 |
| |
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DrSpike
I *really* hope you are playing devil's advocate there. Otherwise I'm going to have to smack you around the head with a large stick.  |
Some games dont teach anything. Thats KEWL. Some games teach you how to fly a cessna to the point where you almost really could (MS flight sim x). Some games teach you that having regiments support each other and having a well anchored flank was the essence of civil war combat (Sid Meiers Gettysburg). Some games teach you that logistics is essential to win wars (AH's Afrika Korps, etc). Some games teach you the actualy events of a period in history (EU2, etc)
Civ2, though great as an abstract game, taught you something NO OTHER GAME taught you. Its something you COULD learn from books, though many civ players probably never read those books. And you may not believe it in a book, when you havent played it out yourself. Its the lesson of Jared Diamonds Guns Germs and Steel. Its that WHICH civs thrive, and what their character evolves into, is largely determined by their geography, and NOT AT ALL by any essential racial charecteristics. Geography is destiny. No other game can teach it, cause you can ONLY teach it if you start at the beginning of civilization, and you run up to modern times. RTS like Empire Earth and RON dont cause they are, well, RTS where civ specific attributes fit their history lite approach. Only Civ teaches this.
The concession to civ specific traits where it didnt fit (SMAC is TOTALLY different) is, well, a concession to CASUAL GAMING - IE gaming that doesnt take the core issues of the game seriously.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
child of Thor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tuberski
Because chainmail is full of holes that an arrow can go through, whereas plate metal has to be punched through.
 ACK! |
 [I was just trying(unsuccesfully) to bait Dr.Spike ]
well.......i've shot arrows into chainmail and plate armour(look....ok i've done some weird stuff in my time).
Chainmail was most often used over another softer type of armour/padding. As it was flexible it would move against the skin in a very abbrasive way, unlike the majority of a suit of plate armour; where you would get the most discomfort(and padding) at the joins.
Plate Armour is also much heavier than Chainmail, so you would try to keep the weight to a minimum - so not as much extra under armour.
Anyway in the tests i've done, using a 60lb bow - Chainmail did provide more protection to the 'meat'(some pork) underneath, with the peircing action of the arrow - the mail would give a little, bend inwards but keep most of the arrow out of the meat.
With plate, as long as you have a heavy enough poundage(and 60lbs was enough) - the arrow simply punches through and goes into the meat, rather than just nicking the surface.
With a sword i found that Plate is much the better armour with a hacking motion, it's pretty much impenetrable. With Chain you may not cut through many of the metal links, but underneath the meat received more damage.
So in those tests - chainmail is better at protecting from peircing blows, Plate armour better at hacking blows.
he he - i was like that 'spoof' dnd video clip that was doing the rounds  - ah the weirdness of youth
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
Civ2, though great as an abstract game, taught you something NO OTHER GAME taught you. Its something you COULD learn from books, though many civ players probably never read those books. And you may not believe it in a book, when you havent played it out yourself. Its the lesson of Jared Diamonds Guns Germs and Steel. Its that WHICH civs thrive, and what their character evolves into, is largely determined by their geography, and NOT AT ALL by any essential racial charecteristics. Geography is destiny. |
But Civ2 did have racial characteristics, albeit on a lesser level. Look in the rules.txt file, and you will see settings for the AI for the civs such as "aggressive," "militaristic," "civilized," etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tuberski
|
 |
ACK!!! PTHBBPPPTTT!!!!
Feb 2002
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by child of Thor
[I was just trying(unsuccesfully) to bait Dr.Spike ]
well.......i've shot arrows into chainmail and plate armour(look....ok i've done some weird stuff in my time).
Chainmail was most often used over another softer type of armour/padding. As it was flexible it would move against the skin in a very abbrasive way, unlike the majority of a suit of plate armour; where you would get the most discomfort(and padding) at the joins.
Plate Armour is also much heavier than Chainmail, so you would try to keep the weight to a minimum - so not as much extra under armour.
Anyway in the tests i've done, using a 60lb bow - Chainmail did provide more protection to the 'meat'(some pork) underneath, with the peircing action of the arrow - the mail would give a little, bend inwards but keep most of the arrow out of the meat.
With plate, as long as you have a heavy enough poundage(and 60lbs was enough) - the arrow simply punches through and goes into the meat, rather than just nicking the surface.
With a sword i found that Plate is much the better armour with a hacking motion, it's pretty much impenetrable. With Chain you may not cut through many of the metal links, but underneath the meat received more damage.
So in those tests - chainmail is better at protecting from peircing blows, Plate armour better at hacking blows.
he he - i was like that 'spoof' dnd video clip that was doing the rounds - ah the weirdness of youth |
And to think my experiments when I was young involved pouring salt on slugs........
ACK!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DrSpike
* DrSpike gets out big stick.
Yes you're right - it's a great book that I used to make my students read. And wrong, of course. The introduction of civ traits adds flavour, variety and strategic depth to the game. Sure traits develop over time, but that isn't the point here. It's a game, with many abstractions.
LOTM - all games have abstractions. Some abstractions are acceptable, some are not. The existence of some abstractions doesnt automatically entail or justify others.
As pointed out earlier, why care about realism on this point when the civs that are in the game were not all civs or potential civs in 4000BC anyway?
LOTM -Short answer - cause this aint Fertile Crescent Universalis. The point is NOT to display actual history, but to show how things would turn out in any earth like set up. (long answer would get to how listed civs existed as such in 4000BC, etc)
Traits that fit standard ideas of the civs make sense from a practical viewpoint, and even teach something about actual traits that the civ may have developed given their actual geographical surroundings.
LOTM - All it shows is that said civs HAD those traits, not how they got them. It does nothing to correct the notion that those traits are innate.
It's a classic example of a context where otherwise correct historical arguments are just dumb. Strategic depth is the appropriate goal.
LOTM - strategic depth is one goal among several.
Ergo, traits good, pedantic historians bad. |
LOTM - I take it you didnt enter gaming from board wargaming, did you?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:29
|
|
I thought plate mail was worn over chainmail, so plate couldn't be worse than chain. The weight of plate mail didn't matter that much as it was mostly mounted armor, so the horse carried most of the weight (well, the man did, but since he didn't have to stand, that was easier on him).
quote:
KOTOR 1 & 2 are superb |
Errr; Not for me. The underlying D&D system makes Kotor of little appeal to me. I uninstalled it before finishing the game mostly because I felt that there was very little in terms of variety provided to the main character. All choices are far too similar, and solving main quests was mostly done the same way no matter what...
Personally, I definitely won't buy any other game based on D&D because I think this system is bad.
There are better class-based systems out there, and classless systems too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
child of Thor
|
|
@LDiCesare and Grumbold, well the tests i did were based on what i'd been told in p+p rpg's, and through some live role-play events i had access to try this out.
By the mid to late medieval period, Armour had become very sophisticated. It seems some of the very heavy plate armour was designed for combat on horse-back only though. For example King Henry VIII would have to be hoisted into his saddle with winches and pulleys because of the weight of one of his plate suits(and maybe because he was pretty un-weildy himself?). This may have been more of a rarity than the norm though(after all he was a King and could afford very expensive armour?).
Foot-knights did indeed have plate armour that they fought in on foot. The Romans are desribed as having banded armour, but it could weigh as much as some medieval plate. And all sorts of armour combination was used in the past, the japanese laqured armour was interesting
And as an addition to the Civ+realism debate, i'd always wished i could play a game of Civ with either 1year=1turn all the way through, or have that each turn turned into a seasonal year(summer/winter), with maybe each game turn= to one of the seasons. Ok we're looking at 12,000 turn game(or more  ), but so what? If it takes me years to play the game then i'll be more than happy.
For me its the taking part bit i'm interested in(especialy in a game as cool as Civ!), the winning is nice but not essential.
Last edited by child of Thor on 08-02-2005 at 19:03
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
31-01-2005 17:20
? 
|