Search results for query: *

Ah, the memories  It's been ages since I last played WB or Hunt. Have there been any servers up lately?

Hey congrats Joe, been ages since I last checked this place but I'm glad your mod got its own subforum. I remember we had a great time at the Multiplayer premiere last year.

Been a while since I've last been around these parts. Sooooo... have there been any Hunt servers up lately? 

Deceased, huh? May it rest in peace.

Seriously, now, the key to high morale is getting a lot of varied food (the bonuses stack): You'll get more benefits from dried meat, fish, cheese, apples and bread than, say, a huge pile of just meat.

Secondly, you must win victories. The more enemies you defeat, the better -- conversely, if you lose or retreat, your party's morale will plummet.

Superfab said:

You're right it's always the same... but the same is the best mod evaaaaaaaaa.

Click to expand...

Damn straight! Chess is always the same too... for some reason I've become bored a lot faster with all the elaborate mods with plenty of stuff, whereas this simple mod based on asymetrical gameplay (basically melee and stealth vs range and numbers) has given me countless hours of enjoyment.

I just noticed that the mod was in alpha stage (I kinda forgot about Warband during the summer) and I just had a quick look at it. It looks terrific -- too bad there aren't all that many players! The mood is great, and the flavor is like an exquisite brew, made from distilled and concentrated Dan Emmett and Stephen Foster songs with a touch of Awesome, Tennessee whiskey, triple sec and Coke. But I digress. Great job, Shredz, I'm looking forward to seeing how this evolves.

Archonsod said:

There was no patterning, but the contract system could produce over 100 muskets per week quite easily in England alone, which would certainly sound like mass production to me. I'd have said production to industrial standards would have been a defining factor in industrialised production myself though

Click to expand...

You are correct, of course, and we're back to the putting-out system I was talking about earlier. The British army obtained its small arms from contracts with private manufacturers around London and Birmingham well into the 19th century, which was a highly decentralized, small workshop system which used highly skilled labour rather than a factory system.

The sheer number of workshops involved in this system makes the actual number of muskets made per week by one given workshop quite small, unlike in a mass production scenario in which one given workshop would attempt to produce as many units as possible; this was merely compensated for by contracting with a large amount of private manufacturers to make up for the slow production rate. That's why I disagree with the mass production label.

Aeon221 said:

Not true. The Venetian Arsenal was mass producing ships back in the early 12th century and may very well be the source of the word.

Also, there are tons of examples of Roman era mass production of everything from grain (at enormous industrial mills) to pottery to weapons, in what would most likely be considered a somewhat primitive factory today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbegal_aqueduct_and_mill

And don't forget that the Romans famously assembled ships during the Punic Wars from numbered standardized prefab parts built all over the place.

Click to expand...

Of course there have been previous examples of mass production -- most notably Roman fabricae in the late Roman Empire -- but in the early modern era, the first actual "factories" would be royally sponsored manufactories, mostly in the late-17th and 18th century, but even those remained pretty small-scale.

The main method of production was the domestic system and the putting out system, which were a far cry from mass production or factory work. The early modern period was, in the West, a largely pre-industrial society.

Votadini said:

Still, when professional sword troops eg. Katana Samurai reached the ashigaru (peasant) lines it was a massacre in hand to hand so it balanced out.

Click to expand...

You do realize that there never was such a soldier as a "Katana Samurai"? Shogun: Total War II is woefully inaccurate in that regard, don't use it as a source. Samurai always carried katana as a sidearm, but it was never their main weapon (that mostly being either a polearm or a bow) and you wouldn't see units of samurai charging into battle only armed with katanas.

Votadini said:

So basically, although the weapons weren't "mass produced" by today's standards - guns around the world certainly were produced en masse to fuel the ever-present warfare in feudal Japan alone.

Click to expand...

But these guns were produced by individual gunsmiths without industrial standards (which is what defines mass production). You could produce large amounts of goods via a domestic or putting out system, but it still doesn't qualify as mass production.

nox said:

If you think you're unhappy about this, imagine how the whole cultures and societies felt who had invested much in traditions that involved swords and cavalry?  When a dirt poor peasant can end your deal with a mass produced firearm, you become a lot less special.

Click to expand...

Mass production didn't exist at the time -- heck, there wasn't even such a thing as a "factory".

I'm sick and tired of always seeing the same old hackneyed tropes when talking about the early modern period.

It was certainly possible to reload flintlock and wheellock pistols on horseback quite comfortably, as was done by all sorts of cavalry well into the Napoleonic wars. In both systems, the pan was covered, and they were very reliable (the difference being, mainly, that the flintlock system was cheaper, simpler, more reliable and had less moving parts, but both got the job done very well).

There certainly were dedicated matchlock cavalry weapons (notably petronels, which were carried slung from the chest and were pressed against the chest to be aimed and fired with one hand from horseback) though I can imagine that the system was far more cumbersome to load on the move.

However, loading and firing guns on horseback was the mainstay of the caracole technique of the period, which involved advancing towards the enemy at a trot with the first rank firing its pistols and retiring to the back of the formation, where they would reload while the other ranks fired and wheeled to the back.

This technique was meant for pistol-armed cavalry to soften up infantry ranks and open gaps in infantry formations to open the way for heavy cavalry and lancers to charge.

Gr0vZ said:

True! The koncerz was used by the Winged Hussars if I'm not mistaken? In case the lance broke etc?

Click to expand...

Yes, it was a spear-sword, about 1.60 meters long...



I do know that early 20th-century sabres such as the Patton, 1908 Pattern sword and M1907 Puerto-Seguro sabre could manage the same reach as a lance if the rider leaned forward in the saddle and made a full extension -- so the koncerz could possibly even outreach a lance!

A very original and impressive weapon.

My current loadout is a Good Miquelet Carbine with Heavy Bullets and a koncerz (which I even use on foot). It offers the best mix of accuracy, stopping power and mobility imho (I always fight on horseback) and the koncerz is just badass for ride-by stabbings.

Use the koncerz on horseback, you won't regret it. It's thrust-only, but the reach is epic, and I can even stab lancers before they manage to hit me.

Votadini said:

Machine guns were in use during the American War of Independance - as early as that Puckle guns ftw.

Click to expand...

You do know that the Puckle gun was never used in actual conflict, right? (Well, apparently John, duke of Montagu bought some in 1722 for an expedition to colonize St Vincent and St Lucia, but the expedition aborted and they were never used)

PANTERA. said:

Darmoth said:

Archonsod said:

Pike and shot ruled the day, not artillery

It's fine. Technically the bow is still a superior weapon than the musket. Where the musket wins is that anyone can learn to use one in an hour, whereas to be an effective archer requires years of training.

And lancers remained a core of an army until WW1 ...

Click to expand...

So... why did lancers go out of style around WW1...? 

Click to expand...

Trench warfare?

Click to expand...

Repeater rifles... they were already pretty much useless against infantry firepower in the later part of the 19th century, but machineguns really put an end to them.

You dare criticize WFaS? You are a doubleplusungood crimethinking duckspeaker. Ungoodthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc.

Seriously, now, I think the biggest flaw is, by far, the lack of character creation. RP elements were always the weakest spot in the Mount&Blade franchise, but they've done away with what little you could use to experiment with different builds. That is doubleplusungood.

Ruben Thomas said:

http://i53.tinypic.com/52z80g.jpg

Deshavi had a sex change, there's lots of stuff from Mount and Blade: Warband leftover in this game, it's probably just a glitch what you experienced though. Don't worry about it

Click to expand...

There's also a woman who thinks she's a guy, probably a M&B character ported over, can't remember which. The Lithuanian guy is Rolf, and I think I spotted a couple other blatant character conversions...

Just WFaS. We don't call Mount&Blade: Warband M&B:WB, we call it Warband.

I think the problem is mainly that most M&B players are used to using bows rather than guns. After playing a lot of musket mods you really get the hang of them, and I actually like them better than the bows. They have an inherent level of inaccuracy you need to factor in, but once you're used to it you get a "feel" for the hit probability you're going to get. Once you know where you're supposed to aim, you can hit targets pretty reliably, even at long ranges.