Mount and Blade Series V2: Chamber n' Sidestep - Games

I've never beaten Floris, Or got married. I usually capture one castle and kinda give up. Is it possible for other factions to be created besides your own?

I kinda wish that they had an early medieval game WITH Guns and bronze age factions. A foreign and overseas faction trades a few guns to a medieval land, but there aren't many guns/a stigma is attached to guns and so most use bows,crossbows,slings and other pre-firearm weaponry. There are real world examples of this (japan for one) [I]and have the gun traders nice and exotic too. Give them Black skin, different facial structure and build/height, strange accents and fancy clothes. Just for the irony... and maybe for a reason why gun traders aren't trusted.[/I]

[QUOTE=RayvenQ;42342933]The heaviest known hauberk of chainmail, that is an actual period piece, weighs 30lbs. So all in all wearing what you listed, you're going to be carrying about 50 [I]maybe[/I] 60lbs of kit all told, including armor, weapons and shield. Even if they got it wet and it weighed around 90-100lbs , thats actually not different to what a modern soldier carries into combat.[/QUOTE] Soldiers in Afghanistan carry around 128 lbs. of gear. combining a 90 pound ruck with 30 pound body armor mixed in with the 8 pound rifle. A machine gunner has 148 lbs. of gear counting in the 27 pound weapon.

[QUOTE=Archonos 2;42344226]I started up Fire and Sword again. I saw the massive, flat, sprawling map, and then I got wrecked by one gunshot. Should I put time into this game or just stick with Warband?[/QUOTE] Depends entirely on what you feel like doing. I love leading my army of Janissaries into battle.

[QUOTE=Flash;42347403] A machine gunner has 148 lbs. of gear counting in the 27 pound weapon.[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;f_fpOUQcAac]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_fpOUQcAac[/video] This game needs Furca's.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42348398][video=youtube;f_fpOUQcAac]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_fpOUQcAac[/video] This game needs Furca's.[/QUOTE] Mike Hawk :D

[QUOTE=RayvenQ;42342933]The heaviest known hauberk of chainmail, that is an actual period piece, weighs 30lbs. So all in all wearing what you listed, you're going to be carrying about 50 [I]maybe[/I] 60lbs of kit all told, including armor, weapons and shield. Even if they got it wet and it weighed around 90-100lbs , thats actually not different to what a modern soldier carries into combat.[/QUOTE] [B]Modern soldiers don't fight in melee combat.[/B] Knights in the heaviest armor fought on horseback, it's not practical for heavy infantry to wear full kit, as it's too heavy and too fatiguing to fight in, knights can afford to do so because their horse bears the weight of it. Gambeson and either cloth hose, or no shoes/pants [I]at all[/I] is what heavy infantry wore. The baltic regions of the early medieval period might be an exception as noble heavy infantry may have worn splinted greaves or what have you. The very few examples of dedicated heavy infantry only really exist in the Baltic, or in Scotland/Ireland, and in half those examples the heavy infantrymen are not even wearing [I]pants[/I] into battle, so leg armor my fucking ass. My initial point was leg armor is not an integral part of a chainmail hauberk, people wear pants separately from their hauberk and pants should not be included with the torso section of armor, it makes no sense and it's a very poor 3d modelling practice. Hose and/or absolutely nothing was the most common leg protection for mail or gembson-wearing infantry, and that didn't change until the 16th century when elite mercenaries could actually afford to buy leg armor. [editline]29th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=kimchimafia;42344940]The time period that F&S was based off from was pretty cool. We don't really get to see late medieval-renaissance periods (I'm a huge sucker for the plate armour during those times) in games that much but other than that, yeah, Warband is definitely the best Mount and Blade so far.[/QUOTE] I hope M&B 2 gets a thirty wears war mod. It's such an interesting time period with such a huge variety of cultures and fighting styles involved. At no point in early modern warfare do you see a period where basically every single medieval and early modern weapon and armor form was still in use at one time. Sabers, Greatswords, Halberds, Bows, Crossbows, Matchlock and Wheellock Muskets, Chainmail, Plate, Gambeson, Brigadine, Cannons, etc. And because mercenaries were the primary form of recruitment, you have people form all over Europe and abroad fighting all over Europe.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;42349310][B]Modern soldiers don't fight in melee combat.[/B] Knights in the heaviest armor fought on horseback, it's not practical for heavy infantry to wear full kit, as it's too heavy and too fatiguing to fight in, knights can afford to do so because their horse bears the weight of it. Gambeson and either cloth hose, or no shoes/pants [I]at all[/I] is what heavy infantry wore. The baltic regions of the early medieval period might be an exception as noble heavy infantry may have worn splinted greaves or what have you. The very few examples of dedicated heavy infantry only really exist in the Baltic, or in Scotland/Ireland, and in half those examples the heavy infantrymen are not even wearing [I]pants[/I] into battle, so leg armor my fucking ass. My initial point was leg armor is not an integral part of a chainmail hauberk, people wear pants separately from their hauberk and pants should not be included with the torso section of armor, it makes no sense and it's a very poor 3d modelling practice. Hose and/or absolutely nothing was the most common leg protection for mail or gembson-wearing infantry, and that didn't change until the 16th century when elite mercenaries could actually afford to buy leg armor.[/QUOTE] Every source I have seen has put a [I]full suit of plate armor[/I] from the 15th and 16th centuries as being around 50 pounds in full with chainmail usually being 30 pounds not including the padding worn underneath. The point is moot anyways because heavy infantry, what little there was in the Early Medieval Period, usually just wore whatever they could afford. Nobody, not even the nobles, had standardized equipment, so you cannot say that they wore gambesons anymore than you can say they wore chainmail. They wore a mix, because a lot of them couldn't afford the expensive ass chainmail. Even then, when we argue the point of leg armor, you find it is non-existent in infantry because the shield was introduced to block that shit. There was little to no armor on the legs because most blows would be going for the torso, being the largest target and at the right height for a swordsman or spearman to hit. The shields, be they kite or round or what-have-you, were almost always large enough to cover the legs. So on the subject, I have no idea where you got your weights from but they don't match up and I do think you overestimate the fatigue element because fighting in a chainmail and padded gambeson, while still exhausting, wasn't as exhausting as you estimate. Even then, the worst part would be marching, in which they probably wouldn't wear their heavy armor. But you are right about "leg armor". There was no point for infantry to wear it because of their large shields but cavalrymen did wear it to protect their legs from being slashed when they were distracted and couldn't use their shields. Even then, most knights just had a really [I]long[/I] chainmail hauberk that would droop down over their legs anyways. They probably didn't wear leggings beyond standard cloth but I am sure those that could afford it (afford being the key word) would definitely purchase a chainmail hauberk. But that is the inevitable problem of Early Medieval equipment. Without standardization, we really have no idea what soldiers wore and the fact that income played a huge role makes it an even bigger mess. Artwork of the time shows warriors in chainmail or a gambeson, and what little remaining pieces we have suggest that is true. But we don't know the make-up of every army and every soldier. They wore what they had the money for. Nobody was issued leggings because nobody was ever really issued equipment; but if some village schmuck wanted to buy leggings then by all means he could if he had the money. Basically, imagine if, in modern America, every gun was manufactured and sold locally and there weren't any companies or regulations. Now imagine everyone is poor and they have to save up to buy said guns. Then all those people get called upon to go to war. Almost everybody would have a different gun in some way.

I see they're taking a few Grand Strategy charms to M&B. Lovely. I'd love to see a Mount and Blade kind of game with lots of Grand Strategy mechanics.

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;42349571]But that is the inevitable problem of Early Medieval equipment. Without standardization, we really have no idea what soldiers wore and the fact that income played a huge role makes it an even bigger mess. Artwork of the time shows warriors in chainmail or a gambeson, and what little remaining pieces we have suggest that is true. But we don't know the make-up of every army and every soldier. They wore what they had the money for. Nobody was issued leggings because nobody was ever really issued equipment; but if some village schmuck wanted to buy leggings then by all means he could if he had the money. Basically, imagine if, in modern America, every gun was manufactured and sold locally and there weren't any companies or regulations. Now imagine everyone is poor and they have to save up to buy said guns. Then all those people get called upon to go to war. Almost everybody would have a different gun in some way.[/QUOTE] How is estimation wrong? No king would ride to battle in a tunic, and no peasant would come decked out in full mail unless he was literally given it by somebody who could afford such a thing (highly unlikely anyways). While there was no fixed uniform, it does stand to reason that your rank and formation would be defined by how good your equipment and or/how large you are as a person. Heraldry, cloth colors, surcoats or cloth badges sewn onto gambeson were used as a form of identification. Heavy infantry were for warding off cavalry charges or breaking enemy ifnantry formations so they'd be expected to either have very large pole weapon, they themselves would need to be large and imposing, and they'd be expect to have some effective form armor protection, be it a long gambeson or chainmail. A guy in a tunic welding a dane axe or a sparth axe can't sally out of an infantry formation and expect to be able to survive a lance strike or an arrow to the chest, that's what armor is for. People with shitty or no armor and no helmet would not be left in the front ranks. There obviously were expectations for armor qaulity and weapon types and they would define your rank and position, an army would not be able to function without a basic structure. If the oppsoite were true there would be no "armies" or "formations" and people would just show up a battle site and run at each other (mind you that's sort of what happens in vanilla warband anyways...)

Anyone know a way to reroute the escape button. Mine doesn't work anymore and it's getting really awkward to play. I've already routed my escape button to numpad5, and it works in all games except Fallout and Mount & Blade.

I don't really want to see a Roman faction stuffed into a medieval setting. If they're going to make one of the factions roman-themed, they better make them less like Ancient Rome and more like the Byzantines.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;42349310] I hope M&B 2 gets a thirty wears war mod. It's such an interesting time period with such a huge variety of cultures and fighting styles involved. At no point in early modern warfare do you see a period where basically every single medieval and early modern weapon and armor form was still in use at one time. Sabers, Greatswords, Halberds, Bows, Crossbows, Matchlock and Wheellock Muskets, Chainmail, Plate, Gambeson, Brigadine, Cannons, etc. And because mercenaries were the primary form of recruitment, you have people form all over Europe and abroad fighting all over Europe.[/QUOTE] That would be amazing. It's such an underused time period IMO. But, to me anyway, mid 16th century plate looked absolutely stunning. [IMG]http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/images/hb/hb_29.151.2,32.69.jpg[/IMG] Games need to revolve around the renaissance more.

Is there a mod for Fire and Sword that doesn't remove my character's hair when I wear a hat? It looks so dumb having a bald lady :v:

[QUOTE=kimchimafia;42352208]That would be amazing. It's such an underused time period IMO. But, to me anyway, mid 16th century plate looked absolutely stunning. [IMG]http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/images/hb/hb_29.151.2,32.69.jpg[/IMG] Games need to revolve around the renaissance more.[/QUOTE] Warhammer Fantasy's Empire focuses a lot on the Renaissance armor and clothing styles. What with the big exaggerated hat feathers.

The munitions plate armor during the thirty years war was awesome. Everything from that period is awesome. Fire and Sword kinda sucked for various reasons but the concept of a thirty years war mod is gold. [t]http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a89/Captain_Gars1632/Junkelmann_krassierb-1.jpg[/t] [t]http://www.higgins.org/sites/default/files/images/Ren_359.a-g.jpg[/t] [t]http://weaponsandwarfare.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/htgfhthtthr-751x1024.jpg[/t] Also, Pimp hats.

I always found the late medieval/early modern plate hideous. It's like looking at a bunch of tin cans hack at each other with bits of metal I think the High Medieval armours look best, all chainmail and padded cloth

Chainmail + Padded cloth was still worn in the thirty years war though

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;42357582]Chainmail + Padded cloth was still worn in the thirty years war though[/QUOTE] Thanks for the tip

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;42349310]Sabers, Greatswords, Halberds, Bows, Crossbows, Matchlock and Wheellock Muskets, Chainmail, Plate, Gambeson, Brigadine, Cannons, etc. And because mercenaries were the primary form of recruitment, you have people form all over Europe and abroad fighting all over Europe.[/QUOTE] Since when did they use crossbows and bows in the 30 years war?

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;42357562]I always found the late medieval/early modern plate hideous. It's like looking at a bunch of tin cans hack at each other with bits of metal I think the High Medieval armours look best, all chainmail and padded cloth[/QUOTE] Chain and cloth is even [I]uglier[/I] in my opinion. It doesn't really inspire fear or awe like a full suit of beautiful, shiny, embroidered plate armor.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42358718]Since when did they use crossbows and bows in the 30 years war?[/QUOTE] Highland clans used them a lot on both sides of the war.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42358718]Since when did they use crossbows and bows in the 30 years war?[/QUOTE] Scandinavian (predominantly danish IIRC) mercenaries frequently used crossbows, not sure about anybody else. People make it out like there was some sot of geneva convection that just banned people from using crossbows or soemthing. Good muskets were still expensive and a midrange hand-cocked crossbow was faster to shoot and load so lower end mercenaries would still use them. It's defitnely documented that the scots mercenaries were still using normal composite bows as well. In-period sketch on the left. [t]http://www.scotsconnection.com/the_kilt/kilted-highlanders-large.jpg[/t] [t]http://clanntartan.sitesneakpeek.com/manual/images/soldier's life 2.bmp[/t] While plate armor was highly protective against direct impacts to the plates, people were generally frequently wearing cloth (not gambeson) underneath the armor so were vulnerable to arrows hitting the joints of the armor, or just striking unarmored areas.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42358718]Since when did they use crossbows and bows in the 30 years war?[/QUOTE] because that was one of the main forms of weaponry back then?

The biggest issue with 'With Fire and Sword' was the fact that the AI wouldn't set up firing lines of any kind, but just charge. Granted that's extremely difficult to do with M&B's AI, but it's still detracting that they couldn't.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;42357479]The munitions plate armor during the thirty years war was awesome. Everything from that period is awesome. Fire and Sword kinda sucked for various reasons but the concept of a thirty years war mod is gold. [t]http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a89/Captain_Gars1632/Junkelmann_krassierb-1.jpg[/t] [t]http://www.higgins.org/sites/default/files/images/Ren_359.a-g.jpg[/t] [t]http://weaponsandwarfare.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/htgfhthtthr-751x1024.jpg[/t] Also, Pimp hats.[/QUOTE] Cuirassier-style armour in the 17th century was great too (although I do prefer them with a close helm or a burgonet with a falling buffe). Is it just me or do they all seem to have based themselves off from the English Greenwich style of plate? Is this considered as derailing the thread?

[QUOTE=Pops;42361628]because that was one of the main forms of weaponry back then?[/QUOTE] I assumed they had fallen out of use by that stage. Firearms gave the best bang for their buck then. Of course, I am already more or less correct, since the usage of crossbows and bows themselves was marginal and not mentioned pretty much at all after the 16th century.

Bows and Crossbows did not fall completely out of use until the flintlock system was invented (around 1650) by which point firearms were cheap and reliable enough that there wasn't any point in not using one. Flintlocks first made their debut 2 years after the end of the 30 years war, too late to enter service. Prior to that, matchlocks are simply too expensive and too finicky in combat to make up 100% of a ranged force, other ranged mediums were needed alongside them.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;42363629]Bows and Crossbows did not fall completely out of use until the flintlock system was invented (around 1650) by which point firearms were cheap and reliable enough that there wasn't any point in not using one. Flintlocks first made their debut 2 years after the end of the 30 years war, too late to enter service. Prior to that, matchlocks are simply too expensive and too finicky in combat to make up 100% of a ranged force, other ranged mediums were needed alongside them.[/QUOTE] Matchlocks expensive? No they weren't. Matchlocks had been common since the 15th century and pretty much every country was extensively using them by the end of the 16th century. Japan, the Mughal Empire, and Russia had all widely adopted them by then. The wheellock was expensive, but the matchlock is incredibly cheap and simple. Bows and crossbows had fallen almost entirely out of use by the 17th century, except in a very few and marginal cases. There weren't really even any people left who knew how to use professional longbows anyways. Most renaissance armies used a mixture of pikemen and arquebusiers, with an artillery barrage at the start of a battle.

Tell you what, why don't you go dig up the body of Gustavus Adolphus and smack his corpse around a little bit for hiring so many Scottish archers. Evidently it was an awful idea considering Sweden beat everybody, the man clearly had no idea what he was doing. It's ridiculous to say that there were no archers and no crossbowmen in the thirty years war when there are [I]pictorial depictions[/I] of them drawn at the time. I dunno, I guess they were just sort of standing around doing nothing during battles.