Recent content by Votadini

Ozean said:

i was going to post something like this, what i dont understand is im with the swedes and they siege everything, but like 1 guy is sieging a castle double his army ammount, it must be a bug cause it just happens all over the map. in warband lords never sieged anything without a gaurentee of numbers, in this game they stand there siege, walk away and re-siege its dumb.

Click to expand...

Actually, now I think of it that might be a good tactic. If you get a message telling you 5 castles/forts are under siege, you don't know which one to rush to and defend.

King Harkinian said:

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Click to expand...

That's pretty funny xD

That was one of the funniest things I have ever read on this forum 

Floh said:

I guess the Tsar and all of his vassals must be down there somewhere, presumably dancing and playing cards with the Khan and generally frollicking. Because sure as hell no one is capturing **** down there.

Click to expand...

Thats how I feel about my co-vassals in every M&B game xD

Played since original M&B

Just found out about this now

King Harkinian said:

Votadini said:

Still, when professional sword troops eg. Katana Samurai reached the ashigaru (peasant) lines it was a massacre in hand to hand so it balanced out.

Click to expand...

You do realize that there never was such a soldier as a "Katana Samurai"? Shogun: Total War II is woefully inaccurate in that regard, don't use it as a source. Samurai always carried katana as a sidearm, but it was never their main weapon (that mostly being either a polearm or a bow) and you wouldn't see units of samurai charging into battle only armed with katanas.

Click to expand...

Yes, I am aware the Katana was mainly a status symbol - particularly towards the end of the era but most people here do not. I find keeping these historical arguments are simple as possible is necessary to get any sort of conclusion from em xD

Also was trying to dodge the "Bow vs Gun" bullet by not mentioning the Bow was a major part of Samurai culture.

King Harkinian said:

But these guns were produced by individual gunsmiths without industrial standards (which is what defines mass production). You could produce large amounts of goods via a domestic or putting out system, but it still doesn't qualify as mass production.

Click to expand...

Yeh I said you were right in that regard.

King Harkinian said:

nox said:

If you think you're unhappy about this, imagine how the whole cultures and societies felt who had invested much in traditions that involved swords and cavalry?  When a dirt poor peasant can end your deal with a mass produced firearm, you become a lot less special.

Click to expand...

Mass production didn't exist at the time -- heck, there wasn't even such a thing as a "factory".

I'm sick and tired of always seeing the same old hackneyed tropes when talking about the early modern period.

Click to expand...

Maybe the mass production wasn't correct but the rest of what he said was spot on.

Pretty much sums up the late Sengoku Jidai era.

Oda Nobunaga used firearms extensively as one farmer with a gun could take out (in theory) a samurai elite who spent his whole life training for battle, costing his employer a fortune in rice to feed and pay - as opposed to the peasant who's motivation for battle was "if you don't fight for me I will stab you in the face".

Evidence: See "Battle of Nagashino" wherein Oda Nobunaga used guns to devastating effect against the legendary Takeda Cavalry.

Choice quote from http://www.samurai-archives.com/ban.html:

Oda Nobunaga gave the important job of controlling the 3,000 peasant-footsoldier matchlockmen to seven members of his personal bodyguard. They managed to keep the sometimes unreliable ashigaru in formation. The Takeda, on the other hand, had their best commanders with the forward cavalry units. Usually this worked since the cavalry led the charge, but it was the cavalry that was to suffer devastating casualties, and Katsuyori lost many of his most valuable commanders this way.

Basically the same all around the world as the gun replaced the sword.

Still, when professional sword troops eg. Katana Samurai reached the ashigaru (peasant) lines it was a massacre in hand to hand so it balanced out.

So basically, although the weapons weren't "mass produced" by today's standards - guns around the world certainly were produced en masse to fuel the ever-present warfare in feudal Japan alone.

Also, in addition to my earlier post I just want to say women have made massive contributions to military history. Joan of Arc being the most well-known example (at least in Europe, not sure about people from other continents).

Even things like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kovpak_partisanki.jpg

Are common pictures from several wars. Very often in history have women took up arms to help the men defend their homeland but that has generally been when the men "ran out" due to them being shot to death

Personally I am against women in the infantry and special forces but agree they should be allowed in the military.

Also on-topic: I think women should be playable ingame

Boudica said:

somerandomname said:

Boudica said:

Men are stronger?

Click to expand...

Yes.

And you can do nothing about it.

That's nature, you know.

Freak of which you probably are, by the way.

Click to expand...

Since you want to attack...

You MOST likely a 350 pound piece of lard that sits on a PC all day eatting his cheeto's and drinking Diet Mt Dew who has not had a date since you where asked to go by a girl at your jr prom.

But then again SOME of the Pig headed males I'd have to say that to, if you have a wife, you probably keep her chained to the stove and vacuum and order her to go get you beer as you watch NASCAR drivers drive around in circles for 500 miles, or beat your wife up when your favorite team gets stomped in the STUPID Bowl.

Click to expand...

You know I could almost take your side until you went on with the personal attacks thing. You just did more damage to your own argument than your argumentative opponent ever could.

All the women in this thread forming good, cohesive arguments with statistics etc then you come out with that. Bad form.

But as it happens, pulling a bow and carrying 150 pounds up a mountain for 14 hours are entirely different things. I am not being sexist, but there are very few women alive who can do that kind of thing. It's physiological.

You guys (well....gals) DO have a higher pain tolerance than men, which is something you might want to bring out rather than flinging insults but can take much less damage before they must stop.

Aka games where he doesn't have to challenge himself or change his tactics?

Lord Willy said:

Qwertyman said:

You kidding me?
Melee kicks arse in the right conditions,  wait for the majority of a group to be reloading, charge in and you can end up wiping out whole groups of people by yourself-  even if they are fully loaded, if you get the drop on them, then it will be very hard for them to hit you if you are in amongst them.
You cant play melee the same way you did in warband,  you have to use your enviroment to your advantage a hell of a lot more, but you can slice right through enemy ranks so long as your timing is good.

Click to expand...

Be realistic , without saying  with the right conditions ...  because  a sword is a sword as a over head is an over head  ... Making 3 over heads to  each musketer +  melee weapons that are 50% slower than the warband ones  makes your ipothetical theory on the " melee kick arse" without start nor ending  .  you say wait that they are in line reloading , like if they all shoot at the same time,  like they are in line (without counting that there arent close map , so you cant even really "

Click to expand...

Ohhhhh you're on of THOSE people.

THE GAME IS MAKING ME THINK

THIS IS SO UNFAIR

I DONT WANNA THINK

I JUST WANNA ZERG RUSH A MUSKET LINE AND HERP A DERP MY WAY TO VICTORY

TACTIKS SUXXX0000RRRZZZ OMFG ROFLCOPTROZZZZZZZZZLOLOLOL

Think, evolve, adapt or die.

And stop saying surviving in melee isn't about skill. Yes it is. Timing your hits and hitting the right place are the difference between life and death. I have seen 2H swordsmen wipe out an entire musketline in a matter of seconds

If you are charging into a musket line head-on then you are stupid.

If you are ambushing them and still managing to lose in melee then you suck.

It's one of the two.

I always played the Nords in the last two games and the Kingdom of Sweden is the closest thing to it ^^

The most cows I ever assembled was 132

nox said:

+ battle continuation

Click to expand...

My god yes!

PANTERA. said:

King Harkinian said:

PANTERA. said:

Darmoth said:

Archonsod said:

Pike and shot ruled the day, not artillery

It's fine. Technically the bow is still a superior weapon than the musket. Where the musket wins is that anyone can learn to use one in an hour, whereas to be an effective archer requires years of training.

And lancers remained a core of an army until WW1 ...

Click to expand...

So... why did lancers go out of style around WW1...? 

Click to expand...

Trench warfare?

Click to expand...

Repeater rifles... they were already pretty much useless against infantry firepower in the later part of the 19th century, but machineguns really put an end to them.

Click to expand...

The first machine gun was created in 1884.
WW1-1914.

It took them 30 years to figure that out?

Everything I've read about it points to trench warfare being the cause of the cavalry's downfall.

Click to expand...

Machine guns were in use during the American War of Independance - as early as that Puckle guns ftw.

Anyway, it took until 1914 for them to become both widespread and fully portable which is the reason for it taking 30 years as you claim.

And while it is true that some cavalry charges took place during WW1 - they were never successful and any "gains" were far, far out-matched by losses. One untrained infantry conscript could down 15-20 well-trained and heavily armoured cavalry by the time they reached him so look at it that way.

On topic: Mounted Archers beat the living crap out of mounted or unmounted musketmen. No contest. So it's pretty much even.

Also I guess that also these days most wars take place in cities and not open fields so either way cavalry are useless.

They joined my enemies though

So they shall be eaten