player-selected historical periods for weapons and armour

Users who are viewing this thread

First off, hello all, and the usual compliments to the developers on what an excellent game this is.

One of the things that I find most appealing about it is that weapons, armor, and the appearance of characters seem to be relatively consistent with a time-frame of the late 13th/early 14th century, as opposed to the usual fantasy mish-mash. Not only is mixing periods visually jarring, at least to my eyes, it also leads to unrealistic tactics. I don't think you'd ever have, say, a 10th-century Viking with Nordic sword taking on a 15th century knight in Milanese plate armour, because a slashing sword would be thoroughly ineffective against that. Instead, you'd be better off with a heavy bludgeoning weapon to batter him to the ground, or possibly a longsword to polk at cracks in the armour. As I understand it, you'd also rarely find a late European man-at-arms supplementing his plate armour with a colourful heraldric shield, as found in other games, because you'd need both hands to wield those heavy bludgeoning weapons used against other armoured men-at-arms. At the same time, the cavalry charge begins to go out of fashion, as polearms proliferated among infantry and as the weight of armour prevented horses from getting to up to much more than a fast trot.

(Sources on this are mostly the John Keegan and Christopher Hibbert accounts of Agincourt, so if anyone's done more serious research, set me straight).

Frankly, I think that the game's hack, slash, block and gallop style of play is best suited to the earlier periods, and is just more fun to boot. Also, I think that Nordic helmets and chainmail just look cooler than plate and visors. However, there's always going to be players who want to use heavy armour, halberds, primitive handguns, and the like. So maybe one suggestion is to have two or three historical settings, say 11th century, 13th century, 15th century, in which some weapons and armour go out of fashion, and others come in.

One other thing -- I think lances at some point ought to get pulled out of one's hand, or break. Fatigue issues aside, I think it's a little bit unrealistic to be able to gallop about and skewer two dozen bandits with a single lance. Maybe do one or two, gallop back to your inventory/page, grab a new lance, rince and repeat, but as it happens I think your lance would get a bit hard to lift after a while with all the miscreants danging off of it.
 
I think game is at the moment more like 1200 year.

and those other realism things you added, if there would be those on game it would be more like simulator than normal adventure/action/rpg game.

Like in Doom, how can single normal soldier who isnt even any sort of captain or something beat up every monster in hell? bad example because that game sucks anyway but still
 
Yeah, there's something about the early mediaeval era that makes it more fun. Lord of the Rings was like that. Most people wore leather armour or chain mail, and their weapons didn't have the traditional diamond cross section that is eminent in late mediaeval periods.

I think fighting an enemy in a proper swordfight where a single slash will cause a nasty wound is far more fun than having to grapple your enemy down to the ground, kneel on his arms while you repeatedly thrust your stileto dagger through the slits in his visor.

Put even more simply, it seems almost universally that hacking and slashing with a sword is far more natural and fun than stabbing with it.

I think that towards the end of the mediaeval era, the emphasis on the individual was being reduced considerably. Notions like chivalry and heroism, along with knights were becoming extinct. This is because personal martial skill was needed less and less in order to kill someone.
For example, in a sword to sword fight, you have to parry and feign your way inside your enemy's defense and strike while you have the opportunity while not being struck yourself. In a gun to gun fight, you just shoot before the other person does.

(interestingly in the Starsiege universe, with games like Tribes and stuff, the notion of Knights is included. In the actual game, a duel between two people can easily last longer than a minute, where both people's skills of targeting, evasion and predicting are put to the test. This is in stark contrast to games like counter-strike where the average dues lasts .5 seconds.)
 
Bascinet, joints on some of the plate armour suggest early to mid 1300s. Some pictures on the development of plate armour here: http://www.aemma.org/misc/equipment.htm

Obviously no game involving Vaegirs, Swadians and Sword Sisters is going to be a sim. However, even if the setting is made-up, I think that the heart of the game -- combat -- is more immersive when the system encourages you to use historically accurate tactics and weapons mixes. Optimum weapons load-out changes throughout the Middle Ages, as the technology develops, and what works in one century doesn't necessarily work in another. Maybe just have an option at the beginning where you can check period-consistent or anachronistic weapons.

A couple of other ideas, on the topic. Also, my apols if this overlaps too much with other threads. As I understand it, your standard 14th century knightly loadout would consist of a lance, shield, one-handed heavy bludgeoning weapon, and a broadsword. Heavy weapon (mace, axe) is used against armoured foes, broadsword against unarmoured. For the game to encourage relatively historically accurate load-outs, I'd have a couple of other suggestions...

1) Two-handed weapons maybe should not be usable from horseback, or if so at a heavy penalty. Right now one of the most effective tactics is to use a two-handed sword like a cavalry sabre, which as far as I know never happened.

2) Heavier weapons are not so much used to take people prisoner (battering them to the ground and demanding they yield, or tackling from behind, I think were the approved method) but to inflict blunt trauma through armour. I think that the pick and the morning star (swung ''p'' weapons) already fit this profile, but axes and maybe maces ought also to have some bonus which makes them more effective, if slower and less accurate, than an edged weapons against armoured enemies

3) Lances should quickly break or be otherwise rendered useless.

Of course, all of this is entirely Armagan and co's vision, and if they say they think it's more fun/historical for mounted knights with poleaxes, or camel-riding arquebusiers, to be the ultimate weapons combination, than I'll enjoy the game anyway.
 
Tzaeru said:
Like in Doom, how can single normal soldier who isnt even any sort of captain or something beat up every monster in hell? bad example because that game sucks anyway but still

[derail]

What? You dare to say, that Doom sucks!? Piss off, you filthy bastard. Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of.... uh... something.

[/derail]
 
Back
Top Bottom