This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
More Knight less Beserker.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Lordplatypus
Why is it warriors are always beserker orc-types?
Discuss.
Post by
Atik
Fury is the berserker or barbarian; using brute forse to smash his enemies apart.
Arms is the skilled swordsman; calm and precise they slice their enemies to ribbons.
Protection is the strong and armored knight; defending all they beleive in and those they care about.
Post by
Lordplatypus
True True, but read some of the moves "Smash" "Overpower", sounds to brutish to me.
I don't know why but it just sounds like that abit.
Post by
hymer
Hacking people to death with a sharp implement
is
kinda brutal, no matter how philosophical you are when you're not on the battefield.
Post by
678294
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
OverZealous
as far i can remember knights were brutes on the battlefield, though many minds are clouded cause of shining white knight stories.
bu if you actually read some real history books, you will soon release a knight isnt much more then a rich barberian in shiny armor.
Indeed. Honestly, if you want shining armor and noble causes, look for a Paladin.
Post by
Adamsm
as far i can remember knights were brutes on the battlefield, though many minds are clouded cause of shining white knight stories.
bu if you actually read some real history books, you will soon release a knight isnt much more then a rich barberian in shiny armor.
Indeed. Honestly, if you want shining armor and noble causes, look for a Paladin.
Aye, reality is very rarely like what you read about in the books.
Post by
331902
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Atik
There was nothing elegant about them, and if your enemy managed to down your horse or knock you off it, your death would be on your back like a turtle unable to move due to the weight of your armor.
That idea has been discredited in modern times. Plate and chainmail armors didn't weight nearly as much as people generally imagine. (There was one collage professor or student or somthing who actually made a suit of plate armor and went swimming in a pool, just to show it was possible.)
Your biggest problem if your horse got taken down was making sure it didn't trap or crush you.
And yes, all soilders and warriors could generally be called brutes or barbarians... but that's part of war. (And even Paladins can fall under that.)
Post by
331902
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
skumbananer
Warriors in wow are awesome in every shape or form. From a disciplined battle hardened soldier, to a strategic, well-trained skilled and calm samurai to a raving berserker, to a muscle-bound behomoth who compensates his lack of speed and skill with brute muscle force. You can pick whatever you like, its a versatile class.
I play a raging berserker, who screams himself to courage, charges bashes and slashes wildly even when im prot specced.
And a medieval sword aint that heavy to lift and swing, if you find it difficult you seriously need to go pump some iron between your wow-raids.
Post by
Adamsm
Of course, anyone on the battlefield with all that fancy armour just screamed target to a majority of the opponents: They would be swarmed, dragged off their horse/have it cut out from under them, then the lesser armed attackers would start stabbing and cutting at whatever exposed flesh they could find, without ruining the armour as best they could, since they could sell it afterwards.
Remember, there were no one on one duels in true war, just a screaming shrieking mass of humans slamming into each other and pulling off any dirty tricks possible, since only an idiot believed that the Code of Chivalry existed on the battle field.
Post by
hymer
just a screaming shrieking mass of humans slamming into each other and pulling off any dirty tricks possible, since only an idiot believed that the Code of Chivalry existed on the battle field.
What you're describing here is two commanders that lost control of their armies, though. Knights are expensive to raise, and however impetuous the individual knight may be, you better keep him and his planet-sized ego in check. That would be to his advantage as well as helping you win now and later.
Post by
Atik
Of course, anyone on the battlefield with all that fancy armour just screamed target to a majority of the opponents: They would be swarmed, dragged off their horse/have it cut out from under them, then the lesser armed attackers would start stabbing and cutting at whatever exposed flesh they could find, without ruining the armour as best they could, since they could sell it afterwards.
Remember, there were no one on one duels in true war, just a screaming shrieking mass of humans slamming into each other and pulling off any dirty tricks possible, since only an idiot believed that the Code of Chivalry existed on the battle field.
There were still basic tactics, just like in todays millitary conflicts.
It would get more chaotic, true, but that is due to the armies being more clumped up and outfitted with swords and shields, rather than guns.
People on horseback would usually be cavalry if they weren't commanding a segment of the army. Which means they would be going around and flanking the enemy army to attack from the sides and distract them from your main force.
So, yeah, the armor was supposed to be noticable.
Post by
Adamsm
What you're describing here is two commanders that lost control of their armies, though. Knights are expensive to raise, and however impetuous the individual knight may be, you better keep him and his planet-sized ego in check. That would be to his advantage as well as helping you win now and later.
Once the mass hit each other, @#$% goes flying fairly quickly, and so do most tactics as it became more about not dying and less about remembering what your commander told you.
There were still basic tactics, just like in todays millitary conflicts.
It would get more chaotic, true, but that is due to the armies being more clumped up and outfitted with swords and shields, rather than guns.
People on horseback would usually be cavalry if they weren't commanding a segment of the army. Which means they would be going around and flanking the enemy army to attack from the sides and distract them from your main force.
So, yeah, the armor was supposed to be noticable.
And the basic tactics didn't last long beyond that first charge. While knights were good against the unarmoured 'fodder', against anything more then 10 they are nothing but targets, since they would be swarmed for that pretty armour and weapon as depending on who you were fighting, there could be the simpler folk who want the money that armour represents. Just as now a person in high grade body armour can take the shots from a couple of guns get's destroyed when a full squad of riflemen are blasting away, the knights had the same weakness to superior numbers.
It's like the idea of knight armour being the ultimate zombie protection; sure they can't bite through your steel suit, but if there are enough of them, they just have to knock you over and slowly and methodically tear you limb from limb.
Post by
678294
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Lordplatypus
What i'm saying is that even prot is getting more beserkerish, It's the difference between a brute and a soldier, a grunt or a footman to be precise, and its nearly impossible to make a "Knight" archetype rather than a fanatical samurai zealot (Lets face it the samurai weren't any different from today's terrorists in mindset) or brutish berserkers.
Also knights tend to be in large triangular formations of other knights which beat infantry. Unlike your deluded mindset where masses beat any amount of force, elite troops never lose to inferior units without overwhelming (Ie 50 to one) odds. The rifle however, made knight armor useless and their traditions pointless.
Post by
Adamsm
(Lets face it the samurai weren't any different from today's terrorists in mindset).....What?
Also knights tend to be in large triangular formations of other knights which beat infantry. Unlike your deluded mindset where masses beat any amount of force, elite troops never lose to inferior units without overwhelming (Ie 50 to one) odds. The rifle however, made knight armor useless and their traditions pointless.Again: What? Have you studied any real history or are you just claiming things from mediavised stuff? Sure the standard wedge was good, but if they were up against that swarm of simple militia men, and they were outnumbered, the knights could be killed as easily as any other soldier on the battle field.
Post by
Lordplatypus
Again: What? Have you studied any real history or are you just claiming things from mediavised stuff? Sure the standard wedge was good, but if they were up against that swarm of simple militia men, and they were outnumbered, the knights could be killed as easily as any other soldier on the battle field.
Wrong yet again, You need disiplined troops to take down knights, your average milita would scatter after the impact of a wedge attack, shock and awe wasn't just a modern military concept.
.....What?
Suicidal Fanatics with a overeligous dogma and belief in life after death.
Thats the samurai for ya. The difference between a samurai and a knight is simple actually, The knight would prefer to live, values teamwork with his fellow knights and follows a code based on honor,. The Samurai is suicidal, a lone wolf who just runs around either on horseback or just stands there and shoots arrows until someone gets close enough for him to start blindly hacking at them. His code is based on the principles of not being a human, and suicide.
Post by
Adamsm
Suicidal Fanatics with a overeligous dogma and belief in life after death.
Thats the samurai for ya. The difference between a samurai and a knight is simple actually, The knight would prefer to live, values teamwork with his fellow knights and follows a code based on honor,. The Samurai is suicidal, a lone wolf who just runs around either on horseback or just stands there and shoots arrows until someone gets close enough for him to start blindly hacking at them. His code is based on the principles of not being a human, and suicide.You have no idea what you are talking about;
reading is good for you
; since the Samurai are the Asian version of the Knights.
Wrong yet again, You need disiplined troops to take down knights, your average milita would scatter after the impact of a wedge attack, shock and awe wasn't just a modern military concept.True...but if that wedge failed to scatter, those militia men would turn and once against attack, forcing the wedge apart, and tearing into those knights. Knights weren't tanks or invincible or anything of the like; they lost just as often as any other soldier back in the day, usually because they were the most obvious targets.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.