Author Topic: c(ounterstrike)RPG  (Read 6815 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CrazyCracka420

  • Minute Valuable Contributor
  • Strategus Councillor
  • **
  • Renown: 1950
  • Infamy: 794
  • cRPG Player Sir White Pawn A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • Welp
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Vaegirs
  • Game nicks: Huseby
  • IRC nick: Steam name: crazycracka420
Re: c(ounterstrike)RPG
« Reply #90 on: January 30, 2014, 09:25:56 pm »
+2
C7 is a radio command.

Fire in the Hole!

I pretty much exclusively used Z2 "You take the point".  C5 "I'm in position" or C4 "Sector clear" (Even though I had a mic and used it, it was still fun to spam those commands). 

Let's just put cRPG maps on 24/7 Dust2  :rolleyes: and we'll have half a million active players.   Because people have terrible opinions and do not like variety. 
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
 - Stolen from Macropussy

Offline pingpong

  • Earl
  • ******
  • Renown: 423
  • Infamy: 220
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
Re: c(ounterstrike)RPG
« Reply #91 on: January 30, 2014, 09:50:00 pm »
+2
Give them a free respec, and give them a chance to go into the right side  8-)
Thats like giving a crack addict more cocaine, last respec gave us like 20+ HA/HX in EU_1, and that was so enjoyable i'd rather sit in a ant hive naked drinking my own piss while listening to steven seagals music.

Offline Prinz_Karl

  • Earl
  • ******
  • Renown: 383
  • Infamy: 112
  • cRPG Player Sir White Knight
    • View Profile
  • Faction: HRE
  • Game nicks: Fridericus_II
Re: c(ounterstrike)RPG
« Reply #92 on: January 30, 2014, 10:00:29 pm »
0
Please let's hope Kalam doesn't put this into Chamber of Tears or whatever. The more people cry about range (which is a serious problem) the more preferably the devs are going to make a change.  Damn grammar.

Offline Angantyr

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1134
  • Infamy: 130
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
Re: c(ounterstrike)RPG
« Reply #93 on: January 31, 2014, 09:57:04 pm »
0
Get yourself a shield. It's realistic. Every soldier in medieval had a shield they didn't QQ "nerf xbows".
In some Medieval periods shields were quite common but pretty rare in others.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2014, 10:03:42 pm by Angantyr »

Offline Teeth

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 2550
  • Infamy: 1057
  • cRPG Player Sir Black Bishop A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
Re: c(ounterstrike)RPG
« Reply #94 on: January 31, 2014, 10:21:03 pm »
0
In some Medieval periods shields were quite common but pretty rare in others.
Well I guess this thread has run it's course so I can derail it with a historical discussion. Wasn't it only after the development of high quality plate armour that the shield got discarded in favour of higher mobility and specialized twohanded weapons?

Offline Elindor

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1178
  • Infamy: 158
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • Caelitus mihi vires
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Order of the Holy Guard
  • Game nicks: Elindor
Re: c(ounterstrike)RPG
« Reply #95 on: January 31, 2014, 10:23:15 pm »
+1
Hmm, well as far as crossbows, I would say that their draw speed should be slowed down a bit (not to 2 shots per minute because that would be boring as shit) to compensate for the fact that "going crossbow" isn't as big of a compromise to the character's melee stats as "going archery" is.

As for archery...

1- I think a Notched State would help to make it more realistic and more balanced in terms of gameplay.
An archer could "preload" his bow and enter this Notched State but in this state he would have drastically lowered movement speed and the time to switch to other weapons would be increased as he would first have to "unload" his bow. 

2 - Reduce bow damage, that way it really does take multiple hits from archers to take someone down (the volley effect), and less Robin Hood.

There's gotta be a way to make archery fun while still being balanced.
Elindor, Archon of the Holy Guard
Holy Guard Thread :HERE
Banner Shop : HERE // Map Thread : HERE

Offline Elindor

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1178
  • Infamy: 158
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • Caelitus mihi vires
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Order of the Holy Guard
  • Game nicks: Elindor
Re: c(ounterstrike)RPG
« Reply #96 on: January 31, 2014, 10:25:25 pm »
+2
Well I guess this thread has run it's course so I can derail it with a historical discussion. Wasn't it only after the development of high quality plate armour that the shield got discarded in favour of higher mobility and specialized twohanded weapons?

You are right, when heavier armor became available (and if people could afford it) they often chose that over shields and therefore free'd themselves up to take more damaging and longer reaching weapons.
Elindor, Archon of the Holy Guard
Holy Guard Thread :HERE
Banner Shop : HERE // Map Thread : HERE

Offline Angantyr

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1134
  • Infamy: 130
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
Re: c(ounterstrike)RPG
« Reply #97 on: January 31, 2014, 10:45:56 pm »
0
Yup! But of course shieldless support infantry existed throughout.

Offline Tojo

  • Earl
  • ******
  • Renown: 490
  • Infamy: 84
  • cRPG Player
  • Long Live NA_1
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Krems, HoC, Acre, MB, HG, Beserks
  • Game nicks: _Tojo, Drew_Brees, Tijo
Re: c(ounterstrike)RPG
« Reply #98 on: January 31, 2014, 11:09:14 pm »
+1
I agree with Bagge, the problem is team balance. Im sure you have all noticed there is never an even amount of ranged or cav on each team (or anywhere close to even).

Offline Teeth

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 2550
  • Infamy: 1057
  • cRPG Player Sir Black Bishop A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
Re: c(ounterstrike)RPG
« Reply #99 on: January 31, 2014, 11:53:30 pm »
0
Yup! But of course shieldless support infantry existed throughout.
Wouldn't the same thing work the other way though to the point that calling shields pretty rare in any Medieval period is a bit of a stretch? I just have a hard time imagining the poorer soldiers taking the field without a shield. I know plate armour became fairly common eventually, evident in the late Hundred Years War and War of the Roses, but surely it didn't become that common that there were no foot soldiers who saw a shield as useful anymore.

Offline Nightmare798

  • Permanently Banned
  • **
  • Renown: 400
  • Infamy: 502
  • cRPG Player
  • Darksider on redemption
    • View Profile
Re: c(ounterstrike)RPG
« Reply #100 on: January 31, 2014, 11:56:32 pm »
0
Well I guess this thread has run it's course so I can derail it with a historical discussion. Wasn't it only after the development of high quality plate armour that the shield got discarded in favour of higher mobility and specialized twohanded weapons?

That is debatable. Soldier wearing plate armor would still carry shield, not only because it offered protection against projectiles (bodkin arrows, crossbows), but also to keep their armor in as good shape as possible. It is always better to have a hunk of wood strapped to your arm to absorb punishment, than having your expensive armour damaged, especially when it is not necessary.

And since estoc could be used in one hand with quite decent results, there was no reason to entirely forsake shields until advent of advanced firearms (like arqebuses and muskets), on which shields did not have any effect (though I think I heard someting about targes used by scots being bulletproof, but I am not sure).
Tseng: Used to the bitter taste of refusal, this only serves to reinforce his greatest life lession yet.
Cloud: And that is?
Tseng: Bitches, man.

Offline Angantyr

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1134
  • Infamy: 130
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
Re: c(ounterstrike)RPG
« Reply #101 on: February 01, 2014, 11:22:33 am »
+1
Wouldn't the same thing work the other way though to the point that calling shields pretty rare in any Medieval period is a bit of a stretch? I just have a hard time imagining the poorer soldiers taking the field without a shield. I know plate armour became fairly common eventually, evident in the late Hundred Years War and War of the Roses, but surely it didn't become that common that there were no foot soldiers who saw a shield as useful anymore.
Surely not. But it is not so easy to tell exactly to what extent. The sources are very scarce when it comes to the lower classes, numbers, role in battle and equipment, in most Medieval battles we hear only of the nobility and men-at-arms. Even in the case of peasant armies we get only the number of knights fighting/slaughtering them. So besides the archaeological record some of our best sources for equipment use is different decrees about what a militia or levy is required to muster with. In many 12th and 13th century sources shield (and kettlehat) is a minimum requirement at least in Norway and Denmark, though peasants were less well-armed in other parts of Europe. And there's plenty of support in the sources that shields were standard equipment until the 1300s.

But from the mid-1400s as you say, armor technology was at a level that you might aswell have your two hands free to wield a weapon powerful enough to wreak havoc on the opponents armor, and generally in the 15th century professional soldiers who as far as we know (again lack of sources) did most of the fighting were heavily armored; knights, men-at-arms, even non-retainers like militia, refrained from using shields (though pavises were still popular among crossbowmen and archers). But certainly a lightly armored man would bring a shield in any case, if he could wield it, logic dictates.

Sources for 15th century shield use includes illustrations in the Codex Wallerstein and the Gladiatoria Fechtbuch, and a description in the Chronique du Religieux de Saint-Denys. All of these portray staged combat, though, and the shields are used to protect against throwing lances then discarded before entering melee.