KickStarter Kingdom Come: Deliverance Pre-Release Thread [RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Lyric Suite]

The punishment for murder is more severe than for theft.

Yeah but that's assuming anybody knows about it. If you are too squeamish to kill someone i would assume flight would be the next logical solution to getting caught, which realistically is the most common scenario for coming face to face with anyone during the act of thievery or burglary. If you are coming across anyone while hiding i would think most thieves would rather just wait for you to leave instead of attempting to knock you out of commission.

 

[Lyric Suite]

People don't steal to sustain themselves. Crimes is a short cut unscrupulous people take to avoid doing the hard shit most of us have to do to get by.

Those are two contradicting statements. People steal, so they won’t have to work to sustain themselves, therefore stealing is their way of sustaining themselves. They are too lazy to do it in an honest way, so they take that shortcut.
They don’t, however, steal just for kicks and a thief without an arm won’t just go back to what they were doing besides stealing and live off that—because stealing was their way of life.

The key is that they don't have to steal to sustain themselves. When you say that people steal to survive you are implying there is no alternative. Except there is. Always.

 

[Althorion]

The key is that they don't have to steal to sustain themselves. When you say that people steal to survive you are implying there is no alternative. Except there is. Always.

Not for them, there isn’t. Once a thief, always a thief. People don’t change like that. If you ever decided that honest work is beneath you, losing your hand would hardly solve that. Plus, no one sane would ever employ a thief, thus being marked and/or having your hand cut off would mean that even that unicorn ‘reformed criminal’ won’t have any opportunity to change.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Tough shit. Shouldn't have been stealing in the first place.

 

[Althorion]

Tough shit. Shouldn't have been stealing in the first place.

Yep. Couldn’t agree more.

 

[fantadomat]

People don't steal to sustain themselves. Crimes is a short cut unscrupulous people take to avoid doing the hard shit most of us have to do to get by.

Those are two contradicting statements. People steal, so they won’t have to work to sustain themselves, therefore stealing is their way of sustaining themselves. They are too lazy to do it in an honest way, so they take that shortcut.
They don’t, however, steal just for kicks and a thief without an arm won’t just go back to what they were doing besides stealing and live off that—because stealing was their way of life.

The key is that they don't have to steal to sustain themselves. When you say that people steal to survive you are implying there is no alternative. Except there is. Always.

I am sure that all the starving niggers in africa will agree with you. We live in such times and regions where it is not too hard to find some job and not starve. But if the global market decides to kick the bucket the next day,it will be a whole different story. From time to time crisis happen and shit hits the fan. And in the old times it was very different than now. People generally mistrusted outsiders,let alone give them jobs. You can't just pack your bags in search of happiness,also most of the people were serfs.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Niggers steal because they are niggers, not because they have no alternative lel

Seriously, this is just some commie shit you are spouting about the plight of low life criminals who apparently can't survive unless they take shit from other people. Evola wrote a whole article about it, i should find it.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

Everyone in the medieval ages was a weakling as there was no real strength training and steroids.

This is very funny but I still rate this post retarded because this logic is just fucking retarded. It's the same stupid line of thinking of: "There were no intelligent people 1000 years ago because they hadn't any knowledge of SCIENCE and were living in the barbaric Dark Ages hurr durr.".

Do you really believe that one of the best warrior cultures in history, that would train kids from an age as early as 5 and even before their formation was complete (at 21 years old) they would have at least some 5 years of experience in actual battlefields, did not produce a killing machine in their physical peak?
C'mon...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orm_Storolfsson

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

Everyone in the medieval ages was a weakling as there was no real strength training and steroids.

This is very funny but I still rate this post retarded because this logic is just fucking retarded. It's the same stupid line of thinking of: "There were no intelligent people 1000 years ago because they hadn't any knowledge of SCIENCE and were living in the barbaric Dark Ages hurr durr.".

Do you really believe that one of the best warrior cultures in history, that would train kids from an age as early as 5 and even before their formation was complete (at 21 years old) they would have at least some 5 years of experience in actual battlefields, did not produce a killing machine in their physical peak?
C'mon...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orm_Storolfsson

Very true. Even outside the warrior aristocracy, your average medieval peasant was much, much stronger than your average modern schmuck. A lifetime of backbreaking labor may not be as efficient as strength training, but it gets the job done. Sure, a modern athlete in peak, steroid induced physical condition may be stronger than anyone from the Middle Ages. But back then the vast majority of people would be quite strong—there just weren’t a lot of jobs where you could get away with being a weakling.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

Everyone in the medieval ages was a weakling as there was no real strength training and steroids.

This is very funny but I still rate this post retarded because this logic is just fucking retarded. It's the same stupid line of thinking of: "There were no intelligent people 1000 years ago because they hadn't any knowledge of SCIENCE and were living in the barbaric Dark Ages hurr durr.".

Do you really believe that one of the best warrior cultures in history, that would train kids from an age as early as 5 and even before their formation was complete (at 21 years old) they would have at least some 5 years of experience in actual battlefields, did not produce a killing machine in their physical peak?
C'mon...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orm_Storolfsson

Very true. Even outside the warrior aristocracy, your average medieval peasant was much, much stronger than your average modern schmuck. A lifetime of backbreaking labor may not be as efficient as strength training, but it gets the job done. Sure, a modern athlete in peak, steroid induced physical condition may be stronger than anyone from the Middle Ages. But back then the vast majority of people would be quite strong—there just weren’t a lot of jobs where you could get away with being a weakling.

What in the fucking Christ are you talking about. Prisoners at Auschwitz worked hard, back breaking labor. Would you like to see some pictures about how ripped they were?

There's also plenty of underdeveloped countries in the world where people work on farms using medieval-grade tools. Again, do you want to see pictures of those natural warriors?

There's many different ways to become strong. Physical work for 7 days a week while undereating, is not one of them.

 

[Alienman]

Everyone knows gruel is the ultimate medieval lifting food.

 

[34scell]

Knights would have been shredded as fuck though, considering they had enough money to buy whatever food they wanted and were still very thin.

 

[Makabb]

What Oblivion mod is this ?

 

[Jarmaro]

Prisoners at Auschwitz worked hard, back breaking labor. Would you like to see some pictures about how ripped they were?

It's hard to get ripped when you get minimal amount of food and work is supposed to kill you. Also, farm life isn't supposed to make you a strongmen, but a durable man. Beceause that's what you needed on a farm.
Body adapts. Blacksmiths needed strength, so strong they were. It's nothing complicated.

 

[cvv]

The crux of the modern strength training is to gradually increase your load - that's how your muscles grow. If you just work your scythe or hoe or shovel all day long you don't grow shit, especially with the typical poorfag high carb/low protein diet. But you damn sure level up your stamina and endurance something fierce. My grandpa was a life-long field worker and I couldn't keep up with him even tho he was 50+ and I was 20.

 

[Lyric Suite]

You guys know you can't get "ripped" without steroids, right? Compare any body builder from the 50s to anyone from the 60s onward, after steroids were introduced, to really see the difference.

 

[Lyric Suite]

It's hard to get ripped when you get minimal amount of food and work is supposed to kill you.

This is what moderntards actually believe.

 

[FeelTheRads]

As opposed to classictards who know the truth is that everyone actually lived awesome lives in those times, not shitty lives like us ruined by them goddamn fags and medicine and hygiene.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

^

Triggered

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

Spoiler

Everyone in the medieval ages was a weakling as there was no real strength training and steroids.

This is very funny but I still rate this post retarded because this logic is just fucking retarded. It's the same stupid line of thinking of: "There were no intelligent people 1000 years ago because they hadn't any knowledge of SCIENCE and were living in the barbaric Dark Ages hurr durr.".

Do you really believe that one of the best warrior cultures in history, that would train kids from an age as early as 5 and even before their formation was complete (at 21 years old) they would have at least some 5 years of experience in actual battlefields, did not produce a killing machine in their physical peak?
C'mon...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orm_Storolfsson

Very true. Even outside the warrior aristocracy, your average medieval peasant was much, much stronger than your average modern schmuck. A lifetime of backbreaking labor may not be as efficient as strength training, but it gets the job done. Sure, a modern athlete in peak, steroid induced physical condition may be stronger than anyone from the Middle Ages. But back then the vast majority of people would be quite strong—there just weren’t a lot of jobs where you could get away with being a weakling.

What in the fucking Christ are you talking about. Prisoners at Auschwitz worked hard, back breaking labor. Would you like to see some pictures about how ripped they were?

There's also plenty of underdeveloped countries in the world where people work on farms using medieval-grade tools. Again, do you want to see pictures of those natural warriors?

There's many different ways to become strong. Physical work for 7 days a week while undereating, is not one of them.

Where are you getting the idea that medieval peasants were all malnourished slave laborers? Sure, they were typically protein deficient, but in places where the peasantry was treated halfway decently—England, parts of Italy, and parts of the Holy Roman Empire (including, especially Bohemia) commoners were reasonably well fed. And they had plenty of dairy, just not much meat. Backbreaking labor + adequate diet = stronk.

Plus, after the Black Death wiped out a third of the labor force, the remaining peasants had it pretty good even in horrible places like France. There was a massive increase in wages over the course of the 1300s because there just weren’t enough people to do all the work.

English free peasants—better than serfs but worse than everyone else—were mandated by law to practice regularly with the war bow. You can’t use a war bow if you’re an emaciated wreck; you need to be very fucking strong.

The poorest parts of modern Africa are a terrible analogy. Modern African famine is not a product of Iron Age farming implements or climate, it’s a product of state failure and rapacious warlords who are far less benign than medieval European warlords because they have no incentive to take care of their people long term.

A baron knew his kids would inherit, he needed to leave them a viable workforce. Also his peasants would be his levies in times of war; his life might depend on them being healthy enough to wield a spear. And when peasants starve for too long they tend to kill (and eat!) their overlords—witness the Jacquerie.

If there was a famine, some would starve and the rest would get pretty lean, but famine was not that common.

Somalia is incredibly fertile, but it’s been a failed state for decades, so no one gets to keep their own produce. Read PJ O’Rourke’s “Holidays in Hell.” Somali warlords have no idea how long they’ll last; their incentive is to loot the land as much as possible as fast as possible. And obviously a concentration camp is nothing like a medieval manor—the Nazis neither needed nor wanted any of the inmates to live. Their actual Slavic slave labor force was treated much better and adequately fed until ‘44 when supplies started getting scarce.

In summation: you, sir, are talking out of your ass.

 

[Lyric Suite]

As opposed to classictards who know the truth is that everyone actually lived awesome lives in those times, not shitty lives like us ruined by them goddamn fags and medicine and hygiene.

Pretty much.

 

[Jarpie]

From wikipea about english longbow:

Estimates for the draw of these bows varies considerably. Before the recovery of the Mary Rose, Count M. Mildmay Stayner, Recorder of the British Long Bow Society, estimated the bows of the Medieval period drew 90–110 pounds-force (400–490 newtons), maximum, and Mr. W.F. Paterson, Chairman of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries, believed the weapon had a supreme draw weight of only 80–90 lbf (360–400 N).[2] Other sources suggest significantly higher draw weights. The original draw forces of examples from the Mary Rose are estimated by Robert Hardyat 150–160 lbf (670–710 N) at a 30-inch (76.2 cm) draw length; the full range of draw weights was between 100–185 lbf (440–820 N).[9] The 30-inch (76.2 cm) draw length was used because that is the length allowed by the arrows commonly found on the Mary Rose.

A modern longbow's draw is typically 60 lbf (270 N) or less, and by modern convention measured at 28 inches (71.1 cm). Historically, hunting bows usually had draw weights of 50–60 lbf (220–270 N), which is enough for all but the very largest game and which most reasonably fit adults can manage with practice. Today, there are few modern longbowmen capable of using 180–185 lbf (800–820 N) bows accurately.

You try to pull longbow with 100-185lb, afaik it requires so much strength that modern archers can't pull them.

Edit: without training and a lot of working out.

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

From wikipea about english longbow:

Estimates for the draw of these bows varies considerably. Before the recovery of the Mary Rose, Count M. Mildmay Stayner, Recorder of the British Long Bow Society, estimated the bows of the Medieval period drew 90–110 pounds-force (400–490 newtons), maximum, and Mr. W.F. Paterson, Chairman of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries, believed the weapon had a supreme draw weight of only 80–90 lbf (360–400 N).[2] Other sources suggest significantly higher draw weights. The original draw forces of examples from the Mary Rose are estimated by Robert Hardyat 150–160 lbf (670–710 N) at a 30-inch (76.2 cm) draw length; the full range of draw weights was between 100–185 lbf (440–820 N).[9] The 30-inch (76.2 cm) draw length was used because that is the length allowed by the arrows commonly found on the Mary Rose.

A modern longbow's draw is typically 60 lbf (270 N) or less, and by modern convention measured at 28 inches (71.1 cm). Historically, hunting bows usually had draw weights of 50–60 lbf (220–270 N), which is enough for all but the very largest game and which most reasonably fit adults can manage with practice. Today, there are few modern longbowmen capable of using 180–185 lbf (800–820 N) bows accurately.

You try to pull longbow with 100-185lb, afaik it requires so much strength that modern archers can't pull them.

Edit: without training and a lot of working out.

Indeed! Any English peasant with more than £2 worth of property needed to own a longbow according to the 1252 assize of arms. The 1363 archery law mandated two hours of practice a week—hilariously this law was still on the books a few years ago and for all I know it remains on the books today, albeit totally unenforced.

Quick roundup (I can’t be bothered to look up a more serious online source): http://www.ancientfortresses.org/bow-and-arrow.htm

The whole of the English population was involved in Medieval Warfare. In 1252 the 'Assize of Arms' was passed which decreed that every man between the age of 15 to 60 years old were ordered to equip themselves with a bow and arrows. The Plantagenet King Edward III took this further and decreed the Archery Law in 1363 which commanded the obligatory practice of archery on Sundays and holidays! The Archery Law "forbade, on pain of death, all sport that took up time better spent on war training especially archery practise". Henry VI later proclaimed that an archer would be absolved of murder, if he killed a man during archery practise!

The bow is a peasant’s weapon. The English war bow required immense strength to use. Ergo, 14th century English peasants were plenty strong. Of course, England is not a super representative example relative to the rest of Europe. From the reign of Henry III onward, English commoners had more freedom, more rights and more wealth than most of their continental brethren. But it was still the same feudal system and England wasn’t that different from the HRE.

In early 15th century Bohemia, the peasants had it pretty good. Serfdom had mostly vanished in the wake of the Black Death—these were not agrarian slave laborers. Of course, it made a major comeback after the Hussite wars and the wars of religion. But at the time this game takes place Bohemian peasants would have been fairly prosperous for the medieval period.

 

[Ezeekiel]

From wikipea about english longbow:

Estimates for the draw of these bows varies considerably. Before the recovery of the Mary Rose, Count M. Mildmay Stayner, Recorder of the British Long Bow Society, estimated the bows of the Medieval period drew 90–110 pounds-force (400–490 newtons), maximum, and Mr. W.F. Paterson, Chairman of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries, believed the weapon had a supreme draw weight of only 80–90 lbf (360–400 N).[2] Other sources suggest significantly higher draw weights. The original draw forces of examples from the Mary Rose are estimated by Robert Hardyat 150–160 lbf (670–710 N) at a 30-inch (76.2 cm) draw length; the full range of draw weights was between 100–185 lbf (440–820 N).[9] The 30-inch (76.2 cm) draw length was used because that is the length allowed by the arrows commonly found on the Mary Rose.

A modern longbow's draw is typically 60 lbf (270 N) or less, and by modern convention measured at 28 inches (71.1 cm). Historically, hunting bows usually had draw weights of 50–60 lbf (220–270 N), which is enough for all but the very largest game and which most reasonably fit adults can manage with practice. Today, there are few modern longbowmen capable of using 180–185 lbf (800–820 N) bows accurately.

You try to pull longbow with 100-185lb, afaik it requires so much strength that modern archers can't pull them.

Edit: without training and a lot of working out.

It's only that much draw weight at the end of the draw, right?
You can get strong enough to do this if you train with more and more draw weight over time, it's basically not too different from normal strength training, it's just that not many people today do that.
It's also only one exercise basically, that makes it much easier to get good at, hence the ability of people in the past to do this (presumably).
200-220 lb draw weights that I see quoted sometimes seem impractical for warbows though, unless the archers got a chance to warm up with less draw weight before a battle/shorter pulls.
If you try to draw that much cold, esp if the weather is also cold you may suffer tendon issues unless it's well below your max.
And of course firing 20+ arrows in succession would be a stretch in a short timeframe if it's close to your max pull.

Can't imagine them getting enough archers together if the draw weight is too high in general over a common distance either... Genetics matter a lot there.
If hunting bows commonly had less draw weight then it's especially odd. Not like your average serf/hunter could just practice with his warbow on the side all day, every day.

 

[Ezeekiel]

From wikipea about english longbow:

Estimates for the draw of these bows varies considerably. Before the recovery of the Mary Rose, Count M. Mildmay Stayner, Recorder of the British Long Bow Society, estimated the bows of the Medieval period drew 90–110 pounds-force (400–490 newtons), maximum, and Mr. W.F. Paterson, Chairman of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries, believed the weapon had a supreme draw weight of only 80–90 lbf (360–400 N).[2] Other sources suggest significantly higher draw weights. The original draw forces of examples from the Mary Rose are estimated by Robert Hardyat 150–160 lbf (670–710 N) at a 30-inch (76.2 cm) draw length; the full range of draw weights was between 100–185 lbf (440–820 N).[9] The 30-inch (76.2 cm) draw length was used because that is the length allowed by the arrows commonly found on the Mary Rose.

A modern longbow's draw is typically 60 lbf (270 N) or less, and by modern convention measured at 28 inches (71.1 cm). Historically, hunting bows usually had draw weights of 50–60 lbf (220–270 N), which is enough for all but the very largest game and which most reasonably fit adults can manage with practice. Today, there are few modern longbowmen capable of using 180–185 lbf (800–820 N) bows accurately.

You try to pull longbow with 100-185lb, afaik it requires so much strength that modern archers can't pull them.

Edit: without training and a lot of working out.

Indeed! Any English peasant with more than £2 worth of property needed to own a longbow according to the 1252 assize of arms. The 1363 archery law mandated two hours of practice a week—hilariously this law was still on the books a few years ago and for all I know it remains on the books today, albeit totally unenforced.

Quick roundup (I can’t be bothered to look up a more serious online source): http://www.ancientfortresses.org/bow-and-arrow.htm

The whole of the English population was involved in Medieval Warfare. In 1252 the 'Assize of Arms' was passed which decreed that every man between the age of 15 to 60 years old were ordered to equip themselves with a bow and arrows. The Plantagenet King Edward III took this further and decreed the Archery Law in 1363 which commanded the obligatory practice of archery on Sundays and holidays! The Archery Law "forbade, on pain of death, all sport that took up time better spent on war training especially archery practise". Henry VI later proclaimed that an archer would be absolved of murder, if he killed a man during archery practise!

The bow is a peasant’s weapon. The English war bow required immense strength to use. Ergo, 14th century English peasants were plenty strong.

Strength is very relative, in this case it applies to the specific movement, mostly. So it's not like they would be all that strong at anything they didn't specifically train for.

Of course, England is not a super representative example relative to the rest of Europe. From the reign of Henry III onward, English commoners had more freedom, more rights and more wealth than most of their continental brethren. But it was still the same feudal system and England wasn’t that different from the HRE.

Interesting though, didn't know how seriously they took their archery. 2 hours a week seems way too little though, did they commonly train more than that and it was just the minimum you had to do by law?