Destichado
Squire
double post. >_<
Secondary Attacks: a how-to (with pictures!)
- Thread starter Destichado
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Squire
Those are all clear to me, its the high of the two-handed sword that leaves me wondering. And the stab, but I think the murderstroke works really well. Your call though, its your idea. If people want to see pictures of what I mean, I can oblige tomorrow.
Destichado, I just love the ones where you look at the camera and seem to be saying, "See? I'm gonna hit 'im!"
I REALLY wish Armagan would fix the animations to something less "Hank Aaron" before he extrapolates new motions from the starting positions. A sword shouldn't swing in an arc- it's no more effective than putting your fist straight to the side and swinging it to punch someone. Just like a fist, the end of the sword should travel in a STRAIGHT LINE towards its target, com ça:
Assume I was holding a shield in this one. I didn't to make it easier to see what I was doing. Destichado gave a good example for an off-side shot, but I would recommend he put his hand closer to his left shoulder and keep his sword vertical in the guard position, and use his hips for the follow-through like in his first two examples. The hips should start in line with the opponent and end up squared to him. But then again, that's what happens when you fight in slow motion for a camera.
(Yes, I moved my hips... umm, it was just so fast the camera didn't pick it up. *whistles*)
Unfortunately, I don't have an example of an off-side shot with a pole, but it's easy enough to figure out. Poles are the exception to moving the striking end of the weapon in a straight line its target. Instead, you move the fulcrum- your top hand- in a straight line and use the bottom of the shaft like a lever to drive the striking end home. For an off-side shot, instead of swinging the lower hand your right, swing it to the left and up. This does end up with crossed wrists (or rather a wrist crossed with an elbow), but not for more than a fraction of a second.
Note that poles and two-handers can attack from their guard positions. Actually, the single sword can attack from the in-game left and right guard positions as well, though the strike isn't as powerful, since you can't get as much hip motion behind it.
And here's another idea for a secondary move for stabbing with a pole to help deal with leg-humping AI:
After stabbing with the tip, reach your left hand under and grab the haft in the middle, then bring the spear forward as you move your right hand back to the end of the haft.
I REALLY wish Armagan would fix the animations to something less "Hank Aaron" before he extrapolates new motions from the starting positions. A sword shouldn't swing in an arc- it's no more effective than putting your fist straight to the side and swinging it to punch someone. Just like a fist, the end of the sword should travel in a STRAIGHT LINE towards its target, com ça:
Assume I was holding a shield in this one. I didn't to make it easier to see what I was doing. Destichado gave a good example for an off-side shot, but I would recommend he put his hand closer to his left shoulder and keep his sword vertical in the guard position, and use his hips for the follow-through like in his first two examples. The hips should start in line with the opponent and end up squared to him. But then again, that's what happens when you fight in slow motion for a camera.
(Yes, I moved my hips... umm, it was just so fast the camera didn't pick it up. *whistles*)
Unfortunately, I don't have an example of an off-side shot with a pole, but it's easy enough to figure out. Poles are the exception to moving the striking end of the weapon in a straight line its target. Instead, you move the fulcrum- your top hand- in a straight line and use the bottom of the shaft like a lever to drive the striking end home. For an off-side shot, instead of swinging the lower hand your right, swing it to the left and up. This does end up with crossed wrists (or rather a wrist crossed with an elbow), but not for more than a fraction of a second.
Note that poles and two-handers can attack from their guard positions. Actually, the single sword can attack from the in-game left and right guard positions as well, though the strike isn't as powerful, since you can't get as much hip motion behind it.
And here's another idea for a secondary move for stabbing with a pole to help deal with leg-humping AI:
After stabbing with the tip, reach your left hand under and grab the haft in the middle, then bring the spear forward as you move your right hand back to the end of the haft.
Eogan: In your first set, are you snapping the sword out with your wrist? Snapcuts are pretty weak, from what I recall. With a two-hander, I KNOW that you shouldn't snap the sword, but instead execute a good swing.
Of course, the M&B animation is wrong too.
Edit: In fact, I am pretty sure you are completely wrong when you say that a sword shouldn't swing in an arc. That snap separates the power into two defined areas, weakening both. It should be one fluid motion, whereas it seems, from your first set of pictures, that you are doing it in two steps, the swing and the snap.
Edit2: I speak from a knowledge of longswords only, but snapcuts like that wont even go through leather. Its a harassing move, at best.
Of course, the M&B animation is wrong too.
Edit: In fact, I am pretty sure you are completely wrong when you say that a sword shouldn't swing in an arc. That snap separates the power into two defined areas, weakening both. It should be one fluid motion, whereas it seems, from your first set of pictures, that you are doing it in two steps, the swing and the snap.
Edit2: I speak from a knowledge of longswords only, but snapcuts like that wont even go through leather. Its a harassing move, at best.
Not snapping it with my wrist, no. I'm... umm... how to explain it.
In the first picture, I'm in guard position.
In the second, I've turned my hips and shoulders, but my arm is still mostly "closed" against my body.
In the third picture, I fully extend my hand, continuing the momentum of the sword. If there was a target, my sword would have struck 45 to 90° earliear than shown in the picture. My wrist did "snap" in the picture, but only as it carried the momentum of the sword, not as a way of generating power.
Although, now that I think about it, it isn't so much the tip of the sword that travels in a straight line, but the balance point.
In the first picture, I'm in guard position.
In the second, I've turned my hips and shoulders, but my arm is still mostly "closed" against my body.
In the third picture, I fully extend my hand, continuing the momentum of the sword. If there was a target, my sword would have struck 45 to 90° earliear than shown in the picture. My wrist did "snap" in the picture, but only as it carried the momentum of the sword, not as a way of generating power.
Although, now that I think about it, it isn't so much the tip of the sword that travels in a straight line, but the balance point.
Destichado
Squire
We could start taking video... 
Of course, this thread was only meant to suggest secondary attacks, and the system to use them. If we start talking about how the attack animations ought to look, that's something else again. That should have it's own thread, methinks.
Of course, this thread was only meant to suggest secondary attacks, and the system to use them. If we start talking about how the attack animations ought to look, that's something else again. That should have it's own thread, methinks.
Destichado
Squire
This is what I mean by throwing a punch with the hilt out of a squinting guard. The sword's center of mass is about six inches in front of the hilt on a sword this big, and when I throw the punch instead of a thrust, the hilt just "rotates" forward -center of mass being virtually stationary. It's a faster move than a thrust, though it doesn't have as much range.
Okay, I think we can all laugh at how far I'm having to lean back to balance that maul.
What you can't see in a picture that small is the cords standing out on my neck and my face going red and me shouting at my brother to take the damn picture.
I picture the secondary attack for the high guard being a left hook. I should have done that when I did sword & board, but I didn't. I just think it looks and flows better. And besides, I like throwing left hooks. =)
Jaso_Of_Tulga
Recruit
______ Hay i really like this idea! Comon you block this guys attack and then you just do it again in the boring manner. But if you block than you could hit him with your sheild or hilt. I mean comon its more soley based on reality!
CrazyEyes
Knight at Arms
This idea somehow reminds me of Gothic's system (very annoying at first, you hold left mouse and use the movement keys to swing in a direction... on second thought it's still annoying), only twelve times better, because you aren't leaving half your fingerbone on the key in an extremely unnatural attempt to kill an Orc. Nice moves with the left hook. And you do indeed suck at mauls.
With polearms, though, I'd like a two-handed shove-thrust better than a butt-stroke, because butt-strokes just do not seem effective enough.
Behold; MS Paint.
With polearms, though, I'd like a two-handed shove-thrust better than a butt-stroke, because butt-strokes just do not seem effective enough.
Behold; MS Paint.
Amman d Stazia
Master Knight
Fencing and sword/shield combo fighting are not the same, but as far as putting a sword into an enemy point-first is concerned, fencing should have the final say....
References to a right handed fencer.
Guard position; the right arm leading, the shoulders are in a line which points slightly to the right of the opponent. The elbow is at waist height, the wrist just above it, the tip of the sword just below shoulder height.
Attack initiation; The elbow comes up and locks the arm into a straight line, drawn from your right shoulder to the opponent's eyes. The sword is horizontal to the ground, if anything even pointing slightly DOWN from the opponent's eyes.
Attack completion; The right leg bends at the knee, as you push off your left foot. Your entire body weight, plus the force your left foot creates with the push, is concentrated in the tip of your sword. Because you have bent the right knee, you will lose height, and the tip of your sword will strike the breastbone of your opponent.
You win.
Clearly NOT a battlefield norm, but I believe the key principle - get your BODY weight behind the thrust - applies to every thrust or stab. So if you use only the wrist, or even only the arm, you are sacrificing a strong blow, for a fast blow.
References to a right handed fencer.
Guard position; the right arm leading, the shoulders are in a line which points slightly to the right of the opponent. The elbow is at waist height, the wrist just above it, the tip of the sword just below shoulder height.
Attack initiation; The elbow comes up and locks the arm into a straight line, drawn from your right shoulder to the opponent's eyes. The sword is horizontal to the ground, if anything even pointing slightly DOWN from the opponent's eyes.
Attack completion; The right leg bends at the knee, as you push off your left foot. Your entire body weight, plus the force your left foot creates with the push, is concentrated in the tip of your sword. Because you have bent the right knee, you will lose height, and the tip of your sword will strike the breastbone of your opponent.
You win.
Clearly NOT a battlefield norm, but I believe the key principle - get your BODY weight behind the thrust - applies to every thrust or stab. So if you use only the wrist, or even only the arm, you are sacrificing a strong blow, for a fast blow.
Butt-strokes are incredibly dangerous to an unarmored man.CrazyEyes said:
Know of a place to upload it?
In the last set of pictures, the third down still looks awkward to me, and feels weak. Either you seriously shorten the range, or you have to rotate your wrists pretty unnaturally in a way that seems precarious. On that last picture, its pretty much the end of your bash, right?
The secondary from the thrust seems fine, you're right.
Tarrak
Sergeant
The twohanded sword has secondaries I would think are fair... no... good! Especially from the top, that is very much like I through it would be (considering the little discussion about it).
The hiltbash isn't bad either... Looks rather vicious, and it has a fair bit more range than I thought it would have (but of course leaning into it does give some range). It just seems harder to avoit getting hit by than the pommelbashes of the other three attacks.
The hiltbash isn't bad either... Looks rather vicious, and it has a fair bit more range than I thought it would have (but of course leaning into it does give some range). It just seems harder to avoit getting hit by than the pommelbashes of the other three attacks.
Depends. If you mean a crossguard, then it can do a hell of a lot. If you mean with a staff...um...you might stun him.
It seems silly, but it worked. It allows a quick swing from another side, making it harder to defend against a polearm. *shrug* I think I will let historical texts and fechtbuch speak for me. If it was so ineffective, why was it endorsed by masters of a life-or-death craft?
Edit: I haven't read it (yet) but this was recommended as a very good poleaxe manual.
Edit: I haven't read it (yet) but this was recommended as a very good poleaxe manual.
ZantarV
Sergeant at Arms
Hey, I've been ghosting these forums for a while, but this is the first time I've posted.
So far the secondary attacks seem to be pretty well thought out. Punches when using a one-handed weapon, shield bashes when you have a shield, pommel and hilt attacks when using a two-handed sword, and butt attacks when using hafted weapons.
There seems to be some controversy on the implementation of these attacks though. However, it occurs to me, considering that all of these attacks have a shorter range, and the humping activities of the AI, that these could simply be performed when your enemy has closed within effective attacking distance of your weapon.
Attacks are already halted when an ally is in the way, so such detection is obviously possible. Also, it would simplify the addition, avoid frustrating range issues, and be immensely useful in halting the amorous advances of hordes of enemies.
Tell me what you think.
Cheers.
So far the secondary attacks seem to be pretty well thought out. Punches when using a one-handed weapon, shield bashes when you have a shield, pommel and hilt attacks when using a two-handed sword, and butt attacks when using hafted weapons.
There seems to be some controversy on the implementation of these attacks though. However, it occurs to me, considering that all of these attacks have a shorter range, and the humping activities of the AI, that these could simply be performed when your enemy has closed within effective attacking distance of your weapon.
Attacks are already halted when an ally is in the way, so such detection is obviously possible. Also, it would simplify the addition, avoid frustrating range issues, and be immensely useful in halting the amorous advances of hordes of enemies.
Tell me what you think.
Cheers.
ZantarV
Sergeant at Arms
By the way, in response to the comments about the innefectuality of blunt (butt attack, pommel smash, et cetera) attacks, I think you are underestimating the force behind such a blow.
For one thing, armour is designed to protect against blades, and provides very little, if any, protection against blunt attacks. As for the force of a secondary attack, let's take an example. Say you have a halberd, and you raise it overhead, presumably in preparation for a chop. Instead, you decide to thrust the butt forward from this position, which is almost as favourable as that you would normally thrust from. Assuming you have aimed correctly, this strikes your oppenent directly in the face, and although it doesn't actually wound him, since you hit him with the blunt end, it would still probably be about as effective as a decent hit with a baseball bat. At this point, were I on the receiving end, I would likely fall over and try to remember what I was doing.
In terms of making your oppenent dead, blunt damage is certainly much less effective than slashing or piercing. However, in terms of disorienting your opponent or even disabling him, it's not too shabby, whereupon you can make him dead with the pointy end.
For one thing, armour is designed to protect against blades, and provides very little, if any, protection against blunt attacks. As for the force of a secondary attack, let's take an example. Say you have a halberd, and you raise it overhead, presumably in preparation for a chop. Instead, you decide to thrust the butt forward from this position, which is almost as favourable as that you would normally thrust from. Assuming you have aimed correctly, this strikes your oppenent directly in the face, and although it doesn't actually wound him, since you hit him with the blunt end, it would still probably be about as effective as a decent hit with a baseball bat. At this point, were I on the receiving end, I would likely fall over and try to remember what I was doing.
In terms of making your oppenent dead, blunt damage is certainly much less effective than slashing or piercing. However, in terms of disorienting your opponent or even disabling him, it's not too shabby, whereupon you can make him dead with the pointy end.
Destichado
Squire
Zantar: I wouldn't have said it that way, but you're close enough that I won't argue.
To Aman: I assume your last post was objecting to the punches in single-sword? If so, check out Talhoffer. True, he goes for grappling rather than boxing, but the stance is the same, and grabbing, tugging and throwing are impracticable in M&B. If you dig a little deeper into other fechtbooks, especially those of later period, you see that (much like in Japan) the principles of armed and unarmed combat spring from the same roots. In one particular book (I can't recall the name), the art of "boxing" (which looked a little like a cross between no-holds barred bare-knuckle boxing and greco-roman wrestling) was directly compared to swordplay, with illustrations of the similarities in strikes, movements, and how they were interchangable in a swordfight. I assure you, in a real sword fight, if you're doing it properly and controling your opponent's weapon, there is more than ample opportunity to close to fists and bloody up the sonofa***** with a left hook. Of course, with swords, this is more a way to distract your enemy so you can kill with the blade, but it would work much the same in M&B. For instance, have you noticed that enemies are slower to parry and slower to attack immediately after a successfull attack? Just as in real life, you break the rythem with a weak attack, and kill with a strong one.
Merentha: actually, le Jeu is famous because it's the only poleaxe manual we have that's contemporary to the Hundred Years War. It's a fine manual, but it's also unillustrated. For illustrations of poleaxe fighting, Tallhoffer's several manuals are excelent, as is Goliath, iirc.
Incedentally, I believe it was Tallhoffer who said that the man who leads with the que ("the useless end of a wooden pole" -which was often tipped with a spike, a blade, several blades, or hooks ) is wise, and that any man who attacks first with the head is a fool.
To Aman: I assume your last post was objecting to the punches in single-sword? If so, check out Talhoffer. True, he goes for grappling rather than boxing, but the stance is the same, and grabbing, tugging and throwing are impracticable in M&B. If you dig a little deeper into other fechtbooks, especially those of later period, you see that (much like in Japan) the principles of armed and unarmed combat spring from the same roots. In one particular book (I can't recall the name), the art of "boxing" (which looked a little like a cross between no-holds barred bare-knuckle boxing and greco-roman wrestling) was directly compared to swordplay, with illustrations of the similarities in strikes, movements, and how they were interchangable in a swordfight. I assure you, in a real sword fight, if you're doing it properly and controling your opponent's weapon, there is more than ample opportunity to close to fists and bloody up the sonofa***** with a left hook. Of course, with swords, this is more a way to distract your enemy so you can kill with the blade, but it would work much the same in M&B. For instance, have you noticed that enemies are slower to parry and slower to attack immediately after a successfull attack?
Just as in real life, you break the rythem with a weak attack, and kill with a strong one. Merentha: actually, le Jeu is famous because it's the only poleaxe manual we have that's contemporary to the Hundred Years War. It's a fine manual, but it's also unillustrated. For illustrations of poleaxe fighting, Tallhoffer's several manuals are excelent, as is Goliath, iirc.
Incedentally, I believe it was Tallhoffer who said that the man who leads with the que ("the useless end of a wooden pole" -which was often tipped with a spike, a blade, several blades, or hooks ) is wise, and that any man who attacks first with the head is a fool.