Blackthorn said:
Maybe people will be more willing to listen to you if you did not speak like a massive ass.
Archers; Too heavily armed
- Thread starter thesneakster
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Maybe people will be more willing to listen to you if you did not speak like a massive ass.
FrisianDude
Archduke
Since when is making concise and correct arguments anything like 'massive ass.' Couple that with the fact that idiots quite frequently resurrect threads like this only because they want to spew their ill-conceived notions of Hollywood-Medieval warfare and I'm sure you can imagine that someone who has actually put effort in studying the subject might get a little bit annoyed because they have to repeat everything they say at least thrice before the thread is left alone for half a month and the circus starts again.Jakob Zaborowski said:
FrisianDude said:
When he calls people ignorant and not good at the game when dislike a certain thing with the game?
AWdeV said:
He had said them several times previous, I only quoted it so everyone knew who I was talking about.
Blackthorn
Squire
... whereas you are both clearly witty and a gentleman. I salute your ability to mash at the keyboard with bile and ignorance. That must have taken your keyworker a long time to teach you.
x x x
codex
Recruit
I don't that they are to heavily armed, my reasoning is that they suck at most points and all you need is a shield anyway. I understand at some points they get to your breaking point because they just wont stop attacking you but its not that hard to kill them. Even your on troops aren't OP, it seems to me that the melee those all the work for me.
bjcs333
Banned
True i think that archers are not only to powerful in melee but also in range which is why i think they should:
1.have no clothes at all
2.have the ability to move taken away from them
3.Instead of a bow they have to use stones
4.no swords they can just use their bare fists!
5.only 10 hp
6.when ever they throw a stone they must take 60% of the damage they cause
after this i think those over powered basterds should be pretty balenced.
1.have no clothes at all
2.have the ability to move taken away from them
3.Instead of a bow they have to use stones
4.no swords they can just use their bare fists!
5.only 10 hp
6.when ever they throw a stone they must take 60% of the damage they cause
after this i think those over powered basterds should be pretty balenced.
DragzJoker
Regular
yup, they are too well armed to fight in melee the Nord veteran Archer has A very good sword and a Brynie
RedHaze
Recruit
Looking at Norse culture, whom the Nords are based of, pretty much every child knew how to swing a sword, or just generally be effective in melee, and I don't think using a bow would impact that. Children trained from a young age in swordsmanship. They invented the predecessor of chess.
The Norse didn't generally get their armour from their homeland - they stole it in raids from other lands, like the Franks. Thus it makes sense for a Nord VETERAN (highest tier of archers in the Nord faction) Archer to be well equipped, as he'd have seen quite a few battles and probably would have a good brynie, as well as good sword skills and a good sword to go with it.
I think their Veteran Archer's effectiveness in melee makes up for the fact that they are one of the only factions to not have cav (besides Rhodoks, who just suck badly). Of course, a Veteran Archer shouldn't be able to fight as well as a Nord Warrior (both the same tier - 3rd), but I don't know if they can.
The Norse didn't generally get their armour from their homeland - they stole it in raids from other lands, like the Franks. Thus it makes sense for a Nord VETERAN (highest tier of archers in the Nord faction) Archer to be well equipped, as he'd have seen quite a few battles and probably would have a good brynie, as well as good sword skills and a good sword to go with it.
I think their Veteran Archer's effectiveness in melee makes up for the fact that they are one of the only factions to not have cav (besides Rhodoks, who just suck badly). Of course, a Veteran Archer shouldn't be able to fight as well as a Nord Warrior (both the same tier - 3rd), but I don't know if they can.
Illusive Man
Sergeant at Arms
I don't know if this was mentioned before, but the game is about Calradia, not the real world, so it doesn't have to be historically accurate. I think archers are fine the way they are now.
The sword was more common than people generally think among the vikings, but not as a war weapon but a status symbol. Most swords were not of very good quality, and some were of such poor quality as could only have been used as a status symbol for someone who couldn't afford better. Most used either axes or spears in combat. And though every free man had to own a weapon, to say that they were all trained from childhood is a bit of a stretch. They weren't particularly better or worse at fighting than anyone else in Europe.RedHaze said:
Hnæfatafl is not the predecessor of chess. Chess has its origins in India, and Hnæfatafl bears no resemblance to chess. For one thing, the sides are not equal: the white attackers outnumber and surround the red defenders. The white attackers' goal is to trap the red king (there whites have no king of their own), and the king's goal is to escape to one of the four corners.
While it is true that most of the Norse war gear were not made domestically, they were imported, not raided, from the Franks in particular.
It does make sense for them to be well equipped, yes. Of course, when this thread was originally made, there was no Nord faction in the game yet. But the point still stands -- especially, as you point out, because they are the only non-cavalry faction in the game.
Amman d Stazia
Master Knight
just a general request....
can we all stop saying 'vikings' when we actually mean "people of Scandinavian origins, who engaged in military activity between the 8th and 12th centuries"
....
just as we would not say 'bucaneers' to mean "people of British origins, who engaged in military activity between the 16th and 19th centuries"
can we all stop saying 'vikings' when we actually mean "people of Scandinavian origins, who engaged in military activity between the 8th and 12th centuries"
....
just as we would not say 'bucaneers' to mean "people of British origins, who engaged in military activity between the 16th and 19th centuries"
theelder
Sergeant
aye,just grab a good shield,take a pitch fork,stab the archer on the eyeCristin said:
actually,heavy armors doesn't matter to me since they're not so good at melee combat,and oh come on! have you ever seen the roman archers? they wear a heavy armor and it's historical accurate
Archers may have had a sword, which is what they are given in game. Crossbow men were more heavily armed, warband has pavaise crossbowmen who used a huge shield, and had a sword, in real life they were often rich men.
It's accurate, but even if it wasn't, warband is medieval themed, not medieval history.
It's accurate, but even if it wasn't, warband is medieval themed, not medieval history.
FrisianDude
Archduke
I 'suggested' that long ago because it did seem awesome. There's just one problem; the crossbowmen load by putting their crossbow to the ground; you'd get stuck with a bayonet. 