Class system overhaul

Currently viewing this thread:

C_Ronin_Rico

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWB
Well in that case, you should take in consideration to add an "horseman" troop to all the factions.
For what i know, vikings used horses only for commercial purpose or transport, but occasionally leaders used to mount before a battle.
Also, i bet Goìdel, being in touch with every culture that populated great britain learnt the use of horses instead of old charriots.
However, as said many times, i'm pretty weak on this topic (northern old cultures and history are not studied deeply here in the southern side of the continent), and i'm eager to learn more from you.
Fródwine  talked about "hippophobia". Well yeah i personally hate horses (in game only!), enough to turn that anger into a good nickname. It's not of horses i'm scared of, but the game balance. Giving Engles an horse troop would mean 2 factions over 5 must to deal up with those annoying and bumping mosquitos the most of battles. And not Goìdel nor Vikings show their best against an horseman.
So if you're seriously thinking an horse troop should be added to Engles, i suggest you to improve some weapons and availabilities for both Goìdel and Vikings.
However, i hope you'll change your mind.
 

Hengwulf

Sergeant Knight
Hrotha (and Eadric), I never said I opposed anyting suggested here. I just mentioned that the differences are mostly superficial.

I do not mind rethinking equipment costs. Since axes got penalties on short range, it only seems fair to make swords more expensive.

But I want to put forth the point that gameplay > history. I know we have so real purists around this forum and I really like that because I would be far gone and wide if people around our community didn't care about immersion and role playing.

I do feel the strength of Vikingr is that: it is the closest one can come to fighting in the dark/viking age without RL reenactment. Vikingr fights are mostly very small. Even except for this summer time, more than 10 is a blessing.

Now to some suggestions instead of bashing which really don't mean to.

We are small companies/clans/or in server, so a Thegn would be better than a Eorl granted. But we also have to remember what we are here for. We fight for fun. It is not suggested in this thread, but it is suggested a lot to make this mod spear heavy. What I mean to say is that new players want to see a Sutton Hoo helmet or a sweet ass huscarl sword. If we go into lower class skirmishes I fear that we need to make all items more basic, and thus more uniform.

Can you guys make you ideas more complete by:
*renaming? Done
*how it would respond on their equipment? (you made an effort, but add some pics)
*how are you going to ensure the uniqueness of every faction?
* and a secondary goal, how is this going to help the community. Specifically, getting new interested players

Only meant as positive criticism truly
 

hrotha

Grandmaster Knight
WBNWWF&SVC
Well, personally I don't think having some upper-class hiredman instead of a huscarl, or a þegn instead of an eorl, would have any impact on the fun factor or on how appealing the mod would be to newcomers. The Sutton Hoo is unsuitable for an 11th-century eorl just as it would be for an 11th-century þegn, but it can stay as an easter egg of sorts as far as I'm concerned. It's very expensive and you don't get to see it often anyway. Upper-class hiredmen (some of which would be þegnas themselves, in this time period, depending on the strength of their lord's warband) would have fancy swords too. No loss there.

Eadric and I have been talking about the role of the gingra hiredmen, and while we acknowledged they would be spearmen in real life, we aren't advocating a boost to spears because Warband can't handle them properly and they're a nuisance if used in large numbers, so rest assured, we haven't lost sight of the gameplay aspect. It's just that we don't think the gameplay changes this would introduce would be for the worse.

Anyway, yes, we can further develop our ideas in regards to equipment and all that, but this isn't supposed to be a thread where we lay down a template for a faction. It's meant to elicit a discussion about the scope of Víkingr and ways for it to be more historically accurate without sacrificing gameplay. Everyone's invited to share their own ideas.
 
1) Its not because of 100% historical reality I play Vikingr. I don't care if its real nations or Calradia. Its combat itself.

2) 90% of time there will be no Leader class. Want them to die out like berserkers and Cavalry ? Veri stupid.
 

hrotha

Grandmaster Knight
WBNWWF&SVC
The combat system wouldn't be altered and the class percentages can be playtested and adjusted (worst comes to worst, the new leader class could work exactly like the current one)...
 

Dansk viking

Master Knight
NWWBVC
On the historical aspect - yes, correction is needed; the lowering of classes is a splendid idea, and has been overlooked. I feel, although, that a renaming (and perhaps removal of inapproriate equipment) would be sufficient for most of them.

On the matter of horses, I'm all for making them available to all factions - mind you, not big and intimidating, continental horses, rather something like the modern icelandic horses:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8JkDql3X3o
 

hrotha

Grandmaster Knight
WBNWWF&SVC
I agree on the horses. Norman horses could be superior, but that'd be it (no idea about Rus cavalry).

I feel the class renaming and the equipment rebalancing are ultimately separate things, so we can have one and not the other, although I'd like to see both implemented.

Víkingar and Goídil can stay the same.
Engle: scytta - gingra hiredman - yldra hiredman - þegn
Normant: archers - pedaile - chevalers - ber*

I'm concerned about the Rus though. "Voivoda" might work from an etymological point of view, but wasn't it used to refer to people of quite high rank, like a "dux" (that is, the leader of an army) or even a duke? Also, are the other class names proper transliterations of actual Old East Slavic words as they would have appeared in the early 11th century? "Boyar Son" raises some eyebrows.

*After doing my research, I'm pretty sure "ber" ("baron") would be a perfect fit for the leader class. It is not however a suitable title for an individual, i.e. no "Ber Jehan de Whateverfort".
 

hrotha

Grandmaster Knight
WBNWWF&SVC
Barabas said:
I suggest you check the current names of the Rus troops.
Ah yes. Then I suggest you check the 0.95 download thread. :grin:
(Seriously though, I knew "knyaz" had been replaced, but the names of the classes never stick to me, because I know very little about Slavic languages)

But my concerns weren't just about the "son" bit. I read the 10th century Bulgarian form was "bolyar", I don't know about Russian forms. The word "druzhinnik" seems to have been in use in Soviet times, but again I don't know enough about Old East Slavic to know if the transliteration is compatible with authentic 11th century forms, and I ask because I don't know whether this has been looked at.
 

Eafa

Veteran
The Druzhinnik, should be the standard warrior troop of the Rus (like in the moment), because in medieval times the Drushína was the was the personal retinue of a lord.
They emerged from the varangian oath Communities who traveled along the rivers of Eastern Europe.

It gave two classes of the Druzhinnik, the younger and the older followers, the younger followers was used as warriors and bodyguards.
The older followers, the Starschaja Druschina, could be used as elite troop, or leader troop, they was land owning warriors with an own retinue in the services of a lord.

Later most of the Starschaja Druschina, emerged to Boyars (sometimes in the 12. century)

The Voivoda as Rus leader troop, would not fit, because they are more higher lords, than Boyars.
Voivoda would be comparable with Count and when you change the Count to Ber, you should rename the Voivoda to Boyar or Starschaja Druschina.
The Knyaz wouldnt fit as leader troop too, because, the Title Knyaz, was used for the Title of a King since the reign of Charlemagne (Karl der große), in the 9. century.
 
Eafa said:
The Voivoda as Rus leader troop, would not fit, because they are more higher lords, than Boyars.
Voivoda would be comparable with Count and when you change the Count to Ber, you should rename the Voivoda to Boyar or Starschaja Druschina.
The Knyaz wouldnt fit as leader troop too, because, the Title Knyaz, was used for the Title of a King since the reign of Charlemagne (Karl der große), in the 9. century.
Voevoda fit perfectly. Its elder Boyarin-"general" who charged with leading troops for Knyaz.
Knyaz will fit as leader troop, if only you can read about "Great Knyaz Svyatoslav" .
Russian Knyazs was in 8th century already, by Byzantine documents. There was a raid on Konstantinopol.
Looks like you read wrong book about us.
 

Bedric

Recruit
I think the original suggestion is self-evidently a good idea at least for the English (I have no idea about the other factions).

I have to say though that the suggestion below is brilliant -

Hospes fori said:
Equally I would welcome a revision of the equipment. If it is possible, it should be implemented that certain gear is needed to be able to obtain other gear. Nobody should be able to wield a sword without carrying a shield and at least light armour as well. No rider would be in a battle, just protected by a tunic. A metal helmet should be the requirement for chainmail armour and a chainmail coif should only be worn by people, who are wearing a chainmail shirt at the same time.

Having said that, I'm afraid this would result in less fancy swords which, whilst a good thing for people (like me) who want at least the appearance of authenticity, clearly many people aren't here for that so I can't see it gaining much support.

I'm interested to read in Eadric's first post that the Fyrd would have been so well equipped.  I'm sure I read somewhere that Aethelred ordered the buying of loads of helmets to equip the fyrd after the battle of Maldon, which would indicate they weren't armoured very much at all prior to that (because, in real life, the first thing you want is a helmet, unlike in the game where everyone seems to go around without even a hat).  I shall try to remember where I came across that info; it may of course be complete bunk.



 

hrotha

Grandmaster Knight
WBNWWF&SVC
Partizan_Rusi said:
Eafa said:
The Voivoda as Rus leader troop, would not fit, because they are more higher lords, than Boyars.
Voivoda would be comparable with Count and when you change the Count to Ber, you should rename the Voivoda to Boyar or Starschaja Druschina.
The Knyaz wouldnt fit as leader troop too, because, the Title Knyaz, was used for the Title of a King since the reign of Charlemagne (Karl der große), in the 9. century.
Voevoda fit perfectly. Its elder Boyarin-"general" who charged with leading troops for Knyaz.
Knyaz will fit as leader troop, if only you can read about "Great Knyaz Svyatoslav" .
Russian Knyazs was in 8th century already, by Byzantine documents. There was a raid on Konstantinopol.
Looks like you read wrong book about us.
The problem with "knyaz" is not that it wasn't used in the 11th, 9th or 8th centuries (that's pretty irrelevant), but that it's too high a rank for the kind of skirmishes we see in the game. That's why it was downgraded to "voevoda", and that's why we're wondering now if even "voevoda" isn't too high in the hierarchy. We need the desgination to suit a local noble of limited power, someone who could have maybe some 10-20 guys as household troops.
 

Eafa

Veteran
hehe I didnt read right what you was writing.
Partizan_Rusi said:
Its elder Boyarin-"general" who charged with leading troops for Knyaz.
yeah I wrote something like that, I wrote that the Knyaz are higher lords than Bojars.

I didnt read any wrong Information, and wikipedia was right too ( :lol: ), so forget this silly post please
Eafa said:
seems so, I thought wikipedia would have some right informations.... wrong thought  :lol:

The Knyaz would fit as leader troops for great warbands/armys yes, but not for skirmish parties of 10-20 troops, like hrotha wrote.
So The Bojar or maybe the Starschaja Druschina, would be a better choice for the module.

 

Éadric

Knight at Arms
I support Fródwine's suggestion to have certain items 'bound' to other items, i.e. you ought not be able to buy a sword without having a coat of mail or at least a leather shirt, or a coat of mail without a helmet, etc.

As for Bédríc's question about how well-equipped the fyrd was:

The fyrd consisted of ceorlas 'freemen' and þegnas 'noblemen'. According to a source I cannot find at the moment the fyrd consisted mostly of þegnas by the 11th century. Here is an excerpt from Osprey's Anglo-Saxon Thegn 449–1066AD:

[The early 11th-century laws of Æþelréd] state that the ceorl was not legally equal to a thegn even when he owned a helmet, a mail shirt and a gold-plated sword, unless he also owned five hides of land. These items we must assume were the basic equipment of an 11th-century thegn in the fyrd.

Another equipment list appears in the laws connected with heriot, or death duty. When a thegn died his heirs were traditionally obliged to give the king a gift in order for their right to the thegn’s landholding to be confirmed. The gift normally took the form of weapons and military equipment (though was commonly replaced by a cash payment) – in this way the king did not lose an armed soldier when a thegn died. The weapons could be re-issued, perhaps to under-equipped fyrd members or to mercenaries in the employ of the king.

By the end of the 10th century the heriot of a king’s thegn was specified as including four shields, four spears, four horses (two with saddles), two swords, a helmet and a coat of mail. The list reads suspiciously like the equipment of a small sub-unit. If this is the case, it must have included two riders, one of whom was well-equipped. The two unsaddled horses were perhaps replacement mounts for the riders, and were perhaps led by attendants armed only with shield and spear. It is possible that this sub-unit was a predecessor of the medieval lance.
 

Haresus

Baron
WBNW
Gwyrdh said:
I play this on and off, maybe once or twice a day. For an hour or so at a time, maybe less, maybe more. Anyway, I've enjoyed how balanced this is but knowing nothing about the time period I wouldn't know if what is set up is accurate or not. So, effectively, I've been playing blindly hoping it's right. However, I've seen no problem with the game system as it is. I think it is very balanced and is very nice feeling.

So here's my opinion on the matter, I see no issue with the system, therefore no need to change. The system is perfect as it is, fiddling about may be completely unnecessary and may do more harm than good. That said, though, for the sake of accuracy, it seems as though it is just a change in name if anything. The equipment sounds similar, so perhaps there's not much of a change needed other than a rename. So... I'm on the fence.

Just my 2 cents.

Don´t fix what aint broke is a good and solid philosophy.
This change is trying to fix what really is not broken in any way. Changing the names to fit with the scale is fine. Adding cavalry to the Engle.. Not so sure about that. Trying to limit swords, I can agree with. There are far too many swords in Vikingr among people who have no armour.
 

Hengwulf

Sergeant Knight
a critical note I would like to add:

the idea of restricting gear to other types of gear seems nice. But remember a lot of players come here also not so much for historical accuracy as for our super awesome melee engine. I am all for historical reenactment, but there are also downsides to it
 
Top Bottom