Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Incline Battle Brothers + Beasts & Exploration, Warriors of the North and Blazing Deserts DLC Thread

Strange Fellow

Peculiar
Patron
Joined
Jun 21, 2018
Messages
4,013
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Why care about aesthetic and logical coherence?
I can show you.

people in WW2 uniforms fighting with medieval swords
ninjas vs. pirates
we might as well add British redcoats and Roman legionnaires while we are at it, in fact why stop there we might even add samurai robots too.
This bothers normal people.

16th century Ottoman armour
This bothers people with history degrees.
 

FreeKaner

Prophet of the Dumpsterfire
Joined
Mar 28, 2015
Messages
6,908
Location
Devlet-i ʿAlīye-i ʿErdogānīye
This bothers people with history degrees.

There is as much time between crusade era middle-east and ottoman as 100-years-war and redcoats. Same type of reason for difference in arms and armour too, existence of firearms. I would be as bothered to see a German cuirassier in the cover art of the original battle brothers.

In fact, since people here have more knowledge of the European history, here is European armour from the same time period as the one displayed in that DLC cover art:

Pappenheim-Curassiers.png


Considering people are also generally more aware of the distinction between Medieval period and Renaissance, it should be obvious how distant it is. Would people not be bothered by three musketeers in a game supposedly set in medieval France? In fact, so many are so strictly opposed to inclusion of firearms into medieval games as that appears modern to them but they seem to have no qualms in adding everything else that was directly caused by firearms. Adding that type of armour is basically same as adding matchlock arquebuses and wheellock pistols into the game, as that is the type of weapon people wearing those armours would encounter if not personally use.
 

hivemind

Cipher
Patron
Pretty Princess
Joined
Feb 6, 2019
Messages
2,386
arabs didnt advance as much during the same period so it makes sensethat its less jarring to use their armour from a wider time frame
 

Harthwain

Magister
Joined
Dec 13, 2019
Messages
4,689
The two guys above disagree, it is time to add Napoleonic uniforms as armour as visual coherence doesn't matter.
Pretty sure they both said "historical coherence". Historical coherence =/= visual coherence.

In fact, since people here have more knowledge of the European history, here is European armour from the same time period as the one displayed in that DLC cover art:
The point is: it doesn't matter what period they take the armor from, as long as it seems to fit in the overall theme the game is going for. Looking at the DLC cover art neither armor seems out of place for a medieval-oriented game for me (chainmail reinforced with a few plates, chainmail with gambeson underneath it, studded leather armor).
 

Strange Fellow

Peculiar
Patron
Joined
Jun 21, 2018
Messages
4,013
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
FreeKaner I'm saying that unless the anachronism is percieved by people who have no knowledge of this stuff (i.e. it has to look nebulously "out of place") we won't give a shit. But by all means rage on and keep the sloppy Germans in line.
 

FreeKaner

Prophet of the Dumpsterfire
Joined
Mar 28, 2015
Messages
6,908
Location
Devlet-i ʿAlīye-i ʿErdogānīye
Pretty sure they both said "historical coherence". Historical coherence =/= visual coherence.


The point is: it doesn't matter what period they take the armor from, as long as it seems to fit in the overall theme the game is going for. Looking at the DLC cover art neither armor seems out of place for a medieval-oriented game for me (chainmail reinforced with a few plates, chainmail with gambeson underneath it, studded leather armor).

The response of the devs regarding the plate armour applies perfectly well. If it is supposed to be thematically and visually based on medieval middle-east, specifically crusader era then it shouldn't have a different style from much later. It's no different than making a vikings dlc and giving them gothic plate armour because they are both vaguely northern European from vaguely late medieval period.

Why use that when there exists a vast varied source of arms and armour from medieval middle-east? Would you okay with giving Vikings gothic plate or even brigandine? After all it is late medieval and not historic so we might as well. However clearly that would be jarring even if it would fit the extremely loose standard of medieval-oriented game and it would be more sensible to give vikings the appropriate arms and armour they would be using to be thematically and visually coherent to the DLC they would be making about vikings.

Here as visual aid, would you be absolutely fine if they made a viking focused DLC with the vikings in longboats wearing this as armour?


It is from Northern Europe, it is late medieval, it is not plate and it is within same era as most of other arms and armour in the game. In fact it is even less inaccurate because it wasn't designed with firearms in mind.
 
Last edited:

Harthwain

Magister
Joined
Dec 13, 2019
Messages
4,689
The response of the devs regarding the plate armour applies perfectly well. If it is supposed to be thematically and visually based on medieval middle-east, specifically crusader era then it shouldn't have a different style from much later. [...]
You don't understand... Yes, it is supposed to be thematically and visually based on a certain medieval period, but not time-wise: style-wise. So as long as the armor in question looks the part it can be "from much later", regardless of when it was actually made. I guess you being history/armor-buff makes it impossible for you to separate the visuals of the armors from the time period they were used in, but it can't be helped.
 

FreeKaner

Prophet of the Dumpsterfire
Joined
Mar 28, 2015
Messages
6,908
Location
Devlet-i ʿAlīye-i ʿErdogānīye
You don't understand... Yes, it is supposed to be thematically and visually based on a certain medieval period, but not time-wise: style-wise. So as long as the armor in question looks the part it can be "from much later", regardless of when it was actually made. I guess you being history/armor-buff makes it impossible for you to separate the visuals of the armors from the time period they were used in, but it can't be helped.

So if I was a person who couldn't tell European full plate from medieval European armour, it would be absolutely perfectly fine to make a viking themed DLC with everyone in gothic plate? The argument essentially comes down to "we are ignorant and can't tell arms and armour entire centuries and cultures apart so it doesn't matter", is this really the standard that should be aspired?

It's so different from actual medieval middle-eastern arms and armour:


No big circular plate discs in the chest, no curved swords with curved handles.

The reason why it looks "fine" and "appropriate" to you is not because it is similar, because big steel plates and curved swords are kind of an obvious difference but because you and in general most everyone apparently has the wrong idea about what medieval middle-eastern arms and armour looked like. Instead they seem to think 16th century Middle-eastern and Indian arms and armour is what it was.

The argument that it is actually appropriate in style is same as making what is supposed to be medieval men-at-arms look like conquistadors and say it is actually appropriate because it is based on a specific style rather than time. So to clarify I don't care if it is perfectly accurate time-period wise, I care that it doesn't fit the visual style of what should be medieval middle-east. The fact it is also from much later than rest of the game and based on armour design that was made with firearms in mind also makes the game feel incoherent thematically.
 
Last edited:

Harthwain

Magister
Joined
Dec 13, 2019
Messages
4,689
[...] The argument essentially comes down to "we are ignorant and can't tell arms and armour entire centuries and cultures apart so it doesn't matter", is this really the standard that should be aspired?
I understand where you come from, but it is what it is. Given that the game is basically [low] fantasy, they are doing a fairly good job at keeping it separated from the usual cool-but-stupid-fantasy-armor theme, so I am not going to be mad on them for not being overly strict on the front of historical accuracy as such.

It's so different from actual medieval middle-eastern arms and armour:

cavalryman.jpg

No big circular plate discs in the chest, no curved swords with curved handles.
Not much point adding that to the game, to be honest:
BasicMailShirt.png
PatchedMailShirt1.png
 

FreeKaner

Prophet of the Dumpsterfire
Joined
Mar 28, 2015
Messages
6,908
Location
Devlet-i ʿAlīye-i ʿErdogānīye
I understand where you come from, but it is what it is. Given that the game is basically [low] fantasy, they are doing a fairly good job at keeping it separated from the usual cool-but-stupid-fantasy-armor theme, so I am not going to be mad on them for not being overly strict on the front of historical accuracy as such.

I thought they were doing a fine job so far too, so that is why it is so jarring they are adding something so distinctly from gunpowder era. If your definition of "overly strict on the front of historical accuracy as such", and I said this is not about historical accuracy but visual and thematic coherence, is basically not even in wholly pre-gunpowder era then I think we should add arquebuses to the game. I am being serious here too, if you add armour that was designed because of firearms then why not add firearms? I don't care about this whole historic accuracy bullshit and arquebuses are cool and were even used in the time period as rest of arms and armour in the game.

It's actually very odd how people are completely loose about adding armour that was designed to partially counter-act firearms and any counter-argument is responded to as if it is historical accuracy nitpicking but would be wholly and ardently against adding actual firearms that were contemporary with the said armour. Gunpowder is not some technological advance that requires any prior development that was had in medieval world, you could have had it in bronze age if someone figured it out. Yet the armour that was designed because of gunpowder "looks fine" to everyone even though it can only exist because of gunpowder as prior development.
 
Last edited:

Harthwain

Magister
Joined
Dec 13, 2019
Messages
4,689
I am being serious here too, if you add armour that was designed because of firearms then why not add firearms?
You're making a wrong argument here. They are adding grenades, which is not too far from firearms, since the technology for grenades is closely related to firearms (black powder). But the real issue - enough to prevent them from including the firearms altogether - would be how to balance them against bows and crossbows.
 

TT1

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Nov 25, 2016
Messages
1,479
Location
Krakow
Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. My team has the sexiest and deadliest waifus you can recruit.
After Blazing Deserts a new DLC will be released, called Rising Sun. It will introduce Samurai, Ninja, fighting monks and Drunk Kung Fu.

Roadmap:

- Rising Sun
- Deep Jungles
- Lost Empire
- Wild Tribes (introducing mounts)
- Land of Rain & Fog
- Islands
- Battle Sisters
- Battle Brothers II (now with multiplayer) exclusive EPIC Games

Ah, and of course Skull and Bones, introducing swashbuckler, pirates and Caribean setting. Now you can have a parrot.

Before they want to close this game forever. Now they will milk it forever.
 

Brancaleone

Liturgist
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
1,004
Location
Norcia
First clear evidence of that kind of plate+mail armour is from half of 15th century Persian sources, plus other much earlier references (although no 100% sure). It's not something distinctively Ottoman (apart from Middle East, it had quite some success also in the Indo-Persian area). And quite a lot of the armour already in the game is of the15th century type, so it's perfectly in line with the rest.

Plated-mail itself is at earliest in second half 15th century which I think is already very late for rest of what is used in this game since the armour in the game is not 15th century at all but 12-14th century. European 15th century armour would be full plate armour which I didn't see in this game. Moreover the one he is wearing is a distinctively disc plate which doesn't exist before 16th century in that form and except in Ottoman Empire, various other forms of disc plate also exists in 16th century in Russia, Persia and India. It's a type of armour made in compromise design with appearance of gunpowder weapons in the field, comparable to European breastplates. The type of vest he is wearing is also Ottoman in appearance and so is his sword.

In fact, I would be willing to bet the artist used one of these pictures as the reference, which is late 16th century Ottoman:


Regardless, I think the theme and general aesthetic of this game is clearly and distinctly high medieval with influences from fantasy and history before with very obviously pre-gunpowder era arms and armour. So including post-gunpowder type of arms and armour breaks the coherence. It is like including 12th century crusader in mail and bucket helm side by side with a tercio pikeman in breastplate and morion helmet, very anachronistic and nonsensical, as former was meant to protect against cutting weapons and latter was made with firearms in mind.
It looks like I misremembered the century: apparently, the earliest evidence of the mirror armour is from 13th century, not 15th: so much earlier than 16th century Ottoman examples. And it has nothing to do with firearms (as if the use of plates integrated into armour ever depended on that), and a lot with representing an excellent compromise for hot climates, since you avoid getting cooked inside thanks to the mail, and you retain a certain degree of plate protection. Contrast with the Byzantine klibanion, which had roughly a similar structure, only it was sewn on leather or thick cloth, thus preventing heat dispersion and earning its name, which means "oven" (I wonder why).

But even if we're talking about 15th century, the game has already at least sallet and barbute which are only from that century on, plus all the bec de corbin / horseman's pick etc. which are from even later. So I see no problem with the inclusion of mirror armour (which is Ottoman only in its latest iterations, barring some even later Indian/Indo-Persian examples).
 
Last edited:

FreeKaner

Prophet of the Dumpsterfire
Joined
Mar 28, 2015
Messages
6,908
Location
Devlet-i ʿAlīye-i ʿErdogānīye
It looks like I misremembered the century: apparently, the earliest evidence of the mirror armour is from 13th century, not 15th: so much earlier than 16th century Ottoman examples. And it has nothing to do with firearms (as if the use of plates integrated into armour ever depended on that), and a lot with representing an excellent compromise for hot climates, since you avoid getting cooked inside thanks to the mail, and you retain a certain degree of plate protection. Contrast with the Byzantine klibanion, which had roughly a similar structure, only it was sewn on leather or thick cloth, thus preventing heat dispersion and earning its name, which means "oven" (I wonder why).

But even if we're talking about 15th century, the game has already at least sallet and barbute which are only from that century on, plus all the bec de corbin / horseman's pick etc. which are from even later. So I see no problem with the inclusion of mirror armour (which is Ottoman only in its latest iterations, barring some even later Indian/Indo-Persian examples).

The type of "mirror armour" in 13th century you are referring to was Central Asian lamellar types and is not at all related to what I mean here. Also the type of mirror armour shown in the artwork is distinctly closer to later Ottoman types and it was indeed a compromise design for gunpowder. They started using lighter armour as opposed to trend before where armour was getting heavier especially towards end of 14th century and at the turn of 15th century then with proliferation of gunpowder weapons they abandoned heavier armour and started to use lighter mail with only few pieces of plate.

Besides all this talk on specifications, the DLC is advertised to be medieval middle-eastern based on Arabic and Persian cultures, but it instead is presented with later design common at the turn of 16th century. So irrespective of whether it narrowly makes the cut in time span or plausibility, it completely misses the theme of what is clearly advertised to be crusader era middle-east. Ignoring centuries of middle-eastern arms, armour and style to instead use armour from the tail-end of medieval period completely dominated by Turkic or Mongol designs is missing the point and visual style.

If the plated mail or curved cavalry sabres were the point (which I doubt), then why not theme it around Mamelukes, Timurids or whatever else? If the crusade era middle-east is supposed to be theme then why not use crusade era arms and armour. Not the 13th century lamellar mongol armour based on Chinese designs (not the one in the artwork) or 15th century mirror armour used by Mamelukes and Timurids (would be much heavier and plated than what is in artwork with overlapping shoulder plates as well) and not tail-end 16th century light mirror plate but instead actual mail hauberks mixed with robes.

I have stated from start this is not a historical accuracy nitpick but rather thematic and visual coherence based on aesthetic and style. When I see plated mail or mirror armour I don't think of Abbasid era middle-east with flourishing Baghdad and Damascus at the eve of crusader states, alongside of all the other scenery and imagery associated with so called "Islamic golden age" with governance and administration under Arabs and Persians. Instead I think of post-mongol invasion fractured middle-east with devastated cities constantly changing hands between slave-soldier dynasties and repeating waves of Central Asian invaders until all of it was conquered by Ottomans. Very clearly the aim and vision wasn't that.

Perhaps it is because of lack of familiarity to you but it is as jarring to me as having a viking themed dlc announced and the artwork shows vikings in brigandines then someone is defending how it is perfectly fine putting vikings in brigandines because Danes used them in 14th and 15th centuries. That's not what one thinks or wants to see with theme of "Vikings".
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom