"Shadow" schedule

I disagree with the ability to move the holy place... it is like trying to move Jerusalem or Mecca or even Rome from its place, it is not possible, if Jerusalem is razed, well there is no more jerusalem, maybem they can rebuild a city on the place Jesus had been born but it is not the same thing....

It is a holy place at the end, so if you change it, it lose their meaning, maybe you can have holy itens of the religion that give some especific bonus... but to change the roly place is no good, what make it interesting is that you have to adapt you game to get its beneficts at all and protect it with your life :p
 
Its isn't really the town that is holy in ffh though. It is the symbol of the religion, the tablet of bambur, the song of autumn etc, they are in the city becuase that is where they were made but they can easilly be moved.
 
I don't understand what Stigmata on the Unborn actually is. It isn't a book like most others, nor a holy town/building?
 
I disagree with the ability to move the holy place... it is like trying to move Jerusalem or Mecca or even Rome from its place, it is not possible, if Jerusalem is razed, well there is no more jerusalem, maybem they can rebuild a city on the place Jesus had been born but it is not the same thing....

Betlehem my friend Betlehem...
 
I don't understand what Stigmata on the Unborn actually is. It isn't a book like most others, nor a holy town/building?

Its an event. One city became so corrupt, filled with hatred and animosity, and demonic influences were so prevelant that unborn children began to be possessed by infernal and unsanctified spirits. The marks of this possesion were open gaping sores (there were other physical deformities as well).

The birth of these chidlren aroused even more hatred and fighting among the people. Some were taken from their parents and killed, other mothers were blamed for the sickness and dragged through the streets and killed (this was an evil city but at the time the ashen veil was very much an underground religion). The children that did survive became powerful evil leaders of the next generation.
 
Exactly! I don't really like gunpowder units in fantasy game. Dwarves are only fitting race for mech units, why don't make this units UU for them?

In defense of gunpowder: it adds to the flavor of Erebus, giving the common man what was once only available to wizards. I'd like to see more done with gunpowder, actually. It's particularly flavorful, IMHO, for the Grigori. They seem the most likely to put gunpowder to use, as it allows anybody to wield fire and brimstone, not just mages. Besides, what would we do with that awesome Lanun musketman (I forget the exact name) if gunpowder was removed?
 
Good riddance to all that stuff. There's nothing there that I will really miss and it was necessary to make way for the new additions. What the heck was a Lames anyway?
 
Good riddance to all that stuff. There's nothing there that I will really miss and it was necessary to make way for the new additions. What the heck was a Lames anyway?

dictionary.com said:
Lame. n. plural. Lames.

any of a number of thin, overlapping plates composing a piece of plate armor, as a fauld, tasset, or gauntlet.

And there you have it. ;)
 
Its an event. One city became so corrupt, filled with hatred and animosity, and demonic influences were so prevelant that unborn children began to be possessed by infernal and unsanctified spirits. The marks of this possesion were open gaping sores (there were other physical deformities as well).

The birth of these chidlren aroused even more hatred and fighting among the people. Some were taken from their parents and killed, other mothers were blamed for the sickness and dragged through the streets and killed (this was an evil city but at the time the ashen veil was very much an underground religion). The children that did survive became powerful evil leaders of the next generation.

I hope there's a page where all this FFH2 lore is kept!
 
Woooot I have all next week of school to play shadow!!! Strangly I get most of the study leave for my mocks after I actually do them this week and if I'm seen outside during next week I have to spend it all at school with my head of year because I'm supposed to be revising for exams I've just done Wtf? Anyway, the svartalfar look great I just love their whole theme, but I did promise myself to play the sidar first and the belseraphs next I think. I don't know how much has been done to them but they are one of my favourite civs.
 
Only thing I dont like is the Longbowman / Crossbowman thingy. A Longbowman unit was Way more efficiant than a x-bow unit (historically) but the ease of training the x-bowmen won out. i think this should play out in the game as well with Longbowmen having a bitt better attack and some more defence bonus but at a Steep price (exept for Elves) and x-bow men on the cheapo lets say a 3 to 1 ratio or so between em. That way for a given amout of prod the crossbowmen would win out but in a unit to unit comparison the longbowmen win out...
I agree. I'm not happy with crossbow being an improvement/replacement for longbow. As you say having a crossbow as a direct and better replacement for longbow is not historically accurate.
 
no but it can be.
effective crossbows are better than longbows. In RL it did replace longbows in most medieval armies (save england) :
Spoiler arguments that long bow is better evaluated :
Agincourt was not a typicall longbow-X-bow fight as there were 5000 English longbowmens against 3500-5000 X-bows. considering price of X-bow training vs longbow training, a normal cost-compared battle between longbows and X-bow would be 5000 vs 8000 or 10000 or more. (or in FfH.fire you could say they where 5000 DrillV flurries agains 3.5-5000 crossbows)
Agincourt was mostly about :
-defense is best than offense.
-heavy cavalry sucks against fortified infantry
-some raw ranged units on attacking team is not at all equal to same number or more elite ranged units of a fortified team. (english longbowmen were not your common longbowmen)
-ranged units is best ot hold a fortified camp against mostly close combat units.

Crecy had 7000 archers vs 6000 X-bows : compare the rate of fire and the cost of trainning each units and you will see that the french where understrengthed in term on ranged units. (ie if they had bought archers instead of X-bow, you could say they had the money for 2-3000 archers vs the 7000 ones of the english) it was not a X-bow vs longbow but a "massed-ranged elite + pikes" vs "heavy cavalry with a bit of ranged support"

Poitier was about archer vs cavalry no X-bow, only : heavy cavalry with dead horse is nuts, heavy cavalry against superior fortification and ranged units sucks.
as a rule, an trained longbowman is more efficient than a trained X-bow. BUT training a longbowman is much more coslty and long, and X-bow are much more powerful.

then go check on the Cho-Ko-Nu : as powerful as longbow -less than crossbow-, heavier rate of fire than longbow : 10 bolt every 15sec, and the bonus of X-bow :
1week training to use it compared to the years of training for longbow,
ability to aim while hidden or crouched or lying flat. ability to be moved with the blot already engaged..Etc
 
The big argument for the x-bow (historically) wasn't that a trained x-bow man was very good. The reason the x-bow rewled was that an Untrained x-bowman was decent. This was also the reason the feudal lords made it illeagal in the begining. That a powerful lord-knight on a charger could be killed by a farmer (at short range) with 10 minutes practice was the main reason. The long bow however took 6-10 years to master and was a killer at all ranges also a good single longbowman had an impressive ROF (in groups it was less).

This was reflected in my reasoning that a LB-man should beat a x-bowman 8 out of 10 at least (in straghit fighting) and have better fortification. BUT that the x-bow should be half the price and 2 x-bowmen should beat 1 LBman 8/10 in straight fight (at cost of 1 x-bow).
 
The big argument for the x-bow (historically) wasn't that a trained x-bow man was very good. The reason the x-bow rewled was that an Untrained x-bowman was decent. This was also the reason the feudal lords made it illeagal in the begining. That a powerful lord-knight on a charger could be killed by a farmer (at short range) with 10 minutes practice was the main reason. The long bow however took 6-10 years to master and was a killer at all ranges also a good single longbowman had an impressive ROF (in groups it was less).

This was reflected in my reasoning that a LB-man should beat a x-bowman 8 out of 10 at least (in straghit fighting) and have better fortification. BUT that the x-bow should be half the price and 2 x-bowmen should beat 1 LBman 8/10 in straight fight (at cost of 1 x-bow).

That's certainly the conventional wisdom, and would be fine for the game. But without straying to OT I've always been skeptical about the "it takes X years to reach mastery in the longbow." It might take many years to become an expert marksman, but that would be true with a crossbow or a firearm also.

The major difference I think is the amount of upper body strength it takes to fire a high poundage recurve bow (and the endurance to keep doing it for an extended period). I suppose it comes down to the same thing (it takes a lot less time to create large groups of effective crossbow users then longbow users), but I've always found the "it takes a massive amount of skill to use a longbow" as a rather anglo-centric myth of the "English longbowman," and their ability to crush continental armies. It seems a bit less glamorous when portrayed as simply body building to become an arrow firing machine.
 
my values are out of my hat but I think they are almost accurate.

but for me, x-bowman is like 3-4 times cheaper than LB, even for bolts and arrows, long, straight arrows are more difficult to make and find than short sturdy bolts. (reasonning : 1week formation to have decent X-B, 5-10 year formation to have decent bows, cost of arrows vs bolts, cost of good bow vs cost of material for X-bow... pay an artisan to build the xbow)
and LB is 1,5-2 times more powerful than X-B in strait fight, 1 on 1 (wins 8 out of 10 fights) (heavier RoF per man for LB, tactical advantage for X-B)

so for the same price you have a unit with 3 LB, or a unit with 9-12 X-bows.. so Xbow-unit is 1,5 times to 3 times more powerful than LB.
+ going from a force of few elite-trained men to a heavily concripted one is a "progress" in term of warfare.
defensively, X-bow is a bit less than LB due to the fact that you can put only so many people in one small place.

then add that you can have improved X-bows.. that have higher RoF, almost like LB... and you can see that X-B can be an improvement against LB.

just consider that the Marksmen use composite bows... and are equal to imporved X-B ... but with different applications
 
Top Bottom