Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Palindrome wrote:On average men are 30-40% stronger than women.

In modern times, because women are expected to be rather lazy compared to men these days. A woman who has worked hard days on the farm all her life, like a drafted soldier in medieval times, is going to have far less of a difference, if any difference at all.

Joey wrote:I think this has reached its end and people will draw the conclusions they want to.
Back on topic, I think.

You know, for once Im going to agree with you here

Melissia wrote:Glad you admit that you're wrong

And who let this crazed daemon from her hellhole? I would be pleased if the guilty took her back

Actually that figure comes from a thread on other discussions discussing the differences between male and female olympic atheletes.

The average woman is significantly weaker than the average man even if both have the same diet and do the same activitiies. That is a fact.

Palindrome wrote:The average woman is significantly weaker than the average man even if both have the same diet and do the same activitiies.

That is not a fact.

God there is far too much women this Rar Rar Rar women that Rar Rar Rar going on in the thread.

Sush the lot of you and let this topic get back on track.

on topic this does look decent enough game, wonder how it will pan out.

Also yay to another user with ireland in their profile *dances*

Melissia wrote:

Palindrome wrote:The average woman is significantly weaker than the average man even if both have the same diet and do the same activitiies.

That is not a fact.

It is actually but as there seems to be very little point in carrying this on I shall leave you to your delusions.

It seems to be Mount and Blade with unlockable weaponry. To be honest it could go either way.

Palindrome wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Palindrome wrote:The average woman is significantly weaker than the average man even if both have the same diet and do the same activitiies.

That is not a fact.

It is actually

As found out by Israeli research, with proper military training, the physical differences between men and women is drastically reduced, to something around five to ten percent difference at most.

Palindrome wrote:It seems to be Mount and Blade with unlockable weaponry. To be honest it could go either way.

Indeed. And with perks, too, although again I wish they'd choose a different word, but because the average player is stupid and requires a call of duty reference, I guess they had to go with "perks" instead of some more applicable and intelligently picked term.

I think the game's concepts are pretty neat, myself.

Those ten to five procents would mather quite alot in an event of war/hostilites.

Trondheim wrote:Those ten to five procents would mather quite alot in an event of war/hostilites.

Not enough for me to give a gak. This is a game, where you play out a fantasy. If it was a sim, most players would never make it in to combat in the first place, instead dying from disease or malnutrition. And you'd go days if not months between battles, and you'd only have one life ,then your account would close.

Your fantasy might include only sweating grunty men swinging vaguely phallic objects around at eachother, but mine also includes some sweaty grunting women swinging vaguely phallic objects around at eachother as well.

Don't care anymore.

Well your American so I would not expect anything else either.

What, because I'm American that means that I care more whether the game is fun for me than than whether or not the game is historically accurate according to your masculine delusions?

I thought that just meant I'm a gamer. It's a game, fun is more important. Speaking of which, does anyone have videos of archers/crossbowmen in this game?

Yes and my delusions have the backing of history. There are a reson we dont read about hordes of women going on crusades.

Trondheim wrote:Yes and my delusions don't have the backing of history.

Fixed that for you.

Women were drafted for these battles. It's well recorded, and many of them brought their own weapons and and several of them even brought their own armor.

Oh ya? My history books seems to disagree with you yank

Trondheim wrote:Oh ya? My history books seems to disagree with you yank

Lynata provided a source which proves taht your statement is historically inaccurate.

Lynata wrote:Actually, the Bridport Muster Roll of 1457 has a list of people called to join the Lancastrian army:

These are the names of ordinary people who were called up to the army. 174 names on the list are legible, and 5 of these (2.9%) are women. Alis Hammel has her own jack, sword, buckler, salet, bow and arrows. Alis Gare has a bow and a coat of plates. "Condefer Wife" has bow, arrows, sword and buckler. Margaret Athyn and Sally Pens do not have any equipment listed, but overall 39% of the names on the list do not have any equipment listed.
-- found on this forum

And then we have Margaret of Anjou personally having led her army in combat. Granted, I doubt that she has actually fought (few commanders did), but there you have it: female soldiers and army commanders in the War of Roses. The historical precedent is given.

Unless one would want to pretend that these minorities never existed at all because they'd apparently attack the idea of male supremacy or something silly like that. A lot of people and organizations still seem to be interested in doing so!

I don't honestly care about historical accuracy, myself. I just want the game to be fun. But if you want to argue for historical accuracy, you'd be arguing TO include women. You, of course, aren't arguing for historical accuracy.

But I already knew that.

Palindrome wrote:
On average men are 30-40% stronger than women. It is simple physiology.

They also needlessly repeat themselves 80-90% more on forums on the interwebs!

I dont recall ever reading that in any book thou for all I know that can be pulled out of the ass of someone like you

Trondheim wrote:I dont recall ever reading that in any book thou for all I know that can be pulled out of the ass of someone like you

Try looking for the "Bridport Muster Roll of 1457", then.

Most history books don't state the gender, either way, of soldiers in the War of the Roses. To be fair, most history books don't spend much time on the war to begin with.

To get things back on track...

I think the grittiness could get upped a bit more, not make everything brown but lets get a bit gorey.

If you've seen the way damage is done in Max Payne 3 you know can really mess up dudes in that. I'm talking blowing out a dudes face leaving ragged strips of flesh and a pool of blood around the body.

It's kinda gross but I think that squick factor could make the game real "medieval" when you literally blow a hole through a guy's face with your lance. It'd also just make your blows all the more impactful and visceral. There already seems to be good weight to your attacks and good feedback but some good ole fashioned violence would make it feel like you're really fighting.

Also despite my obsession with blood gore and the fact that I play Slaanesh CSM and Dark Eldar, I'm not a weirdo...no really I mean it...

asimo77 wrote:If you've seen the way damage is done in Max Payne 3 you know can really mess up dudes in that. I'm talking blowing out a dudes face leaving ragged strips of flesh and a pool of blood around the body.

Man, Max Payne got hard core.

That could work for this game, but for some reason it reminds me of F.A.T.A.L. and so you worry me...

Oh ffs.

Trondheim wrote:There are a reson we dont read about hordes of women going on crusades.

Yes, because the pope forbid it for the Third Crusade after they did in the first two.
Didn't keep all of them at home tho.

http://www.enotes.com/1189-reference/1189
See under "religion".

It's almost funny what some defenders of historical realism actually know about history...

Can we please let this rest now?

Melissia wrote:And with perks, too, although again I wish they'd choose a different word, but because the average player is stupid and requires a call of duty reference, I guess they had to go with "perks" instead of some more applicable and intelligently picked term.

To be fair, I thought "perks" reminds me of FallOut.

asimo77 wrote:To get things back on track...

You're a monster!

It's almost funny what some defenders of historical realism actually know about history...

That's because most of what they know about history comes from Hollywood, which is ironic cause Hollywood usually throws in a chick in armor for the hell of it.

EDIT: Though as an aside, I wouldn't necessarily trust everything on eNotes.

The next person who talks about this crap that has spanned 2 1/2, that no one other than themselves really care about, shall be executed by the Inquisition.

It's a bit pathetic that some posters here can't disagree without descending into personal attacks and generalised slurs.

War of the Roses is a cool time period to set a game in. Is "mount and blade" worth picking up then?

Also, let the player decide their gender. What's the harm. Even if everyone else is a bloke, how does it effect your gameplay to give someone else the option you disagree with?
Jeez.

Melissia wrote:

asimo77 wrote:If you've seen the way damage is done in Max Payne 3 you know can really mess up dudes in that. I'm talking blowing out a dudes face leaving ragged strips of flesh and a pool of blood around the body.

Man, Max Payne got hard core.

That could work for this game, but for some reason it reminds me of F.A.T.A.L. and so you worry me...

Fine I'll enjoy these anal circumfrence tables all by myself!

<Simmer down; it's getting awfully heated in here, when we're discussing the historical accuracy of a video game. Enhance your calm, or lose your ability to post.>

Melissia wrote:And with perks, too, although again I wish they'd choose a different word, but because the average player is stupid and requires a call of duty reference, I guess they had to go with "perks" instead of some more applicable and intelligently picked term.

Also instead of perks we could have traits, dispositions, idiosyncrasies, quirks, advantages, talents, abilities, skills, and the list goes on.

"Hold on guys I need to spec my idiosyncrasies for DPS"

Sounds good to me.

Da Boss wrote:Is "mount and blade" worth picking up then?

Mount & Blade is awesome. I can wholeheartedly recommend it - "Warband", anyways. I suppose the more recent "With Fire and Sword" is cool, too, if you like firearms thrown into the mix.

Back when I played M&B the first time it was still completely independent and not yet published by Paradox. You actually had to earn your first sword and started out with little more than a bunch of rags and a club. There actually was a "nun" background that had you begin the game just with a black robe and a staff, but you also had cool healing and inspiration talents. These days, you have a trusty steed and a good weapon right away, which fits to the title and the image propagated by the game's PR, but I thought that taking away this kind of progression somehow had you miss out on an important stage of this cool "come from nowhere, rise to power" theme the entire game is built upon. Matter of personal preferences tho.

Anyways, it's a very open world kind of game, where you have a lot of influence over your chosen progression. There are a few story missions, but generally, what you do with your character's life is entirely up to you. You can become a bandit king, a rich merchant, a sovereign's trusted general, a land-owning noble, or maybe even try reaching for the crown yourself? Naturally, the more you try to achieve, the more time it takes. In one of my "coziest" games my character ended up being some sort of Nord (pseudo-vikings, basically) tribal chief, with a wooden fort as a stronghold and about three villages paying tributes. Most money came from raiding nearby Swadian towns. My army wasn't large and was sorely missing in cavalry, but it had some very powerful troops that were hard to take down by the enemy, and had a great synergy with my own fighting style.

This "shield maiden" type of character is the one I've played in multiplayer as well, but instead of the two-handed sword I've led my Nords with I've opted for a more balanced setup in gear consisting of a round shield, a short nordic broadsword, and a few throwing axes. The latter were especially good against charging knights, as I used to throw them right into their horses' heads, causing the mount to topple and the rider to dismount - whereupon I'd get close and finish them off! Quite the risky maneuvre (as everything hinged upon whether or not my axe would hit), but it was quite epic if everything went well. Occasionally I also managed to hit the knight himself, causing him to fall down and allowing me to steal his mount.

It should be noted here that the game has a very good physics engine that calculates the effects of movement speed on damage, meaning that a lance will hurt more when you ride faster. Conversely, however, a throwing axe hurled at you will also hurt more since you're charging right into it!
The game is rather realistic in its damage model, meaning that you can easily die from one or two hits in the right places, at least until you are donning heavy platemail. Of course, this realistic damage only adds to the enjoyment, because you can literally mow down scores of AI opponents or other players - provided you don't go into rage mode just because you are one-shot by a stray high-arc arrow to the head.

In general, you will encounter a lot of amazing scenes where - either due to skill or sheer dumb luck, or any combination thereof - you'll end up doing some insane kills. The game's ragdoll physics mean that dead bodies will accurately tumble down from their horses or roll down castle stairs.

The best thing about "Warband" in comparison to its predecessor (the original M&B) is its multiplayer (up to 200 players on a map!), especially castle sieges. Huge fights where one side is trying to erect ladders or move towers close to the walls, whereas the defenders are shooting arrow after arrow and try to pick off enough of the attackers to stand a chance once the enemy starts breaking through. The castles and towns you're attacking or defending are well-designed, making for some diversified battles all requiring teamplay and, preferrably, a unique tactic to win.

I've got fond memories of one particular multiplayer battle where we had several scores of Khergites attempt to surrender our Rhodok infantry lines. Now, Khergites are basically M&B's version of Mongols, and they were all mounted archers. Our Rhodoks, however, had a vast number of spears and crossbows. The map had the ruins of an old village in the midst, so the game started with our side rushing for cover and shoving each other into those tiny houses. The Khergites quickly began to circle our position, constantly shooting their bows at us, whereas our crossbowmen peeked out of their cover and tried hitting the riders. Within the first five minutes, the entire map was littered with arrows and crossbow bolts sticking out of the ground or in the walls.
Oh yeah, did I mention that ammunition such as arrows and crossbow bolts (or any weapon, as well as shields) remain on the map to be picked up by whoever needs them?

Lastly, there's also an extremely vivid modding community for Mount & Blade. I've even played a Star Wars mod once, which changed the strategic map into space, towns into planets, and your horse into a star cruiser. On the battle maps, people were stormtroopers and rebels with speeder bikes for horses, blasters for crossbows, and lightsabers for swords.

So, give it a try. It costs... what, $20, $30 these days? Granted, it's a little more than back then (when M&B was still in alpha/beta, registration keys were really cheap - with the price gradually going up the closer the game got to full release), but for this much fun I'd say it's worth it.

asimo77 wrote:"Hold on guys I need to spec my idiosyncrasies for DPS"