搜索结果: *

Studs on leather armor like that are usually to hold two or more layers of material together so they don't slide around.

Really, you see that sort of thing very rarely in historical examples. Pictures of "studded" armor are usually actually brigandine, where the studs hold small metal plates to the back of the material, which is usually something like velvet instead of leather, but not always.

Sorry, I didn't have a cool stud joke, so I just had to answer the question, instead.

Am I the only one here that likes this game because it doesn't get it's ideas of medieval combat from a Dragonlance novel?

Although, using pictures from Kill Bill to support a claim of historical accuracy is awesome! ^_^

Bottle 说:

How do you rename characters?

点击展开...

1: Open the character page. (Hit "C", or the "Character" button.)
2: Click on your name.
3: Type.

Phallas 说:

XP IS OLD, it should not be supported, Its Netgear that should support its hardware and Men of war that should support their game.

How do you expect Microsoft to cater to the hundreds of thousands of drivers out there? its up to individual companions to support their own products
Does it make sense to spend money on an operating system they sold 8 years ago? surely not.

It would be like Ford Recalling 1969 muscle cars back to the shop, because "Sony 7.1 stereo speakers" are not compatible with the stock Electrical System.

点击展开...

That's stupid.

They might've FIRST sold XP eight years ago, but they were STILL selling it (with brand-new Alienwares, for instance) just last year.

A company with a virtual monopoly in its field shouldn't be allowed to put out a significantly inferior product (Vista), and then force people to buy the new product by refusing to support the old (better) one.

Now, with Windows 7 the "new Windows is dog crap" argument is no longer valid (like it was with Vista), so there's no reason not to upgrade from XP the next time you buy a computer, but to say XP shouldn't be supported because it's "OLD", when anyone with half a brain was still buying it less than twelve months ago, is just silly.

A long time ago in original M&B, the alcoholic beverages were drinkable, and did indeed add a bunch to your army's morale (just like it should be). It was nice to treat your guys to a keg, when they were doing a good job.

I'm assuming some whiney group of mothers complained, or something, because there was a patch that removed the functionality of all alcohol.

Seriously, SERIOUSLY lame, but old news.

Archonsod 说:

You can get them up with some use of the command menu. If you just let them charge forward as an undisciplined mob then funnily enough, they'll act like an undisciplined mob when they get there

点击展开...

A mob has to be pretty darned undisciplined to run smack in to a castle wall, and then just stand there grinding their noses against it!

Actually, now that I think about it, it'd take quite a lot of discipline to get that many men to crack their heads against a wall that consistently. ^_^

scythe111 说:

I hope not. It adds good depth to sword fights, and is sorta-realistic. You can jump/lunge and thrust.

点击展开...

You can if you want to get cut to ribbons. In other words, no you can't.*



*Unless you're Jet Li.

Yep. I officially started cheating to give myself money yesterday. Funny how that doesn't really hurt the game at all!

If I want fancy weapons and armor (which don't make that big a difference), I still have to find them.
If I want good troops I still have to train them and keep them alive.
If I want big armies I still have to raise my renown and leadership.
If I want to own land I still have to win siege battles.
If I want vassals I still have to work on building good relationships.
If I want to learn poetry I still have to find that bloody bard!

If you took money out of the game entirely there would still be PLENTY to do to keep busy and challenged.

Sure, it's kind of fun when you're just starting out, and you're the leader of a struggling mercenary band or bandit gang, but I worry about money enough in real life. I don't need that worry when I'm relaxing and pretending to be a heroic knight or grand king.

MarkQuinn 说:

It's true that the pavise crossbowmen might have worn a shield on their back which protected them from arrows as they loaded their weapons (thank you Total War for that tidbit) but I dare anyone to find a period source pic showing an infantry soldier with a shield on his back and another at his arm.  And if you do find one, then find another --- because there's no way it was as commonplace as we're lead to believe in the SP campain.

点击展开...

Actually, its not true. It was a cool idea that Total War had, and I smiled at the ingenuity the first time I played that game and saw the crossbowmen doing it, but reloading by turning around with a shield on your back isn't a bit of ingenuity that anyone in the actual time period ever had.

Pavise (which were a product of the XIVth century, not really the 1100s) were made to stand in front of you, like a portable wall. Fancy ones had a spike on the bottom, or a wooden or metal stand that folded out from the inside, but more usually they had two straps that would hold it to a stake driven in the ground. That's why a pavise has that funny big groove down the middle of it. That's where the stake goes. (They were often carried and held by a second person, too, but that's a different subject.)

So why weren't our ancestors smart enough to wear them on their backs while they reloaded? Well, there aren't any contemporary accounts that discuss this specifically, but my educated opinion is that it's because a pavise is usually made out of hide, and while they'll stop a bolt or arrow quite well, there's a good chance they'll do it after the projectile has gone a few inches through the shield. Not exactly what you want happening when your shield is pressed firmly against your back! Also, there's the matter of how your crossbow might need to be reloaded. A lot of methods would probably get you shot squarely in the ass, even with a big shield on your back.

So rest easy, MarkQuinn, nobody is going to find you a contemporary picture of a European from around 1100 carrying more than one shield, because a picture like that has never been made. I've never seen a depiction of it happening anywhere else, either, and give how crazy some things in the Orient were, that's saying something about how stupid it is!

Shik's awesome picture of the Chinese guy, by the way, is actually carrying two weapons. Although used to block, those light shields have sharp metal blades on the bottom of them. That's what the silver tails are. Told you things in the Orient get crazy! ^_^

Oh, and on the subject of wearing weapons on your back... Has anyone else here ever tried slinging a two-handed sword or axe across your back, and then drawing it? Not gonna happen.

Temae 说:

Rhedd 说:

Wait... what's "Wages for Emir Shaawa's Party"?

Are YOU having to pay for your vassal's army upkeep?

点击展开...

Obviously Emir Shaawa is himself 

点击展开...

Well of course! I can't imagine why anyone would think anything else! Duh!

>_>

<_<

... I never noticed it referred to my own party by name.

Wait... what's "Wages for Emir Shaawa's Party"?

Are YOU having to pay for your vassal's army upkeep?

stormrage 说:

Huh! So that's the mysterious steam update we've had!

点击展开...

Doubtful, since I looked at that map last week. No idea exactly how long it's been there, but it was there in 1.03, at least.

All I want out of the system is to be able to do as well as an NPC lord, and that seems to mean being able to garrison my single castle with 150 troops, and still afford to run around with an army of 260.

It's not really trolling to say something is incredibly ahistorical and stupid, when the thing in question is incredibly ahistorical and stupid.

I'm all for letting people carry two (or more!!) shields at once, though... as long as they move at 1/5 speed, have a 10% chance of tripping and falling on their face every two steps, and have to sit down and rest a minute every so often.

Funny thing, wearing a bunch of shields would protect you from arrows in real life, too, and yet nobody ever did it. Hmm...

You can't stop bunny-hopping idiocy in MP, but that doesn't mean I want my AI emulating it in SP. Although, it does make spotting my own troops easy, since they're completely covered in bright red-and-yellow striped plywood sheet!

Unstable_Hero 说:

why can't we recruit from big cities?  Whats the logic behind that?

点击展开...

Everyone wants to get the heck out of a smelly little village and lead a life of excitement (and proper diet!), even if it means people shoot at you.

In contrast, people in town have jobs and good sense. To them, sweeping streets for pennies and sleeping under a stairwell still sounds more attractive than getting their brains bashed in by an angry foreigner... for an angry foreigner.

In other words, young men in villages dream about how exciting the world is, while young men in towns know how friggin' dangerous it is. Blame education. ^_^

It certainly doesn't make for fun and exciting video games, but sieges in real life often took YEARS to starve out a garrison. Months and months at the very least.

Twenty days is nothing. If you can't hold a castle with stored provisions for even a month, it's not worthy of being called a castle.

But as I said, real life tends to make poor entertainment. ^_^

Heh. There's no limit to how many men can chase after one woman! It has nothing to do with her!

Don't worry, three or more men with sharp, pokey pieces of metal, all chasing the same woman... it usually sorts itself out eventually. ^_^

Venitius 说:

Did you update the game and did you load an old save after that?

点击展开...

If these almost daily patches aren't 100% saved game compatible...

A: I'm really pissed, because I just updated.
B: They should bloody well stop having almost daily patches!
C: Someone needs to be shot for not posting patch notes that might possibly mention, "oh, the game you might've spent dozens of hours on is ruined if you install this".

Kalamar 说:

Red+Blue is what I use.

Sorry but the glasses you got from seeing Avatar don't work. =)

点击展开...

No way! How the heck is that supposed to work with a color picture??

See, 3D works by giving you two different pictures to look at at the same time. One picture is for your left eye, one for your right. The pictures are adjusted to mimic the parallax that occurs from actual distance. These pictures are combined by your brain and it seems like 3D.

Old black-and-white movies gave you a red picture and a blue picture, and then the red/blue lenses let each eye only see one of them. Combined, the R/B looked mostly B&W again. (Mostly)

Anything that's in color, however, obviously can't divide the picture into R/B channels and use glasses to shunt one channel to each eye, so in the early 80s they started using polarized lenses, instead. One lens was horizontally polarized, and the other vertically. Thus, COLOR 3D for the first time.

Avatar uses some fancy new technique. I don't know how it works, because I haven't heard it explained, but I know it's the first thing ever to use the technique because they made a big deal out of it. The glasses still seemed polarized, though. Look through them and polarized sunglasses at the same time and you get FREAKY rainbows! ^_^

Anyway, you simply can't do color 3D with red/blue glasses, and Nvidia's 3D vision glasses aren't R/B. I looked at pictures of them online, and they're kind of mirrored and slightly rainbowed, so I assume they're using some sort of polarization process, too.

If you're using old-fashioned R/B glasses and seeing 3D, you must be THE most suggestible person on earth! ^_^

Oh, and Nvidia are all *****es because they say they'll never do WinXP drivers for their 3D Vision, even though there's nothing technical stopping it from working. Can we say "marketing deal with Micro$oft?" Can we say "Bullcrap!"?

Why in the hell would having XP stop you from doing this? It's just a driver and a pair of glasses. (And no, 3d hasn't used red/blue lenses since the 70s! ^_^)

This sounds cool. I'll have to look into it!