Game Theory is wrong about Knight vrs Samurai vrs Viking | Forums

[FactCrusader]

So OP found some collective opinions from some low IQ youtubers who never spent a day in history class made some silly videos about things they don't have a clue about = "hooah! history accuracy"

Because I'm sure to exceed in melee combat is all about armor's thickness, maybe that's why half naked mongols laughed all the way to Bulgaria with 1:5 k : D ratio to knight Templars who plated from toe to tooth.

(btw, all those plate armors in the video are modern reconstruction, their crafting material, thickness, and weight doesn't even come close to their respective origin)

[Shukr4n]

so you are telling me that the fight for a small river is ********? that there was no honor in fighting for that piece of water in the ground instead of sharing with thirsty human beings next to you?

oh snap

[tendaji]

He's really good when it comes to science stuff, he's got 2 f**in degrees for F** sake!

But in this case he's wrong, he did not compute the fact that there's no ammount of money to buy a katana that can cut throught steel plate armour such the one they are using in the game

Except you missed the stipulations of the battle he had them wage. The first 5 minutes was about how due to the differences in eras, it would be unfair to put all 3 together on the same battlefield, so he found a time when all 3 were active in the world. He chose 11th century, which was a bit early for the plate used in-game to be active in modern combat. Just like most Samurai warriors in the 11th century did not actually have katanas at the time, but were skilled in horse archery, thus giving the advantage to the Samurai who could fire plenty of arrows at a Knight's hauberk, which was never good protection against arrows in the first place.

[Damonrodes]

Except you missed the stipulations of the battle he had them wage. The first 5 minutes was about how due to the differences in eras, it would be unfair to put all 3 together on the same battlefield, so he found a time when all 3 were active in the world. He chose 11th century, which was a bit early for the plate used in-game to be active in modern combat. Just like most Samurai warriors in the 11th century did not actually have katanas at the time, but were skilled in horse archery, thus giving the advantage to the Samurai who could fire plenty of arrows at a Knight's hauberk, which was never good protection against arrows in the first place.

If he's going to use stipulations, WHY THE **** ARE THE SAMURAI ON HORSES! There ain't no horses in this ****ing game. He uses stipulations to make the samurai win. This game us about 1v1 2v2 4v4. In those situations it's all about skill, which means you'll never know who will win until it's over. That's like saying the stipulation is Knights had castles so the could just hide inside with a longbow and pour hot oil off the walls to win. Rediculious

[tendaji]

If he's going to use stipulations, WHY THE **** ARE THE SAMURAI ON HORSES! There ain't no horses in this ****ing game. He uses stipulations to make the samurai win. This game us about 1v1 2v2 4v4. In those situations it's all about skill, which means you'll never know who will win until it's over. That's like saying the stipulation is Knights had castles so the could just hide inside with a longbow and pour hot oil off the walls to win. Rediculious

Because he used it as a real world scenario of technology and tactics available in the 11th century, just made the setting take place in an arena?

[Ymir.exe]

Because he used it as a real world scenario of technology and tactics available in the 11th century, just made the setting take place in an arena?

He didn't though, that's the problem. His Knights, Vikings, and Samurai are about as historically accurate as the ones in For Honor.

[Damonrodes]

[QUOTE=tendaji;12288667]Because he used it as a real world scenario of technology and tactics available in the 11th century, just made the setting take place in

If it's in an arena it has nothing to do with a real world scenario. If you exclude a castle its not taking into account technology and a tactic.

[brider1]

Basicly a samurai sword isn't getting through good armor plate from a knight no matter how sharp they are cos they'r too light and slender they'r designed for cutting not penetration but then they didn't have to worry about that as samurai armor was either wood or woven bamboo and reeds there's very little metal in it.
Also it wouldn't matter what you hit with the axe the raiders using as even if you are wearing armor and it doesnt go into it it's gonna cause blunt force traumer and probably fracture your skull or whatever bones that get in the way just from the shock of the blow at the very least cause an abdominal bruising and winding which again you cant do much after that.
but then the knights would have the advantage of being able to deflect glancing blows with the armor which would drop a Viking if he wasn't wearing armor.
Ofc that's just my theory about who would win with the weapons and armors available in the game at the minute and the classes available but in my estimation no one has the clear advantage out of the factions it would just come down to personal skill.
And WTF is that idiot in that game theory going on about they'r saying who would win a For Honor battle in real life then start talking about how the knights have no armor and the samurai's are using bows? I may aswell say well my class is using an M4 carbine so my class wins since were just adding crap that isn't even in the game as a main weapon.

[MightyAchilles]

Well one of the crazier things he said was Viking didn't have metal armor because salt water would rust it but with some oil and cleaning that's not an issue. The Viking would likely lose out of these three but not for the reasons he said.

A viking might loose to a knigt, since it's based on a warrior with plate armor, though a Axe will hurt the plate user, other thing is that Longswords are superior quality than what the vikings had generally, pluss it's spring steel, meaning it can take a lot of punishment, you can hit swords and armor and not worry about it brakeing. though there were quality viking swords, and specially later viking period With the Ulfberth sword, that was of the best quality in the world probably by that time. But i do not see the Viking looseing easily to samurai, that sword shield combo is very effective, and we are comparing Warriors of same skill's here, which all 3 certainly was capable of, Vikings training for war since childhood, and the ones taken into a housecarl will have all the time to perfekt his skills, he will also use padding and chainmail, which the Katana will not cut through. On the other hand, the Katana was not the primary weapon of a samurai, he would often use a spear, which you can penetrate chainmail With, but with dificulty.

A samurai vs a Knight, will mostly definetly be at a disadvantage, altough the skill lvl is the same, the inferior metal of the samurai and the fact that the Knight is clad in plate makes it very hard to kill him, the samurai will have to use other weapons than traditionally to him.

So InFact i see the Knight and Vikings as the superior, altough you could argue that Vikings include non Professionals too.. with cheap gear, but if were talking about the best of the Vikings, the housecarls and the Berserkers (altough little is known about them, but it is belived that it was a berserker that held stamford bridge and cut down a lot of men unthill he was tricked, not outskilled) i belive them to be superior, they also did prove them selves in most over europe, including fighting as Elites in the Byzantium armies.

[Honorhound01]

So OP found some collective opinions from some low IQ youtubers who never spent a day in history class made some silly videos about things they don't have a clue about = "hooah! history accuracy"

Because I'm sure to exceed in melee combat is all about armor's thickness, maybe that's why half naked mongols laughed all the way to Bulgaria with 1:5 k : D ratio to knight Templars who plated from toe to tooth.

(btw, all those plate armors in the video are modern reconstruction, their crafting material, thickness, and weight doesn't even come close to their respective origin)

/Facepalm

These aren't "low IQ youtubers". The subjects these guys address is their specialty. Matpat said Viking didn't use armor and had crappy swords but the reality is in the 11th century the Vikings arguably had the BEST swords because they were made of crucible steel. Also, Vikings had chain hauberks similar to those used by Knights of the time period. (The rich ones anyway) Also, the Vikings had shields which could easily be used to block incoming arrows and they were even known to form shield walls.

NVM, just watch and get actual knowledge. Matpat missed on this one.