Fucking Bullshit. Knights were perfectly balanced and fun to

File: 1366027982129.jpg (999KB, 1360x880px) Image search: [Google]

999KB, 1360x880px

>>52573051
What's stopping knights from using guns?

Reminder that in history armoured knights and firearms coexisted for a significant amount of time. The term 'bullet proof' originally came from armoursmiths testing their wares by shooting them with guns from various distances.

The dumb meme that firearms instantly end medieval settings is a stupid lie that deserves to be forgotten.

>>52573113
it's just noobs who can't into the new meta ranting.

firearms and knights lived alongside each other for centuries, Pike and shot warfare quickly and drastically reduced the role of knights in warfare.

That will teach you to play cheesy armies like the French. Spamming knights with chivalry bonus and elant is cheap tatics anyway and only stupid noobs fall for that.

With the english you have to be clever and use terrain, but if you play your cards right you could wipe the floor with knights even when they were overpowered. Which happened in the tournaments a lot.

>>52573113
This. The real reason knights became unfavorable overtime is because guns and pikes were easy to produce on a large scale and train with, and new formation tactics were being developed to make use of them better. When a lord can turn a drove of peasants into an effective fighting-force within a few months, the need for warrior elites became increasingly less important. Of course this was still a slow process, starting in the Habsburg bordering provinces and extending to the rest of Europe over the course of a century-plus.

>>52573391
>reminder that longbow spammers are no better than knight spammers

>>52573448
>>52573113
I appreciate that you guys know your history, that's more than can be said for most /tg/ but that wasn't the purpose of the thread.

>>52573558
You forgot rule number 3 of posting on /tg/; never start a thread in which your historical inaccuracies and misunderstandings are more interesting than the intent of the thread itself.

>>52573558
>hey guys, let's pretend like history was a game with patches
>Sure Anon, but what you just pretended wasn't actually historically true
>whaaaa my historical misconceptions were corrected, better chastise those people for being off topic despite the fact that my own thread is in no way on topic.

You were wrong on /tg/. Now take your subsequent education like a man.

>>52573978
Over half of /tg/ is wrong on /tg/ over half the time. I don't know why you think we as a board have a problem with inaccuracies. We just like to shout out what we think it's true, but more than half the time we are wrong. Just look at a single armor thread, preferably one about slutty armor versus realistic armour, and tell me honestly that being wrong on /tg/ is likely to get someone educated.

That idea is laughable. I wish, I really wish, that I could believe I didn't waste all the hours I spent trying to explain to almost literal retards that fighting with tits and stomach out is never a good idea and that the people who sometimes did fight unarmored did so mostly due to lack of resources and save for rare exceptions, those who fight naked mostly do so because they live naked or near so.

But I don't kid myself pretending I go through to any of those retards. And you shouldn't either.

>>52573681
Out of curiosity, which are 1 and 2?

>>52574076
Rule Number 1: Never start a land war in Asia.
Rule Number 2: Never post a thread with a picture more interesting than the topic.

>>52574058
Yeah, but your wrongness was simple and obvious enough that it inherently derailed the thread.

>>52574058
>I don't know why you think we as a board have a problem with inaccuracies
>I've wasted hundreds of hours correcting people on tg about inaccuracies.

Gee anon, I wonder.

>>52574058

I always feel confused by people who try to justify chainmail bikinis. I like them, but there is no realistic way they work. If you use them you're basically saying 'this setting embraces aesthetic over authenticity'. Some people like that, some people don't, always makes sure you know your audience before employing things like that.

>>52573051
>My only comfort is that I know knight's will get an update soon
Isn't that exactly what people said when they started to add armour into the game? And what happened? Thousands of years of power creep, that's what, and almost everything else fell behind. Trust me, guns are gonna stay.

>>52574185
Yeah, I'm right there with you. I enjoy slutty armor, I really do. I like seeing it and I like playing characters using it when i feel it's setting appropriate, what I don't do is try to sell it as something it's not: realistic or reasonable. Well, to be frank I feel that way about almost everything fantasy related. If a plot is far fetched and stuff, I don't mind going along with it and having my character acting like all is proper and normal and following the path given with the party. But if the DM tries to say OOC that his bullshit plot is very clever, it stucks like a sideways fart to me.

To me, people trying to pass bikini armour as realistic, or reasonable, or trying to justify them, are just like DMs saying their convoluted plot full of holes is good: Lacking self awareness and not making peace with what their game/taste is all about.

>>52573273
>firearms and knights lived alongside each other for centuries

I know this is a little pedantic, but did knights (as a position within the feudal system) actually exist by the time firearm usage became widespread? Obviously cavalry itself still existed but I don't know anything about the time frame in which muskets came into being.

>>52574199
But there's no way they gonna keep powering up guns. It's would kill the melee component.

>>52574250

I can respect that stance, when it comes to bikini armor I am not looking for why it would be realistic in real life but I do want the universe itself to have internal consistency. To that end I have always preferred the "it's enchanted to hell and back" and it turns into a statement in the society of either your own magical prowess or your access to high levels magics either through skill or money

>>52574311
Yes, because plate armour was still extremely effective at stopping early firearms for a long time.
As already stated in the thread, armoured knights were phased out in favour of guns simply because gunmen were far cheaper to train and arm than a proper knight.

>>52574100
Worked out well for the Mongols

>>52574317
I dunno man, the reload time guarantees that there will always be a place for melee combat. Once an opponent gets within a yard or two of you, it's time to drop the gun and pick up a spear, that will never change.

>>52574311
Knight's were relevant as a nobility title until the early 1600s across most continental Europe. Firearms actually begin appearing as early as 1290s, but as mostly large awkward bombard canons, mortars and then, on the 1350s, handcanons begin to make an appearance and bombards evolve. They didn't start to be mass produced and used in large scale before 1450-1500 depending on which part of europe we are talking about. The rise of pike and shot warfare begins on the early 1500s and has it's height at 1600.

The nobility title falls in disuse around 1650 when many armies start reorganizing themselves and the also mercenaries become more widespread, and the lower nobility kinda becomes poor as the rise of the rich commoners from the cities begin.

that's the very rough of it, but basically: Mercenaries could afford to act like knights without lands and landed knights and the very lowest nobility couldn't anymore. Eventually the lower title of nobility becomes effectively baneret, which is a tiny baron (literally), and knight becomes an honorific for chivalric orders.

>>52574388
There's always an exception to the rule, every other land invasion of the greater Asian continent has been a complete disaster.

>>52574388
Yeah, for the most broken army of the game, with decent models that were cheap as dirt to field due to the 'nomad' ruleset.

Asian still get a massive discount for infantry when fighting within their own countries. If I can't field a zerg rush of models I don't recomend trying you luck against that.

>>52574436
The Mongols are the exception to almost every rule.

>>52574398
Guns are still gonna be OP at defending during Sieges. At least they did a good job adding the new cannons to balance it out for the attackers a bit.

>>52574484
Except the rule of cool

>>52574436

The Poles would also like to have a word with you about invading Russia

>>52574508
Dude they had flying horses, everything about them is cool.

>>52574555
Think that's what he meant. They weren't an exception to that, meaning they were cool.

>>52574459
Mongol armies are all about that high mobility, not necessarily numbers. Against Western Knight armies that speed let them decide the battlefield, using that same speed they separate the mounted knights from the rest of the army with a feint. Lure them out, then have the other Mongols spring the ambush, and unleash the mounted archers and lancers.

Now that army with no cavalry has no chance.

>>52574484
How so?

>>52574729
The entire history of Genghis Khan's mongol horde is full of achievements and events that have never happened before and have not happened since. Looking logically at their feats without knowing about he mongols, and only considering the rest of history, most historians would agree that they are impossible. But the mongols did it anyway.
Like the aforementioned land war in asia. Every other conquering empire/whatever that moves into Asia promptly faces defeat and completely falls apart. Yet the mongols managed to conquer nearly the entire continent.

File: goodbye Khwarazmia.png (69KB, 316x747px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 316x747px

>>52575023
>Genghis Khan, you can't just move cavalry through the mountains of Central Asia
>You can't just eradicate an entire Muslim dynasty

>>52575399
>Hold my fermented goat milk

>>5257539
>he did it, the absolute madman!

>>52574513
As a Pole, I'd manage without the invading Russia.