For Honor

Well, in the brush I'd give an advantage to the infantry against dispersed cavalry. In the open, the infantry are toast unless they mass. Unless the cavalry are really heavy, and they mass fort a shock charge. Which works really well unless the infantry are also very heavy, then it becomes one of those irresistible force vs. immovable object clashes... at which point lighter cavalry with ranged weapons become the best bet to try to wear them down. Or really good ranged infantry. Or maybe a rush of light infantry skirmishers preceding a heavy infantry push...

Lots of push and pull and rock/paper/scissors/lizard/spock goes into those old tactics, and what you have for men equipment, training, money, food, terrain, etc. all play pretty heavily into what you need to bring to bear on the battlefield. There's a lot more to it than just standing flat footed and butchering one another in the open, that's for sure.

 

That's what I took from that post.

 

War.

That awful business where anything can happen.

North Africa, WWII. It's a fricking desert, it never even rains there. It's so hot and dry that a pilot who lands and is soaking wet with sweat will have completely dry clothes by the time he reaches barracks.

Then a freak storm that happens every 50 years or so destroys the entire German camp, massive flood on the desert.


War.

Your army is getting their asses handed to them by English and then some schizophrenic teenage farmgirl shows up with a sword she found on a field, is suddenly the general of your entire army and conquers Orleans, annihilating the entire English army stationed there.

 

your opinion is noted, though I question your sources in general, you keep going on about how the steel is shit but aren't sourcing any references so unless somehow they weren't creating carbon steel using iron and charcoal as is referenced in the traditional crafting style of the katana then I suppose you may be correct, but in general I feel that your argument is based wholly on personal opinion rather than actual fact, your reasoning is correct in some instances, Europe was swamped with iron so much so that steel was virtually commonplace, leading to cheaper and more efficient methods of creating strong durable steels that would have certainly helped in Japan had they had the resources to research them, but given the lack of resources the fact that they came up with such a remarkable technique for creating high quality steel (yes, high quality steel, not crap steel, combining low carbon and high carbon steels is still a technique modern bladesmiths use to this day) and a fight between a knight and a samurai would be quite one sided, it would either end in an instant if the knight were incompetent or arrogant, or the knight would likely be able to shrug off the blows of the katana because he had better -armor- and the katana was never intended for facing heavy armor.

 

when when, I'm very interested to try some samurai

 

Open beta starting tomorrow. You can preload Steam.

 

FORONOR

the asoda casöma ewqt ei msa .s

"j M;

 

So I've played it.

1) Each character is fairly unique and you have to learn the moves and tendencies to play them well. They all hit at different speeds, have different style hits for light and heavy attacks in each direction and have a few special things about them. So there's definitely depth to the gameplay as its skill based with directional blocking and attacking, plus grappling, guard breaks, etc.

2) Its an easy way to expand the game by adding more characters.

3) Environments are pretty cool.

4) Gameplay modes are 1v1, 4v4, or 4v4 with a moba / hold the point type game. Not bad but I honestly feel I'll get bored with it pretty quick.

5) The overmap isn't very engaging, you get to put some earned points into the map and whoever has the most wins the square.

6) Loot is in the game. Its pretty similar to Vermintide, or even diablo, in that you get a roll at stuff at the end of a round or a campaign map to get better loot that improves your stats like damage, stamina, etc. Only item I DON"T like about it is that its no longer purely about skill, its hard to gauge the other persons build (there is no way to do that) before engaging so its a bit blind in regards to how superior or inferior someone might be. There is matchmaking, but still.

Verdict:
Gameplay: 8/10
Longevity (for me): 5/10

 

#6 sounds a bit like real life but I agree, in gameplay terms it can get pretty damn annoying.

My thing - swords do not cut plate though I understand the necessity to allow them to cut it. Because pickaxes make boring weapons?

 

So here's how the 4 v 4 meta works now. Normally it starts with all four opponents paired off in random spots, the idea is that if oyu survive you move onto the next targets. However, now everyone just runs in random directions to find their teammates and do their best to go 3 v 1 on anyone else they find, making it 100% a game of numbers. Not really exciting tbh.

 

The combat system is fun, definitely aimed for gamepad use though. It seems moderately challenging as a fighting game.

The overarching campaign and map modes seem limited, though, as is a max 8 players per map. I like it so far, but I'm not so sure about long-term interest.

 

I would be more into this game but the samurai just seem like a joke. It is as if they dont even know Japanese history or even tried to study any of it. They just see... samurai use katana... ohhh.. female samurai use naginata, running out of ideas... makes kanabo but super sized for sumo wrestler sized man because you know.. japan yoo.


Could have freaking sworn samurai are all archers and spear (Yari/Naginata) masters first and use the katana as a back up weapon.

but hay..

wtf do i know.

And where the hell is the bearzerkers bear skin.


and that assassins creed character for the knights.. LOL.. what a joke.

 

Its obviously not going for historical accuracy, they went for having 3 of the same 'types' for all sides. Generalist, defense, fast ninja.

By the way, the generalists are stroooong when used right.

 

Japanese varied up what they used depending on historic period. There was a period where they had a huge hardon for big swords like odachi and nagamaki, a period where archery was a big deal, a period where they met the west and got into musketry in a big way, and then the tokugawa shogunate where they rejected all foreign influence and tried to codify everything to a ridiculous degree and it was all katana all the time (though I also suspect that, without imports, japan's limited iron resources presented a logistic problem to manufacturing large weapons). I think this simulates that earlier period of odachi being popular for samurai and the use of yari/naganata by levees from the lower classes - and for vikings and knights to be even somewhat aligned, this would fall around the late Heian or early Kamakura era in Japanese history, which is about right... though the timeline is pretty fuzzy with the Warden knights wearing sugarloaf helms and carrying oversized Oakeshott type XIIIa swords typical of the 13 century (and the greathelm of the Conqueror being at least 12th century) versus the earlier style nasal helms, danish axes and early type X/Geibig type 4 swords used by the viking Warlord and Raiders being more typical of the 9th or 10th centuries.

But I agree the assassins creed dual dagger thing for the knights is dumb as hell and ahistorical. As is the fatso Shugoki blocking axes with his tummy (not advisable!) Watching the "Valkyrie" trying to awkwardly throw cuts one handed with a spear is also pretty painful, and a lot of her choreography is obviously lifted from Troy. FFS, just stab people with the spears! Nothing wrong with being stabby in a fight.

Poleaxe stuff for the Lawbringer looks pretty good, though, and that's often an overlooked weapon despite being in very wide use in foot combats of the mid-late medieval period.

 

I guess they do for the plebeians this game caters to


I guess I'll try this out this weekend or whatever