Posts from . Auto-translated

For me, Knights have always been and will always be real people. But as for the elven archers with overpowered skills, like summoning Ents, super bows that pierce tanks, and an endless supply of mana – unfortunately, that's nonsense.

Elves were only considered as skilled archer-partisan units. You came up with the idea of Ents and other stuff yourself.

At least I'm a Knight, and who are you?

Mold. K.O.

Do you like a traitor and a parricide?

This is more likely said to provoke Lord. Mordred is one of the prototypes of the "dark knights." I mostly like him because of the way he killed Arthur in this

In another version, Arthur, consumed by passion for Morgana, takes her by force.

version.

Mordred is not cute.

Here I am. So, elves. Which elves are you referring to? Specify the source: perhaps the Elder Edda? The Silmarillion? Dungeons & Dragons? Or your own interpretation? Even if you answer, "I MEANT THE CANONICAL ELVES," still provide the most suitable example or examples of similar elves. Without providing an example, discussing elves that exist only in your imagination is pointless. Now, about mounted knights with crossbows. Why not? It's quite possible. However, such a concept was likely not widespread. Knights are heavy cavalry, and their functions differ significantly from those of support troops, such as archers and crossbowmen. A crossbow isn't particularly useful for them. Although, if desired, a squire could follow the knight, ready to hand him a crossbow if he wishes to shoot, and the squire himself could use it if necessary. Lord mentioned that knights were required to be proficient with a crossbow. Again, this is quite plausible. But they likely used it more for hunting than for military purposes. Reloading a crossbow while mounted. The crossbow with a crank mechanism that you provided as an example of a medium-sized one is actually one of the heavy siege crossbows. These were rarely used by field armies, only by besieging forces or the garrison defending against them. Crossbows came in many varieties, including small hunting crossbows that could be reloaded without mechanisms, using bare hands. However, such crossbows offer relatively few advantages over bows. But they can be easily used by a mounted knight. I've come across information stating that there were special hooks attached to either the saddle or the stirrups, which could be used to hook the crossbow for reloading. I don't deny the possibility of this, but I doubt its convenience while the horse is moving. Back to knights. After some thought, I've concluded that I exaggerated the effectiveness of a formation of peasants with spears. No, they wouldn't kill twenty mounted knights in that scenario. Twenty horses and/or knights suffering varying degrees of injury seems more realistic.

Does a thin chainmail turn deadly wounds into minor ones? Does a car protect you from a concrete slab falling from a couple of stories up?

At the very least, it dissipates the energy of the arrow. Why, then, make and wear chainmail, which costs ten cows, requires significant time to create, and adds ten kilograms of weight? If we look at historical sources, King Harald Hardrada was killed by an arrow that hit his throat in 1066 at the Battle of Stamford Bridge. In the same year, at the Battle of Hastings, an arrow hit King Harold Godwinson in the eye, but the accuracy of this information is still debated, and the Bayeux Tapestry continues to spark controversy – under the inscription "Harold is killed," two men are depicted: one with an arrow in his eye, the other struck down by a knight. The throat and eye, of course, were not protected before the advent of steel gorgets and tophelms.

A crowd of horses tramples the peasants and... encounters a wall of trained soldiers, shields and spears, nothing more.

Shields and spears? That's laughable. Polearms capable of effectively countering cavalry must be at least two to three meters long. Try using one effectively with one hand. And look at the image you provided in post 197: the warriors in the first row hold shields and one-handed weapons. Spears and pikes are in the hands of the warriors in the second and third rows. Trained soldiers, huh. The most trained and effective infantry were either townspeople or mercenaries. Townspeople participated in battles either in the event of a major war or when their city was directly threatened. Yes, such men are much harder for knights to defeat. Other troops should come to their aid. And a change in tactics wouldn't hurt.

So, elves. Which elves are you referring to? Name your source: perhaps the Elder Edda? The Silmarillion? Dungeons & Dragons? Or your own creation?
Even if you answer "I MEANT THE CANONICAL ELVES," still provide the most suitable example, or even examples, of similar elves.
Without providing an example, arguing about elves that only exist in your head is pointless.

Why delve into such nonsense?
And which knights did you have in mind??? The Battle of the Ice? The Pelennor Fields? The Crusades and other such nonsense?
In a PvP match, my level 90 elf will crush your knight from Age of Empires with just two spells!

Then, about mounted knights with crossbows. Why not? It's quite possible. Only, such a variant was unlikely to be widespread. Knights are heavy cavalry; their functions are very different from those of support troops, that is, archers and crossbowmen. They don't really need a crossbow. Although, if desired, a squire could follow the knight, ready to hand him a crossbow if he wishes to shoot, just as the squire himself could use it if necessary.

You asked the question, you answered it.

Lord mentioned that knights were required to be proficient with a crossbow. Again, this is quite possible. But they most likely used it more for hunting than for military purposes.

"Proficient"? But any peasant can handle it, so what's the point of them being proficient? To carry it around for show, of course, why not? It looks stylish. To use it on horseback in armor? For hunting? Hunting in armor...? Any of the "crossbow + horse" options doesn't really go with heavy armor; it's only suitable for shooting wild boars on a hunt or showing off to the ladies.

Reloading a crossbow while mounted. The crossbow with the crank mechanism that you provided as an example of a medium one actually belongs to the category of heavy siege crossbows. These were rarely used by field armies, only by besieging forces or the garrison defending against them.

Well, how should we call those Chinese things mentioned two paragraphs above? Super-heavy? Yes, you probably wouldn't carry that around. But the one I mentioned is just right.

Let the knight take a small crossbow, demonstrate extraordinary skill, load it, aim, and fire. WHY THE HELL?
You might as well load catapults with dogs, right? The dogs will fly and bite the enemy, and half of them will end up as a bloody mess. Demoralizing!

At a minimum, it absorbs the energy of the arrow. So why make and wear chainmail, which costs ten cows, which requires a lot of time to make, and adds ten kilograms of weight?

Then why do you need archers if they're useless? Did everyone just want to show off with ranged troops? Which, by the way, cost much more than ten cows to train.

If knights crush spearmen, break through any shield walls, crush archers (with a crossbow, lol), and don't even pay attention to peasants... then why do you need any other troops at all? What about tactical maneuvers, skillful formations, and well-placed archers? Why bother?

Sivvi, could you please elaborate? Otherwise, it sounds like "you're an idiot, and I've decided that."

You're an idiot, that's my decision.

You're an idiot, that's my decision.
__________________
-You're very smart.

I read it like this at first.

That’s exactly why I reduced your Battle Rating back then, in those distant times; it looked like “revenge.”

That's exactly why I lowered your Battle Rating back then, in those distant times; it looked like "revenge."

What? Are you talking to me?

Yes, but that's not the main point.


A modern crossbow, also almost a siege weapon, right? Or are you saying that a "medium" crossbow was the size of a P90 from Counter-Strike?

If he really did kill a bear with it, then he must have chosen a larger and more powerful model, right? It would be better to remind me about the database, because I forget about all the changes as soon as they stop being displayed in the control panel. Well, except for one, I'll probably remember that one forever.

I don't think so; you're overestimating bears. You sent me a rather angry message back then, calling me a terrible reposter, a jerk, and basically just another idiot who can't handle constructive criticism. But if you don't remember, then it doesn't matter.

I don't think so; you're overestimating bears.

Even for bears, people use more powerful rifles, and crossbows, which are far less effective than rifles, must be very powerful.

You sent me an angry message back then, calling me a vile re-poster, a jerk, and just another idiot who can't accept constructive criticism. But if you don't remember, that's not important.

Oh, well, nothing surprising that I don't remember; I've written similar things to many people :P

siege
palisade
ambush
look, I have a siege crossbow in my hands! Is this what you mean by a siege sword! You can use it to besiege fortresses!
yo, we heard you like sieging, so we put a siege crossbow in a siege crossbow, so you can siege while you're sieging!
a siege crossbow is nothing, I have siege knives, poisoned with siege venom, they pierce any wall, they fly a hundred cubits! They pierce any set of protective armor! They also pierce attacking armor! I put on my combat gloves with silver cones, take my combat weapon for battle, and go into battle! My combat weapon is very convenient for fighting, and besides, it can be used for sieges, because my combat weapon is quite a siege weapon.
combat armor cannot cope with non-combat weapons, because it is designed for combat, not for non-combat, however, non-combat armor can be pierced by non-combat weapons, just as siege combat machines pierce a siege defensive-combat wall!
if I come to a siege, I know for sure that my combat weapon has nothing to do here, I put my combat sword in a combat scabbard on my back, and take out a siege sword from a siege scabbard on my belt, because this will help me besiege the besieged fortress! I am a master tactician in the art of tactics and tactical maneuvers on the tactical battlefield, using tactical combat units of military-combat units of siege brigades, trained to besiege!
why does the princess want you to besiege a siege fortress? because she wants to see how much of a siege person you are! And to understand how much of a combat person I am, do I need to besiege something? No, you idiot, you need to participate in a battle in combat armor and with combat weapons, so you can leave the siege armor and siege weapons at the siege depot, on the rack with siege weapons! Can I at least take a siege crossbow? No, take a combat one!
fighters fight in battle with combat equipment, non-fighters fight in non-battle with non-combat weapons, siege personnel besiege sieges with siege equipment and in siege tunics!
oh, mommy, I have sieges in my pants! Shut up and drink, you little bastard, and be grateful that you don't have combat in there!