Next: a proper couched lance grip?
Printable View
Next: a proper couched lance grip?
I dont understand, weren't knightly lances "single use", I mean after a charge, the lance breaks and its head impales the enemy soldier. The night then draws his sword or mace and starts working. In the 97mn video we saw,, it shows knights actually using their lances, trying to stab enemy footsoldiers, which looks totally lame.
Well, it's a long pointy stick so if it doesn't snap or get stuck in something during the charge there's no particular reason as such why it couldn't be used as a sort-of cavalry spear (particularly when dealing with obstinate spear-walls). Although I'm under the impression this wasn't a terribly common practice as the European-style cavalry lance, once fully derived into its own weapon from the spear base, was frankly a bit long for one-handed use (and they were never used two-handed).
Personally I'd kinda like if they added a few extra horseman animation skeles to show the straight-legged long-stirrup riding style of European heavy cavalry. I mean, it wouldn't exactly add much in the way of file size or anything, and if the general attitude is "appereances are important"...
even without the footprints those pics are awesome.
ok, come on, let's keep things in perspective here.
These are pictures, ok - they don't say anything about AI, suicide generals, running/killing speeds, flanking or anything.
We all (or most of us anyway) agree that the eye-candy is NOT the first and foremost thing we're looking for in TW games.
As pictures, I think they look friggin' great. Sure, maybe the lance isn't held properly, and maybe the knight visors are shaped a tiny bit differently, and so on - heck, we'll always be able to find tiny little things that are not exactly quite like we'd like them to be.
But that's not the main point, ok ?
I agree with shadows being a rather big thing - however, I strongly believe that they should be optional, if at all. Several people have rightfully pointed out that this may make a huge difference in performance. If we had the damn shadows, then we'd all scream bloody murder 'cause you require a mainframe to run the game at >5 fps.
Given a choice between a 10k army on the field, with shadows, and a 30k (or more) army, without shadows, I wouldn't hesitate a picosecond to choose the latter.
Come on, TW is all about epic battles, not about my 100 archers vs your 100 archers, all of whom are extremely detailed in their equipment and perform perfectly realistic moves.
There is ALWAYS the tradeoff between more detail (closing to absurd levels), and performance, and scale on the other hand. You want a lot of scale, with good performance - give up a bit of the eye-candy and some of the (less important, imho) detail.
And for eye-candy, I'm more than happy with what I'm seeing, so now let's focus on the really important stuff :2thumbsup:
R:TW already had shadows for units and it was working properly. If anything it shows that CA is indeed rebuilding the engine almost from scratch and the shadowsystem was not finished yet when certain screenshots were taken.
I agree! But I still think that Barbarion Invasion was aufull! To many bugs! As it looks like they were in a hurry to publish it!
And make scouting really important. :juggle2: there would actually be a reason to have light cavalry in an army sounds like fun to me :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by [cF]Adherbal
OR they can be used to kill archers or minor troops! Of course they can be also usefull for ambushing!
So, you guys going to be embarking on Jihad or a Crusade when this game comes out. I think I'm going to play the villain first and wage Jihad.
Eh? Why would Saladin's Jihad be the villain side? Wouldn't rather crusaders like Reynald the Chatillon and his friends be the villain side?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Knight of the Living
Personally, I'm torn as to which faction I want to play first. Crusading should be fun, but I also kind of want my first faction be one that *doesn't* have to deal with the Pope! (One of the reasons I'm not sure I want to play the Scots right away.) And given the my fondness of the Eggies in MTW, I think I may very well take them out for a spin in Medieval 2 straightaway. Heck, I might even try the Turks if they get them balanced better. ~:rolleyes:
Um, could we maybe not label either side as the villian? Please? We really don't need to go there....
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
I knew as soon as I hit the submit button on that post someone was going to say that. I was going to delete it. But I wanted to see if my prediction would come true. It did.
You're right. Looking at history from the perspective of a Christian, which I am, I view the Moslems (in general) as the bad guys. Yes, scumbag Christians like Reynald de Chatillon were as vile as any man ever set foot on this planet.
And really both sides were fighting for wealth and power. Religion was just the excuse they needed to seek it.
So, for the effects of drama I call the Moslems the villains. But realistically, I'm not dumb enough to presume the Christians were well intentioned. Were Jesus alive when the First Crusade was launched no way would he have endorsed it.
Looks, delicious! I am hungry now.
I could easily see how a tapestry could be made from the first pic with all of the English Knights enter mingled with foot soldiers.
Yes, I too have noticed how amazingly pictorial some of the screenshots look. I thought one of the pics - probably the one you are describing - looked remarkably like a medieval painting. Incredible, really, to think that you are not looking at a painting but rather a snapshot of a complex 3D world!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahanaman
I guess it shows just how sophisticated game graphics are getting...can photorealism be far away? It's almost scary to think about, LOL.