Take A Bow: War Of The Roses Ranged Combat

By Adam Smith on July 31st, 2012 at 8:00 pm.

Potential Battle of the Hastings spoiler

War of the Roses’ ranged combat is as messily violent as the up close and personal sheathing of swords in skulls, as shown in a video of arrows puncturing arteries and organs. Impressively horrible and anarchically comedic at the same time, my deathmatch instincts quiver with anticipation. The way that arrows bend as they lodge in a target is the kind of detail that could make every kill all the more deliciously memorable. The footage is edited together from tournament footage gathered during Paradox’s trip to San Francisco and the entire conflict can be viewed here.

Arrow to the everything.

Beta signups are still open.

, , .

43 Comments »

  1. jikavak says:

    I’m having some serious trouble with the beta sing up thing.I’ve been trying every day for some time,but when I fill in the info and press ‘sign up’ it just flashes the e-mail field and…doesn’t work.Anyone else getting that crap?

    • TheIronSky says:

      No, the Beta Signup worked for me. I used Chrome and everything (javascript, flash) is running fine.

      Try clearing cache, check to see that everything is up to date, and then ctrl + f5.

    • Italianmoose says:

      You need to put in both your steam account name and your email address.

  2. Inigo says:

    -xXx-::PEASANT_SLAYA420::-xXx- PREZ3NTZ: WIKK3D SICK-ASS 360 NO SCOP3 ARROWSHOT MADD SK1LLZZZ

  3. reggiep says:

    Spambot.

  4. Dowr says:

    Hmm, this reminds me of Chivalry: Medieval Warfare. Both seem to be interesting games, nonetheless.

  5. TheIronSky says:

    Looks like an exceptionally pretty version of Mount and Blade.

    My body is ready for this.

  6. Gasmask Hero says:

    Isn’t this the game where it takes five minutes in real time to load a firearm?

    This has all the makings of a quality game, I just can’t help but feel that when it inevitably goes on -75% in a not too far off Steam sale, there’s going to be a…certain section of impulse buyers that are going to be sorely misled over their potential purchases by videos such as this.

    • Vorphalack says:

      Too early for wide spread adoption of fire arms in England.

      • EPICTHEFAIL says:

        There are firerarms in the game, though, ase evidenced by TotalBiscuit`s WTF of it a while back. Speaking of which, I think there was mention of him perhaps posting videos of the charity tournament…

        • Vorphalack says:

          There was a 20 min video up for a couple of hours but it got pulled pretty fast. I caught it, but didn’t see anyone with a gunpowder weapon. The only thing I could see in the WTF was a hand cannon, which is technically a gun, but historically had pretty weak ballistics. Wouldn’t surprise me if that didn’t make the final release.

      • TheWhippetLord says:

        Arquebusses were used quite a bit by both sides, both by native units and (Bergundian especially) mercenaries. It’s pretty much bang in the transition period where medieval armies are becoming early modern though, so you get all kinds of wierd mixes of gear in units.
        The upshot of this is that you can have a wide range of weapons without being too anachronistic, if the devs are bothered about that kind of thing. :)

      • RR_Raptor65 says:

        No it’s well within the time period for Gonnes and early Arquebus to have a decent presence on the field, but they’ll conveniently ignore that piece of history.

        • Mattressi says:

          Which piece of history are they ignoring? I’ve seen that they have gonnes in game, but no arquebus from what I can tell (and, thankfully, no wheellocks, flintlocks or percussion arms).

    • Jahnz says:

      I will love this if handgonnes are in the final version. I want to be that early adopter of fire and brimstone. I hope it wont take 5 minutes to reload though. I would expect half a minute maybe. Even early guns were frequently faster to reload than a crossbow. One of the reasons people started to use them.

  7. Premium User Badge Smashbox says:

    I have become instantly REALLY excited about this.

    Also, thanks for spoiling the Battle of Hastings, jerk.

    • Italianmoose says:

      /sarcasm
      Yeah, dude! Just because it was released 1000 years ago doesn’t mean everyone knows the ending!
      /sarcasm

      I agree, looks awesome!

  8. defunkt says:

    Personally lost interest when it became clear first-person melee wouldn’t be an option, holding out for Chivalry: Medieval Warfare ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GnuCjueong ). Over the shoulder viewpoints are so not-immersing.

    • wodin says:

      Now this, this looks more like it. The animations look a million times better. I’d take this anyday of the week.

    • Grargh says:

      Besides, Chivalry’s mission design caters to our innermost wishes to butcher everybody and burn everything.

  9. Tuggy Tug says:

    They spelt ‘dishonour’ wrong. Duhhhh…

    • Lupinstein says:

      no, ‘honor’ is much like ‘color’ in that it has two different ways of being spelt.

      • Sleepymatt says:

        Indeed “honour” can be spelt two ways: the right way, and the wrong way. Or did the War of the Roses happen in Americaland in a parallel universe somewhere?

        :P

  10. EPICTHEFAIL says:

    Well, that has to be the cheesiest music I`ve ever heard. Also, ARROW-TO-THE-KNEE-FACE.

  11. Greggh says:

    GAWK! That blurry-background-1st-person-arrow-thingy still frame gave me a massive headache!

  12. tigershuffle says:

    cant say im taken with the ‘head bursting like overipe melons’ …..its an arrow not a hollowpoint .357.
    still a shinier warband could be fun

  13. Bloodoflamb says:

    Arrows better not got through plate. Knights often didn’t carry shields, and when they did, it wasn’t for protection from arrows or even crossbow bolts, but rather for engaging in melee combat. Plate stopped arrows by itself.

    • gekitsu says:

      not necessarily – its dependent of the thickness and quality of the plate, the arrow weight and head type used, the draw weight of the bow and the shot range/trajectory.

      i wouldnt bet too much money on plate deflecting a 900+ grain arrow with a bodkin, shot from a 150lb bow at, say 30-40 yards. even if it doesnt penetrate, it might dent the plate into the wearer, and he will receive a whack of epic proportions anyway. even a gambeson can keep a field point or broadhead from penetrating, but the battle is over nevertheless. plate armour != vibranium, thus, the kinetic energy goes somewhere. just because heavy plate is a good countermeasure against clout causalties doesnt mean arrows should be generally worthless against plate.

      and thats not counting the rare critical hit of a joint/other opening. ;)

    • Docslapper says:

      having put a bodkin arrow through steel plate using a 60-lb longbow, I can cheerfully correct you on this point.

      Also, Agincourt. We’re done here.

    • Chris D says:

      Also with later armour designs a lot of effort went into making sure it was as difficult as possible for an arrow to strike a surface directly, which is why you get the stereotypical beaky helm, rather than the simpler kettle helm. None of that innovation would be necessary if it were never possible for an arrow to pierce plate in the first place.

      But yeah, Agincourt.

    • svge says:

      Yeah you are completely wrong.

  14. Premium User Badge Chaz says:

    Don’t tell me it’s not worth tryin’ for
    You can’t tell me it’s not worth dyin’ for
    You know it’s true
    Everything I do, I do it for you

  15. Premium User Badge Gap Gen says:

    War of the Roses: Horses for Kingdoms

  16. wodin says:

    Shame everything seem so floaty. They hardly appear to move as if the have heavy armour on. They all seem to float around.

  17. MajorManiac says:

    I know I’m being greedy, but I can’t help wish Mount ‘n’ Blade was updated to have graphics like this.