(Medieval Warfare): SMOKER's Ideas and Suggestions



  • (The Cavalry) - I want to be able to Mount horses in battle

    • Abilities: speed and a short charge
    • Balance: They can be killed with any weapon, extra damage with Spears or halbert, Riders can be killed off the horse, The Horse rider can only carry two weapons a Lance or a Short sword

    (General Class) - Whats a army without a General…

    • Abilities: can see all enemy’s, with a short victory yell he gives a small quick boost in damage and stamina to allies around him
    • Balance: Its a randomly chosen class,If the General killed after other players receive an option to take the his place, and the yell ability takes a time to yell again

    (Flaming Arrows) - I want to see these in battle too

    • Abilities: Light enemies on fire
    • Balance: I see this as a defensive weapon that can only be used when dipped in fire, it will also decrease the accuracy very much, also is only on fire for a short time

    (Injuries) - Being Injured would make the battle more intense and realistic

    • When taking a critical hit the player will react by yell in pain
    • When wounded in the chest the player will try to cover the wound with his free hand
    • If stabbed in the leg the player should limp and walk slower until he recovers
    • If given a Critical hit he will fall to the ground bleeding and crawling (giving a chance for an execution) if he lives long enough he will recover.


  • All this can be done is M&B more or less. So no.



  • What do you mean by critical hit?



  • @Dussan:

    All this can be done is M&B more or less. So no.

    Only the mounts are in M&B, the other suggestions are in no way present in multiplayer.

    I don’t really agree with the suggestions, tbh. Mounted combat simply isn’t being considered atm by the developers, in stead they choose to focus on well-made foot combat, and I can only agree with that. Your suggested implementation of the general is too gamey, needlessly complicating gameplay for something that would not add much to the experience. Such a class would only make sense, in my opinion, if the game would be about formation warfare (which requires leader co-ordination). At this point, there seem to be no plans to support or encourage formation combat, so a general class would be unnecessary. Flaming arrows are just silly, I don’t think they were ever actually used specifically against troops. Flaming arrows also don’t set people on fire. I wouldn’t protest if this was added though, as I can stand some realism sacrifice for gameplay, but I don’t think it would add all that much anyway. I dislike the idea of realistic injuries because of gameplay reasons. Combat would become quite irritating if every hit can disable your ability to fight properly. People might also start fighting overly defensive, as every hit can mean they lose their ability to defend themselves.



  • Well, about mounted combat: considering it is a commercial release, comparisons with mount and blade would be inevitable. And M&B did mounted combat very well. It would be great to have it, of course, but I think the selling feature of the game is it´s truly unique on-foot combat experience. So Im not saying don´t do it, Im just saying only do it if everything else is finished and polished. Maybe content for an expansion pack? 8-)



  • @Wingy:

    What do you mean by critical hit?

    a critical hit is a successful attack that deals more damage than a normal blow



  • @XxSMOKERxX35:

    @Wingy:

    What do you mean by critical hit?

    a critical hit is a successful attack that deals more damage than a normal blow

    He knows what a critical hit means, what he’s asking is what you mean by it in the context of the game.

    Does your leg drop off if someone punches you in your nose?

    Do you receive triple damage from arrows that hit the ring finger on the left hand?

    Does your head fall off from one slash to your wrist?

    Define ‘critical hit’ in terms of what has to be done in game.



  • @Blaine:

    @XxSMOKERxX35:

    @Wingy:

    What do you mean by critical hit?

    a critical hit is a successful attack that deals more damage than a normal blow

    He knows what a critical hit means, what he’s asking is what you mean by it in the context of the game.

    Does your leg drop off if someone punches you in your nose?

    Do you receive triple damage from arrows that hit the ring finger on the left hand?

    Does your head fall off from one slash to your wrist?

    Define ‘critical hit’ in terms of what has to be done in game.

    I shouldn’t have to explain this… If i get stabbed in the leg of course my head won’t fall off



  • Those examples weren’t serious examples, lol.

    Let me put this a different way. How do we know what attacks are critical hits and what attacks aren’t? What are you trying to get at with critical hits? Give some examples? Is it a random occurrence to deal additional damage?

    In Age of Chivalry, there is no concept of critical hits, they don’t exist; people won’t understand what you mean and thus it can’t be debated. You could say headshots resemble critical hits I suppose, but all that is, is a deliberate increase in damage done by a modifier, not by X event causing Y.

    On to the other subjects…

    Cavalry has to be something that’s planned right from day one. You have to design maps specifically around cavalry, you have to design objectives around cavalry, you have to design game modes around cavalry and I can tell you this hasn’t been the case, and the developers have even stated the primary focus is foot combat and getting that right. Chivalry is a chance for the development team to get footwork right now, especially with Age of Chivalry being a test if you like, and seeing where the flaws were.

    Personally, I don’t think we’ll even see an expansion for cavalry, not unless it’s a completely separate class only usable on certain maps/game modes, or whether it’s a game mode with only cavalry allowed; it simply would not work by adding them to maps like Siege or Darkforest. Mount and Blade on the other hand, has totally wide open spaces, no objectives, and when it comes to castle sieging, even removes the horses from the Knights entirely and forces foot combat.

    A randomly assigned ‘General’ class is in my opinion, a bad idea. What happens when you get someone who doesn’t know how to be a ‘General’, doesn’t want to be a ‘General’? What happens if you get someone who want’s to be a ‘General’, and just kills the existing one?

    The ability to ‘see all enemies’ quite frankly, is a null ability in my opinion, since as a melee game, you’re going to be seeing 70% of the enemy team anyway. Everyone has the ability to shout orders, commands, requests and statements, so I don’t see a ‘yelling’ ability any good either.

    Whilst I will always advocate methods of improving teamwork in game, I disagree with the notion of extra damage and stamina when being nearby something, or someone, as it’s simply unfair. What if my ‘General’ sucks? What if he’s not where I want him to be? In clan wars, I think this would just encourage the two clans to move in two huge blobs, discouraging tactical play. If you want people to work more as a team and travel together, there are far better ways of achieving it.

    Flaming arrows is about the only suggestion I would be happy with, and even then, it’s not on my list of things I would love to see or need priority. Yes, it would be nice to have them, it would probably be one of those things where ‘Right, I’m a Longbowman, I want to make one shot count and do as much damage as possible, and a Fire arrow is a great way to do that’, or alternatively, fire arrows could provide options for further objectives, secondary objectives, burn things down for visual effect, or to interact with scenery, such as a collapsed tree or pallisade wall to provide a barrier, or destroy an archers defensive position on the enemy team by reducing visibility and bringing it out of action.

    Injuries again, not an idea I’m too fond of. In single player, sure, why not, make it challenging for the player, but in multiplayer it’s a whole different story; you have to make it fun for everybody and it’s no fun when you’re at a disadvantage because your opponent already got one advantage over you - a hit of some sort. Injuries would just make the advantaged more advantaged and the disadvantaged more disadvantaged.

    You’re idea of screaming/shouting something for a certain event however, I do like, and I see no problem with whatsoever. It might even provide an indication as to which part of the body was hit “Bloody archer shot my leg!” etc etc.



  • You got a good point Blaine

    I really didn’t think any of my ideas would make it into the game at all they were just random ideas.

    Cavalry: I was happy to hear they thought of the Cavalry combat, i also think they should complete the polishing of the main game before any thing else

    General: “What happens when you get someone who doesn’t know how to be a 'General” There would be an option to take the class or not. even if hes a bad general he will probably get killed sooner or later then it would go to somebody else. The more i think about the class the more it seem’s to me it wouldn’t work because say there are only 2 people playing the game there would be generals :/ and it also dosent really belong in the first place… But its just an idea

    Injuries: You can still add limping and reaction’s to wound’s without changing game-play. Only the animations of the character could be different. Example I get stabbed in the leg my character runs fine but if somebody else see’s me i would be limping. I just think it looked funny when in the previous game the player would just be covered in blood that’s it.

    Im aslso tired of talking about that critical hit thing :P
    the point is you kinda get the idea of where i was going with that



  • @Wingy:

    Well, about mounted combat: considering it is a commercial release, comparisons with mount and blade would be inevitable. And M&B did mounted combat very well.

    I actually thought Mount&Blade’s mounted combat was pretty bad. In multiplayer, at least. It was very enjoyable in single player, but it just didn’t carry over to multiplayer because of balancing issues. The developers insisted on making horses available to everyone (so not only to players who had already earned themselves some denars in earlier rounds), so they had to balance out the higher mobility with making horsemen weaker in head-on encounters. This meant that infantrymen practically always have the upper hand in a frontal encounter (the only exception is when the horsemen has the Swadia-exclusive Great Lance, and the footman doesn’t have a Pike, Long Awlpike or throwing weapons). This resulted the entire horseman-class having to resort to killing occupied players for 90% of their kills. That just doesn’t fit armoured knights on mighty steeds. I do love Warband, but mostly for its foot combat. The part without the shields.

    Anyway, I can only agree with what Blaine said. If the game isn’t being designed from the start to have cavalry, it makes no sense to try and get it into the game somewhere halfway in development or post-release.

    Injuries: You can still add limping and reaction’s to wound’s without changing game-play. Only the animations of the character could be different. Example I get stabbed in the leg my character runs fine but if somebody else see’s me i would be limping. I just think it looked funny when in the previous game the player would just be covered in blood that’s it.

    Well, if it’s just an aesthetic thing, then I guess it wouldn’t do any harm. On the other hand side, I have a hard time imagining this would look good. I’d expect it to simply look weird if you see someone limping while still moving at full speed. And let’s not forget, there should be no differences in how you see yourself and how other players see you. It’s quite essential to close combat games that everything you see is 100% accurate with what’s actually happening.



  • Yeah….

    Limping but still running at full speed would come out as one of these two things.

    Either the fastest limper ever. Legs moving really fast and looking “Poppy”.

    Or limping a more realistic speed, but have a sliding issue because your translating farther than the feet look like they are carrying you.

    Also The Narrator is right - third person and first person are the exactly same.



  • @TheNarrator:

    @Wingy:

    Well, about mounted combat: considering it is a commercial release, comparisons with mount and blade would be inevitable. And M&B did mounted combat very well.

    I actually thought Mount&Blade’s mounted combat was pretty bad. In multiplayer, at least. It was very enjoyable in single player, but it just didn’t carry over to multiplayer because of balancing issues.

    But that is, as you say, a balance issue. The game mechanics themselves are flawless, or pretty close to perfection IMHO.



  • @Wingy:

    @TheNarrator:

    @Wingy:

    Well, about mounted combat: considering it is a commercial release, comparisons with mount and blade would be inevitable. And M&B did mounted combat very well.

    I actually thought Mount&Blade’s mounted combat was pretty bad. In multiplayer, at least. It was very enjoyable in single player, but it just didn’t carry over to multiplayer because of balancing issues.

    But that is, as you say, a balance issue. The game mechanics themselves are flawless, or pretty close to perfection IMHO.

    There’s some truth in that. The horsemanship mechanics are okay, but the way footwork works for footmen (which does the job adequately for infantry vs infantry combat) isn’t really ‘compatible’ with the mounted combat mechanics.

    I misexpressed myself with the balancing issues: there are no really noteworthy balancing issues atm between infantry, archers and cavalry. Infantry beats everything in close combat, cavalry is the most mobile class but gets beaten by infantry in close combat, and archers are the most powerful support. That system works, but the thing is, because of deliberate choices to make cavalry weaker than infantry in close combat, playing cavalry is really dull. The developers chose to make cavalry, even with lances, available to anyone with the standard minimum gold (the unarmoured horses all cost less than 1000 denars, basic lance is free). Then, it was noticed that a class that had equal combat capabilities as infantry, for the same price, with much higher mobility, was massively overpowered, so they decided to make cavalry more of a support class. With the result that, if you are an armoured knight on a mighty, mail-clad steed, you still cannot take a competent footman frontally. There is no cavalry vs footman combat to speak of, it’s just cavalry waiting for people to get distracted in melee and then ramming a lance in their back. That’s a bit silly, in my opinion. Heavy cavalry should by all rights dominate the open field, though it shouldn’t be available to anyone with just 1000 denars.

    The game would be a lot more interesting if you could donate money to other players, or if a single ‘captain’ player (optional) would distribute a team money pool among all players, so at least in organised play you could make a decision to have five well-equiped footmen who all spent 1000 denars, or 4 peasants with free equipment and one knight with equipment worth 5000 denars. That would be a system where it’s acceptable to have extremely expensive cavalry. And if you make cavalry expensive, you can give them equal or more power in frontal combat than footmen, and that means more interesting mounted combat.



  • IMO the burning arrow is the best of these ideas by far. It could be implemented by a new map object besides catapult, etc.: “Pot of embers”. If you stand near it, you’ll automatically shoot burning arrows. Map designers have the choice where they can be used and where not.



  • it’s called a brazier



  • @Vox:

    it’s called a brazier

    That exactly the right item I had in mind :)



  • is it just me, or is that the best god-damn barbecue i’ve ever seen!



  • ( Needs Kettle Hats!!! ): These hats are one of my favorite helmets from the Medieval ages I wanna see them in the game

    Uploaded with ImageShack.us



  • I do not want to be rude or something, but i wonder if Smoker read any of other posts, cause his ideas were previously spoken of in another topics. Also, the writing style (“I WANT”) suggests a young person, though i might be wrong. But devs are pros, still wasting thousands words for answering same questions again and again (cheers Martin).

    Also, what is with saying that Smoker likes sth (kettle hat) and WANT to see it in game…wtf?
    Is there any idea in this? No. Just - it’s cool, i want it - suggest young guy.

    As i said - i don’t wanna be rude, cause any idea is the idea, but respect other and read befor you write (i, myself read a lot of posts and searched for similar topics before creating post).

    No offence, really, just ideas :)


Log in to reply