Knights, Samurai or Vikings? | Forums

[ShadedSword]

If it's honor your looking for, the Samurai is the only way to go.

[Dienekes12]

If Ubisoft makers would add more historical races The Ottomans were obviously best . But if we had to think for this 3 ( Best land army of age of series ) i think samurai is best..

Eh, best is a relative term. The samurai were very well suited for doing what they were doing quite well. A good cutting blade sword that would work superbly through unarmored or lightly armored opponents. However, it would be largely ineffective against plate (this is actually documented among the Japanese, when trade did open up one of the most bought items among the Japanese elite was the plate chestplates of the Europeans). They had other weapons as well, the spear and the bow, of course at that time the European knights were using their own spears and early guns. Now, personally I would give that fight to the Europeans, largely because of the armor rather than any perceived skill (actually the amount of time that both samurai and the knightly class put into weapons training seems to have been fairly equal, starting at around 6-7 years old), only the knights of Europe had a larger melting pot of cultures and influences to deal with, while the Japanese were largely isolated and didn't adapt too much over their history (not that they didn't adapt at all, of course, that would be insane).

The vikings were possibly the most interesting army of their age, in Europe, but as depicted they have a good 600 year technological inferiority than the knights and samurai they're up against. Of the three they'd probably be the weakest.

For best, during their specific period of history, it's really hard to argue against the Mongols, but even they weren't a uniform group, picking up warrios and different types of technology and soldiers from everywhere they went, and they weren't unbeatable, their expansion was halted a few times on their great conquests.

But this is a video game, I don't think anyone wants 100% accuracy, then the first hit that doesn't touch armor would probably get you out of the game and the rest of the match, you'd have to worry about diseases, and a whole bunch of other details that just aren't fun.

[Barred]

Odin!!!!!

[MajorCynik]

But this is a video game, I don't think anyone wants 100% accuracy, then the first hit that doesn't touch armor would probably get you out of the game and the rest of the match, you'd have to worry about diseases, and a whole bunch of other details that just aren't fun.

This exactly. I think some peeps are getting carried away with their passion for the ideas. No bad thing mind but just forgetful of the end product and how it's got to function.

[Warphorntek]

Well, Vikings are tough, Samurais are quick and vise but i answer for calling of knights for i god damn love its history. I always play for low populated races, orders etc. , but knights are number 1

[Warphorntek]

If it's honor your looking for, the Samurai is the only way to go.

Knights have it too. Sure there are some corupted. But let me remind you that knights fight for good/god/ideals/repay sins they made/king/etc Every value of that for what they are fighting for change with every one of them . There are good and there are bad. Reason why good are not that much seen is for they are 100% fighting for their stuff they bealieve in so they are mostly dead and forgotten

[Dienekes12]

Knights have it too. Sure there are some corupted. But let me remind you that knights fight for good/god/ideals/repay sins they made/king/etc Every value of that for what they are fighting for change with every one of them . There are good and there are bad. Reason why good are not that much seen is for they are 100% fighting for their stuff they bealieve in so they are mostly dead and forgotten

If you want to get technical, there is exactly 0 reason historically to think that the samurai were more honor bound than the knights, or vice versa. While there are always figures that display some sort of warrior ideal, such as say Sir William Marshal or Honda Tadakatsu for both sides. But if you read the books on chivalry or the books on the samurai warrior codes (not Bushido, that term wasn't used until the 17th century), they often start with a variation of: Hey guys, you people are acting like uncivilized animals out there, that's not how you're supposed to behave. Here, I'll explain how to actually follow the proper codes of conduct. Pay attention, and stop being **** to each other.

Though, just looking at histories, both cultures seemed to employ assassins (I found more evidence for this among the Japanese, but I will admit that is probably just a lack of research on my part than any mark against the Japanese), both had some disturbing massacres committed by them.

Though if you want to really expand the concept of honor, the vikings had their own very rigid honor codes. However, they were often less restrictive in ways that chivalry played emphasis on. Nevertheless, answering duels, obeying liege lords, not upsetting the status quo unless a grievance was made against you were all followed by the vikings as well. Though, (I'm pretty sure) they were less rigid than chivalry and courtesy.

[Kinguseless]

Vikings!

[SerWarhammer]

mmmhhh difficult choise..... wait. I'm going to ask a friend what he thinks.....

[naphack]

For me it depends on whether they actually manage to nail the proactive fighting style of the vikings: Bind the opponent's means of attack with the shield and use the sword to attack through the created opening.
If they get down the fluid fighting style, I am 150% sold on the game and will play vikings exclusively. However, if they don't manage to unleash the full potential of large, flat center grip shields, I will probably side with the Knights.