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

[JarlFrank]

One thing i can say for sure, they really came up with a retarded name.
Handgonnes ...

Not sure if this post is ironic or ignorant

 

[ERYFKRAD]

One thing i can say for sure, they really came up with a retarded name.
Handgonnes ...

One mistake and your hand's gone bro.

 

[Reinhardt]

 

[Barbarian]

"Holy War" crisis?

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

2nd best unit in single player campaign.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

"Holy War" crisis?

Crisis mechanics explained:

:^)

 

[RNGsus]

The northern barbarians invite a million southern refugee from our war mongering into their lands.

 

[Teut Busnet]

Guns, grenades and mortars, hm?

I'll sit this one out, guys.

 

[Reinhardt]

Samurai would be better.

 

[Sweeper]

Is there some sort of, how do I put this? Genocide mechanic or system, if you will, regarding the new southern lands?
Asking for a friend.

 

[BarbequeMasta]

You know what, a mortar is a pretty convincing argument, I hope the holy war crisis allows us to pick sides, I wanna be a crusader in one playthrough and go full allahu ackbar on the infidels asses in another.

 

[BarbequeMasta]

What's this from? I remember playing or seeing it before but don't know the name.

 

[Reinhardt]

Dark Omen.

 

[BarbequeMasta]

Dark Omen.

thank you.

 

[hivemind]

>muskets
too modern, doesn't fit the setting
>mortars used as field artillery for some reason
ahh perfect

simply amazin'

 

[FreeKaner]

>muskets
too modern, doesn't fit the setting
>mortars used as field artillery for some reason
ahh perfect

simply amazin'

Specifically, they seem to have based it on Coehorn mortars with explosive shells which was invented in 1670s, which is the time of the three musketeers and the like. Not only that, usage of mortars in battle rather than sieges has happened in early 18th century, literally the time of redcoats and line infantry. Meanwhile using muskets that were used earlier than the types of mirror armour and plated mails they put in the game is apparently "too modern". I have no idea what sort of thought process or misinformation leads people to this type perception that muskets are very modern but half the arms and armour they add that were invented after muskets or directly as a result of muskets is not. Probably the idea that there is nothing between medieval era and war of American independence.

 

[FreeKaner]

This image confuses the average medieval fantasy player and scares the average fantasy setting developer.

 

[Teut Busnet]

>muskets
too modern, doesn't fit the setting
>mortars used as field artillery for some reason
ahh perfect

simply amazin'

Specifically, they seem to have based it on Coehorn mortars with explosive shells which was invented in 1670s, which is the time of the three musketeers and the like. Not only that, usage of mortars in battle rather than sieges has happened in early 18th century, literally the time of redcoats and line infantry. Meanwhile using muskets that were used earlier than the types of mirror armour and plated mails they put in the game is apparently "too modern". I have no idea what sort of thought process or misinformation leads people to this type perception that muskets are very modern but half the arms and armour they add that were invented after muskets or directly as a result of muskets is not. Probably the idea that there is nothing between medieval era and war of American independence.

It's not about 'Historical accuracy'. If I have to read another amateur history lesson, I'll guillotine my head off, wearing Lorica Segmentata and Air Jordans.

It's about the atmosphere. You can hammer and bend steel in any shape you want, the fighting stays (for the most part) personal and it doesn't scream Progress! like the explosion of a grenade or the firing of a gun (or Gonne) - Weapons used today, in modern warfare with all its anonymus slaughter.

Feel free to like the inclusion, but stop basing your arguments on 'historical accuracy' - the world of BB is not 'historic' and never has been.

 

[Reinhardt]

Behead all crossbowmen!

 

[tindrli]

is it out?

 

[FreeKaner]

It's not about 'Historical accuracy'. If I have to read another amateur history lesson, I'll guillotine my head off, wearing Lorica Segmentata and Air Jordans.

It's about the atmosphere. You can hammer and bend steel in any shape you want, the fighting stays (for the most part) personal and it doesn't scream Progress! like the explosion of a grenade or the firing of a gun (or Gonne) - Weapons used today, in modern warfare with all its anonymus slaughter.

Feel free to like the inclusion, but stop basing your arguments on 'historical accuracy' - the world of BB is not 'historic' and never has been.

First of all, I wasn't only against addition of gunpowder but also all arms and armour from period of gunpowder, like the mirror plate and the helmets they added. I would prefer if they kept to their early/middle medieval period aesthetic and if they added middle-eastern stuff add from Abbasid period not later. I have posted earlier in this thread voicing that I do not agree with aesthetic they went with.

Secondly, it is not about "historical accuracy" at all, it is about what is reasonable and interaction between arms and armour. Simply put, if you put arms and armour into the game that was a direct result of muskets (I.E mirror plates and breastplates, or armour going from being based on absorption with many layers to deflection with a single layer and fewer pieces). Saying that what they added to the game came as a direct result of proliferation of portable and light gunpowder weaponry, thus shouldn't be in a game without that prerequisite is not about what is historically accurate but what is logical.

What you said is not related to any reality of combat in medieval period or period with muskets but just the imagery in your head. Combat in 1100s wasn't any less "anonymous" than combat in 1500s. If anything, opposite is true, with proliferation of gunpowder weaponry the amount of small skirmishes and interpersonal combat increased, because a small group of people became more dangerous and started to carry swords as their primary melee weapon since armour became lighter. Since polearms became less common and blackpowder weapons could only fire once before being reloaded, the amount of interpersonal and close quarter combat increased. Especially in sieges and urban warfare but also in naval warfare.

Combat only became more anonymous when the firepower of weaponry started to heavily outperform the mobility of infantry, I.E with repeater rifles, machine guns and modern artillery. Which is something that only happened after industrialisation, especially with improved mass-production and metallurgy. Funnily enough you could have "invented" gunpowder in bronze age and made working handguns but games don't add them often, while the processes of mass-production and metallurgy that caused the modern warfare are often included in "medieval" settings which are in statis despite these key advancements. So no, gunpowder is no more "progress" than all the recent technology that medieval fantasy settings regularly include.

 

[Teut Busnet]

It's not about 'Historical accuracy'. If I have to read another amateur history lesson, I'll guillotine my head off, wearing Lorica Segmentata and Air Jordans.

It's about the atmosphere. You can hammer and bend steel in any shape you want, the fighting stays (for the most part) personal and it doesn't scream Progress! like the explosion of a grenade or the firing of a gun (or Gonne) - Weapons used today, in modern warfare with all its anonymus slaughter.

Feel free to like the inclusion, but stop basing your arguments on 'historical accuracy' - the world of BB is not 'historic' and never has been.

So no, gunpowder is no more "progress" than all the recent technology that medieval fantasy settings regularly include.

It is still THE basis for modern weapons though.

And that what I said is 'not related to combat in THE MIDDLE AGES' was kinda my point. From the start, BB freely took and dismissed from different historical periods what it wanted - which is why I'm against all those 'Uh, actually it was like this...' posts. But nevermind.

 

[FreeKaner]

It is still THE basis for modern weapons though.

And that what I said is 'not related to combat in THE MIDDLE AGES' was kinda my point. From the start, BB freely took and dismissed from different historical periods what it wanted - which is why I'm against all those 'Uh, actually it was like this...' posts. But nevermind.

That sort of mentality is what leads to devs, who explicitly state "they want to stick to a particular aesthetic" but include mortars, earlier handguns and armour from 16th century. Because apparently arquebus are too modern but field artillery mortars are not according to some vague perspective. It's a nebulous idea that amounts to nothing, it is not accountable and it throws consistency out of the window. You have to follow the logic of inclusion of imagery and themes or you'll end up with ninjas vs. pirates sort of mash up because you are "picking and choosing". If the devs went "hey we are adding this stuff but this is from a period we consider outside our game's scope and came to be as a direct result of something we don't want to include in our game (I.E proliferation of firearms)" they would maybe roll back and try to add stuff from Abbasid period instead which would be much more coherent and consistent with the atmosphere of the game they were aiming for from start.

If your idea of what your setting will be is incoherent then your setting will be incoherent.

 

[hivemind]

stop arguing with retarded americans

they literally have too much saturated fat soylent passing through their brain blood barrier to understand any of this

 

[RNGsus]

Maybe the Italian Wars would have made a more consistent theme than going all the way to arabia.

Or at least no further than Anatolia (robber barons, pirates, colonies, cliff forts, sassanids not arabs).