LasseFin's Replies

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 39 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Paul´s Art Corner #22924
    LasseFin
    Participant

    But are we getting plate armors? Sallets helmets? If we’re getting all of that then it’s fine. But right now a greatsword like that would be an elephant in the room, that’s what I’m saying, since stylistically everything else seems to be based around 1300, which is the period that can be called late high medieval or early late medieval.

    And why not add some early firearms like hand cannons? Of course 1500s firearms would probably be far too advanced and revolutionary to be in this game, but maybe some earlier forms of firearms. They were used as early as early 1300s.

    I know “medieval” is just a term, but I’m talking about the time period, the semantics and terminology is not important. For example, Civil War Era is also a term that is bestowed now, but that doesn’t change that fact that if I put an AK in a Civil War Confederate soldier’s hands, it would look very very out of place. And that’s really only about 80 years into the future, far less than the time difference between a greatsword like that and everything else in the game.

    in reply to: Paul´s Art Corner #22915
    LasseFin
    Participant

    it’s clearly a renaissance design and would only exist in the 16th century which is 200-300 years later.

    Feel the same here. But guess the coming dlc have changed the theme, for example the fencing sword. But anyway, the vanilla game also have something maybe not very pre-renaissance, such as the hat those greatsword soldiers from noble house are wearing, and the hat for witch hunters.

    Yes, you’re right. There’s also units in the game named Landsknecht and Zweihander IIRC (could be wrong, might be getting confused with another game.)

    Fencing swords I agree with too, but arguably finger rings on swords did exist even as early Viking era swords and is minorly plausible in 13th/14th century, but it’s still mostly out of time frame. I guess it kinda makes sense to be a rare weapon.

    Incidentally, here’s a more plausible look for a 13th/14th century two handed sword. The old model actually looks much more similar to it than the new one.

    https://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-2hander-archduke.htm

    in reply to: Paul´s Art Corner #22914
    LasseFin
    Participant

    Well, if those are added, like Sallets, maybe it’s time to add proper plate armor too, might as well be consistent.

    in reply to: Paul´s Art Corner #22909
    LasseFin
    Participant

    Can’t say I’m a huge fan of the redesigned greatsword, I’ve always enjoyed and appreciated your adherence to the High Medieval 13th/14th century weapon and armor designs inspired by manuscripts like Maciejowski Bible, being a pedantic historical freak. That new sword is like the elephant in the room, it’s clearly a renaissance design and would only exist in the 16th century which is 200-300 years later.

    The old sword design looks plausible for 13th/14th century, but the new design is basically out of the realm of possibly.

    in reply to: Increasing Head Hit Chance Worth? #21554
    LasseFin
    Participant

    No. It only applies to HP, not helmet.

    Thanks!

    If I am not mistaken, 2H weapons (except polearms and longaxes) hit both head and body at the same time, so increasing head hit chance with them is pointless.

    Not sure how their area attacks work however.

    Eh? Pretty sure only the 2H axe does that with it’s primary attack. And for that primary attack, I was told that the damage is divided into ‘main’ damage with your roll and ‘bonus’ damage to the other body part. If the main damage rolls body the minor bonus damage defaults to body and vice versa. Only the ‘main’ damage can crit if you roll a head hit with it. The minor bonus damage cannot crit even if it defaults to head. So the head strike chance is not wasted.

    I think in the end though, other perks kind of win out except for specific builds. Opportunity cost and all that.

    Yes, this is true. I recall reading a response from the dev himself saying that’s how it works.

    in reply to: Increasing Head Hit Chance Worth? #21547
    LasseFin
    Participant

    No. It only applies to HP, not helmet.

    in reply to: Things that are so dumb, that makes me sick #21490
    LasseFin
    Participant

    The thing is, I feel like you are a bit more fixated with numbers…

    My original question is not about actual numbers, its about logic – how you can you get multiple times more tired by just holding stuff, than actually swing with them. And then, someone said that i’m wrong, because that stuff is extremelly heavy to use…. and now we here.

    PS I do not reject your information, but you should consider, that reproduction is not a solution for everything.

    Yes, I actually agree with that part. I suggested in my first response to the thread that maybe spearwall/riposte should have much lower fatigue costs and have much higher triggering costs.

    in reply to: Bow and Crossbow #21477
    LasseFin
    Participant

    http://steamcommunity.com/app/365360/discussions/0/135513901707647830/

    Good charts which shows that crossbows aren’t really weaker.

    Did you read the conclusion?

    Judging from these insights I think crossbows aren’t actually that much weaker than bows when it comes to raw damage per se. However there are a few factors here that break them apart:
    1) Bow’s quick shots scale extremely well with high ranged skill. If you can consistently hit both every turn your dps will skyrocket.
    2) Crossbows scale very poorly with perks. Most bonus damage perks only work with limited synergy with their attack style whereas they fit the bow perfectly.

    This here is key. The damage perks I don’t think are that important anyways. It happens to me frequently that an archer kills three enemies in one turn. You won’t see that happening with a crossbow.

    Yes, I did. I should have wrote that it shows that they aren’t much weaker.

    in reply to: Things that are so dumb, that makes me sick #21472
    LasseFin
    Participant

    These shields are all quite small with the biggest one being 24″, which is significantly smaller than even the average roundshield of Battle Brothers (which would probably be about 30″)…

    Sorry, but that probably all evidences, that we have. But if you look on that table again, you can see that heaviest steel shileds is about 6kg. And that is mostly parade and ceremonial ones(that page have paragraph that explained why this is so), with all that unnecessary ornaments and other fancy things.
    And if you are not satisfied with 22” shields, there is also average density of wooden shields(i dont think that wood changed his qualities since 13th century).
    If you do the math for 30”(what is bigger than road velobike’s wheel) and 10mm thick(which is more than enough), you’ll get about 4kg, which is about 1kg more than 22”, and this is a maximum, i.e. worst case – for thick shield and dense wood.

    PS Also, i think that you, guys, too fixated on numbers. Try think about, that medieval people were not mad or stupid, they dont carry into battle gear, that they could not effective handle for hours. And also, i’m pretty sure, they had some unpredictable things that could accounted(ones that may prolong the battle, for example).
    PPS And, finally, there some points about shields form actual archeologist.

    Wooden shields were usually lined with rawhide or leather and has a iron center boss, which increases the weight quite a bit. Neither exists on a smaller steel shield on the 16th century. According to hurstwic, the roundshield weighs 7kg when lined with leather.

    http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_shields.htm
    “The thin, unfaced reproduction shields shown in the photographs on this page weigh about 5kg (11lbs), while the thicker, leather covered shields weigh more than 7kg (15lbs) when dry.”

    Apparently, it was usually made of Basswood, which has a density of only about 300-600 kg/m^3, so if you are talking about purely wood, it would be around 3 kg. But it’s not because it has that metal center piece plus leather which weighs quite a lot to increases the resilience.

    The thing is, I feel like you are a bit more fixated with numbers… You seem to think that 10kg is impossible to handle, when in reality the Romans and Greeks did handle shields of that weight in combat, en masse, so we know it’s not something that’s inhumanly. What makes it so medieval people aren’t able to do that? Why would using shields of that weight be mad or stupid?

    Furthermore, weight comparison between weapons and shields is not entirely accurate. If you’ve swung a sword before, you’d know that despite the fact that most range between 1-2kg, they do NOT feel that light in the hand, especially when using one handed. This is because of leverage from gravity, which you demonstrated in one of your pictures. Try holding a sword upright, you feel like you’re holding basically nothing… But holding it horizontally feels like you are holding something quite heavy. Shields do not have that problem because they are held upright and are held or strapped in the middle where the center of mass is.

    That said, I do agree with a few of your points. I think that some are valid.

    in reply to: Things that are so dumb, that makes me sick #21463
    LasseFin
    Participant

    If you want to argument, at least google a bit, and find some references if you want to crictise something, like the weight of shields. “I don’t think so” is no argument.

    Is that huge sparthan bronze shield? There no shield of that kind in the game or in medieval warfare. Try look at this

    That link, which was supposed to be in a quote.
    And i actually HAD some evidences. I know is a bit difficult in this topic, but dont sparse your attention, please.

    PS And i should remind you, guys, that game already have max fatigue penalty for wearing stuff which, increases with weight of that stuff and that is absolutely logical thing for me.

    Those are 16th century shields… You said yourself we’re talking about the medieval here. These shields are a far cry from what would’ve been used in the time period of Battle Brothers (13th/14th century.) By the late 14th century, shields began to become less popular. At the time of the 16th century, shield use wasn’t nearly as common as it was and size has decreased due to the significantly increased effectiveness of armour. Some specialised troops like the Spanish rodelero still carry it en masse but it was no longer the norm. These troops were not in use for a long time and quickly disappeared due to their tactical inadequacies. It was clear that shields at this time was not nearly as useful as it was centuries ago.

    These shields are all quite small with the biggest one being 24″, which is significantly smaller than even the average roundshield of Battle Brothers (which would probably be about 30″)…


    16th century rodelero with a 23″ shield, usually referred to as a rodela/target.

    All in all, 10 kg shields definitely existed in the forms of Pavise, but was probably still not very common. The shields in Battle Brothers would probably be around 5-8 kg.

    in reply to: Bow and Crossbow #21462
    LasseFin
    Participant

    http://steamcommunity.com/app/365360/discussions/0/135513901707647830/

    Good charts which shows that crossbows aren’t really weaker.

    in reply to: Things that are so dumb, that makes me sick #21435
    LasseFin
    Participant

    He does bring up a few good points though. I thought he was talking about hitting from behind allies at first, which is 100% historical. But you have to admit, hitting an enemy who is behind another enemy doesn’t make nearly as much sense. It’s possible, but definitely very difficult. Perhaps the devs can make it so 2 reach melee weapons works similarly to bow/crossbow when hitting from behind an enemy? You have a chance of hitting the guy in front.

    in reply to: Things that are so dumb, that makes me sick #21411
    LasseFin
    Participant

    I actually agree with the first point. I think spearwall and riposte should get a significant reduction in fatigue cost, but every time they trigger, they should lose fatigue. That would make much more sense.

    About you point no. 5, hitting with long weapons from behind allies was done in almost every cultural all throughout history…

    in reply to: Bow and Crossbow #21364
    LasseFin
    Participant

    Only issue here is the suggestion that crossbows and normal bows require similar muscle strength to fire. The crossbow requires muscle strength to set the bolt, but firing is just pulling the mechanism. Crossbows were very accurate at short range and compared to training that a longbowmen had to undergo to utilize and maintain his/weapon crossbows were much easier to operate. Some career soldiers that operated the longbow show significant deformation of their shoulder/clavicle from extended use of the weapon. The crossbow removed the need for intense training to become an effective long-range soldier. The 15% accuracy makes sense in historical context, and bolts could punch through armor, but historically had a shorter range than bows, especially the longbow. As @hruza has stated, this is historically accurate.
    The suggestion that they require the same muscle energy to fire is where I feel the urge to speak up. They also shined under different conditions and in that sense one was more powerful than the other under conditions suited to the weapon (longbow at extended ranges, crossbow in closer engagements). Even considering that, some bow designs allow for an extremely powerful shot at short range and the ability to puncture through armor as well. There is absolutely no way that all three (composite bow, longbow, crossbow) have the same velocity at the same points in their fire or have the same amount of power at the same point in their flight. Their “power” was not comparable, and definitely not the same.

    And again this is not a history sim. I highly doubt all of the weapons abstracted into the game were at use during the same period in history. Anachronism is part and parcel to the fantasy genre as bits are often taken from varying parts of history, and often certain weapons and customs simply did not exist outside of a very specific context. The knight would not exist without the creation of the stirrup, which took place in the steppe’s farther east than the source material for this game. In short, no geographical equivalent to the steppes = no stirrups = no knights. It doesn’t stop there. No equivalent to ancient China & Korea + no avenue of trade and commerce to spread it = no crossbow. Beyond that, it’s anyone’s guess how technology and armor design would have changed if humans found themselves sharing the world with dangers like the ones in BB. Considering that armor changed with the time to adapt to different challenges, they would absolutely not look like the pieces in game, since those items look like items directly from our world. Different weapons were similarly adapted to contend with challenges presented by armor and other conditions. Games like this fall apart when subjected to that sort of historical scrutiny.

    This game is fantasy, and is enjoyable as fantasy. It is also meant to be enjoyed as a game. Balance issues should not be sacrificed for a historical accuracy that could not exist given the context.

    Yes, it’s definitely kind of weird how arrows and bolts have the same damage throughout their flight. Arrows are not particularly aerodynamic and lose velocity over its flight and bolts even less so because they were wider and shorter, which produces even more drag. Hmmm, this could even make a very good suggestion for the game. Perhaps arrows and bolts should decrease in damage the further the target is. This would kill two birds with one bolt, with so many complaining about ranged balance and the change would still be realistic.

    About the claim that since both crossbows and bows have similar power because they are powered by muscle; I agree that’s not necessarily accurate. Crossbows in the game are described to be pulled with pull-levers or windlasses, which provide great mechanical advantage. For a longbow, you are simply pulling back the bowstring and are limited by your physical strength and endurance. For a crossbow, when you are winding up the windlass or pulling a lever, you are essentially expending energy over a longer period of time through the pulleys and leverage, so you are no longer limited by the power of your muscles. Roman artillery/ballistas are technically muscle powered as well, but they are massive and much more powerful and can potentially launch projectiles with thousands of joules of energy, but you are spending maybe 5 minutes to wind it up and doing 10 times the work (energy expenditure) as a handheld crossbow.

    What is interesting is that historical handheld warbows and war crossbows do fall within similar frames of initial energy though, at roughly 100-150 joules. That must’ve been some kind of sweet spot. Some handheld siege crossbows could get 200+ joules, but those would’ve had massive draw weights. So there is some credence to the claim that warbows and crossbows do similar damage.

    About anachronism, actually, the devs placed a pretty clear focus on the historical period for the human arms and armor in this game. This was one of the cool things about this game, it’s that they at least made an effort to base it off a historical period in reality rather than have a weird pseudo-medieval-renaissance world like D&D or something. It’s supposed to be late 13th to early 14th century, just before the invention of actual shaped plate armor. I’ve asked Paul the artist to go into detail about the inspiration for the arms in armor in the lorebook, so we will be able to read about it soon. I’ve seen quite some contemporary artwork which shows plenty of the weapons in the game.
    There are a few weapons which may or may not have existed in that period. For example, the greatsword, which, by modern definition, usually refers to the massive 16th century swords. However, it could be that the greatsword in the game actually refers to the XIIa or XIIIa blades that Ewart Oakeshott refers to as the “Grans espees d’Allemagne” or Great Sword of Germany, which were recorded to have been used as early as the 12th century and during those periods referred to as “grete swerd”. These would be considered longsword proportions by modern categorisation.
    Steel prod crossbow is also questionable, but some historians date the beginning of the usage of steel prod on crossbows to be around 1310. So it’s plausible that they existed, but were probably not very common.
    Most other weapons and armor can be easily found in manuscripts and tapestries of the period.
    The devs also mentioned that they may be introducing DLC/expansions in the future which might add other regions of the world, so we know that the gameworld we are playing in is not the entire world of Battle Brothers.

    in reply to: High armor reduces armor penetration? #21317
    LasseFin
    Participant

    Yes. 10% of remaining armor durability is subtracted from the ignore armor damage.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 39 total)