Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - De-Legro

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 158
Developing Might & Fealty / Re: Third slot overhaul
« on: June 20, 2017, 05:37:34 AM »
Why not just go with the recurve bow then and skip the composite bow if almost all composites were also recuverves?

And I don't think adding different crossbow sizes will do much. Beyond maybe a ballista that could either be some kind of construction that you can build several off once that is implemented, and which can then be used by archers. Or maybe a weapon that makes the user a permanent militia unit which can't be mobilised maybe. What you can add however would be the repeating crossbow, that might be worthwhile.

At the moment size doesn't matter, but if/when factors like range and fire rate are added it well might. Also light crossbows can be armed using arm strength alone, and thus are suitable for use on horse back, while heavy crossbows are not.

Developing Might & Fealty / Re: Third slot overhaul
« on: June 20, 2017, 02:42:46 AM »
Well if we go by what De-Legro said then we would only have four bow types, with one being the crossbow. Longbow, Compound Bow, Recurve Bow and Crossbow. Though I don't think compound bows would really fit though right? Seems more logical to have Longbows, Recurve bows and Crossbows.

I probably mean composite bows not compound bows. My list currently is

Self Bow
Long self bow (or just longbow)
recurve bow
composite bow (my understanding is almost all composite bows are recurve bows, but not all recurve bows where composite)

Also wondering if there is any benefit to having multiple sized crossbows.

Developing Might & Fealty / Re: Third slot overhaul
« on: June 20, 2017, 02:29:11 AM »
Do we really need to overcomplicate though? I don't think we need half a dozen bow types, each with distinctive stats. Two types would be more than enough: a very strong bow that can't be used on horseback and a weaker versatile bow. Doesn't matter if they have D&D names or not.

Why? Why can we not have powerful bows on horse back?

Developing Might & Fealty / Re: Third slot overhaul
« on: June 19, 2017, 11:56:55 PM »

My apologies, I think I just misunderstood you. Yes, I agree. But I didn't expect that sort of change anyway; more just modifying the effectiveness of a longbow + horse to simulate any of the following:

1) It's a long bow specifically designed for use on Horseback (like Japan) where it loses draw power
2) It's a european longbow style, which is just damn hard to use on horseback (though not technically impossible, just not all that useful)
3) They act as dragoons; so they don't really get as much of a defensive benefit versus a short bow who can stay mounted, or cavalry who can stay mounted. In the current system, I imagine that's like reducing the defensive bonus. With the proposed changes that may factor in range, they could just get into range sooner -- maybe not a good use of horses, because they're more likely to be lost and don't provide much of a defense boost for the longbowmen, who are going to be the first to get into range anyway. I wasn't expecting ACTUAL mechanics for mounting and dismounting... That'd be super difficult to implement. Just something loosely abstracting it.

Appropriately weakening mounted longbowmen really could fit into abstracting any of these cases. I'd definitely like to see mounted longbowmen generally inferior than most other options, but maybe someone will find a place for them.

I hope that clarifies my view, and I'm sorry for misunderstanding you.

Hmm I have previously spent hours and days trying to find any comparison of draw strength for Japanese longbows vs English, so far as I can work out no real evidence exists to support either side of the argument, and runs into various topics like just how important is draw strength, what type of arrow is being used, velocity vs impulse etc. It would seem the question of comparisons of range and killing/penetration power is really an unknown.

If I was to consider implementing your list, I would also want to add things like recursive vows and compound bows so that you have a far more effective "short bow" option. Then again we need to rename short bow anyway since it is a D&D designation that has little correlation to real world weapons.

Helpline / Re: Regarding Subscriptions.
« on: June 19, 2017, 02:07:14 PM »
Some of my characters are fleeing a takeover by a player using multiple accounts. I have proof of the multi-ing, but of course I can't be sure whether any or all of the accounts are paid-for. What's the etiquette for a situation like this? Can I report the matter to @Andrew and ask him to investigate? Or is the game database swept for free-account multi-ing regularly, so all players' accounts would be reviewed sooner or later anyway?

How in heavens name does anyone that can't review database data have "proof"

Developing Might & Fealty / Re: Third slot overhaul
« on: June 19, 2017, 12:27:51 AM »
Why? Even Pre-Marian Rome had mounted infantry. Mounted infantry has existed since the beginning of warfare, before dragoons were formed.

Whom just as I mentioned rode to battle, but did not as dragoons do remount during battle for tactical purposes. Hell the Roman infantry you refer to didn't even ride the horse, they clung to the saddle of cavalry units.

I am all for equipment that speeds marching timrs of non cab units, I argue against specific changes to the battle engine to simulate rapid redeployment of said forces during the battle.

Developing Might & Fealty / Re: Third slot overhaul
« on: June 18, 2017, 10:24:08 AM »

And for that you'd like to remove it? It sounds like conventional cavalry should offer something more in this world than horse archers, if that's the desired route. Decrease hit chance, factor in ammunition count (for a battle), range (eventually), limit the armor an archer can wear on a horse or invoke an increasing penalty for armor above leather, reduce damage, significantly increase training time... A lot of these could still offer them a place on the battlefield against certain armies but possibly make them less desirable than conventional cavalry.

If it was generally a waste to risk a horse for an archer in combat, then make it one! But I guess getting rid of it all together is easier.

I never spoke of removing existing horse archers, whom are in the vein of Mongol and Turk horse archers. I argued against creating a system within the the combat engine for dismounting of infantry or archers within the field of battle.

I like the general idea, but I would personally tie it to some of the proposed changes to the combat engine. Once troops can have defined roles and tactics upon the battle field it makes sense that you train them into those roles. You do not take troops trained to march in a phalanx like formation, give them some light missile weapons and just expect them to fulfill the role of skirmishers.

Developing Might & Fealty / Re: Third slot overhaul
« on: June 18, 2017, 05:26:28 AM »
Right, and the French using mounted archers in a dragoon style BEFORE GUNPOWDER WEAPONS somehow doesn't fit that?

The Halberd itself only really came into usage worth mentioning in the 14th and 15th centuries... The Crossbow was only prominent in Europe starting sometime around the Battle of Hastings in 1066... That's still generally borderline High Middle Ages.  How early are we talking? The equipment used in M&F largely fits into the later Medieval era. I know we're supposed to suspend some disbelief, but then perhaps it's better to call something like the Halberd a polearm or something equally generic. Crossbows and halberds in particular don't really fall into the Early european middle ages in any significant manner without suspending a lot of belief.

M&F is ahistoric as it is, as it currently exists, and uses Late Medieval equipment. If the cost of horses are the reason why you think "dragoon style" archers don't fit, then make that the reason why they're less effective. The reasoning here amounts to "Well horses were expensive so they didn't do it at that time so you can't now" even though they did do it later, some time before the onset of the increasing popularity of gunpowder weapons. I thought Tom generally wanted to leave feasible options available to the player; whether that makes them a good option is an entirely different story.

If you want to define a period and general cultures to base M&F off of, then go ahead and do that. If you want to make a new map where the default culture is different depending upon where you settle, then do that (because it also seems like there's a lot of euro-centric arguments being made in general). if it's because you think it's hard to balance, then state that. Or we can acknowledge that different aspects of M&F match to different eras, particularly compared to the the different 'parts' of the European Middle Ages.

Which is why I referred to similarities within the game and the tactics of a period, rather then push the entire game into a period. I noted the relative scarcity of horses in the game world, thus extrapolated their value and compared that to tactics used by Europe when horses where likewise scarce. Now that scarcity in game could be because we only track mounts that are fit to be cavalry mounts, and Andrews proposed equipment changes might mix things up, but to me at the moment, given the small numbers of horses we have at our command for troops, it seems implausible that any military commander would be using them for tasks other then pure cavalry.

Creating Might & Fealty / Re: Recruitment Overhaul
« on: June 18, 2017, 04:41:18 AM »
Well, the world did have basically a ton of names for basically the same loadout for awhile...

Sure, but other cultures didn't see them or need to care about them. In real life you can see the loadout of other troops and designate them as per you own cultural norms or needs.

Creating Might & Fealty / Re: Recruitment Overhaul
« on: June 18, 2017, 04:23:45 AM »
I actually like this idea and it resonates with my own thoughts, I laid out in the top 10 thread. It follows the design of King of the Dragon Pass (did you start playing it?) and does make the recruitment process and army composition a lot more straightforward and even.

My only concern is that I don't yet know if removing this particular element of microing would be good for the game because it was actually one such elements many (myself included) tend to enjoy.

Nope, mostly I was thinking about the fact that we simply don't have a concept of "units" in the game, and that it would be nice for them to exist, sort of an extension of the request to be able to name groups. It also ties in with Andrews idea of NPC captains and the like.

I'm in favor of it... Or at the very least GROUPING like loadouts (regardless of experience) when mobilizing or assigning them. In that case, you'd probably want to be able to draw from veterans, draw from fresh recruits, or draw from a mix (at random).

HOWEVER: It would be nice to know of especially extraordinary soldiers! If you have a man in your retinue who survives 15 bloody battles and has as many kills as any good First One you know, he's probably pretty special. Maybe it could translate into "normie" promotions for NPCs or even non-First One PC roles in the future (at your discretion, I don't really have a suggestion there other than having some history calculated at least behind the scenes could lead to future improvements akin to these).

I'll push one of my other suggestions which could translate into both flavor and utility here -- named loadouts. As a free account or paid account not using the feature, it could just act as an easy training mechanism. For paid accounts or as a flavor feature unlock (cheap price per each, or just once and done for forever/some time) it could show up on reports/battlefield. You want to call light armored swordsmen on horseback hobelars? Great, now everyone is imagining lightly armored English/Scotsmen on ponies!

Loadouts could be tied to estates, families or possibly realms. "Recruit 60 hobelars and 40 jinetes and meet us at <place>" if you want to be some amalgamation of Spain and the Isles. They'd display in battle as 120 Immortals (Heavy Infantry) (Or even mixed infantry, in the case of immortals which usually had a loadout including some form of ranged weapon) or 40 Paladins (Heavy Cavalry) or something of the sort.

I guess it does open it up for silliness abuse, but in a perfect world it lets realms and families develop a unique military culture...

Loadout names are something that was requested early on and rejected by Tom. I think his concern was having 4000 different names for what amounts to the same troop type. If I recall correctly I was one of the people asking for it. Personally I would think about tying loadouts to realms if we where to have them.

Developing Might & Fealty / Re: Third slot overhaul
« on: June 18, 2017, 03:53:52 AM »
Well yes, I directly cited dragoons.

Here's a modern version of the Japanese style:

It's a slightly different design than the European longbow, but it is still a longbow.

Mounted crossbowmen were used in two variants as early as the 13th century; lighter, weaker crossbows where they'd be able to reload on horseback, and heavier variants where they'd shoot once and engage with swords. Those were predominantly German and Scandinavian.

However, the Battle of Blanchetaque supposedly had English Longbowmen (or perhaps just bowmen) firing from horseback while fording (or against  a fording) Picardy militia. I'm not saying it was common, but there are a few accounts of it.

Additionally, French Military reforms had horse archers (granted not longbowmen) fight in a /late/ dragoon style. They still fire from foot, but they did more than just ride up to the rear of the battle line, dismount and fight on foot. However; it was a dragoon style. Thus they like fired from foot, but perhaps engaged in melee combat on horse, (as ranged seems unlikely) in order for the late dragoon comparison to make sense. Dragoons, of course, were trained in both infantry and cavalry tactics and fittingly -- were named after the firearm the french used for their dragoons.

I'm not trying to say that Europeans definitely fought with bows or longbows from horse all the time, though there /are/ a few instances but they are few and far between. Most just rode  horse into battle as you said; some later adopted other tactics probably as horses began to become more common.

I think it could translate easier into the game, especially once range is involved. Mounted longbowmen/archers would perhaps get to fire a round sooner (or at least just before) their infantry counterparts. Mounted Crossbowmen (unless a light variant is added) would fire a single volley and either: fall back to reload (miss a round of combat) or begin to fight in melee. That is, if the game wishes to be Eurocentric.

If we want to include tactics from Africa, Asia and everywhere between, then at the very least Japan fought with a type of longbow designed for horseback fighting. Horse archers biggest trouble could have theoretically been European terrain, but I don't know as much about that -- I'm drawing from old discussions and videos I've watched.

Let me be clear: I don't think that Longbowmen on horses should be running  circles around the enemy, peppering them to death. I'm 100% for nerfing the combination in some regard. I think most loadouts should have some weakness -- whether numbers (because they're too damn hard to train or too damn expensive and time consuming to make the equipment itself) or that certain types of equipment impart penalties when used with others.

It's just that there appear to be examples in at least Europe and Asia, and M&F already seems to have a few instances of stuff that's unlikely or uncommon but still feasible... and it's feasible, if not perfectly amazing/useful. Unless a general fighting style is established, or the developers step in and say "we're adopting more of a <culture> style for fighting as a rule" or cultures begin to have more than flavor impact, it's going to be rough.

I mean, heck. A polearm like a halberd is probably a bit rough to use on Horseback; we can make them stop using it, make them have penalties, or just imagine they're a polearm better designed for horseback usage. If pikes make it in -- they're certainly too long to be used from a horse in any useful manner. I'd expect to see men dehorsing themselves when their pike gets stuck against the earth or a rock... Of course, the Macedonian companion cavalry used a shortened sarissa, but it was like a light lance or heavy cavalry spear at that point more than anything else.

Do we use our imagination a bit, to allow some weirder combos (the especially unfeasible ones)? Do we outright make anything that's feasible but unlikely? Do we make it impossible to use unfeasible combinations, or just penalize them even more heavily to draw folks away unless they find a niche use case?

You are missing my point, look at when things like dragoons existed. Predominately we are talking later medieval periods when industry and agriculture is far better established, in other words when horses become more of a commodity since the requirements to breed them in large numbers exist. Now if we look at stables in M&F and the slow rate of breeding and more importantly the tiny storage capacity, to me that suggests much earlier periods where even pack horses whom are unsuited in temperament to take to the battle field are relatively expensive. So the question is not if it is technically possible to mount troops for dragoon style engagement, the question is what are we trying to replicate and do such tactics make sense in that setting.

Creating Might & Fealty / Re: Equipment Overhaul
« on: June 17, 2017, 08:28:23 AM »

Oh, I agree that it helps in the real world all around. I'm more talking about a general "what can be helpful" in the real world...then a way to translate that as a minor game mechanic that gives the world flavor. Where the battles are calculated for us (and with some randomization), all the 'tactics and formations' of battle are RP after the fact. A mechanic that gives skirmishers and non-shinies a (minor) boost would simply help promote more flavored variety in how the dice can fall for combat. XP already kind of covers combat awareness/training, but that would be a great modifier for forests.

In the current combat engine tactics and formations are RP. That is not the plan moving forward though.

Creating Might & Fealty / Re: Equipment Overhaul
« on: June 17, 2017, 08:03:16 AM »
I'm not gonna say that heavy armor would slow someone down a great deal, 25-60 pounds evenly distributed isn't harsh, but I will say that a narrow vision helm and bulky grieves would probably be a bitch to try and charge an enemy in dense brush/brambles (with trees all around for quicker troops to flank from). I just don't imagine heavy infantry being as effective in forests where they wouldn't be able to form a solid line and engage an orderly pitched battle.

Think of Teutoburg forest. Not an ideal case (experience, familiarity with the grounds, and other things factoring more than Germanic light vs Roman heavy), but if you abstract the battles in your head you get the idea. 60 pounds isn't much if you are hiking or for a short sprint, but climb a tree with it (or try to hide with reflective surfaces on you).

Wouldn't want modifiers to be 'make or break' type things, though. Just little advantages that add up or can be capitalized on.

Again it is going to depend on tactics. If you have ambushes that can negate the advantage of heavier armour. Of course you are now talking an entirely different form of combat then general battle. Pitched battles within forest are going to favour those with shorter weapons in general. Solid battle lines are less important then you think here, since you aren't fighting against an enemies battle line either. What counts in forest combat (and I am generalising here since my own military training extends to jungle warfare not forest, but many concepts remain) is the ability to fight in loose formations, ie the training and awareness to maintain close proximity to your comrades. Most assuredly narrow visors would limit that, but then narrow visors presented awareness and vision problem in all terrain and by no means were universal among heavy infantry.

Like I said, its not that in certain cases, under certain conditions and certain enemy troop compositions that forest would not confer advantages, simply that it is rubbish to say that light infantry in all circumstances gain some sort of advantage from forest.

Creating Might & Fealty / Re: Equipment Overhaul
« on: June 17, 2017, 06:23:21 AM »
I like the idea of expanding on equipment but I wouldn't throw too many redundant options at people. A high class shield (metal instead of the low-class wood shield) and cheap slings (as a low-class javelin) would be great additions. I figure most people go with 'what is best' with high investments or 'what will suffice' with less investment, then a bulk of mids. Cheap, middling, and elite gears seem a good spread that shouldn't confuse anyone.

I'd like to see specialty gears available for culture-packs. Maybe orientals get metal-less scale armor, maybe northern European axemen are more frightening. Little quirks that might see a large effect en masse, but are tied with flavor/RP. Mostly swag, but with a small yet noticeable effect they become swaggier.

I do like that, equipment/terrain modifiers. Buffs to cavalry in grass/scrub (charging/flanking), buffs to light-inf in forest (where dense growth restricts maneuvering), buffs for archers in marshes/hills (where it's a rougher time for infantry charges). It would at least add an extra dimension to war.

But it is also largely nonsense . Nonsense that every accepts since D&D and games in general have adopted it, but still nonsense. Light infantry has no advantage over heavy in forest. Indeed generally the task of light infantry is skirmishing, moving fast in front of the main battle line, using slings, light bows, javelin what have you to disrupt enemy battle lines (and take down enemy skirmishes before they do the same to your lines. Although we should note here that sometimes light infantry referred to their role rather then the weight of their equipment and armour.

There is certainly some terrain that confers advantage, marsh and rocky terrain hinders cavalry and infantry alike from advancing for example, but in general it is far less then war games would have us believe.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 158