Moqeek's Replies

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Individualization buckler #6457
    Moqeek
    Participant

    @ Gorlum I guess I am a little stuck in thinking that Battle Brothers is X and XI century. I agree bucklers should be more useful. Going from a wooden, to iron, to steel buckler with appropriate durability upgrades and maybe some skill boasts would keep the buckler useful throughout the game and not just serve as a poor mans shield at the beginning of the game.

    @ Sarissofoi For me duel welding is pretty much a no no. It never really happened [on the battle field] historically unless you count the shield as a weapon. Whilst dueling with sword and dagger existed and we have lots of manuals etc its simple because of expediency, a dagger was convenient to carry a shield or even a buckler was not. That duel welding was not used on the battle field suggests to me that it was not that effective (at least sword/axe/mace/hammer/spear and sheild was more effective) and not something that our Battle Brothers would do. Of course no one is going to force anyone to equip their Battle Brothers with duel weapons but it strikes me as being about playing up to a gaming trope more than anything else.

    in reply to: Real Medieval Warfare Facts #6456
    Moqeek
    Participant

    My two pence worth;

    1) Mail is fairly good at stopping thrust unless you needle pointed weapons are used like rondel daggers. Even if the mail was penetrated it absorbed a lot of energy allowing the Gambeson to absorb the blow. Mail would not of been used for so long if it was not effective.

    6) Basically I agree with the original poster except the mention of leather. Leather armour was never that common in western Europe. In general it [leather in genral] was more expensive (large scale farming of cows/bulls did not come until after the Renaissance) than fabric armour and protected less*. Whilst coir boli (boiled leather) armour did exist and was probable the earliest form of plate armour (before the transitional armours like coat of plates and brigandines) it does not seem to of been common or used for a very long period of time. Whilst Hollywood loves leather armour (mostly because it is cheap to make leather look armour using foam rubber) there is not much evidence for its actual use in western Europe during the Dark Ages or Medieval period.

    *Despite a lot of speculation we do not currently know for sure the process our ancestors used to make coir boli and thus we can not be 100% sure how effective it was and organic materials degrade much quicker and more completely than metal armour so it may have been more common than we think but the lack of written sources would suggest it was not that common.

    4) Also I am very suspicious about the claim that longbows could be shot like machine guns. Drawing a longbow takes incredible strength and its doubtful (at least to me) that a high rate of fire could be maintained for any length of time, also even the awesomely powerful longbow was not a long range weapon and after a few volleys the enemy would likely be on top of the bowmen and despite what we see in movies and games bows are not something you want to be firing in a melee. I would suggest that the devastating effect of longbows during the Hundred Years War was more a result of the sheer number of English troops using them than their individual effectiveness.

    9) Early guns (known as hand guns) were I agree not a threat to knights (or really anyone else they were not that effective at all due to low quality powder and the lack of a proper gas seal resulting in much of the energy being wasted plus they were not aimed so much as pointed in the general direction of the enemy) they were not however cheap, black powder was very expensive for a long time and only the highest quality metals could be used to make guns (unless you wanted them to blow up in the users face). I rather suspect there main use was psychological rather than practical. As guns became more effective in both power and accuracy and cheaper armour had to get thicker to compensate the additional weight meant less could be worn. By the time we have personal firearms in common use (XIV century so not the time frame of Battle Brothers) they were quite capable of piercing all but thickest of plate armour. Eventually no armour was going to stop a musket ball and armour was simple to protect against melee weapons. By the XIX century whilst some troops did wear armour (for example French Cuirassiers) this was only for protection from melee weapons. No one put any faith in it stopping musket balls or even pistols at close range. The demise of the armoured knight was probable more economic than practical I agree but I feel the original poster is somewhat confusing the time line.

    10) The Normans did not invent “castles”. Castle are simple large fortifications and fortifications have existed pretty much as soon as Human populations ceased being nomadic and remained in one place. The Celts build Hill Forts, the Romans build forts, the Ancient Greeks built forts. The Ancient Chinese build fortifications (Great Wall of China anyone).

    in reply to: Individualization buckler #6446
    Moqeek
    Participant

    Bucklers certainly were popular in warfare all be it a bit later than the period Battle Brothers takes its inspiration from. I think the trap you have to avoid is coming up with all sorts of bonuses and skills to make something useful or differentiate it from something else just for the sake of inclusion. I like Gorlums suggestions above though not so sure about the need for dome shields.

    I would suggest that shields should go something like;

    Buckler – low weight and low action point to deploy, decent melee block chance, rather than Shield bash knocking the opponent back you have a chance to stun – hitting out towards the face with a buckler was a common tactic.

    Round Shield – as it is

    Heater Shield – should be the same as the round shield but more durable and with slightly better stats – heater shields tended to be made thicker to better resist weapons blows (hence the move from centre boss to straps).

    Kite Shield – I think the bonus should be to melee defense not missile. the long teardrop shape protects the legs from melee weapons but other than the fact its a little bigger I do not think it does anything more than a decent sized round shield to protect from missiles which are normally coming down in an arc or if fired directly aimed at the chest/head.

    Pavises for archers/crossbowmen – should provide good missile protection but no melee protection (you can just push/pull them over or step round them).

    in reply to: Facing the undead #6445
    Moqeek
    Participant

    If you decapitate the undead they stay dead but I am not sure they stay dead if you just do a lot of damage. That said when/if they resurrect it is with limited hit points so they are not too bad to take down again.

    in reply to: Facing the undead #6421
    Moqeek
    Participant

    So far I am not very advanced with my little Warband but I agree that the undead are generally a bit easier than the hint would suggest whilst Goblins tend to be harder. As for the undead they are quite easy (the lack of missile weapons helps) just a bit irratting when you have all but one dead (or should that be redead?) then another half a dozen pop up. Balance is always a problem in games. I would imagine that the devs want to get the mechanics sorted then they can look at balance for all the factions.

    in reply to: Facing the undead #6400
    Moqeek
    Participant

    I had a rather epic fight with the undead yesterday, they were no real threat but by the end my men were exhausted and a I was scarred some would drop dead or simple be too tired to fight so I understand your point. The problem I suspect is the programming something like you suggest is alot of work one type of enemy. though perhaps the respawn rate could be adjusted to make it a little less of a problem. Not as ellegent a solution from a game play perspective but easier to do from a programming perspective.

    in reply to: Layers of Armour #6399
    Moqeek
    Participant

    Some of us did a lot of reenactment over the years so we are aware of the layered armors and how they were worn or better combined into heavier armors.

    When you look at the armors in the game you can almost always see various layers like gambeson, mail and then a coat of plates for example.

    I did notice and I like it a lot that you can clearly see on the model that there is clearly padding under it. I think maybe that was what gave me the idea. Though I can see that for some players it could add a little too much complexity especially those who are not familiar with medieval armour and how it was worn.

    in reply to: Layers of Armour #6390
    Moqeek
    Participant

    Historically coat of plates/brigandine was worn over mail which was worn over a gambeson. So its heavy yes but but not so heavy as to be impossible or even that much of a problem (we are talking professional fighting men after all) its just the trade you pay for superior protection.

    Scale was typical worn over just a gambeson rather than mail and lamellar was somtimes worn over mail and sometimes just a gambeson. Of course nether of these were especialy popular in western Europe at the time period Battle Brothers takes as inspiration. In the west scale was a rare armour and lamellar was pretty much unknown other than to the Norse (who typical used coir boli (hardened leather) rather than metal and wore it over mail if the person could afford so.

    in reply to: Some suggestions after about 6 hours of play #6385
    Moqeek
    Participant

    Maybe the player character could just stay at the back out of the way and not fight? You get a little icon to represent the PC but you do not have to worry about him dying nether does he become some sort of uber fighter just to insure he stays alive.

    Depending on how the Devs implement non fighters you could have say your PC at the back with the baggage train and the various non fighting camp followers. They would not do anything in terms of combat maybe a couple of passive bonuses to morale or some such.

    The same could happen with enemies that you face, their leader sits at the back giving orders should you defeat them you can capture him, his followers and baggage train. You could then maybe recruit them or ransoms them back if they were say the son of a rich noble playing at war with his own mercenary company, or for bandits, orks and goblins hand them over to the authorities for bounties. Another element you could have is that say you defeat a vicious gang of bandits you then have to transport the leader back to a far off city to hand him over all the time being pursued by his gang.

    in reply to: Banners, flags, standard-carrier #6384
    Moqeek
    Participant

    I like the idea of a standard bearer. I do not think you need to make it a weapon though as who ever holds it will probable stay at the back out of trouble. It would also add an element of tactical choice do I bring my standard onto the field to boast morale or do I bring an extra spearman to the battle?

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)