Shield bash?

I think its a good idea, and I feel it should work kinda like this. I added a few other somewhat relevant ideas not directly related to bashing.
-Map kick button + whilst block to bash (E + Right Mouse for me)
-Low damage (Blunt for regular & Piercing for spiked)
-Spiked Shields can catch weapons, thus slowing follow up attacks by enemies
-AI kick and bash, leaving you vulnerable for a moment, which perhaps shortens as you gain athletic skill
-Maybe a quick tap does a fast bash which staggers your enemy, and holding will be a powerful hit knocking them down.
-Shield Parry: Hitting the block a moment before struck, as opposed to holding it constantly, will result in you parrying outward and leaving enemies extra vulnerable to attack, perhaps disarming them if the weapon catches on spikes

I think the problem really stems from NO system ever truly capturing sword-and-shield combat... and the limited scripted actions of arms limit it still further. To be honest, the most exciting thing that could happen would be Mount and Blade Motion Capture version... because that's the only way people like myself will ever truly be happy- and the only way you can ever hope to have a game that gives people the freedom of choice real combat does.
Until then, I'll continue to eschew shields in Calradia but love my kite shield in real life...

maybe if you have a shield you could shield bash instead of kicking. also i think if you'd be able to shield bash you can do it while blocking and that heavier shield do more damage when bashing.

Berethorn said:

maybe if you have a shield you could shield bash instead of kicking. also i think if you'd be able to shield bash you can do it while blocking and that heavier shield do more damage when bashing.

Click to expand...

like this, and the heavier the shield the slower it is to bring up to defend yourself? to make it more even, but if you do this youd have to give shield bashing some kind of weakness, maybe if you shield bash and miss your target you expose yourself or loose your balance, thus giving the 2h swordsman a chance to kill you too

ye if you bash and miss your shield will be further away from you so someone can hit you from the side.

check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcMwkYVO9t4

Papa lazarou has done a great job with combat animations.

This is his forum thread:


http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,134185.0.html

I hope the developers take a look! This looks much more realistic than the standard animations!

Vakamono said:

check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcMwkYVO9t4

Papa lazarou has done a great job with combat animations.

This is his forum thread:


http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,134185.0.html

I hope the developers take a look! This looks much more realistic than the standard animations!

Click to expand...

His animation looks even better with the proper animation flags (for defense, not attack) as it takes care of the clipping you see here.

Dam that looks good! Since skyrim ive just been itching to see it implemented into warband (cos warband does it better ofc )

Spiked shields are real, the Targe was a small spiked shield used by Scots during the time of William Wallace.

ThorofAsgard said:

Spiked shields are real, the Targe was a small spiked shield used by Scots during the time of William Wallace.

Click to expand...

Please- please... just no.

Blackthorn said:

ThorofAsgard said:

Spiked shields are real, the Targe was a small spiked shield used by Scots during the time of William Wallace.

Click to expand...

Please- please... just no.

Click to expand...

Some targes had center bosses of brass, and a few of these could accept a long steel spike

Lies we dont know if its true!

And you now need to call the fifteenth century when the spiked targe was in use for the first time and explain how it's relevant to William de Wallais outside of Hollywood. And while we're here- they didn't use zwiehanders or wear kilts in the 13th century, either...

Historical discussion vs Blackhorn is doomed to end in defeat.

(surrenders)

Sierra125 said:

Historical discussion vs Blackhorn is doomed to end in defeat.

Click to expand...

In this moment, to me, you are perfect. (10 points for spotting the film reference!)

And it's alright- the sheer amount of propaganda RE: Scottish equipment is staggering- essentially a lot of pseudo-historians love to make armies seem massively ethnically characteristic when usually the differences were academic or minor, or visible only at the 'levy' end- and in the case of the Scottish wars of indepedence (or contested succession of the Baliol line), most of the upper reaches of the Scottish aristocracy were as Norman as their English counterparts, having been incorporated into the Scottish social strata from the 12th century in a policy of deliberate feudalisation and emulation of the Norman military model- essentially knights on either side would be dressed almost identically, and in a lot of cases were related and held estates that bridged the technical national borders- the Baliol's holding lands in Northern England and the de Lacey family in Yorkshire holding Scottish lands and title- this was a fairly regular occurance- during the fall of Normandy between 1190-1204 a lot of Angevin and Anglo-Norman knights had extensive French holdings actually within the French royal lands- men like William Marshall went and did homage for his lands in France as well as being a nominally English noble.
/lecture

But as a fun fact, the first instances of spiked roundshields (with more than a raised boss, but a clear 'pointed nipple') are the bucklers visible on M.i33- in some depictions the centre is clearly raised to a point and these are frequently thrust into the opponent's face or upper arms to work as crippling/off-footing strikes. Not quite the shield bash folk envisage in this thread, but still a form of shield-attack notable within the period discussed.

in a lot of cases were related and held estates that bridged the technical national borders-

Click to expand...

which was Edward 1st's legal pretext for claiming 'overlordship' of Scotland.  Alexander had sent one of his earls to swear the oath of fealty to Edward for the King's English estates, which were held by him as personal property (as opposed to Scottish, Kingdom, property).
Edward found that to be conviently a case of "The King of Scotland has taken an oath of fealty to me as his feudal overlord"

and thousands were sentenced to death...

Bruce (when King) asked his nobles to renounce foreign possessions.  Since most of these were in England, and had been confiscated by the English during the wars, there were not so many objections.  Bruce himself held English estates (prior to changing sides and opposing Edward) - but when he switched sides Edward confiscated them.

Amman de Stazia said:

in a lot of cases were related and held estates that bridged the technical national borders-

Click to expand...

which was Edward 1st's legal pretext for claiming 'overlordship' of Scotland.  Alexander had sent one of his earls to swear the oath of fealty to Edward for the King's English estates, which were held by him as personal property (as opposed to Scottish, Kingdom, property).
Edward found that to be conviently a case of "The King of Scotland has taken an oath of fealty to me as his feudal overlord"

Click to expand...

That -and- the involvement in the contested succession of Scotland- he was chosen as the final arbiter of succession, after all. I don't blame the man his ambition- frankly the Scots had spent the last 200 years trying to sieze Northern England whenever a war gave them an oppurtunistic opening- Edward was finally repaying the favour. Amusingly the ebb and flow of history is now siezed on by modern politicians and nationalists trying to justify a culture of hatred, ignorance and frankly, racism. Similar story if you visit Wales...

the arbitration came considerably later...  There's probably not a shred of hard evidence to support it, but I have sympathy for the argument that the 'arbitration' was a put-up job by the Normano-Scottish nobles who would have preferred to be part of Edward's England...

It must have seemed like such a good idea at the time though.  In the 1280's Edward was as respected among Scottish nobles as the Pope was in church, and the Norman factor meant that most important Scots were on very good terms with most important English.

Edward was the 'first Knight of Christendom' who had subdued a Welsh uprising, consolidated territory in Ireland and France, and maintained peace with Scotland.  All the while without provoking any discontent at home.

And representing significant political stability for a state that had come close to unification several times, before dropping back into in-fighting.
And it all depends on what we consider ''The war''- there's a LOT of conflict prior to the actual War of Independence as the Scots term it- the arbitration pretty much marks the begining according to Scots historians. The issue there is that it ignores a lot of the building politics of the 13th century. Frankly, the Normano-Scots were the powerhouse of Scotland at the time, and it would have just been expedient if the internal conflicts were settled by owing an overall allegiance to the power-block to the south. If you remove the ingrained 'Scots/Saxon' politics from the equation- it makes a lot of sense. And if the Anglo-Norman vs. French conflict teaches us anything, it's that the Normans were -always- happy to be pragmatic if it was the best choice.