Cavalry, armor, missile fire, tactics and the limits of the M2TW engine.

**Grabbin_Megroin** · August 02, 2014, 06:25 PM

Arguing about the integrity of this quote based on his priesthood and other writings is totally idiotic, but I don't think you need to be an "expert" to observe and record a singular event during/after a battle.

Don't be silly.

**the man, the myth, the legend** · August 03, 2014, 02:30 AM

Yeah dude, he was wring about Welsh folklore. It's not like he believed it, he was just a, say, medieval reporter. You know putting old folk stories on paper for posterity. He wasn't delusional.

**Geoffrey of Villehardouin** · August 03, 2014, 05:16 AM

I don't know about that, that is your interpretation. Better qualified people have commented on his writings. He reports plenty of strange things and there is no clear indication that he did not believe them. The story about the arrow sounds as hard to believe as the other stories anyway. Why should this story be taken seriously (being, as it is, hearsay) and not the other ones?

**Sint** · August 03, 2014, 06:54 AM

You're saying that if you get shot by a .500 magnum shot you won't get put down? Can I try it on you?

1.Are you a bit slow? Did you read my comment?The force won't knock you off your feet...that's the point if you can't even read my comment than don't comment on it.
2.200fps is a bit too much for a 1750 grain arrow from a longbow,it would be more like 180 or less.
3.The force needed to penetrate 2mm of tempered medium carbon steel is higher than 200joule,assuming that it is shot from a distance and that it is actual armor ,not just a flat plate,you would need even more.
Than add the padding .

**Melooo182** · August 03, 2014, 09:12 AM

...and another thread derailed by pointless endless debate about the longbow myths and truths

**Geoffrey of Villehardouin** · August 03, 2014, 11:47 AM

One thing raised at the OP is that the human player should always win over the AI, which is fine. Another thing that happens, however, on hard and very hard is that the computer player gets endless armies, so that the human player has to use a ton of exploits, such as stakes (historical but the AI never uses them), siege engines (historical but the AI does not know how to use them), sallying out (the AI rarely does it and even then it can be abused as an exploit), flamethrowers and naffatun (the AI has no clue how they are supposed to be used), carcasses (the AI has no clue what they are for), firearm units (the AI most of the time is unable to use them), building forts and so on. Whether the AI keeps its units together or runs all over the place like fish out of water, the human player can abuse that, too. Reading the campaign script is another exploit. In fact, the line between superior tactics and abusing the AI is very thin.

I do not know what is the answer. Playing on hard or very hard is basically an exercise on how many ways you know to abuse the AI with. On the other hand, the campaign AI is too lame on the easier levels and also does not hire mercs. Perhaps a better combination would be playing with the campaign AI on very hard and the campaign script on normal but with extremely low availability of fancy weaponry (such as catapults, cannons, etc).

**Grabbin_Megroin** · August 03, 2014, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by Geoffrey of Villehardouin

I don't know about that, that is your interpretation. Better qualified people have commented on his writings. He reports plenty of strange things and there is no clear indication that he did not believe them. The story about the arrow sounds as hard to believe as the other stories anyway. Why should this story be taken seriously (being, as it is, hearsay) and not the other ones?

Because it's within the realm of possibility as opposed to the other quote you brought up which isn't, and because it's a primary source document. Those two things make it plausible, therefore it can be taken seriously.

Originally Posted by Judeman266

This effect is not able to be reproduced in M2TW because the knight and horse die together.

If only there was some way to "transform" a dead horsed knight into a foot knight, perhaps with lower health or stats to represent possible injury, to more accurately portray a knight's horse dying underneath him. It would have to be somewhat random, and whether or not the knight survives the fall or dies more often is up for debate. You could factor in the projectile type used, the speed the horse was traveling, and the mass of cavalry that was charging to determine this maybe.

Although I highly doubt that's possible to mod... Memory editing, maybe?

Originally Posted by Judeman266

When we hear of the Mongols battle successes it wasn't the horse archers shooting all their ammo, whittling the enemies down to half strength and then attacking, as in M2TW, that gave them success. It was their combined arms and communication along with quality troops that allowed them to succeed. Horse archers harass the enemy, causing minor casualties, lowering morale, and disorganizing the enemy formation leave them for slaughter by cavalry. This is somewhat recreated but Horse archers and archers cause too many causualties to armored men (heavy infantry +heavy cavalry).

I wonder if it would be possible then, to give units morale penalties if they are under heavy fire? To balance this out perhaps arrow damage could be lowered by a point or two straight across the board. Skirmishing at the beginning of fights would be way more useful as a result, and I think that would make battles more fun too.

Also, the thread isn't derailed, the OP did say

Originally Posted by Judeman266

Debate is welcomed.

**Navajo Joe** · August 03, 2014, 01:24 PM

GUYS,

LETS KEEP THIS DEBATE NICE AND POLITE, LETS NOT ABUSE PEOPLE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY.

TREAT THIS AS A THREAD WARNING, ANY FURTHER PERSONAL ATTACKS WILL SEE THIS THREAD CLOSED.

NAVAJO JOE
SS FORUM MODERATOR

**+Marius+** · August 05, 2014, 10:57 AM