Users who are viewing this thread

Is that because of camera FOV or something... but when i saw (physical) size of units and HORSES, i was shocked. Can somebody fix it or make a mod?
Warband is 100% more realistic in this.

Thank you
 
What's your reference point? People were shorter in the Middle Ages and so were horses.

There is dispute in medievalist circles over the size of the war horse, with some notable historians claiming a size of 17 to 18 hands (68 to 72 inches, 173 to 183 cm), as large as a modern Shire horse. However, there are practical reasons for this dispute. Analysis of existing horse armour located in the Royal Armouries indicates the equipment was originally worn by horses of 15 to 16 hands (60 to 64 inches, 152 to 163 cm), or about the size and build of a modern field hunter or ordinary riding horse. Research undertaken at the Museum of London, using literary, pictorial and archaeological sources, supports military horses of 14 to 15 hands (56 to 60 inches, 142 to 152 cm), distinguished from a riding horse by its strength and skill, rather than its size. This average does not seem to vary greatly across the medieval period. Horses appear to have been selectively bred for increased size from the 9th and 10th centuries, and by the 11th century the average warhorse was probably 14.2 to 15 hands (58 to 60 inches, 147 to 152 cm), a size verified by studies of Norman horseshoes as well as the depictions of horses on the Bayeux Tapestry. Analysis of horse transports suggests 13th-century destriers were a stocky build, and no more than 15 to 15.2 hands (60 to 62 inches, 152 to 157 cm). Three centuries later, warhorses were not significantly bigger; the Royal Armouries used a 15.2 hands (62 inches, 157 cm) Lithuanian Heavy Draught mare as a model for the statues displaying various 15th- and 16th-century horse armours, as her body shape was an excellent fit.

Although a large horse is not required to carry an armoured knight, it is held by some historians that a large horse was desirable to increase the power of a lance strike. However, practical experiments by re-enactors have suggested that the rider's weight and strength is of more relevance than the size of the mount, and that little of the horse's weight is translated to the lance.

Further evidence for a 14-16 hand (56 to 64 inches (140 to 160 cm)) war horse is that it was a matter of pride to a knight to be able to vault onto his horse in full armour, without touching the stirrup. This arose not from vanity, but necessity: if unhorsed during battle, a knight would remain vulnerable if unable to mount by himself. In reality, of course, a wounded or weary knight might find it difficult, and rely on a vigilant squire to assist him. Incidentally, a knight's armour served in his favour in any fall. With his long hair twisted on his head to form a springy padding under his padded-linen hood, and his helm placed on top, he had head protection not dissimilar to a modern bicycle or equestrian helmet.



Their working paper reveals that Englishmen became taller when Britain was under Roman occupation (200-410 AD), with average height rising from 167 cm to 170 cm (or 5 feet 5 inches). The researchers suggest this rise in average height coincided with the Romans’ improved water supply and sanitation systems and a more varied diet at this time. After the Romans left Britain in 410, heights did not deteriorate immediately but fell from 600 onwards. The paper highlights previous research suggesting that health may have deteriorated when populations moved out of the towns and cities set up by the Romans, abandoning their more hygienic water supplies and waste disposal systems. Plague and pestilence then became common and infectious diseases are known to have increased at this time, with archaeological evidence also suggesting that diets were inadequate.

[This article essentially explains how times of war and famine resulted in lower average height due to the general population being malnurished]
 
What's your reference point? People were shorter in the Middle Ages and so were horses.
That's all debatable, I've read contradictory evidence--and size varies per region, as well--so it's hard to be definitive. The problem is when you make a "tall" character, and you are basically twice as high as everyone in the game, it's crazy. They need to make the height variation less intense. That to me is the real issue. So the real problem is not size per-se, but proportionate sizes.
 
That's all debatable, I've read contradictory evidence--and size varies per region, as well--so it's hard to be definitive. The problem is when you make a "tall" character, and you are basically twice as high as everyone in the game, it's crazy. They need to make the height variation less intense. That to me is the real issue. So the real problem is not size per-se, but proportionate sizes.
you right.
 
That's AVERAGE height... for men and women. That's a stupid statistic that's been thrown around, that gives people the idea that medieval people were all midgets. If you look at actual skeletons and bodies, however, they're not that much shorter.
 
That's all debatable, I've read contradictory evidence--and size varies per region, as well--so it's hard to be definitive. The problem is when you make a "tall" character, and you are basically twice as high as everyone in the game, it's crazy. They need to make the height variation less intense. That to me is the real issue. So the real problem is not size per-se, but proportionate sizes.

I dunno. The ability to play a Gregor Clegane is kind of appealing to me.

My current character I made tall but not max height and he feels like a normal dude who is just a tad taller than average. If you don't want to be a giant of a man just don't take MAXIMUM height.
 
I dunno. The ability to play a Gregor Clegane is kind of appealing to me.

My current character I made tall but not max height and he feels like a normal dude who is just a tad taller than average. If you don't want to be a giant of a man just don't take MAXIMUM height.
I don't generally pay attention to the height slider, I have made a few characters and only once did I bother with it. I didn't max it out, and when I go into foot battles it's like I'm fighting children, or oompa loompas.
 
I don't generally pay attention to the height slider, I have made a few characters and only once did I bother with it. I didn't max it out, and when I go into foot battles it's like I'm fighting children, or oompa loompas.

I think what we need is a contrast example. Like an average height man standing to the side of our character when using the height slider so we can judge how tall we're actually making our character in comparison.
 
Or, you know... have it tell us our freaking height as we move the slider!

Height ought to come with pros and cons, to be more immersive, as well.
 
I think what we need is a contrast example. Like an average height man standing to the side of our character when using the height slider so we can judge how tall we're actually making our character in comparison.
Sure, or maybe an actual indicator of height (like a scale next to your character image), and you crank the slider up or down and it tells you how tall you are, and have a red indicator at the average height for the game. But then, you should probably not be able to make giants, since the game goes for a more realism motif.
 
Or, you know... have it tell us our freaking height as we move the slider!

Height ought to come with pros and cons, to be more immersive, as well.

It kind of does thanks to the physics and how the hit boxes work, I think. If you made your character super tall you'd have a harder time hiding from arrows during a siege, for example. Meanwhile being shorter miiiiight effect your reach? I dunno if arm length matters in the weapon's attacks.
 
Back
Top Bottom