You guys live in an fantasy world yet you talk history facts xD So you think 10 Cavalry men in real life rode in from lets say 100 meter against 20-30 archers without any problems then swoop em all down in one swing.,...got it, The old saying theories is just theories when you sit behind those books until you hit the real battlefield. then life strikes you to the face
Arrows can't penetrate certain types of armor (even then chain mail with a thick gambeson would stop the arrows from killing the rider), only late longbows could cause a few dents on armor, but given there was gambeson underneath, it was like a "poke" (never enough to really cause any damage to the person). Agincourt basically was about morale and the annoyance towards knights from a shower of longbows shooting at them non-stop. You should delve deeper into historical combat researches, there's a lot of people doing it for years, on a complementary note most people fail to account for bio-mechanics and clever fighting capabilities from humans too when trying to understand historical combat, at minimum, to even start grasping the idea one must have practice a few years of some martial art, and delve a bit into MMA, most never did.
I've had years of long discussions about subjects under this theme here in TW forums, and you are deluded by believing a group of knights couldn't wipe archers with some "ease". The charge itself is never a rush and stay thing, they would do "drive bys" with lances and spears, there's not enough time for any of the archers to react properly, along with the fact that their arrows would not be as effective. 100 meters for a racehorse is 5.1 seconds, given modern breeds are faster and more specialized, we can guess that medieval horses would be up to 3 seconds slower at most, try to shoot a riding mofo with a bow in under 8 seconds while the guy is charging at you with a pointy stick, and remember that the mofo is wearing a ****ing armor, as well as the horse. You'd simply turn around and try to run = dead or severely wounded if any of the knights caught up to you, resulting in the best chance of survival, or you could stay there like a moron and take the spear to the face while you clumsily try to "reload" the bow
Both guys up there made valid points, and it's true that the game fails to re-enact any sort of realism pertaining a really wide range of factors, but then again any and all videogames fails at that, it's nearly impossible to simulate real combat, honestly I think it's completely impossible because of the amount of tids and bits that videogame control inputs can't even account for that of which would be used in combat. Just for a simple sword play we'd need leg inputs, arms inputs, waste input, then a regulator input to measure force applied to the movements of each body part. That's like 10 buttons to be pressed at a single movement. Don't even get me started on Jiu-Jitsu, that one is simply impossible to make a video-game out of (7 years purple belt I am, same thing for Judo, which was 11 years, brown belt, part of the pre-olympic brazilian team when I've quit out of feeling like I've had no childhood).
Back to sword play, you'd also have to add changing movements to each limb, so a sword is made of a swing and a thrust at all times, the thrusting movement is paramount for cutting, so each swing would need to be followed up by a thrusting movement of either pulling or pushing the sword. That's just ridiculous to try and emulate in game controls.
What I think you are correct about is that the idea of wanting realism in games is quite ridiculous, but then again having your cavalry being ineffective is not realistic, but it's also not fun at all.
Banned
