Avatar of MelonHead
  • Last Seen: 1 yr ago
  • Joined: 12 yrs ago
  • Posts: 4353 (0.96 / day)
  • VMs: 1
  • Username history
    1. MelonHead 12 yrs ago
  • Latest 10 profile visitors:

Status

User has no status, yet

Bio

Mostly given up on this post by post business

Most Recent Posts

By the way. @Rilla Have you ever considered setting up an Arena IRC or something like the Multiverse used to have? They were always good for keeping the shenanigans away from OOC where useful information is -sometimes- posted.
<Snipped quote by MelonHead>

That's perfectly plausible, though the company prides itself on discipline, and an important part of discipline is to know when to fold your cards.


That's why I find the concept interesting, because from what I've read of the plot Orcs are inherently warlike and undisciplined, it would be an interesting contradiction for us to be fighting for undisciplined 'Orcish' reasons without even realising while maintaining the illusion of being changed 'men' so to speak in the Order, and in the end looking back and realising none of us had really changed at all.
<Snipped quote by GreivousKhan>

As far as I've understood from the original post, that's precisely what Nar Mat Kordh-Ishi is about, anyway. They're mercenaries. They're hired for efficient warfare. Nar Mat Kordh-Ishi lives up to it. Helping the oppressed is not exactly something the average employer of a mercenary company would be happy about. More than often, mercenaries did that themselves.


I suppose, there's definitely space for the Orc honour and revenge motive to fit in though, picture us working for the big bad, do a job, get fucked over, given the opportunity to work for someone who would -pay- us to fuck over the person who fucked us over? Maybe human mercenaries would shrug their shoulders after getting shafted and move on, but would Orcs? Screw the cause, as long as it pays us to kill the bastard we want to kill? Just a thought anyway.
<Snipped quote by MelonHead>

I actually heard about that too, gave me allot of idea for future scimitar use.


I -think- it was Matt Easton who talked about it, I started binge watching a lot of You Tubers who cover sword myths and the like after you schooled me a few times in the past. It's pretty interesting stuff.
One advantage of a single bladed weapon is the more forgiving blocking potential. No double edge sword self injury and all that.


Mmhmm, you could also do half swording esque things with little to no worry of injury, I remember hearing about a bunch of men with Scimitars attacking a Redcoat line as they wandered through a town, the swordsmen basically ran up close and pushed their own blades into the Redcoats with their free hand, rather than swinging and slashing like they are portrayed as being used historically. It might have been a specific method used for tight quarters where you don't wish to injure nearby people, as they were fighting in their city, but interesting none the less.

Every sword has its advantage and disadvantage I suppose.
<Snipped quote by MelonHead>

Although the battlefield may generally have revolved around the lances of the men-at-arms, and the missiles and polearms of the infantry, the sword was the primary weapon of the knight for individual combat. Which is what the arena focuses on, so I'd rather keep to a sword. Not many duels I know of took place using lances anyway. (aside from jousting tournament, but their less about duels of honor)

In the same way the Katana and such are the weapons for individual duels for Samurai.


You're right, in a dueling sense it makes sense for a Knight character to fight on foot with a sword, unless he was conducting a joust or in combat with an opponent he was under obligation to kill under any circumstance, such as any person he considers infidel.
Technically the strike should have landed before your character touched the ground, especially if she moved swords to block it effectively speeding up the collision time, but ultimately I feel the result would have been the same, so I'm happy for IN to post and for us all to continue as long as Vordak is.
<Snipped quote by MelonHead>

Interesting.

Most people see the knights primary weapon being his longsword. Your knighted with it, often their given names (while lances as far as I know are not) often passed down to relatives, though that's not specific to knights/nobles.

With the the battle of barnet being largely on foot and fought with entirely with swords (despite everyone and their mother being in heavy plated mail of the late middle ages), I actually have a hard time seeing the knights main weapon being his lance. An important one, but one he can largely live without historically.


I think the almost ceremonial nature of swords suggests they weren't necessarily the most efficient tool of war. The lance was a very expendable weapon, it got used, it broke, but it's also perfect for mounted combat for that reason. You can afford to ride over, stab something long and pointy into your foe and leave it behind stuck in them (where-as dropping your sword left you SOL) and then ride back to pick up a new one. The lance might not be the main weapon of a knight, but it was definitely the main weapon of cavalry in west Europe, and as far as I know, Knights were predominantly cavalry.

I'd have to do more research, but I think the lance was definitely more synonymous with Knights then the sword, though in actuality it would be safer to say both weapons were synonymous with the Knight, with the lance used as a primary weapon for the charge, and the sword used if melee was engaged.

Doing a massively flawed wikipedia search but it does have some interesting insights into Knights, suggesting they originate from Equites, which any fan of Total War Atilla will tell you were Roman Cavalrymen from the lower tiers of aristocracy, definitely fitting the medieval Knight.

None of this of course stops you from just fighting as a dismounted Knight, but in some ways I feel the Knight was always meant to fight on horseback, which puts me off in Arena (unless you were going to conduct a Cavalry duel, which is something I've never seen before)
I personally don't like heroic stories. This is an Orc Mercenary Warband - way I see it, there's no need to play the hero. Moral ambiguity makes for the better story, in my opinion.


But the new King/Queen would have so much gold, and be so very thankful.
Don't be discussing stuff in my CS area.

That's for Cs' and CS' only.


Rilla laying down the law, angry Rilla, Dictator Rilla, down with the President, REVOLUTION!!11
© 2007-2026
BBCode Cheatsheet