http://www.totalwar.com/community/medieval2.htm
They look really nice. ~D
Super armoured and such.
Any thoughts?
Printable View
http://www.totalwar.com/community/medieval2.htm
They look really nice. ~D
Super armoured and such.
Any thoughts?
Imho the nicest unit what we've seen till now on the com. :2thumbsup:
I wonder whether every "Italian" faction will be able to recruit it?
You gained the victory! ~D
Yeah, I love making popular threads. ~D
Their helmet is a bit weird though. :dizzy2:
And the sword...Ugh, much too short for a knight.
well, he's not a knight. I actually thought this model's weapon was about the right size (finally). However, none of the MAA in MTW were mounted. The description gives the impression that most/all MAA were mounted...
Reminds me of MTW's French Gendarmes.
Well, the sword may be short, but at least it has a proper hilt this time...
If you ask me, people are focusing too much on historical accuracy. Gameplay is what truly matters in the end. Well, as long as they don't go completely overboard with the units. I like this model, it looks nice. ~:)
Im guessing this may be a mount/dismount unit.
The sword length is fine for a MAA.
Yeah, he looks cute. I notice the armour is sort of greyish too. Someone was complaining earlier the armour is too shiny, I don't think this guy's armour is too shiny.
And the sword looks the right length to me.
One minor gripe I have with most of the units so far is that the shields look a little too "matt" to me, like they're made of fabric. I think they should be shinier, like painted metal. I actually have no idea what medieval shields were made of, but I think they were probably metal, weren't they?
I doubt it, unless they were small bucklers. Metal would be too heavy, wouldn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
Metal would indeed be too heavey. For the most part i believe shields were wooden with leather stretched over the face. Perhaps it was outlined in metal or had a metal ball in the center or was studded with metal but that would be the extent of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Shifty is correct... steal shields are 95% RPG BS
You took the words out of my mouth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaulgath
A 100% metal shield of any significant size would definitely be too heavy. But a wooden shield fronted with a thin layer of metal would not.
They were. So were most sergeants. Anyone who could afford good armour was also able to afford a horse, though not necessarily a destrier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Servius1234
True. We aren't going to get a 100% accurate representation of medieval warfare, but as long as it's balanced and plays well I won't complain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaulgath
Well, not much anyway ~D .
The sword's fine, is't just being shown at an angle. I sooo hope this means that there is going to be an Italian Infantry (spear) unit!
I thought the same thing...Quote:
Originally Posted by Servius1234
It looks good.
About shields, metal would indeed be to heavy. Hoplites in ancient Greece used shields with a layer of bronze, but it was so heavy that while marching they had to use their shoulders to carry part of the weight.
This unit is very nice... He could be better of course, but I'm not going to complain, especially not considering the competition we have seen so far.
I wish they would display the units on a lighter background...it is sometimes hard to see the details near the shaded areas...
Otherwise...very nice unit.
And as I say it every week, I'll say it again....bring on Varangians!
One thing I could not get my head around in MTW was the difference between knights, men-at-arms and sergeants. In reality, was there such a distinction?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
I'm guessing knights were distinguished primarily by social status, rather than military equipment per se. They would tend to have top of the line stuff, I suppose, but I'd reckon the warrior retainers of a top noble might be comparably equipped (and even skiled?) to a low status knight.
Men-at-arms in the historical references I've read tends to be a catch-all to include well equipped (ie armoured for melee) soldiers, including knights.
Sergeants - well, I just don't know what they are. In MTW, they seem to be fighters lacking the state-of-art armour and mounts.
I'm not sure how much it all matters for MTW2, although I have a hunch that in reality the knights and other men-at-arms would fight inter-mingled, rather than in separate units. And that men-at-arms should pretty much all have mounts (and be dismountable), as should knights proper. I guess all this is just a sacrifice we make for getting a more varied unit roster (and dealing with the problem of programming the AI to cope with dismountable units).
Nice enough I suppose. I would rather see the earlier units though and what about some less shiney units?
......Orda
Just another nice unit, I can't wait for MTW2, hope they won't postpone anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
And about the "shiny" looks... It would be certainly great if armour would be shiny at the begining of the battle, but blood stained and bumped at the end... Wishful thinking.
The game has that feature, haven't you heard?
No, :embarassed: but thank you, this is great.:bow:
The knight's helmet is awesome
Very nice unit, can't wait for MTW2.
"Men-at-arms" were all well-equipped warriors, capable of fighting both mounted and dismounted, usually but not always of noble birth. The bread-and-butter heavy troops.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
"Knights" were men-at-arms with the formal knightly status (although in the Early Middle Ages, simply the feudal heavy cavalry from any background serving under the assorted noble magnates). All knight were men-at-arms (and, after Early Middle Ages, aristocracy), but the opposite very specifically did not hold true - the ceremonies and rituals involved in aquiring the rank eventually became so expensive and elaborate that even senior nobility quite often simply could not afford them.
Sergeants were assorted lighter, non-noble "feudal professional" troops - lower landholding warrior class, salaried full-timers in cities, better milita troops, whatever. I understand the term covers quite a wide variety of reasonably capable "support" close-combat troops who provided the bulk of more competent infantry and lighter cavalry formations.
I got 404'd when I clicked that link.
Well, the site seems to have undergone an overhaul in the meantime.