The Drunken Lizard Pub

Ok, I've been playing this game for a while now and it's pretty good, except for a few minor points. I really don't like the concept of having to bash away at doors and barrels and things if I don't have lockpicking skills. It takes far too long and is unrealistic. I'm a disabled person but give me an axe or hammer and I can break down a heavy wood door, or open a barrel or chest in far less strokes than this game requires.

That aside, I have some questions. Mild spoilers are ok in the answer if need be.

1. I found a copper bar. This seems to be an unusual item. Is there any use for it later in the game?

2. I found a giant skull. Again, this seems to be an unusual item. Is there any use for it later in the game?

3. Is there a reason to keep books and notes after they've been read, except maybe for reference? For example, I've found lots of books such as the Alchemists Book (I and II) and read them and gotten the alchemy skill upped. Is there a reason to continue to hold onto these books?

4. Identifying objects is a little strange. I found an unidentified sword. When I had it identified at a shop, it was a Mithral Sword. I already had a Mithral Sword. The two were identical. So why couldn't I tell the second sword was the same thing? The same thing happened with Mana potions and healing potions. Also, when I pay a merchant to identify an object, it costs the same amount to identify as the merchant pays to buy the object. Since I get no monetary benefit, and future similar finds have to be identified again, that means I essentially get no benefit from finding the object and identifying it. Is there something I'm missing? Is there a better way to identify objects?

5. Archery seems to be somewhat useless. Although my character has a skill of 3, almost every shot is a miss, and when I do hit, it's only for a few points of damage. Anyone who knows anything about archery knows that archers in the olden days were much more deadly than soldiers with swords. I understand how the designers of the game may have decided to limit the power of archery so it's not overwhelming but they seem to have made it a useless skill. Again, am I missing something? Does the archery skill have to be much higher before it does real damage?

Well, that's it. I await answers. In the meantime, it's back to the game...

1. No particular use other than for selling.

2. Yes, there is a use for this later.

3. Not really. The only reason to hang on to things like the Alchemy books is for the lists of mixtures they include - if you copy those out, there's no reason to keep them. There are one or two letters you'll want to keep - but it'll be fairly obvious which ones.

4. If you buy something from a shop, it's already been identified by the shopkeeper, and an item only has to be identified once to remain identified. The skill that enables you to identify items is Lore - there are also Lore rings to be found/bought: wearing one of these will enable you to identify almost anything; two will certainly enable you to identify absolutely anything. Items that stack (i.e. you can keep more than one in one space in your inventory, like potions) can be identified if you have another item the same, by stacking it with that item. If it doesn't stack, it isn't the same.

5. Archery becomes very effective at higher levels; it also makes a difference what bow and what arrows you use. There are also defensive items and amulets that raise your Archery skills.

3: Books that increase skill can be sold once read. Books with stories in them are for flavor so you can keep them to read again or sell them, it's up to you.

4: There is also a Lore spell in the Divination school.

I think the bashing method is irritating, too. I wish that bashing something did greater amounts of damage at a time, so that you never had to successfully hit something more than ten times to smash it open. That means with a good bashing weapon and a rotten barrel, for example, one bash would do it, whereas it might take ten bashes, plus maybe ten misses to open a strong door or chest with a poor bashing weapon.

Having to click 200 times to open something is ridiculous and hard on my mousing hand!

Jude

acoustibop wrote:
4. If you buy something from a shop, it's already been identified by the shopkeeper, and an item only has to be identified once to remain identified. The skill that enables you to identify items is Lore - there are also Lore rings to be found/bought: wearing one of these will enable you to identify almost anything; two will certainly enable you to identify absolutely anything. Items that stack (i.e. you can keep more than one in one space in your inventory, like potions) can be identified if you have another item the same, by stacking it with that item. If it doesn't stack, it isn't the same.

Stacking doesn't work. I had two potions of Healing II. I found two unidentified potions that looked in the graphics exactly like the potions of Healing II. I tried to stack them together. They wouldn't stack. I paid to have them identified. They identified as two potions of Healing II. After paying to identify them, I was able to stack them.

As for lore - my character has lore 3. That should certainly be enough to identify items I pick up that are identical to items I already have and know about. So, those two potions of Healing II should have been identified. Also, I should have recognized the Mithral sword I picked up that was identical to the Mithral sword I already had in my possession.

One additional note: I also have a helmet that increases my intelligence by 2 points. Since intelligence is also used in figuring out the ability to identify (along with Lore and either Perception or Wisdom - I don't remember which) that increases the likelihood that I should be able to recognize objects I already have.

It's not working.

What annoys me the most is that the cost to identify the item is the same as the amount the merchant will buy the item for. So, if I find an item worth 100 gold, the merchant will identify it for 50 gold. If I sell it, he buys it for 50 gold leaving me with a net gain of 0.

I know the mercantile skill affects how this works and probably changes the dynamics. But, even with no skill, I should be able to realize SOME benefit from the treasure I find. The way the game works now, I don't.

acoustibop wrote: 5. Archery becomes very effective at higher levels; it also makes a difference what bow and what arrows you use. There are also defensive items and amulets that raise your Archery skills.

Whoever decided the way archery works in the game has no clue as to how archery works in real life. An unskilled bowman in the middle ages could shoot an arrow without training. If the arrow hit (the only thing affected by the bowman's skill) it could pierce armor and kill the person. A person hit by an arrow rarely survived. That's why bowmen were in such demand as mercenaries. A trained bowman had a greater chance of hitting than an untrained bowman but the amount of damage remained the same.

While it's true that the type of bow you use has an effect, if I recall correctly, the bow only affected the RANGE you could shoot and expect to hit your target, not the DAMAGE done by the arrow. Certain types of arrows would do more damage, though.

So, I can understand if, in the game, the archery skill affects the ability to hit. However, once hit, the arrow should do SEVERE damage, modified by the type of arrow. Not a piddling few points. And NEVER "hit but does no damage".

This should be fixed for Book II.

sjaffe wrote: Whoever decided the way archery works in the game has no clue as to how archery works in real life. An unskilled bowman in the middle ages could shoot an arrow without training. If the arrow hit (the only thing affected by the bowman's skill) it could pierce armor and kill the person. A person hit by an arrow rarely survived. That's why bowmen were in such demand as mercenaries. A trained bowman had a greater chance of hitting than an untrained bowman but the amount of damage remained the same.

While it's true that the type of bow you use has an effect, if I recall correctly, the bow only affected the RANGE you could shoot and expect to hit your target, not the DAMAGE done by the arrow. Certain types of arrows would do more damage, though.

So, I can understand if, in the game, the archery skill affects the ability to hit. However, once hit, the arrow should do SEVERE damage, modified by the type of arrow. Not a piddling few points. And NEVER "hit but does no damage".

This should be fixed for Book II.

Ah, I see where your confusion is coming from. This game is not, in fact, a medieval warfare simulation. Combat is abstracted so it is straightforward and fun. For example, if bows worked the way you describe, an encounter with a few goblin archers would be almost inevitably deadly. That would not be fun, it would simply be frustrating.

sjaffe wrote:Whoever decided the way archery works in the game has no clue as to how archery works in real life. An unskilled bowman in the middle ages could shoot an arrow without training.

Incorrect. Bowman were highly skilled. It took many hours of training to use a bow with any level of effectiveness. Crossbows were invented for this reason, because crossbows require very little instruction and less strength to wield than longbows. Soldiers could be lethal with a crossbow with just minutes of instruction, though skilled bowman were far more lethal on the battlefield due to range, rate of fire, and penetration power of arrows over bolts. "Unskilled bowman" were either crossbowman or foot soldiers...a military unit would not have wasted a man by giving him a weapon he could not wield effectively.

sjaffe wrote:If the arrow hit (the only thing affected by the bowman's skill) it could pierce armor and kill the person. A person hit by an arrow rarely survived. That's why bowmen were in such demand as mercenaries. A trained bowman had a greater chance of hitting than an untrained bowman but the amount of damage remained the same.

ToHit is not the only thing effected by a bowman's skill. Damage also increases with skill which reflects a bowman's increasing ability to place shots in critical target zones: head, chest, throat, etc. Bow skill is aiming (ToHit) as well as shot placement (damage).

sjaffe wrote:While it's true that the type of bow you use has an effect, if I recall correctly, the bow only affected the RANGE you could shoot and expect to hit your target, not the DAMAGE done by the arrow. Certain types of arrows would do more damage, though.

So, I can understand if, in the game, the archery skill affects the ability to hit. However, once hit, the arrow should do SEVERE damage, modified by the type of arrow. Not a piddling few points. And NEVER "hit but does no damage".

The type of bow generally reflects it draw weight- the amount of pull needed to ready an arrow. This increases the arrows inertia as it leaves the bow effecting it's range, it's penetration power and potential damage.

The message "hit but does no damage" implies the arrow didn't penetrate the target's armor, or it did but the damage was in a non-critical location. This in not a perfect solution and will be improved for Book II.

BW is absolutely correct. An experienced archer could bend a bow and shoot it accurately that an inexperienced archer couldn't even bend. To develop your archery skills, you need to develop your strength in pulling the bow, strength and skill in doing this smoothly and easily, and skill to shoot accurately.

Mediaeval archers normally used a "clothyard shaft," i.e. an arrow a clothworker's yard long. This was far longer than the longest crossbow bolt, and was responsible for the great accuracy of the longbow over distance. As BW points out, a longbow archer can maintain a high rate of fire (perhaps if you do introduce crossbows in Book II, BW, you should introduce a time penalty - i.e. it should take a turn or two to wind and reload one?), and the "clothyard shaft" has tremendous penetrative power, being able to pierce the finest armour even at a distance.

Recently, the raising of mediaeval wrecks and the recovery of longbows from them showed that mediaeval archers routinely used bows that even expert modern-day archers are unable to use.

In mediaeval England, it was law (still is, actually. It's not enforced) for every adult male to spend a certain amount of time practising the longbow - such events as Agincourt (and Crecy) proved the superiority of trained archers over armoured cavalry - before these battles, strategists regarded mounted armoured knights as the most powerful military force that could be used. After Agincourt, they were considerably devalued, although they still retained credibility until the invention (or adoption?) of gunpowder weapons.

You can also realise from this that it's appropriate that it should take time and much experience to raise your Archery level to real effectiveness - in mediaeval times, this would have taken years. But then, a really experienced mediaeval archer would probably be flattening Tauraxes with a shot or two - at considerable distance, as well...

See the wikipedia entry for the English Longbow.

Actually, there is evidence that the long bow killing of armored knights at Agincourt was actually a slaughter of hostages rather than killings done in battle. It seems that the French knights got got in a narrow area that was full of thick, deep mud, and surrendered, expecting to be ransomed. But the English leader, not wanting to be burdened with all the prisoners, ordered them executed. The English nobles refused (perhaps seeing a precedent being made that would apply to them someday), and so the archer commoners were ordered to do it.

Later, seeing that the Knights were killed by arrows, people assumed that it was done in battle, and the long bow rep was established. And given the dishonorable execution or prisoners order, I can see why the soldiers didn't contradict the assumption greatly!

Anyway, I've read some on this theory, and there was even a History Channel episode on it, and it seems reasonable given the archaeological evidence, the terrain and condition of the battlefield, etc.

Jude

Well, historical evidence for the effectiveness of longbow archers is well established in many, many other scenarios, Jude.

And, TBH, while it's true the French knights were hampered by the mud, it's extremely unlikely they surrendered and your scenario happened. The French actually expected an easy victory, as they both outnumbered (by 3 to 1 or better) and were better equipped than the English knights. They were also fresh, while the English were tired from battles and campaigning, and poor supplies. Even given the handicap of the mud (which, by the way, an armoured knight would have had considerable training and practice for), and facing a foe they considered inferior and almost barbaric, there's no way they would have surrendered.

And, finally, the historical evidence is that the French knights did reach the English lines, although decimated and exhausted - I don't see how they could have done this if they surrendered?

Edit: it is true that Henry ordered a slaughter of French captives, but this was because the French mounted a fresh attack from Agincourt Castle on the unarmed English baggage train at the rear. Henry therefore thought that the English were being attacked from behind, and ordered the slaughter of prisoners to prevent them from taking up arms and joining the attack. As you say, the noble knights refused and the task fell to the common soldiers This was, however, late in the battle, after the French were already beaten, and had been taken prisoner - perhaps it was this that gave rise to your story?

...and who says computer games are a waste of time?

Great posts, thanks guys!!!