| myArmoury.com is now completely member-supported. Please contribute to our efforts with a donation. Your donations will go towards updating our site, modernizing it, and keeping it viable long-term.
Last 10 Donors: Daniel Sullivan, Anonymous, Chad Arnow, Jonathan Dean, M. Oroszlany, Sam Arwas, Barry C. Hutchins, Dan Kary, Oskar Gessler, Dave Tonge (View All Donors) |
| Author |
Message |
Michael Curl
Location: Northern California, US Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 487
|
 Posted: Thu 17 Mar, 2011 10:20 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Actually the type of armour shown in the photo from the game (M&B?) is from the 14th.
Only problem I see with the game pic is that the mailed horses are simply mailed and don't have any textile or clothing on.
E Pluribus Unum
|
|
   |
 |
|
Jason Henry
Location: South Florida Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 20
|
|
|
|
|
Simon G.
|
| Posted: Thu 17 Mar, 2011 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
These are Churburg-type armours... Second half of the 14th c.
Jason Henry, I'll second those saying it's great to see an attempt at a realistic medieval combat game. That's very good and should be a very nice change from many, many other games... And simplification is totally understandable.
I'll try to fill out your charts some time soon but first some remarks on them (perhaps you'll update them).
* Butted maille did not exist in medieval Europe. It only exists in other cultures (eg Japan) and as a modern-day way of making cheaper maille-ish armours. If you want to have a cheap entry-level armour, go with a gambeson. See the gent on the right in this picture (ca. 1330), he wears what appears to be a long-sleeved gambeson (in grey).
* I don't really see the need to distinguish between falchion and scimitar, these two weapons seem similar enough (not the same of course but similar enough IMO).
* Why did you take away spear, mace, axe? I hope these will be included. Against plate, mace and other shock weapons (ie poleaxe) were great.
Regarding poleaxe sources, another I would advise consulting is Joachim Meyer (ca. 1560). Very clear and well-illustrated, perhaps easier to use than Mair (Mair really is a compilator, he seems to try showing as many things as possible whereas Meyer has a more limited, rationalised system). Here are some pages on the staff according to Meyer, the halberd according to Meyer, and a nice poster showing all staff & halberd stances according to Meyer.
If you want something closer to the mid-14th c. you simply will have to look at Le Jeu de la Hache, on the poleaxe, written c. 1400. Not illustrated alas. ARMA has a translation with images from other sources.
If you have any other question I'll be glad to help, as well as many other folks here I'm sure.
Cheers and keep us posted on how this game develops!
|
|
 |
|
Michael Curl
Location: Northern California, US Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 487
|
| Posted: Thu 17 Mar, 2011 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What expansion of Mount and Blade is that? it looks great?
Also a falchion and scimitar are actually very different.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Falchion.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shamshir1o.jpg
The falchion is a short infantry sword that excells at cutting
The scimitar is a latter french term for a very popular muslim sword that was probably brought into the area by the turks. The shamshir, from which the french got the term scimitar, is an iranian name for a much more curved blade than anything you'd see in europe and was much more of a cavalry weapon that still retained a narrow point.
E Pluribus Unum
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jason Henry
Location: South Florida Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 20
|
| Posted: Thu 17 Mar, 2011 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Let me give you guys the WIP planned equipment for the initial release, let me know if it fits the era or I missed anything important. (Note: These basically are the categories for each weapon there will for example be multiple arming swords with slight variations from the next) Also this is not final at all.
Swords
1H
Arming
Scimitar
Falchion
1/2H
Bastard
Estoc
2H
Zweihander
Claymore
Clubs
1H
Flanged
Morning Star
War Hammer
2H
Great Flanged
Great Star
Maul
Axes
1H
War Axe
2H
Dane Axe
Polearm
1H
Spear (doesn't really belong in this category)
2H
Pike
Halberds
Glave
Thrown weapons are a possibility
Thrown
Javelin
Thrown Axe
Thrown Dagger
Ranged
There will be ranged weapons but the list hasn't been finalized. Expect Bows and Crossbow, not sure how many variations.
Armors
Gambeson
Leather (not sure if we will include)
Mail
Scale (not 100% sure if historic)
Brigandine
Transitional Plate
Also the chart as you see in the initial post doesn't cover much of the planned equipment.
|
|
|
|
|
Simon G.
|
| Posted: Fri 18 Mar, 2011 4:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Let me give you guys the WIP planned equipment for the initial release, let me know if it fits the era or I missed anything important. (Note: These basically are the categories for each weapon there will for example be multiple arming swords with slight variations from the next) Also this is not final at all. |
Hello Jason Henry,
* The Zweihander : mid-14th is much too early for that. Didn't exist until the early 16th c. Instead you should put a big greatsword like Oakeshott's XIIa.4 (seen here, last one).
* The Estoc or Tuck : same (might be wrong on this one but pretty sure). Not until late 15th c/early 16th c.
* not sure what you mean by "great flanged" and "maul". I don't think two-handed flanged maces existed. What you need here is a bec de corbin or a poleaxe.
* the Dane Axe is really not typical of the mid-14th c., it is typical of a much earlier period (the Viking period, c. 10th c.). Again a poleaxe or a early halberd would be better bets. Or a voulge.
* the Pike : mid-14th is too early for that too... IIRC early pikes only appeared in the 15th c. and even then they were far shorter than the later, very long pikes everyone associates with this name.
| Quote: |
Also a falchion and scimitar are actually very different. |
Well of course they're clearly different weapons in shape and would be in handling too (although the falchion you show is really on the shortish, stoutish side). But in the general effects of the weapon on armour, since it's what we're talking about here and are agreed to do so in very general terms, I don't see why the said effects would be very different between a falchion and a scimitar. Of course I could be wrong and of course there will be differences. But are there enough in this context?
Also, will there be Arabic combatants in this game? Unless there are, the scimitar seems out of place, I don't think it was used in Europe. Adding Arabic combatants would be cool but it also means a whole other range of armours, clothes, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Marechal
|
| Posted: Fri 18 Mar, 2011 4:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Some armour suggestions. Drop leather and scale. Add the armoured surcoat, coat-of-plates and corrazina. The armoured surcoat is basically a surcoat with a couple of medium-sized steel plates riveted on the inside to protect the chest and belly area. The rest are probably both evolutions on this. More plates were added to cover the entire torse front and back: the coat of plates. Then evolution split in two. On one branch the plates became smaller and smaller, leading to the brigandine. On the other branch the plates became bigger and bigger, taking on more shape. This became the corrazina (goblose covered breast plate).
The Knights Hospitaller: http://www.hospitaalridders.nl
|
|
 |
|
|
Sam Gordon Campbell
Location: Australia. Joined: 16 Nov 2008
Posts: 678
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Fri 18 Mar, 2011 5:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Simon G. wrote: | * not sure what you mean by "great flanged" and "maul". I don't think two-handed flanged maces existed. What you need here is a bec de corbin or a poleaxe.
|
Pollaxes and becs de corbin are much more 15th century weapons than 14th century...
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Augusto Boer Bront
Industry Professional
Location: Cividale del Friuli (UD) Italy Joined: 12 Nov 2009
Posts: 294
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Fri 18 Mar, 2011 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Augusto Boer Bront wrote: |
Transitional plate? That's full plate, not transitional. It's early type, but's full.
For transitional harness I inted the mid XIVth cent. as I posted. |
I wouldn't call it full because there is not a full cuirass (breast and back) nor full greaves. I agree, though, that it might be too late for mid-century. It's also a bit of a mish-mash. The guy in the middle is wearing leg defenses that kind of work for mid-century. But his cuirass is a fabric covered one reminscent of later pieces, like the Munich fabric-covered breastplate and some 15th century brigandines.
The image you posted, Augusto, seems maybe a little early for mid-century. It's certainly on the earlier end of the transitional era. 1320's-1340's?
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Augusto Boer Bront
Industry Professional
Location: Cividale del Friuli (UD) Italy Joined: 12 Nov 2009
Posts: 294
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jason Henry
Location: South Florida Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 20
|
| Posted: Fri 18 Mar, 2011 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Alright going to be a long post I'm going to go through and hopefully respond to everyone.
| Dan Howard wrote: | | GURPS Low-Tech is detailed enough now that you could just lift the figures, insert them into a simulation program, and get reasonably realistic results. The only change I would make would be to reduce the granularity by changing d6 to d10. |
While I'm asking from input from other people we do not want to just steal other peoples hard work.
| Robert Hinds wrote: | First of all thanks for making a historically accurate FP game. Does it have a name yet? If it does are you aloud to release the name so we know what to look for when it comes out? If you can't thats totally understandable.
I don't feel confident filling out the questionnaire due to my lack of experience with anything other than my Hanwei practical longsword; but I just wanted to make a few suggestions.
You could include grappling by forcing the player to get up real close and push a few keys to go into a throw or disarm, similar to Halo 3's "assassination" move. This is pretty much like your finishing moves you mentioned, but could be done before the enemy is nearly dead.
Concerning the conditioned man at arms and armour fatigue: maybe have the player select a class (archer/infantry or man at arms/knight), which would effect their combat effectiveness in a gambeson or plate. Or maybe have a skill that was raised when wearing armour, that would directly effect a players fatigue when wearing armour. Another idea would be to have a special instructor somewhere that for a fee would train them to be better in combat when wearing armour (similar to trainers in "The Elder Scrolls Morrowind/Oblivion").
Just thought I'd throw my 2 cents in, good luck making the game! |
Thanks for the support, the game currently does not have a name set in stone name, just an internal name we are using currently. It's much to early to predict a release date.
We want to avoid a class system, because we want the player to have as much freedom in their "gearing" of their character, but we will have some sort of progression system besides getting equipment that will include the character's proficiencies.
| Simon G. wrote: |
Hello Jason Henry,
* The Zweihander : mid-14th is much too early for that. Didn't exist until the early 16th c. Instead you should put a big greatsword like Oakeshott's XIIa.4 (seen here, last one).
* The Estoc or Tuck : same (might be wrong on this one but pretty sure). Not until late 15th c/early 16th c.
* not sure what you mean by "great flanged" and "maul". I don't think two-handed flanged maces existed. What you need here is a bec de corbin or a poleaxe.
* the Dane Axe is really not typical of the mid-14th c., it is typical of a much earlier period (the Viking period, c. 10th c.). Again a poleaxe or a early halberd would be better bets. Or a voulge.
* the Pike : mid-14th is too early for that too... IIRC early pikes only appeared in the 15th c. and even then they were far shorter than the later, very long pikes everyone associates with this name.
| Quote: |
Also a falchion and scimitar are actually very different. |
Well of course they're clearly different weapons in shape and would be in handling too (although the falchion you show is really on the shortish, stoutish side). But in the general effects of the weapon on armour, since it's what we're talking about here and are agreed to do so in very general terms, I don't see why the said effects would be very different between a falchion and a scimitar. Of course I could be wrong and of course there will be differences. But are there enough in this context?
Also, will there be Arabic combatants in this game? Unless there are, the scimitar seems out of place, I don't think it was used in Europe. Adding Arabic combatants would be cool but it also means a whole other range of armours, clothes, etc. |
* The Zweihander :
From Wikipedia, "While implemented in Germany in the 14th century[citation needed], it gained renown during the 16th century as the hallmark weapon of the German Landsknechts from the time of Maximilian I."
There's no source so who knows how credible that statement is.
* The Estoc or Tuck :
If you are correct is there another thrusting sword I could use from this era?
* not sure what you mean by "great flanged" and "maul".
I assumed there would be a 2h variation of each, but you know what they say about assuming :P
* the Dane Axe is really not typical of the mid-14th c.,
Ok, I prefer the Halberd anyways
About scimitars, I was looking for a curved slashing single sided slashing sword to include in the game. Falchions to me seem more like an axe then a sword, was there any other more area specific curved blades in this time period?
| Sander Marechal wrote: | | Some armour suggestions. Drop leather and scale. Add the armoured surcoat, coat-of-plates and corrazina. The armoured surcoat is basically a surcoat with a couple of medium-sized steel plates riveted on the inside to protect the chest and belly area. The rest are probably both evolutions on this. More plates were added to cover the entire torse front and back: the coat of plates. Then evolution split in two. On one branch the plates became smaller and smaller, leading to the brigandine. On the other branch the plates became bigger and bigger, taking on more shape. This became the corrazina (goblose covered breast plate). |
I'll have to research this some more.
Edit: I wanted to ask you guys what kind of medical treatment did a soldiers have available on the battle field did they carry around anything to staunch the blood flow for example.
|
|
|
|
|
Simon G.
|
| Posted: Fri 18 Mar, 2011 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | From Wikipedia, "While implemented in Germany in the 14th century[citation needed], it gained renown during the 16th century as the hallmark weapon of the German Landsknechts from the time of Maximilian I."
There's no source so who knows how credible that statement is. |
Well in fact it depends what you call a Zweihänder. If it is the classic ca. 170cm long sword with big, complex quillons used by the Landsknechte (which is what the word Zweihänder is generally accepted as meaning), then none until the 16th c. If one merely means a "two-handed sword" (which is what the german word literally means), longer than a longsword, then there are some earlier examples.
In the very detailed work Anderthalbhänder – Zweihänder – Langes Schwert: zu Klassifikation, Nutzung und Bezeichnung
der großen Schwerter des Spätmittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit (downloadable here), there are some examples of swords about 140 - 150 cm long from the 13th and 14th c. which the author designates as Zweihandschwert. Notably there is that big Oakeshott XIIa.4, 141cm long overall, from the 13th c. However, I wouldn't call that a [i]Zweihänder, more like an outsized greatsword. But as you probably know weapon terminology is far from being set in stone.
| Quote: | * The Estoc or Tuck :
If you are correct is there another thrusting sword I could use from this era? |
The best bet would probably be type XV and especially type XVa swords, i.e. longswords with very sharp points clearly made for thrusting (but not only). See http://www.myArmoury.com/feature_spotxv.html These swords would be perfectly right for the 14th c.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jason Henry
Location: South Florida Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 20
|
| Posted: Fri 18 Mar, 2011 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Thanks a lot Simon you've been a big help.
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Fri 18 Mar, 2011 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
While they might have general similarities at first glance, there are a number of differences that show Hastings is more advanced and later than the Osprey illustration you posted earlier.
Head:
Osprey: Mail coif that looks fit to go under a great helm
Hastings: A visored bascinet and a gorget
Shield:
Osprey: larger
Hastings: smaller
Belt/scabbard:
Osprey: older style wrap and knot
Hastings: more up-to-date
Surcoat:
Osprey: longer and more flowing
Hastings: beginning to shorten. It's not quite the short, tight jupon seen later in the century but it is further removed from the long crusader surcoat of earlier days.
Spurs:
Osprey: possibly older style prick spurs (though the image is very small)
Hasting: rowel spurs
In all these respects, Hastings shows a more developed and later style harness. Hastings would generally be a more appropriate model for mid-century than what was posted earlier. In an interesting twist, though, the Osprey image's lower leg defenses are more advanced than Hastings'.
Edit: The Osprey image Augusto linked to appears to be a modern interpreationof the brass of Sir William Fitzralph, who died in 1323. That's why he seems to be more out of date than Hastings, who died in 1347.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
Last edited by Chad Arnow on Sat 19 Mar, 2011 10:24 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jason Henry
Location: South Florida Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 20
|
| Posted: Sat 19 Mar, 2011 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ok I wanted to bounce this idea off you guys, in most multiplayer games you enemies have red names over their head or some sort of indicator that they are your enemy. Being that we want this game to be as realistic as possible we will not include this, one of our problem then was how we were going to differentiate the different armies from one another if we were going to give players access to all the gear on either side (mercenaries did not have limited arsenals) . So reading about surcoats gave me the perfect solution, all players wear a colored surcoat with the color of the team they are on (House of Valois = Blue, House of Plantagenet = Red). On this surcoat players could have customizable emblems or heraldry so they could differentiate themselves from their fellow players.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 19 Mar, 2011 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jason Henry wrote: | Ok I wanted to bounce this idea off you guys, in most multiplayer games you enemies have red names over their head or some sort of indicator that they are your enemy. Being that we want this game to be as realistic as possible we will not include this, one of our problem then was how we were going to differentiate the different armies from one another if we were going to give players access to all the gear on either side (mercenaries did not have limited arsenals) . So reading about surcoats gave me the perfect solution, all players wear a colored surcoat with the color of the team they are on (House of Valois = Blue, House of Plantagenet = Red). On this surcoat players could have customizable emblems or heraldry so they could differentiate themselves from their fellow players.
Thoughts? |
Jason,
While the idea of 1 color per team solves the "names above the heads" issue, it's still not terribly historic. The bottom line is that the medieval battlefield was a cacophony of colors. Soldiers attached to the retinue of a lord might wear that lord's livery, but all knights and nobles with their own coat of arms would have worn that.
A heraldic charge would have included both the background color(s) and image(s) on them. So you can't necessarily change the background color to match a team concept as what distinguished 2 people could have been solely the background color: Sir Joe might have had a gold griffin on a blue background, while Sir Jim might have had a gold griffin on a black background. There weren't necessarily enough symbols to cover every person. So some were used by multiple people, who were distinguishable by the color of the emblem and the color of the background. [Note: these are very simple and general statements about heraldry. It's a little more complex than this.]
There were livery badges pinned/sewn to surcoats that were used to distinguish loyalties, but those are likely too small to show up on your game. More info on those: http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=21694
So if you're talking about knights, they almost certainly would have had a distinguishing coat of arms. If you're talking mercenaries or non-noble men at arms, these guys were much more likely to wear the colors of whoever hired them and might fall into more of a team color concept.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jason Henry
Location: South Florida Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 20
|
| Posted: Sat 19 Mar, 2011 11:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chad Arnow wrote: | | Jason Henry wrote: | Ok I wanted to bounce this idea off you guys, in most multiplayer games you enemies have red names over their head or some sort of indicator that they are your enemy. Being that we want this game to be as realistic as possible we will not include this, one of our problem then was how we were going to differentiate the different armies from one another if we were going to give players access to all the gear on either side (mercenaries did not have limited arsenals) . So reading about surcoats gave me the perfect solution, all players wear a colored surcoat with the color of the team they are on (House of Valois = Blue, House of Plantagenet = Red). On this surcoat players could have customizable emblems or heraldry so they could differentiate themselves from their fellow players.
Thoughts? |
Jason,
While the idea of 1 color per team solves the "names above the heads" issue, it's still not terribly historic. The bottom line is that the medieval battlefield was a cacophony of colors. Soldiers attached to the retinue of a lord might wear that lord's livery, but all knights and nobles with their own coat of arms would have worn that.
A heraldic charge would have included both the background color(s) and image(s) on them. So you can't necessarily change the background color to match a team concept as what distinguished 2 people could have been solely the background color: Sir Joe might have had a gold griffin on a blue background, while Sir Jim might have had a gold griffin on a black background. There weren't necessarily enough symbols to cover every person. So some were used by multiple people, who were distinguishable by the color of the emblem and the color of the background. [Note: these are very simple and general statements about heraldry. It's a little more complex than this.]
There were livery badges pinned/sewn to surcoats that were used to distinguish loyalties, but those are likely too small to show up on your game. More info on those: http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=21694
So if you're talking about knights, they almost certainly would have had a distinguishing coat of arms. If you're talking mercenaries or non-noble men at arms, these guys were much more likely to wear the colors of whoever hired them and might fall into more of a team color concept. |
Talking about mercenaries, basically the premise is you are a hired arm with no true allegiance earning coin from battle, acquiring better equipment for your character and improving their skills in combat. This is from what I understand, what the hundred year war evolved into because the death of so many nobles, both sides had to start hiring mercenaries to keep their campaigns going.
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Curl
Location: Northern California, US Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 487
|
| Posted: Sat 19 Mar, 2011 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
While Chad is right historically I think it is a good idea in a different kind of historical, or lets say educational, way. While it is true that your not going to see a red vs blue in medieval battles, using heraldry to distinguish the sides form each other, even if highly simplified, is both more original and educational. It helps teach people to think in terms of symbols rather than faces. A good example of this concept is shown in George R.R. Martins books were symbols are representative and highly symbolic.
So to simplify what I just said, while not historical, it is educational and historical in a different kind of way and I think it should be included anyway, least you have no idea who is on your side and who isn't.
The only alternative I see would be to have like 10 lords on each side with their own heraldry and then the players would just simply memorize which is which but even that wouldn't still be perfectly correct.
E Pluribus Unum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic
