搜索结果: *

  1. Dev Blog 14/03/19

    Please, for the sake of all that is holy, release the f*$%&ing game!!!!!
    Hey. You asked. :smile:

  2. Dev Blog 04/10/18

    Awesome blog!
    This kind of reminds me of the Diplomacy mod, which is still one
    of my all time favorites for Warband.

    I wonder if we'll be able to change succession laws in the policy menu of if they'll keep the two systems separate...

  3. Dev Blog 19/04/18

    Rainbow Dash 说:
    If there is some gameplay to be gained from including it... Not that big of a deal.
    Just an opinion.
    点击展开...

    I would have agreed with this point if not for the amount of people here suggesting gamechanging ideas that go entirely against the entire core combat system.

    Like making it ignore armor.... really?
    点击展开...

      That does sound like a bad idea. I'm sure that TW won't do anything too crazy like that... At least I hope not.  :ohdear: lol
    I'm not really sure how one would make a dagger into a viable weapon. It really is inferior to battle field weapons in every way.
    Yes, NPC99, that includes Rondel daggers I'm afraid. I suppose that if you were in a very narrow space, it would be better to have a dagger...?
    When I say narrow space, I mean like a cave that you have to crawl through...
      I understand that the weapon had a very real supplemental role in historical combat. With that being said, I don't know how that would be applied
    to Bannerlord. Maybe TW will come up with something interesting.

  4. Dev Blog 19/04/18

    Rainbow Dash 说:
    NPC99 说:
    Oddness 说:
    Which would you rather go into a fight with?
    A dagger or a sword?
    I know which one I'm voting for.
    There really isn't a single advantage to having a dagger in open warfare if any battle-field weapon is available.
    Given a choice between a dagger and bare hands, however, I suppose that I'd take the dagger.

      The advancement of weapons has shown a pattern throughout history. The further away that you can kill your opponent from, the better off you are. Sometimes you sacrifice range to maintain the ability to 'kill your opponent', but you will always want to be as far away from your opponent as you can get while still being able to kill them. A dagger is not particularly good at providing range, nor is it more effective at piercing armor. In the context of warfare, it has zero advantages other than convenience.
      If you are seeing an advantage for using a dagger over a sword then you are thinking in terms of movie physics. Here's the progression of weapons from the stone ages to today. fist -> dagger -> spear -> bow -> siege weapon -> gun -> cannon -> missile -> nuke. You will note that I left a lot of weapons out. The reason for this is that they solve the problem of how to 'kill your opponent.' The great leaps in weaponry have historically been a product of the range from which you can kill your opponent. The rest, in my opinion, has been more about over-coming the challenges of defeating opponents that are reluctant to die (wearing armor) or refining a weapon to be effective under specific circumstances. Swords, for example, were very good at killing unarmored opponents, but were generally used as side-arms. A spear was generally a better option in combat because of its range advantage.
    点击展开...

    Rondel daggers evolved in the 14th Century, specifically to kill armoured opponents.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rondel_dagger
    Not a primary melee weapon, but often the killing one.
    点击展开...

    Referto my previous post on this thread

    Rainbow Dash 说:
    Salmonsy 说:
    Buffing daggers in a balanced way is a good thing. I for one don't want them to be just useless dress-pieces like they were in warband.

    If done right daggers seem like they can be lots of fun.

    Also, er, yeah.. Knights used daggers..
    点击展开...

    Salmonsy 说:
    Daggers were probably the weapon that killed the most knights. Of course you don't win a fight with a dagger, you just finish it with one. Straight up fighting with a dagger is probably a good idea if you want to be killed, though.
    点击展开...


    So what you're suggesting is that every single time I kill someone in Bannerlord I have to switch to my knife and stab him on the ground to make sure he stays dead?

    Is that what you call fun gameplay for you? Because having to purchase a second weapon and manually pin down and stab a knight with a knife sounds tedious, boring, and stupid when I could be spending my time raiding, killing archers, having epic duels, or fighting big battles.

    Sure cool daggers can kill knights, but mount and blade combat is too fast for stupid unfun crap like having to switch to a different weapon to kill a person.

    The realisim mob here pisses me off. Thank god for Taleworlds for not making these guys game developers and focusing on FUN>REALISM, the most important aspect of any video game
    点击展开...
    点击展开...
      I already did. I generally agree with you, but If TW doesn't, that will be okay. I'm sure that they'll make the best game that they can and something this small will not
    cause any world-changing problems. Historically, the dagger, as a primary weapon of war is non-sense. If there is some gameplay to be gained from including it... Not that big of a deal.
    Just an opinion.

  5. Dev Blog 19/04/18

    Rabies 说:
    The main point is this:
    Daggers are in the game. It would be nice the combat mechanics could find a niche situation where the dagger is the most effective weapon, otherwise the player will never ever use them and they will face no purpose in the game beyond making low-level enemies like looters easier to kill, and then clogging up your inventory as a trash item you collect from the battlefield before you can sell it in town for small coins.
    And that would be a pity
    点击展开...

      Fair enough. Gameplay should always supercede realism so whatever makes the game more fun should be the way that they do it. Just as long as people don't confuse reality and fiction, I have nothing to say on the subject. If you read through some of these earlier posts, people have been really trying to convince others that a dagger could be an ideal primary weapon and I don't think that is the case at all.

  6. Dev Blog 19/04/18

    kalarhan 说:
    Dagger is a sidearm (cheap, easy to carry, mortal on close combat), so you will bring both  :razz:

    Is like asking a modern soldier if he would bring the rifle or a combat knife. Answer is both.
    点击展开...

      That is a fair statement. All I'm saying is that the dagger is a side-arm for a reason. Sure. There's nothing wrong with bringing it. It isn't going to hurt, but it certainly wouldn't be the first choice and shouldn't be used as a primary weapon.
      In your example of the rifle and combat knife, the combat knife is there just in case s*$# hits the fan and, speaking of which, have you ever heard the saying that "you shouldn't bring a knife to a gun fight"? I'm pretty sure that saying applies just as well if you substitute gun for bow  :grin:

    Edit:
    I know. I know. Mythbusters did it. Your opponent has to be pretty close for the saying to not hold true though.

  7. Dev Blog 19/04/18

    NPC99 说:
    Rondel daggers evolved in the 14th Century, specifically to kill armoured opponents.
    REMOVED LINK
    Not a primary melee weapon, but often the killing one.
    点击展开...

      I'm certain that they did, which brings me back to my original question. If you could only choose one, would you prefer to bring that Rondel dagger into battle, or would you prefer to bring a sword or a spear? I guarantee that the swordsmen/spearman, everything else the same, would have very little difficulty in killing the guy with the knife. That is my point

    dr4gunov 说:
    Depends what are we really talk about in terms of daggers/knifes. The one depicted in blog seems to be quite long. In history of melee warfare shield formations (usually with spear + sidearm) tend to dominate other types of fighting. Some warriors did that to certain extreme (phalanx), others more loosely, but if you wanted to win, you generally adapted tactics of victorious tribes. So untill pike formation nearly every sort of orginized fighting took place in shield walls.

    And in shield walls, generally speaking you had two options: keeping enemy at bay with reach (to extreme ancient greeks ways) or closing for a kill (like Romans did). And in second option, you generally speaking do not have a lot of room for long weapons. For example Gladius, one of the bloodiest weapons in history could have blade as short as 45 cms / 18inch. To compare, one of most popular side weapons during migration period and viking age was seax (knife in old germanic). Longseax was common fighting tool in shieldwall with blade as short as 50cms/20 inch. So "long knife" was in fact longer than Gladius ("sword" in latin). Both were however used in same fashion, to close up with rank of shields and thrust from behind it, so your enemy does not see the blade untill it's too late.

    It is possible of course to fight in shield walls with slightly longer swords. However for that you either have to loosen formation (solution that has many flaws in itself) or develop tactics or equipment that would allow it. For example Vikings had longer blades (above 70cms) but they used very specific shield that possibly could exploit this length.

    So yeah, reach has it's advantages and knifes have theirs. Both had their time and place. It is not as easy as you presented (fist -> dagger -> spear -> bow -> siege weapon -> gun -> cannon -> missile -> nuke) since bow is way older than for example sword or polearms.

    I doubt however, that in Bannerlord world physics will be so advanced that shield walls with long knifes will have their uses. So I'd say dagger will be needed for item dropped by belligerent drunk :wink:
    点击展开...

      Lets define what I mean by a dagger. When you start up Mount and Blade: Warband, look for the item in the inventory which is called a "dagger." That is the weapon that my post is addressing.
      I agree that it isn't as easy as I presented. I presented a general theme, admittedly omitting many weapons and tactics. That does not make the statement, that everything else constant, in a one vs. one fight, the guy with the longer weapon has a major advantage, assuming equal skill between the two combatants and a weapon which can overcome their opponent's defenses.
      A bow vs. a guy in armor would be at a disadvantage only if his bow cannot penetrate his opponent's armor. Thus, finding the best tactics to combat your opponent's particular equipment forces you to move in closer, despite the fact that being closer to your opponent is not ideal.
      On the subject of daggers, they have no advantage. They do not provide range nor a better ability to pierce armor than other types of weapons. Their only advantage in a battle is that they are convenient. Can we agree on that?

  8. Dev Blog 19/04/18

    Which would you rather go into a fight with?
    A dagger or a sword?
    I know which one I'm voting for.
    There really isn't a single advantage to having a dagger in open warfare if any battle-field weapon is available.
    Given a choice between a dagger and bare hands, however, I suppose that I'd take the dagger.

      The advancement of weapons has shown a pattern throughout history. The further away that you can kill your opponent from, the better off you are. Sometimes you sacrifice range to maintain the ability to 'kill your opponent', but you will always want to be as far away from your opponent as you can get while still being able to kill them. A dagger is not particularly good at providing range, nor is it more effective at piercing armor. In the context of warfare, it has zero advantages other than convenience.
      If you are seeing an advantage for using a dagger over a sword then you are thinking in terms of movie physics. Here's the progression of weapons from the stone ages to today. fist -> dagger -> spear -> bow -> siege weapon -> gun -> cannon -> missile -> nuke. You will note that I left a lot of weapons out. The reason for this is that they solve the problem of how to 'kill your opponent.' The great leaps in weaponry have historically been a product of the range from which you can kill your opponent. The rest, in my opinion, has been more about over-coming the challenges of defeating opponents that are reluctant to die (wearing armor) or refining a weapon to be effective under specific circumstances. Swords, for example, were very good at killing unarmored opponents, but were generally used as side-arms. A spear was generally a better option in combat because of its range advantage.
后退
顶部 底部