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 - Andre

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 25
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Third slot overhaul
« on: June 20, 2017, 03:20:40 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.

Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Third slot overhaul
« on: June 20, 2017, 02:31:50 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.

Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Third slot overhaul
« on: June 17, 2017, 07:47:46 PM »
Maybe you should read up a bit before saying that halberds can't be used on horseback Constantine? First off, as far as I know Tom has previously pointed out that the weapons aren't anything specific, an axe could be a small hatchet or a large woodcutting axe, a halberd could be standard european halberd or more of a glaive or more of an asian variant (many of which were specifically on horseback or even on elephants), and while sure, those weapons may not be axes like a halberd, they are still similar and they could very well be the type of weapon used. 

And the same goes for longbows, if you put a longbow on a mounted soldier it may very well be a bow designed to be used on horseback.

Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Equipment Overhaul
« on: June 17, 2017, 03:44:12 PM »
I'd still keep the defensive bonus. Also what of giving spears a small bonus against horses, halberds a medium bonus against horses and a big bonus to dismounting, and pikes a big bonus against horses and a small bonus to dismounting? With pikes having high defense and medium attack, halberds having high attack and little defense, and spears having medium attack and little defense. This way halberds and pikes have about equal amounts of stats, but distributed so that they perform different purposes, with pikes being defensive weapons to kill horses, and halberds being offensive weapons to dismount riders. And spears being a more accesible choice that can combat horses slightly better than other weapons aswell.

Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Equipment Overhaul
« on: June 17, 2017, 02:40:20 PM »
I don't see the reason to have a Morning star and a mace really.

Also I still don't get why you'd make pikes not have a defensive bonus that is larger than halberd but an offensive one that is lower, with some kind of bonus against horses themselves unlike halberds which have a bonus against dismounting someone on a horse.

I also wouldn't make the axe weaker than a peasant flail. Honestly I'd even go as far as to make the axe stronger than a spear, but with the spear possibly having a small defensive bonus that is smaller than the halberds and pikes.

Also what about a throwing axe that might be more effective against shields than a javelin but less effective against armor and possibly have less reach than a javelin if that is added ever. Potentially we could also add specific battle axes which would be very powerful but possibly less effective against shields than a normal axe. I'd put battle axes somewhere around the swords strength, maybe under or above it.

Flails could possibly also be an alternative to axes, where similarly to battle brothers they gain a bonus to hitting people behind shields, but not the shields themselves.

Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Equipment Overhaul
« on: June 17, 2017, 01:11:22 PM »
Why not just make axes very effective against shields? Would give some additional reason to use axes rather than spears or better even. And as others have said, longbows are definetly usable on horseback, and so are crossbows, but I feel like they should recieve a slight debuff on horses, or shortbows should recieve a bonus maybe. That way people might consider using shortbows aswell.

Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Equipment Overhaul
« on: June 17, 2017, 09:25:16 AM »
Camels are fine for dessert warfare, and make decent mounts for archers. They are less useful for lance units or indeed sword cavalry due to their annoying gait, but they make do. Supposedly horses will shy away from their smell, though I did note recently on my way out to a remote sewage treatment plant a property that had both horses and camel in the same paddock. Anyway my point is unless we want to replicate the large scale deserts of North Africa and the Arab states, camels are of limited use compared to horses.

War elephants would be interesting, at least if we implemented the fact that they are almost as likely to demolish your own army as they are that of your enemy.

I believe that horses are frightened by the smell of camels mainly because they are not used to it, not because it is innately frightening to horses. Also, I don't think camels actually have more durability than horses, I can't remember where but I read that they are actually less durable than Destriers and Coursers. I'd mainly put camels as a cheaper and weaker (offensivly atleast) alternative to horses that you can recruit in scrublands.

Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Equipment Overhaul
« on: June 16, 2017, 10:52:48 PM »
Shields fell out of use as plate armor got more popular and effective, in favor of two-handed swords and possibly other weapons.

Personally I wouldn't put bandages on soldiers, I'd put them on entourage but make the entourage be able to help during battle aswell to possibly reduce deaths and make some soldiers just wounded instead or save some soldiers from wounds at all (with maybe just a recovery period but little chance of death?).

And about the camels, obviously they should only be trainable in deserts and scrublands, with less food used by the training facility and once horses consume food in the field they should also consume less there aswell. They should also just be less effective in combat than atleast coursers and destriers I believe, with less attack and defence bonuses, but likely more effective than saddle horses (I agree with Roran here about them being mainly for mobility).

And for pikes, I'd probably give them the defensive boost rather than halberds, with both having bonus against mounted troops (higher on the pike), and with the halberd having slightly higher offensive capabilities in general. I'd also make it so that a mace wielding soldier killing a soldier with heavier armor (scale and up maybe) would make it quite likely that the armor is just lost afterwards if the soldier was wounded or killed.

Helpline / Re: Take control progress
« on: June 16, 2017, 10:25:59 PM »
I think you can only see it if you are in the estate yourself, possibly only if you start opposing the take over. Not sure really.

Stories to tell / Re: The Greenwardens
« on: June 16, 2017, 10:24:54 PM »
As De-Legro pointed out before me, medieval armor and weapons don't really weigh much at all, definetly not for someone who is trained.

Also, I believe what is best is that we can still train troops the same way as now, with just the training facilities that exist, but we should have the option to either just levy troops and give them weapons, which would basically mean that they are recruited in possibly a few days at most with no experience. But you should also be able to select to actually train the troops, which makes them start with experience but take possibly the same time as now or even longer to recruit.

Alternativly we could also do something where you can choose to levy troops, recruit militia, or recruit mobile troops. Levied troops could have low morale and start with no experience, but they would be recruited in the matter of days or maybe not even that. Militia would take about as long as now, but would start with minimal experience, they would also suffer morale penalties when a decent bit from their home town, which mobile troops wouldn't or they would just suffer penalties sooner than mobile troops. Mobile troops would take even longer to recruit but would start with a decent bit of experience and they could be used for war far from your towns. Ofcourse you could also have additional things such as mobile troops will never produce food in a town, even if placed as a militia, though they would still defend the town. And Levies might start running away soon after being levied. Maybe mobile troops would also cost gold to maintain. You should probably also be able to retrain them to a different level, possibly not downgrade militia or mobile to levies though, but you could retrain levies into the other two. Maybe also the possibility of them automatically upgrading once they reach a certain experience level? Though if that happens I imagine you'd also want them to lose experience over time slowly and possibly also downgrade automatically if they lose enough. With that last thought of upgrades I'm also thinking that maybe once they become experienced enough and you haven't had battle for a long time they run a certain chance of becoming mercenaries recruitable in inn's?

Sorry for the rambling at the end there. Really just random thoughts after a while.

Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Third slot overhaul
« on: June 15, 2017, 02:36:56 PM »
Halberds can and were used on horseback aswell as far as I am aware, and other similar weapons that are also large and not purely for stabbing.

Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Third slot overhaul
« on: June 15, 2017, 01:04:14 PM »
Actually it does make a certain amount of sense. While using a longbow in Plate is perfectly possible as far as I know, atleast if you remove your gauntlets. It would still be even a bit more difficult to do so than if you had say only leather armor or chainmail.

And as I said, historically people have used two handed and quite large weapons perfectly well on horseback.

Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Third slot overhaul
« on: June 14, 2017, 02:54:39 PM »

Agreed that it should be more freeform. I'm thinking possibly some kind of weight or mobility system to equipment aswell? I mean certainly using a broadsword, plate, shield and warhorse is possible, but the biggest immediate problem I can think of is that if you do fall off it would be quite difficult to get back up I imagine, certainly ontop of the horse but possibly even on your feet. And for other things such as possibly having several weapons, a shield and plate, it is possible but the soldier would certainly have a more difficult time moving around and they would also get tired quicker.

I wouldn't say horse and longbow should be impossible, not sure if it is possible to shoot a longbow from horseback or not, but even if it is you can at the very least use the horse to get to and from battles.

I also wouldn't say wielding halbers on horseback should be impossible either, as far as I am aware halbers and similar large two-handed weapons could very well be used on horseback. This game also doesn't really specify what exactly the weapons are either as far as I know, so a halberd could very well be a shorter than you imagine aswell.

In general I wouldn't limit combinations at all, possibly all I would do is maybe add some negatives to some items, like maybe a negative to ranged in heavier armor or something. Because as far as I am aware plate was still fairly manouverable and you were fully capable of using a bow with it, main reason people in plate didn't use bows was because plate was used by knights and wealthy individuals, and bows were peasant weapons.

Stories to tell / Re: The Greenwardens
« on: June 10, 2017, 01:31:02 PM »
99.99% sure that equipment (including horses) in no way changes the food consumption of soldiers. The stables themselves just take a whole lot of food to keep.

Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Javelins
« on: June 10, 2017, 12:53:02 PM »
Andrew has said before that for now you only lose equipment when retreating, so before you could change them from guaranteed loss to higher break chance that would have to be changed. I agree though, and think whats more important really is to change their power level from that of a crossbow down to about half or three quarters of a shortbows power, possibly at most shortbow or slightly above. Possibly they could also be moved from the weaponsmith to the blacksmith instead. And ofcourse the whole no bow AND javelin thing.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 25