Well. Spartans are formation warriors, they're not much use on their own. Samurais got no shields. Medieval soldier would prolly realistically win.
Samurais look like more fun than Spartans.
[QUOTE=Lolkork;41937537]The samurais mostly relied on archery if I'm not mistaken, and the katana was more of a defensive weapon. So seeing them charging in to battle with their swords drawn is a bit silly.[/QUOTE]
I don't think Samurai swords are defensive weapons.
I mean cutting up captive criminals to see if they're sharp enough isn't very defensive.
[QUOTE=Lolkork;41937537]The samurais mostly relied on archery if I'm not mistaken, and the katana was more of a defensive weapon. So seeing them charging in to battle with their swords drawn is a bit silly.[/QUOTE]
Who cares, it's a video game.
[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;41937547]I don't think Samurai swords are defensive weapons.
I mean cutting up captive criminals to see if they're sharp enough isn't very defensive.[/QUOTE]
If your usual tactics is shooting tiny spears into people at a distance by the use of a wooden spring and a string, then cutting people with swords is something you do to defend yourself from enemy attacks, not attack on your own.
I never looked into Japanese history in particular, but from what I've heard Samurais were glorified crowd control for the Emperor.
Reminds me of that FP thread done a few years ago where OP when into detail about why a Knight would beat a Samurai?
That was a good read.
[QUOTE=Lolkork;41937537]The samurais mostly relied on archery if I'm not mistaken, and the katana was more of a defensive weapon. So seeing them charging in to battle with their swords drawn is a bit silly.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Del91;41937560]Who cares, it's a video game.[/QUOTE]
And Deadliest Warrior even cares less about such details.
[QUOTE=DMGaina;41938297]And Deadliest Warrior even cares less about such details.[/QUOTE]
yeah, from what I've seen, the show is very silly
Wow this is really nice, do want to try the Samurais. Just a question, will this be a 100% free update or it will have a price?
Japanese man at arms voice over.
I am ready.
[QUOTE=Riller;41937369]Well. Spartans are formation warriors, they're not much use on their own. Samurais got no shields. Medieval soldier would prolly realistically win.[/QUOTE]
yeah, the issue being is that the katana wasn't designed for cutting armor, because very few warriors in japan had strong armor. The katana was fantastic for taking down flesh targets, arguably one of the most deadly blades in history, especially with their training.
the spartans probably have the upper hand vs the samurai
though it's a game so who cares
Am I the only one who thought Chivarly sucked?
It was very clunky, the combat isn't as advanced as everyone makes it to be, and it's very unoptimized and sluggish
[QUOTE=cyanidem;41939111]Japanese man at arms voice over.
I am ready.[/QUOTE]
God damnit, now I'm imagining the 'breeds mites' line in a yellow peril-esque voice.
[QUOTE=Dominic0904;41938037]Reminds me of that FP thread done a few years ago where OP when into detail about why a Knight would beat a Samurai?
That was a good read.[/QUOTE]
It's interesting how that actually got around the internet from that thread.
[QUOTE=redBadger;41940593]Am I the only one who thought Chivarly sucked?
It was very clunky, the combat isn't as advanced as everyone makes it to be, and it's very unoptimized and sluggish[/QUOTE]
It's clunky because medieval combat is clunky.
What did you expect?
Alright, I'm down. I play War of the Roses when I want sorta-realistic medieval combat, so I'm fine with Chivalry doing a more "out-there" game.
[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;41937547]I don't think Samurai swords are defensive weapons.
I mean cutting up captive criminals to see if they're sharp enough isn't very defensive.[/QUOTE]
Correct! Miyamato Musashi, who was an incredibly skilled ronin back in the day, wrote in his book that if you go on the defensive with a katana you're going to fucking die.
His strategy involved using two blades and overwhelming the enemy as to never even give them a chance to attack.
Anyone interested should read the Book of Five Rings, his personal philosophy. Really interesting/badass historical character.
I'd actually be really interested in a fight between a European knight and Musashi, I mean he dueled one of the most skilled warriors in japan and beat him to death with wooden sticks, I'm sure it'd be an exciting fight.
[editline]26th August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Riller;41937581]If your usual tactics is shooting tiny spears into people at a distance by the use of a wooden spring and a string, then cutting people with swords is something you do to defend yourself from enemy attacks, not attack on your own.[/QUOTE]
I guess you could call that 'defending' but the actual fighting style is very offensive, you can't really block with a katana without the risk of damaging/breaking it.
[QUOTE=redBadger;41940593]Am I the only one who thought Chivarly sucked?
It was very clunky, the combat isn't as advanced as everyone makes it to be, and it's very unoptimized and sluggish[/QUOTE]
Haha what
[QUOTE=Ax3l;41973840]It's clunky because medieval combat is clunky.
What did you expect?[/QUOTE]
Chivalry's pace is much much slower than real medieval combat.
That said it's one of my favorite games.
torn banner are terrible devs. chivalry is in a buggy and broken state right now and instead of polishing it up they decide to release an expansion in partnership with an awful tv show.
[QUOTE=FingerSpazem;41978841]
His strategy involved using two blades and overwhelming the enemy as to never even give them a chance to attack. [/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJBEDxh0RQw[/media]
[QUOTE=DMGaina;41938297]And Deadliest Warrior even cares less about such details.[/QUOTE]
"Let's compare a flash-bang, designed to incapacitate, against a frag grenade, designed to maim and kill!"
"Well the flash-bang didn't do anything to our target dummies so it's garbage and useless."
[QUOTE=Asmaedus;41979865]
[/QUOTE]
Well considering Miyamoto Musashi fought and won over 60 duels, his first being at the age of 13, I'd say it worked for him.
Just the fact that he killed Sasaki Kojiro, who was able to swing an incredbly large two handed sword with ease, in a formal duel with two kendo sticks is testament to that.
It's also really important to keep in mind that the weapon in his off-hand was the size of a large dagger.
[editline]26th August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Caulo32;41979900][URL]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=839748[/URL][/QUOTE]
This is actually one of my favorite threads and I agree with it.
A knight could beat a samurai in a duel any day.
I'm talking specifically about one guy though, someone who's regarded as one of the greatest warriors in history. He didn't even exclusively use a sword, he made it his life to fight and train with as many weapons as possible, he utilized many blunt weapons.
Musashi did NOT fight on horseback, he viewed bows as cowardly and he wasn't even a samurai.
I'm not even saying he could beat a European knight, I'm just saying that he was a very resourceful and strategic man and it would be incredible to watch.
He even had a fighting technique dedicated to killing heavily armored opponents, I'm sure it'd be at LEAST interesting.
[QUOTE=FingerSpazem;41980392]Well considering Miyamoto Musashi fought and won over 60 duels, his first being at the age of 13, I'd say it worked for him.
Just the fact that he killed Sasaki Kojiro, who was able to swing an incredbly large two handed sword with ease, in a formal duel with two kendo sticks is testament to that.
It's also really important to keep in mind that[B] the weapon in his off-hand was the size of a large dagger[/B].
[/QUOTE]
The guy actually points that out near the end of the video that people do that
Kinda defeats the purpose of the original reason it was posted though
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
