On the realistic approach of melee combat i would rather prefer a stance system.
You click a button and now you have slower moves that might bring more DMG at the expense of DPS this can be useful against shields or in case of axes, can make for more powerful and maybe knockdowns cleaves. without sacrificing reaction time or making the attacker more predictable and vulnerable. (also if you ever tried holding your weapon for a decently long time the enemy is more likely to parry, if anything the move should be faster if considering the "charging" approach. that will mean the only way to block such a strike is a perfect parry)
What you suggest is nothing more than what I suggest but with 2 speeds instead of leaving the choice to the player.
I'm not saying it's not good, but as long as you leave the choice to the player, at least in this forum there is no risk of filing complaints like "the fast stance must be faster" and then seeing "the fast stance is op, nerf la fast stance ", and threads of the same type for heavy or slow stance, if you prefer.
It is true, the attack, with your two stance system, would be slightly more readable, but I cannot say that they are not also in the case proposed by me, since I have suggested a minimum arc under which it is not possible to go.
So there is, in the case proposed by me, a minimum and a maximum speed (fixed the weapon), but there are also those in the middle.
But nothing can be faster than the maximum speed (given by the minimum arc). So the fastest attack is still "parable".
After that it is a matter of choosing how small this arc should be chosen or how much to speed up the defense animation.
But this operation will have to be done both in my case and in yours.
As far as multiplayer is concerned one of the best PVP medieval games out there are in my opinion most Souls game, you got different move sets depending on the weapon type then some unique ones.
I would avoid taking a souls as an example of both a good combat system and realistic or accurate combat.
It has so many flaws in core play that you don't even need to complain about the inaccuracy in the use of weapons.
Two-handed swords (such as claymore) are generally not used at all as they are used in that game.
Indeed they tend, by means of the levers and thanks to the fact that the fulcrum is very close to the guard, to be as fast as one-handed swords with small handles, which do not allow levers like those of the two-handed weapon (but have the advantage of having either the other free hand or a shield). In the souls that weapon is used without the brain, but we just overlook it, because the gameplay counts more than historical accuracy.
But that series (the souls) has far worse problems than historical accuracy, although it also has merits (and is saved for those).
Hitboxes included, which are very erratic. In some cases they are accurate, in other cases they are badly done, and those of the bosses are just giant bubbles that practically deal maximum damage everywhere.
The "parry" as conceived is the antithesis of the sekiro deflection. High risk and very high payoff, with a slowdown in the game and an endless stun that doesn't even occur when you "shield bash" him in the face.
The parry of bannerlord is very similar to the deflection of sekiro, only here we do not have a "posture" but we have the direction of the defense.
In reality I see the combat system and bannerlords as "realistic in effect" even if it does not reflect historical realism (which in reality can also be dispensed with within certain reasonable limits)
Honestly speaking most types of combat in Bannerlord are very fun and can be very effective. i have built foot spearmans that worked very well and knocked people down, when stroked correctly (mainly in the face) even killed people with one blow.
The problem is that until you get the right perks, the spears are very "redundant" but worse still "boring" as they are flat in their use.
the way weapons interact with skills and perks i don't really see that as a problem in the game.
To tell you the truth, to me those perks are nothing more than "stakes" passed off as "improvements". I don't like choosing between two options, it makes the game less free.
I would prefer to select the desired perk one at a time.
I would opt more for a system with fewer perks but more substantial, especially those that concern the scope of role play.
If assassination is a means of killing an opponent and you want to play assassin, then inevitably the ability to climb, throw a rope, grab from behind must be at stake.
If there were these mechanics, there might be perks better than there are and fit for purpose in the skill related to stealth and crime.
I avoid wandering into other skills, but the gist is that they lack the mechanics on which more substantial perks could be invented than there are.
if you have ever seen real guys in armor fighting side to side you know that's mostly what they do, other than leg fighting to try and unbalance their opponent. to do any kind of swing you must get some separation.
Yes, I've seen some and they go as you describe it.
Obviously in HEMA competitions there is no tendency to want to kill the opponent, so all the part relating to some techniques such as the half sword is missing.
The difference between competition and reality is that in the first the goal is to tire the opponent and knock him down, in reality it is to hit him fatally or earlier, when he is standing, in some uncovered point, or on the ground, with a dagger, after you jumped on it.
But these are the cases in which the two are heavily protected. In cases where the armor is not present or where there are many points discovered, the style changes a lot (let's imagine a duel as one of those of "fiore dei liberi", where one does not wear a protection if not light).
