Awesome Games, But I have a few suggestions!

[sci]

Just bought the game after hearing about it in the gaming forums of somethingawful, great games, but here's a few suggestions:

• 
  - Except for the first town, the other towns should be text only. It's boring to have to run around to talk on people
  - Weapons, items, etc could break down after time. You could get them repaired
  - Random Decapitation and impalement!
  - People could get knocked down if you ran into them with your horse! But then your horse could get hurt
  - It would be fun if you could rename your horse
  - Ennemy Heroes! Maybe you have some sort of dark long lost twin roaming around the world looking for you.
  - Siege Modes!
  - Some sort of underground mafia type loan shark character in every city! Loan money from him, and you could do jobs for him to pay him back, like kill innoncent people who owe money to him! If you cant pay him back, He could send Asssasin squads against you! You can fight them to death or becoming a slave yourself! When you become a slave, you spend a while in the salt mines where your stats decreases. You are eventually freed when the loan shark thinks you have done enough time, or you die in prison killed by one of his assassins sent to finish you off
  - With enough money, you can build your own castle! Other gangs can try to siege your castle too!
  - A Statistics screen that show how much time you played, how many people you played, your armies, etc etc etc

 

[Suhe-Bator]

...and multiplayer

 

[Mad Larkin]

If wishes were horses, we all would be eatin' steak.
Or summink

But anyhoo...
The things i side with from that list is:

Enemy heroes.
I mean, come on. Coupled with a basic morale system this would rock unimaginable amounts.
The two warbands clash, and the hero wades through the melee, killing everything on his path, and finally squaring on the furious villain.
A heroic duel ensues!
At last, the villain stumbles, his sword falling from limp fingers.
"Curse you...", he gurgles and collapses.
Disheartened at the loss of their leader, the enemy warband breaks from combat
But it could lead into some unsavoury sniping tactics though


Anyway, just throwing an example to armagan...

 

[HiredGun]

Heh I love this idea. Having to duel one on one with a superhuman boss type enemy after a huge epic battle would be sweet.

 

[Mechstra]

Not after, but during...

 

[GhostThaxian]

I do like most of those ideas, but I hate when weapons have a wearing life, no fun when your constantly worrying about your sword breaking.

 

[NorphTehDwarf]

yep. one of the main reasons I dislike morrowind, right there.

 

[Kevar]

I just want dual wielding. Pretty sure that isn't in the game? ( Only level 6, getting my serial today ) I suppose it'd be odd working out a system to block with those. Might ruin the balance a bit. Ah well.

 

[Mad Larkin]

Hmm... Dual wielding?

Not an entirely silly idea. You'd get the advantage of 2x the swings, but no ranged defense.
I just love the mental image of an berserker hurling himself at a enemy mob waving two axes

But this is just daydreaming... Coding DW would be a nightmare, i think

 

[Balor]

Well, question is, while fancy, DW was almost never used. It require 10x time more training, and simple sword+shield combination is WAY more effective. Forget that AD&D and MUD stuff.
Also, that would require coding specific attacks and blocks, and finding material for that (due to it's low popularity) will be a pain.. unless it's rapier + dagger, but that is outside of our time period (we might as well include guns, then).
Why two-weapon fighting is so lame? Because when you attack, you don't just swing your weapon around. You utilize your whole body by twisting it, using your legs, etc - well, if you are into boxing, for instance, you'll understand, principles are similar. Now, imagine how you will utilize that by wielding two weapons... right, very poorly. If you are ambidextrous, fast as a snake and don't wanna lug a shield around - using two weapons may be a good choice, but secondary weapon will be used mostly for parries and short 'surprise' attacks anyway.
DW fighting is heavily overhyped and misunderstood, like destructive capabilities of katanas and weights of armor .

 

[Hellkite86]

DW fighting is heavily overhyped and misunderstood, like destructive capabilities of katanas and weights of armor

Agree with you.
Ты, часом, не реконструктор ?

 

[Kevar]

Yeah, I know dual wielding IS silly realistically, I just think it's kind of neat in some cases.

 

[Balor]

Well, it's not silly - it's can be very handy is certain circumstances, and with heavy training... however, sword+shield is MUCH easier to learn. Why crossbows replaced bows? Because, while bows are much faster, can be even more powerful, etc (well, better then xbows in every way), you don't need to train from childhood and be nigh-superhuman to learn to shoot crossbows.
Same with DW... however, I remember a comment on a board where a tournament was discussed (quoting from my memory) "I was very surprised at this guy's performance - that's the first time I've seen someone who used two weapons being able to stand against sword+shield". That guy they discussed didn't even win anything, as I recall - but that he could be 'on par' was very surprising. Makes you think that DW is not all that good, huh?

 

[Mad Larkin]

Yeah... Good points there.
Come think of it i can remember only 1 historical person who used 2 weapons at once. A some-or-other Viking king who was crazy as hell and ultimately got his head chopped off by a Brit

 

[Ferox]

For the towns I had hoped that the rest of the towns would eventually be like the original. I dont like just having a page of text with options...



other then that I agree with most all the suggestions stated.


as for the duel wielding, I can tell you from my medieval combat experience, you do NOT want to be in a battle with two swords unless you plan on it being your last.... or of course you are legolas.


the group I fight with doesnt even train in the style because its useless except for maybe 1 on 1.

 

[Balor]

Heh, more people with real historical fencing experience can't be bad .
And it's indeed one of the most realistic games I've seen, and very fun to boot. A few animations need a bit of tweaking, I think, but all in all - it's - it's nearly authentic - not something you see in computer games nowaydays.

 

[jothki]

The only dual-weilding that I can recal was from some version of Romeo and Juliet, I forget which. That was for specialized dueling, though, anyone who tried that on an actual battlefield would probably get gutted by the first opponent with a shield or longsword.

 

[NorphTehDwarf]

Yep. All that fancy fencing crap wouldn't help you at all against a few Romans, Normans, or Saxons. The romans must be my favorite example. They had huge shields and relatively small swords that were good for poking out of the shield wall and pulling back to repeat, well, repeatedly, like a piston (of DEATH).

 

[Loki Liesmith]

Well, question is, while fancy, DW was almost never used. It require 10x time more training, and simple sword+shield combination is WAY more effective. Forget that AD&D and MUD stuff.

while not in keeping with the Medieval European feel of the game, I would like to point out that the Japanese Samurai, most notably Miyamoto Musashi, dual wielded swords.

 

[Ferox]

just dont call me a fencer!


I call the fencer types " swishy pokies" , id rather charge a shield wall and kill some guys with my poleaxe

while not in keeping with the Medieval European feel of the game, I would like to point out that the Japanese Samurai, most notably Miyamoto Musashi, dual wielded swords.

he was the exception....


Like i said .... duel wielding is for dead people, or elves..