I think you misunderstand capitalism.
You underestimate passionate people.
Bioware, for your next RPG
Débuté par
Lotion Soronarr
, janv. 18 2015 02:52
#101
Posté 26 janvier 2015 - 12:01
Lotion Soronarr
-
- Members
- 14 481 messages
Retour en haut
#102
Posté 26 janvier 2015 - 12:57
Fast Jimmy
-
- Members
- 17 939 messages
You underestimate passionate people.
- Dermain aime ceci
#103
Posté 26 janvier 2015 - 01:25
Joseph Warrick
-
- Members
- 1 290 messages
Is this compatible with a little fighting variety? Can we still have barbarians and fine duelists? Archers? Fireballs?
#104
Posté 26 janvier 2015 - 03:27
Cyonan
-
- Members
- 19 356 messages
Just FYI, many of those melee combat experts wants to spread awareness. Many would do it for free, if not for pocket change.
Even if you could get somebody for free, that doesn't negate the cost of everything else. Motion capture isn't exactly cheap.
Which other than satisfying combat enthusiasts, there doesn't seem to be any benefit for the added cost of doing realistic combat animations.
I imagine that's probably why most developers don't do it.
#105
Posté 26 janvier 2015 - 05:12
nallepuh86
-
- Members
- 120 messages
Well yeah, and Lars andersen could make the bow motion capture.
Firing 3 arrows in 0,6 seconds and is able to shoot enemy arrow midair. Each arrow pierce chainmail easily. Shooting mid air, etc.
https://www.youtube....t-ts=1421914688
#106
Posté 26 janvier 2015 - 05:16
Fast Jimmy
-
- Members
- 17 939 messages
Well yeah, and Lars andersen could make the bow motion capture.
Firing 3 arrows in 0,6 seconds and is able to shoot enemy arrow midair. Each arrow pierce chainmail easily. Shooting mid air, etc.
Yeah, that's the thing... bows really WERE cheat codes back in the day. Video games really can't work if bows were as deadly as they really are.
- Dermain, Kaiser Arian XVII et nallepuh86 aiment ceci
#107
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Posté 26 janvier 2015 - 05:47
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
-
- Guests
Incidentally, this thread has caused me to go back to mount and blade warband, and I want to get a visa card so I can back KCD and Obduction.
#108
Guest_E-Ro_*
Posté 26 janvier 2015 - 06:02
Guest_E-Ro_*
Guest_E-Ro_*
-
- Guests
I'll fix this post soon as I get home.
#109
Guest_mikeucrazy_*
Posté 26 janvier 2015 - 06:11
Guest_mikeucrazy_*
Guest_mikeucrazy_*
-
- Guests
I've probably said this before, BUT...
I would love a stealthed based RPG game.and not alpha protocol or whatever that was
#110
Guest_E-Ro_*
Posté 26 janvier 2015 - 06:16
Guest_E-Ro_*
Guest_E-Ro_*
-
- Guests
Ok, I finally got it to work. Phone posting, def worth it.
Well yeah, and Lars andersen could make the bow motion capture.
Firing 3 arrows in 0,6 seconds and is able to shoot enemy arrow midair. Each arrow pierce chainmail easily. Shooting mid air, etc.
https://www.youtube....t-ts=1421914688
Yeah, that's the thing... bows really WERE cheat codes back in the day. Video games really can't work if bows were as deadly as they really are.
Not so fast padawans.
A common misconception is that mail was highly susceptible to arrows—particularly the bodkin arrowhead. Further, some have argued that plate armour was developed specifically to counter these arrows because of the ineffectiveness of mail. Recent scholarship, however, suggests that this may not have been the case. The vast majority of experiments that have involved the testing of arrows against mail were done using mail that was not representative of that worn by contemporaries. Rivets were poorly set (or the links were merely "butted" together without riveting),59 inadequate padding was used (if employed at all),60 the links were generally too large, and the metallurgy was incorrect61—all factors that may lead to a reduction in the armour's protective capability. Recent experiments performed against more accurate mail reconstructions indicate that contemporary mail and padding provided excellent defense against all types of arrows under battlefield conditions. Nielson was one of the first to conclude this in 1991.62 An experiment conducted by the Royal Armouries concluded that a padded jack worn over a mail haubergeon (a common combination during the 15th century) was proof against Mary Rose longbows. Another conducted by Alan Williams concluded that mail worn over quilted padding could resist longbow arrows but not crossbow bolts,63 but these tests may have underestimated the strength of English longbows. Strickland commented that there has yet to be a test that uses accurate reconstructions of both armour and bow
There are many contemporary accounts that demonstrate the effectiveness of mail against arrows. During the Siege of Amida (359 AD), Ammianus Marcellinus described Roman archers attacking the Persians:
The Persian infantry found it hard to avoid the arrows shot from the walls by the artillery, and took open order and since almost no kind of dart failed to find its mark, even the mail-clad horsemen were checked and gave ground.65
The above passage suggests that the Roman arrows, while effective against the poorly armoured infantry, did little to harm the Persian cavalry. One could surmise that the arrows had little effect on the armoured riders but caused some distress to their mounts, causing the cavalry to give ground.66
Anna Comnena wrote that during the Battle of Duazzo (1108 AD), the Byzantines resorted to shooting the Frankish horses because their arrows were ineffective against Frankish mail.67 Joinville describes his servants donning him in his jousting hauberk as he lay ill on the deck of a ship to protect him from incoming Saracen arrows.68 Joinville later recounts an incident involving Walter of Châtillon in which Saracen missiles were ineffective:
...and whilst the Turks were fleeing before him, they (who shoot as well backwards as forwards) would cover him with darts. When he had driven them out of the village, he would pick out the darts that were sticking all over him; and put on his coat-of-arms again... Then, turning round, and seeing that the Turks had come in at the other end of the street, he would charge them again, sword in hand, and drive them out. And this he did about three times in the manner I have described.69
Odo of Deuil wrote about King Louis VII in an engagement during the 2nd Crusade. After losing his bodyguard he was forced to flee the enemy by scaling a rock face:
The enemy climbed after, in order to capture him, and the more distant rabble shot arrows at him. But by the will of God his armour70 protected him from the arrows.71
During the 3rd Crusade, Bahā'al-Dīn, Saladin's biographer, wrote that the Norman crusaders were:
...drawn up in front of the cavalry, stood firm as a wall, and every foot-soldier wore a vest of thick felt and a coat of mail so dense and strong that our arrows made no impression on them... I saw some with from one to ten arrows sticking in them, and still advancing at their ordinary pace without leaving the ranks.72
The above passage demonstrates the increased effectiveness of mail when worn in conjunction with a padded defense. It is unclear whether the felt was worn underneath or over the top of mail in the above example. What is clear is that the combination is very effective at resisting arrows.73 Russ Mitchell believes that felt is especially effective against bodkins because it has no woven structure for the point to open up and slide through. The felt deforms around the bodkin and pushes it back out of the target.74 Broadhead typologies, on the other hand, have cutting edges that can allow them to slice through felt. So felt would be less protective against these arrowheads. However, mail is extremely effective against cutting edges. The combination of mail and felt provide good protection against both bodkins and broadheads
Here are some more brief examples: at the Battle of Byland (1322), Scrymgeour, Robert the Bruce's standard bearer, took a longbow arrow in the arm that did no harm because of his mail hauberk. During the Battles of Dupplin Moor (1332) and Halidon Hill (1333), the English longbowmen inflicted few casualties because of Scottish armour but caused great disorder by attacking the faces and heads of their foes, many of whom were either not wearing helmets or did not have visors.75
Finally, the following passage written by Galbert of Bruges describes a formidable archer named Benkin and demonstrates that while mail might protect the wearer from being pierced with arrows, it did not necessarily save him from blunt trauma:
And when he [Benkin] was aiming at the besiegers, his drawing on the bow was identified by everyone because he would either cause grave injury to the unarmed or put to flight those who were armed, whom his shots stupefied and stunned, even if they did not wound.76
It can be seen from the above examples that mail provided a good defense against arrows. Although there were occasions when arrows penetrated the mail itself, the arrow was often halted by the padding. One should also note the effects of blunt trauma—even if an arrow failed to compromise the mail, it was still possible to cause discomfort to the wearer underneath.77
Source
http://www.myarmoury...ature_mail.html
Long story short, bows are not as effective against armor is many people think. Against raging hordes of Men at arms with only padded jacks and gambesons to protect them, sure, but against mail or plate? Not so much.
- The Hierophant aime ceci
#111
Posté 27 janvier 2015 - 01:22
Dermain
-
- Members
- 4 475 messages
Is this compatible with a little fighting variety? Can we still have barbarians and fine duelists? Archers? Fireballs?
Define "barbarians".
I'm quite sure the "barbarians" that "invaded" Rome actually had fighting techniques instead of "BASH ENEMY! ENEMY DIE!".
Yeah, that's the thing... bows really WERE cheat codes back in the day. Video games really can't work if bows were as deadly as they really are.
There's too much conflicting information about bows, and it makes me sad.
Crossbows on the other hands...
#112
Posté 29 janvier 2015 - 12:20
nallepuh86
-
- Members
- 120 messages
Ofcourse people could protect them selfs from arrows, quite easily, but skilled archers like from ottoman empire shot their arrows at the armpits of armored soldiers.
Piercing was big problem for bows and thats why muskets did replace bows, nots because of their long range, but their ability to pierce any armour. And when army didnt need big armor, because it was completely useless against muskets they saved money.
#113
Guest_Lathrim_*
Posté 29 janvier 2015 - 12:26
Guest_Lathrim_*
Guest_Lathrim_*
-
- Guests
Ofcourse people could protect them selfs from arrows, quite easily, but skilled archers like from ottoman empire shot their arrows at the armpits of armored soldiers.
Piercing was big problem for bows and thats why muskets did replace bows, nots because of their long range, but their ability to pierce any armour. And when army didnt need big armor, because it was completely useless against muskets they saved money.
Muskets (and firearms in general) were also infinitely easier to use in comparison.
#114
Guest_E-Ro_*
Posté 29 janvier 2015 - 01:48
Guest_E-Ro_*
Guest_E-Ro_*
-
- Guests
I was just addressing the idea that arrows would "pierce chainmail easily" as you said in your previous post. That is clearly untrue. But you seem to have switched stances so thats ok. I was also addressing the idea that arrows are some sort of cheat code. Sure they have their uses, but they also have severe limits, facing armor is one of those limits.Ofcourse people could protect them selfs from arrows, quite easily, but skilled archers like from ottoman empire shot their arrows at the armpits of armored soldiers.
Piercing was big problem for bows and thats why muskets did replace bows, nots because of their long range, but their ability to pierce any armour. And when army didnt need big armor, because it was completely useless against muskets they saved money.
As for shooting at armpits, that seems like it would be rather difficult. Hitting such a small area, plus, a mail hauberk covers the armpit, as it fits like a long sleeved shirt. So aiming for the armpit of a man with a mail hauberk would accomplish nothing. Same holds true for a man in plate, his armpits would be protected.If what your saying about ottoman archers is true(and im not sure that it is) the ottomans seem pretty dumb, as aiming for the face would be a better bet. As its a larger target and more vulnerable.
#115
Posté 29 janvier 2015 - 02:10
Dermain
-
- Members
- 4 475 messages
Muskets (and firearms in general) were also infinitely easier to use in comparison.
Not really, they were heavier than most of the other weapons of the period, had a chance to explode on the user, and were horribly inaccurate at long range.
#116
Guest_Lathrim_*
Posté 29 janvier 2015 - 02:21
Guest_Lathrim_*
Guest_Lathrim_*
-
- Guests
Not really, they were heavier than most of the other weapons of the period, had a chance to explode on the user, and were horribly inaccurate at long range.
All true. It was still faster and easier to train someone to become proficient with a musket than a bow.
#117
Posté 29 janvier 2015 - 04:01
L. Han
-
- Members
- 1 878 messages
^Muskets were also, oddly enough, easier to mass produce compared to the bow. A bow maker would have to train for years just to make a simple bow grip while a musket could be made in large numbers in factories. Muskets were also a bit more useful in close combat fighting (as expected of footmen) as the musket can be used like a spear (with a bayonet) or as a heavy club without having to worry too much about loosing it's functionality.
