login

Author Topic: The lords and knights of Westeros  (Read 60762 times)

Agent Griff

  • Guest
The lords and knights of Westeros
« on: March 27, 2008, 02:31:43 pm »
Basically, what I want to discuss in this thread is who the best N.P.Cs in Westeros should be, out of all the nobles and warlords in the game. I did propose a duelling mechanic for the game so I thought that some enemy warlords should be harder to fight (and subsequently defeat). Thus, I wish to discuss who the player should fear in a one-on-one fight and I mean who should be the most dangerous men in Westeros.

As it is, the lords aren't too impressive. Out of all the battles I fought (and in which enemy lords participated) the lords always died, and were sometimes the first to die, despite their good equipment and supposed skill. Only once did Davos Seaworth (out of all people!) give me trouble by cutting me down with his greatsword when I dismounted to fight him one-on-one. And that wasn't even full difficulty! Back then I played with 48% difficulty but now I've changed it to 122% difficulty, just like Ron recommended when using RCM. I don't know how Native will be now, but I sure as hell know that my RCM mods are a lot harder, and much more fun. I mean, now there are some risks, I can die just like some fool A.I. soldier can, with not even the slightest difference. Anyway. So here is a list of the most dangerous NPCs to duel, overall. I also think that these NPCs should be given a buff in skills and attributes so as to reflect their position.

In no particular order:

-Ser Jaime Lannister (Lord Commander of the Kingsguard and uncle to the King on the Iron Throne, also known as the Kingslayer and the Lion of Lannister)
-Ser Gregor Clegane (lord bannerman of House Lannister, also known as The Mountain that Rides)
-Ser Lyn Corbray (suitor to Lysa Arryn, slayer of Prince Lewin Martell who was a knight of Aerys the Second's ill-fated Kingsguard)
-Sandor Clegane (the Hound, sworn-shield to King Joffrey and currently not in game, I wonder why?)
-Lord Jon Umber (the lord and ruler of Last Hearth, also known as The GreatJon and one of the strongest men in Westeros)
-Ser Loras Tyrell (the third son of Lord Mace Tyrell of Highgarden, also known as The Knight of Flowers)
-Ser Garlan Tyrell (the second son of Mace Tyrell and brother to Loras, also known as Ser Garlan the Gallant)
-Strongboar of Crakehall (lord of Crakehall and considered by Jaime Lannister to be one of the stronger men in Westeros)

If there are any others I omitted, please point them out. I think it is a fairly comprehensive list.

shevchenko65

  • Guest
Re: The lords and knights of Westeros
« Reply #1 on: March 27, 2008, 06:22:15 pm »
Great thread.

I think they all should be customized differently. Like it's mentioned in the book that Gregor Clegane is very large and very strong, so he should have very, very high str and well as very high hp. He should have maxed out power hit.

Jaime should have very high agility one handed/two handed weapons skills.

Loras should have very, very high riding (not sure if adding more than 5 points into riding actually helps, does anybody know?) and very high polearm skills.

And more along the lines following the book.

Like Tyrion and Tywin are not fighters, I wonder if its possible that they send troops into battle but not join them.

Offline Ron Losey

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 4418
    • View Profile
Re: The lords and knights of Westeros
« Reply #2 on: March 27, 2008, 07:16:08 pm »
Make note here, that once RCM stats are in place, a large number of hit points will no longer make a person all that tough ... unless also accompanied by very heavy armor and/or other skills.  Even the toughest of humans can't take more than a couple of hits with an axe, unprotected.  Heck, even the toughest of elephants can't take that... not and keep fighting.

So expect the balance to have to be seriously reworked.  "Strong" characters will need to be represented in high power-strike/throw/draw more than by hit points.  (Muscles just don't stop steel blades... nobody has THAT many hit points.)  Speed, either in athletics and/or horsemanship, as well as attributes, will also prove more critical than hit points.  Expect a few changes to need to be made, or expect the balance of certain characters to change.

shevchenko65

  • Guest
Re: The lords and knights of Westeros
« Reply #3 on: March 27, 2008, 07:36:54 pm »
In the books Gregor supposedly is very strong, and i believe it is implied that he is able to carry armor much stronger and heavier than any other man. I think that should be replresented that he has very, very high armor.  As well as be able to cleave people in half with one swipe.

Offline Ron Losey

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 4418
    • View Profile
Re: The lords and knights of Westeros
« Reply #4 on: March 27, 2008, 11:00:12 pm »
Cutting a man in half .... that's not much of a trick.  Just about anybody can cut a man in half with a good heavy blade. 

During WW2, Japanese officers in China often took bets on if they could cut people in half vertically (right beside the spine, neck to groin).  (This is well documented, filmed, photographed, and backed up by evidence from the mass graves left afterwards.)  And they were hardly professional swordsmen, and many were using cheap machine-made parade swords that were really never intended to cut much of anything.

Archaeological evidence from ancient battlegrounds were even more horrific.  The digs at Visby turned up at least one guy who had both legs cut through on a single stroke, through armor.  (Through armor?)

Ancient Japanese swords were sometimes tested on dead bodies before they were sold - the results were recorded on the tang of the sword.  They almost always went through the targeted body parts, some of them passing through as many as seven bodies on a single stroke. 

Modern examples are just as bad.  Ask some homicide cop what a murder with a machete looks like.  And drug-addicted psychos are hardly great swordsmen ... many have trouble standing unassisted.

So cutting a man in half is no trick at all.  Most high school students, with a couple of hours of training and practice, could probably do that (assuming they were psychologically willing to do so).


---------------------
As for carrying heavier armor ... it's less of an issue of what you "can" carry, and more of an issue of what you "want" to carry.  A healthy adult male can fight in up to a hundred pounds of armor (and related gear), but it's not pleasant ... most people would not care to use more than half that, preferably much less.  But if you just started wearing the hundred pounds of armor all day, every day ... in a few weeks you would get used to it. Just ask the U.S. Marines ... they end up carrying 120 pounds of junk, 40 of that being body armor, and it doesn't seem to slow them down by much.

----------------------

But that's probably more realism and detail than those books care to go into.

Still, it's not really a major point.  A few points of power strike, and a strength higher than the requirements on the heaviest armor, and you're set.

Agent Griff

  • Guest
Re: The lords and knights of Westeros
« Reply #5 on: March 28, 2008, 03:12:17 am »
Ser Gregor Clegane really is one of the tallest and most powerful men in all of Westeros. Since you can't make NPCs taller currently, by way of modding, Ser Gregor should be made, as Ron said, very strong with an attire matching his attributes. Seeing as Iron Flesh no longer matters that much in combat (a good swing from a sword delivered from horseback can take out most enemies) Gregor's power strike and strength should be buffed up. He should also wear a helmet which makes him seem taller, preferably one of those lordly helmets with horns. One of those would make him particularly intimidating, and easy to recognize on the battlefield as well.

As for the attributes of other characters, Ser Loras Tyrell (the Knight of Flowers) should have very good riding and polearm skill, seeing as he is famed for his jousting. Since he is pretty light on his feet, he should also have a good athletics skill. His brother, Garlan Tyrell, should have much better skill with a sword, since Loras himself says that his brother is "the better sword". Ser Garlan also has the habit of practicing with three or four men at a time, his main line of thought being that in battle he never fights with one enemy. I don't know how this would translate in-game, but perhaps giving Ser Garlan some skill increase that would allow him to fight groups of enemies more easily should do? Good athletics like his brother and a fast sword and high agility to swing it should do, I think.

Now comes Jaime Lannister. Now Jaime considers himself to have an advantage when it comes to skill. He says that, despite some men like the GreatJon or the Mountain that Rides are stronger than him, he could defeat them all with skill. Seeing as he considers himself to be skilled (and he has also proven to be very, very skilled in battle) and he is a seasoned commander who leads his troops from the front line, perhaps Ser Jaime should have a bonus to his Charisma, Agility and overall weapon skills. I think he prefers one-handed blades to two-handed ones, but I'm not sure on this.

Offline HokieBT

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 514
    • View Profile
Re: The lords and knights of Westeros
« Reply #6 on: March 28, 2008, 08:18:09 am »
-Sandor Clegane (the Hound, sworn-shield to King Joffrey and currently not in game, I wonder why?)

Sandor actually is in the game but he's currently a NPC hero that joins your party.   Its been discussed before but I think we need to change the current list of Hero's because it doesn't make sense to have some of the characters that are currently in your party.  The current list is as follows:

- Anguy
- Beric Dondarrion
- Biter
- Bronn
- Chella
- Gendry
- Grand Maester Pycelle
- Jaqen H'ghar
- Lem Lemoncloak
- Osha
- Petyr Baelish
- Qyburn
- Rorge
- Sandor Clegane
- Shagga
- Syrio Forel
- Thoros of Myr
- Timmet
- Tom of Sevenstreams
- Vargo Hoat

I personally liked the suggestion of just creating random hedge knights and maester names. Several of them should have the bastard last names of Snow, Sand, etc. However, I would add one more feature, we should script an event that when you join a faction they give you one or two major characters.  For example, if you join the Lannisters then maybe they give you Ser Gregor Clegane and Maester Pycelle or something like that?  It would probably be good to have one Knight and one Maester so we'd have to think about what would make sense.  But my suggestion would be the following breakdown for NPC hero's:

10 minor characters - random names, some knights, archers, maesters, etc. A player can use them regardless of what faction they are in
10 major characters - 2 for each faction that you get when you give your oath. If you leave the faction then they go away

Hopefully the 8 remaining major characters would still exist in the game as enemies but I'm not sure if it would be difficult to script a hero and enemy troop with the same names?  The only disadvantage of this concept is that you only get a total of 12 hero's but personally I think this is fine.  I find trying to manage 20 hero's very time consuming and I usually don't have them all in my party anyway.  12 seems to be a good number and makes room for more regular troops.  Are there any suggestions on better names for the NPC hero's?

shevchenko65

  • Guest
Re: The lords and knights of Westeros
« Reply #7 on: March 28, 2008, 08:28:27 am »
I agree on creating random hedge knights, and throwing in one or two random Maesters/Traders for those other party skills. I just personally would like to see more than 12 or so heroes in a party.

Offline HokieBT

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 514
    • View Profile
Re: The lords and knights of Westeros
« Reply #8 on: March 28, 2008, 10:21:13 am »
I agree on creating random hedge knights, and throwing in one or two random Maesters/Traders for those other party skills. I just personally would like to see more than 12 or so heroes in a party.

maybe the breakdown should be 15 random characters (knights, maesters, traders) and then 5 'major' characters with you getting one of them when you join a faction....  This would be 16 total which would be good.  I just think it would be nice to have one or two "real" characters in your party.  Its easy to switch the character names, so maybe we should just rename all 20 hero's first and later if we decide to get more complicated we can switch them to other characters....

If anybody wants to review the current list and see skills/attributes/etc you can use my Troop Editor.  :)
http://forums.taleworlds.net/index.php/topic,34154.0.html

shevchenko65

  • Guest
Re: The lords and knights of Westeros
« Reply #9 on: March 28, 2008, 10:56:08 am »
Yeah, I think just renaming them first would be best. Plus, if they're just random characters there are no problems with how they look. Because currently Gendry is blonde instead of having black hair. Just one of problems that can be avoided with random chars.

Sparehawk

  • Guest
Re: The lords and knights of Westeros
« Reply #10 on: March 28, 2008, 04:26:07 pm »
I agree on creating random hedge knights, and throwing in one or two random Maesters/Traders for those other party skills. I just personally would like to see more than 12 or so heroes in a party.

maybe the breakdown should be 15 random characters (knights, maesters, traders) and then 5 'major' characters with you getting one of them when you join a faction....  This would be 16 total which would be good.  I just think it would be nice to have one or two "real" characters in your party.  Its easy to switch the character names, so maybe we should just rename all 20 hero's first and later if we decide to get more complicated we can switch them to other characters....

If anybody wants to review the current list and see skills/attributes/etc you can use my Troop Editor.  :)
http://forums.taleworlds.net/index.php/topic,34154.0.html

I think, it's a good idea, except for there will be more then 5 major factions. There will be at least 8 factions, to which player could join, in v.0.5, and about 10 - later. ;)

Nahadiel

  • Guest
Re: The lords and knights of Westeros
« Reply #11 on: March 30, 2008, 03:22:41 pm »
I'd only create random NPC that cover the fighting (hedge knights and mercenaries), trading, healing (maesters or ex-maesters or apprentices), engineering and scouting tasks. If in the end you create killable NPCs there should be something as a ramdon NPC generator. If not, a number between 15-20 would be fine. They could join you as now or depending on your renown and honor.

I wouldn't create faction heroes cause people like Pycelle and Petyr are supossedly at the Council and Lords and their sons are sworn, so tied to, to their leader faction, not to the player (no matter how high his renown and honor are). Only if you get a really high renown and relation with the faction leader he could offer you a previously created faction NPC (not necessarilly a character from the novel, it could be a Noble son, a promosing knight, a skilled maester).

Nahadiel

  • Guest
Re: The lords and knights of Westeros
« Reply #12 on: March 30, 2008, 04:22:05 pm »
As it is, the lords aren't too impressive. Out of all the battles I fought (and in which enemy lords participated) the lords always died, and were sometimes the first to die, despite their good equipment and supposed skill.

Lords are not expected to be at first line in a battle. They lead and do the tactical tasks; a general is supposed to be a decent fighter for self defence but it doesn't mean he is going to waste his valuable live being the first in a charge. When they joined the action the did it surrounded by companions or bodyguards like the Karstark brothers (died protecting Robb), Podrick Payne and Bronn (protecting Tyrion)...

Cutting a man in half .... that's not much of a trick.  Just about anybody can cut a man in half with a good heavy blade. 

During WW2, Japanese officers in China often took bets on if they could cut people in half vertically (right beside the spine, neck to groin).  (This is well documented, filmed, photographed, and backed up by evidence from the mass graves left afterwards.)  And they were hardly professional swordsmen, and many were using cheap machine-made parade swords that were really never intended to cut much of anything.

Archaeological evidence from ancient battlegrounds were even more horrific.  The digs at Visby turned up at least one guy who had both legs cut through on a single stroke, through armor.  (Through armor?)

Ancient Japanese swords were sometimes tested on dead bodies before they were sold - the results were recorded on the tang of the sword.  They almost always went through the targeted body parts, some of them passing through as many as seven bodies on a single stroke. 

Modern examples are just as bad.  Ask some homicide cop what a murder with a machete looks like.  And drug-addicted psychos are hardly great swordsmen ... many have trouble standing unassisted.

So cutting a man in half is no trick at all.  Most high school students, with a couple of hours of training and practice, could probably do that (assuming they were psychologically willing to do so).


On the other side you have executions in where usually more than a hit was needed to completely chop the head. 2 examples are Marie Antoinette (wife of King Luis of France along French Revolution) and the Scottish Queen executed after being charged in treason and conspiracy against Queen Elisabeth. Not to mention the executions with the guillotine. I'm not negating you or those data, but it is easier to chop an arm or a leg than cut by the middle (whatever direction) a human body.

A bullet or a piercing weapon as a spear, which create a higher pressure (Newtons per square cm) than any handed swung weapon not always pass trough a human body. So on, in the middle of a battle your opponent is expected to wear armor making that really difficult. I've read that British Cavalry of mid XIX century preferred to thrust with the point of their sabers rather than cut with the blade cause it was more deadly as the blade tended to be deflected by garbments and clothes in swung hits.


As for carrying heavier armor ... it's less of an issue of what you "can" carry, and more of an issue of what you "want" to carry.  A healthy adult male can fight in up to a hundred pounds of armor (and related gear), but it's not pleasant ... most people would not care to use more than half that, preferably much less.  But if you just started wearing the hundred pounds of armor all day, every day ... in a few weeks you would get used to it. Just ask the U.S. Marines ... they end up carrying 120 pounds of junk, 40 of that being body armor, and it doesn't seem to slow them down by much. Not all the Japanesse swords cut heads in one swing so it's not so easy.

IMO it is a question of what you can carry. A pound is 0.453 Kg so those marines carry around 54 Kg. By common sense it has to slow down any men as it is over half of his own weight, no matter how superhuman are those hard trained marines. I don't say they cannot run with that equipment, just that they cannot do it properly or sprint as good as they would do without it.

It was reported at D-day that some soldiers threw to the ground some items of their equipment cause they couldn't run, and they weren't dressed in a full body steel plate and a heavy steel weapon, but some were carrying near to 60 Kg. So on, some knights who fell to the floor needed help to stand up again as they weren't able, so clumsy was their armor.

For hard killing NPCs I'd suggest Jaime as he is supossedly the best combatant in Westeros, both Clegane brothers (tall, strong and fast), Great Umber (the same), Areoh Hotah, Robb Stark, Howland Reed (he is one of the three only survivors of the combat against the ancient Kingsward), Loras Tyrell and the Blackfish.

Offline Ron Losey

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 4418
    • View Profile
Re: The lords and knights of Westeros
« Reply #13 on: March 30, 2008, 07:52:00 pm »
Executions often failed for psychological reasons - the executioner would not be too keen on the idea of killing someone, especially if he thought they were wrongly accused, or if they were nobility to whom he still had some sense of loyalty.  This usually manafested itself in either flinching or making a half-hearted strike, thereby getting far worse results than you would expect even from a good clean blow from a kitchen cleaver.  Also, in the case of the French revolution, their blades were just dull - this happens when you have 5000 executions to do today.  For game reasons, it's probably reasonable to expect troops to go in with their weapons sharpened and fight for their lives, making the execution analogy a little off.

And actually, the femur - the upper leg bone - is the largest bone in the human body (and most other large animals).  Almost anything is easier than cutting that.  Having processed some meat from various animals, and so tried this, I'll say any bone on the body is going to cut easier than that.

The British cav would lead with the point of the saber because they were not being issued lances, like they really needed.  A slash from horse requires a little bit of timing to be effective, plus the formation must be loose enough to allow you to swing, while the point of a lance just has to be on target.  But since they weren't being issued lances, they made do with their sword points.  (George Patton proposed U.S. cav trade in their sabers on straight double-edge longswords, for exactly this reason ... but they traded their horses for tanks instead.)  Good, heavy, sharp swords instead of those flimsy cav sabers would have fixed the problem too... but rapier dueling was popular, so everybody was designing their swords MUCH too light at the time.  (This was never a problem before 1500 or so.)

As for armor, it was still a question of what you "can" do or what you "want" to do.  You "can" carry 200 pounds of junk, if you're determined to do so.  You probably don't want to try to fight like that.  In fact, you probably dislike that idea so much that, as soon as whoever gave you the junk looks the other way, some of the stuff is going to disappear.  But if someone were big, tough, and practiced carrying that much stuff around ... it is possible he could adjust to fighting in it.  In the case of body armor, a particularly paranoid person could train himself to wear a LOT of armor, if he was determined to do so.  But it is going to hurt, both in limited mobility and increased fatigue ... so most people would not WANT to try that.

The knights needing help to stand ... that could be a myth.  True, it is harder and slower to get up in armor than without - so your buddy giving you a hand would be most welcome.  Also, it's much harder to get up when you're hurting, and presumably they weren't down there just taking a nap - something knocked them down, and so probably knocked the wind out of them, armor or no.  But neither of those are the same as really being unable to stand when wearing your armor.  Modern reconstructions of armor have repeatedly been used to prove that you can even put on a pretty good gymnastics presentation in full plate armor, at least until you get extremely tired from carrying around the extra weight.

Also, late-period tournament jousting plate armors were sporting equipment, not combat gear.  There are some reports of those actually being too heavy and stiff to allow movement, because they were designed to protect the wearer from impact, not to be worn in a fight.  But nobody would wear full tournament armor to a battle, because they knew it was too stiff to actually use for combat.  And then, the problem was more "stiff" than "heavy" - the joints were reinforced in ways that limited the range of motion.  You really couldn't scratch your nose wearing those things, much less fight.

Really, you "can" carry a lot ... you just don't WANT to.

The guy who looks like he's wearing a freight train ... he just decided that the trade-off was worth it.  And if he's in good shape and has been practicing in it, he might be right.

----------------------------

Not sure what any of that has to do with anything ... but it could influence how these hero characters are designed and armed, so I'll not be the one to fail to respond.

Agent Griff

  • Guest
Re: The lords and knights of Westeros
« Reply #14 on: March 31, 2008, 02:15:24 am »
I don't think Robb Stark or the Blackfish should be part of these hard to kill NPCs. I don't remember any occasion in which Robb fought someone, and the Blackfish is really a good planner and tactician. His experience is his main weapon, not his skill at arms. At least, that's what I think of him. He is rather getting on in years, you know? So is Howland Reed. Maybe when he fought together with Eddard Stark and the other northmen against the three members of Aerys' Kingsguard he was a better warrior, but I doubt it now. That fight was fifteen years ago, after all.

I agree, however, with Jaime Lannister, the Clegane brothers and the Greatjon. As an afterthought, I think Oberyn Martell (the Red Viper) should be part of this list as well since he is rather well-known as a bloodthirsty man and a tenacious fighter.

I also have to correct one of my mistakes. Strongboar of Crakehall is not the lord of Crakehall, merely the lord's second son. As of the third book in the series (A Storm of Swords) he is being held captive at Pinkmaiden. Strongboar's real name is Ser Lyle Crakehall, second son of Lord Roland Crakehall. I believe neither he nor his father are currently in the game, Crakehall being held by Tyrion Lannister. I believe that should be corrected. I think another warrior NPC would fit the mod well. Tyrion, at the least, is not a warrior. He is more of a planner, in truth.