|
| Thread: The perks of producing 6 hero classes per faction |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
posted September 09, 2015 10:01 PM |
|
|
kiryu133 said:
No, that happened because the people in Charge decided Women were resources rather than people and more valuable alive than dead. And even if it was true, wouldn't getting more soldiers be better, even if the extra ones you had were a bit weaker? Quantity has won more wars than quality (which is silly here since there is no guarantee the female soldiers would've been any worse than the male ones but it seems needed to put like that for your narrow outlook to understand)
Because maybe they didn't want demographical suicide? And anyway, to multiply a population you need someone back home raising the children, and making more children.
How dare you say that people considered women in the past as "resources", do you know the effort they put to defend them?
Women were and will always be the main thought of men, and, figure it out, since the dawn of time they intermingled.
But unlike men women tend to get pregnant when a man shags her, especially considering that at the time there was no such thing as birth control.
When the army stops and sets camp, when men are in the same place as women, it will happen eventually and pregnant women do not make good warriors, and will only risk her and her child's life.
I find it so irritating when people don't understand that at the time it was necessary to make as many children as possible, at the time there was such an high infant mortality and at the same time they needed a lot of manpower to work the fields.
And then adding women indeed bolsters numbers but battles are won by tactics, not by numbers alone.
Hannibal was able to defeat Roman armies of twice his own size, because he was able to lure them into a trap, the Mongols were able to defeat Chinese, Arab and European armies with their Hit and run tactics, the a Crusader army wa able to defeat a Turk army larger than theirs because they were disciplined enough to maintain a shield wall until they could strike, or Scipio, who managed to defeat a full fledged Carthaginian army containing elephants by making his troops sound the trumpets.
A number of battles win wars then, returning to the example of the Crusaders taking back Jerusalem in the first Crusade, the Mongols establishing an empire and Romans defeating their enemies, Scipio being the one who basically inflicted the deathblow to Hannibal.
Numbers give the impression of strength, but a peasant army will eventually succumb to a smaller but well equipped army (especially if cavalry is taken into account against scarcely armed militias)
The most blatant example that proves you wrong are the Persian wars, Greeks were incredibly outnumbered and yet defeated the Persians easily...
Name these wars that were won by numbers alone.
kiryu133 said:
When the fight involves sharp ends so the winner is whoever gets the first hit I'm gonna bet on the smaller, more skilled fighter 
Of course, that is if general equipment is similar enough. Skilled dagger user won't get many hits in against a claymore.
Since we're talking about heroes, I'm pretty certain we can assume the character in question will be pretty skilled and not get into the thick of it.
Oh, and before I forget: speed of a blade is gonna hit harder than weight behind it. Size won't improve your hits as much as you'd think so a woman fighting against an Orc? not nearly as on-sided as you seem to think.
Strength certainly matter, but when one hit will be enough, Skill is going to overshadow it. of course, medieval dueling had a lot of pushing/shoving, but It's pretty safe to assume Neraus is right about most of them being Closer to Brianne build than any of your Waifus build
Of course, Nothing of this matters in a fantasy setting (or any setting) and since non-sexualised Women are already woefully underrepresented anything like this is more than welcome.
And I'm still laughing at this dude 
There is a reason they invented armour, skill is important only in duels, where the opponents have similar equipment...
In a full fledged battle this kind of balance is off put immediately, especially if we consider the dynamics of pre-Middle ages period, where the battle was basically infantry lines charging with their shields, at that point the heaviest man will crush the wimpier guy on the other side.
Now if you're arguing that warrior women are fat this would probably be possible for warrior women to compete, but since women tend to be lighter they would be trampled by such a charge.
Also, there is also another thing, blades became almost useless in the late Middle ages, where plate armour became the norm, infantry armed themselves with polearms and basically could crush plate.
At this point I'd like to point out this:
Testing Polearms
During that period sheer strength is what would win battles, you had to swing that polearm as fast as you could to ram it into the enemy's armour.
Considering the armour of Haven's troops and heroes, I'd definitely say that they should have given them something like a maceman, or someone that can use blunt weapons instead of swords, which by the way, unless used in an half sword position are useless against plate armor
I didn't say they resembled Brianne or had her build though, like Justicars they seem to me to be too skinny to be wearing plate armor efficiently, and unlike them can stay behind the lines instead.
Armour is effectively pretty comfortable to wear and doesn't restrict your movements too much, but still, you have to have a decent build to wear it though.
So basically skills win duels, strength wins battles. Numbers are inferior to tactics.
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
kiryu133
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Highly illogical
|
|
posted September 09, 2015 10:28 PM |
|
|
First of all, you're missing my points. I was I was saying people needed the women alive. Getting more population was more or less implied. And the mongols didn't win because of their hit and run tactics. It was one reason, but the primary reasons were clever diplomacy, ability to easily get food on route (every soldier had a fishing pole for example), quick scouts and every man (and woman: the mongols had a sizable female portion of their army) had at least 5 mares meaning they could switch horses in order to keep moving quickly and gave them horse milk for nourishment. They also let captives ride horses, making the army look much bigger than it actually was.
Of course, If you're gonna put two armies together, most of the times the best commander will win unless the opposing force is simply completely outnumbering them or is much, much better equipped, but as a rule, the biggest numbers will win in most cases. Once again, exceptions happen with some particularly genius commanders (Hannibal comes to mind).
And with all that said, If you're gonna have to equal armies except one has additional female soldiers, who truly has the advantage? There is no disadvantage to allowing the conscription of females. Quite the opposite: it allows for bigger armies and one can assume these women would be at least as well equipped and skilled as their male counterpart.
And I'm not gonna go look up examples of battles: firstly because I can't be arsed, secondly because it would be a lot harder since such battles would be a lot harder to find, since, you know, no one really cares about them. The ones you listed are extraordinaire because the smaller force won. I mean, Oda Nobunaga gained much success simply from allowing farmers to fight for him (and the willingness to adapt new weapons like firearms) and as such getting much larger forces.
Keep in mind that polearms, spears and the like were wildly use as they were easy to teach a person to use in formation. Take a bunch of farm-hands a pike and tell them to push it towards the enemy and boom, effective unit. Gender will not factor into it: One additional unit of Pikes could win a battle since strength doesn't matter nearly as much once you can actually hold and point it.
And once again, none of this matters if you're in a made up setting, fantasy or not. Only historical settings could ever hope of having an excuse and even then I'm going to be skeptical.
And no, Numbers will win as long as the commander isn't a total snow-up.
____________
It is with a heavy heart that I must announce that the cis are at it again.
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted September 09, 2015 10:54 PM |
|
|
But...
Okay, I may have jumped a bit too hard on my horse there... I thought you said that women weren't allowed in battles just for the sake of it and not because of the desire to protect them.
You're forgetting the context of polearms, they were easily produced, true, they also came at a time in which plate armour was superseding mail and leather, so polearms also had the added advantage of being extremely effective to armour, with the difference of needing strength over skill as opposed to swords that at that point needed skill over strength to defeat plate armour (That was basically my point with that, rebutting your skills over strength argument, with that I was ignoring the gender issue)
I was saying Mongols were able to win their battles was because of hit and run tactics, you however listed the reasons they managed to build an empire, it was more of an example of tactics winning battles, not making arguments as to why they succeeded in conquering a big part of Eurasia (And I'm sad you didn't say anything about the Romans, come on, they had the most organized armies. ).
Numbers, as I said, don't win battles alone, there are too many factors that work on that, you'd have an army bigger than the other, equipped in the same way with both generals having the same tactical skill and all troops are properly trained and still the bigger army could lose because of a rout, or because they didn't factor a slope or whatever happens, as I said, numbers aren't a guarantee of victory whether there were women involved or not.
Also, it depends on the time period, I'll concede on women in pike formations or women grenadiers being on par with male counterparts, but, say, viking charges? Women couldn't resist them I think, due to them being lighter than men.
And anyway, as I said, my main concern with warrior women is that they could get pregnant while on campaign, and the fact that it would deprive a village of too much workforce.
Also:
kiryu133 said:
And once again, none of this matters if you're in a made up setting, fantasy or not. Only historical settings could ever hope of having an excuse and even then I'm going to be skeptical.
Agreed, let's not overthink physics on a fantasy game, but I don't get why you would be skeptical of history, unless you're telling me that they purposely rewrote history, to which I agree with you as long as we're talking about Italians writing off their invasion and plundering of the Two Sicilies as liberation and enrichment.
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
Gryphs
Supreme Hero
The Clever Title
|
|
posted September 09, 2015 11:08 PM |
|
Edited by Gryphs at 23:10, 09 Sep 2015.
|
Neraus said:
And anyway, as I said, my main concern with warrior women is that they could get pregnant while on campaign
This might be as noticeable as you might think during the american civil war for instance it was quite often that "men" would suddenly go into labour in camp.
____________
"Don't resist the force. Redirect it. Water over rock."-blizzardboy
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted September 09, 2015 11:12 PM |
|
|
Aha nice!
But I was more talking about the impact of having a soldier become unfit for service and the risk that would be put on the unborn child.
Of course this isn't applicable in the modern times though.
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
Gryphs
Supreme Hero
The Clever Title
|
|
posted September 09, 2015 11:19 PM |
|
Edited by Gryphs at 23:35, 09 Sep 2015.
|
Neraus said:
But I was more talking about the impact of having a soldier become unfit for service
Incapacitation depends on the individual is what I was trying to say. Also bear in mind the majority of those who got pregnant had joined to be with their husbands the ones who did not typically served without hiccups until discovered by injury or they died.
____________
"Don't resist the force. Redirect it. Water over rock."-blizzardboy
|
|
kiryu133
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Highly illogical
|
|
posted September 09, 2015 11:22 PM |
|
|
Biggest army wins, simple as that unless there are some extraordinary circumstances like very clever commanders with good discipline or very poor morale.
And you still don't need much strength: It's designed to pierce, remember? It's gonna need to get through with as minimal effort as possible.
Romans don't interest me very much  I prefer the exotic, I guess.
What I'm saying regarding skepticism towards historical settings is that some stretching of history is a good thing for equality, more or less and there are plenty of examples of female soldiers.
Still, time period certainly have a role and it's noteworthy that a viking settlement cemetery/burial had about 40% of the corpses with weapons be female and that Viking life in general was a lot more equal than more "civilized" parts of Europe at the time. Then Christianity happened and we're still hearing those infernal bells over here 
The whole pregnant and workforce issue is easily fixed with good discipline. I can't say I find that to be nearly reason enough to exclude half the population anyway...
It's also worth noting that the "big blocks shoving each other" was before the medieval times and it can be assumed that most of the gender-politics regarding warfare probably comes from there i;e "women aren't strong enough" and never really evolved away from there since physical strength lost more and more value as technology moved on.
You know, this was fun and all (you don't start with an "ew, girls" outloook ), but we're really getting kinda off-topic here
____________
It is with a heavy heart that I must announce that the cis are at it again.
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted September 09, 2015 11:40 PM |
|
|
We did, indeed, it's an interesting topic, I come more from a perspective of "History must be upheld in high esteem!".
We may find another place and another time to discuss it though, this isn't the right thread.
I personally would prefer not shoehorning female characters in certain roles, but they are mostly roles like priests of a Church, I don't really have problems with women in fantasy becoming knights and all. Actually I always had the idea of having an all female society of elves, but I digress...
Anyway, since I went so incredibly off topic, regarding the true topic: this didn't surprise me, there aren't enough skills to maintain a variety of classes like this.
The options are either adding more skills or reducing the classes, otherwise, is there a reason to play a faction over the other?
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
Gryphs
Supreme Hero
The Clever Title
|
|
posted September 09, 2015 11:44 PM |
|
|
Neraus said:
The options are either adding more skills or reducing the classes, otherwise, is there a reason to play a faction over the other?
There are still the factions units you know.
____________
"Don't resist the force. Redirect it. Water over rock."-blizzardboy
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted September 09, 2015 11:50 PM |
|
|
But they all follow a similar scheme anyway, I remember someone posting a chart where they compared Academy and Haven, the result was that they were pretty similar.
They seem to me like there is no uniqueness...
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
Gryphs
Supreme Hero
The Clever Title
|
|
posted September 09, 2015 11:53 PM |
|
|
Well, when in doubt follow the Ashan way of choosing your faction by aesthetics.
____________
"Don't resist the force. Redirect it. Water over rock."-blizzardboy
|
|
romanov77
Known Hero
|
|
posted September 10, 2015 10:41 AM |
|
|
Neraus said:
as long as we're talking about Italians writing off their invasion and plundering of the Two Sicilies as liberation and enrichment.
Yeah, I heard that before the coming of Garibaldi in southern Italy horses used to wear ties and people drank champagne like water!
So...how does chivalry work for women?
Are they allowed to strike men or would that be unchivalrously?
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted September 10, 2015 10:50 AM |
|
|
Well, we had a little plumbing device called a bidet...
When the Piemontese came they thought it was some kind of guitar...
And from that point on I always considered Italians as barbarians that can't even clean themselves.
But eventually we managed to diffuse the bidet through Italy so...
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
keldaur
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted September 10, 2015 11:45 AM |
|
|
kiryu133 said:
romanov77 said:
Men are much stronger on average, therefore men on average much better fighters. And that's why thousand of years ago people decided that war was men's business
No, that happened because the people in Charge decided Women were resources rather than people and more valuable alive than dead. And even if it was true, wouldn't getting more soldiers be better, even if the extra ones you had were a bit weaker? Quantity has won more wars than quality (which is silly here since there is no guarantee the female soldiers would've been any worse than the male ones but it seems needed to put like that for your narrow outlook to understand)
And because people in charge thought that men were a disposible resource. Do you really think that being forced to become a soldier was a men's priviledge?
Give me a break.
____________
|
|
keldaur
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted September 10, 2015 11:48 AM |
|
|
kiryu133 said:
If you're gonna tell me combat prowess has more to do with physical power than skill, I'm gonna have to laugh at you
well, more that I already do
I guess there is no reason why we use categories on martial arts using weight, huh ?
____________
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted September 10, 2015 12:17 PM |
|
|
Obviously body mass and brute force plays a major role.. But fantasy dictates that a dual dagger agile character can duke it out with a beastly two hander guy. I honestly wouldn't rate my chances high at closing the distance against a greatsword but.. it's a game?
What does bother me is when two handers can cut through several enemies at one. Screw that crap
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
romanov77
Known Hero
|
|
posted September 10, 2015 12:32 PM |
|
|
keldaur said:
kiryu133 said:
If you're gonna tell me combat prowess has more to do with physical power than skill, I'm gonna have to laugh at you
well, more that I already do
I guess there is no reason why we use categories on martial arts using weight, huh ?
I am smarter and I got better combat skills than a Grizzly bear, therefore I can easly subdue or kill one of them with my fancy moves, speed and superior knowledge of the human/bear body.
Really, last time I met one in the woods I back-flipped on top of his head and then delivered an Exploding Palm Punch on his abdominal pressure point, thus rupturing his internal organs.
And good for him that I wasn't carrying my folded steel unbreakable Katana.
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted September 10, 2015 12:34 PM |
|
|
That reminds me.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
EnergyZ
Legendary Hero
President of MM Wiki
|
|
posted September 10, 2015 12:34 PM |
|
|
romanov77 said:
keldaur said:
kiryu133 said:
If you're gonna tell me combat prowess has more to do with physical power than skill, I'm gonna have to laugh at you
well, more that I already do
I guess there is no reason why we use categories on martial arts using weight, huh ?
I am smarter and I got better combat skills than a Grizzly bear, therefore I can easly subdue or kill one of them with my fancy moves, speed and superior knowledge of the human/bear body.
Really, last time I met one in the woods I back-flipped on top of his head and then delivered an Exploding Palm Punch on his abdominal pressure point, thus rupturing his internal organs.
And good for him that I wasn't carrying my folded steel unbreakable Katana.
Guess the animal syndicate bears some hate towards you, huh?
|
|
Pawek_13
Supreme Hero
Maths, maths everywhere!
|
|
posted September 10, 2015 12:51 PM |
|
|
Elvin said:
Obviously body mass and brute force plays a major role.. But fantasy dictates that a dual dagger agile character can duke it out with a beastly two hander guy. I honestly wouldn't rate my chances high at closing the distance against a greatsword but.. it's a game?
What does bother me is when two handers can cut through several enemies at one. Screw that crap
Maybe Swordmasters have heated swords and at the time of the combat their enemies change into butter for a tiny period of time?
|
| |
|
|
