Balance problem with Doccinga defense

Users who are viewing this thread

kalarhan said:
Tingyun said:
Then come out and state a coherent rule and an actual argument beyond your personal opinion.

already done that on the first post, you are the one going off-topic for some weird reason  :mrgreen:

cheers

You are really confused about what an argument is. All you have offered is repeated unsupported opinions that killing lots of enemies on horseback is cheating. You haven't declared any kind of a clear line for permissible mounted combat, you haven't resolved why the Viking Conquest developers design decisions in weakening mounted combat shouldn't be treated as the proper balance, and you haven't offered anything beyond your own conclusory opinions.

And me asking you to state a clear argument is not off-topic. :wink:

But indeed, cheers! Happy gaming.
 
... i myself wasn't ever able to solo kill 100+ Danes on a horse, also not accordingly in Warband vanilla or Brytenwalda (both which i played a lot), not in a slightest way ... perhaps i would be able to solo kill a lot of Ruffians in VC, maybe 50+, in this way ... but then when finally the horse is killed and i must beat my way through on foot, blood loss will take its account somewhere also against Ruffians (i play always with all realism options on). I can't even imagine how this is possible versus a mix of low/medium/high/highest tier 100 + units not to speak of Danish Searaiders with its ca. 25 % mailclad swordunits, but well, i'm not the best possible combatant as player, so it might be me alone, who thinks so.

But Tingyun, i'm under the impression, that you confuse proper argumentation about the subjects of this thread and its sidethemes, when using this possible mounted "supercharger" play-aspect, as it would be a normal option to players and new VC players, and on the other side you explain that it needs a lot of skill (aka training) to achieve that point.

But i think, the thread has done its purpose already. What should be learned from it: Different players have different play experiences, and especially different play styles.
Example to the last mounted solo option, i personally wouldn't ever have the idea to fight alone versus 100 Danes or whatever in this direction, speak versus an enemy number where i as player am that outnumbered (i'm mere the historical realism gameplay player, and modding currently the game into this direction).
 
DaVincix said:
... i myself wasn't ever able to solo kill 100+ Danes on a horse,

100+ would be pushing it, soloing is safer in the 30+ range, because you worry about lucky shots.

DaVincix said:
perhaps i would be able to solo kill a lot of Ruffians in VC, maybe 50+, in this way

Actually, ruffians are MUCH harder to pull this on. They have slings with plenty of ammo and good range, so they will often kill your horse, and it takes forever to whittle down their ammo. And after they run out of ammo, their longer reach blunt and piercing weapons sometimes even pose more of a threat than swords and axes.

What makes this viable is that javelins and spears carried by vikings aren't able to hit your horse when circling at a fast gallop. Slings, some lucky shots will get in. I don't try this on ruffians.

Which gets to the historical realism point--heavy infantry in this mod, as historically, is pretty helpless against harassment from light cavalry and skirmishers (granted, it wouldn't generally be 1 lone light cavalry, and it wouldn't be a complete slaughter to the last man, but that is part of the same deviation from realism that the rest of the game and VC as well incorporates--the player is the great hero/skilled surgeon/commoner turned king who bends all the rules in his impossibly meteoric rise to power). Ruffians faring better against such tactics is pretty realistic actually.

DaVincix said:
25 % mailclad swordunits,

Riding speed bonus means they will die in 2 hits anyway, mail or not. As for swords, you watch their weapon, and from their timing and position you judge when to pull away at the last second, and your sword strikes them first and you don't get hit. Sometimes when they are positioned right you judge the risk too great and just pull away. The whole time, you are targeting only stragglers, those who break from the shieldwall. Especially if anyone retreats, then you run them down easily.

Sometimes you bait them into dropping their shields by riding alongside, and throwing a javilin when they raise their weapon. This is especially useful when they are down to few men, and the damage from the javilin will convince them to flee, meaning you just run them down and kill them with your sword once they break ranks.

It is all very fun actually, controlled and artful, I much prefer it to infantry combat. But everyone has personal preferences. :smile:

DaVincix said:
But Tingyun, i'm under the impression, that you confuse proper argumentation about the subjects of this thread and its sidethemes, when using this possible mounted "supercharger" play-aspect, as it would be a normal option to players and new VC players, and on the other side you explain that it needs a lot of skill (aka training) to achieve that point.

No, my argument was always that veterans of other hard mods like Pendor can and should reasonably start playing Viking Conquest on hard settings when they first begin the storyline. New VC player does not equal new Warband player, and in fact probably only very rarely is a new VC player not a Warband veteran, and many new VC players will already have extensive skill, and thus will properly begin playing on full damage and AI. That is why the topic came up in this thread--it was about the difficulty a new VC player (but experienced warband player) would use when playing the storyline.

In other words, the discussion was always about the skill level of experienced warband players coming from other mods.

DaVincix said:
i personally wouldn't ever have the idea to fight alone versus 100 Danes or whatever in this direction,

The argument was never just about soloing anyway.

Specifically, I cited two reasons why VC is (in some aspects) easier than Pendor, to refute the argument that VC is so exceptionally difficult that anyone should start on easy settings:

1) lack of enemy cavalry means the player doesn't face effective opposition when mounted himself. Note this isn't limited to soloing--the player can easily distract half the enemy army and make it easy on his own troops.

2) No limits on recruiting high level prisoners makes it easy to build up a super powerful army.

The last point is the more significant anyway, but was ignored. In Pendor, units over a certain level cannot be recruited from victory in battle, they must be trained by the player himself. Consequently the player is somewhat more limited in his ability to amass high level units. VC has no such restrictions, making it much easier to build an army of pure elites.

Obviously, I could have cited many more examples. Late-stage invading armies, etc--the point wouldn't be the "___ mod is the hardest" silliness, but rather to refute it. VC is a difficult mod, but experienced players of other difficult mods will quickly feel at home playing it, as it isn't more difficult than the other hardcore mods. Which is great, because the charm of VC is its wonderful immersive atmosphere.

DaVincix said:
But i think, the thread has done its purpose already.

Agreed. Happy gaming DaVincix, I enjoyed chatting with you! :smile:

 
Back
Top Bottom