Swords vs Axes

[[to_xp]Gekko]

just name the Elohim t2 melee Spearmen and stop being naggers, guys

 

[Calavente]

ahahahah !!
but what would be the fun if we couldn't spend a lot of time discussing useless things ?

I vote for :
warrior --> footman (way better than my "guard" proposition --> soldier.

then for tier 4 I like phalanx and immortals.. it is not necessary that the term phalanx looks like the athenian ones. it is still fantasy. Phalanx can realistically be the name for the pen-ultimate infantry unit.
maybe "champion" can just go into oblivion

 

[Grey Fox]

I've been replaying KoTOR recently and I started thinking when I listened to a discussion between Carth and Canderous (the Mandalorian). And Canderous called himself a warrior and Carth said he called himself a Soldier because Warriors attack and fight because they like to fight and Soldiers defend and fight when necessary. (Or something like that)

EDIT; Found the quote:

"I'm not a warrior, I'm a soldier. There's a difference. Warriors attack and conquer, they prey on the weak. Soldiers defend and protect the innocent—usually from warriors."
―Carth to Canderous Ordo

 

[deadliver]

I think it makes perfect sense. I still find it would be much harder to wield an axe than a sword, although those long-swords are fairly unwieldy as well.

In the end, it isn't the size of the weapon, but how tempered the steel is (so it doesn't break or bend excessively) and spacial displacement.

Which is why I prefer the Gladius and the Katana. The Gladius for its quick-curt-to the point, and the Katana for the balance between reach and maneuverability.

This discussion makes me laugh (too bad I am one of the few laughing). Axe heads can be tempered as well.

 

[dyx]

I am actually wondering more about the role of longbowmen and crossbowmen in the game, while everyone's at it.
Longbowmen are lower in in tech, cheaper and weaker despite being highly trained units (historically), while crossbowmen are top of the notch national units fighting with a weapon that was (historically) successful because it was a peasant weapon.
It's always bugging me and I'm even trying to image those crossbowmen as Landsknechts or Doppelsöldner...

 

[Selrahc]

I am actually wondering more about the role of longbowmen and crossbowmen in the game, while everyone's at it.
Longbowmen are lower in in tech, cheaper and weaker despite being highly trained units (historically), while crossbowmen are top of the notch national units fighting with a weapon that was (historically) successful because it was a peasant weapon.
It's always bugging me and I'm even trying to image those crossbowmen as Landsknechts or Doppelsöldner...

You could imagine that the crossbow represents top of the line technology, barely ready for production. A bow weapon with unrivalled armour penentration power but one which doesn't have a good production facility behind it. To get the best use out of these weapons the various nations give them to the most able archers around. The superiority of the crossbow over the longbow then would be a result of the users. If those same heavily trained soldiers were using Longbows instead then they would be Marksmen.

It is hard to imagine a world where crossbows are hard to manufacture weapons given to only the best and brightest, wheras guns are easy enough to produce that any schmo in uniform can be given one and pressed into combat though...

 

[readercolin]

I dunno, is it really hard to produce a musket? Just take a long straight(ish) piece of metal with a hole drilled down the middle, then attach a little bit of wood and some way to bring fire to the powder. No one said arquebusers were especially accurate or anything. Personally, I like arquebuses as non-national unit limit units, simply because it allows there to be SOME gunpowder units (and therefore, some reason to research that tech). I do not like orbis's version with the weaker crossbows but national unit capped arquebuses.

-Colin

 

[Keeper_GFA]

It probably would have made more sense to switch crossbowmen and arquebusiers, so the crossbows were mass produced and the gunpowder was more special.

 

[Calavente]

I dunno, is it really hard to produce a musket? Just take a long straight(ish) piece of metal with a hole drilled down the middle, then attach a little bit of wood and some way to bring fire to the powder. No one said arquebusers were especially accurate or anything. Personally, I like arquebuses as non-national unit limit units, simply because it allows there to be SOME gunpowder units (and therefore, some reason to research that tech). I do not like orbis's version with the weaker crossbows but national unit capped arquebuses.

-Colin

hahahah .. I think that what is really difficult (more that crossbows) IS the "long piece of metal with a hole drilled inside"... drilling metal is hard. if the inside is neither smooth nor straight your metal bar is not even a musket. And you can't just fold a metal sheet as you need to not have any holes in the bore...
Even if you don't need real accuracy for a battle unit, you need a minimum accuracy so as not to fire in the sky when you aim to the group of guys before you.

For us, industrial society a musket is easily done but for a medieval society, bombard/cannons can be done, while drilling inside bronze bores with steel, the smoothness being irrelevant in face of the diameter of the bore. But muskets need much more work. It need to be smooth and cannot be bronze (the bore needs to be too thick and heavy if you want to use bronze in firearms) so it is much harced to make.

but arquebuses as a late game unit is cool. It is just strange that people can make musket at the same time as cannon...
(historically there were first cannons and bombards then muskets/arquebuses as reliable muskets are harder to make than simple cannons)

maybe it could be done so that cannons need gunpowder while arquebuse need gunpower AND machinery. and make it so gunpowder does not need machinery but something else. alchemy or medicine or ... just engineering. (well I will correct the tech names this evening)

 

[Tasunke]

perhaps *blasting powder* could require Engineering and Guilds, and then *Gunsmiths* could require Blasting Powder and Machinery. Personally I would require a special *assembly shop* building as a pre-req for building Arquebusiers, make them weaker, half the original cost, and either let the gunpowder resource give them a +1 str promo of "refined powder" or to give them +1 gunpowder affinity.

 

[Calavente]

perhaps *blasting powder* could require Engineering and Guilds, and then *Gunsmiths* could require Blasting Powder and Machinery. Personally I would require a special *assembly shop* building as a pre-req for building Arquebusiers, make them weaker, half the original cost, and either let the gunpowder resource give them a +1 str promo of "refined powder" or to give them +1 gunpowder affinity.

I can't seem to know if you are joking or not...
It would become very complicated...
I proposed something less complicated... not needing any tech change nor tech addition...
just maybe a path change... gunpowder being reachable earlier.
I just proposed something so that arquebus are not builable only with the gunpowder tech. IMO the best way is to link them to 2 existing tech simultaneously.
So as to not make it much harder to have them I proposed that the tech be almost on the same tech path. gunpowder + machinery or gunpowder + guilds.
for the first porposition to work it needs that gunpowder doesn't need machinery ==> light change of tech path. (I have to look at the actual tech path to tell that)

 

[Emptiness]

just name the Elohim t2 melee Spearmen and stop being naggers, guys

Yes, tyvm.