So I just saw the davinci code(movie).
In it there is a very interesting segment about templars... the crusaders. Seeing a little clip of the taking of jerusalem must have been the largest real life assault the world has ever seen. oh my god the insanity.
It made me really want to play as a heroric templar/paladin/knight...
Warrior I feel is to barbaric and simple minded in their fighting style, and assassins are cheap tricks and emo, and the new proffesion in episode 3 is a bare knuckle/martial arts fighter.
I hope that chapter 4 will have a more heroric knight archertype figure. That would be cool.
Templars, history about it, and the davinci code.
GedePod
Don Zardeone
Didn't read the book, didn't see the movie.
Crusaders were usually farmernoobs who were, in fact, pretty barbaric. In fact, the crusaders were complete (sorry for the language) dumbasses.
Their siege equipment was crap. When you see trebuchets and things like that then you might think it has the power to destroy buildings and such. Many people build modern versions of them and are able to launch huge cannonballs and such.
But the trebs used in the crusades had only one real purpose: keep enemy archers on the walls from being able to shoot.
They were just oversized slingshots that threw smalltime rocks at stuff.
Then there's the fighting among the crusaders themselves. The first waves of crusaders probably went there because the pope said so. The others just went there to steal gold, rape people, etc.
The muslims were much better fighters. They also had the home advantage.
They showed up out of nowhere on their (female) horses shot their bows while riding and killed a lot of people without getting hit.
The crusaders usually had archers on thr ground or when they had a horse, they couldn't really fire while riding, let alone fire while riding backwards X.x
Some say that the only reasons the crusaders won a few fights was because they had male horses.
The male horses were eh.. well. The muslims used female horses...
The male horses um...
Well the crusader horses wanted to eh "chase" the muslim horses for some reason. That allowed the crusaders to be faster X.x
That and the muslims had assassins.
Crusaders were usually farmernoobs who were, in fact, pretty barbaric. In fact, the crusaders were complete (sorry for the language) dumbasses.
Their siege equipment was crap. When you see trebuchets and things like that then you might think it has the power to destroy buildings and such. Many people build modern versions of them and are able to launch huge cannonballs and such.
But the trebs used in the crusades had only one real purpose: keep enemy archers on the walls from being able to shoot.
They were just oversized slingshots that threw smalltime rocks at stuff.
Then there's the fighting among the crusaders themselves. The first waves of crusaders probably went there because the pope said so. The others just went there to steal gold, rape people, etc.
The muslims were much better fighters. They also had the home advantage.
They showed up out of nowhere on their (female) horses shot their bows while riding and killed a lot of people without getting hit.
The crusaders usually had archers on thr ground or when they had a horse, they couldn't really fire while riding, let alone fire while riding backwards X.x
Some say that the only reasons the crusaders won a few fights was because they had male horses.
The male horses were eh.. well. The muslims used female horses...
The male horses um...
Well the crusader horses wanted to eh "chase" the muslim horses for some reason. That allowed the crusaders to be faster X.x
That and the muslims had assassins.
dargon
It's also a known fact that the crusaders killed more christians than muslims. They tended to pillage the smaller communities they travelled through. The church didn't have a problem with that because they got a piece of the pie 
Undivine
I am not a history buff and lack a fair bit of knowledge here (unfortunately). But I've heard that the crusaders were mostly mercinaries hired by the church. They weren't exactly the noble sort either.
Still, the noble paladin is a figure in gaming that a lot of people enjoy, so it may be something to consider. Perhaps though, they should just have noble looking warrior models and grand, holy looking armor. I mean, there are certainly enough Wammos out there to meet that kind of demand.
I don't personally understand it though.... Paladins are a bunch of goody-two-shoes.
Still, the noble paladin is a figure in gaming that a lot of people enjoy, so it may be something to consider. Perhaps though, they should just have noble looking warrior models and grand, holy looking armor. I mean, there are certainly enough Wammos out there to meet that kind of demand.
I don't personally understand it though.... Paladins are a bunch of goody-two-shoes.
Nevin
Hmm.. "Largest real life assault the world has ever seen"?
I think not. Try D-Day.
I think not. Try D-Day.
Rieselle
On the topic of near-warrior archetypes we want to see, I've always liked the "Sword Saint" sort of warrior, who doesnt wear metal armor and uses martial arts swordsmanship to kick ass.
It's a pity that asia-themed GW:F didnt gets something like that, but oh well.
It's a pity that asia-themed GW:F didnt gets something like that, but oh well.
shadowfell
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Don Zardeone
Some say that the only reasons the crusaders won a few fights was because they had male horses.
The male horses were eh.. well. The muslims used female horses... The male horses um... Well the crusader horses wanted to eh "chase" the muslim horses for some reason. That allowed the crusaders to be faster X.x |
Thank you for the history lesson, Dr. Ruth.