Nerf the Academy

[De-Legro]

A full Plate armour (the ones knights wore) was developed at the end of 14th century and peaked around 15-16 centuries.

Before that people wore chainmails and partial plates but monglian arrows could penetrate chainmails so they wore plate armours on top of chainmails.

Funny thing is crossbows were banned by the church because it was too cowardly. England used it however. That must made them cowards but who cares when you can win a war.

England was famous for the LONG BOW. The French made heavy use of crossbows, as they required relatively little training to become proficient in. For instance in the battle of Crécy 1346 the French were said to have 20,000 crossbow men. Edward the III army was equipped with long bows.

Full plate armour was still used by cavalry units well into the 17th and 18th century. Like I said only the advent of rifled firearms saw the death of high quality full plate armour. Common infantry abandoned plate mail early, since they relied on mass produced armour of a lower quality.

[Zakilevo]

WTF was I reading? MY book is !@#$ing retarded. So longbows were still working fine against knights? It must have been sad days for French knights. Dying before reaching their targets.

[De-Legro]

WTF was I reading? MY book is !@#$ing retarded. So longbows were still working fine against knights? It must have been sad days for French knights. Dying before reaching their targets.

Long bows generate less kinetic energy, but have a higher rate of fire. One of the big problems with long bows and other hand bows in comparison to the crossbow was training time. It took years to become proficient with the long bow, a solider could be trained in the use a crossbow in 1 week. The Long Bow was unlikely to penetrate high quality steel armour unless at very close range. It was effective against the lesser quality armour of standard infantry.

Against French Calvary the English used volley shots, so thousands of arrows in volleys against the enemy. This allowed a reasonable chance for some arrows to pierce weak joints etc in the armour, but more importantly it brought down the knights horses in droves.

[Jens Namtrah]

Also, "plate mail" went through a lot of developmental stages. Earliest forms - usually called "plate armor", if my vague recollection of something I read once is accurate - were extremely heavy, very limited mobility, if you fell down you might very well not be able to climb to your feet. Got better progressively.

So can't really make generalizations - good to keep that in mind and clarify what you are describing as best you can.

[De-Legro]

Also, "plate mail" went through a lot of developmental stages. Earliest forms - usually called "plate armor", if my vague recollection of something I read once is accurate - were extremely heavy, very limited mobility, if you fell down you might very well not be able to climb to your feet. Got better progressively.

So can't really make generalizations - good to keep that in mind and clarify what you are describing as best you can.

They were never quite that unwieldy, much like the myth about knights needing special platforms to  mount their horses. But certainly as steel smiting techniques improved they were able to gain equivalent protection with thinner steel, and they improved the joint mobility as well. This was offset a bit by needing to increase the level of protection as things like crossbows became more powerful.

[Solari]

Long bows generate less kinetic energy, but have a higher rate of fire. One of the big problems with long bows and other hand bows in comparison to the crossbow was training time. It took years to become proficient with the long bow, a solider could be trained in the use a crossbow in 1 week. The Long Bow was unlikely to penetrate high quality steel armour unless at very close range. It was effective against the lesser quality armour of standard infantry.

As someone who has hunted with both a traditional recurve, compound, and crossbow, I can agree.  Crossbows are stupid easy to use (and really fun).

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Crossbows have the advantage of a stable base, easier sights (Although that could be due to familiarity with firearm sights), less strength required to maintain tension, etc. Which basically equalled less skill. Oh hey, ain't that why the crossbow replaced the traditional bows by sometime in the Medieval period. And then came the firearms which just opened a whole new game to the field. Wait...let me try that again...

[Chenier]

Crossbows have the advantage of a stable base, easier sights (Although that could be due to familiarity with firearm sights), less strength required to maintain tension, etc. Which basically equalled less skill. Oh hey, ain't that why the crossbow replaced the traditional bows by sometime in the Medieval period. And then came the firearms which just opened a whole new game to the field. Wait...let me try that again...

Looking down a sight is indeed pretty damn easy. All you have to do is train a bit to gage projectile drop.

When I went out target shooting with my shotgun for the first time, I thought I'd miss and it was obvious my grandpa wasn't convinced I'd hit it on the first shots (at least, didn't look like it). Didn't miss a single shot, and I really can't understand what would be so difficult about it if you grasp the concept of the iron sights. Just line 'em up. Hell, I hit my first shots while closing the wrong eye! That did give me a good kick on the nose, though. XD

The only "difficulty" is getting enough pellets precisely where you want them, but that's just random once you know what the scatter is like. Crossbows, using the same sights, should be the same I would expect. Bows, on the other hand, require much more skill.

Easy to train people to use them, and devastating penetration power. No wonder people switched to crossbows despite the church being against it, and then to firearms as soon as it was possible.

[De-Legro]

Looking down a sight is indeed pretty damn easy. All you have to do is train a bit to gage projectile drop.

When I went out target shooting with my shotgun for the first time, I thought I'd miss and it was obvious my grandpa wasn't convinced I'd hit it on the first shots (at least, didn't look like it). Didn't miss a single shot, and I really can't understand what would be so difficult about it if you grasp the concept of the iron sights. Just line 'em up. Hell, I hit my first shots while closing the wrong eye! That did give me a good kick on the nose, though. XD

The only "difficulty" is getting enough pellets precisely where you want them, but that's just random once you know what the scatter is like. Crossbows, using the same sights, should be the same I would expect. Bows, on the other hand, require much more skill.

Easy to train people to use them, and devastating penetration power. No wonder people switched to crossbows despite the church being against it, and then to firearms as soon as it was possible.

And a great example of just how weak a Church Edict was if the bulk of the nobility decided to ignore it.

[Chenier]

And a great example of just how weak a Church Edict was if the bulk of the nobility decided to ignore it.

Haha, indeed.

Did the church oppose the firearms when they came? Or did they learn their lessons from opposing the crossbows? Or had they just gotten used to it by then?

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Can't stop technology...?

[Chenier]

Can't stop technology...?

But you can try.

[pcw27]

Sorry if this has been brought up already.

The problem as I see it is real medieval nobles didn't have to travel all the way to the nearest city to get a good training session in. They'd have private instructors and sparing partners as part of their entourage. We don't role-play the expenses of scribes and other servants, we just assume they're negligible compared to the wealth of a noble or that they're serfs anyway.

I can see how the academy might have "the best swordsmen in the lands" to get a noble the best training money can buy, but it should be possible to gain something by training with your personal instructor as well.

I think a minor skill boost when you train with your men is a great idea. That way people can improve their sword fighting and jousting skills without having to mill around a city for months on end.

Also why don't they ad an archery skill?

[Lorgan]

Sorry if this has been brought up already.

The problem as I see it is real medieval nobles didn't have to travel all the way to the nearest city to get a good training session in. They'd have private instructors and sparing partners as part of their entourage. We don't role-play the expenses of scribes and other servants, we just assume they're negligible compared to the wealth of a noble or that they're serfs anyway.

Hm, what about academies providing paraphernalia in the form of personal instructors rather than just training? They'd of course be expensive to maintain but it wouldn't lock people who want to train to the cities anymore. So it'd be more realistic and more fun.

[egamma]

Hm, what about academies providing paraphernalia in the form of personal instructors rather than just training? They'd of course be expensive to maintain but it wouldn't lock people who want to train to the cities anymore. So it'd be more realistic and more fun.

...and nobles with hours left over (in excess of the 4 they get to roll over) will be automatically have those hours used with the trainer.