DeletedUser
sorry for the spelling in the above post, however i have had a shed load of drink and my eyes have gone wonky :S
regards
ohhh theres a EDIT funtion
regards
ohhh theres a EDIT funtion
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser2708
Obviously, a totally realistic game would probably be unplayable. But a totally illogical game is also unplayable, and a totally ahistorical one makes the setting completely pointless. So the question is a matter of DEGREES. And I believe that smart people can make a game that balances BOTH good gameplay AND realism at the same time.
DeletedUser
It seems to me that you guys are complaining that the first 4 (okay, 6 if you count slingshot 3 times) shooting weapons aren't guns? out of the 16(30? 35?) available?
Would you really feel better if instead of "Peddle", fire stone, granite, slingshot, it went something like rock, old flintlock, spanish musket, bow?
On the realistic side, did they even have slingshots in the 1860's? Don't you need rubber to make a good one, and rubber was probably fairly expensive....
Would you really feel better if instead of "Peddle", fire stone, granite, slingshot, it went something like rock, old flintlock, spanish musket, bow?
On the realistic side, did they even have slingshots in the 1860's? Don't you need rubber to make a good one, and rubber was probably fairly expensive....
DeletedUser
Could just be a regular sling then 
Anyways, how do you propose firing six shots in a duel with a flintlock?
Anyways, how do you propose firing six shots in a duel with a flintlock?
DeletedUser
First, the original slingshots where made of a leather thing with a pouch in the center to hold the stone, as in the weapon David used to kill Goliath. Second, there are recorded instances of muskets being used to fight duels up to the time duelling was done away with in most jurisdictions. Finally, once again duelling is being confused with the street gunfights which were common in the old west. The rules of the code duello were quite specific about how the combat was waged; in the vast majority of cases the weapons were single shot .69 caliber horse pistols, the seconds were to be of equal or superior social standing to the combatants, and whomever was officiating would guide the procedure at each step. It matters not in a true duel if the weapon was a flintlock or a percussion pistol, one shot at most was what the rules called for at one time.
DeletedUser
Really? I thought you could still choose weapons like swords or knives instead of guns until dueling was made illegal, and that guns were used mostly because it gave a total novice a (slightly) better chance to win.
DeletedUser
A bit off the point this but out of general interest.......
There was a properly seconded duel occurred in the nineteenth century. It involved the two combatants blindfolded taking it in turns to throw billiard balls at each other.
There was a properly seconded duel occurred in the nineteenth century. It involved the two combatants blindfolded taking it in turns to throw billiard balls at each other.
DeletedUser
Correct
You are correct, the challenged party had choice of weapons, but the majority of these affairs of honor were fought with pistols. Duels did come in some very interesting variants, from Sicilian style, where each combatant had a rapier and a dagger to Apache style, where the two were bound by a rawhide thing about three feet long, right wrist to right wrist, and in the off hand was an 18 inch Bowie. Another variant had only one knife stuck in the dirt some distance away when the combat began.
You are correct, the challenged party had choice of weapons, but the majority of these affairs of honor were fought with pistols. Duels did come in some very interesting variants, from Sicilian style, where each combatant had a rapier and a dagger to Apache style, where the two were bound by a rawhide thing about three feet long, right wrist to right wrist, and in the off hand was an 18 inch Bowie. Another variant had only one knife stuck in the dirt some distance away when the combat began.
DeletedUser2708
For those who think that getting guns earlier would imbalance the game: need I remind you that there are a number of SKILLS that come into play when a duel happens, and that important dueling skills like dodge (for melee) and aim (for firearms) do not count for ANY job -- and neither does health. Those with greater vigor (melee) or shooting (firearms) skills will still have the edge, so where's the imbalance?
DeletedUser
They went to a lot of trouble to have all these different weapons in the game. They aren't just gonna get rid of them, so whatever the merits or otherwise of this idea it is never gonna happen. If you want to say they could have done it more realistically, then yes agreed it is farcical. but it's not gonna change
DeletedUser
so there
DeletedUser
Oy gevalt
With that last post, the journey from debate to sandbox fight is now complete.
With that last post, the journey from debate to sandbox fight is now complete.
DeletedUser
With brass knobs on.
DeletedUser
Whatever, as long as they have a melee equivalent. Otherwise, who cares. By the time "non-duelers" get access to a level 2 bank duelers have no point in the game, so those of us who actually work and take part in the game need our baseball bat that goes off vigor. Otherwise, what are duelers going to do? Boom I killed you, you had no chance at all to win, you never have any money, I spent all my skill points on dueling so I can't work for a living, might as well go kill myself...
Codeguru
Codeguru
DeletedUser
Ignoring all the uncalled for vitriol , a valid point . As long as game balance is preserved it doesn't really matter . However , if it does not matter . Why bother ?
DeletedUser
That's about the size of it. Banks have made duelling redundant.
DeletedUser
I'm glad I speak some "Brit" , otherwise that would make no sense .
American Translation : High level banks have made "Duelling" wothless .
American Translation : High level banks have made "Duelling" wothless .
DeletedUser1105
Surely you have the word 'redundant' over there??
DeletedUser
Yes we do . It means to duplicate . How ever to a "Brit" it means knackered or kaputt or sacked .
To make "duelling" doubled , is just nonsensical ,in American English.
To make "duelling" doubled , is just nonsensical ,in American English.
DeletedUser
surely redundant means unemployed in any english speaking country?