Equipment



  • I have noticed that the combination of weapons that you can choose from in this game is very limited. The ninja only has 4 melee weapons, same as the pirate. The Spartan has the most weapons at the moment with 7 (4 spears, 3 swords). Let’s compare this to Medieval Warfare. Each class had 9 to choose from in primaries and 6 secondaries as well as a few tertiary items. I don’t want to rain on your parade but that seems far too few things to be able to mix and match. Why not do the same kind of think in Medieval Warfare where you have the basic weapon and then the 2 unlocks are a slower, more powerful version or a faster/shorter, weaker version. Also, having a different amount of weapons for each class seems a bit odd. Maybe I have OCD, maybe not.

    Seeing the new layout for character select also pretty much confirms that there is no tertiary slot and that’s lame. The idea of being able to select 2 primaries is nice but maybe confine that to a single class? It makes the game interesting to force the player into picking a real primary and a secondary which is obviously different (shorter, faster, not as hard hitting) as a backup and finally, a piece of equipment to help them (shield, projectile, ammunition type). In my opinion it’s ridiculous that the Knight has to forgo a second weapon to pick a shield.

    I’ve been wondering for a while what the 3 belt icons in the armour part of character select are. Any ideas?

    I’ve noticed that there is a kunai and grappling hook on the Ninja’s belt as well as the Viking having a horn. Want to shed light on them?



  • Well, since we are going after history here, we are rather limited. What weapons do you want everyone to use? The Spartan only really used spears and shortswords, for example, not like they can have a lot more swords or anything.

    I have nothing against the decision of not having a teritiary slot. Having a shield and a bastard sword is the choice a knight will have to make, or they could choose a halberd and a crossbow. All the classes already have pretty deadly combinations, in my opinion. Shield isn’t really that important for the knight anyway, since he has so much armour and knights liked two-handed weapons. It’s different from spartans, who never fought without a shield, or vikings, who… also prefered shield walls and the like.

    @Footbeard:

    the Viking having a horn. Want to shed light on them?

    Maybe it’s just your regular viking drinking horn? Really handy to bring with you on a journey.

    The viking also has seax in his belt, I hoped that could have been another option for the viking, but no…



  • @SavageBeatings:

    Well, since we are going after history here, we are rather limited. What weapons do you want everyone to use? The Spartan only really used spears and shortswords, for example, not like they can have a lot more swords or anything.

    I have nothing against the decision of not having a teritiary slot. Having a shield and a bastard sword is the choice a knight will have to make, or they could choose a halberd and a crossbow. All the classes already have pretty deadly combinations, in my opinion. Shield isn’t really that important for the knight anyway, since he has so much armour and knights liked two-handed weapons. It’s different from spartans, who never fought without a shield, or vikings, who… also prefered shield walls and the like.

    @Footbeard:

    the Viking having a horn. Want to shed light on them?

    Maybe it’s just your regular viking drinking horn? Really handy to bring with you on a journey.

    The viking also has seax in his belt, I hoped that could have been another option for the viking, but no…

    I understand. It’s just that classes could have different TYPES of the same weapon. I’m sure not all of these weapons from these period were identical. The Sarissa could have 3 different types. The normal one, a slower and stronger one and a quicker weaker one. I know it sounds stupid because these weapons were probably made with specifications but at least it would add more depth to combat. Another example that is probably less historically breaking is having the same variation on the Ninja’s sickle. Boom, 2 new weapons, 2 new slightly different playstyles. The problem I find with DW is because there aren’t the slight variations in weapons there aren’t in Medieval Warfare, players can’t test the subtle changes in weapons out and pick a favourite. It just bugs me. I’m pretty bugged about the no tertiary slot too. Irks me that 2 classes get 2 weapons and a shield while another class has to pick it as a secondary.

    I heard that you can use the cute knife on the Viking’s back when you chuck all your shit at various unsuspecting players. Not sure I dreamed that though.



  • @SavageBeatings:

    Well, since we are going after history here, we are rather limited. What weapons do you want everyone to use? The Spartan only really used spears and shortswords, for example, not like they can have a lot more swords or anything.

    I have nothing against the decision of not having a teritiary slot. Having a shield and a bastard sword is the choice a knight will have to make, or they could choose a halberd and a crossbow. All the classes already have pretty deadly combinations, in my opinion. Shield isn’t really that important for the knight anyway, since he has so much armour and knights liked two-handed weapons. It’s different from spartans, who never fought without a shield, or vikings, who… also prefered shield walls and the like.

    Shields were actually incredibly important in medieval combat. Protection from massed archers, blocking blows in vicious fights, blocking long reaching weapons pushing opponents around, hitting them. The shield was a perfect fit for melee combat if you were using a one handed weapon.



  • @Dr.Nick:

    Shields were actually incredibly important in medieval combat. Protection from massed archers, blocking blows in vicious fights, blocking long reaching weapons pushing opponents around, hitting them. The shield was a perfect fit for melee combat if you were using a one handed weapon.

    I know, but by the time of full plate mail knights, there were pollaxes and two-handed swords that they would like to use. You don’t have a hand left over for a shield, so that’s why I am saying that not being able to carry a shield if you equip something like a pollaxe instead is fair. Either you are a knight in plate mail with two-handed weapons or you are a knight with sword and shield. I know that pretty much any other warrior culture always used shields otherwise, but that’s before they started being obsolete. Earlier in the alpha, the viking didn’t have a shield and the devs were like “meeeh, not sure if he should or not” when I asked, but he got one alright! That would have been a bigger historical inaccauracy if he didn’t have a shields, since there was a law all vikings were to have a shield.



  • @SavageBeatings:

    @Dr.Nick:

    Shields were actually incredibly important in medieval combat. Protection from massed archers, blocking blows in vicious fights, blocking long reaching weapons pushing opponents around, hitting them. The shield was a perfect fit for melee combat if you were using a one handed weapon.

    I know, but by the time of full plate mail knights, there were pollaxes and two-handed swords that they would like to use. You don’t have a hand left over for a shield, so that’s why I am saying that not being able to carry a shield if you equip something like a pollaxe instead is fair. Either you are a knight in plate mail with two-handed weapons or you are a knight with sword and shield. I know that pretty much any other warrior culture always used shields otherwise, but that’s before they started being obsolete. Earlier in the alpha, the viking didn’t have a shield and the devs were like “meeeh, not sure if he should or not” when I asked, but he got one alright! That would have been a bigger historical inaccauracy if he didn’t have a shields, since there was a law all vikings were to have a shield.

    I’m not denying this in the slightest. You obviously know your history far more than I do but I’m arguing for a gameplay point of view. In real life the weapons wielded by many classes wouldn’t do anything but scratch the knight’s armour. You poke a knight with a sword? He’s going to stagger a bit and probably get quite cross before lopping your head off. From a gameplay point of view this is a tad gamebreaking so they decided to make the knight’s armour made out of tough plastic rather than steel to balance. The knight and other classes that only get 2 things rather than 3 seem to be a bit disadvantaged. Sure it’s not just a matter of ‘oi, that guy has more stuff than I do’ but that does come into play a little. Characters become more versatile the more stuff they have. Agree?



  • @Footbeard:

    @SavageBeatings:

    @Dr.Nick:

    Shields were actually incredibly important in medieval combat. Protection from massed archers, blocking blows in vicious fights, blocking long reaching weapons pushing opponents around, hitting them. The shield was a perfect fit for melee combat if you were using a one handed weapon.

    I know, but by the time of full plate mail knights, there were pollaxes and two-handed swords that they would like to use. You don’t have a hand left over for a shield, so that’s why I am saying that not being able to carry a shield if you equip something like a pollaxe instead is fair. Either you are a knight in plate mail with two-handed weapons or you are a knight with sword and shield. I know that pretty much any other warrior culture always used shields otherwise, but that’s before they started being obsolete. Earlier in the alpha, the viking didn’t have a shield and the devs were like “meeeh, not sure if he should or not” when I asked, but he got one alright! That would have been a bigger historical inaccauracy if he didn’t have a shields, since there was a law all vikings were to have a shield.

    I’m not denying this in the slightest. You obviously know your history far more than I do but I’m arguing for a gameplay point of view. In real life the weapons wielded by many classes wouldn’t do anything but scratch the knight’s armour. You poke a knight with a sword? He’s going to stagger a bit and probably get quite cross before lopping your head off. From a gameplay point of view this is a tad gamebreaking so they decided to make the knight’s armour made out of tough plastic rather than steel to balance. The knight and other classes that only get 2 things rather than 3 seem to be a bit disadvantaged. Sure it’s not just a matter of ‘oi, that guy has more stuff than I do’ but that does come into play a little. Characters become more versatile the more stuff they have. Agree?

    Obviously the Knight spent all his money on that armor so he can’t afford a shield and two weapons ;)



  • @SlyGoat:

    Obviously the Knight spent all his money on that armor so he can’t afford a shield and two weapons ;)

    Poor knight :( in both definitions



  • Heh. I get it.



  • I was under the impression that shields were still widely used even with plate armor as they would protect you from massed arrows at the very least. Heater shields were also more common during that time were they not? Not to mention that bastard swords and some poleaxes were short enough to be used one handed with a shield.



  • @Dr.Nick:

    I was under the impression that shields were still widely used even with plate armor as they would protect you from massed arrows at the very least. Heater shields were also more common during that time were they not? Not to mention that bastard swords and some poleaxes were short enough to be used one handed with a shield.

    They certainly were used but were used a lot less than previously and there was a reason heater shields were so much smaller than earlier shields: large shields that protected the legs were no longer as important because of improved armour.

    Infantry had used large shields since the dawn of civilization, for both missile protection and melee combat.
    For knights (who were primarily heavy cavalry) kite shields were designed to protect the legs whilst not interfering with the horse. Large round and rectangular shields were difficult to use on horseback. The legs were a prime target for infantry because they were at eye level for someone on foot whilst the knight was mounted. Once plate armour was good enough to protect the legs shields became smaller.

    Also at this time infantry were using shields less and favouring pike formations instead.

    Back to thread topic

    I thought the Samurai had the most weapons at this stage?



  • @Dr:

    Also at this time infantry were using shields less and favouring pike formations instead.

    Were shields still used even after pike formations became popular? Wouldn’t even knights on foot need larger shields for projectile protection?



  • @Dr.Nick:

    @Dr z0b:

    Also at this time infantry were using shields less and favouring pike formations instead.

    Were shields still used even after pike formations became popular? Wouldn’t even knights on foot need larger shields for projectile protection?

    Well shields were still in use by less so. Pike formations actually offered some protection from missiles because the pikes in the back rows were held upright and were so tightly packed that a lot of arrows would hit the pikes and lose a lot of energy.

    Knights on foot prefered to rely on their armor over big shields and therefore could remain more mobile.



  • @Dr.Nick:

    Were shields still used even after pike formations became popular? Wouldn’t even knights on foot need larger shields for projectile protection?

    Full plate armour was strong enough to resist hails of arrows. Although it probably felt like someone constantly punching all of your body. I dunno, I haven’t been shot much in my life :) Bodkin arrows are apparently not that good against plate armour. I dunno. Crossbow bolts are another thing, they were much better against plate though they did not always penetrate (just some footage I’ve seen, they make big dents but don’t go through.) Still packs more of a punch though. And then came the firearms, I bet those packed a punch too.

    Anyways, apparently the nobility weren’t too afraid of missile fire while wearing full plate and visors down. When they had shields, especially on horseback, they had rather small heater shields. Knights on foot usually had two-handed weapons. Zob obviously know more than me since he does reenactment, I’m just an internet scholar.

    @Dr:

    Well shields were still in use by less so. Pike formations actually offered some protection from missiles because the pikes in the back rows were held upright and were so tightly packed that a lot of arrows would hit the pikes and lose a lot of energy.

    Yeah, and greeks did the same in their phalanx formations with their sarissas! It’s funny how people reinvent the wheel like that, after being out of use for many hundreds of years!



  • @SavageBeatings:

    @Dr.Nick:

    Were shields still used even after pike formations became popular? Wouldn’t even knights on foot need larger shields for projectile protection?

    Full plate armour was strong enough to resist hails of arrows. Although it probably felt like someone constantly punching all of your body. I dunno, I haven’t been shot much in my life :) Bodkin arrows are apparently not that good against plate armour. I dunno. Crossbow bolts are another thing, they were much better against plate though they did not always penetrate (just some footage I’ve seen, they make big dents but don’t go through.) Still packs more of a punch though. And then came the firearms, I bet those packed a punch too.

    I would believe that massed arrows shot into the air wouldn’t penetrate plate armor but if you were attacking castle or other position where archers could shoot at you directly then even plate armor could be penetrated would it not?



  • @Dr.Nick:

    @SavageBeatings:

    @Dr.Nick:

    Were shields still used even after pike formations became popular? Wouldn’t even knights on foot need larger shields for projectile protection?

    Full plate armour was strong enough to resist hails of arrows. Although it probably felt like someone constantly punching all of your body. I dunno, I haven’t been shot much in my life :) Bodkin arrows are apparently not that good against plate armour. I dunno. Crossbow bolts are another thing, they were much better against plate though they did not always penetrate (just some footage I’ve seen, they make big dents but don’t go through.) Still packs more of a punch though. And then came the firearms, I bet those packed a punch too.

    I would believe that massed arrows shot into the air wouldn’t penetrate plate armor but if you were attacking castle or other position where archers could shoot at you directly then even plate armor could be penetrated would it not?

    It would eventually take its toll.

    And there’s thin bits in every suit of armour. And gaps.

    I mean Agincourt. Thousands of foot infantry using 15th century full plate armour walking through mud towards 6000 archers. Using Welsh and English longbows. Welsh longbows being better than English longbows. By the time they got to the English lines they were many Men down tired and wounded. Many actually drowned after being knocked down into the mud getting stuck and trampled on. Even some of the archers got into combat. They weren’t that tired after firing were far more manoeuvrable wearing no armour and had hand axes that were great at getting through armour. They could take their time and swing at places like the neck where its very lethal and there’s usually only chainmail protecting it. England lost about 127 men including the archers. While the French lost thousands of men.



  • One could argue that the english were lucky that day at Agincourt! :P

    It had rained so the field got rather muddy, especially with thousands of plate armored knights and such advancing over it in a very tight formation with a thousand archers raining arrows on them, forcing them to walk with visors and head down to avoid getting hit in the face. The thousands of arrows landing on them must have been like being punched repetedly, denting the armour and making it uncomfortable to wear, and of course many arrows must have found their ways into weak spots. Wouldn’t have killed you outright though, but as packed as the formation was, your probably got trampled in the mud by your own if you fell. And then when they finally reach the english footsoldiers, they were very tired and stuck in the mud. And then french reinforcements came from behind and pressed on, making it even tighter and harder to swing your weapons, all the while longbowmen were shooting straight into their flanks. When they ran out of arrows, they grabbed whatever they had - mallets, hatchets, daggers, etc - and just charged at their flanks and killed thousands of frenchmen.

    Must have been an awesome sight for the scribes who were placed on a nearby hill to record the battle.



  • According to observers the archers got quite a few of them. It was one of the things oh the French And English agreed on. As most other accounts are rather. Biased. Though some of the french Didn’t think they killed a single Englishman. Half the archers were on the front lines and uh French arrived in waves so thy had to move in as they couldn’t shoot anything. And they were still out numbered footman to footman.


Log in to reply