搜索结果: *

Well judging from Hans Dellbruecks riding the cavallery is even now much to weak... Afair did he write that frankish laws based their whole army system around that armoured horseman with spears - e.g. just counting how many 'knights' the people of a region were obligated to bring in times of war, and counting footsoldiers just as the footnote towards what 1 'knight' meant.

Kreu2009 说:

I think new quest's should offer change to the gameplay. Im constantly hunting bandits so i really don't need a quest that wants me to hunt bandits.
Also quest's like building a well sound quite boring. What would I have to do as a player? Just wait at the village till the well is build?
Quests need to offer a challenge to the player and it must be possible to fail them.
A quest that is just a skillcheck is not a good idear in my opinion.

But yeah quests are one way to offer some change from the main gameplay loop, if done right.

点击展开...

I'm normally on you side. Though there are a lot of 'Talk to xyz quests' in many games that mostly just rely on one skillcheck.
But so far we've got such thin gameplay loops for most skills, that i honestly don't think it would feel all to boring if you'd have at least some variety for what you wait or travel (to buy wood + stones) or whatever for.

As i've written somewhere else, i'd really like to have other possibilites to play than 'just' mercanry and lord, so i'm totally for this.

Zydrate 说:

Where is the axe though?

点击展开...

I'm beginning to question what you think you're proving? I've shown you a pciture of a knightly riders axe from the 15th century. A picture from Odo of whatever riding with a mace... Guys charging each other with pointy sticks... now here the work of an unknown guy shwoing swords and axes.:

So can we now stop questioning if people actually did it?

Zydrate 说:

It would be unusual for cavalry to charge each other without their lances or spears. Can you give examples?

点击展开...

Again, i'm not saying axes were used often, or that knights always charged each other with anything. But don't you think making a quite dangerous game out of charging each other with less pointy sticks, might point in the direction of lancers actually having to deal with other lancers?

Zydrate 说:

Can you give more examples of axes being used as backup for the cavalry? Versus swords or other alternatives?

点击展开...

If you want we can search for other weapons. Here's the first (found before and axe

But to be honest, it's not as i've got an archive on such stuff. It's enough for me to have read that it was noted that knights began using different weapons than just sowrds.

Zydrate 说:

Haha then you're in even a worse situation with an axe, as your opponent will be armed with something like a long lance that can multiply its force combined with the horse's speed. An axe is not helping you with that one, unless you throw it but it's unlikely you'll hit him, even if you do it's prolly gonna be the blunt wooden side.

点击展开...

Erm.. i thought we were speaking about side weapon next to a lance? Sword vs. Axe. Or Maxe vs. Axe. Not nessecarily wheelock pistol vs. Sword..

Zydrate 说:

I never claimed, or meant (since my first comment is semi-ironic anyways) axes were never used on horseback, I'm saying it wouldn't be a preferable option due to nature of horseback fighting, and the design of axes. I'm just gonna copy and paste a comment on a reddit thread as it does a good job at explaining:

Maybe a pole axe? Though even that may be too heavy to manage on horseback and again has the same issue of being stuck in the enemy unless you use the blunt hammer side. Besides heavy polearms weren't used on horseback to my knowledge, as the cavalry's purpose isn't being anti-armour.

点击展开...

Well to my knowledge the main idea on how to counter a heavy cavalry charge has been mostly a counter charge with your own heavy cavalry in the medieval times. Correct me if i'm wrong...

Other than that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Horseman's_axe_-_1475.jpg <- horsemanns axe. And most likely used to fight heavier armored enemies. As the surface of impact is different from swords it's effectiveness is supposedly better. But who knows...

Staal 说:

+1

I don't believe there needs to be new cultures, unless they split out the current ones into subgroups. The game should stay around the European-Middle East zone. If they enlarge the map and add more kingdoms that would be grand.

点击展开...

Nahhhh... rebase it around Khuzait and Aserai and add Persia to India

Zydrate 说:

Even lances and spears on horseback were single use most if not all the time. And it's a goddamn axe not a sabre for pete's sake, how do you expect to pull it out, you'd either let go of the axe or drag the whole body with you, if you've the strength. It's vastly inferior to the alternatives in reach as well.

点击展开...

Nice theory. Reality seems to have had a different oppinion than your purely theoritcal appraoch, so i'd guess you're wrong?
I mean i also don't know why we had 'Black Riders' (armored horseman with frontloading flintlocks), as that sounds ridiciously bad, given how you've to reload such guns. But it existed for a short period.

Zydrate 说:

Think he means everyone else runs faster relative to the player. I stripped my guy naked and even then he was out-runned by spearmen in full mail armour

点击展开...

Well ... Athletics Skill would be the answer i guess.

**** that's a pirceless discovery if true.
Now it feels even more as if someone took the wrong path sometime ago and is now trying to force his way through instead of simply accepting his error and turn back. I mean how many screws are there now to fiddle around with XP rates? And all because someone thought the old way of exponentially more costly levels and only marginally better payoffs from higher skills was to simple or something...

I'd like to see that as a feature. Really loved the old mod.

SmattlePattle 说:

I suppose I got hung up on the word "overhaul" and took it to mean having to greatly change existing/core mechanics.

I would say that generational play is the sort of thing that's likely to take the full & complete release of features (and perhaps some mod additions) to realize its potential.

点击展开...

Well because maybe they're actually changes of core systems...
You need to design your game around the idea of the ability to be able to put a heir (or even better some kid who won't be heir) into a place of power. For one that place of power needs to exist. So what positions of power are there currently? As far as i can tell i see like 3 steps in the hierachy. Mercenary Captn, Lord, King - not much more.
Now we could argue about Alliances and Marriage system - but even CK II failed in doing that well. I mean just read up on the stories 50% of the time it's not about gaining much by marriage, but killing the bad heir to get a better one to take over your place and then keep on fabricating claims.
Also you'd need a character system that actually greates different roles. I'm saying like 2,5 currently. Fighter and Trader (the second with tactics and a 250 skillpoint perk) - though to be honest, as figher you'll always concentrate on foot/horse, 1 of 3 melee weapons, 1 of 3 ranged weapons.

And that's again not looking at the split between fast aging to be able to play out handfuls of generations and slow aging to experience huge character growth. Or better said experience many generations and feeling accomplishment with leveling any given character.

Ted Striker 说:

Why ever fight on foot? Get an army of just horse archers and lancers and you can win every battle no problem. Command them to stand their ground, fire at enemies until they get too close, move them, repeat. When you run out of arrows, retreat and immediately attack again. Vs a lot of cavalry it's not as easy but you don't usually see a lot of cavalry.

点击展开...

Sieges... no other reason i think...

@Rychlas
Thanks for the work you put into that.
Besides an impact of smithing on stamina, i'd like to see that the stamina does not onyl recover when waiting. This way you could at least to smithing inbetween doing other things.

I like both games with inheritance and childs (CKII , the whole Guild series from "Die Fugger 2" onwards, even the Sims to some extent) and ones without (Skyrim, Civilization, Kenshi).

But given the character skill/level system with perks, the normal gameplay speed and the lack of 'social' character interaction, actual differential character for characters and a lot of place to develop inheritances - i don't think aging and children add much.
I'd like good clan system, with finding great people and getting them into a 'semi' family. Something like Robin Hoods merry bortherhood or whatever. But even for that the only thing we got so far a new arbitrary rules on what we can own.

To put it differently, the sims without the ability to design a house and actually impact the education of children is lacking. CKII or the Guild don't die by having a deeply conflicting character focusing levelling/skill system.

So far i'm all for them not only adding an option to stop aging, but actually abandon the whole idea, because they're currently trying to jump the horse the wrong way. They should rather concentrate on the 'to confusing and hard management' (don't remember their actual words on them scrapping village development) systems on diverse personality characters, actual character interactions, deeper politics with actual infleuncing abilities than what they have, before going for 'Generations'.
Maybe start with NPC armies not being always lead by sole nobles. Maybe by having every faction have 'Spymasters' (as in CKii) or such than just us with our companions....

Then again, maybe they've all that planned out and nearly finished and just bad luck has given me the idea that those systems aren't even planned out yet. It's early access after all and they said they've some system yet not implemented and said kingdom management was somewhat limited currently...

Maximum997 说:

Thats why they need to change only ONE thing to make it perfect.

Make the "global" XP bank that will lvl up you instead of just "rise few skills 100 times to lvl up" Becouse it is obvious that it is more easy to rise skill from 5 to 6 then from 300 to 301. Thats why right now you are super swardsman and archer, but you are throwing axes to looters cos want another lvl up.

点击展开...

I'm not sure it would be perfect, as i still think the skill groupings (through attributes) and the overlap of focus point and attributes is strange and in my oppinion unnessecary hassle, but otherwise i completly agree with this being a needed thing.

Personally i'm not all too much a fan of the cultural troop themselves - as i think the concept is too static.
While a lot of exchange of ideas takes years, i personally think a lot of that has to do with limited experience/equipment/production capability and quite a lot less with 'cultural' heritage. So i'd rather see what you can recruit limited by 'training' and equipment availability than where on the map it is. IF the Ceasar wants he can order his legionnairies to wear polar bear capes... i just don't think he'll easily gather enough of them to actually equip people with it....

Personally i think the current travel map does actually stand against hunting as anything than something triggered.
So (seldomly) random spawned hunting camps (similar need to be spotted as hideouts) - where you can join the hunt. With animals being complete low morale troops with the same visibility debuff as bandits in their hideouts, so they directly flee when they spot you and are quite agile.

Now i'd really like to see how a map like the one of Arcanum would feel. So map which was supposedly a huge seamlessly world without much detail (as it was seemingly procedually generated), but a travel map that simply cut up from that and showed thew 'few' points of interests (that were devloped by hand). But if you wanted you could travel through the huge generated map.
For Arcanum this was imo not really worth the effort, but if you'd wanted to add hunting or such, it might be cool. Though i guess it's a lot harder to pull off with the economic system and all that on top.