搜索结果: *

Fair enough, the RTR is better than I thought, lots of ceasefires me thinks which is a very good thing. Any Nord village, even ones in vaegir hands will do, as long as they give you Nord recruits. The merc contract was just a suggestion, to help train up the Nord soldiers that make toppling castles and cities a whole lot easier.

340 with 55 may well be enough, Its just the lack of high tier siege material that will derail you, sharpies and huscarls are even more formidable on the walls than taking them, and as an independent kingdom, you are going to be doing a whole lot of defending no matter how good your renown and RTR are. My current play through I'm a swadian lord (first time) with 756 renown and 42 right to rule, and I'm not starting up yet, until my relations with various lords feels about right.

If you feel happy with starting up then do so, grab a parcel of land and declare for yourself, it will be challenging but a lot of fun, If its anything like my start-up kingdoms, though both times I have rebelled against a king, so i have had large armies and garrisons, with multiple cities and castles to call upon.   

as long as you have solid troops to hold a castle, remembering you have to garrison anything you take, you can get access to new recruits, and get them to reasonable strength quickly then you will probably have a good chance of survival 

Huscarls are the top form of Nord infantry, shield-biting berserkers that maul almost anything in melee, and sharpshooters are the Rhodok crossbow elite, old school snipers. recruit Nord and Rhodok recuits, and train them up as much as you can. rinse and repeat for infinite victory.

With only 300 renown you are going to have a very difficult time starting a kingdom, although doing it now may be a very rewarding challange if you survive the all out war almost everyone will throw at you. The nation you take the castle from will be at war with you adn the vaegirs almost certainly will as well, if your closeby them, as you will be weak and they want the extra land. No matter they are friendly with you now, buissness is buissness.

My advice below stands as for the taking of castles, but I'd hold off starting up yet, and build up companions and send them off to increase your Right to rule.

Mercenary contracts with the Nords and Rhodoks (not at the same time obviously) would be a good idea to build up worldwide relations and the aformentioned Huscarls and sharpies

On the original question, I have to question the premise, that a spear is stronger in a duel than a sword. My experiance doesn't hold that to be true, a spear has significant weaknesses against the sword in one on one combat. The length is useful in the initial moments, but the blade of the spear is difficult to control at full extension so the range that your working at, isn't much further than a good lunge with a fair length blade, (obviously not a gladius) furthermore recovery time for the point is longer than the blade, the centre of balence of which is far closer to the hand, making it more recoverable and agile. In any matter, I wouldn't take a spear over a sword. 

That said, of the points made, the simple economy speaks loudest to me, It takes many years and great expense to train as a proficient swordsman, because a sword is simple to use and understand but very difficult to master, as there are many techniques and styles that all recuire long hours of practice, until they become locked in muscle memory. A spear's chief virtue lies in massed ranks, all presenting sharp pointy things in the faces of opponents. Spears are easy to use and at least within that context, a pike or spear wall, easy to master, what is hard about continuely stabbing the pointy end at the people who want to kill you.

That isn't all there is to it obviously but within the context it really is that simple. You paid the swordsman more, because it was a higher status of warrior, and because he was a highly trained specialist, rather than a regular, no matter how effective they may have been in ranks. A bit like how you would pay a michelin star chef more than a macdonalds employee

I concur with the Honerable gentlemen above, but I certainly wouldn't make it out to be so easy.

Where are you? what nation are you with. If for example your with the sarranids (with sarranid troops) against the Rhodoks then don't bother, just run away, those devilish crossbows with turn your men into pincushions instantly (A lesson I learnt very recently, 400 sarranids vs 140 arbelest wielding mothers. Never again.)

Seriously though, not everyone will be able, or in a position to crank out Huscarls and Sharpshooters quickly, if at all, so it really does depend on what troops you have in your army.

Your best bet here would be to convince another lord to join in with you, or join the marshals army when applicable. The more you fight in the large battles and sieges the more renown you'll get, and if you can take out a few lords on the battlefield on your own, all the better, more glory for you. The more renown, the more men you can have in your army, and the more likely it is your faction leader will give you a castle/city. Also, a handy tip, is look for castles/citys that have recently been taken FROM your faction, they will have a very small garrisons made up of mostly low tier units. Managed to take back Ukxhal from the Rhodoks with 60 mostly tier 3/4/'s in this manner.

Finally, If your not already, put every spare point into trainer, both on you and all of your companions, they all stack, honestly, every spare point that isn't being used elsewhere, being able to raise high level troops quickly is vital mid to late game, when you are going to be doing everything and your going to need to be everywhere because your nation is feasting (looking at you Harlous) and your the only one turning aside invasions.

If you give some more of the details we can be more specific. 

I certainly haven't, the most I have got was about 10 t2's but I have never been one for farming relations with anything, I like to play the game as organically as I can, and once I'm a lord I stop going quests for villiages, unless I own them, because I'm a Noble, and i like roleplaying. That said I've read posts claiming everything up to Knights with 100 relations so I certainly seems possible.

Bobthehero 说:

Having tested my arming sword agaisnt my (low qualitiy) mail gauntlet a few time, I say bring it on with total confidence.

点击展开...

I'm guessing your blade isn't battle sharp?

However the point is valid, Solid, competantly made Mail was a very effective form of armour, as long as the blunt impact of the blow was softened with an arming jack (padding). In fact it's understood the majority of injuries through Mail happened as a result of a weak link being struck, which placed larger than usual stress on the rest of the links, causing a cascade of failures. In this context, it was often easier to punch through the Mail, with a pointed blade (such as an arming sword) or lance, or just break bones with a mace or heavy blade, which a scimiter could well have.

Less well made mail might break on a sweeping cut, but it couldn't be relied upon, far easier to go for a less armoured area, or joins in the various pieces, like around the wrists, or maybe even the neck, if a coif isnt built in to the torso.

The scimiter is great for use on lightly armoured men, but I have to support the opinion that against a mail armoured man, its effectivness is limited somewhat apart from the crushing weight of the blade. As far as other regional weapons go, the sabre is more useful against armour by all logic.

Actually you can't command any troops you had when you join a lords army. They don't appear at all they just disappear into thin air and they will never appear in battle. They only follow you if you are an independant commander, not a singular freelancer in another lords army. Once you leave your commander the troops you gather suddenly return to your side, as long as your not defeated or captured at any point during your service.

You can certainly try distracting them, but again as a freelancer you would need to be in a position that allowed you to have a horse, or an indepentant commander, so that doesn't really solve the problem.

Freelancer doesn't allow you to command anything, just fight in a larger army, so there isn't much you can do about it.

And thats the problem, given as you have no say, there is no real tactics. Unless they are really really out numbered the Knights will always charge and get torn a new one by Nord axes ( ) then the poor swadian infantry take a swift leave of absense from thier heads. Playing as a swadian soldier, this will happen, a lot. Heaven forbid you ever attack the Rhodoks on their home soil.

This happens just about everywhere. I played as a Nord, and the fools still charge and seperate against knights even when we are on a open field. We still ussually prevail, but we loose far more than we should, or could if we stuck together and roughed it out.

All in the Nords are probably the best bet for playing freelancer, heavy armour and shields for good survivability, and all infantry so with a few points in athletics you can keep up with the front runners even at the beginning of the game.  That and the loot you will get is solid, from sea-raiders especially.

My advice, join the nords and earn enough money to start out on your own even if you then move back into swadia and fight for harlous again. As long as you don't take out any of the swadian lords yourself on the battle field you won't damage relations with swadia and you might also get some sweet swadian armour in the loot for free. Win win.

Its a bad, bad day when you have a single word that expresses the phrase 'my nuts are frozen'

The Gladius is primarily designed as a stabbing weapon granted, but that doesn't count it out as a cutting weapon. The edge is just as good, but compared to the Gaulic long swords they fell short, because they were a, short blade.

You hack someone with it, they are going to notice it. It might not kill them straight away, but it will be nasty and likely to infect. Stabbing the right area will just kill someone quicker so the romans favoured it.

Six inches of point is better than a whole yard of edge.

The Roman Gladius is useful in the roman model against the celts/germanic tribes in a close fight where the romans could use their formations and discipline to grind down the enemy, this usually requires a solid formation with a front line and depth (exceptions include the wedge, put that uses the same principles) to counter the barbarian rush and then apply counter pressure. In this example the gauls that arrive later to the front push up against the men trapped by the shield wall, unable to swing the long swords or spears they carried. as long as the formation remained intact the romans could then use the space they had behind thier shields to stab through the gaps into the unprotected bodies.

The problem with Teutoberg Wald is the ambush senario, where the Germans take the Romans by surprise in an all out bum rush, so the Romans don't have the time to form up and recieve them, forcing them to fight individual duels which they aren't stictly trained for with equipment that isn't really up to that particular job, or gather into small groups against the shock of the attack, in an effectively defensive position with no option of counter pressure, meaning you give the initiative to the Germans who can back off and use the space available to swing their weapons to devistating effect.

These senarios gave great results for the tribes over the Romans, but once the Romans got you into a field battle, they were very hard to best.

As for the Bastard sword, I love the balance of power and length to lightness and agility and a well balanced Hand and a half sword, which is the 'official' name, is one of my favs. 

Edit: A Dagger and Buckler is a highly impractical style in the long term, having a dagger in reserve, life-saving, using it, not if you don't have to. In a hardcore close melee, granted, but it leaves you far to open, a buckler being a very small shield, it's really not something you want to be taking into a battle, unless it serves a very specific purpose i.e. defeating pikes. In the right situation (very unlikely) ok, almost every other fight going, hell no.

Also remember you can have it as riding shotgun to a sword. Inspired.

Firstly, not all shields where made equal, your basic Scuta is a damn solid piece of kit.

At Carrhae, the evidence available leads us to believe that the legionaries held out initially but where eventually worn down by constant arrow barrages (the testudo is a great ace in the hole against archers, but not invunerable to them) and repeated charges against the testudos, which is not the most effective method of recieving cavalry. When the Romans started to break formation and run, thats when the butchery would have happened just with most ancient battles.

Different bows where better at getting through shields as well, tests conducted by the royal artillary college proved that an english longbow would punch through a Scuta and a lot of other shields at a hundred yards, maybe not far, but enough to wound the arm that supported it in some cases, possibly putting the soldier out of the fight.

Horses are difficult. A horses skull is very thick, and most arrows unless fired from very close range won't penetrate. A trained horse, not even a warhorse can continue to run forwards with arrows in non-vital areas, such as the leg muscles, much as people can, but horses actually have much higher pain thresholds than people, so then can go further than men with a similar wound. The best way of putting the horse down with a bow, is to fire up and onto the top of its head and back. The thinner skull, more exposed spinal cord, and exposed heart are the best places to shoot. As the English longbowmen did at Agincourt to great effect.

Moral of the story, deffinately carry a shield, its better than nothing.

And I like the way the shields work in game, but they should last a little longer, a steel sheild braking after a handfull of blows kinda knocks the immersion a bit

Loving the amount of Axe-love on here 

Watch groups usually carried spears of halberds because they were cheap, and they wern't meant to fight, just keep the troublemakers at bay long enough for superiour numbers to come into play. That and an enemy at the far end of a polearm is much less dangerous (unless he has a ranged weapon) than one in your face.

A man with even little training with a polearm is a big danger in city, especially a Halberd with its axe head, and even in close quarters the butt spike is a often forgotten addition. Add to that the binding and controling aspect of being pinned by a big bearded guardsmen, and the drunk peasents and thieves they would deal with on a day to day purpose where out matched, true a well trained swordsmen or axemen would go through them like butter in small groups but that was never their purpose.

Palace guards weapon choices are even more understandable, putting a ring of very sharp pointy things around their King/Lord/Employer so all potential threats are kept at arms range (for the crossbowmen in the gallery  )

Personally I'm a throwing axe man, versitile weapon of choice, it cuts, hacks, pokes and hooks, and even when the tricky blighters won't come close you can just lob it at 'em. Always carrie a spare though.

The great thing about this game is you can do anything you want, and even if you fail you can just rebuild (you can't die) I usually enlist as well, but usually in a dukes/hertogi ect's army, because they have enough men to not get slaughtered to much, but are quick enough to catch most people. Last play through I went travelling alone after I retired, hit up loads of arena fights and tournaments investing in enterprises in areas I wasn't going to stay to much, simply because they add funds instantly and don't have to be visited unlike buying land.

If your bored in the kings army, which happens quite quickly I remember, then join a castle or villiage owning lord, you'll get owned more often, but its more fun, and you can get serious xp as you make so much of a difference in a small force, even if your not that great at combat, or your stats aren't awesome. (the game remembers your rank in that faction, so you won't lose the work you put in with the kings army)

If your going to strike out on your own, It doesn't matter what financial position your in, start small and work up, explore your options as you work it out, you might get beat a lot, but you'll learn, far more than you will reading others experiance what works for you and what doesn't

March forth and watch as your enemy quails in fear.

good luck

By my understanding:

First there was the Calrad Empire, which covered the area of the game (taken from warband) and for a time, it was good. Then the Viegir people, migrating in from the northeast clashed with the Empire for control of the area and it was during this time that the Empire began to bring in sea raider mercenaries to provide infantry support for thier cavalry.

Eventual peace between the Calrad Empire and the Veigirs left the Sea raiders, who had began to settle in the north alone fighting the Veigirs and considering the weak position the Veigirs where in folowing the war the new Nordic kingdom beat back them back, taking the territory for itself. Meanwhile the critically tax and civil unrest weakened Empire splits into two during a civil war, leading to the creation of both the Rhodok Republic in the mountains and the Swadian Kingdom, holding the old Calrad heartlands of Suno and Uxkhal.

At some point either during or after these events the Khergits sweep onto the lower steppes, displacing the scattered Veigir population and raiding towards Swadian lands. Add in the settling of the desert regions (possibly taken from Khergits) by the Sarranids before the events of the player arriving during Warband and you have (by my limited understanding) a fairly concise account of general Calradian history     

Sorry in advance for hijacking this thread Lord Lukjan, but Caba`drin being on here helped me remember a question I wanted to ask.

My current character has 4 points into tactics, and no matter which options I select in Pre-battle orders and deployment I can't bring up the deployment 'phase' at the beginning of the battle, what should I be doing?

But if you ran a marathon, would be as fast WITH plate or chain armor on?

点击展开...

Where armour is an issue is in the march

点击展开...

for march read marathon

The moving speed thing yes, over distance, in armour you can still sprint a fair distance, not as much as unarmoured obviously, but then adrenaline kicks in and allows you to carry on, and this goes for fighting, in a melee your running on adrenaline, so the battleaxe feels like nothing until you start to calm down, then you feel like lead.

Honestly, if it was me with the battleaxe, I'd take the mail, it might make me hot and tired, which will slow me down over time yes but it will stop glancing blows and probably save my life, but your not less proficient with the axe when you have armour, that stays the same, you still have the same knowledge and experiance, you will just tire quicker, and given as most melees consisted of ten to fifteen minute bouts with pauses that wasn't a problem, it's only in the all day affairs that it was a problem.

Therefore in calradia where you fight for twenty minutes tops the adrenaline would still be flowing

Leifdin 说:

The mail/plate armor is bit tough, because mail isn't supposed to give as much protection as mail, but factions are from different period. So, Nords would be in disadvantage. There is also running speed in question.  Armor distributes its weight, but in the end, it is still few kilograms more for your legs to carry.
Yet, armor does slow you a bit. I think that shield would cause bit slower attacks(big shield, of course, you can't swing very swiftly while wield shield with size of barn door)

点击展开...

Yes, armour is heavy, but over short periods of time it's more than bearable, and its the heat and thirt that it generates that saps your energy, and soldiers are strong blokes, guys in the army today wear similar weights and run miles.
Where armour is different from that is that it is metal, so in direct sunlight it can be a killer, one of the reasons knights wore tabards and surcoats to keep the sun of thier mail.

Shields however are big heavy and slow, no arguments there, that I'm with you there but the sheild skill in floris simulates that well enough, that you have to train to use bigger and heavier shields, I think that provides the best solution

Sorry, might need to jump in for a moment with my two cents:

Speed Penalty by:
*Medium & Heavy Armor
*Medium & Heavy Shield (less than Armor though, penalty reduction by shield skill seems nice...but shouldn't become 0)

Weapon Speed Penalty by: (good idea and totally makes sense, Bankoleva)
*Medium & Heavy Armor
*Medium & Heavy Shield

点击展开...

I assume that medium armour equates to mail, and heavy to plate? If that's so then I have to say that having worked with roman, viking, and high medieval re-enactment groups both mail and plate distribute the wieght quite evenly across your body, so it isn't that hard to move and fight in them. In fact mail feels heavier and harder to move in than plate. Anyone who has works agrigultuarly, which would have been the majority of people then, would be able to operate fairly well, and grow to almost full manoverability, as the padded jacket worn under the armour is the thing that holds you back, being stiff leather, which would become more maleable over time.

Where armour is an issue is in the march, or on warm days, where you are generating a lot of heat over a sustained amount of time, tiring you through dehydration, thats what makes you slow, not the pure wieght of the armour.

Now I like to consider myself someone who can sling his iron about, but in a melee, I wouldn't be caught intentionally without some armour, even if stiffened leather, simply because its almost impossible to cover your back in a loose melee.

Just slapping on a speed and weapon penatly just doesn't do it, because you wouldn't always be that much slower.
People react slower, (allowing a skilled swordsman to beat a handfull of barely trained watchmen) simply because they don't have the experiance and muscle memory to react quick enough, not because they are weighed down with armour.

aodhanofgael 说:

please no wars about phalangites vs. romans the phalanx was a defensive part of the greek line and the theuropoi, pezoi mercenaries, and peltast were the offensive along with  macedonian heavy cavalry

点击展开...

The Roman infantry had the marked advantage over such elements in the scutum, the thick curved shield designed to counter such weapons, with possibly the exception of the Falx. Also the roman discipline held the troops together against such opponents

vietanh797 说:

So everyone forgot Roman was beaten badly by Pyrrhus who mostly only use infantry in attack and only throw cavalry into battle when infantry fail too many times?
If a general know how to move his cavalry and elephant forces along with the phalanx and light unit like Alexander did that tactic is unbeatable and not out of date at all 
The only thing become outdated was Greek's generals who long forgot the way Alexander fought. That exposed the weakness of phalanx long enough for Roman taken advantage of
There was no such long battle in Alexander's way of fighting, he knew phalanx is weak in long term fighting and can become disorder so he use his phalanx smart and his cavalry even smarter.

点击展开...

The Romans Pyrrhus faught were basic levies, legio meaning levy, the individuals may be experianced, but the roman method of breaking up legions after a year ment that few units had any time to train together and lack whole army cohesion. Pyhrrus however had campained his armys for years fighting all over greece, and lead probably the best trained army of the time. Phyrrus's own ability is a factor as well as his army's state of training, which was undenighably better than the romans. They were capable of complex menuvers Rome was not.

The Roman armies that invaded greece however, where veterens of the wars against Carthage, in particular the second punic wars, as were the commanders. these armies had served and faught together many times, all across the mediterainian. They were able to perform complex actions, and exploit the tris aplex's natural flexibility far better than their ancesters who faced off against Pyhrrus.

From my limited understanding and a little invention, I always thought the Calrad empire conquered the region in the first place, creating a military feudal system with them at the top, similar to the norman conquest of Britain. I always picture the Rhodoks as already being there, along with the swadian peasentry.  At some point the viegirs are moved into the area as settlers from a subjegated homeland (I believe this is mentioned somewhere in game, though I cant be sure where?) and settle into the colder northern reaches, to fight off the nordic sea-raiders on behalf of the empire, a similar tactic as the roman empire used with fodeteratii service for the germanic tribes. The nord raiders begin to settle, as the vikings did in real life, and are allowed the coast in return for military service, both land and naval (A clever policy for the empire). Finally I coincide the coming of the Khergit Khanate with the collapse of the empire, similar to the mass migrations and collapse of the western roman empire, also when the Rhodoks declare independence from the empire remnents and installing a democracy in the mountains,  followed finally by the domestication of the deserts by the Sarranids

This explains (for me) the bitterness between the nords and veigirs, as the nords took over thier land, and between both of them and the swadians, who think themselves the hiers to the empire and the correct overlords of calradia. The Rhodok rebellion is a massive problem for the swadians, and the invading Khanate and sultanate, are problems for all those around them. Thats just how I see it