Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

I want KNIGHTS!

LizardKnightLizardKnight Senior MemberRegistered Users Posts: 175
edited November 2017 in General Discussion
I don't want just mini ATTILA 3 total war with only fish and chips island as the location theme. I want KNIGHTS!

I have been waiting for a long time and I want Knights to be in the game atleast later. Unlocked or progression tech for late game I don't care they need to be in.

Think of it I will be the king. I'm like a guy from the future in the game right? So why can't I just put all researching and development funds into rushing knights early? It's just not fun without Knights and we already had Attila which is essentially the same as this theme and atmosphere. It's getting old cmon.

I want KNIGHTS of the round table and Excalibur in some proto-historic option(so not to trigger history die hards or whatever).

Truth is I am not the only one who wants knight everyone likes them plus we havn't had them for a long time like let's go.
«134

Comments

  • saberslash117saberslash117 Registered Users Posts: 223
    There weren't even dedicated mounted cavalry in Britiannia, much less Knights my dude.....
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 12,916

    There weren't even dedicated mounted cavalry in Britiannia, much less Knights my dude.....

    The OP is mentioning Medieval 3!
    I believe its the most requested game most people are looking forward to.
  • Axelrad77Axelrad77 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 633
    edited November 2017
    Knights weren't introduced to the British Isles until the Norman Invasion, which is out of the timespan of the campaign (unless they surprise me and include it as an end-game event or something, but even then that would be an antagonistic invasion.) The factions that are included weren't exactly known for heavy cavalry.

    But on the bright side for your knight cravings, if Thrones of Britannia gets a campaign pack, it's probably going to be the Norman Invasion. And that will definitely have knights.
  • LizardKnightLizardKnight Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 175
    edited November 2017

    There weren't even dedicated mounted cavalry in Britiannia, much less Knights my dude.....

    Neither was I in "Britannia"(aka toturial island place). Yet here I am going to be the king of that island soon. Why can't I force reforms to pave the way for proper plate armor to be produced early?

    This is the same story as in ck2 where I can't force my character to reproduce even when I am supposedly pulling the strings. I want to be able to innovate in the game if I am to be king. I will destroy the water bandits with MUH KNIGHTS!

    If I am gonna be some King I demand control along with it. Giving someone the title of "KING" yet not letting him decide the fate of his kingdom? Ludicrous!
  • EdhwenEdhwen Registered Users Posts: 410
    edited November 2017
    Even plate armour??!!! This armour was developed in Europe in late medieval era.
    You want something not really historic... Like king Arthur and Excalibur.
  • AdamYahyaAdamYahya Senior Member Kuala LumpurRegistered Users Posts: 3,318
    If you wants knights, you can play Warhammer. Brettonia have loads of knights.
  • KrilralKrilral Member Registered Users Posts: 910
    Plate armored knights are an entirely different era. By that logic, because I am "from the future", I might as well just magically speed up my research and introduce the main battle tank in 878.

    Really, it just sounds like you (the OP) want a different game. Tough luck that you didn't it this time around, but there will be more games to come in the future. Personally I prefer thematic consistency in my games, so I hope CA will stick with the units that could realistically be expected from this setting rather than mixing in all kinds of different ideas.

    Also, what's with the seemingly maniacal hatred towards Britain? :D



  • CormacSVKCormacSVK Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 84
    If you want knights, wait for Med 3, I am sure it will come in some form eventually.

    Let's stay true to history, no knights and no King Arthur please.
  • KregenKregen Member Registered Users Posts: 491
    CormacSVK said:

    If you want knights, wait for Med 3, I am sure it will come in some form eventually.

    Let's stay true to history, no knights and no King Arthur please.

    Totally agree keep historical true to the time period if not the actual events and keep things like arther firmly in the fantasy realm. To the OP fish and chips where not In the British Isles at that point. Potato’s where introduced into Europe during the Elizabethan period by sire Walter Raghlie (an Englishman)
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 12,916
    Knights!!!!

    Check it out!

  • TheGuardianOfMetalTheGuardianOfMetal Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 14,693
    jamreal18 said:

    Knights!!!!

    Check it out!

    #RIP BORIS! KILLED BY CA AND GW WITH SHORTSIGHTED CRUELTY JUST TO SHOVE KOSTALTYN DOWN OUR THROATS!

    The Empire still hasn't gotten their FLC LL. We need Marius Leitdorf of Averland!

    Where is Boris Todbringer? Have you seen him? For a Middenland DLC with Boris and the Ar-Ulric!

    Every wrong is recorded. Every slight against us, page after page, ETCHED IN BLOOD!

    Queek could smell their hatred, ratcheted to a degree that even he could not evoke in their simple hearts. He stepped over the old orange-fur’s body, eager to see for himself what it was they saw. But he heard it first.
    'Waaaaaaaggh! Gorfang!'
  • KrunchKrunch Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,151
    I'll be super disappointed if CA introduces any cavalry above light/maybe low tier medium cavalry in this game, let alone bloody Knights. Pre Norman Britain was the infantryman's battlefield and it should stay as such.
  • CaractacusMagnusCaractacusMagnus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 370
    CormacSVK said:

    If you want knights, wait for Med 3, I am sure it will come in some form eventually.

    Let's stay true to history, no knights and no King Arthur please.

    Absolutely. The word knight didn't even mean knight within 100 years of this game's time period, anglo-saxon knights (it's a modern version of the Old English word cniht) could be warriors but were just as likely to be errand boys and servants.
  • TheGuardianOfMetalTheGuardianOfMetal Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 14,693
    edited November 2017

    CormacSVK said:

    If you want knights, wait for Med 3, I am sure it will come in some form eventually.

    Let's stay true to history, no knights and no King Arthur please.

    Absolutely. The word knight didn't even mean knight within 100 years of this game's time period, anglo-saxon knights (it's a modern version of the Old English word cniht) could be warriors but were just as likely to be errand boys and servants.
    Afaik it originally came from the Word "Knecht"
    #RIP BORIS! KILLED BY CA AND GW WITH SHORTSIGHTED CRUELTY JUST TO SHOVE KOSTALTYN DOWN OUR THROATS!

    The Empire still hasn't gotten their FLC LL. We need Marius Leitdorf of Averland!

    Where is Boris Todbringer? Have you seen him? For a Middenland DLC with Boris and the Ar-Ulric!

    Every wrong is recorded. Every slight against us, page after page, ETCHED IN BLOOD!

    Queek could smell their hatred, ratcheted to a degree that even he could not evoke in their simple hearts. He stepped over the old orange-fur’s body, eager to see for himself what it was they saw. But he heard it first.
    'Waaaaaaaggh! Gorfang!'
  • LizardKnightLizardKnight Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 175
    edited November 2017
    Krunch said:

    I'll be super disappointed if CA introduces any cavalry above light/maybe low tier medium cavalry in this game, let alone bloody Knights. Pre Norman Britain was the infantryman's battlefield and it should stay as such.

    They don't have to be mounted. I actually liked dismounted knights in medieval 2 more than the mounted ones. Honestly I don't even like mounted combat I really just want the knights to have knightly armor I am tired of attila and rome's barbarians.
    Edhwen said:

    Even plate armour??!!! This armour was developed in Europe in late medieval era.
    You want something not really historic... Like king Arthur and Excalibur.

    Romans had plate armour actually why can't Englishman innovate?
  • DolorousEddDolorousEdd Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 555

    jamreal18 said:

    Knights!!!!

    Check it out!

    Thank God I watch stuff to be entertained, not to go around finding historical innacuracies. Must be an immensely boring thing to do that.
    Team Dwarfs
    Team Bretonnia
    Team Crooked Moon
    Team Cult of Pleasure
    Team Clan Pestilens
  • TheGuardianOfMetalTheGuardianOfMetal Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 14,693
    edited November 2017

    Krunch said:

    I'll be super disappointed if CA introduces any cavalry above light/maybe low tier medium cavalry in this game, let alone bloody Knights. Pre Norman Britain was the infantryman's battlefield and it should stay as such.

    They don't have to be mounted. I actually liked dismounted knights in medieval 2 more than the mounted ones. Honestly I don't even like mounted combat I really just want the knights to have knightly armor I am tired of attila and rome's barbarians.
    Edhwen said:

    Even plate armour??!!! This armour was developed in Europe in late medieval era.
    You want something not really historic... Like king Arthur and Excalibur.

    Romans had plate armour actually why can't Englishman innovate?
    Romans had banded armour and muscle cuirass, both are not comparable to high middle-ages plate armour.

    Plate armour itself is actually a fairly old armour design (it's the simplest there is: Hammer a plate of metal to fit the body... more or less.) Roman Historians mentioned metal plates as armour of celtic and iirc also german warriors.

    BUT (well made) Medieval Plate armour is acompletely different power house... perfeclty fitted to the wearers body, offering a good range of movement. The Weight distributed evenly over the body, with the cuirass' weight mostly on the hips, unlike it had been with the old Greek/Roman Muscle cuirass which had all it's weight on the shoulders.

    It's basically like comparing a muzzle loaded flint lock pistol with a Smith and wesson Model 29 or a Hakenbüchse/Arquebuse with a Mauser 1918 T-Gewehr.
    Post edited by TheGuardianOfMetal on
    #RIP BORIS! KILLED BY CA AND GW WITH SHORTSIGHTED CRUELTY JUST TO SHOVE KOSTALTYN DOWN OUR THROATS!

    The Empire still hasn't gotten their FLC LL. We need Marius Leitdorf of Averland!

    Where is Boris Todbringer? Have you seen him? For a Middenland DLC with Boris and the Ar-Ulric!

    Every wrong is recorded. Every slight against us, page after page, ETCHED IN BLOOD!

    Queek could smell their hatred, ratcheted to a degree that even he could not evoke in their simple hearts. He stepped over the old orange-fur’s body, eager to see for himself what it was they saw. But he heard it first.
    'Waaaaaaaggh! Gorfang!'
  • KrilralKrilral Member Registered Users Posts: 910

    jamreal18 said:

    Knights!!!!

    Check it out!

    Thank God I watch stuff to be entertained, not to go around finding historical innacuracies. Must be an immensely boring thing to do that.
    I'm with you on that. It feels like a lot of these people, who like to dismiss an entire tv-show (or video game for that matter) based on "historical inaccuracies" completely miss the point. Things like "Vikings" and "Knightfall" are obviously not meant to be educational instruction videos. They are fictional entertainment series that loosely use certain historical periods as their setting. Trying to find historical inaccuracies in them is pointless, because they were never intended to be historically accurate. The same actually goes for Total War.

    Relating that to the main topic, I'm not against certain smaller deviations from what is strictly historically accurate for the sake of gameplay (like certain weapons being more prevalent for the sake of unit variety), but what the OP is suggesting goes beyond that. Not only is late-medeaval plate armor historically inaccurate for the time-period, it also simply doesn't fit the setting. Thematically knights in shining armor are a mismatch with the viking invasion of Britain.

    Again, it sounds like what the OP really wants is an entirely different game. It may well come at some point, but it is simply not the game being made currently.
  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Registered Users Posts: 2,009
    I think there are many people entertained by historical accuracy. They love history, and getting something right satisfies their immersion into whatever knowledge they have. It's nothing worth complaining about to me.
    I personally find people who talk about history and inaccuracies to be interesting. There is always a convo to be had about it.
  • LizardKnightLizardKnight Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 175
    KGpoopy said:

    I think there are many people entertained by historical accuracy. They love history, and getting something right satisfies their immersion into whatever knowledge they have. It's nothing worth complaining about to me.
    I personally find people who talk about history and inaccuracies to be interesting. There is always a convo to be had about it.

    NO. They HATE people. People just want to have fun and they nitpick on things no one ever saw or could see without a time machine. I just want knights to be an option and it may have not happened in history yet so will nothing I will do once I play. Let me repeat that, nothing that I will do once I buy the game will be historicaly accureate so why pretend? If I want to be an innovate king why can't I focus on technology which is what I would do as a real king.

    If I was a king I wouldn't be wasting my time with watery bandits from scandenavia I would have made powerful knights. THAT IS REAL HISTORY. You can try to prove me wrong however it will literally never work because I have superior logic therefore CA will make knights happen in Total War fish and chips.
  • KregenKregen Member Registered Users Posts: 491

    KGpoopy said:

    I think there are many people entertained by historical accuracy. They love history, and getting something right satisfies their immersion into whatever knowledge they have. It's nothing worth complaining about to me.
    I personally find people who talk about history and inaccuracies to be interesting. There is always a convo to be had about it.

    NO. They HATE people. People just want to have fun and they nitpick on things no one ever saw or could see without a time machine. I just want knights to be an option and it may have not happened in history yet so will nothing I will do once I play. Let me repeat that, nothing that I will do once I buy the game will be historicaly accureate so why pretend? If I want to be an innovate king why can't I focus on technology which is what I would do as a real king.

    If I was a king I wouldn't be wasting my time with watery bandits from scandenavia I would have made powerful knights. THAT IS REAL HISTORY. You can try to prove me wrong however it will literally never work because I have superior logic therefore CA will make knights happen in Total War fish and chips.
    If you had have been king at the time the water bandits would have handed you your head in a basket, whilst you where trying to invent four hundred years of technical knowledge fast enough to make a difference in a pre industrial agrarian society. As for historical accuracy small inconsistencies are acceptable but not impossibilities, of course your actions in game will not follow historical events but you will have to work with the available resources. Let me put it to you is it not better to be successful with the possiblities open to you than to complain about failure because of that which you do not have.

  • HrafnHrafn Registered Users Posts: 305
    I can't believe those Anglo-Saxons didn't just train knights to fight the Vikings.

    What a bunch of IDIOTS.
  • KrunchKrunch Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,151
    Hrafn said:

    I can't believe those Anglo-Saxons didn't just train knights to fight the Vikings.

    What a bunch of IDIOTS.

    I can't belive those damn Saxons didn't just invent the A-10 to fight the Danes! What a bunch of fools.

    On topic, personally I am really interested in the warfare of this period and so would be incredibly dissapointed if CA were to do somethings as out there is implementing Knights in this game. I like this period for what it is and how it stands on its own. Besides, there are plenty of units to get hyped for. Thegns, Jomsvikings, Huskarls, all sorts of units that will look really cool.
  • KregenKregen Member Registered Users Posts: 491
    edited November 2017
    Hrafn said:

    I can't believe those Anglo-Saxons didn't just train knights to fight the Vikings.

    What a bunch of IDIOTS.

    why the Saxons didn't train knights as you so quaintly put it,

    1 they didn't have the heavy horses to carry them,

    2 they did not have the technology to make the armour,

    3 cavalry is the worst thing you can attack a shied wall with, horses have this strange fear of running into sharp pointy things. also any commander that was worth his salt would make sure his flanks where protected by a river, swamp, thick woodland or any other natural feature. the only way to break a shield wall is with another shield wall or consentrated arrow fire. so you could also say why did not the Vikings or anybody else invent the war bow the fools.

    the only use for cavalry at that time was chasing down the survivors of a broken shield wall and this did happen but it was only light horses on what where little better than large ponies.

    if you want knights go play a game in the proper time period or fantasy setting.
  • TheGuardianOfMetalTheGuardianOfMetal Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 14,693
    Kregen said:

    Hrafn said:

    I can't believe those Anglo-Saxons didn't just train knights to fight the Vikings.

    What a bunch of IDIOTS.

    why the Saxons didn't train knights as you so quaintly put it,

    1 they didn't have the heavy horses to carry them,

    2 they did not have the technology to make the armour,

    3 cavalry is the worst thing you can attack a shied wall with, horses have this strange fear of running into sharp pointy things. also any commander that was worth his salt would make sure his flanks where protected by a river, swamp, thick woodland or any other natural feature. the only way to break a shield wall is with another shield wall or consentrated arrow fire. so you could also say why did not the Vikings or anybody else invent the war bow the fools.

    the only use for cavalry at that time was chasing down the survivors of a broken shield wall and this did happen but it was only light horses on what where little better than large ponies.

    if you want knights go play a game in the proper time period or fantasy setting.
    ahm... for 2) Knights originally did wear chain mail and gambeson, just like many other (well equipped) troops of this time

    #RIP BORIS! KILLED BY CA AND GW WITH SHORTSIGHTED CRUELTY JUST TO SHOVE KOSTALTYN DOWN OUR THROATS!

    The Empire still hasn't gotten their FLC LL. We need Marius Leitdorf of Averland!

    Where is Boris Todbringer? Have you seen him? For a Middenland DLC with Boris and the Ar-Ulric!

    Every wrong is recorded. Every slight against us, page after page, ETCHED IN BLOOD!

    Queek could smell their hatred, ratcheted to a degree that even he could not evoke in their simple hearts. He stepped over the old orange-fur’s body, eager to see for himself what it was they saw. But he heard it first.
    'Waaaaaaaggh! Gorfang!'
  • KregenKregen Member Registered Users Posts: 491
    edited November 2017

    Kregen said:

    Hrafn said:

    I can't believe those Anglo-Saxons didn't just train knights to fight the Vikings.

    What a bunch of IDIOTS.

    why the Saxons didn't train knights as you so quaintly put it,

    1 they didn't have the heavy horses to carry them,

    2 they did not have the technology to make the armour,

    3 cavalry is the worst thing you can attack a shied wall with, horses have this strange fear of running into sharp pointy things. also any commander that was worth his salt would make sure his flanks where protected by a river, swamp, thick woodland or any other natural feature. the only way to break a shield wall is with another shield wall or consentrated arrow fire. so you could also say why did not the Vikings or anybody else invent the war bow the fools.

    the only use for cavalry at that time was chasing down the survivors of a broken shield wall and this did happen but it was only light horses on what where little better than large ponies.

    if you want knights go play a game in the proper time period or fantasy setting.
    ahm... for 2) Knights originally did wear chain mail and gambeson, just like many other (well equipped) troops of this time

    the OP was talking about full plate armoured knight of the type not seen in any numbers until the mid medieval age. you are correct in that chain mail was possible but it was very expensive and only worn by nobles and professional warriors who had made enough money in plunder or gifts from their hearth lords to pay for it, or those lucky enough to take it from a dead enemy. the other points stand, also your illustration starts in the 11th century the game is set in the 9 th century.
  • TheGuardianOfMetalTheGuardianOfMetal Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 14,693
    Kregen said:

    Kregen said:

    Hrafn said:

    I can't believe those Anglo-Saxons didn't just train knights to fight the Vikings.

    What a bunch of IDIOTS.

    why the Saxons didn't train knights as you so quaintly put it,

    1 they didn't have the heavy horses to carry them,

    2 they did not have the technology to make the armour,

    3 cavalry is the worst thing you can attack a shied wall with, horses have this strange fear of running into sharp pointy things. also any commander that was worth his salt would make sure his flanks where protected by a river, swamp, thick woodland or any other natural feature. the only way to break a shield wall is with another shield wall or consentrated arrow fire. so you could also say why did not the Vikings or anybody else invent the war bow the fools.

    the only use for cavalry at that time was chasing down the survivors of a broken shield wall and this did happen but it was only light horses on what where little better than large ponies.

    if you want knights go play a game in the proper time period or fantasy setting.
    ahm... for 2) Knights originally did wear chain mail and gambeson, just like many other (well equipped) troops of this time

    the OP was talking about full plate armoured knight of the type not seen in any numbers until the mid medieval age. you are correct in that chain mail was possible but it was very expensive and only worn by nobles and professional warriors who had made enough money in plunder or gifts from their hearth lords to pay for it, or those lucky enough to take it from a dead enemy. the other points stand, also your illustration starts in the 11th century the game is set in the 9 th century.
    To be fair, both Nobles and professional warriors is exactly what knights are :tongue:

    ALso i know that the OP had been talking about this kind of knight



    but in your poste it had only been about "the" armour, without excplicitely mentioing that you've meant the same as the OP (yeah... I'm tired and bored :tongue: ) so I mentioned it just in case
    #RIP BORIS! KILLED BY CA AND GW WITH SHORTSIGHTED CRUELTY JUST TO SHOVE KOSTALTYN DOWN OUR THROATS!

    The Empire still hasn't gotten their FLC LL. We need Marius Leitdorf of Averland!

    Where is Boris Todbringer? Have you seen him? For a Middenland DLC with Boris and the Ar-Ulric!

    Every wrong is recorded. Every slight against us, page after page, ETCHED IN BLOOD!

    Queek could smell their hatred, ratcheted to a degree that even he could not evoke in their simple hearts. He stepped over the old orange-fur’s body, eager to see for himself what it was they saw. But he heard it first.
    'Waaaaaaaggh! Gorfang!'
  • KregenKregen Member Registered Users Posts: 491

    Kregen said:

    Kregen said:

    Hrafn said:

    I can't believe those Anglo-Saxons didn't just train knights to fight the Vikings.

    What a bunch of IDIOTS.

    why the Saxons didn't train knights as you so quaintly put it,

    1 they didn't have the heavy horses to carry them,

    2 they did not have the technology to make the armour,

    3 cavalry is the worst thing you can attack a shied wall with, horses have this strange fear of running into sharp pointy things. also any commander that was worth his salt would make sure his flanks where protected by a river, swamp, thick woodland or any other natural feature. the only way to break a shield wall is with another shield wall or consentrated arrow fire. so you could also say why did not the Vikings or anybody else invent the war bow the fools.

    the only use for cavalry at that time was chasing down the survivors of a broken shield wall and this did happen but it was only light horses on what where little better than large ponies.

    if you want knights go play a game in the proper time period or fantasy setting.
    ahm... for 2) Knights originally did wear chain mail and gambeson, just like many other (well equipped) troops of this time

    the OP was talking about full plate armoured knight of the type not seen in any numbers until the mid medieval age. you are correct in that chain mail was possible but it was very expensive and only worn by nobles and professional warriors who had made enough money in plunder or gifts from their hearth lords to pay for it, or those lucky enough to take it from a dead enemy. the other points stand, also your illustration starts in the 11th century the game is set in the 9 th century.
    To be fair, both Nobles and professional warriors is exactly what knights are :tongue:

    ALso i know that the OP had been talking about this kind of knight



    but in your poste it had only been about "the" armour, without excplicitely mentioing that you've meant the same as the OP (yeah... I'm tired and bored :tongue: ) so I mentioned it just in case
    Ok I concede, but fact is it was not practical for the Saxons or most other nations at that time to use knight of any kind except for scouting and chasing already defeated troops. I will also allow that troops simaler to knights could be found in the eastern nations Byzantium for instance.
  • KrunchKrunch Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,151
    Kregen said:

    Hrafn said:

    I can't believe those Anglo-Saxons didn't just train knights to fight the Vikings.

    What a bunch of IDIOTS.

    why the Saxons didn't train knights as you so quaintly put it,

    1 they didn't have the heavy horses to carry them,

    2 they did not have the technology to make the armour,

    3 cavalry is the worst thing you can attack a shied wall with, horses have this strange fear of running into sharp pointy things. also any commander that was worth his salt would make sure his flanks where protected by a river, swamp, thick woodland or any other natural feature. the only way to break a shield wall is with another shield wall or consentrated arrow fire. so you could also say why did not the Vikings or anybody else invent the war bow the fools.

    the only use for cavalry at that time was chasing down the survivors of a broken shield wall and this did happen but it was only light horses on what where little better than large ponies.

    if you want knights go play a game in the proper time period or fantasy setting.
    Dear god man have you know sense for detecting Sarcasm?
  • HrafnHrafn Registered Users Posts: 305
    edited November 2017
    Yes dude, it was sarcasm. I don't want knights. I want the game true to history.

    Eagerly awaiting A-10 rebuttal though; just in case. :D
Sign In or Register to comment.