Confusion

正在查看此主题的用户

当前在线： 2 （会员： 0, 游客： 2）

Sheep_Archer

Sergeant at Arms
Mount&Blade is supposed to be set in early medieval times before it became standard practice to have even a remote semblance of formation. This explains the "swarming" that occurs when you are the last of your party against a horde of enemies. This seems to fit with the proposed time period, however the 3 main classes of people are peasants, warriors and merchants. The role of merchant was unimportant if not nonexistent in early medieval Europe. If anything, the three classes should be peasants, warriors and nobility. This is better suited for the early Feudal setting.

Just an opinion, feel free to agree and disagree. I would like to know if I am wrong.  :mrgreen:
 
I have no clue...Sorry to say this, but I honestyly don't really care...But I think you may be right...Merchants only really came into play later on...
 
Ehh, what makes you think fighting in the early medieval ages was without formations? The Vikings used them, the Saxons used them, everyone who wasn't a TOTAL newbie used some sort of formation - even if it was just a simple flanking move or some sort of huddle.

The Vikings were traders too, as were all other peoples with some sort of civilisation. M&B is a mix of the entire medieval age, early and late, in an attempt to capture the good and bad sides of each age. The lack of formations is because the developers want to keep the "chaotic" feel in-game
 
Well, actually trading was praticed (of course) even in the early middle ages, so merchants were present too.
I agree that the "early merchant" was much less visible in that time than in the later middle ages, but that doesn't mean he didn't exist as a class (sort of).

If I was to change the starting classes I'd *add* the Nobility class, rather than removing the Merchant class from the current version (IMO).
 
Sordid Sinister 说:
I would recommend reading up both on military tactics and social structure of the period... :roll:
点击展开...

[quote author=Wikipedia]
Eastern Europe 600-1000
Prior to the rise of the Kievan Rus, the eastern frontier of Europe had been dominated by the Khazars, a Turkic people who had gained independence from the Turkic Empire by the seventh century. Khazaria was a multiethnic commercial state which derived its well-being from control of river trade between Europe and the Orient. They also exacted tribute from the Alani, Magyars, various Slavic tribes, the Goths and Greeks of Crimea. Through a network of Jewish itinerant merchants, or Radhanites, they were in contact with the trade emporiums of India and Spain.
[/quote]

Done.
 
You know, the game doesn't have to 100% historically accurate to early medieval europe. It's not even set in early medieval europe... or earth for that matter. I don't know about you guys but I kind of like the open-ness that the developers have to shape the time setting and the tactics used in it. I'm not a historian but I also doubt that people then didn't have any sort of tactics.
 
But they are humans, right? With such advanced weapons I doubt anyone would fight like they do in M&B. Missile weapons, for instance, would kill a hell lot of friendly troops...
 
I agree, thats why I'd like to see some sort of basic formations rather than sticking to what is "historically accurate" despite the fact that the weapons and armor in the game don't come from just the early middle ages. Or atleast I think theres weapons in the game that are from the later periods.
 
Sheep_Archer 说:
Mount&Blade is supposed to be set in early medieval times before it became standard practice to have even a remote semblance of formation. This explains the "swarming" that occurs when you are the last of your party against a horde of enemies. This seems to fit with the proposed time period, however the 3 main classes of people are peasants, warriors and merchants. The role of merchant was unimportant if not nonexistent in early medieval Europe. If anything, the three classes should be peasants, warriors and nobility. This is better suited for the early Feudal setting.

Just an opinion, feel free to agree and disagree. I would like to know if I am wrong.  :mrgreen:
点击展开...

Not a history student then I assume?  Trading and the job title of merchant have been around for a very long time....in fact nearly as long as humans have been around, in the region of millions of years! Unimportant position eh?  well without them there would have been no roman empire, , no ottoman empire, no celts, no planet Earth! Trading is one of the most basic aspects of human society, very important, and the main reason we have roads, maps, settlements, nations, etc etc etc.  People dont go building roads, harbours, etc becouse they need somewhere for their armies to go, but becouse the merchants go there first and bring in the money to make those kind of facilities possible, and provide the need for them! the fighting classes only use them for the convenience!  E.g during mediveal times most warships were actucally armed merchant vessels!,  and the vikings were raiders, but for most of the time they were merchants and traders! Try wiki to get an idea of how innacurate your view of mdeival earth is!  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce
And as for formations of troops, ever heard of the shield wall, or phalanx?   both predate medieval mount and blade by a very very long time!

I could go on an on and on for hours but im a bit too inebriated to concentrate that much and i dont think theres any point, suffice to say that I think your view of medival Europe is a bit askew! I blame hollywood...
 
I think that one King Arthur movie was set in that time period, it was really bad though.
 
Valan 说:
I agree, thats why I'd like to see some sort of basic formations rather than sticking to what is "historically accurate" despite the fact that the weapons and armor in the game don't come from just the early middle ages. Or atleast I think theres weapons in the game that are from the later periods.
点击展开...
Formations are historically accurate!  They've been used since at least 3000 BC!
 
I know, I was refering to the original poster and was just saying that even if they weren't in that time period I'd still like to see them in the game.
 
Valan 说:
I think that one King Arthur movie was set in that time period, it was really bad though.
点击展开...

It was set in the late roman era. And that was a very very good movie. I loved the saxon king, with his enormous beard (Which would be awsome to actually have) and his deep low voice "You hold your tongue, or ill cut it out". Perfect personification of a barbarian warlord.
 
Merentha 说:
Formations are historically accurate!  They've been used since at least 3000 BC!
点击展开...

Yes, but the assumption that the knights were a rather undisciplined sort, and the peasent levies were virtually untrained propogates this idea onto the medieval period. I know that research done in the middle of the last century showed more organization than was previously supposed however, indicating a fairly sophisticated combined arms, in which intermingled infantry and cavalry would strike the enemy at once. This could not have been done without significant training.
 
In mideival times, clergy was often >10% of the populace. I WANT CLERGY! (Even if just for target practice)
 
您必须登录或注册才可回复。

类似的主题

A recruit master
回复
1
查看
60
archaicwarrior
archaicwarrior
Set units in specific formations
回复
0
查看
68
Taxiarchos
Th3o
More history accurate and believable clan system
回复
3
查看
125
Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James
Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James
后退
顶部 底部