Mağaza Sayfası
Mount & Blade: Warband
Tümü Tartışmalar Ekran Görüntüleri Çizimler Yayınlar Videolar Atölye Haberler Rehberler İncelemeler

Mount & Blade: Warband

Mağaza Sayfası
Mount & Blade: Warband >  Atölye > marty Kullanıcısının Atölyesi > Gekokujo > Tartışmalar
Gekokujo
Açıklama Tartışmalar199 Yorumlar2337 Değişiklik Notları
Keksus 31 Ara 2014 @ 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.
< >
44 yorumdan 1 ile 15 arası gösteriliyor
CRNilsen 1 Oca 2015 @ 6:29 
Didn't some of the hatamoto units in the now dead Sengoku Jidai mod have horo on their backs?
#1
Freht 2 Oca 2015 @ 22:17 
I support these ideas 100%.
#2
papa para 3 Oca 2015 @ 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 Oca 2015 @ 23:43 
You're comparing that to European bows.
#4
papa para 3 Oca 2015 @ 23:47 
You do realise Asian bows were BETTER. Right? A prime example is Ghengis Khan.
#5
Keksus 4 Oca 2015 @ 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.
En son Keksus tarafından düzenlendi; 4 Oca 2015 @ 1:17
#6
papa para 4 Oca 2015 @ 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 Oca 2015 @ 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 Oca 2015 @ 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 Oca 2015 @ 9:39 
This would be a good idea.
#10
papa para 5 Oca 2015 @ 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 Oca 2015 @ 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 Oca 2015 @ 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 Oca 2015 @ 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 Oca 2015 @ 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
< >
44 yorumdan 1 ile 15 arası gösteriliyor
Sayfa başına: 1530 50