Major Game Play Issues

[Maximo_khan]

For horses, Arch why are expendable lances stupid? it is what actually happened.

Prove it. Pretty much every source I've read states only tournament lances were designed to break. Given lancers quickly moved on to all steel lances I'd love to know how it was possible to break them on a battlefield, unless you were charging rocks.
As for why it's stupid; if I'm buying a lance, it's because I want to use it more than once. Not only will you get the same guys who ***** about people taking more than one shield now *****ing about people having two lances, but you'll also have cavalry complaining that their main weapon costs money and is quickly removed from them. The lance is already restricted by the fact it's only useful in specific circumstances, it doesn't need to be restricted even further. In fact, what the hell are cavalry going to be useful for if not lancing?

True, only tournament lances used to break, but no one was expected to still hold a lance in battle after he has put it in someone else charging with the horse, it was quite impossible to keep the lance in hand and don't fall down from the saddle.... knights used to couch one enemy then switch to the sword.

However that was just for clarify, I don't want WArband to be a 100% historycally based medieval battle simulator, but a very good multyplayer game so I'm more concerned about balancing issues than historical proof, but I still think that making couched lance a one shot only thing could be a nice improvement for cavalry.


About the 2handed problem I strongly disagree about making them more expansive: in that way who has more money, in a normal game the people that kill more, will be the only ones with access to still overpowered weapons and then have increased power to dominate the battlefield. I expect that everyone should be able to fight on equal terms, not just making the pro more able to own....
2handed weapons should be made slower, expecially after being parried because right now usually if I parry a great long axe I don't even have the time to counter attack that I got another swing....

2handed are slow enough, is because of the silly stun mechanic that affects your attack speed
( blockspeed is unaffected ). even 2h with are lighter get the stun on attack.

 

[Regendur]

That arrow reloading idea suggested by Orion/Eogan is a great idea. I remember it from before, and I thought it would be implemented by now.

 

[Archonsod]

For trample: I never said it should be instant death, but it should be painful. Also I am not sure how good you are in game, but it is extremely easy to move out a couchers lance without having to jump in front of the horse.

Depends on the lancer. A smart lancer will keep you guessing at which side he's going to couch till the last minute, and a good lancer will catch you with a thrust if you manage to get out of the way.

You can throw up a shield against any cavalry attack and will be fine.

Which is great for those classes who get shields. Personally I think the idea of a shield being primarily a defence against cavalry would be wrong though.

The infantryman is rewarded because now he can take out his super longer axe and rip the horse to pieces if he is able to stop the horse. The horses recovery time is much longer than the infantry's.

The only reason he should be able to stop the horse if it's moving fast enough to couch is if he's stood in front of an obstacle. That's the infantryman playing smart, or the cavalryman playing dumb.

Now to breakable lances, if you take a look at any of the lance models they all are made of wood. If they were replaced with steel lances, think about the action of couching or thrusting through an opponents abdomen. You penetrate and he is really screwed but you are on a fast moving horse while the person is stationary, the lance will not just magically pop out of the body and into your hands again

The horse is moving at around 40mph. You have a sharp piece of metal. Personally, I'm thinking it's not going to have a problem coming back out of the body.

As in any ranged attacks, there is going to be random factors, whether the wind, humidity or what ever and I am glad that randomness is implemented, but that doesn't mean that the realism should be taken out. Archers were effective modes of combat whether in larger numbers or smaller clusters. Yet the shouldn't be machine guns.

They're not. I've yet to see an archer empty a quiver in the milliseconds it would take for a machine gun to do so. In fact, a rapid firing archer tends to make four or five shots per minute, and averages at around three, which seems perfectly reasonable to me.

 

[Commoner]

Two Handed melee weapons in real life are generally actually swung around faster than one handed weapons in general. The difference is that in real life these two handed weapons are generally kept swinging to keep up the momentum of the weapon. They are very aggresive weapons and are used to knock the opponent's weapon or shield around to force them to keep on the defensive.

The problem is that in Mount & Blade you don't have to keep the weapon swinging around since you can use them just as quickly from a stopped position. In reality if you stopped swinging your two handed weapon around, you'd be at a tremendous disadvantage.

It all boils down to the fact that two handed weapons in Mount & Blade are treated pretty much in the exact same way as single handed weapons. In a way this makes some sense in terms of gameplay because it makes the use of either weapon more intuitive. However, in reflectining how two handed weapons are used in reality, it makes combat with these weapons very unrealistic.

If you wanted to make Two Handed weapons act more like they do in reality, the speed of the weapon should start out very slowly with the first blow and then progressively get quicker as you swung it around up to a certain point (possibly after the first 3 or 4 swings). This would mean that a player who wants to use a two handed weapon effectively would have to keep it moving and force his opponent to keep on the defensive. If he needed to make a quick block or if he stopped swinging for any other reason, then he would become far less effective. Some players may argue that this would only make spamming swings with two handed weapons even more prevelant but guess what, in reality that is what you do with two handed weapons, spam attacks to prevent the opponent from take the offensive.

Pikes and other polearms, of course which are primarily used for stabbing are a different story and should more or less be kept as they are now.

Aside from this the other reason why two handed weapons are so effective is the fact that you can swap weapons around too quickly and the fact that carrying around alot of weapon options does not penalize the player with any significant disadvantage. This is simply not how things are in real life.

In reality if you carried a two handed weapon into a fight, you would not be carrying a secondary one handed weapon and shield along with you. Let alone a fourth throwing weapon or second shield. The fact is that players have too many inventory slots and they can switch their items around far too easily.

This has the effect of canceling out the inherent advantages and disadvanatges of general weapon load outs. What was the biggest disadvantage of carrying around pikes or big two handed weapons? That's easy, that would make you vulnerable to missle weapon attacks. But in Mount & Blade, are players who carry around two handed weapons really all that vulnerable? Of course not. They can just as easily bring around a shield and one handed weapon along with their two handed weapon or pike. If they are getting shot at they simply switch to the shield which takes about half a second. Then they can approach at their leisure and pull out their big two handed weapon when they close in for the kill.

If you tried doing that in reality, you'd get a couple of arrows sticking out of you while you sheathed your two handed weapon and then unstrapped your shield from your back and drew out your side arm weapon. Then get shot a couple more times for good measure as you strapped your shield on your back, sheated your one handed weapon and drew out your two handed weapon.

I have no problems with armor not slowing you down very much because they were designed to allow you to move fairly quickly and the fact that their weight is equally distributed on your person. Carrying a pike or tower shield on your back, let alone a pike and two tower shields, however, is going to slow you down and make you ineffective when it comes to a toe to toe sword fight.

Simply put, weight of sheathed or strapped weapons and shields should have a far greater impact on your ability to move and fight than the corresponding weight of armor. Swapping weapons should require the player to go through a lengthy animation, particularly if you happen to be swapping out a shield. Those things take forever to strap and unstrap from your back. The player should need to go through a sheathing animation for their weapon, a seperate one for a shield, then a drawing animation for the weapon they are bringing out, then a unstrapping animaiton if they are drawing out a shield as well. Alternatively the player can simply drop their weapon or shield in the interest of a faster animaiton of simply just drawing out the weapon they need.

As it is now, players are simply too versatile when you allow them to bring around so many weapons and shields by giving them four slots and allowing them to swap weapons nearly instantly. That is why you see so many players carrying around two handed weapons, because they can just as easily bring around a shield and one handed weapon as well to defend themselves against missle weapons afterall. Besides switching between your weapons is a trivial thing. Thus if you can bring around a sword and shield as well, then why not bring out a two handed weapon which are are so effective in melee as they should be. Afterall, elite melee troops using two handed weapons like the real world Huscarls were devastating if they were brought into a toe to toe fight. The disadvantage in reality was that they often got shot down by archers before they could get in close enough to wreck their havoc. In Mount & Blade, however, where all palyers can bring in four pieces of equipment with them with no real disadavantage as compared to sticking to a single weapon (or weapon and shield combination), this is never an issue. Even if you spend all your gold on an expensive two handed weapon you can pick out a free shield and single handed weapon, so what's the point of not doing so?

 

[Ros]

Two Handed melee weapons in real life are generally actually swung around faster than one handed weapons in general. The difference is that in real life these two handed weapons are generally kept swinging to keep up the momentum of the weapon. They are very aggresive weapons and are used to knock the opponent's weapon or shield around to force them to keep on the defensive.

The problem is that in Mount & Blade you don't have to keep the weapon swinging around since you can use them just as quickly from a stopped position. In reality if you stopped swinging your two handed weapon around, you'd be at a tremendous disadvantage.

It all boils down to the fact that two handed weapons in Mount & Blade are treated pretty much in the exact same way as single handed weapons. In a way this makes some sense in terms of gameplay because it makes the use of either weapon more intuitive. However, in reflectining how two handed weapons in reality, it makes combat with these weapons very unrealistic.

If you wanted to make Two Handed weapons act more like they do in reality, the speed of the weapon should start out very slowly with the first blow and then progressively get quicker as you swung it around up to a certain point (possibly after the first 3 or 4 swings). This would mean that a player who wants to use a two handed weapon effectively would have to keep it moving and force his opponent to keep on the defensive. If he needed to make a quick block or if he stopped swinging for any other reason, then he would become far less effective. Some players may argue that this would only make spamming swings with two handed weapons even more prevelant but guess what, in reality that is what you do with two handed weapons, spam attacks to prevent the opponent from take the offensive.

Aside from this the other reason why two handed weapons are so effective is the fact that you can swap weapons around too quickly and the fact that carrying around alot of weapon options does not penalize the player with any significant disadvantage. This is simply not how things are in real life.

In reality if you carried a two handed weapon into a fight, you would not be carrying a secondary one handed weapon and shield along with you. Let alone a fourth throwing weapon or second shield. The fact is that players have too many inventory slots and they can switch their items around far too easily.

This has the effect of canceling out the inherent advantages and disadvanatges of general weapon load outs. What was the biggest disadvantage of carrying around pikes or big two handed weapons? That's easy, that would make you vulnerable to missle weapon attacks. But in Mount & Blade, are players who carry around two handed weapons really all that vulnerable? Of course not. They can just as easily bring around a shield and one handed weapon along with their two handed weapon or pike. If they are getting shot at they simply switch to the shield which takes about half a second. Then they can approach at their leisure and pull out their big two handed weapon when they close in for the kill.

If you tried doing that in reality, you'd get a couple of arrows sticking out of you while you sheathed your two handed weapon and then unstrapped your shield from your back and drew out your side arm weapon. Then get shot a couple more times for good measure as you strapped your shield on your back, sheated your one handed weapon and drew out your two handed weapon.

I have no problems with armor not slowing you down very much because they were designed to allow you to move fairly quickly and the fact that their weight is equally distributed on your person. Carrying a pike or tower shield on your back, let alone a pike and two tower shields, however, is going to slow you down and make you ineffective when it comes to a toe to toe sword fight.

Simply put, weight of sheathed or strapped weapons and shields should have a far greater impact on your ability to move and fight than the corresponding weight of armor. Swapping weapons should require the player to go through a lengthy animation, particularly if you happen to be swapping out a shield. Those things take forever to strap and unstrap from your back. The player should need to go through a sheathing animation for their weapon, a seperate one for a shield, then a drawing animation for the weapon they are bringing out, then a unstrapping animaiton if they are drawing out a shield as well. Alternatively the player can simply drop their weapon or shield in the interest of a faster animaiton of simply just drawing out the weapon they need.

As it is now, players are simply too versatile when you allow them to bring around so many weapons and shields by giving them four slots and allowing them to swap weapons nearly instantly. That is why you see so many players carrying around two handed weapons, because they can just as easily bring around a shield and one handed weapon as well to defend themselves against missle weapons afterall. Besides switching between your weapons is a trivial thing. Thus if you can bring around a sword and shield as well, then why not bring out a two handed weapon which are are so effective in melee as they should be. Afterall, elite melee troops using two handed weapons like the real world Huscarls were devastating if they were brought into a toe to toe fight. The disadvantage in reality was that they often got shot down by archers before they could get in close enough to wreck their havoc. In Mount & Blade, however, where all palyers can bring in four pieces of equipment with them with no real disadavantage as compared to sticking to a single weapon (or weapon and shield combination), this is never an issue. Even if you spend all your gold on an expensive two handed weapon you can pick out a free shield and single handed weapon, so what's the point of not doing so?

It's the revenge of the REALISTIK Nazis! Run for your life! 

 

[Commoner]

It's the revenge of the REALISTIK Nazis! Run for your life! 

Wow, that was a really mature and constructive reply. Making a game more realistic is generally a good thing because it will make the game more immersive. It is generally good to implement realistic features unless it directly gets in the way of good gameplay. I personally don't think I suggested anything that would get in the way of good gameplay.

There are exceptions to this general rule, of course. Such as when you are trying to make a game that doesn't emulate reality but rather somethnig you see in fiction, in movies, or in comic books. A game where you are just as accurate running and gunning with your bow as you are if you stood still, for example could still be fun if it were understood that it was emulating the Lord of the Rings movie.

Mount & Blade, however, leans more on making the game more immersive by making the combat more realistic.

So in short, if you're afraid of realistic features, you're absolutely right, you should be running for your life.  You should probably be running in the general direction of World of Warcraft or perhaps Lord of the Rings Online. In Lord of the Rings Online, you can even put your fist around arrows and punch monsters in the eye with them just like in the movie. I bet that would be something that would float your boat.

 

[Ros]

I do agree with many of your points but citing realism as most of the reason doesn't go over well. The multiple swing thing would lead to people "charging" up their "combo" and then running around with it. Not to mention spam is hardly a fun mechanic and we don't need to make blocking actively discouraged when using a 2h weapon.

 

[Berserker Pride]

Arch3r made a thread about having realistic weapon swap times.  Basically if you wanted to switch at the same speed as you do now the only way would be to drop your weapon.  Currently there is no animation that shows you putting your weapon or shield away.  The old weapons disappear and the new ones appear in your hand.  If your character actually had to take the time to put his weapons away it would solve the three shields problem.  Right now if you can back up a half step you have enough to to draw your second free shield in the middle of a fight.  With realistic weapon change times that varied by weapon this wouldn't be an issue.  That alone would make it far more dangerous to run around with a two-hander.

 

[Commoner]

I do agree with many of your points but citing realism as most of the reason doesn't go over well. The multiple swing thing would lead to people "charging" up their "combo" and then running around with it. Not to mention spam is hardly a fun mechanic and we don't need to make blocking actively discouraged when using a 2h weapon.

I think running around the field swinging your weapon around wouldn't be a particularly good idea as it will prevent you from sprinting and if friendly fire is on is probably either going to get you or your team mates killed. It would probably be a better idea to start swinging as you approach near your opponent at a charge or begin circling him. This is the kind of thing you would see in reality where proficient users of two handed weapons will start moving their two handed weapon around in fluid movements instead of holding them in a still position as you would a one handed weapon.

The point, however, is that you shouldn't be able to do the sudden quick stabs and swings from still positions with two handed weapons that you can make at the moment, which is what I think the main gripe that most people have. As to whether this would discourage active blocking with two handed weapons depends on the gravity of the speed up and the cool down of speed before your weapon is considered completely stopped.

So if the first blow isn't really all that slow compared to the second or third swing, then it would still be a good idea to block attacks and get your weapon up to speed again instead of continously swinging and simply hoping you can soak up any blows that look like they are going to connect. Also it might be a good idea to have a cool down before your weapon is considered to be completely stopped so that you can perform a quick block or two without your weapon slowing down. This would simply reflect how things are in reality. Where you can still keep your weapon moving even as you deflect a couple of you opponent's blows. Thus if you were in the middle of swinging you could quickly bring your weapon up for a manual back and commence swinging the weapon around in relatively high speed. It would only be if you held the block for a significant amount of time that you would need to get your weapon up to speed again with a couple of swings.

I'm not sure why alot of the players seem to be allergic to the realism argument. Perhaps there have been too many suggestions that would break gameplay for the sake of realism but just because realism can mean a sacrifice in gameplay doesn't mean it necessarily that it is always the case. In fact in most cases, as long as you do not take the case of realism to an excessive extreme, making the combat a bit more realistic is more likely to enhance gameplay. In the case of two handed weapons requiring a couple of swings to get up to maximum speed, for example, it would make the gameplay style differ from when you are using sword and shield or pikes. Which ultimately can become an additional facet of gameplay in the game's combat system. When you're fighting with the two handed weapons, you'd have to find ways to keep the weapon moving while if you were fighting against it, it would be in your best interest to find ways to force your opponent to slow down his swings. It would have to go through rigourous testing to get it right, of course, but I think going through the trouble might add more to the depth of the combat in the game, making the handling of two handed weapons much different from the handling of sword and shield and pikes.

But I think before something like that need be applied, something as simple as implementing the longer sheathing and drawing animations should be tried to see whether such measures would be enough to break the dominance of two handed weapons on the field. Afterall, the development time required for such a change might very well be better used on something else entirely.

 

[Plazek]

It would be nice if you could do some form of weaopn swinging, I would want it to be more complex than simly swinging = more power. Maybe if you had to swing in certain directions or there was some alternate button to do it.

However it is IMO important to remember as Maximo said the problem facing 2h weapons is not the speed but the weapon stun. Almost every weapon is easily fast enough to win against 2h, if it was not for weapon stun that is.

 

[Orion]

Currently I believe weapon stun is calculated based on a difference in weight between the attacker and defender's weapon. A larger difference in weight and a longer chambering time makes for a longer stun. I think this should be changed to instead require a certain amount of weight difference before any stun is applied. Two-handed swords can stun one-handed swords, and this isn't necessary. Two-handed swords have the benefit of being naturally faster than other two-handers, and before the long-axes they were the longest. For two-handers, they are also unique in that they can thrust (I say this because long-axes must be in polearm mode to thrust and so count as polearms, not two-handers). I think there should be a minimum weight difference required, and after that difference is exceeded the remainder of the difference is used to calculate the stun. So if the minimum weight difference was 2, then a weapon must weigh 2 more than another to stun it, and the stun would be calculated with the difference in weight minus two. So if two weapons weighed 7 and 2 respectively, the difference is greater than 2, but only weight after the minimum is used to calculate stun, so the amount of weight actually being used to calculate would be (7 - 2 - 2) or 3.

 

[Plazek]

That might be a good idea. I had no problem using 2h before stun, personally I think it is a bit too strong right now.

 

[l3asu]

These ideas should honestly be considered.

Also Arch, once the lance impales its target, it comes to a halt and would not be able to get out of the body of the enemy unless you took the time and effort to.

 

[Reapy]

I don't know why nobody seems to care, but I still cant thrust for the life of me on a horse because my player head and/or shield is blocking the lance tip. I always aimed by looking at the tip of the lance and using that to gauge where it is traveling and when to release it. At one point they changed the lance animations and brought it in closer to the horse head and now I can't see the thing except in first person.  The only time I can see the lance to aim it is when curving off to the left and aiming right. I know you can learn to deal with it and all and people have, but honestly I'd like to see something done with that.

In terms of archery... I think one of the main things that needs to happen is the horseman's shield has to stop covering 'everything'. It is pretty hard to shoot even the horse when the shield is raised and it seems to soak up arrows that are aimed nowhere near it.

With the horse bump... one of my problems with giving it full damage is that, while realistic, it would not be fun gameplay for non cavalry players. Most of the time I get nailed from horse back with a weapon is the horse bumps me, my guard goes down, and then the weapon swings into me. That is pretty much a huge problem when fighting cav players who know what they are doing, but I think is a fair trade off given the maneuverability differences AND the advantage that the horse player should have there.

But if you add bump damage, all you have to do is run someone over. Infantry can't really dodge a horse, they just don't move fast enough. If you crawl off away from the horse you get put in weapon range and take a huge hit. If you move towards the horse, you would lose a chunk of life. Either way you lose, just because the horseman decided to engage you, and with his speed and maneuverability, they can choose at will when to do it.

In terms of those new long weapons, they stated they were not playtested or balanced, so I am sort of writing them off as 'will get fixed and/or removed' as needed. The great long X variety of weapons is sort of boring IMHO and I would hope they could come up with something different then axe, great axe, long axe, long great axe where you just make the thing longer and longer.

Meh anyway, m&b is still moving along but I strongly agree with the version numbers being used and its rate of advancement towards 1.0...there are still many numbers left between now and then

 

[CryptoCactus]

I don't know why nobody seems to care, but I still cant thrust for the life of me on a horse because my player head and/or shield is blocking the lance tip. I always aimed by looking at the tip of the lance and using that to gauge where it is traveling and when to release it. At one point they changed the lance animations and brought it in closer to the horse head and now I can't see the thing except in first person.  The only time I can see the lance to aim it is when curving off to the left and aiming right. I know you can learn to deal with it and all and people have, but honestly I'd like to see something done with that.

Honestly the camera sucks, period, but it's worse in some scenarios than others (such as lancing). Armagan added the +/- thing for the camera, but it does practically nothing (zoom the same bad view in or out by a teeny bit).

 

[l3asu]

anyone with any ability whatsoever can avoid one charging horse, it is very easy. Pretend you are a Spanish Bull Fighter and you will be fine.

 

[Kevlar]

With the horse bump... one of my problems with giving it full damage is that, while realistic, it would not be fun gameplay for non cavalry players. Most of the time I get nailed from horse back with a weapon is the horse bumps me, my guard goes down, and then the weapon swings into me. That is pretty much a huge problem when fighting cav players who know what they are doing, but I think is a fair trade off given the maneuverability differences AND the advantage that the horse player should have there.

Well it sucks a lot right now since people aren't afraid of getting hit so most infantry just stand their ground and let the horse hit them to stop that horse. That should never happen but it does most of the time.

But if you add bump damage, all you have to do is run someone over. Infantry can't really dodge a horse, they just don't move fast enough. If you crawl off away from the horse you get put in weapon range and take a huge hit. If you move towards the horse, you would lose a chunk of life. Either way you lose, just because the horseman decided to engage you, and with his speed and maneuverability, they can choose at will when to do it.

If you play cav more you will realize just how easy it really is to dodge.

 

[Hanniba1]

I think the main problem plaguing Warband currently is the lack of differentiation between weapons and the attributes of the classes that result in similar fighting styles regardless of loadout. While some people may see this as a nod to emphasis on team tactics rather than individuals, I think the depth of the game could easily be increased by allowing for more specialization. The obvious beginning point is to look into each group of items and then give them special attributes to create a rock paper scissors system.

First, overhauling armor. The speed difference between the different armors should be more pronounced to allow a tactical choice, without creating an obviously superior combination.  One possible solution could be to allow the speed differences to mainly be pronounced when it comes to sprinting and possibly jumping height but not in regular movement, so as to prevent a huge mobility advantage in combat. Heavy armor currently has some distinguishing characteristics but their protective factor could be multiplied. Aiming for heads is an extremely easy adjustment to make that requires a little more effort for the benefit of added depth and realism.

Weapons would naturally get new distinguishing properties to provide more defined tools to match up against the defensive improvements. It sounds like a lot of work but it could be done by manipulating current mechanics like chamber block. For example, implement a counter attack that acts like a chamber but has a unique animation and damage, usable by one handers only. Orion's suggestions for expanding on arrow types fits in perfectly with the trend. Great long weapons could be forced pole-arm to to account for the ridiculous torque that 2hand mode doesn't account for. Instead of instant death spam sticks they could be the tactical choice brought to destroy heavy shields or kill heavily armored knights.

Infantry, cavalry and archer could all receive stat alterations as well as more distinct gear to emphasize their differences. Manual blocking speed is a currently level attribute that could instantly distinguish the classes and the timing could be fine tuned or even variable in server configuration. The easiest way to continue distinguishing them would be more pronounced differences for existing armors, horses, bows. I also like the idea of lance condition decreasing over continued couches with an increasing percent chance to break on couch. Adjusting the numbers could result in limiting couches to 3-5 per round or more lenient numbers, again maybe as a server variable.


I think this type of balancing strikes a good balance of realism and game features. It's faithful to the single player combat experience while distinguishing Warband as more than a lifted multiplayer mode of the original. The combat mechanics themselves would remain the same but the role of equipment would be more distinct and allow for greater depth of economy, while restoring some of the individual specialization that the game loses with the world map and character progression. I realize that its a pretty large overhaul but in terms of coding almost all the features exist but aren't as configurable. Copy and paste the code and change the numbers   

Hope these ideas are well received, they're the product of my love for M&B.

 

[evamonkey]

To go back to the op post, they seem to make a case founded largely on the 'realism' ideal.

If M and B was actually realistic...

More or less any successful attack would be a one hit kill on all but to most heavily armed opponents.

Even an attack that would not outright kill you would certainly incapacitate you and you would have to lay dying on the field for the rest of the game with the ability to hit a key to evacuate your bowels just before death for extra gold.

So much as a point of damage on a horse would cause it to launch away from the attack at speed and send anyone in front of it flying/possibly buck off it's rider.

An arrow strike would almost certainly incapacitate.

A strike of any kind on the legs would incapacitate.

A strike on the arm would prevent you wielding a weapon in that arm.

Pole-arms and axes would only be able to take a few strong swings from a blade before their wooden shaft/handle broke.

You would be able to at least attempt to block sword attacks with a bow or crossbow in an attempt to save your life.

You certainly could not re-spawn in siege or any other game mode.

Every time you died you would have to create a new character.     

Siege matches would involve a lengthy period of waiting outside the enemy castle and preventing supply wagons getting in.

Sieges would also involve lobbing diseased corpses over the walls to spread disease.


Realistic war was probably not a whole lot of fun. The french at the battle of agincourt found their calls for english longbows to be nerfed fell on deaf ears. Cavalry during the norman invasion of england could not complain that their horses could be decapitated from a single blow from a huscarl's long axe. The moral here is, reality has no obligation to be 'balanced' for gameplay and player enjoyment purposes. I think we should all be glad the game does.

 

[Archonsod]

Also Arch, once the lance impales its target, it comes to a halt and would not be able to get out of the body of the enemy unless you took the time and effort to.

Only if the horse stops. When the horse keeps moving the lance will usually tear itself free. It's one of the reasons lance cavalry were so brutal against fleeing troops, because they could simply use the lance again and again. There's some wonderfully gory descriptions from the 18th century of this very thing.

Well it sucks a lot right now since people aren't afraid of getting hit so most infantry just stand their ground and let the horse hit them to stop that horse. That should never happen but it does most of the time.

No, you'll generally find people hate getting hit by horses. But since they're impossible to run away from you're basically forced to play chicken with the rider and sidestep at the last minute to avoid the weapon. Since it's now possible for the rider to switch sides with a lance quickly and easily this often means you're forced to step into the horse instead, which is far preferable to taking couched damage. The only people who'll deliberately stand in front of a horse are those with polearms.

If you play cav more you will realize just how easy it really is to dodge.

Play cav better.