Pagina din magazin
Mount & Blade: Warband
Toate Discuții Capturi de ecran Ilustrații Difuzări Videoclipuri Atelier Știri Ghiduri Recenzii

Mount & Blade: Warband

Pagina din magazin
Mount & Blade: Warband >  Atelier > Atelierul lui marty > Gekokujo > Discuții
Gekokujo
Descriere Discuții199 Comentarii2337 Jurnale de actualizare
Keksus 31 dec. 2014 la 8:12
Balancing bows and rifles
Due to there being no shields in the sengoku era of Japan bows became ridiculous OP in that mod. I think a good way to balance them out a bit better would be to make it a bit more realistic. Shields were the one thing which you were able to use in vanilla to counter bows. And when having a shield on your back you couldn't get hit in the back by a bow.

One of the reasons why shields weren't used in that time was that bows didn't have that much penetration power. So basically a good armor was all you needed. I think that would work in the mod too. You shouldn't be able to penetrate armor with arrows or only do a minimal amount of damage, even with higher level bows and arrows. Headshots of course should be an exception from this. That is where rifles would come in. Currently they do a hell of a lot damage, but the reloading times are extremely long and you barely have enough ammunition for them and you also can't use them while riding a horse. Making rifles the only ranged weapons which are able to penetrate armor would make them more viable in comparison with bows. Especially because there isn't a skill like power draw for rfles in the mod.

Another thing which could be added would be a Horo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horo_(cloak) this is basically a shield on your back. Could be added as an item as well as a special unit which has these things.
< >
Se afișează 1-15 din 44 comentarii
CRNilsen 1 ian. 2015 la 6:29 
Didn't some of the hatamoto units in the now dead Sengoku Jidai mod have horo on their backs?
#1
Freht 2 ian. 2015 la 22:17 
I support these ideas 100%.
#2
papa para 3 ian. 2015 la 23:02 
I don't think this would be a good idea. The rifles are as realistic at that time as they should be. And think about it, BOWS at that time weren't as penetrative!? This is one of the LAST DECADES of archery! I mean, after 10 THOUSAND+ YEARS of archery - and you were saying bows at that time weren't penetrative?.. Explain Agincourt, even earlier than the Gekujo mod, the arrows pierced through the armour and the English defeated the French. Otherwise they wouldn't be much help.
#3
Keksus 3 ian. 2015 la 23:43 
You're comparing that to European bows.
#4
papa para 3 ian. 2015 la 23:47 
You do realise Asian bows were BETTER. Right? A prime example is Ghengis Khan.
#5
Keksus 4 ian. 2015 la 1:17 
I did my research. Why do you think they didn't use shields back then in Japan? Shields were mainly a method to counter arrows. Due to a lack of decent bows during the Sengoku era shields never became a necessity, as the armor was enough. Ghengis Khan? Yeah Don't want to disappoint you, but Japan wasn't really that big when it came to trading with other nations. Especially not 300 years before Sengoku. You can't just throw all of Asia in one cup. For most of it's time Japan was a closed country with very little trade with the outside world.
Editat ultima dată de Keksus; 4 ian. 2015 la 1:17
#6
papa para 4 ian. 2015 la 2:29 
I understand it was closed off, but the technology was there. They had very large, slow, powerful bows.They even had 'bodkin'-type arrows before the Europeans, I believe - this may not be correct though.
#7
TeutonicTexan 4 ian. 2015 la 6:35 
I don't know much about the diffusion of medieval asian bow technology, but I'm not sure if lumping Japanese and Mongolion bows into the same category is accurate. My gut tells me no, and that making assumptions about Japanese bows based on reports of superior Mongolion bow would be fallacious.
#8
papa para 4 ian. 2015 la 8:34 
No no, I was saying that Asian bows as a whole were better than their European equivelants (in my eyes) but they have their own strengths. Such as the longbows in Wales and England were quicker and had longer range than their Japanese equivelants. Obviously, the Mongolian bow was far more rapid and accurate, but the Japanese bow was more powerful with increased range. I never lumped the technology together.
#9
Beviin CT-6269 5 ian. 2015 la 9:39 
This would be a good idea.
#10
papa para 5 ian. 2015 la 15:01 
Japanese bows were very good, not as good as mongol bows, but not lacking far behind other bows either. I believe the horo would be a good idea, but reducing the damage done by bows is ridiculous, maybe upping body armour by +1 or +2 would be a better solutions.
#11
Keksus 6 ian. 2015 la 7:05 
Japanese bows had a draw weight of about only 30 lbf. English bows had a draw weight of 50 - 60 lbf. Mongolian bows had about 160 lbf. So well...
#12
CRNilsen 6 ian. 2015 la 11:26 
The hankyû perhaps, that one had a draw weight of 30 lbf. The daikyû, the war bow, however, had draw weights from 60 lbf up to 100 lbf, usually in the upper ranges.
Heavier yumi still have been described in Japanese history books, some were rated by how many men were required to string them (e.g. 3-man bow, 5-man bow). Without any practical examples or surviving specimens though, it's hard to determine their exact draw weights.

The reason you pull out the commonly used example of 30 lbf bows though, could me a misunderstanding derived from modern Kyûdô bows, which have easy draw weights to accomodate the physiques of female and young archers. These are not bows meant for warfare, but for training and target practice. They are noob bows, to use a different description.

So well...
#13
Keksus 6 ian. 2015 la 12:07 
Not taking into consideration that most of their power was mainly "used" to make the arrow fly farther. The arrows used were leighter and longer than what we had in europe, making the arrow "float" for a greater distance, therefore losing a lot of piercing power. They were also mainly used from horseback or from a kneeling position. Something which wouldn't be possible with more powerful bows. That's also why Yumi archers mainly aimed for the face.
#14
papa para 8 ian. 2015 la 8:14 
It obviously was a very powerful bow, if Matsu is correct, and the velocity of an arrow remains the same under the same circumstances, however if you are talking about the actual arrow itself - there were many different designs.
#15
< >
Se afișează 1-15 din 44 comentarii
Per pagină: 1530 50