Fenhiro

[quote]If rapiers were a stabbing weapon only, how come smiths spent considerable time and effort giving them sharp edges?[/quote] Here's a little theory that might explain your question. Taking into consideration that rapiers in general were thrusting weapons, the sharp edges for the most part probably only caused nasty flesh wounds that were painful but not life threatening (so you could take a prisoner or make that mugger think twice).[e digicons]:thumbsup:[/e] But if y

Ah, the Sarissa, invented by Phillip II of Macedon (Alexander the Great's pop) [quote]Instead of wielding the pike with one hand and a shield in the other, new shields were used allowing the soldier to use a pike with both hands.[/quote] Yeah the new shields, to my understanding, had a strap worn on the shoulder rather on the left arm thus allowing those in the Macedonian Phalanxe to use the Sarissa in two hands so they wouldn't be encombered by the shield. That or they h

Yeah the Pike tends to vary. To some it just another name for a "regular" spear. To others a pike has a striking resemblance to halberds. And to some, like me, the word pike brings to mind a ridiculously long stick with a sharp metal point. And I agree, Tamren, Pikemen in general have different advantages over just regular spearmen. Namely of which is a longer reach and the fact that the guys in row four can attack as well as the first. But, if you exclude more professional pikem

In short my point is that although spearmen have an advantage against cavalry in frontal assualts, it doesn't mean a "Scissor's beats Paper" absolute. There is no such thing as absolutes or accidents, only eventualities. Well, that's what I believe anyway.

Here's a anecdote to help emphasize my point: It's eleven o'clock in the morning. The sky has been clear of rain for days and ground is hard from the warm summer sun. The air is sweet and there is a gentle breeze. To your left you see a hawk, a noble bird, being routed by two ravens. You assume, logically, that the ravens most be protecting their nest and put the incident aside. With you is a detachment of knights two

[quote]It might seem strange reading a "gamer thesis" on the science behind plate armour written by someone who readily admits to never have touched a real set.[/quote] Mmm, Not really. I'm bit of a talesmith and when a i'm writing about battle between foes, I have to take into consideration (especially if I want to go into detail) a myriad things on how an action sequence is to be play out and still sound feasible. How they move, their weapons, whether a certain clothing, like a cape

Actually part of the problem was I forgot what the thread was called, so it was partially my fault.[e digicons]^_^[/e]

i had to go through the Steam BS thing just to get a demo Empire: TW and you know what...the $&#@ing demo won't work. personally i don't know if it's cause the game isn't compatible with my computer or if it's Steam...[e digicons]:thumbsdown:[/e]

Tamren, I have one question for you. How many hours of study and thought did you put into this? Cause from where I'm sitting it has to be a gratuitous amount. For one thing I am impressed.

I've been wandering where that thread was... been trying to find it for days.

Yeah I forgot about the practicality of archers being behind large pavise shields and mantlets, of course, if my memory serves me right these kind of defenses were used primarily in siege battles (to protect your archers from the besieged enemies own archers). On a historical level, it wasn't uncommon for small groups of archers to integrate with more melee oriented infantrymen and cavalry, especially in skirmishes. But for pitched battles, segregating troop types was more p

[quote]But I would love if one could somehow merge units to form a new one: There is the archer and just in front of him a swordsman with a huge shield protecting both of them from long range weapons.[/quote] Or just place those shield toting swordsmen a notch infront of the archers. Don't get me wrong. Your idea has merit, GHenrikG, and would create an extra layer of tactical options; like say said archers and said footmen both have lost a lot of men and merging them together

[quote]and ... uh... steroids?[/quote] Stimpacks anyone? The conversion rate seems like a very good, and simple, idea. it does put everything in perspective. A basic stat configuration to help give a comparison would go far, if not a long way, in helping us see what we're getting ourselves into. Both a Heavy Infantry and a Cavalry models, if i'm reading you right, might have the same attack and defence stats but without those horses the cavalry unit would be comparib

Lol, does anyone remember Empire Earth's Manuel? that was a mix between a novel and a paper weight. i had text books smaller then that thing.

Yeah, you're right that they'll probably fix the "WHAT THE $&#*!" moments in the beta, landisaurus. But in retrospect, I should have been more specific on the "feeling of unfairness". In Civilizations series, for example, you might have a unit of riflemen attacking a unit of Longbowmen. Now logic would dictate that the Riflemen would hose the bowmen, but for some perverse reason the archers win! Or worse, you send a tank to crush crossbowmen and the tank is scrap. This sort of t

Okay for starters, I don't know if anyone posted anything even remotely close to these three subjects. So forgive me[e digicons]^_^[/e] First is on how elaborate will or should the Unit customization (armor setup) be? Personally I think it should be simple, in a learning curve sort of way, but not simple that it limits style and variety and turns units vanilla. But from what I've seen on the concept art on the media page, armor a

You're right GW, if there's going to be two "races" and six factions each and their only real difference is in appearance and the like would make the not really worth playing (A thing we know Stardock would never do). Of course they would make the six Fallen factions radically different, examples... WARNING another set of analogies are coming;[e digicons]:|[/e] One could be like X-mens' Wolverine: tough, direct, and insanely intelligent who are just trying to o

actually you spelled "xenophobic" correctly. And to be honest i too thought that maybe one faction of the Fallen could be more honorable with more virturous intentions. I'm reminded of the quote I read years ago that went , "Good, Evil. It matters not for the one who is victorious writes the history books." Though I would have to disagree about all the Fallen being simpletons. Sure most where probably designed to be only soldiers; smart enough to use a weapon

Okay as far as we know about the Fallen is that they're considered EVIL and will take any advantage coming their way. From a simple interpretation from the photo on Fallen architecture, they're also rude, crude with bad attitude (of course there's nothing wrong with that).[e digicons]:grin:[/e] We also know that they're pretty old fashioned and find change difficult (most likely social change in my opinion). Some might consider

I agree that unit templates shouldn't arbitrary. I personally think they should be helpful not confusing and, well, intimidating. Another idea that could be done, besides defining a unit's species or whatever, is placing templates that quickly defines a unit's qualities. Chevrons for example, yes I know their a cliche but they do help define a unit's veterancy or level. Another is using weapon and misc. symbols: &nbsp

[quote who="Aesir Rising" reply="4" id="2049595"]Some of the roles overlap in functionality (Supporters and Augmenters). A couple might be too narrowly-defined (Mage Killer, Diviner) to be worthwhile unless very cheap to get. Whether that is good or bad (or not an issue) I have no idea yet - and won't until we have more info about actual gameplay. For sake of discussion, let's say having overlapping roles or magic schools was just horrible and we absolutely had to

Sorry GW Swicord, wasn't trying to sound defensive. i was just trying to be more specific.

Good point GW Swicord about the possibility of no "real" mages other than the channelers. but technically, for future reference, what i mean by categories is that any mage unit could fall into these 7 or more. Example: you call a unit a "priest" could be primarily a supporter with diviner abilities. Or you could create a magician who uses bombardier spells with Illusionist spells. In Noob terms, the roles are just a way to, quickly, define what a particular ma

I had a few ideas about the different roles (or categories) that magic users could fall into. Personally i came up with 7: Supporters <span style="font