about things, worthy laughter or sobbings

Here, as however and in other games, those are present from the beginning. And I would not call subjective that it's obvious to much (and here, it's sure, the majority - people with education and life experience).
The problem with such things is that seeing them, cannot seriously treat a serious talk on the game. Because similar, at first sight insignificant, these things manage at that to create the frivolous relation to the game in general (and whether it's required, the serious relation?).
So, for example military helmets with horns. It's scary nonsense and a historical lie. If in reality you put on such, then in the first fight to you turn neck. For example swords. Here by some misunderstanding, when using them, the skill only of the slashing weapon rises. While swords are the piercing-slashing weapon (so also the skill of piercing has to rise). However, technics of possession of a sword, and not as in some other games where a sword always a saber is approximately correctly shown here.
Perhaps someone will pay the general attention and to other things in this game, such for which it's possible to laugh or cry (both according to scientists it's useful for our precious health)?

Your post was hard to follow, however, it seems to me you are complaining about basic mechanics of the game and fantasy elements being present in a fantasy game.

It's a game, with magic and dragons and flying reindeer and giant spiders you can ride. The armor isn't supposed to be historically accurate, it's supposed to kinda look cool.

As far as skill-ups go, the devs choose the skills they want X item to raise and assuming that they want to keep it simple so there are less places for things to go wrong, they choose a single skill even if "real life" versions would require more than one. Seriously, I make jewelry, cook, sew, and do minor woodworking things. We plan on making a small forge in the garage. In the game I can only choose to do one of those things as a craft.

It's a game, a fantasy game at that. Very little about it is going to coincide with how things work in the real world.

It seems really strange to focus on such incredibly minor things when there are elves, fairies, ogres, trolls, ratmen, and catmen that one can play and all the different fantasy creatures existing in the world.

If you're going to introduce historical argument to a fantasy world, do be sure you know your history.

Vikings did not have horned helmets, despite persistent modern myth, that's true. And, to date, only one Viking Age helmet actually made and used by Scandinavians has been discovered, found at Gjermundbu in Norway. And it looks a lot like the one Mithaniel Marr wears (Mithaniel's has wings):



But real warriors DID wear horned helmets. Helmet crests were a Big Thing in the high Middle Ages, and German warriors loved them some big old horns, and wings, and many other dang large things that exceeded the total height of the helmet.

Um, no. Broadswords weren't super sharp slashing weapons, they were essentially mass weapons that crushed as much as they cut. And they weren't point-thrust weapons. You don't really get combination piercing/slashing swords until the evolution of the epée/schlager type swords (early medieval folks used various types of daggers for piercing). For example, here's a Viking Age sword from Norway.... note that the "point" is pretty rounded, which isn't much good for piercing, especially when in use vs. chainmail:



On the other hand, swords recovered from the wreck of the Mary Rose (1545) are thinner-bladed with narrow points, good for both slashing and stabbing (link goes to the actual recovered items, pic is a reproduction):

Ha-ha. Fastened on their helmets, it was not firm. Used for ornament everyone, tinsel, significant for them, for which of course the enemy sword or the axe could not be hooked. Wind all this blew off. They wanted to live and were equipped properly. All this was for example for a parade, curiosity of women or intimidation of enemies. Who told You that the German soldiers were silly? Ha ha ha. And such as in the drawing of a horn mean what on the blindness many do not see neither in themselves nor in others. Demons. It at them such spiral pieces are stretched up. And here when in certain people demons so it also probably looks. Did You in old language read this source before to stick the picture to borrowed fabrications? Ha ha ha

Yeah, there's a difference between parade armor, field armor, and an artists rendering of what they think cool armor would look like.

Wear a helmet with horns or a fixed crest and go fight some SCA guys to find out why having a handle on your head is a bad idea.

None of this really applies to high fantasy video games that long since threw any pretense to realism out the window, though.

What lack of information! Nightmare! Ordinary for chroniclers, that represent enemies movable evil spirits. And sword? It to enemies pierced and cut, cut and pierced. Long and methodically.

You don't need a razor sharp needle point on a sword to make it an effective piercing weapon, nor does the edge have to be super honed to slash things.

Swords that pierce effectively existed long before chain mail, in fact, that's pretty much the reason ring and chain armor was developed. Which prompted the use of weapons like the epee, sabre and rapier.

Then all of those things were trumped by black powder weapons.

Regardless some games forgo realistic functional armor in favor of the 'cool factor' of sticking random crap, bright colors and particle effects on it.


Edit: And don't get me started on the shoulder pads and pauldruns.

You provided no citations. Just opinions and rebuffs. That's a lack of information.

https://www.britishmuseum.org/resea...object_details.aspx?objectId=1362722&partId=1

https://natmus.dk/historisk-viden/d...onzealderen-1700-fkr-500-fkr/viksoe-hjelmene/


Combat armor pre-Meiji Restoration.


https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6279544-samurai-weapons

With no citations he demonstrates an opinionated view point. That's not knowledge, it's entertainment.

Without objective data, your ramblings are subjective. That is obvious.

ok, and I did not see no one proof that I wrote a lie ..

What you are missing is that it DOES NOT MATTER.

This is a game, in a fantasy world (not Earth in any form) and it does not have to conform to any of your ideas or any historical facts from Earth. It exists purely from the imagination of the people who created it and anything and everything they decide to stick in it is okay as far as the truth and lore of the game world.

You can say "oh I think I would like it better if in game stuff was more historically accurate and conformed to more real world ideas and constraints". But it doesn't mean anyone owes you an explanation as to why it doesn't work that way or act that way in game.

On the contrary, I saw quite good modern fantasies games where this incident about which told here is absent (about pumping of skills for sword - did not meet still where it's correct how I told). In any fantasy there is what is familiar from the habitual world. And it should not deceive. High fantasy is that which you trust. In which also you live. Also you know that you are not deceived.

Imagine all those appearance armors be changed to realistic and historical pieces. No thanks!

Kingdom come is proof enough for me that games and historical realism doesn't mix into a fun product for me. If I play fantasy I want fantasy and I won't be bothered even if a sword dealt blunt dmg only while raising ranged skill ;P

OK that was a slight exaggeration, I wouldnt want my melee to raise ranged cuz it would be quite inconvenient ;P

You're both correct. There are some games - new, old and in the works - that have a more realistic, functional take on weapons and armor. And there at the games that slap spikes on shoulder pads, because it doesn't matter if it rips your face off when you turn your head, you look darn cool(?) when you're standing still.

Or plate armor on females that literally exposes every single vital organ.

Or horns and crests and spikes and plates jutting off of armor that would rip limbs off if an enemy weapon got caught on it. (I'm talking field armor, not parade or officer armor. Lets make sure we all use that distinction, it's important)

The list goes on and on.

Personally, I prefer more realism with enough stylistic bits to make it nice to look at, but gear appearance in and of itself isn't a deal breaker for me if I like other aspects of the game enough.

YMMV

That's from the 1459 Ingeram Codex, and crests were certainly worn in tournaments. In fact, there were whole Kolbenturnier in which they tried to knock one anothers' crests off as well. Here's an example from Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien:



The crest of the Black Prince was made of wood, leather, plaster, and paint, and was attached via internal ties:


Crests were attached fairly sturdily. King René of Anjou's Tournament Book showed one type of crest mounting using a central spike attached to a base of cuirboulli and attachment points around the rim. (The color original is available from Bibliothèque Nationale de France):

Tournaments are for show, exhibition matches.

Not actual warfare where combatants are literally trying to kill one another.

If you want to say armor like that is for exhibition purposes, and not practical, then I agree.



Again, in a game setting, it doesn't matter how impractical armor is, you don't need to keep trying justify it. It just is because 'the designer said so'.

I was going to say something about how internal consistency in a setting is often at least as, if not more important than realism. After reflecting a bit something seems off here. Something is not genuine. So have fun.

I don't want to insist on something here and I ask to forgive if to You or to Another something from told by me seemed to inappropriate or offensive. Why is also not, tell that You find significant. Besides - the theme purpose well mood of all. However there is the return

If it is not cool looking, I won't wear it. Historically correct - not a chance.

Not very entertaining, the one without evidence, but comedic. Just not comedic/funny in the manner someone wanted it to be. Not One Link. Even pseudo-science types provide links. Awful ones, but links nonetheless.

An old friend has a beaten up suit of armor in an interesting display. It's horny, wonder how the english translator will translate that. It's beat up, and the lacquer has seen better days. Like it went through a war; it did. And it has a perfectly round hole in it.

Conversation went about like this:

• Prop?
• Authentic.
• Connecticut Yankee?
• He laughs
• I look grim
• Ball to chest.
• Why is that funny?
• My direct ancestor. He lived.
• Oh. Ohhhhh.

That's known as anecdotal. It's a step above your stuff.
http://archive.is/lN3sz

Strangely enough, everyone with horned helmet references did prove that. You're the one that said "I wrote a lie." With more than just color photos; they included the reference articles. Apparently you refuse to accept any of that. Then again you don't appear to want proof. You appear to want a platform. You appear to want attention. You appear to have it. Appear to enjoy.

Ah. Always comes to this.

Tell you what. When your internal translation fails; some of this could contribute to translator fits . Bet some are thinking "Apology accepted" Set forth to the mods, 'it's a joke son.'

https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2013/02/15/did-vikings-wear-horned-helmets