Maintaining distance

[Kamamura]

In melee combat, distance of the combatants is crucial. Fences distinguish several types of distance:

Close distance - The opponent has passed the tip of your weapon, so that he cannot be hit by a thrust, or sometimes even a proper cut (it's just too close). In these situations, various alternative attacks, like pummeling with hilt or guard, various grapples, even low kicks and so on. Note that sometimes, this distance might be safer than short distance (for example against poearms, who are next to useless very close).

Short distance - The opponent can be hit with simple extending or swinging of the sword arm, without the need of any kind of footwork. This distance is very dangerous for both sides. Each combatant try to enter this distance only when the situation strongly favors him (after a successful parry, when the opponent lowered his guard, when the tip of his weapon was deflected or bound, and so on). The attack on this distance is often too quick to parry with confidence (without losing balance, proper stance, etc.)

Medium distance - The opponent can be hit after a lunge or a step forward, but not immediately. This is the basic distance a fighter will try to maintain under normal circumstances. An attacker whose attack was parried also tries to return to this distance ASAP to avoid possible counters.

Long distance The opponent can be hit only after multiple steps or at least one step followed by a lunge. This distance is used when one is shaken, wounded, thrown off - balance and wants to regain composure.

The crucial tactical problems arise when two opponents with different weapons meet. What is a short distance for a spearman might still be long distance for a swordsman, so that the spearman is in huge advantage (he can perform dangerous attacks while his opponent cannot reach him). But when the swordsman succeeds in closing even more past the tip of the spear, the situation changes dramatically. The spearman fights on extremely close distance, his polearms being next to useless, while the swordsman has reached his optimum medium/short distance and can release a flurry of cuts on his opponent.

These tactical problems were reflected by the way our ancestors warred. For example in early rennaisance, in the era of landsknechts (mercenaries employed by the Italian cities), the troops fought in tight formations of spearmen, presenting dense forrest of spikes to the opponents and protecting the musket-men behind. Because both sides employed this tactic, there were elite soldiers with superior, light two handed swords (who were paid twice the normal soldier), who tried to create opening in the pikes and get into the formation. Up close, the pikemen were disadvantaged. Upon successful breach, other soldiers armed with katzbalgers (short cutting sword) followed, forcing the pikemen to throw down their pikes and draw their own backup weapons (katzbalgers mostly), that were more suitable for close-up fighting. Thus, the entire formation could be broken and dislodged from defending certain advantageous position.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And now to the game - this is an element that is missing from the game as it is. I don't say there exist a meaningful implementation of this aspect of medieval warfare into the current engine, but I will try to provide some concepts.

Currently, polearms do not offer the main advantage - keeping opponent at a distance. You can just walk past the tip of a spear as if it does not exist. To implement this, true collission detection system would have to be implemented, restiricting you to walk through weapons even if they are not attacking (I have spears specifically in mind). This also applies to swords in lesser extent, because normally, a swordsman uses the length of his sword to gain space by pointing at opponent head of chest, prohibiting him from advance (the characters in the game do not do this).

If the pikes would push opponents back, it would be possible to create pikemen formations the way they were used historically. To pass behind the spear, the swordsman would have to:

a) brush it aside with shield or blade. This could be implemented by holding 'block' and walking forward. However, if the spearman steps back and thrusts, he may regain the stance.
b) sucessfully parry a thrust from the spear

When the swordsman would get behind the point of a spear, the spearman would be unable to properly stab him. The standard 'thrust' attack would change to 'shove' attack, where the spearman uses the shaft of the spear to push the swordsman away. If the spearman retreats to a proper distance (or shoves the opponent back), he can thrust again. Shove would do no damage or little bunt damage (it can also be a blunt quarter-staff style attack).

The same could apply for a dagger and sword, giving the swordsman 'shove' attack on a very close distance and bringing interesting tactical aspects for daggers, sickles and so on.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To summarize:

- Basically, each weapon could have maximum effective range together with minimum effective range. 'Shove' replaces proper attacks if the opponent is closer
- Tips of the weapons gain space, cannot be "walked through"
- Tip of the weapon can be overcome by either successfully parrying, or brushing the weapon aside ('holding block and walking forward"). If the advancing attacker is still in effective range of the spearmen, spear attack cancels the "weapon-pushed-aside" status
-'Shove' does little to no blunt damage and pushes the opponent back to effective range. This name represents various alternative (less effective) attacks like hilt bashes, even low kicks and attempts to push the opponent away. Alternatively, it could be even possible to disarm opponent at extremely close range.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I seriously doubt that will be implemented (or read till the end . I just think these ideas could enhance the complexity and tactical variety of the game even further.

 

[Balor]

It's always nice to see a fellow swordsman
However, while I, of course, fully agree with you, I agree that such (your post about thrusting included) ideas are not that easy to implement.
Btw, however, space required for swing is in already - if you hit someone up close with a long weapon, it will do little or no damage.
But keeping enemy 'at bay' with extended weapon and different animation based on distance is something very interesting, but not easily done.
However, if it will be implemented, I'd be most glad.
After all, when it comes to making combat systems more varied and enteresting, there cannot be too much realism.
On the other hand, AI improvement is in order too. (Every addtion to combat mechanics has to be "taught" to AI.)
Right now, it's possible to single-handely kill entire war parties... because all tactics they use is 'swarm'.
I'm posted a few ideas on that, but Armagan answered that it's well and good, but hard to do and low priority. *sigh*
Same here, I guess.

 

[Kamamura]

Well, I know it won't be implemented, but it could still inspire someone.

After all, up to this time most game designers followed the simplistic Morrowind-style combat, providing excuses that implementing a more realistic fighting system is not wanted by RPG enthusiasts, is too difficult to implement, would detter casual gamers, etc etc

And voila, suddenly, there is a unique Mount and Blade we can enjoy! Maybe these games will catch on and evolve and one day, perhaps we will roleplay Swiss pikemen fighting in tight formation or Bohemian Hussite rebels defending their special "warwagon barricades" against crusader-mercenaries in a sofisticated simulation - who knows?

 

[Kestenvarn]

A Disarm and Knockback skill would definitely be helpful, even if the rest of those suggestions were deemed to difficult to implement.

Disarming could be an action that occurs if two combatants attack each other at the same time, pitting one character's weaponskill against the opponent's.

 

[JohnathanStrange]

Well, I know it won't be implemented, but it could still inspire someone.

After all, up to this time most game designers followed the simplistic Morrowind-style combat, providing excuses that implementing a more realistic fighting system is not wanted by RPG enthusiasts, is too difficult to implement, would detter casual gamers, etc etc

And voila, suddenly, there is a unique Mount and Blade we can enjoy! Maybe these games will catch on and evolve and one day, perhaps we will roleplay Swiss pikemen fighting in tight formation or Bohemian Hussite rebels defending their special "warwagon barricades" against crusader-mercenaries in a sofisticated simulation - who knows?

That's a good point (for-lack-of-a-better-word). The so-called reasonable people like myself settle for the combat like that of Morrowind and then suddenly someone designs a Mount&Blade and the bar gets raised.

Now, your first post was very interesting and would add more depth and realism to the melee part of the game, a part which is imo not as intriguing, fun, or sophisticated as I would like. Right now, I don't see it happening, but certainly the inspiration could happen and we will be able in future expansions to see more intricate melee combat.

I'd post a smiley but apparently the emoticon bugs the FM.

 

[CaesarStuart]

Kamamura, I completely argree with you. The only thing I'd be worried about (besides the fact that this may not be implemented) is how clear the animation will be. Combat in this game is already a confusing affair (which I suppose is fairly accurate) and including details like this would only make it more difficult to tell what's going on. Other problems with the game, namely soldiers being able to strike through one another and other collision dection problems would also have to be fixed.

This all being said, I would love to see this implemented!

 

[Guryon]

An excellent post, the only (slight) flaw being that this game's combat systems is based around skirmishing, not formation combat. Of course, formation combat can work on this scale to some degree, but generally it's not that practical because it only takes one person to stuff up and the formation can be broken. Ok, that's a slight exaggeration, but formation combat works well because as formation members die, members from the back ranks can step in to fill up the gaps...

I like the comments on distancing for personal combat though. I think it's also important that two handed weapons be given a speed boost. It's such a common misconception that two handed weapons are slow, and generally it's just not the case. Having the strength of both arms working on a single weapon make it SO much faster and more maneouverable.

A perfect example is the humble quarterstaff. In my swords class, at the end of most nights we would have a 'weapon of choice' sparring period, and the newbies would always run for a sword and shield, while the more experienced members would generally pick up a quarterstaff (unless they wanted to play around with something else. ). The staff is dazzlingly quick to attack with. The ability to attack with each end makes it difficult to predict where you will be hit from next. It works excellently in defence (you don't block unless you have to, a few hits and it could be broken, rather you use the staff to parry the attacking weapon in the same direction it's already moving, so the attacker ends up spun around or off balance). Of course it's not too good for penetrating heavy armour, but you can still pound someone's wrists and fingers until they can't hold their weapons.

 

[Kestenvarn]

As for the quarterstaff's speed, that can actually be changed using the editor...

 

[Berny]

im really into this idea and i think it would make the battle a lot more strategic, and exciting...


The AI would beed quite a bit of work and coding it in...


Skirmishing? i dont think the games about skirmishing, its about a small battle with sword play and arrows, i wish my archers would play more as skirmishers then jsut sitting there pleasuring himself to the riverpirates clubs

 

[Guryon]

Hehe, you pretty much gave the definition of a skirmish. A small battle general between relatively mobile forces.

 

[sheek]

Good idea. Let's see if it's workable.

 

[Berny]

oh really i always thought a skirmish was with a missile group who would attack retreat attack retreat

 

[Kamamura]

Guryon, the topics discussed influence 1 vs 1 duels as well as formation clashes. The main reason sword is considered advantageous over, say, dagger is, that it can keep the dagger-wielding opponent at distance.

That's the very reason unprofessional, green recruits (peasants, townsmen) were given long stabbing polearms (pikes, spears, pitchforks) to compensate for their lack of skill. Of course, a peasant with a pitchfork is still no match for an experienced swordsman, but in large numbers, the polearms narrowed the gap at least a bit.

 

[Guryon]

Agreed, I am just of the opinion that formations work better with relatively larger numbers than the game currently caters for.

 

[Guryon]

Another thought on this topic... I would like to see more weapons given a minimum range, like the long, stabbing weapons currently have, inside which they only do minimum or no damage. Example being, once you are in physical contact with someone, a longsword/boadaxe becomes pretty useless too. About all you can do is bash with the pommel and pray the other guy doesn't have a dagger. Perhaps in that situation the only result from an effective attack with the longer weapon, would be to shove the opponent back so you could hopefully get them in striking range again.

I mean, anyone wonder who would ever choose a shortsword over a longsword?? Well look at the Romans? Shortswords are big enough to parry effectively, and once you have done so you can get inside the opponents reach and your weapon is still short enough to just poke at him with the pointy end.