Grimes 说:
The greater prevalence of armor in one era doesn't obviate the utility of a weapon that could be effectively used against it in earlier eras, it simply means that it needed wider adoption in the newer era, which is a very plausible explanation for the development of a refined battle axe like the dane axe. Mail armor, as the devs have often pointed out, was very much present in the 9th century, and so was the need to defeat it.
Hospes fori 说:
Grimes 说:
but it's quickly becoming clear to me that you're just hear to defend the dev team by any means necessary, not actually try to argue any serious kind of point, which means bothering to reply to you is a waste of my time. so this is my last reply to you itt.
I respect people who stand by their promises.
I don't want or care about your respect and I never made a promise. I changed my mind.
Small question, have you ever had any type of contact with history within the realm of academia, if no, then you're on shallow waters buddy...
Anyhow, history develops on a conflict basis. Event 1 meets event 2 resulting in event 3. This means that developments in history is the result of something/s. As an example let's ue the pike. When did the european pike recieve a wide usage? For estimations sake let's say the 13th century, you could probibly argue a later date, but some peoples were adapting it, like the scottish and flemish. Now, why did they adopt it, what events led to this devekopment within military technology and practise. What do you think? Well, the answer is fairly simple, the pike became the commoners, and weaker state (like the scottish and the flemish) answer to heavy knights. So you see the clash of armoured knights making the shieldwalls obselete led to pikes blocks which made knights obselete (eventually, these changes don't happen over night).
Even more interesting the pike wasn't just a result of armured knights but there were several prerequisits that had to be met that allowed for the pike to be effectivly adopted. Let's make a list.
- Unability to field own effective knights. The answer for knights was often more knights (just to be clear with "knights" I mean armored nobles on horse and their men-at-arms), but if a state was unable to effectivle field many knights then another answer had to be used.
- Ability to effectivly field a substantial group of men. Pikes were bulky and long, they give alot of reach, so you trade reach for well individual fighting ability. The pike is not a single combat weapon, it's used in groups, and large groups at that. Battles during this time consisted of a few hundred tops, and don't even start with small raiding bands...
- A need for pikes. Cavalry during this time wasn't the charging cavalry we so well know and love. Cavalry if it was even present was a harrassing force throwing javlins. This meant that it was unlikly that cavalry would charge on you. Additionally as cavalry mostly threw projectiles it was far more attractive to have a shield for protection then a pike to hold the horses of.
Basically pikes didn't exist because there wasn't a need, nor could any force in norther Europe effectivly field a pike force anyway.
I am all for fun and all, and personally I lament the lack of dane axes, but fun doesn't mean go bat **** crazy with content and add things with no place at all in the game. Pikes have no place, historically dane axes might not either, but the dane axe has a far better case to be included then pikes.
I just waned to address the but there is a troll under a bridge thing. Look, the developers have tried to create a historically accurate picture of the "viking era" with elements of norse mythology. This mythology part is very important for understanding why there is a troll but not lightsabers in the game. Do I think that there should be a troll, what I think is kind of irrelevant but I would prefer to leave out the troll...
