Infiltrator
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2009
- Messages
- 295
Guys, with the amount of culture the French get, they could have had a LOT more unlocked in the Honor or Autocracy tree to make up for what they lack in combat naturally.
Given equality of tech, or even some disadvantage, I think the japanese will steamroll any other player.
Just get all the economic trees and pump out masses of units to suicide on the enemy and it looks unlikely that you'll ever lose a war
Given equality of tech, or even some disadvantage, I think the japanese will steamroll any other player.
Just get all the economic trees and pump out masses of units to suicide on the enemy and it looks unlikely that you'll ever lose a war
Oh what theever. I'm sorry but you obviously know nothing about Samurai or the Japanese. Don't start up stupid 'Samurai vs Knight' debates when you haven't got a clue in the first place.
As for the OP, please wait until you actually get a chance to PLAY the game before you start your 'unbalanced', 'overpowered', or 'broken' threads.
Uh the knight is: Taller (reach), stronger, has much stronger equipment (weapons/armor stronger because the iron supply is not crappy Japanese iron). The knight also would be more adaptable in combat (fought many types of opponents while the samurai fough against samurai). If the knight went with great swords he would have a sword 5-6ft long, weighed up to about 6lb. If he went with a one handed sword he would take his trusty wooden shield (could easily block samurai's attacks) have a sword length of 3.5-4ft and weigh up to about 4lb. The armor would be impenetrable from either a katana, wakizashi or yumi.
If you want to debate feel free to reply in a PM
Except that you have no economic advantages at all, and so you may well have less territory, worse tech, fewer units/resources or smaller population.
We'll have to see.
They'll be very strong in the medieval age with the samurai, but who knows how they'll do the rest of the time.
Yes very throughly.
I am now of the opinion that the japanese are bloomin awesome. Those samurai were ripping those riflemen apart, until they all died horribly of course.
Actually Japanese sword smithing was inferior because they took much longer to use steel because there is very little good iron in Japan.It's fun to debate effectiveness of japanese samurai versus the knights of the west, but they are so vividly different styles. Japanese sword smithing versus european? not too far from eachother really, I'd say they are simply different and one can debate wich is better to their heart's content. I love both styles and got a collection of blades from both.
You mean a Panzer 6, known as the tiger?Since reading this thread I decided to head over and take a look at that video. I'm about 3/4 done it now, taking a break. One thing I'm wondering about (though a bit off topic) was when they showed the civopedia while typing in Panzer for the German UU. The image we see is not a Panzer, but a Tiger I.
Since reading this thread I decided to head over and take a look at that video. I'm about 3/4 done it now, taking a break. One thing I'm wondering about (though a bit off topic) was when they showed the civopedia while typing in Panzer for the German UU. The image we see is not a Panzer, but a Tiger I.
Uh the knight is: Taller (reach), stronger, has much stronger equipment (weapons/armor stronger because the iron supply is not crappy Japanese iron). The knight also would be more adaptable in combat (fought many types of opponents while the samurai fough against samurai). If the knight went with great swords he would have a sword 5-6ft long, weighed up to about 6lb. If he went with a one handed sword he would take his trusty wooden shield (could easily block samurai's attacks) have a sword length of 3.5-4ft and weigh up to about 4lb. The armor would be impenetrable from either a katana, wakizashi or yumi.
If you want to debate feel free to reply in a PM
You mean a Panzer 6, known as the tiger?
Uh the knight is: Taller (reach), stronger, has much stronger equipment (weapons/armor stronger because the iron supply is not crappy Japanese iron). The knight also would be more adaptable in combat (fought many types of opponents while the samurai fough against samurai). If the knight went with great swords he would have a sword 5-6ft long, weighed up to about 6lb. If he went with a one handed sword he would take his trusty wooden shield (could easily block samurai's attacks) have a sword length of 3.5-4ft and weigh up to about 4lb. The armor would be impenetrable from either a katana, wakizashi or yumi.
If you want to debate feel free to reply in a PM
And then the Samurai pulls out a bow and shoots the knight's horse from under him because they were mostly armored horse archers throughout their history.
If you're going to be anal retentive in a game that is not realistic in any form, then at least get it right.
That horse would have barding so you can't shoot it out
Agincourt was a great french victory where their armored knights plowed through the English bowmen, deflecting every arrow with their plate armor and barding.![]()
The French cavalry had barding at Agincourt, the arrows pierced them.That was why they developed barding, duh!
PS The Courser is much faster than a Kiso