Casciothaen, carrying of weapons, and some other weapons

Users who are viewing this thread

Anthony

Knight
Sorry for the title; I don't know the English equivalent, except the rather unwieldy definition of what it means; wearing a shield on one's back for defense. My suggestion is to allow a shield that isn't in use to be slung on the back of the character; it would not provide defense from all attacks to the back, but perhaps arrows and what not could be stopped by it, or perhaps the occassional attack to the rear (or simply stop attacks to the mid-section or upper part of one's back). Lots of folks did this; Saxons, Norse, Gaels, etc.; it wasn't really much in defensive posturing, it was how one slung their shield. However, it did provide real protection from attack.

Further; carrying weapons. Is there a way that perhaps one could could increase the number of weapons they carry perhaps? Based on baldrics, wearing additional frogs and what not. The balance would be how much weight one would end up carrying, and one still wouldn't be able to really carry much beyond small weapons (throwing knives and the like), but it wasn't difficult for one to carry numerous additional little weapons, not just a few of them; larger weapons would of course be a different situation.

Of other weapons; why no slings or flails? Slings because they were a common hunting weapon, cheap, and could greatly increase the damage one could deal with a stone (and were longer range and more accurate than the average bow). Flails I suppose would be a bit of physics issue, but they'd certainly look great. Others; perhaps shorter spears that are used overhand (IE; Gaelic lances; I'm an Irish historian, can't help it; all Gaels fought with spears overhand), and darts (1/3rd length javelins with weighted heads that were meant to break holes in chain and punch holes in helmets).

What about more clothing? Again. ...Gaelic clothing. Real Gaelic clothing, not kilts (kilts are a very late invention). Gaels wore, either (depending on their social status) tight trews, a thigh length shirt (not too different than what's available), but also wore knee-length shirts, and were otherwise bare-legged. With it was worn a mantle (often plaid). There were also great variety of robes worn by aristocracy (nobility is erroneous; the Gaelic governments lacked set 'nobility', and one's station was based more on how much wealth they could accrew via business or warfare, coupled with their skill in combat and command). There would also be cloaks, but I'm certain those have been mentioned. More variety in 'heraldic' armor would be a definite plus; various designs, colorations, etc. on the tabard. Or, make the tabard its own piece of clothing with great variety of design; these were common throughout most of medieval Europe, and would look best with great variety, and worn by all of the upper class troops (conversely, such things weren't worn by Gaels, though Norman-Scots in the lowlands {such as William Wallace and Robert the Bruce} wore them over their armor, since they were, after all, technically Normans in culture).

More variety in shields, as well. More than kite and round shields were used (and even those could do with some variety of design; really, even the same stats but with various designs to choose would be fun, such as tabards; round shields could use a bit more 'regular' appearance such as just round wood planks unpainted/unrimmed, and such). Oval shaped shields were still in use (vikings sometimes used them, some cavalry employed them, the Welsh used them, etc.), as well as other shapes, such as sexagonal and hexagonal (six and eight side) shields, and crescent shaped shields were sometimes used in parts of the steppe (though, did that fall out of use by the middle ages? not my area). Bucklers I'm certain have been mentioned, and would be nice as a cheap, simple shield, that could perhaps be used by peasants and militias, and players who need something cheap at the outset. Even those could have a bit of variety in shape and appearance.

My real complaint with the game (which I greatly enjoy) is a lack of variety, I suppose. I'm aware it would take a while to add much, but I'm not demanding of impatient about it; just, I think those could add something to the feel of the game. Immersion via available equipment, and how sides dress and such, would help. Ultimately, I'd hope for more factions and such one could assist, and more complex jobs and larger battle capable (including battles where one doesn't command all of the force they're allied to).
 
Welcome to the forums Anthony :
Recent sling thread - http://forums.taleworlds.com/viewtopic.php?t=4351
The main suggestions list - http://forums.taleworlds.com/viewtopic.php?t=3440

About shields - from what i learned shields main advantage was keeping it far from the body, so even when an arrow/blow would penetrate a shield, it would hit air.
When the arrow/weapon penetrated the base your hand would obviously get damaged, thus the invention of Boss which was a metal disc screwed to the middle and offered enhanced protection for the hand issue.
Therefore while shields would protect you in an extent, it wouldn't be the same like *blocking* but rather *slowing* projectiles/hits, which means an armor bonus instead of a shield (gamewise) bonus.

More clothing and especially heraldry have been posted numerously on the various heraldry threads :
Ingolifs said:
Heraldry: 1 2 3 4
Slings and flails are a good idea, and have been suggested before (like i mentioned for the slings). the only cons mentioned were developing time. (flails are more complex to add than, say, a new sword), so we just need to wait and see what happens.

Variety of shields has also been requested in various threads (i remember posting something samiliar in a two handed weapons thread not long ago), so again patience is a virtue.

Fortunatly more diverse equipment and factions is something everyone have always look for here, and have been improved with each version, so personally i just hope for the best here.
As time passes people start wanted things changed rather than added (call it being "picky" over time), i hope you never get this illness and i get soon cured from it :smile:
 
I can't say I would like to see a few things changed, but I find I have a habit of suggesting from the point of view of the mechanics as they are or can be (without changing things), rather than asking anything be changed. For example, I'd prefer if armor (at least some) was actually worn over clothing (such as chain, which was worn over one's clothing, often with an acton or cotun under it, but it wasn't really a 'suit'). However, within reason of the mechanics, I'd just prefer to see a great deal of variety. If one is doing a kind of 'medieval Europe fantasy', there really is a great variety of things to be tapped; many cultures with vast amounts of clothing, armor, and equipment. I do enjoy what is in the game as it is, but I find my greatest flaw is a constant desire for more. And I understand how you mean about shields, but didn't quite understand the game mechanics of it (as, in real life, it is technically 'blocking' an attack, but due to its proximity, as you said, it's more essentially 'slowing' the attack).

Of two-handed weapons (brought on by your mention of a two-handed weapon thread involving a note of shield variety), it would be nice if more weapons were alternatively one or two-handed. Such as axes. Even rather long-handle axes could be used one handed (even if a bit clumsily if not on horseback).

One complaint of the system as it is I have, I suppose, is that blunt weapons only incapacitate. I understand the purpose (knocking foes unconscious to take prisoners), but it seems pretty unrealistic. A maul or mace or even a simple cudgel or club could easily kill some one, let alone a blunt tournament lance struck against the chest or head of an unarmoured man at full speed. It'd be nicer, I suppose, if it was a touch more random in some way; a sword wouldn't always kill a man, just the same as a club wouldn't just knock him cold. The losses sustained, in percentage terms, to most forces in medieval and earlier battles was only about 5%. Most others fled or were incapacitated and taken as hostages. Even when struck down by an arrow or sword, one could recover; despite modern misconception, the concept of antiseptics (though less advanced) did exist, and wounds could be dressed, cleaned, and a badly wounded man could be fine in weeks or months (in cases of those lucky enough to survive a very bad wound). Perhaps somehow based on the amount of damage dealt in the final blow that incapacitates a target.
 
Heh, i knew this would happen - i was reffering to you not suggesting to change anything but rather only to have new things.
And i was pointing out that in the future you may start to whine and rant about things. (that why was saying "i hope you never catch this illness").

If everyone here would make a new thread about what he thinks should be incoporated rather than checking if this was always suggested things would be chaotic (and that what usually happens, even here), so post your suggestion concerning two handed swords in the appropriate thread http://forums.taleworlds.com/viewtopic.php?t=4216&highlight=

About the blunt system, you're right, and i'm sure the developers and nearly everyone here would agree.
but why wasn't in implemented ?
When you play the game, the player can never die (i won't explain why here) therefore
  • if the player gets unconcious or not is irrelevent
  • if enemies are unconcious or not is also irrelevent since if you don't capture them they're gone, therefore having them killed and not capturable will only be an annoyance and won't improve the immersion much.
  • If the opponents in the arena are killed or not is also irrelevent, since niether would have any implications on the current game. (nobody would care if someone dies or not now, and even if they did they couldnt' charge you in manslaughter)
 
Anthony said:
I don't know the English equivalent, except the rather unwieldy definition of what it means; wearing a shield on one's back for defense. My suggestion is to allow a shield that isn't in use to be slung on the back of the character; it would not provide defense from all attacks to the back, but perhaps arrows and what not could be stopped by it, or perhaps the occassional attack to the rear (or simply stop attacks to the mid-section or upper part of one's back). Lots of folks did this; Saxons, Norse, Gaels, etc.; it wasn't really much in defensive posturing, it was how one slung their shield. However, it did provide real protection from attack.

If this is casciothaen, we need this. :cool: Sea raiders, especially.

Having worn a shield on the back with a guige strap, I can say it offers *quite* a bit of protection. Much more than one might think. Gimme gimme gimme! :grin:
 
I apologize for repeating anything, I'm more attempting to get my head together, to determine quite what I'd like to see. I did peruse the forum, but I seem to have overlooked quite a bit. And I see your point on blunt weapons, I suppose.

Also, to Destichado, yes, Casciothaen is just a middle-Irish term for wearing a shield backslung. It's used in things like accounts of battles (such as pointing out that one survived an attack from behind because his shield was worn 'Casciothaen').
 
Destichado said:
If this is casciothaen, we need this. :cool: Sea raiders, especially.

Having worn a shield on the back with a guige strap, I can say it offers *quite* a bit of protection. Much more than one might think. Gimme gimme gimme! :grin:

Would be nice if shields put down would be seen on back (gaelic drooool) and maybe offer extra armor protection.
But i still say a shield on the back doesn't work like a shield at all but an extra layer of armor.
 
Uh... but that's what a shield IS. :???: Unless you have a buckler or one of those ultralights like the Saxons used that have to be used for deflection only, I don't see the distinction.
 
The distinction is in how close it is to the body. A shield slung over the back will not keep the shock of a blunt instrument from hitting you, it'll simply soften the hit. Still, it would 'damage' your torso. On your arm, you can extend the shield out from your body, so shock of the blow is sent through the arm, and not delivered directly to the body, so it would deal less (arguably none, unless it hit very hard) damage. Against the back, it really only can soften the blow dealt directly to the body (though, a thicker shield could flatly stop missiles; even if an arrow punched through it, damage to the body would be minimal).
 
I'm thinking you've never done this before. :wink:

Now, granted *I've* never done this without my armor before, but in armor with a sheild on my back I didn't feel SQUAT from a blow. Oh, I *felt* it, but it was about the same feeling you'd get from somebody shaking your bed in the morning. :lol: In fact, blows hurt my arm worse than they hurt me through the shield flapping around on my back. I think the key might be in it not being firmly afixed to the body, and distributing the force over a very large area. Remember, weapons only work because they distribute force over a very *small* area. :wink:
 
Actually, I have done it, with no armor on, while sparring in sciathoca (a form of bata, Irish cudgel fighting). It can leave a rather large bruise. I was hit very hard with a sciata (a type of hard, wood cudgel, also called more commonly just a bata) over the back where I'd slung my shield (a target or targe is used in sciathoca, as it's actually a form of sword/axe combat, that one trains for with a 'stick' {being the literal name in English, but it's actually a very weighty cudgel that could easily kill some one if used improperly...or properly, as the case was often}; it's name even is 'shield-fight', and has motions and such for using a shield on the arm, as well as on the back {positioning the shield to offer your back the most defense}). I wasn't incapacitated or badly hurt, but it still hurt noticably. It's hardly flawless protection if one is unarmoured, though it clearly lessens the impact. But to say it deadens it is false, especially a strong impact. At the least, it knocked the wind out of me momentarily, and I'm not a small individual (nor was my opponent, my cousin, who is a very burly, very strong man).
 
Well... that's interesting. In armor I felt little, without it you were stunned.

How big was your targe? I'm guessing around 18"? 1/2"-3/4" thick? ...which would put it around... eight pounds, I guess?

I was using a 28"x24" oblong, which, with it's steel face was almost 1" thick (I made it too big on accident). almost 15 lbs, irrc. I was also wearing a full breast and back, with tassets and a spanish collar-style gorget. It was like being nudged.. :lol:
 
Most of mine around about 19-22 inchs round, .75" thick to a full 'taerhgemora' of about 1.25" thick, ranging in weight from about 7.5 lbs., to 11 lbs. (the high end being, of course, the 'taerhgemora', particularly heavy, thick Irish versions uncommon in most of Scotland for some reason, but they do provide amazing defense, though they're a bit unwieldy due to awkward balance, owing to their thickness, and were the preferred shield of cavalrymen for some time, as they could take the blow of a weapon delivered by an opposing cavalryman at fullspeed, easily, and do so with the slightest of shock to the shield-bearer's arm). At the time, the targe I believe was a taorgegriodh ('middling targe'; I can't remember exactly). They're about .85" thick, 8.5-9 lbs. They were usually preferred in regions where combatting archers was more common (mostly regions bordering Ulster and Meath; other Irish rarely used archers, but the Ui Neill derived folks did fairly often. So, their direct enemies, that is, those regions of the other kingdoms most likely to be raided, used thicker shields to stop their arrows).

This is where it gets a bit tricky; I don't quite recall where exactly he struck it, or where it was hanging precisely on my back (that is, in my movements, if it perhaps moved in a manner that allowed him to strike an edge and just slam that into my back, which would be far more concussive that just slamming the center). In any event, it was not flawless protection. now, if I'd been wearing even an acton/cuton (padded coat), it probably, I admit, would've softened the strike enough that, even if it 'hurt', it would be essentially moot, and not even stun me. With anything heavier or more defense, I could see being able to completely shrug it off without thought (even just a layer of scales or a brigadine could probably catch the remaining force of the blow). As such, I can see how you wouldn't really feel it in armor, compared to feeling it unarmored.
 
Back
Top Bottom