Yeah, I was indeed distinguishing between battles on the open field and sieges, which I know were far more common and often less bloody, as everyone stood outside and waited for the people in the castle to starve and surrender.

In fact, I think I mentioned the very same fact in the Arena chat thread a few weeks back when someone mentioned medieval battles.

I suppose the reason why battles were uncommon was that it was incredibly rare for two sides to want to fight and destroy each other, because it would rely on a situation where for some reason both sides were confident of victory, which just didn't happen. The smaller side would just run away (manoeuvring) until more favourable conditions were met. Where-as guys in a castle didn't really have the option of running away from larger forces, so the people ensured of victory could set things in motion and engage combat.

I didn't know that about Anglo Saxon England, though as is common I'm only really aware in any detail of the battle of Stamford Bridge and the Battle of Hastings, which were both foreign invasions, so I doubt rules of etiquette would apply.

Pretty much ya, normally a field battle is hardly necessary almost regardless of goal. To take a few examples, if one side wishes to kill as many enemies as possible, why bother with a battle if they could go around torching cities, villages, and fields while avoiding their enemy's main army? If they want to take a city, why not lure the enemy into a wild goose chase elsewhere while the main army completes the siege or assault of said city?

If a confederation of desert tribes wishes to defend its homeland, why fight a battle at the frontiers if the enemy can be more efficiently defeated by denying them access to water supplies? If a civilized agrarian kingdom wants to turn back a rival kingdom's invasion, why not let that enemy get bogged down in besieging the frontier castles and towns while the King's agents gather a force large enough to scare any thoughts of continuing the invasion away from the enemy's mind? If a country at war needs to keep an enemy fleet at bay, why send the whole damned Grand Fleet steaming off to potential disaster if a commando raid can do the job just as well-not the least by sinking the enemy's own ships to block their own harbor. :K

I remember reading about a siege in the 100 years war that proves "civil war" is not an oxymoron. An English general was besieging a French castle. He managed to dig some kind of trench around the castle that was about to cause it to collapse or something, so rather than utterly crushing his enemies he properly warned the French general what he was doing. The French general didn't believe him, so the English bloke invited him outside to show him. The French dude was like, "Hmm... looks like you're right. OK, we surrender." Then the two armies had a pleasant banquet together.

That's one of gallantry that shows reality is stranger than fiction; at the battle of Fontenoy, an advancing English battalion halted a few dozen paces away from their French adversaries. The commanders of the French and the English battalions then bowed and invited each other's battalions to fire first before the fighting began in earnest--hence the quote from Lord Charles Hay, to which the Frenchman replied "Messieurs les Anglais, tirez les premier."

Funny enough, most of these examples involve the English now that I think about it...

It's your character, so fair enough, from what I know of First Nation People's they tended to favour guerilla tactics where being physically robust in a pushing and shoving sort of way (which most medieval battles tended to come down to on the front line) was not a major concern, nor something they trained for. Though there's always anomalies in every population, I'm sure some favoured physical strength over speed and agility in combat, though the tomahawk at least to me feels like an agile weapon that wouldn't necessarily be of more use in the hands of someone stronger. That's the only reason I made the assumption of him having a sort of wiry strength (That and you mentioned he didn't seem overly muscular.)

Then again, though I can't remember if it was explicitly stated looking at your character's weapons he seems to be from a modern setting, so I suppose what was historically true is irrelevant.

By overly muscular, I'm talking about body builder standards. He's thick and sturdy framed which makes it clear he's had muscle training. However, it's not to the point his muscles are trying split through his skin or looking like inflated balloons.

As for why his attributes are more aligned with strength, it's more an IC reason that doesn't pertain to the match. He's also not pure blooded Native American so genetics and preference plays a factor in that, though his werecoyote form is dominant in speed to a dangerous level.

A good baseline for strength and speed is to decide what trait you'd like your character to favour and find what the world record in terms of Olympic sport is, then scale down somewhat for realism. That's how I personally set my character stats anywho. Stronger characters -tend- to be less agile, though that doesn't have to translate to being slower in a straight sprint. Height and build have similar advantages and disadvantages.

At the very least, a strong character will be able to lift their own body weight. Obviously in combat factors like height and reach can be just as important to the strength of someone's muscles, but at some point the direct statistical strength of your character may come into question, as contests of strength are somewhat common. Speed is similarly important, if you want to outrun someone or something.

This is very help and thank you. I'll get on that asap and edit it into the CS.

With all the Japanophiles wandering around people tend to forget that there was an incredibly strong code of honour known as Chivalry in West Europe that was pretty much as strong as Bushido, with slightly less emphasis on suicide for minor misdemeanours. (Recently found out that the 47 Ronin story, which I was aware was loosely true, started because their lord was tricked into drawing his sword in a castle in Edo, and had to commit suicide for it.)

With all the Japanophiles wandering around people tend to forget that there was an incredibly strong code of honour known as Chivalry in West Europe that was pretty much as strong as Bushido, with slightly less emphasis on suicide for minor misdemeanours. (Recently found out that the 47 Ronin story, which I was aware was loosely true, started because their lord was tricked into drawing his sword in a castle in Edo, and had to commit suicide for it.)

That and Western noblemen would duel over matters of honor just as frequently as any samurai. And in all of history, I can think of no better way of starting a fight than throwing a glove at somebody in public.

<Snipped quote by MelonHead>

That and Western noblemen would duel over matters of honor just as frequently as any samurai. And in all of history, I can think of no better way of starting a fight than throwing a glove at somebody in public.

You have insulted my family, you must die.

Hmm, I should really make a knight character. A proepr knight character at some point.

@Fallenreaper A good scale to use, if you're familiar with wrestling would be:

Bryan
Cesaro
Cena
Batista

As far as what type of body they have.

Bryan has a smaller body, though he trains
Cesaro trains for strength, not show
Cena trains for both
Batista looks to have trained for both.

<Snipped quote by Takashi>

You have insulted my family, you must die.

Hmm, I should really make a knight character. A proepr knight character at some point.

You'd need a horse, which is the main turn off for me.

<Snipped quote by GreivousKhan>

You'd need a horse, which is the main turn off for me.

I wouldn't say you need a horse. In fact, a Samurai largely being a horse archer, has less business being on foot with only a sword than a knight (who historically dismounted for sieges anyway.) yet they pull it off pretty well. (perhaps unreasonably well from a historic stand point, they don't even get the option of a shield after all for some absurd reason)

<Snipped quote by MelonHead>

I wouldn't say you need a horse. In fact, a Samurai largely being a horse archer, has less business being on foot with only a sword than a knight (who historically dismounted for sieges anyway.) yet they pull it off pretty well. (perhaps unreasonably well from a historic stand point, they don't even get the option of a shield after all for some absurd reason)

Yeah, I've recently been on a semi-crusade to discover why the Japanese never bothered with shields, I've still not heard any fully convincing arguments. (other than the fact that almost all their mainstream weaponry was traditionally used two handed.)

I think the difference is the 'primary' weapon of the Knight was the lance (as far as I'm aware, anyway) which is pretty much completely unusuable on foot. The Yari, Naginata, Konabo, Katana, No Daichi etc etc were all of significant use on foot, most were actually designed for it. The Samurai only had to be on a horse for mobility, no other reason really.

To be fair, I doubt Knights besieged castles all that frequently historically, that was the job of the peasants. Except during the Crusades I suppose, though one Crusade did end with the *Holy Roman Emperor, Fred falling in a river and drowning because of his armour, which is really irrelevant but a favourite fact of a friend of mine.

<Snipped quote by GreivousKhan>

Yeah, I've recently been on a semi-crusade to discover why the Japanese never bothered with shields, I've still not heard any fully convincing arguments. (other than the fact that almost all their mainstream weaponry was traditionally used two handed.)

I think the difference is the 'primary' weapon of the Knight was the lance (as far as I'm aware, anyway) which is pretty much completely unusuable on foot. The Yari, Naginata, Konabo, Katana, No Daichi etc etc were all of significant use on foot, most were actually designed for it. The Samurai only had to be on a horse for mobility, no other reason really.

To be fair, I doubt Knights besieged castles all that frequently historically, that was the job of the peasants. Except during the Crusades I suppose, though one Crusade did end with the *Holy Roman Emperor, Fred falling in a river and drowning because of his armour, which is really irrelevant but a favourite fact of a friend of mine.

Interesting.

Most people see the knights primary weapon being his longsword. Your knighted with it, often their given names (while lances as far as I know are not) often passed down to relatives, though that's not specific to knights/nobles.

With the the battle of barnet being largely on foot and fought with entirely with swords (despite everyone and their mother being in heavy plated mail of the late middle ages), I actually have a hard time seeing the knights main weapon being his lance. An important one, but one he can largely live without historically.

<Snipped quote by MelonHead>

Interesting.

Most people see the knights primary weapon being his longsword. Your knighted with it, often their given names (while lances as far as I know are not) often passed down to relatives, though that's not specific to knights/nobles.

With the the battle of barnet being largely on foot and fought with entirely with swords (despite everyone and their mother being in heavy plated mail of the late middle ages), I actually have a hard time seeing the knights main weapon being his lance. An important one, but one he can largely live without historically.

I think the almost ceremonial nature of swords suggests they weren't necessarily the most efficient tool of war. The lance was a very expendable weapon, it got used, it broke, but it's also perfect for mounted combat for that reason. You can afford to ride over, stab something long and pointy into your foe and leave it behind stuck in them (where-as dropping your sword left you SOL) and then ride back to pick up a new one. The lance might not be the main weapon of a knight, but it was definitely the main weapon of cavalry in west Europe, and as far as I know, Knights were predominantly cavalry.

I'd have to do more research, but I think the lance was definitely more synonymous with Knights then the sword, though in actuality it would be safer to say both weapons were synonymous with the Knight, with the lance used as a primary weapon for the charge, and the sword used if melee was engaged.

Doing a massively flawed wikipedia search but it does have some interesting insights into Knights, suggesting they originate from Equites, which any fan of Total War Atilla will tell you were Roman Cavalrymen from the lower tiers of aristocracy, definitely fitting the medieval Knight.

None of this of course stops you from just fighting as a dismounted Knight, but in some ways I feel the Knight was always meant to fight on horseback, which puts me off in Arena (unless you were going to conduct a Cavalry duel, which is something I've never seen before)

<Snipped quote by GreivousKhan>

I think the almost ceremonial nature of swords suggests they weren't necessarily the most efficient tool of war. The lance was a very expendable weapon, it got used, it broke, but it's also perfect for mounted combat for that reason. You can afford to ride over, stab something long and pointy into your foe and leave it behind stuck in them (where-as dropping your sword left you SOL) and then ride back to pick up a new one. The lance might not be the main weapon of a knight, but it was definitely the main weapon of cavalry in west Europe, and as far as I know, Knights were predominantly cavalry.

I'd have to do more research, but I think the lance was definitely more synonymous with Knights then the sword, though in actuality it would be safer to say both weapons were synonymous with the Knight, with the lance used as a primary weapon for the charge, and the sword used if melee was engaged.

Doing a massively flawed wikipedia search but it does have some interesting insights into Knights, suggesting they originate from Equites, which any fan of Total War Atilla will tell you were Roman Cavalrymen from the lower tiers of aristocracy, definitely fitting the medieval Knight.

Although the battlefield may generally have revolved around the lances of the men-at-arms, and the missiles and polearms of the infantry, the sword was the primary weapon of the knight for individual combat. Which is what the arena focuses on, so I'd rather keep to a sword. Not many duels I know of took place using lances anyway. (aside from jousting tournament, but their less about duels of honor)

In the same way the Katana and such are the weapons for individual duels for Samurai.

<Snipped quote by MelonHead>

Although the battlefield may generally have revolved around the lances of the men-at-arms, and the missiles and polearms of the infantry, the sword was the primary weapon of the knight for individual combat. Which is what the arena focuses on, so I'd rather keep to a sword. Not many duels I know of took place using lances anyway. (aside from jousting tournament, but their less about duels of honor)

In the same way the Katana and such are the weapons for individual duels for Samurai.

You're right, in a dueling sense it makes sense for a Knight character to fight on foot with a sword, unless he was conducting a joust or in combat with an opponent he was under obligation to kill under any circumstance, such as any person he considers infidel.

<Snipped quote by MelonHead>

By overly muscular, I'm talking about body builder standards. He's thick and sturdy framed which makes it clear he's had muscle training. However, it's not to the point his muscles are trying split through his skin or looking like inflated balloons.

I think the word you are looking for is 'lithe.'

By the way. @Rilla Have you ever considered setting up an Arena IRC or something like the Multiverse used to have? They were always good for keeping the shenanigans away from OOC where useful information is -sometimes- posted.

@Fallenreaper A good scale to use, if you're familiar with wrestling would be:

Bryan
Cesaro
Cena
Batista

As far as what type of body they have.

Bryan has a smaller body, though he trains
Cesaro trains for strength, not show
Cena trains for both
Batista looks to have trained for both.

Sadly I use to be, but my familiarity has slightly faded. My last wrestling memory is around the age Kane still had his mask on and Cold Stone Steve Austin still wrestled. XD

<Snipped quote by Fallenreaper>

I think the word you are looking for is 'lithe.'

Every time I think of 'lithe' my head pops up an image of the recent Spider-Man figure. Which Iron is between him and Captain American frame wise in my mind. That's part of the reason I didn't use 'lithe'.

Unless you're talking about a typo which in this case I blame my iPhone which has autocorrect and typing up massive amounts of text is not friendly on this SOB...

<Snipped quote by Rilla>

Sadly I use to be, but my familiarity has slightly faded. My last wrestling memory is around the age Kane still had his mask on and Cold Stone Steve Austin still wrestled. XD

<Snipped quote by GreivousKhan>

Every time I think of 'lithe' my head pops up an image of the recent Spider-Man figure. Which Iron is between him and Captain American frame wise in my mind. That's part of the reason I didn't use 'lithe'.

Unless you're talking about a typo which in this case I blame my iPhone which has autocorrect and typing up massive amounts of text is not friendly on this SOB...

Well technically its the build type you seem to be referring to in your character sheet. People tend to think it means weak or something, but forget ti's used to describe trees and Tolkien OP ass elves.

Also I might take up that challenge you posted up. Though I'm debating if I should use my knight.

<Snipped quote by Fallenreaper>

Well technically its the build type you seem to be referring to in your character sheet. People tend to think it means weak or something, but forget it's used to describe trees and Tolkien OP ass elves.

Also I might take up that challenge you posted up. Though I'm debating if I should use my knight.

Nay, there's a difference between slender and weak. And usually I see elves, and you can be skinny and still kick someone's ass, as thin little things. More willowy and light looking in stature.

<Snipped quote by GreivousKhan>

Nay, there's a difference between slender and weak. And usually I see elves, and you can be skinny and still kick someone's ass, as thin little things. More willowy and light looking in stature.

Exactly.

I have a knight who's super goody two shoes.

Maybe the Japanese didn't use shields because the opponents didn't use shields either? Makes me think of creating some fantasy race that intentionally fights with poor defense and stuff when fighting against each other to make it more sporting and not have it "classing together in impenetrable armor, making fights boring".

@ImportantNobody Well, if you'd like to fight a kitsune sooner rather than later, I have Shinko that you can take a look at. We might just have to do a small amount of power scaling in the raw strength department, but other than that I don't see anything unmanageable about Evvie.

I can wait. I was mainly thinking of just setting up a rivalry through NPC actions right now rather than getting into anything huge before the tournament is over.

<Snipped quote by ImportantNobody>

Bet I could beat her with my human warrior.

Unenhanced human, I assume you mean? That would defininitly have to be an unranked battle so I could have her lose as some sort of a "tortoise and the hare" story. Otherwise they'd be a goner almost instantly against her unless they don't even get to a fight and she's tricked beforehand. Or they are like Batman, being technically unenhanced by have a handy stash of dragon kryptonite.