first

[Tavuk_Bey]

anyone tried this dlc?

[Mr. Hannibal]

No

Atleast none of the GK's anyway...

[CrazyCracka420]

Unfortunately a lot of hospitallers got sucked in. 

I never was a fan of mount and musket...I got warband specifically for the medieval combat system...not to stand in a row as meat shields and shoot primitive firearms at people.

The American's won the revolutionary war largely because they didn't play dat shit when it came to "gentlemanly" conduct.  Having a large group firing from one position is good for offense.  Having all of your people bunched up in a ball makes hitting targets very easy for the enemy however (just aim for the center).  Guerilla tactics FTW...history can teach you stuff.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


Honor gets you killed.  "Once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision. In war there is no substitute for victory." - General Douglas MacArthur.

[chadz]

It's like doing a shieldwall... without the shields

[B3RS3RK]

It's like doing a shieldwall... without the shields

Yeah and the worst thing is: the engagement in melee is even more prolonged than with a shieldwall

[Tomas_of_Miles]

No

Atleast none of the GK's anyway...

Wrong.

I've seen a couple of your lot on.

Not a bad game, I've taken a break from cRPG and I play this because the whole pressure of upkeep and playing for a multiplier is a breath of fresh air tbh. Also being a sapper is fun, it's like using construction stuff in cRPG except a little bit more polished, team-oriented, and generally accepted by the community as a supporting role in the game.

[Sarpton]

Its just the melee combat is just SOOOO slow.  Granted the vast majority have no idea what to do with a chamber lol.

[Knute]

I never tried out MM but NW is super fun, so many memorable moments in just a few days and servers have 200+ people all the time.  The kinks are still being worked out but it's got tons of potential.  I'm going to make a boat vs boat sea battle map and a siege map where you have to take small boats to assault a harbour fort.

Any other NA 104th people playing after 10pm PST?  I ran into, or I should say "ran through" another 104th the other night but that's the only one I've seen so far.  I'm going to be playing this a lot and want to stand in line and be told what to do! 

The American's won the revolutionary war largely because they didn't play dat shit when it came to "gentlemanly" conduct.  Having a large group firing from one position is good for offense.  Having all of your people bunched up in a ball makes hitting targets very easy for the enemy however (just aim for the center).  Guerilla tactics FTW...history can teach you stuff.

There's actually a thread somewhere on the taleworlds forum where people were complaining about the spread out command on the commander mode and wanted it taken out or limited, reminded me of this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Riflemen_at_Saratoga.jpg 

[ManOfWar]

is it worth the money?

[CrazyCracka420]

knute that's specifically what I was talking about.  Funny how one armies idea of "warfare" was to stand on the open ground waiting for the enemy to form up into ranks so they could volley at each other.   And when the other army decides to hit and run from the forest the only thing you can do is either A) form some sort of counter-tactic or B) talk shit about how dishonorable the enemy is. 

[Loar Avel]

For now? yes, comletely, definitively.

Siege with destructive wall are fun, commander battle too (a little slow although), and conquest also.

knute that's specifically what I was talking about.  Funny how one armies idea of "warfare" was to stand on the open ground waiting for the enemy to form up into ranks so they could volley at each other.   And when the other army decides to hit and run from the forest the only thing you can do is either A) form some sort of counter-tactic or B) talk shit about how dishonorable the enemy is. 

It's not only about Warfare, it's also about saying 'hey man, I got balls so big that I have difficulty to walk',  beside, forming rank is also one of the best tactic for not being rape by cavalry.

[BlindGuy]

The American's won the revolutionary war largely because they didn't play dat shit when it came to "gentlemanly" conduct.  Having a large group firing from one position is good for offense.  Having all of your people bunched up in a ball makes hitting targets very easy for the enemy however (just aim for the center).  Guerilla tactics FTW...history can teach you stuff.

Erm, hate to break this to you, but the North American's of the 13 colonies won their revolution because England didn't oppose them. The king at time was insane (EDIT: I mean, he was INSANE, he had no connection with reality whatsoever and was dieing of syphylis), his cabinet was in disarray, and no serious attempt was made to supress the revolution. I'm not English, or British, this isn't propaganda of any sort, but you really should do some research before swallowing the shit you were taught in school. I was in the US for a short period and what the education system tried to teach me shocked me with its vast distance from any fact or reality.

[CrazyCracka420]

For cavalry defense, sure.  It's also the easiest way to get gunned down from one volley from the enemy.  For cavalry defense having static defensive items like long pointy sticks or spikes in the ground is good.  Also being on terrain that isn't suited for cavalry is also a good tactic.

Once gunpowder was heavily used by armies, forming into large masses (aka a large target) for the enemy was one of the dumbest things that armies conformed to (IMO).  Maybe that's an argument for the historical discussion sub-section.

[Lemmy_Winks]

The Americans won the revolutionary war because it cost a lot of money, was unpopular in England, a large portion of the English army was surronded and was going to be captured (being captured usually meant dieing in a prison camp, which were worse than chocolate chip cookie concentration camps) or killed if England didnt make peace, and most of all because France and Spain were making plans to invade Great Britian and conquer the whole country.

Not that any of this has anything to do with the game, but ya you dont have to stand in lines and fight in the game its a FPS you run around and do whatever you want. And cavalry in the game is easy to defend against everyone has a gun/spear and cav inst strong to begin with, cav really isnt a threat. Its interesting though they make their rifle cav stop to reload but xbow cav in crpg can run around and reload at the same time.

[Loar Avel]

For cavalry defense, sure.  It's also the easiest way to get gunned down from one volley from the enemy.  For cavalry defense having static defensive items like long pointy sticks or spikes in the ground is good.  Also being on terrain that isn't suited for cavalry is also a good tactic.

Terrain not suited for cavalry? In Eu where we've cut down forest for the wood? ^^       Beside, static defensive items need to be set before the battle, and even if they're set, you're troupe will hide behind them and if you want most of you're troup to shoot... They have to form rank.

Once gunpowder was heavily used by armies, forming into large masses (aka a large target) for the enemy was one of the dumbest things that armies conformed to (IMO).  Maybe that's an argument for the historical discussion sub-section.

We used these kind of tactic until WW1 (and with shinning uniform, so it was a shinning large mass  ) and the invention of the machine gun, so most of the general (even the American one, during the Civil War) must have think that gunpowder weren't That effective, and made an expensive use of the bayonet, cavalry (with saber, and lance...)