[parsehtml]<p><img class="frame" src="http://www.taleworlds.com/Images/News/blog_post_25_taleworldswebsite.jpg" alt="" width="575" height="290" /></p>
<p>TaleWorlds has grown over the years into a medium-sized studio with over 70 people, but not so long ago this used to be a very, very small team. Today we want to introduce you to a veteran of the company who was one of the first to join Armagan Yavuz when he was creating the original Mount & Blade: our lead artist Özgür Saral.</p></br> [/parsehtml]Read more at: http://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/44
Dev Blog 01/02/18
- Thread starter Callum
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
The Easy nine said:
"Nuh-uh" isn't the same as debunking. If you want to live you put on enough armor to survive, the fashion of the time affects only people who are not in the thick of fighting (high ranking officers, nobles, warlords, etc), while regular troops have either more practical or ****tier armour, depending on what kind of an army we're talking about. Another place where fashion affects the looks of armour is art, and the art from early->middle medieval periods makes a lot of leaps and assumptions, and isn't the most accurate thing out there.
Aside from artistic interpretaions, I've yet to see any preserved remains of how thick the underlying layers of armour were, because fabric and leather from the early medieval period has so far had the tendency to rot away before we could find it. It just doesn't last for a 1000+ years.
If you do have evidence that says otherwise, point me to it. If not, you're talking out of your ass, because when there's no evidence, we simply cannot know for certain, and being a nitpicking nerd becomes even more useless.
It's not very far fetched to assume (as I don't have the source I'm thinking available to me atm) that people could take a few steps from the front to catch their breath in 3rd or 4th rank while someone else took their place in first rank - and this could only happen in situations where the fighting is constant, and that's just not the case in most historical battles.
Kretti said:
In a historical manual called How a man shall be armed for his ease when he shall fight on foot from 1450 refers to the padding worn under plate as an 'arming doublet', which in other works is described as a thin coat of padding worn to make the armor more comfortable.
Historical sources and measuring of archeological findings range the armors from 1-3mm thick, which is not very thick at all and it doesn't need to be.
As I said again, historical finds of armor (now in museums) show them to be close fitting to the body and extremely tapered at the waist. If you check out a Maximilian style armor
You can see the tapering and the effort to make the wearer look slim.
On the account of lesser wealthy individuals, there are accounts for the gambesons worn being from 10 to 25-ish layers thick. When worn under mail lesser padding was worn to prevent overheating.
Kretti said:
Oh i believe it to be pretty far-fetched for a number of reasons.
1. You're fighting in a formation. If you're at the front you have friends to your left, right and back. The enemy is in front of you. How exactly do you suppose you manage to maneuver yourself back in the position without compromising the formation and opening yourself up to your enemy?
2. The guy behind you probably wouldn't let you do it anyway. Chances are he doesn't know you and the only reason he's not at the front is because you are there. He does not want to go fight and die. So there's no reason he would just let you get back and rest even if you had the opportunity.
I'd say 300 years is already rather loose. that's quite a large time. A fair amount of development happened in that time.AmateurHetman said:
Also, it's not surprising that when developers advertise with a dark/early medieval setting, people are surprised to see high medieval gear.
High medevial age is the end of dark ages... you know. Kretti refers to youtube and this "sport" but you just have to google it to see padded armors or mails surcoats and that doesn't make you 5x times bigger.
You want to learn me history ? I said the end of Dark ages cause under 800 its not really medieval age, cause there is no knights and no castle yet, go please yourself with your stupid video.
Ettenrocal said:
So we decide which date in medieval or not by just the existence of knights? You used the word "stupid" for the video. Can I use that word for this statement of yours?
Yes do it ! Notice i never said we can decide if any date is medieval if knights exist or not ! But people here like transform what others said ! I said its not "really" medieval age.
There are always arguments on which date to start medieval age and which date to end among the historians. However knights are not a huge variable on that arguments and obviously history did not just happen in Europe as Calradia is not just Europe.
SenorZorros said:
This. Were there to be a 300-years leeway in say the Napoleonic era everything would look so weird to basically everyone. But since people do not know how the medievals really looked they do not care.
Now I know that technology doesn't advance linearly with time and that 300 years in the Napoleonic era would be a lot more in terms of technology than 300 years in the early/high medieval times. This still doesn't mean that a high medieval knight wouldn't totally massacre an early medieval knight simply because he had better equipment. The technological advancement even in the medievals is more than people realize.
I strongly agree because mount and blade series are inspired by other civilizations.bjorntheconquerer said:
KhergitLancer80
Banned
In AOE2 there were both Ottomans who existed between 1299-1922 and Huns 375-453.
But noone has ever cried about the gap.
In Bannerlord
Vlandians arent the only ones that belong to another time era rather than 11th century.
I have to go now but you can pretty much make the examples in my name.
But noone has ever cried about the gap.
In Bannerlord
Vlandians arent the only ones that belong to another time era rather than 11th century.
I have to go now but you can pretty much make the examples in my name.
KhergitLancer80 said:
That just goes to prove my point. People do not know the specifics so they don't care. And then they bash on the people who do care, saying that it is not important.
The Easy nine said:
I do agree with you about later medieval findings when we're considering hard plate that's meant to fit your body well (and thus doesn't even need as much padding as mail), but my original argument was referring to what the Vlandian knight was wearing, which is mail+padding+coat of arms. Even without Hollywood muscles the knight would look more puffed up simply because of the materials he's wearing.
This here is kind of the problem, because as far as I know, we don't have any well preserved fabric/leather from the early medieval time period to see whether or not it was somewhat thick, very thick, or slim (which, I think, simply doesn't make sense if you're aiming to make it out alive and relatively intact). Once again, if you have sources for this, I'm interested to see them. Cavalry also has less reason to go in lightly armored. I'm not arguing that riding and fighting at the same time isn't exhausting by itself, but it's nothing like running around and trying to hold position as a footsoldier.
Regarding switching positions with someone behind you, I'd like to point out that you're more than likely to know the person behind you because of unit divisions. As far as I know early medieval battles (during the Roman period anyway, since it's the most plentiful in written sources) would have consisted of push-->break through the ranks-->cause a rout. If the initial massive push failed, there'd be two first ranks facing each other, trying to hit someone and not get hit in the process, and trying to find an opening. There's plenty of opportunities in that time for some switching around. I can't see why a trained first rank soldier couldn't have the discipline and training to do it when needed.
Ettenrocal said:
Don't put words in my mouth.
They even said themselves that, for example, two handed swords don't really belong to the historical timeframe but they decided to include them anyway for gameplay. Clearly, the game isn't sticking, nor it intends to stick to a specific time period. I don't see a problem with that, and I prefer it the way it is.
Kretti said:
I don't have a historical source for the thickness of gambeson, but I'm basing this off the words of several modern reenactors, historians and medieval enthusiasts. For example Ian LaSpina from the channel Knyght Errant is one such guy. Check out the channel it's great.
You said it yourself. Roman. Romans had (during the republican times) an actual trained regular army. Which is why they were so effective.
In the medieval period however all you would have were peasants and untrained conscripts which were forced to fight. Were they wealthy they could afford some better gear, if they were't they couldn't. Anyhow there's no way you'd actually expect discipline from that kind of soldier who would probably run away as soon as he got the chance (if he was defending his lands maybe not so much, but if he was attacking deep into enemy territory? He just doesn't want to be there). And who can blame him?
Every blog is somewhat informative and interesting and surely a great joy for all fans .
Some have argued that the previous one was less informative or even this one .
I dear make an hypothesis : Is that because anyway they are busy with the making of the new site ?
And even more does that mean that we are close to something big ?
Some have argued that the previous one was less informative or even this one .
I dear make an hypothesis : Is that because anyway they are busy with the making of the new site ?
And even more does that mean that we are close to something big ?
I said knigth and castle and you continue speacking of knight only.... go flame somewhere else i have nothing more to do with you.
Revverie
I bash on the people who do care because A this game doesnt needs to fit everyone's annoying expectations and B because this game is only inspired in medieval times and its not meant to be a realistic historical representation.The Easy nine said:
If you all want it so hard learn to mod and do it yourselves, and let the people enjoy this game as it is.
