Recent content by ShadInqu

Mikal Manfriedson said:

The bow is an ancient weapon and people of all social standings - at least the country-dwellers used it often and were probably adept at it.

Click to expand...

This is not correct. Literally themain reason the crossbow replaced the bow was that to use a bow effectively required experience and skill, and there were simply not enough people with that skill to fill out armies. Yes, there were forest villages which relied on hunting, and steppe cultures made use bows, but for settled medieval cultures, experienced archers were not widely avaliable.

He pointed out correctly the game they were allowed to hunt: rabbits, fowl, foxes to protect their chicken, squirrels and what not. Noble game like deer, boars and stuff are restricted to nobles by law, right. So unless they are un-free, people usually used bows to supplement their dishes, got food in winter and similar stuff.

Click to expand...

Outside of opportunistic kills, peasants did not widely use bows. Again, because using a bow required substantial skill and practice. And because a good bow was a farily expensive piece of equipment. The skills of a bow hunter were completely different from those required from a farmer. Hunting crossbows were popular though.

I remember from somewhere that there even were laws upon what fur commoners were allowed to wear. Do you really think those furs grew on trees (well, squirrel: yes, they do) or that there were specialized huntsmen everywhere who shot animals for fur for the masses?

Click to expand...

1. The bulk of common fur could be farmed (i.e. rabbit for both meat and fur)
2. Expensive fur was of course procured by trained huntsmen and traded accross the continent. See for example about the historical sable and beaver fur trade.

About 95% were peasants and worked the fields but it ignorant to believe that plowing and sowing was all those people were able to do. They did carpenter's work when building structures and yes, they went on the hunt if they had spare time to shoot some meat for the cauldron over their fires.

Click to expand...

They of course did things other than farming, but was not that common. And most likely hunting was done with hunting crossbows, precisely because bows required much higher skill.

Given that those people usually worked from dawn to dusk, did much work on foot and with manual tools and I believe while uneducated, they at least were generally stronger than nowadays city-dwellers.

Click to expand...

Due to the the generally poor diets and poor healt and life expectancy, the average medieval peasant was shorter and not stronger than modern day humans. Doing manual farm work doesn't help muscle growth if you don't have a good diet. And it does nothing good for your back and joints.

Lastly, I cannot believe, that nobles would disencourage their peasants from using bows. If they were free men, they were oblieged to serve in the army in their Lord's wars

Click to expand...

This is a misconception. Nobles did not recruit peasants to war (outside of sheer desperation), because untrained peasants were terrible in fighting. A knight was typically expected to bring a small force of semi-professional men-at-arms. Other variations exist, such as fyrd, or byzantine professional troops, but the key point was that random peasant were not conscripted into war.

Emax said:

lolwut? Few people could do it? Looks like you don't know anything about history.

EVERYBODY did it. The bow was a peasants weapon. Used for hunting and warfare, and practiced constantly. Archeological findings show that their upper bodies were extremely developed as a result.

Just because YOU cant do a pull up does not mean that the average medieval archer couldnt work a bow to great effect.

Click to expand...

OK, at this point you are just trolling or completely ignorant.

Peasants didn't hunt. They worked fields. Hunting was typically a noble privilege. And hunting bows were useless against padded jack and up. Archeological findings show that most non-nobility people in the middle ages were fairly unhealthy by modern standards, due to nutrient-poor diets. Protein-poor diets do not help in growing muscle.

Bows were replaced by crossbow in states which states which had the economic power to do so, precisely because they were not as good.

The average medieval archer was just not very effective against amored enemies. Hence why armored cavalry ruled the battlefields for centuries.

Emax said:

If the battle starts from 10 feet away the guy with heavy armor and a sword has the advantage over an archer. But on an open battlefield from 200 meters away, ranged beats melee every time. As they say, dont bring a knife to a gun fight.

Click to expand...

Bows aren't guns. That's the whole point. The reason why firearms replaced bow. Shooting a strong war bow is almost like doing 1-handed pull ups, few people could do it, people got tired going this very quickly. And the reason people wore armor was that it protected you against enemy attacks, including arrows.

mujadaddy said:

My suggested tweak is when the armor value is generated, before it goes to the RawDmg function, multiply the value times the square root of the armor tier; this presumes the armor tier is available at the time of this check. With 77AV/t6, you cap out ~65% as opposed to 43.5%, but t1 armor is unchanged.

If armor tier is not available, just double AV before RawDmg()

I think I've got inspiration for my first mod!

Click to expand...

Do note that armor tier is not not limited to t6 though, it's a display limit. Armor tier is tied to the total armor value of the armor (literally the sum of all armor values divided by 10, modified by a factor for helmets/boots/gloves). So armor 77 armor isn't t6, it's actually t7.4

Reiksmarshal said:

This is the best soultution imo though the values of armor would need to be recalulated. With the mod where I just doubled ratings for everything basic stuff was like 30-40k and highend stuff was from 250-750K.

Click to expand...

You also need to update the armor price cost calculation. It's

CalculateArmorTier under Taleworlds.Core.DefaultItemValueModel

After the update, it seems I no longer get item modifiers on any items (balanced, tattered etc.) Can anyone confirm?

Fixed after veryfying files.

The nerf to donating gear was inevitable, but seems a bit harsh for higher tier stuff. I guess the incentive is to only make the player donate tier 1-3 items.

Apocal said:

The plants that silkworms live on (edit: eat). I don't remember the actual name in English but they look like completely generic greenery.

Click to expand...

Mulberry

Reiksmarshal said:

Is that a feature of 1.5.10+?

Click to expand...

1.6.0

Don't forget the new discarding weapons/armor mechanic. Late-game, you can power level vigla recruits straight to cataphracts.

It then creates a positive feedback loop, with battles giving more gear to level up more troops.

More code!



I found these settings to be improving high-end armor costs, in combination with other changes in this thread.

I'm surprised this hasn't been made into a mod, considering how much better it makes the game.

BTW, found why body armors are so expensive.
It's based on the CalculateArmorTier calculation, which does not work too well for body armor, which seems to indicate that high tier lamellar body armor may well be actually tier 7-7.5 or so.

Actually the best Lamellar body armor has a real tier of 8.7 (sum of all armor values/10 - 0.4)!!! With vanilla scaling this alone makes it 20 times more expensive than "basic" tier 6 armor. The calculation can be tweaked, but it has to be done carefully as it has so many variables.

I remember suggesting and hearing other people suggest that that bandit parties of less than 10 men (rising to 20 towards late game) should merge together. This isn't a complex thing like getting proper AI fighting bandits or patrols or anything. Just a basic check: if party is below 10 men, try merge with nearest other bandit party of same type. Failing that, go back to hideout and merge there.

Repair would add some use to smithing. Right now, it's a bit of a weird trait. It has no use outside of crafting a couple of weapons for yourself and the companions (I consider the massive item prices to be a bug, rather than a feature), more limited by the RNG of parts than anything else.

dijiTurk said:

Not 30-40 mins but, u can definetly play them up to ~20 mins if they implement a New, advanced spawn system for enemies. 5 to 20 mins with many fun possibilities...

Click to expand...

More like a new advanced system for battles in general, so battles don't always devolve into wild charges that end with the utter annihilation of one of the forces to the last man, but rather routing and retreats become important.