搜索结果: *

daumor 说:

Standing in a bikini over a field of slaughtered khergits with their burning shed in the background...

点击展开...

May the Eternal Sky have mercy on your pitiful soul!

daumor 说:

I like how you ignore everything I've said. There was hamlets right on the outside of the walls. the men-at-arms and garrison officers plus a good number of the troops themselves would have their families within the curtain wall itself. Is there no economy involved with all of these people? What about the farmland that was part of the estate itself? There would be many people who worked this land (overseers and the like mostly, the rabble would live right on the land) living in the castle. In the game the castles are unprofitable by virtue of paying the garrison. You would have to keep those garrisons pretty low to make any money. The building itself wouldn't require much upkeep except for staff and maintenance.

点击展开...

Yes, you're right, but all that thriving economy is depicted in the village. Most of the time the castles overlooked the estate of the lord, a.k.a. the game village, when the castles were not in the middle of said villages. The castle itself is a money-draining pool for the owner. Although he would get some of his money back as his soldiers bought their food and supplies from the lord's merchants, as you smartly pointed out, he would at best get the wages he paid back.

I wonder what would happen if we can implement castle tours? Surely tourism would fill some coffers!

RomaGoth 说:

I agree with Daumor.  A castle should make you money, otherwise why would so many lords/kings/rulers want them, historically speaking?  Obviously they offer protection during battle and such, but no sane leader would keep a place that causes him to lose money over the long term.  In M&B, the only difference between a city, i.e., Sargoth, etc., and a castle is that the castle doesn't have the city inside its walls.  The cities all have castles inside them, as well as an outer wall that must be breached before you can even get into the city itself.

I like the idea of storing horses in a castle as well, although with the way the game works, I am not sure the usefulness of that (if your horse actually died during battle for example, then storing horses in your castle would actually be useful).

点击展开...

To keep the peasant rabble from murdering you, your family and your guard if they riot. Castles are defensive military positions, and even Donald Trump wouldn't be able to squeeze some profit out of it. As of the village surrounding the castle, that's another matter.

daumor 说:

Well she might have found herself oddly unable to lock it, but her unlock button seems to work...

I wonder if the DK's would kick any more ass strategy wise if the more experienced Katilus lead them?

点击展开...

And if if if if if if aahmm.. if if if LL and QK kinda "coupled" *nudge nudge*? Would the invincible Khergit horde beat the alliance?
And more importantly, how would be the raising of their (obviously adopted) offspring?

ScientiaExcelsa 说:

*sigh*

点击展开...

Sorry, I'll translate my last two posts:

Block crushing yay, but only to 2H hammers and axes. With 2H swords, things should be reviewed, with the occasional block crush.

Tibertus 说:

LudwigWilhelm 说:

Tibertus 说:

I've always been under the impression that blocking in M&B was a game friendly representation of parrying, since no one straight up blocked, but rather tried to redirect weapon force. If that is the case, then two handed weapons should be thrown off balance, more than single handed weapons, when properly parried. The same goes with shield blocking, since effective shield use meant angling the shield in such a way that the weapon slid off, rather than struck it at a right angle. If you look at blocking that way, I see no reason two handed weapons should be able to crush through blocks.

点击展开...

Then again, there is no way you can parry a huge hammer or axe. You can dodge them, but once they are swung, it is virtually impossible to throw them off their path. Maybe that's why axe-swinging viking huskarls were so frightening.

点击展开...

Are you kidding? Heavier weapons are easier to parry since their wielder cannot change direction as readily. Momentum of the weapon is supposed to work for you when you parry.

Edit: Let me also clarify, weapons also weren't as heavy as people seem to think they were. There's been tons of debate on this forum though about that. The axe blade used on a huskarl's axe for example, would be much thinner than a wood chopping axe, much thinner.

点击展开...

I grant that axes and hammers are easier to dodge, but not to parry.  Their mass is centered on the tip and they have long shafts, that gives them immense momentum and a very displaced center of gravity. To throw them off, you would have to hit the axe's blade or the hammer's head. And that is one hard thing to do when said object is coming in your direction.

Tibertus 说:

I've always been under the impression that blocking in M&B was a game friendly representation of parrying, since no one straight up blocked, but rather tried to redirect weapon force. If that is the case, then two handed weapons should be thrown off balance, more than single handed weapons, when properly parried. The same goes with shield blocking, since effective shield use meant angling the shield in such a way that the weapon slid off, rather than struck it at a right angle. If you look at blocking that way, I see no reason two handed weapons should be able to crush through blocks.

点击展开...

Then again, there is no way you can parry a huge hammer or axe. You can dodge them, but once they are swung, it is virtually impossible to throw them off their path. Maybe that's why axe-swinging viking huskarls were so frightening.

To UsF:

That video compares a breastplate of tempered steel against a longbow shot. There is a world of difference between tempered steel, steel and cast iron, in a decreasing order. I believe most of the time the weapons were made of steel and the armors of cast iron. That would explain why armor is opaque and swords are shiny, and would mean that regular armor was very vulnerable to projectile fire. And I think that tempered steel armor appeared a bit later than 13th century. If complete realism is to be followed, a mail shirt should be as effective as paper against warbows and crossbows....

daumor 说:

I'm talking about Kergs(horse fags) and the dueling was that I prefer to duel nearly naked.

点击展开...

Manual block?

Don't even know why I mentioned it, as I suck big balls at manual blocking....

woohoo can I join can I join? Me likes american servers!

I
Do take part on MB beta
Go by this exact nickname "LudwigWilhelm"
Do have a thing for horse archery, but I'm not remarkable by far
I play seldom on european servers, and I've been out for a month or so.

Even if I'm not the one you're talking about, it's good to see that the berittenes Bogenschießen is booming 

PS: Yep, had to look into the dictionary for that one...

daumor 说:

They already would if they didn't fight like kindergartners...

点击展开...

And if there were no invisible walls, they would ride their horses to death and be pin-cushioned running after horse archers! Just like in your worse nightmares, daumor

Yeah, and it always bugged me that the elite khergit troops all have that awesome, golden, shiny piece of armor but the actual Khans wore robes, tribal outfits and regular lamellar armors...

But now that problem is no more!

Lord Drake 说:

daumor 说:

I said the item editor can't put **** into stores, but this was flase. In fact I knew it was false, just forgot.

点击展开...

I know it's false but because I'm currently wearing said armor that I spoke of.

点击展开...

Oooh, you just made me a tad happier! So that means I can finally buy teh kewl yelow shinin khergit dress without having to maim and loot one of my own patrols!

Elemental 说:

And even if you use 12k peasant women / farmers, it's still 12k denars per week. 

点击展开...

If you use 12k peasant women, you are one lean mean loving machine.

Pants! 说:

*post*

点击展开...

Oh great, you know what you're talking about! The discussion got that much more interesting!

On the historical note, I read several times that mongols despised the chinese, that a steppe pony was far more valuable than a peasant. For that reason chinese prisioners, and by that I mean levy soldiers and general armed peasantry, were used during sieges to push catapults, siege towers, fill moats, place ladders on walls, and all the work that needed cannon fodder during the first mongol invasion of China, while Genghis ruled. Granted that they salvaged blacksmiths, engineers, artists, and all the cultural and technological elite of the conquered lands, but I dunno if they actually employed former soldiers into the Imperial Army.

Now I really do not know how was the army composition of the Empire under Ogedei, if they used Chinese auxiliaries as they kept pushing into China and Korea, but I always had the impression that the Golden Horde, which I believe to be the inspiration to the Khergits, was an all-cavalry force that kept hitting and running for kilometers, luring the cocky russian nobility into recurrent traps. If I am wrong, I would ask you to enlighten me on the matter

Now about the sieges, in NE the Khergits have little to no problem in sieges, thanks to those little dudes called Lesser Khans. That crazy golden armor of theirs, their khergit bows that give piercing damage and with a katana, they usually cut through everything. The fight gets interesting when they clash against paladins and blademasters, where they have a slight disadvantage. Not to mention the rare-but-unstoppable Boyons, the end-tier unit of the lancer troop tree. I think that giving them even HEAVIER infantry is an idea to be looked into.
Anyway, it would be actually fun to see some dudes wearing that samurai-like armor that is hidden within the game, it reminds me of the chinese armor that the mongols copied, and that M&B's CG artist Badamkhand drawed so flawlessly on the loading screens.

Finally, after reading your arguments I realized that I'm not fully against the Khergits having infantry, but I am against Khergit infantry. A Khergit cavalry core, with their stunning golden(and perhaps chinese) armor marching behind an army of blonde lamellar-armored, axe-wielding slav auxiliares seems appropriate. I am against, however, of the Noyan/Orlok infantry type, i.e. khergits on foot. That is utterly wrong, given their steppeish culture.

Hmm, I can picture a horde of nordsmen marching and chanting "I will survive".... strange times those which we live on, strange indeed.

Lord Drake 说:

Wellenbrecher 说:

You downloaded the "wrong" file. Try [Ulr=http://www.mbrepository.com/file.php?id=709]this[/url]. Or to be more precise, use the Download Now link on top of the page.

Oh and there are no rules against cursing, or at least no one cares about it. So one's fine.

点击展开...

Aaah, that would do it.

Eh, it's still not polite.

点击展开...

Dude, what you're trying to do is basically the same as asking for politeness in a pub. It's just not going to happen 

madman93 说:

yes i saw Xbow are insanes... the biggest one is about 100 dmg bonus (105k) but Xbows are incredibly slowwwwww, something like 42 speed some of them are around 12 speed only!!!
isn't this too underpowered?
how could you compare best bow with 200 bow skill +Power draw 10 and best arrows with amazing Xbows 100 dmg with 200 Xbow skill?

i always loved bows, but in native expansion, perhaps it is better to give Xbow a chance OVER bow, even if i ll play my char like the previous ones : 2 handed weapon + ranged weapon+ ammos+ shield/ ammos. here i ll play 2 hand+ shield + Xbow + bolts if it worth it.

can't decide myself

点击展开...

In NE everything works as it should. If you are a dedicated archer, you will basically rock. If you want to be a melee/skirmisher dude, the crossbow is the weapon for you, as it gives more damage with less effort. High tier bowmen easily eat up crossbowmen due to the bow's superior rate of fire, as it should be. Sadly the rhodok crossbowmen don't turn their backs at the enemy when they are reloading, making that huge wooden plank on their backs useful for something.

Why people always want to give Khergits infantry? If anything, let them have "Chinese/Persian prisoners" to push the siege towers forward, but that's it. If one wants auxiliaries, one should either hire mercenaries or recruit people from Vaegirland or whatever. I find the mere thought of being able to turn a khergit tribesman into a foot soldier rather.... disturbing. If a mongol nomad ever got into a war party and got paid, the first thing he would do would be get himself a horse, before armor or anything else.

Actually, I've read somewhere recently that the mongolian word for "poor" means something like "one that moves on foot".

Just my 2c. I've been reading Conn Iggulden's "Genghis" series, and I've been playing a khergit/mongolian NE game, so I'm a bit sensitive on the matter.