Suggestions and Critique

Users who are viewing this thread

This mod has A LOT of potential and I think it is theoretically even more in-depth than 1257 AD, especially with your additions of Finland and its correspondent tribes etc.
I also love that you have made individual units for each nation with their own names, you didn't see that in 1257 where like all of Europe had literally the same units. You have nationalized the units, and that is something I really love.

But there are some issues. For instance when in battle, fighting as a freelancer under a general, all both sides did during the battle was to move right all the time. No one ever moved forward, only to the right, walking in circles. There are some battle deployment and AI improvement mods you maybe might be allowed to implement, that would make this amazing :smile:

Also there are some graphical issues on the world-map, like "square-ish" rivers, but I think that is an easy fix later on.

And some small things, the Baltic tribes seem a bit to heavily armed. I mean, their armor is often a bit too advanced regarding the fact that they were actually fighters who preferred to fight with light skirmishing troops, specializing in javelins. Whenever I visit them it feels like I am seeing a noble prince of Novgorod, and not a pagan chieftain. Also, their banners are slightly too unrelated to their culture. You should see to replace them with more Romuvian (Baltic pagan) motives :smile:   
 
Berkut163 said:
This mod has A LOT of potential and I think it is theoretically even more in-depth than 1257 AD, especially with your additions of Finland and its correspondent tribes etc.
I also love that you have made individual units for each nation with their own names, you didn't see that in 1257 where like all of Europe had literally the same units. You have nationalized the units, and that is something I really love.

But there are some issues. For instance when in battle, fighting as a freelancer under a general, all both sides did during the battle was to move right all the time. No one ever moved forward, only to the right, walking in circles. There are some battle deployment and AI improvement mods you maybe might be allowed to implement, that would make this amazing :smile:

Also there are some graphical issues on the world-map, like "square-ish" rivers, but I think that is an easy fix later on.

And some small things, the Baltic tribes seem a bit to heavily armed. I mean, their armor is often a bit too advanced regarding the fact that they were actually fighters who preferred to fight with light skirmishing troops, specializing in javelins. Whenever I visit them it feels like I am seeing a noble prince of Novgorod, and not a pagan chieftain. Also, their banners are slightly too unrelated to their culture. You should see to replace them with more Romuvian (Baltic pagan) motives :smile: 

On the topic of battles, as I remember they clash after some time, though rather due to accident than willingly. Most of the time I just charge alone into the enemy and kill an archer or two, which triggers my allies who attack as well.
 
fysaga said:
On the topic of battles, as I remember they clash after some time, though rather due to accident than willingly. Most of the time I just charge alone into the enemy and kill an archer or two, which triggers my allies who attack as well.

Yea I was forced to that decision as well after about 15 minutes of dancing around in a circle, but unfortunately my rank was too low and my equipment too weak I got obliterated by their mounted knights who was able to quickly chase me down after my quick little raid :sad:

The battle AI in 1257AD for instance isn't amazing, but at least they are programmed to attack each other and not just perform unending ridiculous "maneuvers" :sad:
 
Considering you are reviving this mod, would you consider adding yat (as ě) to the names of certain places in Serbia (such as Sveti Spas - Světi Spas, Belgrad - Bělgrad, Sjenica - Sěnica), and even maybe Bulgaria (Sredets - Srědets), as the reformed orthography used by Saint Sava indicates that, at least in Serbia, the yat still existed at the time.


EDIT: Also, Arbanon is refered to as Arber (properly Arbër/Arbën) before reaching the campaign map but is refered to as Arbanon everywhere else.
 
SBolshevik said:
Considering you are reviving this mod, would you consider adding yat (as ě) to the names of certain places in Serbia (such as Sveti Spas - Světi Spas, Belgrad - Bělgrad, Sjenica - Sěnica), and even maybe Bulgaria (Sredets - Srědets), as the reformed orthography used by Saint Sava indicates that, at least in Serbia, the yat still existed at the time.


EDIT: Also, Arbanon is refered to as Arber (properly Arbër/Arbën) before reaching the campaign map but is refered to as Arbanon everywhere else.

We will, thanks for the input!
 
SBolshevik said:
Actually, I goofed right there, Sveti Spas should stay as it is, since that e came from ę, not ě, silly me. :oops:

Not a problem, don't worry. It will be some times until we do take a look at research issues. First we need to take a look at the state of the mod and clean it up. Then we can solve any research issues we may find, and finally we can, if we've still got some steam left, go on with keeping the mod going.
 
Hey guys, do you think that there's any chance to make the troops' equipment changeable, as in some mods where you can equip regular troops like companions? I like the idea of being to give your troops whatever armor you can afford.
 
Cèsar de Quart said:
SBolshevik said:
Actually, I goofed right there, Sveti Spas should stay as it is, since that e came from ę, not ě, silly me. :oops:

Not a problem, don't worry. It will be some times until we do take a look at research issues. First we need to take a look at the state of the mod and clean it up. Then we can solve any research issues we may find, and finally we can, if we've still got some steam left, go on with keeping the mod going.
is the mod still going?
a friend could possibly help with researc, he has the sources (about to graduate history)
some sources may or may not be "regional history", maybe if i provided a list of books?
 
As one fascinated with Norman History and a modern Italo-Norman himself, will the reboot mod have a selection of the Norman nasel Phrygian faceplate helmets even if they aren't historically accurate?
 
Executor-64- said:
Cèsar de Quart said:
SBolshevik said:
Actually, I goofed right there, Sveti Spas should stay as it is, since that e came from ę, not ě, silly me. :oops:

Not a problem, don't worry. It will be some times until we do take a look at research issues. First we need to take a look at the state of the mod and clean it up. Then we can solve any research issues we may find, and finally we can, if we've still got some steam left, go on with keeping the mod going.
is the mod still going?
a friend could possibly help with researc, he has the sources (about to graduate history)
some sources may or may not be "regional history", maybe if i provided a list of books?

Yes, although we all have work to do and are going on slowly.

Well, thank him from our part! For now, research is stalled until the mod is stable and fixed. But do tell us his expertise and, if he wants, he can help us point out inaccuracies in our current factions.

Take care!
 
Also as a question of mechanics to make the mod more realistic, is it possible to tweak how much a type of damage a certain type of armor mitigates (like maille versus cutting, as cutting really shouldn't do anything), or is that just flat out impossible in Warband/you need to change weapon damage instead? One thing that's always kinda rubbed me the wrong way about many Warband mods, even 1257, is how easy it is to drop a knight by simply slapping him around with a sword when that should make you varying degrees of dead.
 
Considering that cutting swords remained popular for nearly all of the chainmail life-span, I doubt they just bounced off :wink: Kinetic energy hurts like hell, even with mail on and some swords were still very "choppy" in this time period, even without parallel edges and very wide fullers... Sure, an axe or a mace will be a small margin more effective, but overall, wearing armour reduces damage significantly; it doesn't negate it entirely.

Now, granted, the stuff depicted in most period art pieces is a gross exageration: I do not believe that, however poor the quality of a mail, a sword would be able to slice it open and amputate an arm or split someone skull open through a mail coif or run someone through with a thrust. But even so, poor iron quality could be a factor too.
 
True, but we also have sources speaking of sand barrels with vinegard in it meant to clean mail armour, I believe. Not to mention some mail looking distinctly black compared to others (Possible barnished? Thus a tad more resistant to rust?)... so rusty mail probably wasn't all too common. Still, I can see most mail not being top-notch quality and a lot easier to chop through. Only issue is that the same can apply to swords; some can be less than perfectly crafted, some can be built with poor iron, some might be starting to rust...

Tricky piece of balancing :neutral: I do think Warband does a nice job, over all
 
GodHandApostole said:
Considering that cutting swords remained popular for nearly all of the chainmail life-span, I doubt they just bounced off :wink: Kinetic energy hurts like hell, even with mail on and some swords were still very "choppy" in this time period, even without parallel edges and very wide fullers... Sure, an axe or a mace will be a small margin more effective, but overall, wearing armour reduces damage significantly; it doesn't negate it entirely.

Now, granted, the stuff depicted in most period art pieces is a gross exageration: I do not believe that, however poor the quality of a mail, a sword would be able to slice it open and amputate an arm or split someone skull open through a mail coif or run someone through with a thrust. But even so, poor iron quality could be a factor too.

No they don't. Tests have been done with high quality armor, and cutting with a sword on maille doesn't have much of an impact when wearing padded gambeson underneath the maille, or you're wearing double maille. Strikes with a sword against maille to deal damage by raw kinetic punch have to strike an area of raised bone, such as the shins or shoulders, although this is mitigated by padded armor worn either under or over the hauberk (and well, strikes on the shin only happen if the enemy is mounted and you're on foot).
 
Wyzilla said:
GodHandApostole said:
Considering that cutting swords remained popular for nearly all of the chainmail life-span, I doubt they just bounced off :wink: Kinetic energy hurts like hell, even with mail on and some swords were still very "choppy" in this time period, even without parallel edges and very wide fullers... Sure, an axe or a mace will be a small margin more effective, but overall, wearing armour reduces damage significantly; it doesn't negate it entirely.

Now, granted, the stuff depicted in most period art pieces is a gross exageration: I do not believe that, however poor the quality of a mail, a sword would be able to slice it open and amputate an arm or split someone skull open through a mail coif or run someone through with a thrust. But even so, poor iron quality could be a factor too.

No they don't. Tests have been done with high quality armor, and cutting with a sword on maille doesn't have much of an impact when wearing padded gambeson underneath the maille, or you're wearing double maille. Strikes with a sword against maille to deal damage by raw kinetic punch have to strike an area of raised bone, such as the shins or shoulders, although this is mitigated by padded armor worn either under or over the hauberk (and well, strikes on the shin only happen if the enemy is mounted and you're on foot).

It's a bit hard to say "swords don't do any damage", because we see time and time again people using them, and most enemies would not be wearing expensive mail anyway.

But, it's true, swords were side-arms. Akin to a gun for a professional soldier. Lances and spears would be your rifles while additional swords, your side-arm, your backup. In case things get messy, you get your shield and your sword and defend yourself in close melee. Otherwise, there's little reason to use a sword, really, when a spear or other pole weapon is available.

Swords, even then, had symbolic power and a special allure, but just like the weapon of choice in the XIV-XVth Centuries is the halberd and the warhammer (to smash plate armour), the weapon of choice in the XIII is the spear.

 
I don't know about you, guys, but I'd still not want my collar bone struck by a sharp blade, with or without mail. And that's literally the first and wider target beside the head... So yeah, not really buying the whole "Swords were just symbols/sidearms" with little actual use in combat... Don't forget they were carried by footmen as well. If their use was primarily symbolic, why would a professional soldier buy one as his first choice? To appear knightly? That's not going to save him without a coat-of-arms to go along.

That, together with the sources mentioning swords delivering tremendous blows, all the period arts showing swords used effectively and the fact not all surviving pieces are strongly decorative but rather extremely functional weapons (In most cases even very plain and "down-to-business" instruments) convinces me they had a huge amount of versatility on the field that ended up being considered worthwhile, in spite of the disadvantages compared to spears and axes.
 
Well , in various occasions , I insisted with some thoughts of mine on the argument :
1) Swords were mainly used for thrusting especially the straight bladed European ones. Cutting hits are very energy consuming .

2) The sword was ended very effective against unarmored enemies , which was the majority in that time (12th century ).

3) The armored opponents weren't that easy to kill with a sword or other weapon but anyway they were of better use alive to ransom than dead .

4) There is in some chronicle the description of how the Byzantine army of Emperor Manuel Komnenos (12th century ) when had to deal with the Hungarian army preferably used maces rather than swords as being more effective against armored opponents ( I can't find the source maybe MikeBG can help ).     

5) The Mideastern blades where more suitable for cutting especially the curved ones . I can assure you that cutting through flesh is much easier with a curved cutting edge .

6) Preserving the mail in the best conditions ( free of rust ) wasn't that easy. It should be a hell of a spending rubbing it with olive oil !!! 

7) The same goes for the sword . in that time there weren't really impermeable tissues or materials . Leather isn't that impermeable after you walk under the rain for a couple of days. So sorter blades were easier to protect and to preserve in a good cutting state .

All that being said I Think some changes could be tested for the sake of accuracy :

A) Swords ( European ones ) dealing more thrusting damage than cutting .

B) Against Armor they should do mainly blunt damage .

C) The distinction between rusty and plain should be more marked with various degrees of deficiency making not worthy to bear the weight of a very rusty armor for that little  of protection.

P.S. Of course mail was always combined with interior padded cloth and sometimes with external one (even if only to prevent overheating under the sun which was your main enemy while in a metal armor).   
 
Back
Top Bottom