halbardier

[Oreb]

yeah

[zookeeper]

(Keep in mind that a fully armoured knight couldn't even get to his feet without assistance, let alone remount his horse.)

Horribly wrong.

Possibly true, if he was wearing some very heavy jousting armor, but one would have to be really, really daft to use such a thing on the battlefield.

[Zhukov]

Horribly wrong. Possibly true, if he was wearing some very heavy jousting armor.

In the times when jousting was popular there was often little difference between the armour worn on the battlefield and the arena.
Of course jousting armour was more adorned then was practical in battle but the basic designs were much the same.
In fact, many improvements in armour design originated from the jousting arena, for example: the angled breastplate which replaced the traditional flat one.

but one would have to be really, really daft to use such a thing on the battlefield.

As we have both pointed out, there were daft aspects to the use of mounted knights in battle. For example they required a 'ground crew' of 3-5 men just to prepare them for battle.

However there were advantages to be had as well. A heavily armoured knight mounted on a equally heavily armoured destrier (massive, trained warhorse) was practially invulnerable to anyone not specially trained or equiped to deal with him. He was the equivalent of something like the modern-day Russian T-90 tank.

So, the heavy jousting armour you refer to was similar in many ways to that used in battle. (One notable exception was the helmets used). The disadvantages we have both indicated eventually led to knights being replaced by light cavalry wearing leather armour or field plate (a thinner, more manageable version of full plate). Another factor was the ridiculous cost required to maintain/replace/repair a knights full battle regalia.

But look, this thread is supposed to be about a proposal to change the Battle for Wesnoth Pikeman stats. We are getting way off topic (partly my fault, perhaps I shouldn't have posted that bit about pikemen).

Zookeeper, if you would like to debate this matter in a sperate thread in the Off-Topic area I will be happy to cooperate (seriously, I will). But for now, lets keep this thread relevent to its author's intention. Ok?

[unsung]

Oh for....


Knights DID NOT NEED HELP TO MOVE WITH THEIR AROMOR!
AHHHHH!


the "ground crew" was to help PUT THE ARMOR ON. Armor-as in full plate- could be as light as 25 pounds, which is the weight of a realativley small dog or fat cat.

you could run, jump, fight, and hop into the sadle with it on easily. it is only heavy when you are picking it up to don it.

and battlefield armor was NOT used in jousting, because jousting armor had to be thicker to prevent accidents and had to be impressive in apperance.

jousting armor was also to heavy for use in battle.

I hate that myth so much......
And if they couldn't move in plate armor, why would they wear it into battle?
Answer: They wouldn't.
Ok, I'm done.
We can get back on topic now.

[Zhukov]

EDIT: Official Recognition of Debate Defeat
Upon further (and a good deal more careful) research it would appear unsung, anyar and zookeeper are correct. It seems much of the content of my previous post is little more then popular myth. (However I stand by what I said in regard to halbardiers)

So ends my attempt to prevent an online shouting match on an irrelevant topic.

The last word is yours.

Now, what was this thread actually about...?

[Zebulon]

Will do more.

Change this one. It's already changed some.

[Anyar]

you could run, jump, fight, and hop into the sadle with it on easily. it is only heavy when you are picking it up to don it.

Not even then. The armor itself is only put on by a team because:
1.It is cumbersome to put on by ones self(buckles and things like that. It could be put on by one person though)
2.Knights were often nobles and people who would be honored/feared. It wouldn't be "proper" for them to have to do work and put it on themselves.

[Assasin]

har har, I thought this was about halberdiers...

any way, since halberdiers seem to have been used as a multipurpose unit, perhaps they should have an almost equal blade and pierce attack? I mean after all, all mounted units have a strong weakness to pierce, and a whole calvary regiment wouldn't be taken out right away by halberdiers.

So maybe 14-3 pierce and 16-3 blade?

[Anyar]

any way, since halberdiers seem to have been used as a multipurpose unit, perhaps they should have an almost equal blade and pierce attack? I mean after all, all mounted units have a strong weakness to pierce, and a whole calvary regiment wouldn't be taken out right away by halberdiers.

There are regiments of statues of Jesus on the cross? I think it would be better with 2 hits for the pierce, and raise the power on it.

[Ganter]

Zhukov, your history class was a brave move but I'm afraid that some parts of it is wrong. But I like your damage idea (12-4/19-2) very much!

EDIT: Oops! Sorry Zhukov. When I read page three I see that you have already apologised. As for the blue cloack champ, what should I change? The sword or more?

[Zebulon]

As for the blue cloack champ, what should I change? The sword or more?

Whatever you want.

[Ganter]

New avatar! Better?

[Cuyo Quiz]

I wonder if the cape can get wayfarer-ized.

[Ganter]

you mean in front of the elv?

[Assasin]

I wonder if the cape can get wayfarer-ized.

hmm....i don't see any reference to the elf in this post. Yes, it distinctly says cape.

but then again, I wouldn't put it beneath Cuyo Quiz to try and fool you into believing one thing when he means another.