Things you want PoE 2 to specifically avoid if possible

[Leferd]

Keep your deformity-causing longbows.

 

All I know is that Oda Nobunaga's massed volleys by matchlock-armed ashigaru during the Sengoku Jidai against traditionally armed samurai was a game changer in Japan.

Edited March 7, 2017 by Leferd

[Ganrich]

 

 

 

Boring companions - Sagani and GV... -, bows being extremely better than guns - for the 16th century that don't make any sense -, simplified combat, few portraits - PoE 1 had a huge problem with portraits -, big shields and trash mobs being stronger than bosses - it was just me or those monks on WM II were stronger than the Kraken?

Bows were better than guns in the 16th century.

Tercio Pike and Shot tactics would beg to differ.

 

Hmm, are we comparing weapons or battlefield tactics? The minimum practice range for longbows was 220 yards. Muskets could barely hit anything at 100 yds. Longbow could penetrate plate armor, so muskets didn't have an advantage there. The English longbow rate of fire was typically six per minute so as not to exhaust the supply. Under optimal conditions, muskets could fire 2-3 rounds in the same time span.

 

The main advantage of muskets was that it didn't need anywhere near the same amount of training. Hence you could train a bunch of peasants to shoot in a few weeks, and group them into large formations. Longbows took years of training.

 

 

I would add that large battlefield tactics won't do much in a 5-6 man party with skirmishes.  However, those ranges you bring up would also be irrelevant.  Where fire rate and accuracy would definitely be a consideration still.  Some archers were able to fire much faster. 

 

 

Sorry for the robot narrator, but just watch the first minute or two.  Even the slower archers can fire a slew of arrows before an Arquebus could be reloaded for a second shot.  I believe at the end of the video Lars Anderson fires 11 arrows with a longbow before his first arrow touches ground, but it might be a different video.  Either way, during the period of tech that PoE occurs in Bows are most definitely still superior in many ways.   Training was the big deciding factor, but later when guns gained accuracy and reload speed bows become completely irrelevant. 

[Ganrich]

Oh, and another thing I would like to avoid is the huge amount of AoE.  Spell diversity needs to be upped.  I get that we need to make Intellect appealing, but so many spells are AoE that it becomes a bit bland.  Just look at the Druid, Wizard, and Chanter who almost require Intellect.  It's not a hard requirement like D&D, but it's a steep enough incentive that the requirement is there.  Anyway, it would make the game more tactical if there were more competitive single target abilities available.  It would also up build diversity in and of itself.  How many classes get huge benefits from Int?  Most of them IMHO.  Pally, Wizard, Barb, Cipher, Chanter, Druid, and Priest.  Where Fighters, Rangers, Rogues, and Monks can get away without it. 

 

Just my 2 cents

[JerekKruger]

I agree that in the sorts of encounters that are represented in Pillars of Eternity (small skirmishes between no more than thirty combatants, usually fewer) bows would be more useful than guns. On a larger scale things change, but you simply can't execute an effective pike and shot formation with six people and the speed of bows would be more useful than the penetrative power of guns. In particular someone wielding an arquebus is simply less manoeuvrable since at some point they have to stand still for a not insignificant amount of time to reload, and this is a serious liability in a small skirmish.

 

However:

 

Longbow could penetrate plate armor, so muskets didn't have an advantage there.

 

Not really no. Under absolutely optimal conditions (striking a thinner part of the armour at an almost perpendicular angle at very close range) a longbow* might be able to penetrate plate, but likely without sufficient energy to do any real damage. I can almost guarantee that any test you can name that says otherwise is using non-accurate armour and unrealistic conditions.

 

Even riveted mail plus a gambeson is good enough to stop the vast majority of arrows from a longbow from penetrating deep enough to do real damage (again, if you have a video of a longbow arrow defeating mail ask yourself the following questions: is it riveted or butted? Are the rings oversized? Is it attached firmly to a piece of wood or against something that can give a little as a human with a gambeson underneath would?).

 

This is a very interesting video on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1WZLVZYBwQ

[molotov.]

You guys are forgetting the biggest reason to why guns were better than bows in the 16 century, metallurgy. Plate armours and better chainmails were more cheap and mass produced in the 16 century. You can even see a decline on the production of plate armour after the introduction of guns, because guns were much better at dealing with armour than bows.

"Longbow could penetrate plate armor, so muskets didn't have an advantage there." Longbows can't penetrate plate armour, I don't know where you got that from.

"The main advantage of muskets was that it didn't need anywhere near the same amount of training. Hence you could train a bunch of peasants to shoot in a few weeks, and group them into large formations. Longbows took years of training." Archers were the lowest rank of the british army, so no, they didn't needed years of training.

An example to why bows and longbows couldn't do nothing against plate armour:

A steel helmet vs crossbow:

Azteks had so much trouble with the spanish army that used this type of armour:
 

A simple plate armour adapeted for the usage of guns - yes guns were so important that they changed the design of armour -, the azteks arrows and Atlatl couldn't penetrate the spanish armour, it was like trying to kill a person wearing a bullet proff vest with a .22.

The armies started to use guns because the armours could handle any type of bows and longbows, but they couldn't handle guns.


That is the same reson to why we see a lot of blunt weapons in the 16 century, because swords couldn't penetrate plate armour. To beat plate armour they needed something that could cause some sort of damage to the wearer, hence the creation of the blunt weapons. The Macuahuitl - a mix of blunt and sharp weapon used by the Azteks - were the only weapon that could cause a serious damage towards the spanish soldiers, that is why we can even encounter some accounts of the weapon effectiveness: 
"Pedro de Morón was a very good horseman, and as he charged with three other horsemen into the ranks of the enemy the Indians seized hold of his lance and he was not able to drag it away, and others gave him cuts with their broadswords, and wounded him badly, and then they slashed at the mare, and cut her head off at the neck so that it hung by the skin, and she fell dead."
But they didn't had any accounts towards the effectiveness of Azteks bows...



"I agree that in the sorts of encounters that are represented in Pillars of Eternity (small skirmishes between no more than thirty combatants, usually fewer) bows would be more useful than guns." In PoE, usually, the enemy party and the player party are really well equipped, bows and crossbows wouldn't penetrate any of the plate, brigandines and mail armours, and they would have a hard time penetrating the scale and leather armour, so I don't believe that it would work.
"In particular someone wielding an arquebus is simply less manoeuvrable since at some point they have to stand still for a not insignificant amount of time to reload, and this is a serious liability in a small skirmish." So why pirates used guns? It would be better to use bows right? They were always facing small numbers, and you are ignoring the fact that they could carry more than 2 guns.


I think you guys are biased towards bows, longbows and crossbows and I can understand that, but guns were simply better that is why we don't use bows anymore... but the game is set in a strange world, it appears that Josh choose the 16th century, because of all the social impact it brought but he is divided towards fantasy and realism, you can even see big shields in the game! Big shields were RARELY used back in the 16th century, bucklers and plate armour did their job quite well, that is why you see a lot of two handed weapons being used in the 16th century illustrations. But I think it's difficult to create a tank character without a big shield in mind... but PoE 1 did a good job, my semi tank warrior can handle a bunch of hits with his buckler.

BUT! If the discussion is longbows vs crossbows my vote goes towards longbows, without a second thought. Edited March 7, 2017 by molotov.

[rjshae]

Not really no. Under absolutely optimal conditions (striking a thinner part of the armour at an almost perpendicular angle at very close range) a longbow* might be able to penetrate plate, but likely without sufficient energy to do any real damage. I can almost guarantee that any test you can name that says otherwise is using non-accurate armour and unrealistic conditions.

 

Granted, a typical English longbow arrow hitting plate armor at a grazing angle would most likely deflect, but that's likely true of musket balls as well (hence why tanks have sloped armor). Longbow arrows could penetrate 10 cm of oak though, so they were pretty formidable.

[rjshae]

I think you guys are biased towards bows, longbows and crossbows and I can understand that, but guns were simply better that is why we don't use bows anymore...

 

It's not a bias. Guns did supplant bows, but only after their accuracy and rate of fire improved. The historical period is relevant here.

[Katarack21]

By the middle of the 16th century, metallurgy and armor technology had evolved to the point of being very resistant to bows. In the 15th century, this was not so much the case.

 

The Battle of Agincourt showed that the longbow was highly effective against armor *of the time*. In 1415.The arquebus I believe first showed up in mass war around 1460? At the time, bows would've been perfectly, and probably more, effective.

[molotov.]

 

I think you guys are biased towards bows, longbows and crossbows and I can understand that, but guns were simply better that is why we don't use bows anymore...

 

It's not a bias. Guns did supplant bows, but only after their accuracy and rate of fire improved. The historical period is relevant here.

 

If you are making a response, please, adress my ENTIRE ARGUMENT and not just one line, thank you.

That don't mean you need to quote my entire post, just get the general idea.

Edited March 7, 2017 by molotov.

[molotov.]

By the middle of the 16th century, metallurgy and armor technology had evolved to the point of being very resistant to bows. In the 15th century, this was not so much the case.

 

The Battle of Agincourt showed that the longbow was highly effective against armor *of the time*. In 1415.The arquebus I believe first showed up in mass war around 1460? At the time, bows would've been perfectly, and probably more, effective.

But the game is not situated in the 15th century.

[Katarack21]

 

 

I think you guys are biased towards bows, longbows and crossbows and I can understand that, but guns were simply better that is why we don't use bows anymore...

 

 

It's not a bias. Guns did supplant bows, but only after their accuracy and rate of fire improved. The historical period is relevant here.

If you are making a response, please, adress my entire post and not just one line, thank you.

Now my post is fully edited.

That's silly. If he has exactly one thing to say, quoting your entire post is stupid and labor intensive, especially if they're on a mobile device.

 

How about this: If you have a response, give it instead of batching about the post format.

[Katarack21]

 

By the middle of the 16th century, metallurgy and armor technology had evolved to the point of being very resistant to bows. In the 15th century, this was not so much the case.

The Battle of Agincourt showed that the longbow was highly effective against armor *of the time*. In 1415.The arquebus I believe first showed up in mass war around 1460? At the time, bows would've been perfectly, and probably more, effective.

 

But the game is not situated in the 15th century.

Their game isn't situated in *any* historical era directly analogous to *any* Earth period. Middle 15th to early 16th is the technological range shown, that's all. Edited March 7, 2017 by Katarack21

[molotov.]

 

 

 

I think you guys are biased towards bows, longbows and crossbows and I can understand that, but guns were simply better that is why we don't use bows anymore...

 

It's not a bias. Guns did supplant bows, but only after their accuracy and rate of fire improved. The historical period is relevant here.

If you are making a response, please, adress my entire post and not just one line, thank you.

Now my post is fully edited.

That's silly. If he has exactly one thing to say, quoting your entire post is stupid and labor intensive, especially if they're on a mobile device.

 

How about this: If you have a response, give it instead of batching about the post format.

 

Adress my entire post = adress the entire argument that I made.

You don't need to quote the entire post, lol, I thought it was obvious but I will edit it.

Hist argument, "it's not a bias. Guns did supplant bows, but only after their accuracy and rate of fire improved. The historical period is relevant here." I already debunked his argument in my post, he clearly didn't read the entire thing.

[Ganrich]

One could argue that magic being a thing changed some of the necessities of tech advancement in Eora.  The perfection of plate wouldn't be as crucial a development if there are a great deal of people in the world who can torch you with fire from their fingers or electrocute you seeing that Plate wouldn't really help against such things.  In fact, it would most likely hinder you vs fire and electricity.  Just playing devil's advocate.  

[JerekKruger]

The Battle of Agincourt showed that the longbow was highly effective against armor *of the time*.

 

Yes and no. Agincourt showed that the longbow was a highly effective weapon against the armies of the time. Whilst the nobility of France were decked out in full plate, the majority of men in their armies were not (nor were their horses) and whilst I can't say for certain, I suspect the vast majority to those put out of action by arrows were the less well armoured. The number of noble prisoners taken by the English certainly suggests that the armour stood up very well to longbow arrows.

[molotov.]

 

 

By the middle of the 16th century, metallurgy and armor technology had evolved to the point of being very resistant to bows. In the 15th century, this was not so much the case.

The Battle of Agincourt showed that the longbow was highly effective against armor *of the time*. In 1415.The arquebus I believe first showed up in mass war around 1460? At the time, bows would've been perfectly, and probably more, effective.

But the game is not situated in the 15th century.

Their game isn't situated in *any* historical era directly analogous to *any* Earth period. Middle 15th to early 16th is the technological range shown, that's all.

 

Your thread is "Things you want PoE 2 to specifically avoid if possible" I said that I wanted them to avoid being unrealistic with guns, some people tried to debunk this by saying that bows were better than guns in that time period 16th century in the real world, the period that the game is based, and using real life examples so I debunked their argument with an argument adressing the real world 16th century, that's all.

 

So I should have just said to them "hey it's just a fantasy" or "hey it's my opinion" instead of making a little research and proving my point? So discussing anything in the forum is pointless? Everyone can just say "hey it's fantasy"?

Edited March 7, 2017 by molotov.

[molotov.]

One could argue that magic being a thing changed some of the necessities of tech advancement in Eora.  The perfection of plate wouldn't be as crucial a development if there are a great deal of people in the world who can torch you with fire from their fingers or electrocute you seeing that Plate wouldn't really help against such things.  In fact, it would most likely hinder you vs fire and electricity.  Just playing devil's advocate.  

That is a good argument, and it seems that the creation of guns were directioned to counter magic, hence why guns go through spell shields without any problem.

[Aramintai]

Ha, this talk about guns reminded me of this one Castle episode moment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itxpoyA3PYQ

And those pistols were from the 19-th century if I recall correctly. They sure are better if they can hit a target. But in 16-th century I think their accuracy was even worse and bows were still better at sniping unarmored people fast.

[DigitalCrack]

"The main advantage of muskets was that it didn't need anywhere near the same amount of training. Hence you could train a bunch of peasants to shoot in a few weeks, and group them into large formations. Longbows took years of training." Archers were the lowest rank of the british army, so no, they didn't needed years of training.

 

 

 

 

Lowest Rank had nothing to do with how hard or easy training was with a bow.  It was entirely a prestige thing...  to be a bowman wasn't as chivalrous or prestigious and didn't require any family pedigree to be one which translates to more people being able to become bowmen because there were not societal role restrictions surrounding it.

[molotov.]

Ha, this talk about guns reminded me of this one Castle episode moment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itxpoyA3PYQ

And those pistols were from the 19-th century if I recall correctly. They sure are better if they can hit a target. But in 16-th century I think their accuracy was even worse and bows were still better at sniping unarmored people fast.

The acc of 16th century guns were pretty good.

 

 

I think you are mistaken 16th century guns to 15th century guns, there was a huge difference in technology. You can see that in the first video.

[molotov.]

 

"The main advantage of muskets was that it didn't need anywhere near the same amount of training. Hence you could train a bunch of peasants to shoot in a few weeks, and group them into large formations. Longbows took years of training." Archers were the lowest rank of the british army, so no, they didn't needed years of training.

 

 

 

 

Lowest Rank had nothing to do with how hard or easy training was with a bow.  It was entirely a prestige thing...  to be a bowman wasn't as chivalrous or prestigious and didn't require any family pedigree to be one which translates to more people being able to become bowmen because there were not societal role restrictions surrounding it.

 

It has everything to do how easy or hard the training would be...

Lowest Rank means that they needed a bunch of people in that position right? So to have a bunch of people in that position it required less time of training, so they needed to give those soldiers a simple weapon to use, hence the longbow. Foot soldier wasn't a prestigious position and they weren't the lowest rank, why? Because they needed more training, or you think that using a shield and sword is easier than using a bow?

Edited March 7, 2017 by molotov.

[DigitalCrack]

 

 

"The main advantage of muskets was that it didn't need anywhere near the same amount of training. Hence you could train a bunch of peasants to shoot in a few weeks, and group them into large formations. Longbows took years of training." Archers were the lowest rank of the british army, so no, they didn't needed years of training.

 

 

 

 

Lowest Rank had nothing to do with how hard or easy training was with a bow.  It was entirely a prestige thing...  to be a bowman wasn't as chivalrous or prestigious and didn't require any family pedigree to be one which translates to more people being able to become bowmen because there were not societal role restrictions surrounding it.

 

It has everything to do how easy or hard the training would be...

Lowest Rank means that they needed a bunch of people in that position right? So to have a bunch of people in that position it required less time of training, so they needed to give those soldiers a simple weapon to use, hence the longbow. Foot soldier weren't prestigious position and they weren't the lowest rank, why? Because they needed more training, or you think that using a shield and sword is easier than using a bow?

 

"Longbows were very difficult to master because the force required to deliver an arrow through the improving armour of medieval Europe was very high by modern standards. Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it was at least 360 newtons (81 pounds-force) and possibly more than 600 N (130 lbf), with some estimates as high as 900 N (200 lbf).[citation needed] Considerable practice was required to produce the swift and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of longbow archers are recognizably adapted, with enlarged left arms and often osteophytes on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers.[24]

 

It was the difficulty in using the longbow that led various monarchs of England to issue instructions encouraging their ownership and practice, including the Assize of Arms of 1252 and Edward III of England's declaration of 1363:

 

    "Whereas the people of our realm, rich and poor alike, were accustomed formerly in their games to practise archery – whence by God's help, it is well known that high honour and profit came to our realm, and no small advantage to ourselves in our warlike enterprises... that every man in the same country, if he be able-bodied, shall, upon holidays, make use, in his games, of bows and arrows... and so learn and practise archery."

 

If the people practiced archery, it would be that much easier for the King to recruit the proficient longbowmen he needed for his wars. Along with the improving ability of gunfire to penetrate plate armour, it was the long training needed by longbowmen that eventually led to their being replaced by musketeers."

 

From wikipedia on longbows.

[molotov.]

 

 

 

"The main advantage of muskets was that it didn't need anywhere near the same amount of training. Hence you could train a bunch of peasants to shoot in a few weeks, and group them into large formations. Longbows took years of training." Archers were the lowest rank of the british army, so no, they didn't needed years of training.

 

 

 

 

Lowest Rank had nothing to do with how hard or easy training was with a bow.  It was entirely a prestige thing...  to be a bowman wasn't as chivalrous or prestigious and didn't require any family pedigree to be one which translates to more people being able to become bowmen because there were not societal role restrictions surrounding it.

 

It has everything to do how easy or hard the training would be...

Lowest Rank means that they needed a bunch of people in that position right? So to have a bunch of people in that position it required less time of training, so they needed to give those soldiers a simple weapon to use, hence the longbow. Foot soldier weren't prestigious position and they weren't the lowest rank, why? Because they needed more training, or you think that using a shield and sword is easier than using a bow?

 

"Longbows were very difficult to master because the force required to deliver an arrow through the improving armour of medieval Europe was very high by modern standards. Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it was at least 360 newtons (81 pounds-force) and possibly more than 600 N (130 lbf), with some estimates as high as 900 N (200 lbf).[citation needed] Considerable practice was required to produce the swift and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of longbow archers are recognizably adapted, with enlarged left arms and often osteophytes on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers.[24]

 

It was the difficulty in using the longbow that led various monarchs of England to issue instructions encouraging their ownership and practice, including the Assize of Arms of 1252 and Edward III of England's declaration of 1363:

 

    "Whereas the people of our realm, rich and poor alike, were accustomed formerly in their games to practise archery – whence by God's help, it is well known that high honour and profit came to our realm, and no small advantage to ourselves in our warlike enterprises... that every man in the same country, if he be able-bodied, shall, upon holidays, make use, in his games, of bows and arrows... and so learn and practise archery."

 

If the people practiced archery, it would be that much easier for the King to recruit the proficient longbowmen he needed for his wars. Along with the improving ability of gunfire to penetrate plate armour, it was the long training needed by longbowmen that eventually led to their being replaced by musketeers."

 

From wikipedia on longbows.

 

You forgot one thing, it says "Longbows were difficult to master" and I totally agree with that, but my argument is that it was an easy weapon to use, and it is, just like a gun in real life, if you get one right now I'm sure you know how to use it, but will you hit the target?

 

Archers didn't shoot like you see in movies "1, 2... 3... FIRE!" They did that non stop, their job was to shoot a good amount of arrows into the enemy lines, it was a basic job that didn't require years of training - you had 15.000 targets... you don't have to be Legolas to hit one-, different from foot soldiers and knights, that had to learn about stances, formations, weapons types, martial arts, etc.

 

My point is: The King of England was so preoccupied with the training of longbowman, because they needed a lot of longbowman, people could learn that fast and be introduced into the fray fast, but they needed more training to master, the best solution? Make it a common sport!

 

But the text is towards the longbow right? Something that England was famous, because of their culture towards longbows, people practiced that like they practice football nowadays, try to get a text about crossbows and bows. My argument is for all of them not just the longbow, I used the longbow because it was the strongest, thus a good example.

Edited March 7, 2017 by molotov.

[DigitalCrack]

 

 

 

 

"The main advantage of muskets was that it didn't need anywhere near the same amount of training. Hence you could train a bunch of peasants to shoot in a few weeks, and group them into large formations. Longbows took years of training." Archers were the lowest rank of the british army, so no, they didn't needed years of training.

 

 

 

Lowest Rank had nothing to do with how hard or easy training was with a bow. It was entirely a prestige thing... to be a bowman wasn't as chivalrous or prestigious and didn't require any family pedigree to be one which translates to more people being able to become bowmen because there were not societal role restrictions surrounding it.

It has everything to do how easy or hard the training would be...

Lowest Rank means that they needed a bunch of people in that position right? So to have a bunch of people in that position it required less time of training, so they needed to give those soldiers a simple weapon to use, hence the longbow. Foot soldier weren't prestigious position and they weren't the lowest rank, why? Because they needed more training, or you think that using a shield and sword is easier than using a bow?

"Longbows were very difficult to master because the force required to deliver an arrow through the improving armour of medieval Europe was very high by modern standards. Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it was at least 360 newtons (81 pounds-force) and possibly more than 600 N (130 lbf), with some estimates as high as 900 N (200 lbf).[citation needed] Considerable practice was required to produce the swift and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of longbow archers are recognizably adapted, with enlarged left arms and often osteophytes on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers.[24]

 

It was the difficulty in using the longbow that led various monarchs of England to issue instructions encouraging their ownership and practice, including the Assize of Arms of 1252 and Edward III of England's declaration of 1363:

 

"Whereas the people of our realm, rich and poor alike, were accustomed formerly in their games to practise archery – whence by God's help, it is well known that high honour and profit came to our realm, and no small advantage to ourselves in our warlike enterprises... that every man in the same country, if he be able-bodied, shall, upon holidays, make use, in his games, of bows and arrows... and so learn and practise archery."

 

If the people practiced archery, it would be that much easier for the King to recruit the proficient longbowmen he needed for his wars. Along with the improving ability of gunfire to penetrate plate armour, it was the long training needed by longbowmen that eventually led to their being replaced by musketeers.

"

 

From wikipedia on longbows.

You forgot one thing, it says "Longbows were difficult to master" and I totally agree with that, but my argument is that it was an easy weapon to use, and it is, just like a gun in real life, if you get one right now I'm sure you know how to use it, but will you hit the target?

 

Archers didn't shoot like you see in movies "1, 2... 3... FIRE!" They did that non stop, their job was to shoot a good amount of arrows into the enemy lines, it was a basic job that didn't require years of training - you had 15.000 targets... you don't have to be Legolas to hit one-, different from foot soldiers and knights, that had to learn about stances, formations, weapons types, martial arts, etc.

You specifically said "british bowmen" when talking about lowest rank and british bowmen use longbows which did take years of training. Why dont you go take a look at the sources provided on the longbow wiki page instead of taking my word or just continue to substitute in your own reality...

[Aotrs Commander]

[Archers didn't shoot like you see in movies "1, 2... 3... FIRE!" They did that non stop, their job was to shoot a good amount of arrows into the enemy lines, it was a basic job that didn't require years of training - you had 15.000 targets... you don't have to be Legolas to hit one-, different from foot soldiers and knights, that had to learn about stances, formations, weapons types, martial arts, etc.

Indeed. Archery - at least on the Medieval battlefield - was perhaps really more artillery before the invention of artillery - more a sort of area-effect weapon.

Edited March 7, 2017 by Aotrs Commander