Talk:Wish List/Character Stats

Allthough it is a great idea to make this improvements, there is a bit of danger within. These extra distinctions would made a too big differences between armies and it would be nearly impossible to coordinate such different tipes of TLs with so different characteristics. I think the complexity would rise too much...Shoenaemaeh 29 December 2005 21:53 (CET)

• See, I disagree. You pick your weapon to match what you want your unit to be doing. I plan on using mostly archers? Buy a bow or javelin! Also, one person using a different weapon type wouldnt change battles drastically. Vellos 29 December 2005 22:02 (CET)

• No, one person would not, but if the whole realm has different kinds of weapons it's going to be really difficult for the general to manage it, wouldn't it? Shoenaemaeh 29 December 2005 22:55 (CET)

• Not really. See, lets say everyone has a different weapon. Lets say each weapon will result in a 15CS difference. Thats a substantial amount. But, really, it wont affect general's planning much. If one man uses a mace and another sword, I doubt if a general or marshall will really bother taking that into account. Now, there might be special task forces where those things are accounted for, but I think, on the whole, weapons would not really be incorporated into planning very much.Vellos 29 December 2005 23:10 (CET)

• Well i wasn't really thinking about the CS amount, but on the combat positions... I mean the question is? Would different tipes of weapons distinguish whole units? I mean: if an infantry gets lances.... would it become some kind of "archery unit" or something like these which would work better under different Combat Settings? Because that's the real coordination problem for a general... Otherwise the idea is really great without having a drastical dis-/advantage in battles, but giving an excellent RP... Shoenaemaeh 30 December 2005 00:01 (CET)

• They're CHARACTER weapons, not unit weapons.Vellos 30 December 2005 00:10 (CET)

• Well, then i did understand it wrong, sorry... I also find the idea a really good one. I like to RP very much, and this gives much to play around. Definitely i like the idea.Shoenaemaeh 30 December 2005 09:44 (CET)

• I like the idea, and don't think it should make any difference in unit strength. Really, a weapon kills another person just as well as most other weapons. It should effect things more like duels and tournaments instead of warfare itself. And of course RP. Though RP could be improved just with that Character Description (I foresee a lot of nobles describing their weaponry in that place once its completeed!) Olik 30 December 2005 03:44 (CET)

• Just a thing with the flail/maces: These weapons are made for hitting VERY hard and smashing armour to bits. They're slow and difficult to control, but deliver very lethal wounds. If you're still alive after being hit with a flail and wearing plate mail or chainmail, you have shards of your armour deep in the wounds. Thus I don't see how they should 'do less damage than a Long Sword, but be able to strike much faster'. A great idea though :) Enstance Family

• Well, actually, that depends. I happen to participate in middle mock-up combat activity, so I've got some measure of experience in weapons. Maces and flails were designed in the age of chain mail, and the idea was to hit the mail so hard that it didnt matter there was no cutting involved. BUT, a skilled macewielder(mace is actually one of my better weapons) can deliver blows at least as fast and much harder than, say, a longsword. The reason is that maces are short and heavy. Their small length means they are very manueverable, and their weight concentrated near the business end means you can get some SERIOUS momentum. Now, WARHAMMERS on the other hand are slow and heavy. Vellos 30 December 2005 15:31 (CET)

• • ACtually, maces probably should, for simplicity's sake, be marked as high damage, low speed. Claymores should be high damage, low speed. SO should axes. Longswords are iffy, it depends on weather you are slashing or stabbing. Lances... I presume this means spears, because an authentic 11 footer lance would be impossible to wield on foot, which is why "Lancers" were always on horseback. Vellos 30 December 2005 15:35 (CET)

• For some reason, I can't imagine a noble wielding a spear. Spears are cheap weapons designed for the commonfolk soldiers, sometimes wielded by nobles for sport in a boar hunt. Now lances would be used on horseback of course, and to great effect. Also, the heavier weapons would be very difficult to use on horseback as you have to keep in mind the balance. Maybe add your own personal armoury to the game? That'd allow you to choose what weapons to wield when, keeping you out of those irritating situations where you forgot to buy a lance when you hired a unit of cavalry :)

• While spears were primarily the weapons of peasents, we do have historical and archaelogical evidence of nobles(especially Italian and Byzantine ones) using them. In fact, two Byzantine emperors did not carry a sword, but a spear. Now, there was the little bit about thinking it was the spear that pierced Christ's flesh, though. Vellos 30 December 2005 16:06 (CET)

• ANother thing, I cant see a katana cutting through armor. Japanese armor was, if I'm not mistaken, silk or something? I really dont see a katana piercing plate armor. Heck, not much of anything pierces plate armor! But I dont really see a katana even getting through chain mail, and it wasnt exactly a smashing weapon...Vellos 30 December 2005 16:09 (CET)

• A Katana was a slicing weapon. you wouldnt have to go through the plate, just the week spots and joints are enough to let the Katana do its business.

• When was the last time YOU tried to slice the weak points on plate armor? Its not easy, believe me! Its hard enough 1-on-1, but in the heat of battle, I dont know if it could be done. Vellos 30 December 2005 19:00 (CET)

• Katana fighting style was not designed to cut through armor, but to cut through the spots that the armor didn't protect adequately. The neck and the joints mostly. It was a sport for a samurai in battle to decapitate as many enemies as he could, and they often collected the heads of their foes as war trophies.

• Another thing, beneath plate armor, you almost always wear chain mail and a thick woolen hauberk. Right around 1200-1300 in Europe they started figuring out that trying to hack and slash at armor was like tryint to beat a 62,000 CS force with a 29,000 CS force, it cant be done. You had to use crossbows, lances, longbows at short range, stab really hard at weak points(or, if you were really strong, at strong points), or use very large warhammers to break armor with the puncturing end, or cause internal damage with the hammer end. Even plate armor wasnt sure defense against very large warhammers and maces, or even large swords. Vellos 30 December 2005 19:03 (CET)

• If you train hard enough and dedicate most of your time to using a weapon its very easy to get the weak spots. Its the same as boxing or combat. You aim for the weak spots. Thats what training is for to get used to your weapon and how to use it.

• I have trained with swords, maces, flails, axes, and glaives. I participate in a sort of medieval combat sport. Trust me, even with months and months of training, its still pretty much luck hitting a weak spot. Vellos 30 December 2005 19:59 (CET)

• It may be that hard, or even more... But i think the characters in BM are not training for months, but since they were 5 years old holding the weapons of their father they are training, so i think after 15 years training they are quite good warriors...Shoenaemaeh 30 December 2005 20:05 (CET)

• Well, if we look at the programming in BM, is is distinctly directed to a medieval Europe setup (hence the title "Count" "Duke", etc), and in medieval Europe, I really doubt if they were that good. Plus, especially in the 1500's, armor evolved again. It included thick neck and chin guards, and, especially in Milanese armor, did not have "gaps". At joints and such, they, hmm... cant think of the right word.... fit pieces together to make sort of "unfolding" areas at joints, resulting in total armor coverage. Which is why people started developing guns and cannons, and crossbows came in style. Vellos 30 December 2005 22:20 (CET)

• Oh, also, katanas never encountered western armor. They fought distinctly different armor. For their culture and area and fighting style, they were excellent weapons. But a katana is remarkably innefective against plate armor, and ESPECIALLY innefective on horseback. Try using a katana against a lance and see what happens. Vellos 30 December 2005 22:23 (CET)