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 - silvershot

Pages: [1] 2
URL where error occured: Email sent from Game (Gmail Webapp)
Criticality:Low, Annoyance
What is the Bug? The host name when sending links via email/M&F Notification Service is 'localhost', e.g. http://localhost/en/character/view/9732
How to Reproduce: Turn notification services on and receive an email.
Additional Comments: Should be a relatively easy fix, even if not especially important. It's definitely a nice to have in some circumstances

Developing Might & Fealty / Re: Third slot overhaul
« on: June 20, 2017, 07:07:29 AM »
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.

Excellent point... I don't know enough about the Japanese bows, other than some conjecture that they've slightly less penetration power. I'll try to see if there's any merit for it. (Could just be justification for tradeoffs between mounting and foot, or in reality I'm just curious now).

Developing Might & Fealty / Re: Third slot overhaul
« on: June 19, 2017, 06:41:35 PM »
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.

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.

Developing Might & Fealty / Re: Third slot overhaul
« on: June 18, 2017, 09:57:32 AM »
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.

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.

Creating Might & Fealty / Re: Recruitment Overhaul
« on: June 18, 2017, 05:20:39 AM »
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.

I do agree generally that at least larger realm types and sovereign realms are probably good enough (Duchy and above, perhaps, excepting sovereign baronies, counties and marches). Associating a cost with loadouts might also help mitigate it. I know I'd at least be willing to spend credits on naming some unit types, though I'm just a Count. I can definitely understand the counter-argument to the concept.

Developing Might & Fealty / Re: Third slot overhaul
« on: June 18, 2017, 05:18:07 AM »
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.

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.

Creating Might & Fealty / Re: Recruitment Overhaul
« on: June 18, 2017, 04:36:28 AM »
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.

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.

Well, the world did have basically a ton of names for basically the same loadout for awhile...

Creating Might & Fealty / Re: Recruitment Overhaul
« on: June 17, 2017, 09:16:31 AM »
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...

Developing Might & Fealty / Re: Third slot overhaul
« on: June 17, 2017, 09:02:04 AM »
English longbow men rode to battle, but I can't recall an example of them riding once in battle, not even for the purpose of maneuvering. Recall that horses are a valuable asset and take time to replace. Unless you can confer significant advantage from placing them at risk you simply don't do so. Matters changed in the later period as horses slowly become comparatively more common. Look at the early meaning of dragoons for example, infantry that rode to battle for logistical reasons and left the horse with the rest of the camp baggage to fight.

The reality is archers on foot can out shoot horse archers. They are smaller targets, have a greater rate of fire and generally better range. For example crusaders used massed crossbow men to counter turk horse archers, China's reliance on extremely large archer formations was a direct counter to the nomad forces they faced. There is evidence to suggest that even the feared Mongol horse archers would dismount when they expected to engage in a protracted archery exchange, shooting from a rather unique sitting position.

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?

Off-topic Chat / Re: Battle Brothers
« on: June 17, 2017, 12:12:06 AM »
Agreed, though they're extremely squishy early on even in good armor which is their real issue. I've had a cripple become one of my best soldiers -- lower health, good avoidance and attack though.

I've always found militia to be a good well-rounded choice that's not too expensive; better than farmhands in some ways. Farmhands are pretty damn good though. I sometimes pick a theme for my company and just try to follow that.

Creating Might & Fealty / Re: Equipment Overhaul
« on: June 16, 2017, 10:23:52 PM »
I would actually reverse the buffs for the halberd and pike, as they were largely defensive weapons, the pike even more so than the halberd.

Which is why I think it fits better as a long/full sized spear -- a good anti cavalry weapon but probably a bit less effective than a shorter spear ultimately in close quarters combat. You probably can't use it effectively to stab without impacting those behind you and it's not a very effective bludgeoning weapon. Halberds can still slash at least. The reach of a long spear is both a boon and a curse; opposite of a shorter spear which doesn't offer much of an advantage versus cavalry but would do better in tighter formations in close combat.

Furthermore, a long spear could be used as an effective cavalry spear.

What I personally would try to include somehow is that shields would fall out of use at higher grades of armour in favour of more offensive ability while shields would become more of a necessity with lower grades of armour for survival. Perhaps daggers as an off-hand could give more bonuses the better your armour is?

Parrying daggers would be much more effective in solo combat, much like where swords themselves would have been most effective (because a sword in a well trained hand was both offensive and defensive) but to that point, even a buckler might make more sense. Daggers are a good emergency weapon; they're easy to hide, and they're good for a coup de grace. I think two handed fighting with offensive weapons is a generally poor idea, but I'm sure it happened at some point. There's not much more reliable than having a good shield strapped to your second arm... it's technically also used as a weapon if you're a well trained man-at-arms or noble.

Really, heavier armor would be great because it could free their second hand to use a hand-and-a-half sword (such as some broad, most long or generally all bastard) or for them to use other supremely martial weapons such as a pollaxe to its full potential. Plus would allow for a powerful Mordhau/Mordstreich/Mordschlag, whichever you prefer, to perform more crushing blows akin to a warhammer or axe which could help against more heavily armored foes. (That's the one where you grip a sword by its blade with both hands and attack with the pommel)

In fact, I think a pollaxe would be a great addition to the game; it was a common weapon among at least Western European nobility, used a quarter-staff like approach to fighting, took a hell of a lot of training to be effective, and was also rather effective even against armored foes. It could be used as a very lethal or non-lethal weapon; the head could be used for slashing, crushing, tripping and blocking blow. Generally, they'd also be able to stab. A rather sophisticated weapon, really. Expensive to produce, expensive to train, but supremely effective.

Creating Might & Fealty / Re: Equipment Overhaul
« on: June 16, 2017, 08:16:01 PM »
Nice to see the "Improvised" or "basic" weapon types I talked about show up here! Not that you need have seen my post, but I think they'd be a useful addition for both flavor and for emergency numbers bolstering.

One other comment at this time: If a pike is intended to be used with a shield, it may make more sense thematically to call it a long spear, and the spear a short spear. Or just "spear" and "short spear." Nothing really important, there. Javelin change will be awesome -- proper skirmishers! (Though not as awesome as in the sense of Classical Peltasts, we'd need a short sword and shield back for that).

I guess that leads to another question... Will Javelins allow for usage of standard shields? If not, the pavise seems a typically poor fit for someone using javelins, while at least a smaller round/wooden shield seems to fit well.

This is generally a change I am very excited for, even in terms of just flavor.

If you send me your character IDs, I can take a look at this.

9388 (The Count and currently co-Baron)
9583 (The Co-Baron)

The original state was that 9388 was the only Baron; Then co-Baron; then not-a-Baron and back to co-Baron. I did not have the option under any of those circumstances (it did not even appear in the list as greyed out under 'Diplomacy' -> 'Change Realm')


I feel like a butt; I forgot to change permissions after gaining the new settlement (seat of the County) and I hit "Enter Settlement" without  paying attention to the fact it said "You do not have permission to enter this settlement, you can always force your way in..."

Sorry, sorry. It's handled now. Definitely a PEBCAK/ID10T. This is a lesson why you should always do or at least check everything IT or other devs tell you, even if you've already done it or you're confident it's not the issue.

I'm a developer, this was bad of me!

Developing Might & Fealty / Re: Third slot overhaul
« on: June 16, 2017, 05:43:40 PM »

Sure they could, but were they ever? Its not a matter of what can or can't be done, but a matter of the best use of scarce resources. I don't believe the game properly accounts for this yet. For example horses are a logistical pain in the arse, or at least the horses used by European, the steppe pony is a completely different case. Given the effort needed to supply them in the field, you made sure they were used in the most efficient manner possible, which was not mounting longbow men.

The French used mounted bowmen like dragoons; that is to say, they rode into position, dismounted and fired. I'm sure there were also mounted crossbowmen that did the same. Why not with longbows? It's a pain in the arse; it's feasible to shoot them from a (stationary) horse, just like it was theoretically for any mounted crossbowman or archer or someone with some form of a firearm. A longbowman on a horse probably would dismount to fire for optimal effectiveness.

We know Japan did it with (compound) longbows at the very least. It might not be appropriately reflected in the game, but its feasible. Mechanically, it should probably be weaker than what you'd expect of eastern mounted bowman tactics but it should still likely be some boost to effectiveness. A shortbow can fire while moving, a longbowman can't. But if you can quickly get something powerful like longbowmen or crossbowmen into a strong position, why wouldn't you?

There's a lot that will be pretty ahistoric about M&F anyway, and at least this counts among feasibility. That fielding horses is not more of a challenge is another matter entirely; even then if it's feasible I'm not sure it should be disallowed. It'd just be costly and perhaps not as effective in most circumstances.

To change the assignment of realms you need two characters in interaction range (and on the same side of walls). The other character has to be part of the realm you want to join.

That said, I will make a note that you should be able to join the realms you're already part of.

As confirmation, both of my characters are within the walls of the same location. It seems it might require that one of the characters be from another player; which doesn't sound like it's actually intended.

Another player who is trying to establish this hierarchy is moving to the location as well, and we'll see if a character of theirs moving to an appropriate realm will allow the action. If it's a bug, I'm sure it could help indicate where it might exist.

Pages: [1] 2