搜索结果: *

Some are a bit stronger. Well, shields were made that way especially for one thing: they have to get broken by javelins, angons or franciscas. A shield with one or several javelins struck in it would be pretty hard to use, but you can still try to take the javelins out of the board. This would be impossible with an angon (germanic barbed javelin), and the ennemy would take the opportunity to walk on the angon's shaft to lower your shield. A francisca would litteraly explose the shield. This would of course be different with melee weapons. Im quite satisfied by the way it works so far.

点击展开...

your right about javelins of course, though i think the francisca comment's a little exagerated, not much i'm sure, but even an axe thrown into the shield shouldn't 'explode' it
still, that's why there's the 'bonus damage to shields' property, would it be possible to boost the bonus that gives? that way having somewhat more endurance vs melee weapons. just a thought, i think we may just have to agree to disagree on the shield strength.

You are a bit hard on that  Even if those textures can be improved.
You are right about the shield grip however.

点击展开...

I appologise i was a bit harsh there, but in comparisson with some of the other shields' beautiful textures it does stand out rather a lot...

We may work out a map with all the needed regions in it. General region is indicated so far, and for the rest here some hints:
- Wessex: southernmost saxon kingdom
- Gwent: small kingdom in south-east Wales
- Ebrauc: briton kingdom around York, who have just fallen to the Angles (York is Caer Ebrauc on the map)
- Ui Neill: northern irish kingdom, holding Ulster and Meath
- Mumain: Munster in southern Ireland.

Ingame you have to rotate a bit the map, with Caer Ebrauc and Caer Leidis beeing at the bottom, that way you will see a map of Northern Britain stretching from the Humber to the Loch Ness.

点击展开...

AH.... right... fair enough

I have no clue if all your selections can be done, yet they are interesting. I would really like to see more realistic spear fight aswell. This may be done partially by making short spears a bit more common ingame.

点击展开...

Well they are just suggestions as the thread says but good luck, and any you can implement i'm sure would benefit the mod greatly

"Map" is actually more ancient than "ap". Both have the same meaning of course. Other variations are "mab" and "ab" which both survives in breton language. That's not gaelic, that's brittonic language (ancestor of Welsh, Cornish and Breton). Gaelic languages are another root of celtic languages, the Q-celtic ones with... mac, mhuic, or maqq (archaic one) for meaning "son of".
Lots of the name were found during research for Arthurian Total War (Rome Total War mod), especially by Ranika and Anthony which were our gaelic specialists. I did also had some of my inputs from more recent research.

点击展开...

Ah, very interesting, i've always wanted to learn one of welsh's ancestor languages, though i never seem to have the time for my existing projects anyway... such is life.

Arena fights will be completly changed in next versions.

点击展开...

excellent

P.S.
while i would put it more tactfully, i also second RalliX's assesment of balance.

I've got a few points to make on the mod, as i've seen so far.
a mix of suggestions and bugs, since i thought it easier to condense it in one post and easier to have only one string of replies to keep track of

1) shields break too easily- i swear all the one's i've been using seem to be made out of cardboard.

2) the briton shields (roman style) look like they've been drawn in mspaint... you might want to get a decent texturer on the job.
also, the oval shields i've tried, all seem to be held in the wrong place for it to sit at the right height for protection when braced, although i realise the fact that the engine doesn't really support boss gripped shields, doesn't help matters, the shield straps can still be configured to hold the shield in a more realistic position i.e. lower (the current ones seem to hold them with the majority of the shield way overhead, and less protection lower down, so you not only can't see, but you get your legs shot.)

3) with the character creation page, where you select where your from, i'm quite confused by the names and descriptions of the regions, especially as none of them seem to correlate to anywhere on the world map, which also doesn't seem to correlate with anywhere in britain i know...

4) spears! of all era's of mod settings, i thought a dark ages mod would at least have spears that work well single handed with shields. i.e. the typical m&b problem being: the set range of the spear means on foot you rarely get any significant hits out of it, as it will usually bounce off at just too little range so it hasn't got up the speed. making spears in game rather ineffective.
i'd say the solution would be to have spears braceable on foot, i.e. while your holding the attack button and the spear is pulled back for attack, anything that runs on to it takes damage, based as usual on how fast they were running on to it. this rather than the usual method of having to time it just right. a hedge of spears is always a hedge of spears not just when your attacking them, it's what makes a shield wall of men with single handed spears so dangerous as even if they're not stabbing out with them, it's not something you just run into without getting squewered.

Also, spears could be improved by something to replicate/simulate the shifting of the hand along the shaft to bring different ranges to bear. this would be hell to try and program in perfectly, so instead i'd suggest  simply extending the kill-zone so to speak, of the spearhead much further down the shaft, so you still get viable hits in, even if the enemy's slightly in from the spearhead. (note: i don't actually know how the weapon killzones and damage calculation works in detail in m&b, i just imagine this or something similar would probably work.)

5) bugs: hunting knife appears as a sword when scabbarded on the player's appearance.

6) bugs: one of the lords was wandering round barechested... (i've seen in other mods this has been caused by bandits stealing his stuff, and him not being able to get it back/re-equip it... could be similar cause)

7) some of the 'gaelic'? words in the mod seem a little odd, to be precise the one that struck me was the lords' *firstname* 'map' *father's name*, instead of 'ap' which is the early welsh word that is used in the documents i know of. (though it isn't exactly my period.) i know thats not a huge change, but there were others, i just can't remember what they were 
not meaning any disrespect, just out of my own curiousity where did you find your celtic/gaelic translations and various terms from? i'd be quite interested.

8 ) get rid of the archers from the arena fights, and make a few authentic wooden weapon equivalent models for the arena, so you don't get late medieval 2 handed swords in a celtic or saxon fight, even if it is the arena, it just bugs me.

Phew, that was quite a rant, do excuse me 

anywho, other than those points, interesting mod concept, reminds me a lot of the old lords of war mod, which sadly died due to a computer failure and all files lost, great shame.
I look forward to further versions and improvements

Agent Griff 说:

You reenact? Cool! I'm guessing early Eleventh Century judging by the pictures.

点击展开...

for clarification's sake: The viking pics i got off the internet and have no relation to my reenactment group, I think they're from Poland...

Anyway, close Griff, 12th Century to be precise. But seeing as myself and one of the lot from the first (norman) pic are actually serjeants in the group not knights.
It still fits my description though since the richer side of serjeants in the 12th C is the same, kit-wise, as the 11th C knight.

Gothic Knight 说:

You look very good in that armor. It must be cool reenacting=).

点击展开...

Æsir 说:

I'll have to put up my armour up here sometime. Its similar, but a bit wider of the sleaves.

Your armour looks good on you.

点击展开...

Thanks.
Reenactment is very cool, it's annoying how rarely i get to do it now i've moved away from my group's main cell (i'm trying to recruit, to start my own cell where i am now in Conwy.)

Still, i am rather proud of the tapering on my mail, i got the shirt originally as a short sleeved thing made for a guy 100 times my size. so with the amount of customising and remaking i did, it may as well have been made from scratch . The coif is actually made from scratch, from sprung steel links, damn those things hurt your hands to work! and the chausses where scratch made too, but they are a nice easy rectangle of mail, the key for fitting chausses is the leather backing 
oh the things i do for my hobby 

Gothic Knight 说:

点击展开...

^and that's damn pretty!

Myself i'd have to go for, Eastern Vikings, ironically while i know my fair share about the vikings (and yes i know viking as a term only means the raiders who left their homes to go 'aviking') however these guys i know the least about.
basically i gather they wore scale and lamellar type armours as well as the good 'ol mail.
So something like these:

Failing Vikingness tho, i would then have to say Norman Knights.

7. I once tried to attack Custow(obviously had a save ready to reload ) and noticed that it wasn't a siege at all, makes you wonder what those walls are for
Does it always go like this? Or was this maybe kind of like the sally out in Native and that once you defeat enough troops they will actually retreat behind the walls and you get a siege?

点击展开...

For now any attack on a settlement will be a field battle, this will change.

点击展开...

I was curious about this too, but glad to know it's planned to change. However for clarification's sake; does this also mean the town troops will join me in defending too? seeing as so far whenever i've been attacked in my settlement, the battle scene has been elsewhere than the settlement and only my own retinue with me.
I'm figuring this is because whenever the recruiting, random other tasks, or waiting in the settlement, finishes, then i get chucked out of the settlement and have to re-enter. But even if altering the waiting commands and things to keep us inside the settlement would be too complicated or something, surely it would also be plausible to use some of the system that lets nearby parties join a battle, to have our settlement send it's garrison out to aid faction parties under attack within a very close radius?
or perhaps both if it's possible

anyway just a thought. i look forward to the seiges being available

I use a shield because i use one in my reenactment group (12th C Norman), and because they are incredibly useful, frankly i don't see the advantage in not having one, and having one makes for that extra layer of defense.
I also like the way they look, but thats more of an incidental thing than the actual reason

Ruthven 说:

Don't swing overhand then!

点击展开...

Well to be fair, thats what i've been doing so far

oh, and while i remember to query:
is there any evidence behind the full scale armour that reaches to the wrists, not cos i'm being picky about historical accuracy and all that, i just really like scale armour and would be really interested in any evidence for full sleeved versions, as i can't really see how it could be done.
(P.S. even if theres evidence against it, please keep it in, i like it )

To my shame i have not read the entire thread, so i don't know if this has already been suggested, but can the silly twiddling of the sword in order to bring down a blow from above be removed please?

and also, i've noticed the ship model has the steeroar on the left rather than right (or starboard/steerboard) of the ship, not a big point, but simply mirroring/flipping the model side to side should fix that right? (having no modeling experience myself)

Blackthorn:

I am, admittedly, more experienced than most members of my group (by definition, obviously, as I founded the group) but both myself and some others choose to continue using their spear and shield in close combat, and if used well (shortened and held projecting out from the hip) it is not so poor as to be vastly disadvantageous.

点击展开...

I can certainly agree with that, days are rare when i ditch my spear, and there's nothing quite like it for formation work, as for single combat, i find vs fighting two handed spearmen more of a chase than a fight but more relevantly; when fighting sword and shield, it is still a capable combination, but is rather more challenging and difficult to overcome. Or at least such is my experience.

It's also suprising the speed with which an experienced man can change weapons

点击展开...

what amazes me is the speed an inexperienced man can change weapons sometimes... honestly, you train them up well, then they go and kill you with your own damn trick!

It's less practical with a boss-grip and can still be done

点击展开...

strange, i found it easier with my old boss-grip, but then again my kite is strapped weirdly.

Kasimir:

The tactics I mentioned were just that - a general tactic, and while my experience is less than 14 years, it has worked for me with longsword vs sword/shield.

点击展开...

out of curiosity, what size/style of shield have you been fighting against? just thinking it could make a difference to the scale of the advantage, and thus why if the sword and shield men you have been fighting weren't newbies as blackthorn suggests, but more experienced, then perhaps why you have been so succesful against them as to ponder which way the advantage lies... or not.

But what would that prove? Certainly not who was best of vikings or samurai, because you are using exceptions of both. Since general terms such as "vikings" and "samurai" are used, the logical thing would be to compare an average of both.

点击展开...

by this debate i am aiming to find the answer to the deadliest warrior program's question, but through a better method, and thus a more reliable result. I however had an alterior motive in going for the best of each rather than the average, as it would give an advantage to the samurai to consider the best of each, otherwise the argument would be rather quick and decisive to the viking. As i wish to point out in this post.

You're right that early samurai would not have kusari. But they would have armpit protection in the form of the sendan-no-ita and kyubi-no-ita (right and left respectively, and of different construction from one another), bits that are seen hanging in front of the shoulders on yoroi. These would protect the armpits when the arms were raised, much like besagews on European armours.

点击展开...

that would seem to only protect the armpit from stabs from in front, an inwards stab would get into the armpit behind such a piece.

I am not talking about the earlier periods of Japan.

点击展开...

I am only talking about the samurai, who started appearing in the late 11th century.

点击展开...

These samurai were very different indeed from the samurai of the Sengoku jidai centuries LATER.

点击展开...

surely this is contradiction?

Indeed it is definitly better to work around a shield than through it, but this is also why the shield is not a static defense, but rather as mobile as the sword or other weapon, and a well used shield should always be in the way of the enemy's weapon without being in the way of your own.

点击展开...

Of course it should. But in a formation, or rather when facing a formation, the one in front of you might not be the one that hits you. In fact, many experiments have shown that when in formation and facing shields, you will often attack the guy to the right of the one in front of you as he is often more open to you. And in the case of walls of pikes, you really don't want to be in front of one if you can help it, regardless of what you're packing (even pikes).

点击展开...

i don't see what this has to do with pikes, but nonetheless, if you wish to consider multiple vikings vs samurai, then any support for the samurai is immediatly flawed. The vikings used the shield wall, and were used to tight formation work, and large battles, whereas the samurai would either be used to one on one duels or also loose horseback formations, and even if that were not true, the simple fact is, a two handed sword requires room to swing and step, so it naturally demands more room around each man, thus spacing the formation out, and a loose formation impacting unevenly upon a dense formation presents each member of the loose formation with a 3 or more vs 1 situation in which he cannot win. Ask any dead gaul of the truth of this.
one on one, the shield moves, in formation the shield is forced to stay still, but it also doesn't need to move, BECAUSE it is in a formation.

(why compare them with modern martial arts, anyway? Did vikings use modern martial arts?)

点击展开...

this comparison was drawn because i took your earlier comment on how he would fight around the armour to imply that he was versed in close combat, and just wanted to make sure you weren't confusing his understanding of close combat with the modern martial arts that often try and claim their use by historical warriors etc...

more importantly this still does not address the point of "skill and technique, and phyiscal strength and build of the warriors."

I very much doubt the viking would find anything familiar about samurai tactics. Sure he has seen horses, bows and spears before, but not in the combination used in Japan.

点击展开...

Rus, or Byzantines, both are western equivalents of the japanese approach to warfare.
furthermore the saracens were generally better versions of everything the japanese had, and when the crusaders (who wore slightly developed forms of viking armour and equipment) were concidered invincible pushed the saracens back decisively, the saracens only sucessfully fought back when they adopted the crusaders technology such as mail and heavy troops. and even then it was said historically that i western knight cost the saracens 10 of their men.

As another point, through proxy of the mongols; The mongols were heavier armed than anything the far east of china and japan had to offer, and easily conquered the eastern states, the same mongol army structure however was slowed and ground to a halt upon meeting the core of western civilisation at the same period as the samurai who were defeated by the mongols.

Also the viking has definitly seen two handed swords before, the vikings were well in contact with cultures as far as baghdad (archaeological evidence from baghdad found in viking burial) and if nothing else, the sagas make at least one account of two handed swords, and describe them as good for show but not good for much in battle. or words to the same effect.

The samurai on the other hand may know how to fight an armoured man, but he would be greatly thrown by the shield which he would not have encountered before

点击展开...

This is speculation. The shield is, like I said, a great piece of equipment, but much like it is awkward fighting a southpaw for the first time, one adapts.

点击展开...

having fought both fencers and longsword martial artists, it is remarkable how much it stuns them to be confronted with an unfamiliar obstacle such as the shield, and to someone who is not experienced in maneuvering around a shield it is difficult enough to fight a basic inexperienced man with a shield

点击展开...

no it's not speculation.
And as for adaption, sure they adapt, ussually after the first few blows, easy to adjust in a sparring match, but in a fight to the death, one moments confusion would lead to his death, and the dead, i'm fairly sure, do not learn.
P.S. what's a southpaw?

Are we talking one on one or formations? If it is one on one I would say it would come down to the experience of the individual warrior. The inexperienced are easily thrown off by what they have not encountered before, but the best warriors know how to improvise.

点击展开...

i've been talking one on one up till now, but as i've mentioned in this post, if you consider formation on formation, the shield becomes an absolute turning point of the fight, and in fact, when coupled with a single handed spear becomes nigh-invincible, hence it's popularity in western europe.
If the samurai were to use his two handed spear as would be sensible in formation against formation, then he would have slightly more length, and could try and jab at the gaps, aiming for a weak spot to one side or another rather than the one in front, however the shield wall as one is marching forward also, and the difference in range between a two handed spear and a single handed is negligable especially when you take into account the length of spear taken up by the second hand in a two handed spear stance, bassically even in formation the sheild and spear combo allows the viking to knock aside the two handed spear and step in just that one extra step to retaliate with his own single handed spear.

The yoroi did have bits of armour to protect the armpits, and other areas as well. Sometimes maille, in fact. Here is an excellent article on the evolution of Japanese armour, which explains in detail the function of the various parts (including the use of kusari, or maille).

点击展开...

i'm surprised by the use of mail, but it does mention it as being first used in the 14th century, so one would assume that is not it's most developed use and unlikely refers to the combination of the lamellar style and the kusari. I'd certainly say that the european mail construction would be stronger, but not by an enormous amount.

You are absolutely right, though, that what armour the samurai wears depends on the samurai. Most did not have a full O-yoroi or anything like that, and some had very minimalistic armour, indeed. The rank and file ashigaru often had to make do with just a chest piece, and many lower ranking samurai wouldn't be much better off either.

点击展开...

since the debate is between the deadliest warriors, i think it would be best to consider the greatest of each, so the best covering samurai armour vs the best armour available to the vikings. And this sort of brings us back to the point of eras, since if we can talk of samurai who are relatively contemporary to the vikings, then it would seem these early samurai would not be the ones to have advanced yet to develop armoured armpits, or even full body protection.
But also on a side point to this, i don't believe there were 'samurai' in this early japanese period, elite warriors who wore the aforesaid armour yes, but not specifically samurai as the term samurai in this time was used to refer to an administrative position, the samurai as a feudal lord who also filled a military role would only develop later (around the 12th century at the earliest)

As for the helmets, i know of the gjermundbu, but also the vendel helms are steel, and of a more complex construction, and since they predate the viking age, it can only be assumed that the vikings had access to the same or better technology. As for the sagas, true they can be inaccurate in some respects, but that is no reason to dismiss evidence, likewise, the archaeological evidence; the percentage survival of artefacts rarely respects the percentage of popularity of the original, the survival may be due to very specific conditions and the tendency of the artefact to decay. also if it is valuable then soldiers will naturally maintain it and repair it as long as possible. so some common items may be incredibly rare in the archaeological record, however that does not mean they weren't there.
I would not however say that archaeological evidence should be ignored, nor the written or depicted, but all 3 should be combined to gain an educated guess at the artefact's nature and commonality.

in fact the best illustration of this is that there are no leather or horn helmets (made of horn not horned obviously ) in archaeology either, but we know that they wore something, as attested by the pictorial sources, and the sagas who although i cannot find the passage, i swear at least mentions 'a simple iron cap' and the gjermundbu shows support from archaeology too, so when all 3 agree on something, the chances are, vikings had metal helms.

The thing is, though, weapons are not made to penetrate shields. You generally want to attack where the shield is not, but a spear can be jabbed into a shield to open it up. The shield is a great piece of equipment, but there are a number of ways to overcome it. None of which involves destroying the shield.

点击展开...

Indeed it is definitly better to work around a shield than through it, but this is also why the shield is not a static defense, but rather as mobile as the sword or other weapon, and a well used shield should always be in the way of the enemy's weapon without being in the way of your own.

And so we come to 2 points i think have been missed both from the program and our own debate, skill and technique, and phyiscal strength and build of the warriors.
In the case of the Viking he is likely much bigger and stronger built than the samurai, and from practice and excercise would also be experienced, agile, and tricky to fight, the sagas often praise men for their wit in battle and damn those that attack blindly and with brute strength alone.
The samurai however would be used to either riding on horseback, and although he would've practiced often in his own way, i would consider the samurai likely to be less experienced in war. And although the samurai might have some skill in grappling, it would not be up to the standards of the most developed modern martial arts, whereas the viking through hard learning and experience would be used to duels to the death, and how to fight dirty.

Also it is an important factor that the viking would be used to fighting a two handed weapon as well as grappling and strength, and well, anything the samurai can throw at him, he's probably seen before. The samurai on the other hand may know how to fight an armoured man, but he would be greatly thrown by the shield which he would not have encountered before, having fought both fencers and longsword martial artists, it is remarkable how much it stuns them to be confronted with an unfamiliar obstacle such as the shield, and to someone who is not experienced in maneuvering around a shield it is difficult enough to fight a basic inexperienced man with a shield, if the man knows his shieldwork, the samurai would be unlikely to get past it in order to find the armour weakpoints to strike.
The shield is by no means an ultimate piece of equipment, but in this comparison, the samurai's unfamiliarity with the shield  would seem to be a major factor.

Kissaki 说:

You would have saved me a lot of time if you had read the posts in this thread more carefully. Now I shall have to smite thee:

点击展开...

well there was 48 pages, cut me a little slack

Kissaki 说:

Blaidd-y-nos 说:

Firstly, the katana cannot cut through mail,

点击展开...

It cannot cut Japanese armour either. This should cause alarm bells to go off, as it hints that maybe the katana wasn't used that much on the battlefield, anyway. At any rate, they tested the cut, not the thrust. And we did not get to see the state of the target underneath, either. But if the katana had to be used against armour, it would be used mainly to thrust.

The samurai had armour; they knew how to deal with armour.

点击展开...

fair point, and conceded.

this was shown in the program against stretched and taught mail, which is far less protective than it would be as hanging from the body, this fact was then conveniently ignored henceforth in the program.

点击展开...

As far as I remember, the maille was hanging down and not stretched. The katana dude even lifted the maille afterwards, though the camera never got to take a peek.

点击展开...

on refinding the episode on youtube, it was hanging indeed. My bad, but at least it still shows the strength of mail. even if you consider that the samurai's armour is equal where it covers, i would add that samurai armour (to my knowledge) has gaps at the armpit due to it's rigid nature, however mail due to it's ability to flex could include and protect the armpit and other joints.

Also the viking would have a thick gambeson underneath the mail shirt to absorb the physical brunt of the blow as well.

点击展开...

Viking armour would have consisted of wool or hides. No gambeson or maille. Only one single suit of maille has been found that can be accurately dated to viking age. Maille then, it seems, was exceedingly rare. Yoroi or do-maru, however, was not rare in Japan.

点击展开...

perhaps my use of the word 'gambeson' was indeed incorrect, but i believe a certain level of under mail padding was certainly implemented. There are also no finds of 12th century mail shirts archaeologically, do you mean to suggest that all the Normans had no mail? i'll have to dig up some written sources to be sure, but i'm fairly confident there was quite a lot of mail for the higher ranks, not for the lower perhaps, but the same is true of the samurai, who are all elites, equivalent perhaps to the Huscarls, and as a placeholder until i can find a better example, it is definitly written that harald hardraada wore a mail hauberk so long it reached his ankles.

As for the helmet, the spartan vs ninja episode showed a ninja sword (not identical but similar construction and properties) bounce off a bronze corinthian, bronze is significantly weaker than iron, so we can also assert that the samurai would be unable to wound the head at all.

点击展开...

And again, only one single helmet has been recovered from the viking age, and it is a cruder form of a Merovingian type helm, at that. To the extent that vikings used helmet, they would have been made of organic material, such as leather.

点击展开...

again i'm curious why you are only talking of archeological finds, there is plenty of imagery and sagas to suggest iron helmets, as well as it also seems highly unlikely when they have enough metal to produce such a wide range and variety of weaponry and finery, to then leave the head exposed, particularly as in a shield wall it is the first logical place to armour up, as the majority of blows would be from spears held high during the shoving press of the shield wall clash, and this is DEFINITLY attested to in sagas.

And so the first fact we can be sure of is that the samurai cannot do lethal damage to the viking. and that is without any other elements considered.

点击展开...

You base this on the effects of katana cut against maille. When we know this is exactly how a samurai would NOT attack.

点击展开...

then how would you say he would attack?

Next, the shield: in the program, they used a huge warclub thing to strike an incredibly poor example of a shield, and broke off a small section of the bottom of the shield where the bracing did not reach, and showing that the majority of the shield was unscathed, so the shield could well stand up to the weapon, then ignoring this evidence, they proceeded to claim the man's arm to be broken, which is incredibly unlikely, as the majority of the force was bled out by the shield, then there is the fact they tested against the shield, with it rigidly held by metal supports, whereas in reality the shield would be held in the arm, and the arm would bend to absorb the force, and likewise even the body itself would move with the force rather than be held like a metal frame in place to be struck.
And all this is only in the case of such a poorly made shield clearly ordered off the first and cheapest internet site available. A well made shield would perform FAR better, and as an example of this i give the experimental archaeology of http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_shields.htm Furthermore for my own reenactment group i have also conducted my own unacademic experimental archaeology with shields made of planks.

点击展开...

This discussion is rather irrelevant as there is no record of samurai ever using such a club.

点击展开...

fair point, i did go off on a bit of a rant, but i really didn't like how on the program they so quickly dismissed the shield's effectiveness, or even the difference between the technique of sword and shield vs two handed sword.

In short even if the shield was poorly made it would still perform well enough to block any samurai weapon.

点击展开...

I would tend to agree, but you have not presented anything which would allow you to generalize in this fashion.

点击展开...

i'm sure i don't know every samurai weapon, but i'm also yet to find anything short of a firearm that can ignore a shield.

Now we come to the only point i would consider where the samurai may have some advantage, or at least that the argument has contention to it. The bow.
counter to most western myths, the samurai were first and foremost horsearchers, they only drew their katana as a secondary emergency weapon if they got caught in a melee fight. This is also the reason behind their deflective style armour, which featured easy gaps for a skilled bladesman, however from the perspective of an arrow, presents a formidable and effective defense.

点击展开...

This is true of the early samurai, yes. As the samurai took to fighting on foot, however, they preferred naginata in melée, but by the time of the Sengoku jidai samurai fought in sufficiently organized forms that they used yari.

点击展开...

I don't really know enough about naginatas or yari to say much for sure, but it seems that the naginata was a cutting weapon more than for stabbing, so i would be surprised if it would make much difference from the katana, apart from having more momentum to knock aside then step in with the short saex. bearing in mind the viking was well familiar with the daneaxe as an opponent's weapon.

As archers the samurai were trained to ride within bow range, then turn to loose a single well aimed shot at the man in the best armour, and kill someone important to gain prestige and honour.
Vikings however also had bows, basic but effective longbows, and their technique varied from loosing a cloud of arrows as fast as possible to ensure you hit some part of a large enemy formation, to the more commonly mentioned in sagas when talking of good bowmen, hiding within a shieldwall, and standing up to take carefully aimed and timed shots at the opposing shield wall's members, particularly when they open themselves up from their shields to attack.
So the two warriors have similar styles with a bow, but the samurai's great warbow has legendary range and power, and could almost certainly outrange the viking's.

点击展开...

Actually, the bow of the early samurai was quite weak. Range and power improved significantly over time, though, but it seems the early bows up to the 11th-12th centuries had trouble penetrating armour. I certainly think viking bows were stronger than their contemporary Japanese counterparts by a good margin.

点击展开...

if we're talking early samurai then their armour would also be laquer and organic materials not steel, and both samurai and viking weapons would be capable of penetrating it.
if we're talking later samurai then their bows would probably be better than the viking counterparts.
In other words i'm sure it has been discussed earlier in the discussion that the two are greatly different in time period, so there seems little point mentioning the early samurai.

P.S. how about a debate rather than a smiting?

Edit: just to clarify, i didn't mean my first post as a "haha your all wrong, this is teh facts:..." i merely wanted to state my thinking behind my vote to the viking.

I'm glad the poll is going in favour of the Viking, but i would point out that a poll is merely the collective opinion of people, not based on fact.
On which point i would like to explain my support for the Viking; we will start with the points that the program 'deadliest warrior' from which this topic clearly arose, presented. Firstly, the katana cannot cut through mail, this was shown in the program against stretched and taught mail, which is far less protective than it would be as hanging from the body, this fact was then conveniently ignored henceforth in the program. Also the viking would have a thick gambeson underneath the mail shirt to absorb the physical brunt of the blow as well. As for the helmet, the spartan vs ninja episode showed a ninja sword (not identical but similar construction and properties) bounce off a bronze corinthian, bronze is significantly weaker than iron, so we can also assert that the samurai would be unable to wound the head at all.
And so the first fact we can be sure of is that the samurai cannot do lethal damage to the viking. and that is without any other elements considered.

Next, the shield: in the program, they used a huge warclub thing to strike an incredibly poor example of a shield, and broke off a small section of the bottom of the shield where the bracing did not reach, and showing that the majority of the shield was unscathed, so the shield could well stand up to the weapon, then ignoring this evidence, they proceeded to claim the man's arm to be broken, which is incredibly unlikely, as the majority of the force was bled out by the shield, then there is the fact they tested against the shield, with it rigidly held by metal supports, whereas in reality the shield would be held in the arm, and the arm would bend to absorb the force, and likewise even the body itself would move with the force rather than be held like a metal frame in place to be struck.
And all this is only in the case of such a poorly made shield clearly ordered off the first and cheapest internet site available. A well made shield would perform FAR better, and as an example of this i give the experimental archaeology of http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_shields.htm Furthermore for my own reenactment group i have also conducted my own unacademic experimental archaeology with shields made of planks.
In short even if the shield was poorly made it would still perform well enough to block any samurai weapon.

Now we come to the only point i would consider where the samurai may have some advantage, or at least that the argument has contention to it. The bow.
counter to most western myths, the samurai were first and foremost horsearchers, they only drew their katana as a secondary emergency weapon if they got caught in a melee fight. This is also the reason behind their deflective style armour, which featured easy gaps for a skilled bladesman, however from the perspective of an arrow, presents a formidable and effective defense.
As archers the samurai were trained to ride within bow range, then turn to loose a single well aimed shot at the man in the best armour, and kill someone important to gain prestige and honour.
Vikings however also had bows, basic but effective longbows, and their technique varied from loosing a cloud of arrows as fast as possible to ensure you hit some part of a large enemy formation, to the more commonly mentioned in sagas when talking of good bowmen, hiding within a shieldwall, and standing up to take carefully aimed and timed shots at the opposing shield wall's members, particularly when they open themselves up from their shields to attack.
So the two warriors have similar styles with a bow, but the samurai's great warbow has legendary range and power, and could almost certainly outrange the viking's.

So i would propose a scenario thus:
-it would be fairer to consider both warriors starting on foot, however i'll give the samurai a horse for this scenario
-the samurai would first grab his bow and begin to loose arrows before the viking could return with his own bow,
however the viking has a shield and raises it to the arrows, walking forward under the hail of arrows likely unscathed, there is a chance here that the samurai could win at this point if he gets a good shot and kills the viking before he gets close, however this is a matter of slim chance.
-now although the samurai could turn his horse and run, this would be dishonourable and he is determined to kill the viking to prove himself.
-either way the samurai would run out of arrows at some point, and the fight would progress to melee.
-the samurai still being on horseback, rides toward the viking at speed, and attempts to make a heavy cut to the viking's head, however the viking blocks with his shield (which i'll admit at this point could be weakened enough by arrows to splinter slightly, but the viking would also be favouring blocking with the iron boss of the shield more than the boards) and even if the katana gets behind the shield and strikes the helmet it will be unable to do any damage.
-meanwhile from the viking's point of view he is well protected and can aim a strike back at the horses legs, most likely with an axe or a spear. The crippled horse would topple, and either trap the rider, leaving him helpless to be finished off by the viking, or the samurai would manage to roll off without being caught, and the fight would progress to foot combat.
-now the samurai still cannot inflict any damage upon the viking, but the viking meanwhile could use the axe to hook into gaps or weak points of the armour, or even more likely, he would use the Saex, a short knife with a single edge and a viscious stabbing point, which was used when close to the enemy to make lightening fast jabs into lethal points such as the armpit, face, or gut.
-Furthermore whatever is left of his shield at this point can be used to bind the samurai's sword against his own body so he cannot attack while the viking sets about him with the saex. which would be even easier than usual seeing as the samurai would be completely un-used to shields.

In summary, the samurai would have a small opportunity to kill the viking with an arrow, but due to the shield, this would be a very slim chance indeed.
And thus is why I support the Viking.

I remember the 3 hour battle i had once, i had the battlesizer tool tweak the troops on battlefield to 200 max, then my town of Suno was attacked by the entire Khergit field army!
it was 42 vs 605
my force was mostly nord huscarls and vaegir knights, i think i only had 1 or 2 archers, but we managed to stay alive behind the battlements and slowly wait for the khergits to make their way up man by man, the battle itself was fairly monotonous so there's not much to describe apart from the nerve wracking experience of 3 hours solid of mount&blade combat. (btw, i also had the damage reduction off, so a stray arrow could have quite easily ruined my day)
nonetheless by the end there were 29 men remaining on the wall and mountains of dead numbering the entire 605 khergit horde.

I am Soooo going to Valhalla!

yeah seige fixes would be brilliant, tho AI too of course, it's embarrassing watching my troops get stuck and sit there getting peppered to death.
I think the main problem i find with seiges is fairly simple to fix tho; when your beseiging a castle or town and your troops upgrade or you want to switch weapons, you can't open any of these menus unless you break the seige, throwing away however long you sat there starving them and even destroying your seige equipment, please just make these menus available from the seige screen

My appologies since I cannot really be bothered checking 105 previous pages to see if anyone else has asked, but are there any mod tools available for this new .960 version?
more specifically i was hoping to find someway to edit the 'physics' so to speak of the game.
Any helpful advice is most certainly welcome 

Edit: moments after posting this i have found the board beneath it on .960 module system, however advice on modifying the game physics engine would still be much appreciated, thanks

i'm thinking the shield bash/charge would be a little pointless, the main use it could be put to would be to push back enemies which in a shield wall line would be useful and certainly something implemented in roughly period warfare.
However i think it would make more sense to rather than having a charge function, have a pushing system based on just the movement keys, something i've noticed in all versions so far has been that anoying point when you walk up to a line of enemies and just keep judering up against them which will ussually lead to a glitchy jump into the nearest space, what i'm seeing is that characters slide back if you push against them with the movement keys unless they push back, and i'm thinking if we use the strength trait as a basis for the force exhibited by each, then this would mean you could realistically push an enemy back, also meaning that if you add this to the combat AI a shield wall battle would have a real element of pushing each other back as described in many battles medieval and otherwise (most noteably viking/saxon i think)

i'm actually really interested in this idea now, tell me what you all think? particularly Blackthorn.

i know it'll probably be difficult to implement but i feel this would be a really great addition, baring in mind we're not talking overkill with men FLYING out of formation here... (unlike rome total war BI, *grumbles at ridiculous gimickyness*)

doorknobdeity 说:

Blaidd-y-nos 说:

also in terms of ratio between size of seige engine (of the catapult throwey thingy sort) and the damage delivered the mangonel actually beats the trebuchet.

点击展开...

I'm sorry, what? I thought the big deal about the counterweight trebuchet was that it did out-power the torsion catapult.

点击展开...

from what i understand, the trebuchet's advantage was the angle it could fire at; i.e. it could throw rocks up and over the walls to drop on anything behind them, much like the later gunpowder equivalent, the mortar.
the trebuchet would release the rock at a more steep upwards angle, meaning the projectile would more likely land from a more vertical angle than the mangonel's flat trajectory, the steeper angle probably also gave the trebuchet projectile more "air time" so it had a longer range.

i vote tortion mangonel.
unlike a trebuchet it doesn't need complex maths and understanding of balistics to construct/loose (correct equivalent of fire when not refering to a firearm) and it can also be constructed easily on-site rather than cannons and more complicated such.
also in terms of ratio between size of seige engine (of the catapult throwey thingy sort) and the damage delivered the mangonel actually beats the trebuchet.
simple and effective

hurrah! for new version, though this will of course mean  my two 2000 word essays will not be in for next week though. haha.

It's not like i had any choice though. It IS mount&blade afterall.