Sword to sword Interactions

AlphaDelta said:

This idea isn't exactly sword to sword, but it's close.

Why is it that you can only use the shield, or the sword, never both at the same time? It seems to me that currently 1 handed weapons are a bit un-realistic in the way that the combat system does not allow you to hold up your shield and at the same time stab to the front.

Click to expand...

Check this out

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,31568.0.html

this game need a more complex combat system because it's based all in that, the combat: maybe a more 1vs1 combat and not all going versus the enemies without any formation and tactic, for example medieval 2 total war system )only for example eh)

i think your gonna have to wait for mount and blade 2 buddy. hopefully they will have the budget for more complex engine or something.

This is one of the most epic performance of necromancy ever.

Thorgrim_The_Well_Hung said:

i think your gonna have to wait for mount and blade 2 buddy. hopefully they will have the budget for more complex engine or something.

Click to expand...

nice necromancy, "buddy"    by the way for better animations there's no need for big budget, i think there's no need of it at all: in fact i seen mods for other games that have a nice combat feel (for example age of chivalry that is multiplayer) i'm not saying that armagan and his team aren't able to improve them, but that they ported too much outdated material from older versions

The moderator removed whatever post dug this up.

Well... I've never seen that problem before??? When i attack with my Masterwork Knightly sword (2h BTW) and hit some-one whom is attacking too I get an speed bonus on -94& wich slows me down.....

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 182 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Click to expand...

Pretty sure I do, forum. The King's Court doesn't allow for new user-posted threads, this is here, I have things to say, and I just posted a (meta)suggestion in the subforum. I'm not sure whether it's worse to dig up a topic that's six months old or to post two threads in quick succession. I'll take my chances here. So hush hush, forum, and let me say my words.

Given that there's ten pages of thread I don't want to read, but an interesting proposition in the OP, I'd like to add my two pence as an enthusiast of historical swordplay. The most important thing to know is that there are essentially three potential outcomes, one of which is neutral, and two degrees of failure or success:

• The two weapons meet and stop in the middle, in extended positions.
• One weapon takes an advantageous position in the clash; it has superior positioning and/or leverage, giving its user an advantage in follow-up actions.
• One weapons strikes the other out of the way. Ff the weapon also connects with one's opponent, this is a single-time counter attack; otherwise, it's a beat.

Note that from the first outcome, each participant may allow their weapon to slip by and start up new attacks. This is particularly common with single-handed weapons, since a relative lack of control compared to their two-handed equivalents makes it much more difficult to both maintain an extended position and to resist incoming impact. In a more general sense, though, I think it would be acceptable for each attack to block one-another, with visual and audio indicators (such as a spark and a clang), but for the animations to complete as though nothing were in the way. Such a solution would be far from perfect, but it would express the idea that attacking as a viable means of defense in close combat, and allow combat to flow smoothly.

SealTeam said:

It seems a little strange to me that when i swing my sword it often passes clean through my opponent's weapon, as he swings it, and proceeds to remove his head.

Now, if two people made the same swing, wouldn't the swords clash?

Either they should bounce back, or they could enter into a star wars: Jedi knight 'saber clash' battle of strength sort of contest, and force the loser to recoil breifly.
Any sort of sword interaction would add a large degree of realism to the game and a great new element during fights, rather than 'haha i hit block so i'm invincible! '
Just a suggestion, happy for any feedback (you've probably all got better ideas than me but you get what i think the problem is)

Click to expand...

I don't want to have to link a video or three of how and why this is a silly concept, (the lightsaber 'push' of blades), but I would if need be. You simply don't have any battle of strength with swords or any other weapons unless you're specifically in a reverse tug of war, a contest of pushing power of some sort. This does not happen with swords, or any other weapon which is utilized by striking the opponent. In reality, as with martial arts, you don't sit there and force yourself needlessly and hopelessly against the enemy and try to throw him down (somehow) with the strength of your arm alone. You, or the other person, will almost immediately shift their weight and move their blade and attempt to get another strike, or, they'll kick at you to regain their distance, or pommel you or something else.

While I'll agree that weapon collisions should occur, I don't think it should be done in such a way as mars the fluidity and consistency of combat.  As someone else has mentioned, sword on sword contact for instance, is generally damaging, a little less so if you land your blade on their flat, but still not ideal. In shield and 1h weapon combat, barring using a blunt weapon to wound through armor or a heavy two-handed blunt weapon which could wound through a shield, you typically want to apply your weapon against the softest, most vulnerable part of the enemy while using your shield, (not your sword typically), to defend against any and all attacks. There is no swinging at the opponent's weapon to make fancy hollywood clingy clang sounds, as someone may have pointed out it's best to avoid contacting the enemy weapon at all unless you're parrying.

And that brings me to blocking. Necessary in this combat engine, but not quite so prevalent in reality. In reality you would typically do something more akin to a parry, you would want to move your weapon to intercept and defend against the enemy weapon while simultaneously being able to attack him with it. I make no suggestions where this is concerned though. Flat, hard blocks is what we have in this current system. They still have their uses in practice as is, just aren't as common.

Edit: or are we letting this thread die?  Not sure.  I'm also searching for a suggestions for bannerlord thread. Is there one? Search function is a little disagreeable with me. I tried, though.

Childe_Rolande said:

I don't want to have to link a video or three of how and why this is a silly concept, (the lightsaber 'push' of blades), but I would if need be. You simply don't have any battle of strength with swords or any other weapons unless you're specifically in a reverse tug of war, a contest of pushing power of some sort. This does not happen with swords, or any other weapon which is utilized by striking the opponent. In reality, as with martial arts, you don't sit there and force yourself needlessly and hopelessly against the enemy and try to throw him down (somehow) with the strength of your arm alone. You, or the other person, will almost immediately shift their weight and move their blade and attempt to get another strike, or, they'll kick at you to regain their distance, or pommel you or something else.

While I'll agree that weapon collisions should occur, I don't think it should be done in such a way as mars the fluidity and consistency of combat.  As someone else has mentioned, sword on sword contact for instance, is generally damaging, a little less so if you land your blade on their flat, but still not ideal. In shield and 1h weapon combat, barring using a blunt weapon to wound through armor or a heavy two-handed blunt weapon which could wound through a shield, you typically want to apply your weapon against the softest, most vulnerable part of the enemy while using your shield, (not your sword typically), to defend against any and all attacks. There is no swinging at the opponent's weapon to make fancy hollywood clingy clang sounds, as someone may have pointed out it's best to avoid contacting the enemy weapon at all unless you're parrying.

And that brings me to blocking. Necessary in this combat engine, but not quite so prevalent in reality. In reality you would typically do something more akin to a parry, you would want to move your weapon to intercept and defend against the enemy weapon while simultaneously being able to attack him with it. I make no suggestions where this is concerned though. Flat, hard blocks is what we have in this current system. They still have their uses in practice as is, just aren't as common.

Edit: or are we letting this thread die?  Not sure.  I'm also searching for a suggestions for bannerlord thread. Is there one? Search function is a little disagreeable with me. I tried, though.

Click to expand...

While you're right about the nonexistence of the strength-based "sword wrestling" in the bind, not everything you said holds true for every style. The perspective you provided is based more upon the styles and tastes of East Asian fencers, and even then, there's significant diversity of fencing approaches and techniques in that region. Historical European swordplay does have much more significant "sword wrestling" component, albeit based on mechanical strength (such as leverage) rather than a person's physical brute strength. Have a peek:



This is based on the fighting style of Johannes Liechtenauer, a 14th century German knight. Later, at least two of his students (by several degrees of generational separation, mind) would find association with the Brotherhood of St. Mark -- Hans Talhoffer, one of the most famous authors within the Liechtenauer tradition, may even have been a founding member. The Brotherhood of St. Mark was a fencing guild that was given authority to provide martial arts qualifications by the Imperial throne in the late 15th century, but it appears to have existed for at least a few decades before then. So it seems as though Liechtenauer's style of fencing might have become a kind of gold standard for the Holy Roman Empire by the time the 16th century rolls around.

While swords do sustain damage by way of pretty much any use, in many cases, their fragility is overstated. Some East Asian swords, most notably the katana, are designed to be particularly stiff in the blade. This helps support the force of a thrust (which is a part of why many katana are remarkably good at thrusting for curved swords), but renders the blade more brittle than its more malleable European equivalents. European sword design had a greater emphasis on the resilience of the blade, which resulted in less rigid blades that could hold a less acute edge, but could sustain more abuse. That resilience is part of why you get styles such as in the video I provided above.

Accepting that swords will inevitably get damaged, and that your sword is often your last lifeline in battle, one could argue that it's best to avoid sword contact as much as possible, no matter the resilience of the blade. That's not necessarily the case, though, because when your meet their blade with theirs, you can exert influence over it. By clashing at the sword, and then keeping your blade between their sword and your body at almost all times, you establish a barrier that threatens your opponent, defends you, and provides you with information by way of your sense of touch (as the pressure coming from an opponent's sword can be felt and measured). One's sword might eventually sustain significant damage, but that's likely worth it to ensure you remain defended throughout the course of a battle, street fight, or duel. A good fencer of the Liechtenauer tradition is able to establish multiple "layers" of defense, by executing covering strikes and evasions simultaneously; in this case, it might be one's primary aim to evade an incoming attack, but an intercepting defense is established just in case, and said defense doubles as a threat by keeping the point aimed squarely on one's opponent.

I concur, and admit I probably stated something incorrectly due to a lack of hands-on understanding of this way of fighting from a professional, (historical) perspective. Truly, I'm not even remotely familiar with eastern weapon-based martial arts. Only unarmed combat. I had only assumed it was best to keep your blade from other blades if at all possible, but I certainly concede to the point that it might not only be necessary but also advantageous to do so in certain circumstances. I also held that the kind of flat blocking you see in warband today is very much not what tends to happen mid-fight. I should note I do tend to think of a method of warfare more common in an ancient era, in that situation I referred more to sword and shield combat as opposed to a longsword.

That's a good video demonstration. Were maneuvers like that possible in Bannerlord, I wouldn't mind seeing that.

As much as I appreciate the considered response, you weren't wrong on all counts -- just a bit generalised. In my experience, swordplay is extremely diverse, and what holds true for a thousand strong styles might not hold true for another strong style.

SealTeam said:

ah no i didn't mean button mashing like the star wars version, i just meant the same sort of clash. Having it based on stats, the power of the actual swing, and talents (power attack, weapon master) would make sense. Plus a nice helping of luck of course but not too much

Click to expand...

They have this, it's called "Chambering" if you swing in the same direction as your opponents weapon is about to hit, it will make a "parry" sound and block it and also hitting them at the same time. Not the same as a normal parry but similar.