Diagoras

I agree with Posbi's post overall, but I'd note that in terms of fortification the design seems to have a nod towards the "unimposing" fortresses of the early 16th century, designed to deal with both gunpowder weapons and more traditional assaults. Ever since I first saw it, I got the impression of an earlier design that had been hastily modified (eg. walls thickend, tops of towers chopped off) to minimize its profile and maximize resistance against cannon fire. Just noting that not all fortresses look like Krak des Chevaliers. Posbi's overall point is still just as valid, however.

We're short on female warriors so far, and Heaven knows that they've got a long history of terrible weapon and armor design in games. So let's hear it for Scythian warrior maidens:

Not sure if these Warhammer pieces have been posted, kick me in the face if they have: Glorious epicness... And more down to earth.

What? This is the era that included some major political figures who were women, as well as serious acceptance of women on the battlefield. If anything, the professionalization of the Early Modern Period systematically excluded minorities from the new professional military class.

I agree with Zool. I think Firearms Crossbows would have an adverse impact on the game. I can say I have never liked firearms crossbows in a fantasy genre. It unbalances the the range mechanics of casters and secondly it cheapens the mystical feel of the game. Seriously I think there should be vote on this matter if its being considered since I think this a tipping point. Say no to boomsticks arbalests.

ITT: Too many people who haven't read the Crisis design document.

One of the biggest pulls is a setting that's actually thought through, and not regurgitated Generic "Medieval" Fantasy. I also like the inclusion of firearms, as their arbitrary exclusion from the fantasy milieu has always irked me. But in general, everything. That it's a game from Obsidian would be enough for me to back it.

ITT: People who have not read "The Woman Warrior". Boobplate defenders. People who believe in/advocate eternal genders and gender roles. Trolls.

Now we're at people complaining about people criticizing people complaining about people criticizing the complaints thread.

Anyone else getting a kick out of people in the complaints/criticism thread complaining about people criticizing the complaints thread?

Interesting, thanks for the quote. I know what class I'm picking, then.

Renounce the demon of technological determinism and embrace the truth of social construction!

Can I see academic sources supporting this? Because everyone from Hall to Eltis I read is pretty firm on longbows inability to function effectively against even coat-of-plate in battlefield conditions, and that's at least twenty years of historical consensus right there.

The Knight and the Blast Furnace uses a combination of experimental, historical, and theoretical approaches to formulate the joules of energy to defeat armor. By its reckoning, the low quality padded jack and munitions plate of the late 15th and early 16th centuries could be defeated by a steel prod crossbow firing at up to 30m away - well within the distance that shot discharged their weapons, especially 15th century shot. This is consistent with what see in, say, the Battle of Morat where the Burgundian shot managed to maim advancing Swiss pikemen. The Battle of Visby is also a decent example, although it was transitional plate armor that was being used. But this is outside the general questions of casualties caused by shot, which includes many periods before the development of munitions plate.

Shot was a combination of crossbowmen with arbalests and arquebusiers, in the period. I can't quite parse this. Is he talking about skirmishers, or what?

You asked your expert friend about the early 16th century? I did. His specialisation is ancient greek military history, for which he's working on his PHD, but he's quite knowledgeable about the early renaissance period too. And he thinks gunfire had low lethality? Steel prod crossbows? How does he explain the drastic growth in casualties of the 16th century, which is usually attributed to close-range shooting? I can get Ancient Greece, as bows of that era had tremendously low power, but it's a little hard to buy that shot at Cersole or Bicoccia didn't kill anyone.

You asked your expert friend about the early 16th century?

Really? Is there anything other than a Kotick quote behind this? Because I'm not one to put a lot of weight on what he says.

Except for longbowmen. And crossbowmen - especially arbalesters - including mounted crossbowmen. And horse archers of the Steppe people - especially Mongolians. And Seljuk noble cavalry. Come on, this is a pretty broad generalization - especially considering the period P:E is emulating is the early 16th century. This is the era of arquebus and arbalest, which are both pretty good at killing people dead.

Shadowrun Returns is way overbudget? I must have missed that.

Is this really inseparable from the DRM? Because some of the minimal DRM games on Steam appear to have these features. They've already confirmed this/that they're using GOG, right?

Ah, got it. Thanks for the clarification, Mico.

For what it's worth, legs and arms were targeted in certain periods by certain cultures due to their tendency to be unarmored. There's a big pile of dead soldiers from a peasant revolt they dug up in France that had wounds all over their legs - while they were well armored in coat-of-plate on their chests, their legs and arms were much less armored. This is a pretty good characterization of P:E's period as well, what with three quarters and half plate armor leaving the legs vulnerable.

This seems like mainly a semantic debate, but lets say we give you it. The question remains: is there any reason to not switch off as much DRM as Steam allows? And if so, what?

How does it not make sense? A graze seems pretty similar to being struck by a projectile but your armor saving in some form.