Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Josephus]

You are wrong in every thing that you said there.

Ah, the classic defense when someone runs out of things to say: "NO U"

When your wong your wrong, what else is there to say!

You could admit that you're wrong, for example. Don't take it personally, lots of people get taken in by ridiculous medieval myths and take them as fact, for example the notion that two handed swords could weigh up to forty pounds or that a full plate harness was cumbersome. Or that everyone in the middle ages smelled like poop.

Admitting you're wrong is one of the first steps to enlightenment. Go ahead, it's good for the soul.

[Courtesy Arloban]

You are wrong in every thing that you said there.

Ah, the classic defense when someone runs out of things to say: "NO U"

When your wong your wrong, what else is there to say!

You could admit that you're wrong, for example. Don't take it personally, lots of people get taken in by ridiculous medieval myths and take them as fact, for example the notion that two handed swords could weigh up to forty pounds or that a full plate harness was cumbersome. Or that everyone in the middle ages smelled like poop.

Admitting you're wrong is one of the first steps to enlightenment. Go ahead, it's good for the soul.

I've never beleived any of those ridiculous statements!

Armor layers in the game are exactly what you are wearing.

If someone has the foresight to wear layered armor in the game, then they have reason to call foul. Also your adventurer is not a trained professional soldier or knight, until you mod in a mercenary or knight position and a way to appoint your adventurer a mercenary or knight!  You start out with a set of skills you bought with points from being a peasant, hero, or demigod, and you learn more weapon use with practice.

If you want a knight as your background it should come with duties and responsibilities, like in pendragon.  It's funny that in a thread started about what bastards elves are for thinking they are so much better than everyone, that's the same attitude that people have toward (their fellow) peasants.

None of which has anything to do with the issue at hand. I brought up the man-at-arms and knight because in full armor, they were roughly as protected as a fully armored DF adventurer is. Your proposed stab attack which 'penetrates' through joints is moot because there are no armor joints in game as of yet, and there won't be unless Toady decides to add armor weak spots (which I would approve of). The stab attack you propose is quite silly.

All of the rest was simply to counteract your wrongheaded notions of the medieval period.

The only wrongheaded notion that needs contradicting is one players beleif that wearing a greathelm makes him impervious to being stabbed in the face by his fellow peasant.  And that having no parents(in the game, not personally) makes him a hardened warrior from the start.

[Josephus]

I'm not saying you do, but your notion of, for example, 'peasants' armed with 'footman's spears' and 'hand axes' and 'daggers' are just as ridiculous. In the first place, in the earlier parts of the era where peasants did compose the bulk of an army's footsoldiery, they didn't have anything close to standardized equipment (not to mention that there was no such thing as a 'footman's spear', unless you meant a spear used by a footman - which could mean any of the wide variety of spears in use over the long history of war) - and in the later parts of the era the bulk of infantry was composed of well armed, well-trained, and well armored professional soldiers.

Or take other examples from your posts.

In modern times we do not have knights of any shape or form on the battlefeild, that is how badly they were beaten.

This is one of the most ridiculous things you've posted in the whole thread. The reason knights no longer exist on the battlefield isn't because peasants beat them. It's because the economic and social system that led to the rise of the fighting noble class is defunct, not to mention the fact that professional soldiers were more practical.

There were still melee cavalry well into the age of gunpowder even after the end of the knightly class, which you'd know if, for example, you knew anything at all about warfare up until the late 19th century.

Jeez, dude. Misinformation is one thing, but what you're doing - spouting downright untruths - is straight up terrible.

[Courtesy Arloban]

I'm not saying you do, but your notion of, for example, 'peasants' armed with 'footman's spears' and 'hand axes' and 'daggers' are just as ridiculous. In the first place, in the earlier parts of the era where peasants did compose the bulk of an army's footsoldiery, they didn't have anything close to standardized equipment (not to mention that there was no such thing as a 'footman's spear', unless you meant a spear used by a footman - which could mean any of the wide variety of spears in use over the long history of war) - and in the later parts of the era the bulk of infantry was composed of well armed, well-trained, and well armored professional soldiers.

Or take other examples from your posts.

In modern times we do not have knights of any shape or form on the battlefeild, that is how badly they were beaten.

This is one of the most ridiculous things you've posted in the whole thread. The reason knights no longer exist on the battlefield isn't because peasants beat them. It's because the economic and social system that led to the rise of the fighting noble class is defunct.

There were still melee cavalry well into the age of gunpowder even after the end of the knightly class, which you'd know if, for example, you knew anything at all about warfare up until the late 19th century.

Jeez, dude. Misinformation is one thing, but what you're doing - spouting downright untruths - is straight up terrible.

No what I said is true, economic reasons is just another way of saying that the the knights needed better equipment.  Why did they need that better equipment? Because without it cheap peasants owned them!

Weapons defeated armor, and it's still that way today.  Choosing to sit out a battle, does not change the fact that they are outclassed.

[Scelly9]

I'm not saying you do, but your notion of, for example, 'peasants' armed with 'footman's spears' and 'hand axes' and 'daggers' are just as ridiculous. In the first place, in the earlier parts of the era where peasants did compose the bulk of an army's footsoldiery, they didn't have anything close to standardized equipment (not to mention that there was no such thing as a 'footman's spear', unless you meant a spear used by a footman - which could mean any of the wide variety of spears in use over the long history of war) - and in the later parts of the era the bulk of infantry was composed of well armed, well-trained, and well armored professional soldiers.

Or take other examples from your posts.

In modern times we do not have knights of any shape or form on the battlefeild, that is how badly they were beaten.

This is one of the most ridiculous things you've posted in the whole thread. The reason knights no longer exist on the battlefield isn't because peasants beat them. It's because the economic and social system that led to the rise of the fighting noble class is defunct.

There were still melee cavalry well into the age of gunpowder even after the end of the knightly class, which you'd know if, for example, you knew anything at all about warfare up until the late 19th century.

Jeez, dude. Misinformation is one thing, but what you're doing - spouting downright untruths - is straight up terrible.

No what I said is true, economic reasons is just another way of saying that the the knights needed better equipment.  Why did they need that better equipment? Because without it cheap peasants owned them!

No, because without it, guns owned them.

[Courtesy Arloban]

I'm not saying you do, but your notion of, for example, 'peasants' armed with 'footman's spears' and 'hand axes' and 'daggers' are just as ridiculous. In the first place, in the earlier parts of the era where peasants did compose the bulk of an army's footsoldiery, they didn't have anything close to standardized equipment (not to mention that there was no such thing as a 'footman's spear', unless you meant a spear used by a footman - which could mean any of the wide variety of spears in use over the long history of war) - and in the later parts of the era the bulk of infantry was composed of well armed, well-trained, and well armored professional soldiers.

Or take other examples from your posts.

In modern times we do not have knights of any shape or form on the battlefeild, that is how badly they were beaten.

This is one of the most ridiculous things you've posted in the whole thread. The reason knights no longer exist on the battlefield isn't because peasants beat them. It's because the economic and social system that led to the rise of the fighting noble class is defunct.

There were still melee cavalry well into the age of gunpowder even after the end of the knightly class, which you'd know if, for example, you knew anything at all about warfare up until the late 19th century.

Jeez, dude. Misinformation is one thing, but what you're doing - spouting downright untruths - is straight up terrible.

No what I said is true, economic reasons is just another way of saying that the the knights needed better equipment.  Why did they need that better equipment? Because without it cheap peasants owned them!

No, because without it, guns owned them.

So the guns just deployed on the battlefeild and fired themselves?

[Josephus]

No what I said is true, economic reasons is just another way of saying that the the knights needed better equipment.  Why did they need that better equipment? Because without it cheap peasants owned them!

Hahaha, what? Economic reasons refers to the end of the feudal period due to the rise of the town. The system which caused knights to exist in the first place ended, and with it the knightly class.

As for cheap peasants - again, you keep on spouting that myth. Why field peasant levies when

a) you need those guys to work your fields
and
b) there are professional soldiers who have their own equipment and know how to fight?

Answer is, you don't. That's the whole reason there were professional soldiers in the first place.

So the guns just deployed on the battlefeild and fired themselves?

No, people who were paid and trained to use those guns fired them. Not 'peasants'.

[Scelly9]

I'm not saying you do, but your notion of, for example, 'peasants' armed with 'footman's spears' and 'hand axes' and 'daggers' are just as ridiculous. In the first place, in the earlier parts of the era where peasants did compose the bulk of an army's footsoldiery, they didn't have anything close to standardized equipment (not to mention that there was no such thing as a 'footman's spear', unless you meant a spear used by a footman - which could mean any of the wide variety of spears in use over the long history of war) - and in the later parts of the era the bulk of infantry was composed of well armed, well-trained, and well armored professional soldiers.

Or take other examples from your posts.

In modern times we do not have knights of any shape or form on the battlefeild, that is how badly they were beaten.

This is one of the most ridiculous things you've posted in the whole thread. The reason knights no longer exist on the battlefield isn't because peasants beat them. It's because the economic and social system that led to the rise of the fighting noble class is defunct.

There were still melee cavalry well into the age of gunpowder even after the end of the knightly class, which you'd know if, for example, you knew anything at all about warfare up until the late 19th century.

Jeez, dude. Misinformation is one thing, but what you're doing - spouting downright untruths - is straight up terrible.

No what I said is true, economic reasons is just another way of saying that the the knights needed better equipment.  Why did they need that better equipment? Because without it cheap peasants owned them!

No, because without it, guns owned them.

So the guns just deployed on the battlefeild and fired themselves?

Ok, you are obviously avioding having an actual debate. Good day.

[Courtesy Arloban]

No what I said is true, economic reasons is just another way of saying that the the knights needed better equipment.  Why did they need that better equipment? Because without it cheap peasants owned them!

Hahaha, what? Economic reasons refers to the end of the feudal period due to the rise of the town. The system which caused knights to exist in the first place ended, and with it the knightly class.

As for cheap peasants - again, you keep on spouting that myth. Why field peasant levies when

a) you need those guys to work your fields
and
b) there are professional soldiers who have their own equipment and know how to fight?

Answer is, you don't. That's the whole reason there were professional soldiers in the first place.

So the guns just deployed on the battlefeild and fired themselves?

No, people who were paid and trained to use those guns fired them. Not 'peasants'.

Yes 'peasants' were paid and trained to use those guns, the knights having sat out conflicts since then!  Not all peasants were serfs!  Even the middle class in medieval times were peasants though they preferred to be called tradesmen!  Just look at whats called peasants in the game!  Are they all Farmers?

I'm not saying you do, but your notion of, for example, 'peasants' armed with 'footman's spears' and 'hand axes' and 'daggers' are just as ridiculous. In the first place, in the earlier parts of the era where peasants did compose the bulk of an army's footsoldiery, they didn't have anything close to standardized equipment (not to mention that there was no such thing as a 'footman's spear', unless you meant a spear used by a footman - which could mean any of the wide variety of spears in use over the long history of war) - and in the later parts of the era the bulk of infantry was composed of well armed, well-trained, and well armored professional soldiers.

Or take other examples from your posts.

In modern times we do not have knights of any shape or form on the battlefeild, that is how badly they were beaten.

This is one of the most ridiculous things you've posted in the whole thread. The reason knights no longer exist on the battlefield isn't because peasants beat them. It's because the economic and social system that led to the rise of the fighting noble class is defunct.

There were still melee cavalry well into the age of gunpowder even after the end of the knightly class, which you'd know if, for example, you knew anything at all about warfare up until the late 19th century.

Jeez, dude. Misinformation is one thing, but what you're doing - spouting downright untruths - is straight up terrible.

No what I said is true, economic reasons is just another way of saying that the the knights needed better equipment.  Why did they need that better equipment? Because without it cheap peasants owned them!

No, because without it, guns owned them.

So the guns just deployed on the battlefeild and fired themselves?

Ok, you are obviously avioding having an actual debate. Good day.

Good day to you too.  Just because I knew the answer didn't mean I wasn't dead serious!  It's called making a point, and is a legitimate debating tactic.

[weenog]

This thread is a great example of why you should never "argue" with someone who thinks exclamation points add weight to an assertion, and whose understanding of combat is informed solely by games and television.  How many years have you been honing your craft, C.A.?

[Courtesy Arloban]

This thread is a great example of why you should never "argue" with someone who thinks exclamation points add weight to an assertion, and whose understanding of combat is informed solely by games and television.  How many years have you been honing your craft, C.A.?

20 years, and my source for thrust versus slash comes from the MMA website not a game.  The low estimate of a jab(strike) versus a swing is 2:1.

  I apologize for using more exclamation marks than you are comfortable with, and also apologizee in advance for my bad spelling.

The gaming side of the argument is "there is no way that peasant can kill my level 20 knight in one hit I have 500hp."

I'm actually on the side of realism.  Or at least cheering for it.

[Josephus]

my source for thrust versus slash comes from the MMA website not a game

Guys, he gets his information about weapons from a sport that revolves around unarmed combat.

Yeah, I think we're done here.

[Courtesy Arloban]

my source for thrust versus slash comes from the MMA website not a game

Guys, he gets his information about weapons from a sport that revolves around unarmed combat.

Yeah, I think we're done here.

Yes, yes I do!  In fact I use the jab(strike) as equivalent to a stab, and a swing(punch) as equivalent to a slash for the velocity modifier.

[Josephus]

Spoiler: This is a jab (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: This is a "swing", or a right hook (click to show/hide)

The fact that you're using the less effective attack as your evidence that the attack you're basing it on should be more effective tells us a lot about how well-founded your claims are.

Meanwhile the fact that you think a jab is a 'strike' while a swing is a 'punch' also tells me, personally, that you also don't know anything about mixed martial arts. Or, you know, fighting in general.

They're both strikes. A punch is a closed-fist strike, while other kinds of strikes have different names.

[Courtesy Arloban]

Spoiler: This is a jab (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: This is a "swing", or a right hook (click to show/hide)

The fact that you're using the less effective attack as your evidence that the attack you're basing it on should be more effective tells us a lot about how well-founded your claims are.

Meanwhile the fact that you think a jab is a 'strike' while a swing is a 'punch' also tells me, personally, that you also don't know anything about mixed martial arts. Or, you know, fighting in general.

They're both strikes. A punch is a closed-fist strike, while other kinds of strikes have different names.

Oh gee why didn't I know that,  I guess my statement is so wrong that you then had to make the same exact statement you're calling me out on.

Seriously I know all that, and have doubts as to whether you really beleive I didn't!