Dear modders, will it be possible to mod in mordhau's combat system into Bannerl

[Roy1012]

The mount and blade combat system is the mount and blade combat system, if you want the mordhau combat system, just go play it...

 

[Magnumwedding]

The mount and blade combat system is the mount and blade combat system, if you want the mordhau combat system, just go play it...

You can t have singleplayer controlling armies and rpg in mordhau -snip-

 

[Roy1012]

The mount and blade combat system is the mount and blade combat system, if you want the mordhau combat system, just go play it...

You can t have singleplayer controlling armies and rpg in mordhau -snip-

Yes, I’m well aware, but ultimately they are different games. Mordhau is completely a multiplayer games while mount and blade focuses much more on the rpg aspect as you said, but you seemed to miss the point of my post. As I said, the mont and blade combat system works, it is unique while fine and fun to use, there is no reason to change. There seem to be some slight changes from warband to bannerlord which is fine, they aren’t reinventing the wheel. Which is what we want: changes to make it different, but not too different so that it is truly a sequel, not a different game.

 

[xdj1nn]

The swings in warband are actually a good deal slower than in real life to account for the fact that nobody can react that fast on a keyboard. I think the greatsword swings are fine in warband and that the mordhau/chivalry system is way too slow and takes too much inspiration from Skyrim.

I agree they are too slow in Mordhau/Chiv for sure.. But I would have to see someone swing a great sword as fast as in WB to believe that is possible (with armor on).

You clearly have absolutely zero knowledge of martial arts, HEMA (as mentioned above), armor/sword weights, center of gravity and human physical capabilities. But past this minor detail, Long-swords (2h common ones) are virtually lighter than Arming Swords (1h) because you are diving 1.2kg into 2 arms, making 600 grams each, while a common arming swords weights 900grams to 1kg most commonly (there are lighter ones, but the lightest 1h swords are around 700 grams give or take). A Greatsword, which isn't classified as a sword martially speaking, works more like a weapon of war, resembling a Polearm in functionality, but are not really heavy, a Zweihander (that weird german greatsword which is very well known) weights just 2kg generally, if you can't move 2kg with a decent center of mass (closer to the hands) fast, then you have some serious physical restraints (must be a cripple or something), because 2kg is super easy to move around, even with bad balancing.

Swords are quite easy to use talking about physical agility/finesse. But they were not used in Battle-fields as weapons of war, but rather as secondary weapons or for personal defense in non-war situations (much like modern pistols, you won't see soldiers fire-fighting with pistols, but rather with assault rifles). Middle ages "assault rifles" were spears and polearms, primarily, but they also employed pikes, greatswords (used to counter-pike formations), axes, maces, etc... Most treatises on greatswords basically show that they were used in a spin-circular constant movement with the objective of opening pike-lines while also damaging and possibly killing pikemen. Their anti-armor capabilities were more attributed to their weight, but any trained soldier would try to avoid fighting armored opponents with any types of swords. Puncturing weapons and pure blunt weapons were much more useful against armored opponents, and no one would puncture armor, but it's gaps. Even daggers were more effective against armored opponents than swords

 

[monoolho]

1 - Long-swords (2h common ones) are virtually lighter than Arming Swords (1h) because you are diving 1.2kg into 2 arms, making 600 grams each, while a common arming swords weights 900grams to 1kg most commonly (there are lighter ones, but the lightest 1h swords are around 700 grams give or take).

2 - Their anti-armor capabilities were more attributed to their weight, but any trained soldier would try to avoid fighting armored opponents with any types of swords. Puncturing weapons and pure blunt weapons were much more useful against armored opponents, and no one would puncture armor, but it's gaps. Even daggers were more effective against armored opponents than swords

1- thats not how human phisiology works. It is not equally distributed among the arms, the weight is constantly being balanced and shifted. Just hold an object that weights 2kg and pay attention to your muscles. Its not evenly distributed.

2 - you are generalizing plate armor knowledge, which is not wrong, but inadequate for BLs time period. Supposedly, there wont be (many) plate armored soldiers in BL. Nonetheless, against armored targets, piercing and blunt are generally more efficient. But that is considering a single aspecr alone, while ignoring a whole other array of context.

You are right that these were weapons of war,  specialized weapons, even.

And mordhaus swings are very slow exactly because it is an arcade game, meant to be gimmicky. If any game went full on realistic, it would be very imbalanced and feel very unfair. Is life fair? No. Thus a realistic game will also be unfair in its realistic aspects, and where is the fun in being unfairly treated?

 

[KucukEniste]

1 - Long-swords (2h common ones) are virtually lighter than Arming Swords (1h) because you are diving 1.2kg into 2 arms, making 600 grams each, while a common arming swords weights 900grams to 1kg most commonly (there are lighter ones, but the lightest 1h swords are around 700 grams give or take).

2 - Their anti-armor capabilities were more attributed to their weight, but any trained soldier would try to avoid fighting armored opponents with any types of swords. Puncturing weapons and pure blunt weapons were much more useful against armored opponents, and no one would puncture armor, but it's gaps. Even daggers were more effective against armored opponents than swords

1- thats not how human phisiology works. It is not equally distributed among the arms, the weight is constantly being balanced and shifted. Just hold an object that weights 2kg and pay attention to your muscles. Its not evenly distributed.

You are right about that. But i think kentucky was trying to say holding and swinging a two handed sword is easier than 1 handed swords which is true. Because even the heaviest swords are not more than 2 kg oppose to sword in video games like skyrim, darksiders etc.

 

[Rollo.TheWarrior]

I see it quite impossible. 
I do think Bannerlord combat is actually better than mordheau´s

 

[Roy1012]

I see it quite impossible. 
I do think Bannerlord combat is actually better than mordheau´s

This.

 

[Tork789]

I have yet to encounter any historical mention of piercing and blunt weapons being used against armoured opponents. Mostly I stumble upon depictions of battles, where swords, axes and spears are used to hit uncovered faces and necks.

The Battle of Fornovo 1495

-Alessandro Beneditti, The Battle of Fornovo (1495) Beneditti was a physician working for the Venetian forces and started his diary in May 1495, and a month later, was an eyewitness to this battle.

Quote:
“During this confusion Rodolfo Gonzaga, who had fought a memorable battle in the midst of the enemy lines, opened his helmet, was seriously wounded on the face, and straightway fell. “


Quote:
These lay in a noble death before my eyes, and there was no blood, for the rain had bathed their gaping wounds. All lay prone, just as they had fought, body to body, and most of the wounds were in their throats, since they had contended more eagerly than carefully in the enemy’s midst and almost no one knew for which of the zealous warriors the battle was going well.


Quote:
“The river Taro carried very many corpses to the Po; the rest, more than twenty-five hundred, unburied and swollen by the heat of the sun and the rain, were left to wild beasts. Almost all of these had a piercing wound in the throat or on the face, but a few had been lacerated by artillery.”


Quote:
“A great many French fell and perished at the first onrush, for they carry shorter javelins(lances), wherefore they felt the first blows; however, the French seemed better suited to the sword, for as it is shorter, it is on that account considered better. “


Grunwald

-This account of the battle was written sixty years afterwards, by Jan Dlugosz, who served as the secretary to the Bishop of Cracow.

Quote:
“Then knight attacked knight, armor crushed under the pressure of armor, and swords hit faces. And when the ranks dosed, it was impossible to tell the coward from the brave, the bold from the slow, because all of them were pressed together, as if in some tangle. They changed places or advanced only when the victor took the place of the defeated by throwing down or killing the enemy. When at last they broke the spears, all the units and armor clung together so tightly that, pushed by the horses and crowded, they fought only with swords and axes slightly, extended on their handles, and they made a noise in that fighting that only the blows of hammers can raise in a forge. And among the knights fighting hand to hand only with swords, one could observe examples of great courage.”


Quote:
“He struck the German on the side and knocked him from his horse to the ground. With his spear, King Wladyslaw struck the knight, who lay on his back on the ground in convulsions, hitting him in the forehead, which was bare as his visor had opened, but left him intact. But the knights keeping guard over the king killed him immediately, “

You can find more here: http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.32155.html

What's interesting is that archaeological evidence also shows that most wounds were to the head with the majority of them being cuts delivered with bladed weapons(sword or axe).

 

[monoolho]

You are right about that. But i think kentucky was trying to say holding and swinging a two handed sword is easier than 1 handed swords which is true. Because even the heaviest swords are not more than 2 kg oppose to sword in video games like skyrim, darksiders etc.

I was agreeing with him, just criticizing breezy's logic because that's not why it is the way it is. It is in my nature to criticize a fellow nitpicker.

I have yet to encounter any historical mention of piercing and blunt weapons being used against armoured opponents. Mostly I stumble upon depictions of battles, where swords, axes and spears are used to hit uncovered faces and necks.

Spoiler

The Battle of Fornovo 1495

-Alessandro Beneditti, The Battle of Fornovo (1495) Beneditti was a physician working for the Venetian forces and started his diary in May 1495, and a month later, was an eyewitness to this battle.

Quote:
“During this confusion Rodolfo Gonzaga, who had fought a memorable battle in the midst of the enemy lines, opened his helmet, was seriously wounded on the face, and straightway fell. “


Quote:
These lay in a noble death before my eyes, and there was no blood, for the rain had bathed their gaping wounds. All lay prone, just as they had fought, body to body, and most of the wounds were in their throats, since they had contended more eagerly than carefully in the enemy’s midst and almost no one knew for which of the zealous warriors the battle was going well.


Quote:
“The river Taro carried very many corpses to the Po; the rest, more than twenty-five hundred, unburied and swollen by the heat of the sun and the rain, were left to wild beasts. Almost all of these had a piercing wound in the throat or on the face, but a few had been lacerated by artillery.”


Quote:
“A great many French fell and perished at the first onrush, for they carry shorter javelins(lances), wherefore they felt the first blows; however, the French seemed better suited to the sword, for as it is shorter, it is on that account considered better. “


Grunwald

-This account of the battle was written sixty years afterwards, by Jan Dlugosz, who served as the secretary to the Bishop of Cracow.

Quote:
“Then knight attacked knight, armor crushed under the pressure of armor, and swords hit faces. And when the ranks dosed, it was impossible to tell the coward from the brave, the bold from the slow, because all of them were pressed together, as if in some tangle. They changed places or advanced only when the victor took the place of the defeated by throwing down or killing the enemy. When at last they broke the spears, all the units and armor clung together so tightly that, pushed by the horses and crowded, they fought only with swords and axes slightly, extended on their handles, and they made a noise in that fighting that only the blows of hammers can raise in a forge. And among the knights fighting hand to hand only with swords, one could observe examples of great courage.”


Quote:
“He struck the German on the side and knocked him from his horse to the ground. With his spear, King Wladyslaw struck the knight, who lay on his back on the ground in convulsions, hitting him in the forehead, which was bare as his visor had opened, but left him intact. But the knights keeping guard over the king killed him immediately, “

You can find more here: http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.32155.html

What's interesting is that archaeological evidence also shows that most wounds were to the head with the majority of them being cuts delivered with bladed weapons(sword or axe).

Very, very far from my area of expertise (or even interest, really), but interesting nonetheless: How Richard III supposedly died, the injuries and what not, the injuries he received are evidence that the armor may have protected him very much, until he lost his helmet, then he got rekt.
Then again, it is the 1400s, and BL supposedly is set 400 years earlier and should not have widespread plate armor, maybe not even good gambesons. I'm speculating, of course.

 

[Do not look here]

I have yet to encounter any historical mention of piercing and blunt weapons being used against armoured opponents. Mostly I stumble upon depictions of battles, where swords, axes and spears are used to hit uncovered faces and necks.

I know that this is way later than Bannerlord, but it may be interesting to you - Hasan Esiri chronicled Battle of Vienna (1683) and wrote about sipahi clashing against first charge of allied cavalry (pardon my translation, I have access only to old Polish book that has the fragment):

"But giaours were all in iron, so saber was worth nothing there, but experienced heroes were not stopped by it. Each one of them had a hammer, a mace or an axe, so they started whacking giaours over their heads, faces and arms, and those, who lacked such weapons, used sabers to cut their horses open."

I'm not bringing it up in opposition to your point, just as a note that the 'anti-armour' weapons were brought to the fray. There's also a slightly earlier text mentioning that Commonwealth light cavalrymen were obliged/expected to bring military picks/hammers on campaigns, but I only know it from second hand without access to the letter itself. The quote from it I know describes 'lancers' (winged hussars) in a way that omits any dedicated blunt weapon, instead describing koncerz sword to be used to pierce armours.

 

[Tork789]

I have yet to encounter any historical mention of piercing and blunt weapons being used against armoured opponents. Mostly I stumble upon depictions of battles, where swords, axes and spears are used to hit uncovered faces and necks.

I know that this is way later than Bannerlord, but it may be interesting to you - Hasan Esiri chronicled Battle of Vienna (1683) and wrote about sipahi clashing against first charge of allied cavalry (pardon my translation, I have access only to old Polish book that has the fragment):

"But giaours were all in iron, so saber was worth nothing there, but experienced heroes were not stopped by it. Each one of them had a hammer, a mace or an axe, so they started whacking giaours over their heads, faces and arms, and those, who lacked such weapons, used sabers to cut their horses open."

I'm not bringing it up in opposition to your point, just as a note that the 'anti-armour' weapons were brought to the fray. There's also a slightly earlier text mentioning that Commonwealth light cavalrymen were obliged/expected to bring military picks/hammers on campaigns, but I only know it from second hand without access to the letter itself. The quote from it I know describes 'lancers' (winged hussars) in a way that omits any dedicated blunt weapon, instead describing koncerz sword to be used to pierce armours.

Very interesting indeed. However it is worth noting that in that time period and place, full plate armour wasn't common anymore and for ottomans to have maces and hammers made sense since they never had plate armour from the start and those weapons were much more effective against chainmail and other types of armour they had, than a saber.

So I guess I should've phrased myself differently, maces and war hammers with beaks actually could be used as anti-armour weapons if we're talking about chainmail, but I have doubts they were as effective against plate.

 

[Do not look here]

for ottomans to have maces and hammers made sense since they never had plate armour from the start and those weapons were much more effective against chainmail and other types of armour they had, than a saber.

Most of their opponents - and all of them in that particular campaign - had, though. The fact that their enemies were 'in iron' is mentioned couple of times and sipahi gear is brought up to show they were ready to fight them. Though hussars wouldn't exactly wear a full plate, they were still rather well armoured. But I brought it up mainly due to chronicler describing the head and face being targeted, as it is in line with your quotes. Makes me wonder whether it is due to difficulty to hit a torso with blunt weapons that are generally shorter, or due to their inability to deal damage to a proper breastplate. Most likely the latter, though I wouldn't wear one to prove it.

 

[baca]

Reminder that you don't need to kill someone to win a fight. Using a warhammer to break someone's arm is as effective as stabbing someone in the stomach for the purpose of winning a battle. The purpose of weapons was to win battles and while blunt weapons are less likely to deliver a killing blow than swords, they will still disable people via breaking bones or knocking them out and that is almost as valuable as a kill in a battlefield.

 

[Tork789]

for ottomans to have maces and hammers made sense since they never had plate armour from the start and those weapons were much more effective against chainmail and other types of armour they had, than a saber.

Most of their opponents - and all of them in that particular campaign - had, though. The fact that their enemies were 'in iron' is mentioned couple of times and sipahi gear is brought up to show they were ready to fight them. Though hussars wouldn't exactly wear a full plate, they were still rather well armoured. But I brought it up mainly due to chronicler describing the head and face being targeted, as it is in line with your quotes. Makes me wonder whether it is due to difficulty to hit a torso with blunt weapons that are generally shorter, or due to their inability to deal damage to a proper breastplate. Most likely the latter, though I wouldn't wear one to prove it.

Makes sense, and you also gave me an idea to look into earlier battles with the Ottomans to see how they dealt with armoured europeans, since full plate was a lot more prevalent in 15-16th centuries. Also it might be that war hammers allowed to exploit gaps in frontal openings of the helmets more easily than a sabre, which was also very convenient with something thrust-oriented like a short spear, a sword or a koncerz/estoc.

Reminder that you don't need to kill someone to win a fight. Using a warhammer to break someone's arm is as effective as stabbing someone in the stomach for the purpose of winning a battle. The purpose of weapons was to win battles and while blunt weapons are less likely to deliver a killing blow than swords, they will still disable people via breaking bones or knocking them out and that is almost as valuable as a kill in a battlefield.

I would agree if not for the fact that historical evidence doesn't suggest such an approach in general, also judging by today's reenactment events such as the Battle of the Nations I do get a feeling that blunt impact wasn't such an issue for warriors clad in plate - the trauma rates there are very low for a full contact sport, and that might be a reason why both the ottomans and the europeans tried to aim for an open face instead.

 

[KucukEniste]

Makes sense, and you also gave me an idea to look into earlier battles with the Ottomans to see how they dealt with armoured europeans, since full plate was a lot more prevalent in 15-16th centuries. 

Ottomans had heavy unit too. But janisseries with firearms were the ones dealt with armoured units since 14th century.

Spoiler

But bannerlord doesn't have firearms. And if you look at these pictures you will notice axes in their belts along with sabers.

Spoiler

Spoiler

Look at the man who holds a ship.

Spoiler

And this.

Spoiler

And polearms.

Spoiler

And small maces.

Spoiler

Warband already has 3 types of damage: Slashing. Blunt . Penetration

These damage types creates changes when there are armored or unarmored opponents.

What i hate in chivalry combat (i mean mordau) you can chop a man's head or arm by standing still. Kingdom come deliverence understands what an armor is, and if you use a sword agains a guy who has plate armor fight can take minutes.

 

[Tork789]

Ottomans did have heavily armoured troops, yes, I never said otherwise, but they had a lot more areas not covered by plates, since they haven't had full plate armour for whatever reason, and that's what made their armour much more vulnerable to hammers and maces, which is why I believe they've been using them.

But yeah, Bannerlord isn't going to have full plate armour, so I guess it's an off-topic and we probably should wrap it up.

Mordhau is a huge disappointment for me, since it's basically a patched Chivalry with an attitude of a historically accurate game, which it isn't and if you ask me I believe its combat system is worse in almost every way when compared to Warband.

Same goes for Kingdom Come. You can easily cut armoured opponents with a sword that has high enough damage stats, like st. George's sword, their famous combos looked sweet, but ended up being useless, since any decent bot isn't going to allow you to execute more than two hits and the most efficient way to deal with them is just clickspam them in clinch and counter every attack with perfect block that is done with a single button push. Overall the combat system is disappointing beyond belief.

No combat system that has been made to date can rival Warband's. But that is my opinion.

 

[machineRegen]

No thanks I ****ing hate mordhau

 

[Roccoflipside]

My guess for why the majority of "killing blows" tend to be to the head/face/neck has to do with how wars were fought. Two groups of men, several lines deep, march towards each other and crash into a press of bodies so tight a weapon can barely be swung, but you can knock someone over. And when you do, you step forward and let the guy behind you stab the downed man- usually somewhere vital, like the head/neck area. Plus, as that person is not in active combat, they can take the time to remove the enemie's visor, ensuring its a kill.

I believe this is where the term 'coup de grace', or 'mercy blow' comes from, when injured soldiers during the 100 years war would be put out of ther misery with a dagger slid under/between the plates, into the neck or heart area.  Of course this is all speculation, so there's that.