Claymores, longswords and huge greatswords came way after the first three Crusades though.
That'd kind of be the point, really. I mean, you'd be in the modern day as it is. Fuck Shit Up was about a space viking, if I remember correctly.
[QUOTE=HZ Yasmoni;43244610]Finally, an RPG that looks amazing and fun. (Most recent from Skyrim)[/QUOTE]
Skyrim was garbage. It's following a trend of recent games of giving a REALLY good first impression to the player. After the first few hours, the game is pretty shit.
Give it Chivalry's combat and you can take my firstborn.
[QUOTE=Drsalvador;43248252]That'd kind of be the point, really. I mean, you'd be in the modern day as it is. Fuck Shit Up was about a space viking, if I remember correctly.[/QUOTE]
Ah shit, I forgot about 'Fuck Shit Up' ha.
Yeah I thought you were talking about a game that focused a Crusader during his correct time period. :v:
Color me interested.
[editline]20th December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jon MadN;43245615]So what would the rpg elements be in this without fantasy?[/QUOTE]
Strenght, stamina, resistance, aim, speech, various weapon masteries.. my guess.
[editline]20th December 2013[/editline]
and RPG in a traditional sense of like, pick up quests, complete quests, gain rewards, rinse repeat.
Not to nitpick, but weren't most actual raids done with peasants armed with cheap swords and clubs? I remember hearing that actual armoured knights were more akin to modern day shock troops / special forces.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;43248712]Not to nitpick, but weren't most actual raids done with peasants armed with cheap swords and clubs? I remember hearing that actual armoured knights were more akin to modern day shock troops / special forces.[/QUOTE]
Common soldiers and people with cheap swords, clubs, spears, halberds, bills, pikes, cheap(er) armour and etc... should usually form the majority of your army. As such, you (if you were leading your army) you wouldn't be ordering your knights to act like the common soldier. However, can you define "actual raids" more clearly?
By "actual" I just meant real-life. And by raids I just meant battles, sieges, etc.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;43248952]By "actual" I just meant real-life. And by raids I just meant battles, sieges, etc.[/QUOTE]
Depends a lot on where you are from really.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;43248952]By "actual" I just meant real-life. And by raids I just meant battles, sieges, etc.[/QUOTE]
Most of if not all of the time, you are always going to have more common soldiers than [I]actual[/I] knights (not just men who wore full plate armour and rode on a horse) so it's not a surprise if common soldiers did most of the work in sieges, field battles and etc...
However knights frequently fought, both on horseback and on foot, in battles and sieges. You're just not going to have as many knights as commoners. However since the knights would be fewer in number, be better trained and equipped, you (if you were a commander of course) would probably give them orders that would resemble the role of shock troopers/special forces of today.
However it's important to know that men in plate armour (full or not)=/=knights
So we have no idea from the pics alone that the guys featured are actually knights.
Please don't be all about war.
[QUOTE=kimchimafia;43249030]
So we have no idea from the pics alone that the guys featured are actually knights.[/QUOTE]
you can tell they're some really wealthy dudes because a full suit of armor with proper leg and arm protection costed more than a well off craftsman could ever scrounge up.
[QUOTE=Riller;43240145]Man, I'd love a good non-fantasy/magic bullshit medieval RPG. Preferably non-linear, like a Mount and Blade that's not as dated, buggy and clunky.[/QUOTE]
You can say dated for sure and clunky may be subjective but buggy is just a lie.
The screenshots so far show that devs have no idea about how sword fighting works.
[QUOTE=Falchion;43249175]you can tell they're some really wealthy dudes because a full suit of armor with proper leg and arm protection costed more than a well off craftsman could ever scrounge up.[/QUOTE]
Yes while full suits of armour did cost quite a bit, they were not exclusive to really wealthy dudes/knights/nobles. Men-at-arms who weren't knights also wore full armour but they could be much cheaper. For example, Richard III ordered 168 complete sets of 'off-the-peg' Milanese armours for 560 pounds which would mean one set of off-the-peg armour would cost around 3 pounds back then as opposed to a fine set of tailored armour could cost up to 20 pounds. It's not unreasonable to think however, that most of those armoured guys aren't all really wealthy nobles.
They could just be wearing sets of 'off-the-peg' armour but it's quite obvious that they're aren't just peasants. However what I was saying before was that just because a picture showed a bunch of guys fighting in armour, did not mean that they were actually knights or nobles.
[editline]20th December 2013[/editline]
From the pics alone though, the guys seem to lack gauntlets and aventails so hey maybe they just ran out of money.
they might be professional mercs or some sort of merchant militia but they aren't very middle class. a warhorse cost about as much as the rent for a big house and a mail (accessories not included) cost double that.
They might be generic medieval enemies and devs might not give a fuck about logic. That happens way too often to forget about that option.
[QUOTE=kimchimafia;43248246]Claymores, longswords and huge greatswords came way after the first three Crusades though.[/QUOTE]
Hand and a half longswords were around beginning in the first half of the 1200s.
Highland/Gaelic longswords reminiscent of claymores (though likely smaller/lighter) were around in use by tacksmen and chieftains during the same time, however the truly massive european greatswords and slaughter swords were a mid-late Renaissance weapon. (1450-1650 basically)
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;43251453]Hand and a half longswords were around beginning in the first half of the 1200s.[/QUOTE]
You can always find a sword or sets of armour to prove be some exception. Swords with longer hilts than your typical arming sword were indeed found to be dated to the High Middle Ages however they were absolutely the exception and not part of any signficant trend.
It should arrive as a trend at at least during the very late 13th century.
[editline]20th December 2013[/editline]
But you are right though, Oakshott blade type XIIIa are found on two handed swords that date to around the early to mid 1250s.
[QUOTE=kimchimafia;43251509]You can always find a sword or sets of armour to prove be some exception. Swords with longer hilts than your typical arming sword were indeed found to be dated to the High Middle Ages however they were absolutely the exception and not part of any signficant trend.
[/QUOTE]
Longwords never were a "trend," never at any point throughout the medieval and reinsurance periods has the longsword been the primary armament of all footsoldiers and cavalry. It's something that was occasionally seen among wealthier men at arms and knights, and knights and high noblemen of the 13th century were no exception to that. However with that said, sometimes knights and men at arms could make up the vanguard or attacking force of an army.
Even seeing so many characters with swords is a bit strange for this period, really the primary weapons of this period would still be spears, guisarmes and onehand/twohanded axes. I guess a homogeneous contingent of men at arms could be an exception, but for the standard bulk of any army, spears and various guisarmes would be the most common arms.
Hopefully they cover that aspect because I would automatically default to fighting with a glaive or a pole axe, given the opportunity. Polearms > swords
Longswords may have not been the common sword for the common man but it is erroneous to say that longswords were never a trend. Schools of longsword fencing intended for nobles, knights, etc... were definitely a thing that lasted throughout the 14th to the late 16th century in which then longsword fencing fell out of fashion. Italian rapier became more prevalent and you had people that countered against new trends such as George Silver who claimed they were absolutely fucking rubbish.
Fight manuals, especially of the Liechtenauer tradition idealized the longsword and it was paid special attention to. Therefore you did have trends of longswords in which they were popular and favored amongst the knightly and noble classes + anyone who was able to afford time and money in fencing. We have hundreds of samples of surviving longswords that are mostly dated to around the 14th and 15th century with some exceptions of course.
You're right, longswords weren't hugely popular weapons of the common soldier, nor were any swords. It should be spears, guisarmes, bills, etc...
But there definitely was a trend of the use and development of longswords.
[QUOTE=Irkalla;43248256]Skyrim was garbage. It's following a trend of recent games of giving a REALLY good first impression to the player. After the first few hours, the game is pretty shit.[/QUOTE]
If by first few hours you mean the first playthrough (which is more than 3 hours), then I agree.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;43244706]Thinking about it now what could replace a magic system where there is none?
Maybe Alchemy, making bombs and stuff?
Or rather just no Magic or Alchemy.[/QUOTE]
Making bombs isn't alchemy.
A simple (or not so simple) crafting and blacksmith system would be fine. Kind of like what Skyrim did but with less "Forge millions of door hinges to become the ultimate blacksmith!"
If it's next gen shouldn't it be on the PS5 and Xbox WhateverTheHellMSComesUpWithNext?
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;43252710]If by first few hours you mean the first playthrough (which is more than 3 hours), then I agree.[/QUOTE]
No, definitely before the end of your first playthrough. I think it's when the realization sets in that the game is mostly draugr ruins.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
