Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

 

Vikings braided their hair in elaborate way to express their status.

 

 

I had not heard of this, I was aware of the Viking warrior class' vanity, with the importance they placed on fine clothing, armrings and other jewellery and decorated combs for their hair, but I hadn't read of braiding being a cultural element amongst them. Most illuminating. One imagines though that even these stout fellows who bathed more regularly than Christian men, were sometimes irritated by their long locks. After all their sweat stained and lice infested gambesons must have been quite odorous on the campaign trail, and their hair similarly filthy and infested compared to our modern day cleanliness. I imagine that with the Aventail helm they often wore it might become frequently caught as well, though the far more common basinet might benefit from the padding.

 

Edit: For a full visored helm however i'd still say that extra heat is a consideration, during the midst of combat when ones breathing is frantic and desperate heat will of course be a consideration, and it is well known that medieval knights would keep their visors up until the very moment of combat for this and vision reasons. Add long hair under the arming cap, coif and helm itself and I imagine that it becomes fairly stifling. Of course vanity must still be rightfully considered though.

 

 

I'm not completely sure about "braided in an elaborate manner". :D Even if there are examples of kings and men-at-arms who are vain, also sometimes in a physical sense, in Snorre's Sagas - they are generally complimented on having strong, flowing hair, rather than for petty village signatures and gifts from their wives. That's for old men, it's not a sign of status for others. But I think you'll find the answer to how this hangs together if you consider that "Vikings" would generally stay in a village for most of the year -- and then go out on one or two campaigns a year. In other words, they didn't live in their armor, or constantly in battle. And their typical choice of armor and helms, as well as non-regular army look, reflect that. Being light chains (the best ones for the kings they didn't want to get killed so easily, I guess. Or for one of the sons of Magnus when he helped chase the danes across Jylland when he was 14.. Specifically mentioned that he throws away the armor and just wears the chain, while chasing danes southward with a two-handed axe, while the sun is rising out of the sea from the north.. aah, such beautiful imagery :p). Or cheaper leather armors with inserts. Half-chains, or partial chain for the chest and upper arms seem to be preferred by more experienced warriors in the sagas at least.. and that could make sense. That they'd sacrifice some protection for mobility that way. And you can actually wear an armor like this for a day without having your chest and arms ground down to meatloaf. A full chain has to be cushioned carefully, or almost any movement is heavy and painful. Try it out if you can - you'll get a new perspective on elaborately planned "campaigns" for 200 troops, and ornamental armor if you do.

 

Helms would usually be half-helms with thick leather covering the back of the neck (none of the coonhead winged bs, gods knows where that came from). Shields were made like bread boards, to be thrown away after use. But the armor would be functional and solid enough to have some chance against most things used at the time except arrows hitting straight on target. Long, thick spears in formation or on horseback as well would very likely not be a great match, like the arrows, which probably explains why King Sigurd vanished for good when he decided to attack England for some reason or other in 1130.

 

 

 

I call BS on that guy with the helmet and the crossbow, there is a reason why archers and crossbowmen had open-face helmets. Try it yourself, wear a motorcycle helmet and try hitting a target with a crossbow.

 

(Reminds me of me trying to shoot a rifle while wearing a gas mask, its extremely hard. I wonder how those guys in WWI did it.- )

 

 

Aiming along the barrel, like you'd do with a shotgun on snapshots. Both eyes open. Not.. incredibly accurate, but doable for "half-figure" accuracy up to some 30-50m even with a long rifle. Even if you would prefer using the crosshairs on a pistol, for example - any reasonably competent pistol marksman knows how to do this. Agree a crossbow..er.. crossbowmarksman(?) :D would be unlikely to wear a full helmet, though. But then again, if they were used in formation, to launch a volley. And then be required to launch volleys while under fire. On very short ranges. Against people throwing chamber pots and farming tools the other way. Could be it'd actually make sense. Same with platemail. Useless against bolts - better against arrows and improvised missiles..

 

Like the aiming outside the crosshairs on a rifle -- to my knowledge you actually don't find old crossbows that are accurate enough to ever be useful with a crosshair. And even if we can make a near perfectly consistent crossbow today - zeroing in a bolt on one specific distance is problematic over, say, 50m. In fact, crossbows were preferred for unskilled marksmen because you wouldn't need to account for the bolt flight as much as with an arrow and a bow. Basically, they'd be consistent on the short ranges where you could aim easily along the arrow, but without any firing discipline needed.

The injustice must end! Sign the petition and Free the Krug!

Link to post
Share on other sites

^ You forgot the 6th type: SHIELD ARMOR! The chest plate is a shield, attached to a back-shield. Then, there are small shield pauldrons, with shield boots and leggings to match, and shield vambraces. :)

I guess the shield is there because it is also a usable\equipable item that adds defensive bonus or something like that. Anyway, what I wasn't sure about is how many "base armor sets" we will have, that will receive the 3 quality standards treatment i.e. in the image we see ~5 armor types(4 if you don't want to count the tunic), while the wiki mentions 8: Tunic, Padded, Leather, Hide, Scale, Mail, Brigandine and Plate armor. Edited by Mor
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the shield is there because it is also a usable\equipable item that adds defensive bonus or something like that. Anyway, what I wasn't sure about is how many "base armor sets" we will have, that will receive the 3 quality standards treatment i.e. in the image we see ~5 armor types(4 if you don't want to count the tunic), while the wiki mentions 8: Tunic, Padded, Leather, Hide, Scale, Mail, Brigandine and Plate armor.

No worries; I know. I was only being silly. :)

 

I am wondering the exact same thing. In a lot of the older games, it seems like there were very few actual base sets. I mean, with the three quality "tiers," we'll already have... well, basically three times that number of individual armor sets, plus further variants (I'm assuming you can still have either Normal Plate of Fire Protection, or Exquisite Plate of Fire Protection, for example). But, it'd be nice if there were a goodly variance of just armor types.

 

Again, though, that's with the mindset of typical games' approach (no distinctive quality tiers for each type) in mind. If we have those 8, with three variants for each, then different enchantments and other unique attribute factors on top of that, I will be VERY happy.

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of this long hair discussion, take this with a grain of salt because I don't remember where I read or heard it or what culture or time period it's of, and basically, because it's me saying.

 

But supposedly there was this culture/helmet style where you had to have long hair, because the hair goes through a hole in the helmet and then is tied into a top knot. So the long hair is the helmet attachment system (or an extra help anyway). Must have been painful or uncomfortable, but a warrior doesn't cry.

If I had to guess, I'd say it was either a japanese or a mongol thing.

 

So it was a samurai thing I was remembering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabuto

 

Here's an example with the top hole visible.

Nice design also, full of silly impractical ornamentations that make grogs cry shenanigans and mmorpg aesthetics.

 

mask-6.jpg

 

 

Although it's apparently unclear how much the hair attachment was actually used or if the hole was just for ventilation.

Also, one learns googling for Kabuto mainly shows anime dudes and anime lady butts.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Aiming along the barrel, like you'd do with a shotgun on snapshots. Both eyes open. Not.. incredibly accurate, but doable for "half-figure" accuracy up to some 30-50m even with a long rifle.

A marksman could probably learn to do this with enough practice at very short ranges, I tried it once with a rifle- and I have been shooting rifles competitively for 9 years now- and couldn't hit squat past 10 or so meters.

A shotgun shoots its pellets with a spread of 0.5-1 meter diameter (depending on the load used) at clay bird shooting distances and it DOES have sights, a so called bead sight and a front sight. The bead along the top of the barrel acts as a rear sight which makes acquiring targets easy and fast. Doesn't work for longer ranges though, with slugs.

Shooting a shotgun even though it does spread its pellet a lot without any kind of sight is very difficult. And trust me, I've been shooting rifles long enough at distances of 30, 50, 100 and more meters to know that without using sights and aiming along the barrel like I'd do while wearing a helmet hits would be pure luck.

 

See how this gentleman is using the bead sight on his shotgun shooting clays. He looks down the sights like he would on a rifle.  

easyHit003.jpg

 

 

Like the aiming outside the crosshairs on a rifle -- to my knowledge you actually don't find old crossbows that are accurate enough to ever be useful with a crosshair.

I've read many reports of Arbalest crossbows (those really heavy ones with draw weights up to 1000lbs) being used at 400 paces and even more incredible ranges. Makes sense, those weapons were often used from besieging troops against single targets on top of high castle walls which requires a good amount of accuracy.

Also there is no reason to assume that well made historical crossbows were much less accurate than modern ones. Accuracy is all about consistency. Firing the exact same projectile at the same speed with the same sight picture should make a ragged hole at any distance. 

I'm sure people back then could build bolts and crossbows with surprisingly tight tolerances, good enough for some long range precision. All you need to know is the drop of the projectile. 

 

And even if we can make a near perfectly consistent crossbow today - zeroing in a bolt on one specific distance is problematic over, say, 50m.

Like I said, all you need to know is the drop of the projectile. Thats true for a crossbowman as much for a rifleman. People make consistent hits with their recurve BOWS at 100 meters no problem, let alone crossbows.

In fact, crossbows were preferred for unskilled marksmen because you wouldn't need to account for the bolt flight as much as with an arrow and a bow.

Crossbows were so popular because you didn't have to train troops for decades on their weapon system. You could create entire platoons of soldiers hitting targets with their ranged weapons in a couple of months.

Edited by Woldan
  • Like 3

I gazed at the dead, and for one dark moment I saw a banquet. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

:) I had been shooting 6.5mm semi-seriously for a while, and was a good shot to begin with. But I didn't learn to do it before I spent a year in the military. Didn't really think it was possible at first. And you're so used to thinking about accuracy in terms of lining up a shot in the sights with the right correction, that distance and angle doesn't come into it any more. Most will also learn to squint over the 100m sight when wearing a gas-mask. Instead of using the shoulder and the muzzle as point of reference. But it's possible, and I did some pretty fantastic snap-shots that way on the "popping targets while walking up the road" range we had. Same with automatic small arms in building breach scenarios - sights don't help you here. Even if you will correct your fire often, and it's not something you would bank on when covering sectors 10 degrees beside someone's head. Or when shooting competitively, and it has to be consistent. But it would probably be how you would survive in a huge dust-cloud with a mask on..

 

Then again, I know a guy who shoots lynx, but actually isn't left-handed.. eyes are weird, crazy dominance problem.. who does the same with a shotgun. And he can't hit anything if he tries to use the sights. Does reasonably well without it.

 

So I'm wondering if maybe we've lost some sort of commonly learned skill with ranged weapons from the reliance on good sights, that was a given before.

 

Not really sure. But like you say, recurve bows use sights now. And you definitely could line up a solid crossbow with a sight. Absolutely is more accurate to aim through a sight. 

The injustice must end! Sign the petition and Free the Krug!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, on short range sights aren't that important, but I wasn't really talking about ''across the room distances which are rarely longer than 5-6 meters.'' Still, even in close-ish quarter combat I prefer optics, our Steyr STG77 has a 1.5x magnification scope with a wide field of view, you can use it with both eyes open indoors no problem. Instead of relying on ''naturally pointing'' the gun I have a nice circle reticle and I know that when I pull the trigger everything in that circle is getting ventilated pretty quick with 0 misses. Can't get more convenient and easier than that.
We could shoot it with our gas mask but we had to tilt out heads horribly, straining our necks. We got a special L-shaped adapter for our filters so we got a better cheek weld.

 

So I'm wondering if maybe we've lost some sort of commonly learned skill with ranged weapons from the reliance on good sights, that was a given before.

Everything being equal the guy has trained shooting with sights for years is 10000x more accurate and faster than the guy who has trained shooting without using sights for years - at any distance. Everyone is using sights whenever possible - for a reason. 
 

 

Not really sure. But like you say, recurve bows use sights now. And you definitely could line up a solid crossbow with a sight. Absolutely is more accurate to aim through a sight.

I had a medieval crossbow years ago, it had no sights so I used the bolt itself as reference, I put the bolt tip under the target and hoped for the best - and hit every single time, bolts touching at 20 meters. It was scary how easy it was to shoot, I only had to guess the distance so I corrected the space between the bolt tip and the target shooting either higher or lower. It took me a year+ to hit like that with my bow, I learned to hit that target with my crossbow in 15 minutes and could extend the range by 100% easily. It was SO much more comfortable to shoot than a bow. I wonder what I could have done with sights. 

Oh, and 6.5 - Swedish Mauser! Pleasant to shoot, accurate. Very popular here in Austria, wins matches like no other rifle. Had a Carl Gustav 1916 Swede mod96 years ago. Nice rifle.    :yes:

Edited by Woldan

I gazed at the dead, and for one dark moment I saw a banquet. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Magic could provide optics and laser-painting analogues for ranged weapons. An enchanted wheel-lock fitted with a telescope and a wand-of-light style pointer would be too cool for school. Just add a one-charge fireball launcher under the receiver and we're good to go.

  • Like 1

sonsofgygax.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything being equal the guy has trained shooting with sights for years is 10000x more accurate and faster than the guy who has trained shooting without using sights for years - at any distance. Everyone is using sights whenever possible - for a reason.

Right. Because it's always more consistent, doesn't take any wizardry to do reasonably well, and so on. But since it was possible to learn to do it reasonably consistently on 30-50m - I'm wondering if the combination of close quarters and rifle ranges that I guess must have been common with slower firearms, made the idea of a sight seem like a very strange one.

 

I mean, a complex sight (however high tech) can be an obstacle of sorts on short ranges.

 

Oh, and 6.5 - Swedish Mauser! Pleasant to shoot, accurate. Very popular here in Austria, wins matches like no other rifle. Had a Carl Gustav 1916 Swede mod96 years ago. Nice rifle.    :yes:

:D Krag-Jørgensen as well, of course. .. still have some sort of unhealthy fascination with rifles like that.

 

Magic could provide optics and laser-painting analogues for ranged weapons. An enchanted wheel-lock fitted with a telescope and a wand-of-light style pointer would be too cool for school. Just add a one-charge fireball launcher under the receiver and we're good to go.

Or, you could just guide the bullet around the corner, with your mind, and wrap a lightning field inside the iron ball. See, no need for scopes then either :p
  • Like 1

The injustice must end! Sign the petition and Free the Krug!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wasn't there that one samurai who got bored with the lack of challenge and stuck a pair of antlers on his helmet to gimp himself? Grogs. Heh.

 

Speaking of which...

 

 

... and then he doesn't even bother with a sword, opting for a hol(e)y banjo.

 

But the winner of gimp yourself with weapon choice is that buddy of his, going about with a duster.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

But the winner of gimp yourself with weapon choice is that buddy of his, going about with a duster.

It's the Morning Star of Cleanliness +1. Clearly. u_u

  • Like 3

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The guy on the far right with the square satellite dish bolted to his head, a stiff gust and he not only breaks his neck he takes off like a plane. A strange way to go, but it definitely sounds more entertaining than seppuku.

 

:D Krag-Jørgensen as well, of course. .. still have some sort of unhealthy fascination with rifles like that.

The Krag is an incredibly beautiful, smooth rifle, always wanted one but they're so damn rare. :<

I gazed at the dead, and for one dark moment I saw a banquet. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Wasn't there that one samurai who got bored with the lack of challenge and stuck a pair of antlers on his helmet to gimp himself? Grogs. Heh.

 

Speaking of which...

 

 

... and then he doesn't even bother with a sword, opting for a hol(e)y banjo.

 

But the winner of gimp yourself with weapon choice is that buddy of his, going about with a duster.

 

 

If you thought that's weird, how about the Horo?

 

Samurai_wearing_a_horo.jpg

 

piCEzBp.jpg

 

Strangely enough, it works!

 

http://youtu.be/nb1WcI9TNXw?t=3m3s

 

I love that mask the guy's wearing, by the way. Absolutely...eh...frightening? ;)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Are those guys toting the party's Deep Stash around on their backs? o_O

  • Like 1

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites

I want this dagger in Project Eternity because I bought one today. ;)

Its a colichemarde early parrying dagger from Coldsteel, used in the offhand to parry and stab while swinging a small sword or rapier in the main hand.
Should give a small bonus to parry / armor class.

Its also much larger than it looks, its almost as long as my forearm with extended fingers, and I'm 186 centimeters tall. 

 

 

CS88CLMD.jpg

  • Like 5

I gazed at the dead, and for one dark moment I saw a banquet. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That Horo deflects arrow with a 70 % success rate, and silk is very light weight. Add to that, the displacement bonus, and you have some pretty fantastic arrow protection going on horseback. Wow! You learn something new every day. Thank you, Karranthain! :)

*** "The words of someone who feels ever more the ent among saplings when playing CRPGs" ***

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That Horo deflects arrow with a 70 % success rate, and silk is very light weight. Add to that, the displacement bonus, and you have some pretty fantastic arrow protection going on horseback. Wow! You learn something new every day. Thank you, Karranthain!  :)

 

You're welcome. :) I was rather surprised as well!

 

I'd like to share a very interesting illustration, showcasing various helms (I do hope we'll see a fairly big variety of these in the game, with plumes of course!). That surcoat this condottiere is wearing looks pretty cool too. Hopefully it'll be an option in PE.

 

BZFTAwW.jpg

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks very nice. Where did you buy it?

Amazon Germany. Was lucky, the only place where those daggers were on stock, if not on stock delivery time is supposed to be 4 weeks, but Coldsteel stuff is always on backorder so 6+ months is more realistic. 200 bucks, going to get it next week. :)

Oh, and steel is 1055. 

 

Late parrying daggers:

 

Cold_Steel_Ribbed_Shell_Rapier_Companion

 

pollux002fs2.jpg

Edited by Woldan
  • Like 3

I gazed at the dead, and for one dark moment I saw a banquet. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That surcoat this condottiere is wearing looks pretty cool too. Hopefully it'll be an option in PE.

 

That looks like brigandine to me. I think it's been confirmed on the wiki that brigandine will be in the game.

 

Whether it'll look like that is another matter, but seeing the attention to historic detail that they seem to be shooting for, I think it stands a reasonable chance that it'll look fairly close. :)

Ludacris fools!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

That surcoat this condottiere is wearing looks pretty cool too. Hopefully it'll be an option in PE.

 

That looks like brigandine to me. I think it's been confirmed on the wiki that brigandine will be in the game.

 

Whether it'll look like that is another matter, but seeing the attention to historic detail that they seem to be shooting for, I think it stands a reasonable chance that it'll look fairly close. :)

 

 

It could be it, yeah. Not entirely sure, to be honest. At any rate, I think that this red armour's a brigandine:

 

pe-screenshot-002-1920x1080.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been mentioned that we'll be able to dye selected areas of the worn armours in the vein of IE games. It'd be really cool if we'd also be able to display heraldry of our choosing (it could be on surcoats, on shields or perhaps even cloaks).

 

Imagine having your party donning stylish unified heraldry while roaming the lands of PE. Would be particularly nifty for the Adventure Hall made groups. As an added bonus, you'd be able to tell members of your party in a particularly big brawl at a glance.

 

Here's an example of just how much it can add visually:

 

GM0Yd6O.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...