Non-Edged Weapons Suggestion

Users who are viewing this thread

aylith

Recruit
This may or my not have already been suggested but I will anyway.

I just failed a quest because one of my dopey units attacked a nobleman I was supposed to capture with an edged weapon. Had he been hit with something like a cudgel I would have been happy because he'd have been knocked unconscious. I'd really like to see a command that tells your army to switch to a certain weapon type in order to get the job done or is this already possible?
 
I think it's being considered for future versions. As of now, the best thing you can do is tell your units to hold position and hope they obey.
 
Equip a blunt weapon yourself and hunt the noble. Thats pretty much the only way to do it... And save before the battle. :razz:

On a sidenote, not all soldiers might have two weapons... So it might be just a pitchfork for the peasants, while the knights have maces.
 
BTW, I noticed a bug in the Capture the Nobleman quest. There was no nobleman. There was a party called the Nobleman, or whatever, but the nobleman himself was not included.
 
If you weren't camping the start location, he probably got stabbed in a random encounter before he made it to you. The perils of freeform games!
 
... and while we're on this subject, the idea of a nobleman running solo towards a band of ten or more pitchfork-wielding nutcases is ri-cocking-diculous. A nobleman would rarely, if ever, be involved in combat at all. He should wait at the enemy's spawn point, cowering like a tart, and if you kill his escorts he's automatically captured. Problem solved!

(Although when I say rarely, I like the idea of your noble target occasionally turning out to be an insane viking who runs at your party with a big stick while screaming.)
 
I think it would be nice if some troop types were simply equipped with blunt weapons, so that you could consider that when upgrading them. It would sure make slave trading more profitable.
 
Manhunters aren't very useful against knights, nor are they recruitable in an easy way. I'm pretty sure they upgrade, but they get better (and non-blunt) weapons than clubs.
 
Egg said:
(Although when I say rarely, I like the idea of your noble target occasionally turning out to be an insane viking who runs at your party with a big stick while screaming.)

I can already visualize this... And I can't stop laughing.
 
Rogge said:
Manhunters aren't very useful against knights, nor are they recruitable in an easy way. I'm pretty sure they upgrade, but they get better (and non-blunt) weapons than clubs.

If I remember correctly, they can either be upgraded to Watchmen or Swadian Militia
 
Egg said:
(Although when I say rarely, I like the idea of your noble target occasionally turning out to be an insane viking who runs at your party with a big stick while screaming.)

Laughter. Lots of it. Brilliant idea--needs to be half-naked and wearing a horned helmet, though (I think the berserkers actually used those in open combat sometimes).
 
Lol - No offense but there is no primary evidance to support the use of beserkers - only what was written hundreds of years afterwards... and no horned helmets.

But what the hell - Include it(!): I still think it's worth it for the fun.
 
Heh, I think evidence for berserkers is pretty good. Doesn't take a big stretch of the imagination to concieve that a big naked hairy dude, drunk and possibly tripping on mushrooms, screaming and charging at you with a big axe would have quite a psychological effect on an enemy.

The idea that vikings wore horned helmets has pretty much been dicounted by serious historians as pure crap tho. Horned helmets did exist for decoration, but weren't something you'd strap on to take to a fight.
 
Otto Von Lanstien said:
Lol - No offense but there is no primary evidance to support the use of be[r]serkers - only what was written hundreds of years afterwards...

Uh, that's not true. :eek: The Saxons talked about them! I *think* they're even mentioned in the AS Chronicles. And you don't consider the Sagas primary, eh? Hmph. :???:
We're pretty sure about our Baersarks and Ulfsarks.
 
Heh, I think evidence for berserkers is pretty good. Doesn't take a big stretch of the imagination to concieve that a big naked hairy dude, drunk and possibly tripping on mushrooms, screaming and charging at you with a big axe would have quite a psychological effect on an enemy.

The idea that vikings wore horned helmets has pretty much been dicounted by serious historians as pure crap tho. Horned helmets did exist for decoration, but weren't something you'd strap on to take to a fight.

:shock: That dosen't translate as evidance. :shock:
 
Otto Von Lanstien said:
Lol - No offense but there is no primary evidance to support the use of beserkers - only what was written hundreds of years afterwards... and no horned helmets.

But what the hell - Include it(!): I still think it's worth it for the fun.

I knew that much, but I'd read some sort of magazine article speculating that horned helmets may have been used for intimidation on actual battlefields. My mistake, believing that kind of thing, but I do know that horned helmets were definitely extant elsewhere, and possibly there (much earlier, in the Bronze Age), so there's still support for *someone* wearing them :smile:

Edit: I'm not an expert on the Vikings, specifically, so I'm not about to get into the existence of berserkers. On that point, though, it's worth noting that there are Bronze Age depictions of men in ritual (likely) or (less likely) actual combat, wearing horned helmets, along the Baltic coast. Later art also shows Celts in battle wearing helmets with awkward bird-figures attached as "crests". Don't make me dig up the modern scholarship, though--my coursepacks aren't exactly in good order on my floor right now.
 
Back
Top Bottom