New unit at the .com: Huscarls

**hellenes** · 04-09-2006, 17:26

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

The historically-accurate 2-handed swords would have looked flashier than this unhistorical unit.

No way.
Uninspired cheap Holywood tricks are far more preferable...

**Crazed Rabbit** · 04-09-2006, 19:02

That looks like an axeman, not a huscarle.

And speaking of short weapons, the armored swordsman looks like he has a gladius. Definately not a 'longsword'.

Crazed Rabbit

**Servius** · 04-10-2006, 01:05

Maybe there's something buggy with CA's weapon renderer. That's two new units with unusually small weapons in a row.

Oh wait, maybe that is how they plan to fix the too-high kill rate in RTW. Smaller weapons kill slower. :-)

**Furious Mental** · 04-10-2006, 03:49

It's actually kind of funny because you would think the rather liberal attitude which CA generally takes to history would lead to the conclusion that a big axe is better than a small one.

**Kraxis** · 04-10-2006, 11:00

Yeah... This just goes to show how CA can surprise us on an everyday basis.

**Martok** · 04-13-2006, 07:59

Originally Posted by Servius1234

Maybe there's something buggy with CA's weapon renderer. That's two new units with unusually small weapons in a row.

Oh wait, maybe that is how they plan to fix the too-high kill rate in RTW. Smaller weapons kill slower. :-)

LOL!

You know, though, I almost have to wonder if there really is something wrong with how weapons are being rendered. I can't find the screenshot now, but I remember seeing one pic where some English infantry were wielding spears that were only about 5-6 feet long. Now I'm by no means an expert on medieval weaponry, but shouldn't spears be at least a bit longer than that?

**Divine Wind** · 04-13-2006, 17:19

Originally Posted by Martok

LOL!

You know, though, I almost have to wonder if there really is something wrong with how weapons are being rendered. I can't find the screenshot now, but I remember seeing one pic where some English infantry were wielding spears that were only about 5-6 feet long. Now I'm by no means an expert on medieval weaponry, but shouldn't spears be at least a bit longer than that?

Yes your right, your average spear should be between about 6 - 9 feet, and later on went upto around 12 feet in length. Then of course came the pike.

Perhaps that Huscarl is disguised as a resource gatherer.

Special ability: Hides well in forests, disguised as lumberjacks.

**Woad Warrior** · 04-13-2006, 19:03

Well at Bannockburn, the early 1300's, the Scots and English Spearmen had mostly 12 ft spears.

**Martok** · 04-14-2006, 00:47

Originally Posted by Divine Wind

Yes your right, your average spear should be between about 6 - 9 feet, and later on went upto around 12 feet in length. Then of course came the pike.

Thanks DW. Yeah, that's kind of what I thought, but I just wasn't sure. It seems like far too many of the weapons we've seen so far (either in the 3D unit feature or the screenshots) are smaller than their real-life historical counterparts. I've seen some that look more or less like they're the correct size (knight's lances and some of the broadswords, for instance), but a number of others simply look too short.

Perhaps that Huscarl is disguised as a resource gatherer.

Special ability: Hides well in forests, disguised as lumberjacks.

LOL!! Humor is a dangerous weapon when you wield it, my friend.