

EDIT - I just noticed that your pic scrolls off to the right and you show a lot of Swadian seargents who aren't using shields either.  I guess this just hasn't been my experience.  Perhaps this is because most of my infantry isn't all the top tier troops.  So maybe my view is skewed because the lesser infantry troops use more shields in the swadian army than in the Vaiger army.  Dunno.

Bertrand du Geusclin, Marshall of France

Wikipedia would be chock full of this kind of info, BTW.

I started making a mail shirt nearly 10 years ago just for fun.  Never finished it because I discovered that I used to heavy a guage of wire (I think it was 12) and it was going to weigh 400 pounds before it was done.

Basically, I bought a bunch of electrical wire and stripped it.  I then wrapped the bare wire around an iron rod using vice grips, and then cut the rings using a pair of snips.  All in all, I'd say that was the easy part.  I don't recommend that you use copper (since it's so soft and heavy), and instead use something stronger and therefore lighter.  Someone poo-pooed your aluminium idea, but frankly I think that wouldn't be too bad of a choice since it won't rust.

I'll assume that you're going to make butted mail (no welds or rivits).  That should be fine so long as you don't use it for actual combat.

One thing to remember, the bigger you make the rings, the less overall work it is.  I'd start with something small to see how you like it and then get more aggressive.  You can actually get a lot done just sitting in front of the TV.

Good Luck!

I see them!


They're glorious!

DarkAnd 说:

Fixed
Also swadian seargeants are most likeli to me using 2 handed swords whit is the same **** as vaegirs.
also shoting is useful on siege because the infantry just get stuck on the ramp.

点击展开...

I've found that the Swadian Seargents having 2 handed swords is the exception, not the norm.  Whereas the Vaegir's high ranking infantry ALWAYS have 2 handed weapons (and thus no shields).

I've found missile troops to be utterly useless in Sieges.  The defenders are well protected by walls and your own missile troops hang back too far to be useful (they NEVER engage in H2H).  Infantry are the way I prefer to fight, with me in the lead cutting a swath for them to pour into.  Once my infantry are up on the rampart, I proceed to take out the enemy's missile troops.


All in all, I think the Vaigers and the Swadians are pretty close to one another, except the Vaigers use shields less, and in the current game there's just TOO MANY missile troops running about to NOT have shields.  I never go into combat without a shield.  It's just too likely I'm going to be pincushioned before I make it to the enemy line.

Since the game seems to favor having a ****load of archers in EVERY army you face, I'm only interested in troops equipped with shields.

Because of this, I don't care for the Vaegirs.  Swadian infantry have shields, and the Vaegir infantry usually doesn't since they run around with 2handed axes.

Since their Cavalry is more or less the same, I default to Swadians.


I don't like the Nords because too many of their "infantry" units come with ranged weapons, and when you tell them to charge, half your guys hang back and shoot instead.  This is particularly annoying in sieges, where shooting is not very useful.  If the game's tactical menu had a way of FORCING them to charge, this wouldn't be a problem.


Of all the armies, the Swadians are probably the most well-rounded and don't suffer the shield problem of the Vaegirs.


Next time I play, I might try the Rhodocks, who seem to be a strong infantry army, which I actually prefer.  Cavalry armies are pretty boring because they're very powerful.  They're also frustrating when you have to fight on Mountainous terrain.

mentat_emre 说:

not inside the enemy castle, you aproach the guard and speak someone in the castle.

点击展开...

Ah, ok... cool.

how do you get inside an enemy castle?  I do not have this option.

I can however sneak into towns.