Killing the enemy

[Cork2]

So during fights are there one hit kills or do you have to shoot 5 or more arrorws at someone befor they go down?(if it were a archer shooting a swords man)

[Jorghan]

The impression I've got is that it will be realistic, in other words, you die (or are disabled) when you are hit.

[vanedor]

"The impression I've got is that it will be realistic, in other words, you die (or are disabled) when you are hit."

That's realistic? geez

Arrows arent 120mm shells. ie, when one hit you, it all depends what it hit. If you wield a shield or/and you wear a heavy full place armor, it has good chance to get blocked by it. And if you are right handed and an arrow hit your right arm, you can continue fighting(but not at the best of your capacity). Same if you are ahorse and an arrow hit your leg.

[Pikeman]

I think that the idea is that it shouldn't take 90 arrows to kill 1 guy, like in various other RTS's. I would say that in this game, a guy should try and catch an arrow coming towards him on his shield, maybe with a 50-50 chance of succeding. If he doesn't manage, the arrow kills him, if he does manage, nothing happens. That would be cool. And I think that only about 20% of arrrows should manage to hit and not be caught on the shield. That should make it as realistic as possible.:cheers:

[Jorghan]

If you block the arrow, or blow, with your armour or shield, I wouldn't consider you hit. Yes, what's most realistic would of course be if each soldier could be wounded at different degrees, but adding such a feature would make the game take a whole lot more resources.

[Jeremiah_jir]

I think every unit should have a anti unit, but mix it around alittle. To be on a more realistic scale.

For Example.

An Archers is weak Vs. Crossbow-man cause there lack of armor.
A Crossbow-man is weak Vs. Archers cause there lack of range.

Just a simple idea of how they could mix it around.





:cheers: