Check out the unit profiles section of the com. Looks excellent I must say, CA are doing a cracking job on the game by the looks of things.
Printable View
Check out the unit profiles section of the com. Looks excellent I must say, CA are doing a cracking job on the game by the looks of things.
What weapon is held by soldier? The crowbill or the fighting pick or the war hammer?:no:
War Hammer I believe.
I can't really tell work computer no likey flash. :no: It copuld be a warhammer, and it could be a pick, it could be both . But it's definatly only 1 handed.
Since the text says they have war hammers I think it is a war hammer ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by DukeofSerbia
Nice ~:)
Wow, looks nice. I like it! ~:)
Oo, me likey. He's not wearing purple armour, that's a plus. I really like the new approach CA Australia has been taking towards the units, namely more realistic looking. Good stuff.
OK I'm home now and it's a warhammer, long shafted though.Quote:
Originally Posted by DukeofSerbia
Here's the description.
Quote:
Well armoured, and equipped with a war hammer, these men were recruited to protect the far flung interests of the Venetian empire from greedy enemies, on both at sea and land. Their long hafted war hammers are designed to penetrate armour making this heavy infantry unit a good choice for tackling armoured opponents.
I didn't see that.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
It's interesting how CA thinks blunt objects like hammers and maces are armor piercing. Axes too were best used against lightly armored troops because the large cutting area spread out the force of impact (but cut more flesh!). Picks, polearms, and lances should get the AP bonus, the others should either result in a bonus vs. unarmored troops or a higher attack value. That’s why I love modding! :2thumbsup:
looks nice
I love the look of this unit, nothing fancy, no hideous colours, just the plain armour and a dark shaded shield.
Thats what medieval soldiers looked like! :2thumbsup:
"It's interesting how CA thinks blunt objects like hammers and maces are armor piercing."
Well actually bashing someone in plate armour with a big spike on a big weight at the end of a big pole was much more effective than trying to stab or slash at them with a sword. If you look at the war hammer in question you will notice it has such a spike. Also, even a large blunt weight alone was more likely to collapse armour, or concuss the wearer, or knock them over. There is nothing at all wrong with making weapons like hammers and maces more effective against armour. They were largely used for that reason.
I think blunt weapons were more popular among knights for their increased ability to knock other mounted combatants off their horses; that and the ability to bash footmen about the head and neck. This may sound like a purist rant but at least in that example it seems that the weapon would be unbalanced if the spike was used. I'm all for the more "modern" polearms acting like can openers but very picky about the smaller weapons. If the smaller ones are to be armor piercing their attack value should be lower.
The mace and hammer are far easier to forge than a sword. If they developed in response to better armor they would have replaced the sword. What happened was that the sword itself changed form. Compare a gladius or older broadsword to a later one like Prince Edward’s. The blade focuses more on piercing than slashing.
Swords were also increased in size to compensate for armor.
Hammers were certainly used against armor - the weight + torque generated by a person swinging it could collapse heavy armor which if it didn't kill the armor wearer outright, would knock him down and make him very vulnerable.
Polearms were most definatley considered the best weapons for bashing armoured foes into the dirt. For the simple fact that once you have them on the ground You can lift up thier helmet and deal dirty death into their soft open eyes or they will simply be suffocated.
Their were a few swords that were able to pierce through latter plate armour but mostly they were used to hammer enemies into submission. A polearm is much better at doing this.
I remember reading about medieval dueling and often times, duels and battles would end simply because one guy fell to the ground and couldn't get up because of the armor. THe opponent would simply disarm the guy or wait until he stopped struggling then take out his dagger and stick it through the slit in the helm or through a soft part of the armor (such as the armpits to the heart). Rarely would non-large swords actually be able to cut through armor w/o hitting a soft part of it. More often, axes and other armor piercing weapons were the ones able to do so.
Can someone point me to this unit profile? Because I can't find the unit profiles on the .com website anymore.
The war hammer was devised as a weapon against plate armour. The blunt 'hammer' could cave in a helmet and the spike could pierce; obviously they should have an AP bonus
......Orda
Mace, axe, poleax, halberds, warhammers, are all armour piercing weapons. The lance is also an armour piercing, mounted weapon. Swords are cutting and slashing weapons, its very hard to pierce tempered plate armour with a sword tip, and is likely going to end with a broken or bent sword.
Historically you see an evolution away from maces and axes. In archeology one of the ways you determine if civilizations went to war is to see if they developed maces. The spear was a dual purpose weapon meant for hunting and war but the mace was designed specifically for war. You also find the axe falling out of favor as well when armor starts to improve. One handed axed can't be that heavy and you still have the surface area vs. force problem.
Again, later era swords re-emphasized piercing over slashing and could be employed quite effectively against armor without being damaged. *Spiked* hammers with a bonus vs. armor perhaps, but a lower overall attack value should be used.
There's a new unit up at www.totalwar.com:
The Mamluks
They look nice, although it seems that they're horse is somewhat smaller than the others.
Would have posted this in a new thread, but unfortunately I can't. :(
Cheers!
Ituralde
Horses used by mamluks were purebred arabians, which were smaller than the european war horse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ituralde
Yeah, I also speculated on that in the other thread, where the Mamluks are discussed in detail. Nice to know they add features like that. :2thumbsup:
"In archeology one of the ways you determine if civilizations went to war is to see if they developed maces. The spear was a dual purpose weapon meant for hunting and war but the mace was designed specifically for war. You also find the axe falling out of favor as well when armor starts to improve. One handed axed can't be that heavy and you still have the surface area vs. force problem."
No. Historically polearms, poleaxes and warhammers were popular in the late Middle Ages precisely because (amongst others things) they were better against plate armour than swords. Then they fell out of favour when gunpowder weapons rendered armour superfluous. And if a one handed axe can't be that heavy maybe that explains why they used two handed axes. And on the subject of weight, an axe or hammer is inherently better against plate armour than a sword because it concentrates its weight at the end of the pole where it will be travelling the fastest, which it also where it will strike the enemy. There is therefore much more momentum behind a strike with an axe or hammer than behind that of a sword, and that is why they could collapse solid metal. If you want to test this for yourself try knocking down a brick wall with a piece of wood, and then try doing the same with a sledgehammer.