Posts from . Auto-translated

Well, who would have thought. (NOT Locu)

Even rifles used for hunting bears are more powerful, and crossbows, which are not as effective as rifles, should definitely be powerful.

But that's not necessarily true. A crossbow bolt may not fly as fast as a bullet, but it will be heavier, and this parameter is important when hunting large animals.

Don't forget about the rain that the Sky scatters.

I’m not scattering anything.

Why delve into the depths of nonsense?

What does nonsense have to do with it?
Elves differ greatly among different authors. They can be immortal, or they can live "only" a couple of hundred years. They may despise all other races and haughtily call humans Dh'oine, or they may live with them in friendship and harmony. They can be the best archers or master blacksmiths.
That is why, in order to conduct an argument, it is necessary to determine the image of the elf.

As for humans. The physical capabilities of humans did not change during the Middle Ages. Technological development was slow and steady: when they invented new armor, they looked for the weapon that was most effective against it. In response to the emergence of new weapons, methods of countering it were invented.

The French troops of the Hundred Years' War, closer to the beginning, are considered the most canonical. And there is much more evidence from that time than from the period preceding the Crusades. Let them be the ones from now on.

Why are archers needed if they are useless? Did everyone want to show off with ranged troops? Which, by the way, cost much more than ten cows to train.

If knights crush spearmen, sweep away any shield walls, crush archers (with crossbows, lol), and don't even pay attention to peasants... then why are the other troops needed at all? Some kind of tactical maneuvers, skilled formations, well-placed archers? Why bother?

Why are they useless? An arrow from a short bow kills or wounds an unarmored warrior from a considerable distance. Against armored warriors, it is less effective, yes, but it still has an effect if you aim for vulnerable spots, get closer, or simply overwhelm with numbers - one arrow that passes through chainmail wounds, ten can kill. An arrow from a composite or long bow, as well as a crossbow bolt, is more lethal; it is easier for them to deal with a protected opponent.

I am not aware of the cost of training archers.

Yes, cavalry crushes infantry, but how far can they run across the battlefield? Knights can crush one, two, maybe even three squads... and get bogged down in the battle, losing a significant portion of their advantages. Knights went to war to win. They sought money, land, and power, not death on the battlefield. Let the archers and crossbowmen exchange projectiles first, let the infantry clash, which is often cannon fodder, and when the decisive moment finally arrives, a single accurate strike from heavy cavalry will put an end to the battle.

That being said, Veggie. The argument is inherently absurd. No one said that "Middle-earth elves will be on par with those knights from The Witcher," it's a collective image of elves and knights (in other words, everyone imagines them as they know them).

Everything is relative.

You have gathered too many good traits for the Elven faction and too many bad traits for the Knight faction.

The poll will close in 2013... Should I vote before it's too late?

Just make the right choice!

It's complicated... there are so many white squares here... and which one can I click?:smile32:

it can be done in several ways.

The argument was pointless from the start.

Hooray. You finally understood!

No matter how silly it may seem, thank you very much for participating.

It was a matter of honor >:3

masters at making a mountain out of a molehill and turning a trivial argument into a serious one, wasting time on it.