Life is Feudal Official Forum

[Vrundriath]

Hey there, I'm thinking about getting this game as it appears to be basically what I've always wanted. Mount and Blade Warband, the open world sandbox version.

I have a few questions and I would appreciate any answers from the community.

1) Is blocking with a shield an active or passive thing, and does using a shield actually "block" the blow? For example, in Darkfall, even when your shield is raised, you still take damage from a blow, which is silly and not realistic, you just take less damage. In Mount and Blade, your shield takes damage, but you take no damage because you successfully blocked the blow. (I hate passive shields.)

2) How smooth is the combat flow at this time in alpha? With Mount and Blade Warband being "perfect" in terms of combat flow.

3) Can you parry blows with a weapon and do you still take damage through a parry?

4) Is dual-wielding (using two weapons) a thing?

5) Do shields block projectiles? (I don't mean reduce damage. I mean block. Realism vs Game Mechanics.)

6) How smooth is the projectile system at the moment in terms of collision recognition and physics of flight etc...?

7) Are mounts/mounted combat in yet?

8. When you block a blow with a shield or parry a blow does it give a visual representation of that fact? Meaning, does blocking a blow cause your opponent to recoil or does parrying a blow cause them to take any sort of visual negative? One of the things I hated about Darkfall was blocking and parrying basically did nothing and the attacker could just keep spamming their swings because they aren't actually being blocked or parried, the damage was just being slightly reduced.

That is all I can think of for now.

Thanks for your help.

[Ontrose]

Hello, i will answere the question as good as i can.

1) Is blocking with a shield an active or passive thing, and does using a shield actually "block" the blow? For example, in Darkfall, even when your shield is raised, you still take damage from a blow, which is silly and not realistic, you just take less damage. In Mount and Blade, your shield takes damage, but you take no damage because you successfully blocked the blow. (I hate passive shields.)

-> i did not test this too much, but i think its dependant on the weapons, skills and shields used and of course the direction of blow/hit area.
If you hit the shield directly in the middle, with lets say, the wooden training swords thrust, i did not receive dmg.
An overhead swing with a Claymore, even though while blocked gave me quite some dmg, cos it "hit" my arm.
Guess its a question about impact?
Quite a while ago I've played around with weapons so might be changed.


2) How smooth is the combat flow at this time in alpha? With Mount and Blade Warband being "perfect" in terms of combat flow.

-> Well... honestly? The fighting is an art. An art of patience right now
You can see some similaritys to M&B, but its just taking their first babysteps.
Not balanced yet, hitboxes are quite bad, and ranged weapons... well, besides the x-bow reload bug, are a pain in the ass to hit somethin standing (like a moose) from a medium range like 15 meter or so.

3) Can you parry blows with a weapon and do you still take damage through a parry?

Uhm yes ^^' like i said, quite a while ago.
You CAN parry, but i think you take parts of the dmg... At least by the overpowered Pitchforks ^^

4) Is dual-wielding (using two weapons) a thing?

Nope, as far as i know its not.
Why do ppl always suggest it? Read to much drizzt do'urden or what? -P
Give me a couple of genuine sources of dual-wielding warriors in history....
It never got used on battlefields besides some lunatics...
Even swordbreakers/daggers only found use as offhand weapons on Duels (not even many times there)...

5) Do shields block projectiles? (I don't mean reduce damage. I mean block. Realism vs Game Mechanics.)

Uhm, did you ever LARPed? A friggn arrow from a Longbow will punch like 5 cm through your shield. perfectly fine to get some dmg there if it hits arm/hand. Dont mention X-Bows.
But no, you cant negate full dmg with a shield, only partially.
Since an X-bow bolt, will most likely blast a hole in your wodden shield > greatly reduced power on bodyimpact of course.

So lets say... a "semi-realistic" system.
or shortly: Alpha realistic

6) How smooth is the projectile system at the moment in terms of collision recognition and physics of flight etc...?

Let me give you an example:
We went to annoy our neighboor with some X-bows, shooting randomly in their town ^^ wanted to scare them, thats all...
An hour later i got -10 reputation for killing him with X-Bow... he ran into one of the many bugged bolts...

It's quite buggy right now and extremely hard to aim on mid-far ranges.


7) Are mounts/mounted combat in yet?

Shortly: Nope.

8. When you block a blow with a shield or parry a blow does it give a visual representation of that fact? Meaning, does blocking a blow cause your opponent to recoil or does parrying a blow cause them to take any sort of visual negative? One of the things I hated about Darkfall was blocking and parrying basically did nothing and the attacker could just keep spamming their swings because they aren't actually being blocked or parried, the damage was just being slightly reduced.

-> Uhm well... never payed too much attention to it tbh...
You spend so much time building and farming etc...

[Vrundriath]

Thanks for the reply.

It sounds like they have (at least for the alpha) a very rudimentary passive blocking system in place. That is understandable. It is much easier to just code in "reduced damage" than it is to code in and implement actual realistic blocking.

Saying, "Well, arrows could possibly go through shields.", or "Claymores could hurt your arm through a shield.", is a way to "explain" why the system is wonky, but, it doesn't mean the system isn't wonky. Either you block the blow, or you don't.

Passive shields and passive parrying (meaning you still take damage and there is no stopping the blow or recoiling caused by the block/parry) is just a lot easier to implement than the intricacies of giving visual representations of impact.

I'm sure it will get better as things work their way through alpha.

At its core this is a PVP game. The entire concept is wrapped around working towards building a military to protect your kingdom and attack other kingdoms.

With that being said, I'm a big RP guy, and I love the fact they are focusing so much on everything else before focusing on improving combat. But, if the idea behind this game is "realism first", then they will certainly want to look at creating a realistic blocking system and impact recognition system before release.

I've seen it with other games. Without realistic impact recognition (meaning recoils from blocks and parries), you will just end up with people sprinting around in circles clicking swing over and over and over again with no realistic combat anywhere on the battlefield.....which I would BET is what you have now? As for arrows still causing damage through shields. The same goes for taking damage from projectiles through shields. You will just end up with archers spamming shots as fast as possible because it isn't about shooting past your opponents shield, it is about unloading damage through their shield as fast as possible because you can still hurt them.

I would BET the current system just takes the quality of the weapon vs the quality of the shield along with the physics of the situation and determines damage THROUGH the block (meaning it isn't actually a block, it is passive armor). This is a horrible system. It basically comes out to "Gear vs Gear" instead of "Player Skill vs Player Skill". If my sword is much better than your shield, it doesn't matter how much you successfully "block", because I'm still going to do damage and kill you.

As for dual-wielding, I was asking because I was hoping it WASN'T in the game. It isn't realistic. I am a "sword and board" player, which is why I'm so concerned about my shields just functioning as passive armor, which they appear to do now, and not shields heh.

[FearTheAmish]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrying_dagger

It existed but never with full size swords. Usually parrying daggers or Hatchets would be used. During this time period the second line in a shield wall would have people equipped as such to cause chaos once the enemy shield wall was pierced.

[Vrundriath]

Fair enough.

But, until parrying/blocking actually parries/blocks blows in game, those won't be feasible either.

[FearTheAmish]

Right now combat works as such:

Based on mouse moves AND foot movement you do different combat moves. Once you level up a weapon skill you can then use combos with foot movement + swing type (based on mouse move). It requires tons of practice and finesse which i love (even though im not the greatest at it). Also different styles of weapons do different amounts of damage with the type of swing you use (piercing does more with thrust etc.)

Blocking/Parry are based on you moving the shield/weapon into line with the strike. Based on the weapon being used and skill with it depends on how much damage is transferred through to the person parrying/blocking. This is actually very realistic because and also takes a lot of finesse.

The problem currently is that the system is VERY VERY opaque and without lots of practice/Knowledge you wont get it. This is also the greatest gem in this whole system because it will setup a system of master swordsmen that will then have to impart this knowledge to others.

[Vrundriath]

So, shields and parries don't actually block attacks, like shields and parries, they only reduce the damage based on the quality of the shield and weapon being used and the physics of the swing.

That isn't called blocking or parrying. It is called a passive armor buff/de-buff.

I'm sure it does take a lot of finesse. But, no amount of needing "finesse" to do it makes it realistic. It takes finesse to launch fireballs from your hands in some games...doesn't make it realistic.

If a sword hits a shield, it hits a shield. Not a person. If a sword blow is parried, it hits a sword, not a person.

It isn't realistic, and if the goal is to be realistic, it needs to be worked on.

The goal shouldn't be to have the best sword so you can do the most damage THROUGH your opponent's block. That is Gear vs Gear and not Player Skill vs Player Skill. The goal should be to out maneuver your opponent to land blows. Then you get into armor vs weapon, which is Gear vs Gear, but is realistic.

That is the difference between combat systems like Mount and Blade, and combat systems like Darkfall.

Right now, this game is using the exact same blocking/parrying system as Darkfall, which is unfortunate. "Click my mouse, raise my shield, and if I am facing the guy, I get the damage reduction, but, there is no other indication or affect from blocking/parrying.". That is the simplest and most rudimentary way to handle such a system aside from making shields ornamental all together with a set damage de-buff (like WoW, for example).

But, I'm sure it will be improved with time. I really doubt the devs for this game put in shields and parrying with the idea that, "They won't actually block blows and instead only cause a damage de-buff based on the gear used.".

[Petard]

If I sucessfully block with my kite shield I reduce the damage by 100%. Not even crossbow bolts do any damage through the block.

Edit: and this from testing in actual pvp against people on a server less than 30 mins ago.

[Calinir]

Petard, what level of shield skill did you have and what level of crossbow skill did your opponent have?

I've got 90 shield skill and an enemy with 100 in bows hit me for 20 damage even though the arrow directly hit my tower shield head on (was even sticking out of the shield afterward and gave me the hit location as left hand which is the hand behind/holding the shield) also I was wearing royal full plate.
I've seen sub 100 weapon skill blows hit for 0 damage before but never bows and bolts, so far.

It seems unlikely that there is such a massive difference in damage reduction from 90 to 100 shield skill level.
Though I'm very interested to hear your results.

[Vrundriath]

Even -if- shields -sometimes- manage to block 100% of the damage output, if there is no visual discernible result of the impact beyond the damage negation in the background numbers, you still end up with sprint-fest-in-circles-melee-swinging-battles, which is what the game is now.

Basically, if blocking a blow doesn't result in some sort of minor "delay" for the attacker, it does no good to block blows. Shields and parries should register hit detection and a stop of momentum, otherwise, they are just a pointless animation that does nothing for the mechanics of combat.

The absolute worst thing that can happen is you end up with a system where melee combat is two people sprinting circles around each other clicking "swing" over and over again. I've seen this in too many games over the last few years. A complete mockery of "melee" combat, if realism is what you are shooting for.

(The only one that has ever gotten it right is M&B, but I hate to keep plugging it.)

A correct reflection of blocking and parrying can and will put an end to that. It just isn't as easy to code and implement as false passive armor shields that are there just for their looks.

[Wllstrt75]

We'll sprinting and swinging will run down your stam and in combat if you do that your faked.

Also u can shield bash which is awesome, but if ya miss your screwed.

Apart from weapon balance and hitbox issues the combat system is skill based. A naked guy using a hatchet can take down plated guy who assumes his armor makes him invincible easily.

[Vrundriath]

Are there any videos you can point me to of the skill based combat?

All I have seen are videos people running around in circles swinging repeatedly.

Thanks for your help.

(Please note, "skill-based" doesn't mean realistic. Darkfall combat is skill-based. WoW combat is skill-based. It isn't realistic. I assume we are shooting for skill-based realistic combat, and the described system and the videos I have found do not reflect that.)

[Ontrose]

If i have to read some crap like "only game which done it good is M&B" im going to throw up guys.

Anybody of you actually USED a friggn shield or sword for combat?

In M&B EVERY weapon bounces off the shield for like 3 meters or more, actually nearly paralysing the attacker for a second, while there is no dmg from big weapons like Claymore/Bastard sword/Bardiche etc.

A shield DOES NOT NEGATE all the damage. Thats bullshit. If you disagree, come here, take my wooden shield and im going to slam you with a 2 handed sword <.<
There is an actual strain on your arm, the muscles, the bones, etc. all depending on the strength of the shield arm, your stance, stance of the enemy, with what range the weapon hit, the force and whatever.
The shields purpose, is to BLOCK or better to REDIRECT the hits, with cost of mobility and of course beeing an easier target.
The question always has been: Do i want a bit more defense (not a friggn unmovable wall <.<, just another layer of armor on your arm) to take the force out of weapons (like arrows, bolts etc) and probably sacrifice the arm, or do i take the bolts etc directly into the body.
I mean, x-bows and real longbows could EASY strike through armor, since even a PLATE ARMOR is PRIMARY DEFLECTING!!!! hits and arrows nad not "blocking" them. I mean, take a 2mm thick iron plate and just hit it. You well get through rather easy.
It is the FORM its shaped, so it can deflect SWINGS. Tahts also the reason why you thrust such ppl, not randomly swinging...

Back to topic: SHIELDS
If you got a Bastard sword, probably with around 5 Kilo or a bit more, swinging it overhead and hitting properly (with the upper third of the sword, or if you WANT it realsitic, turn the sword around, so you youse your [sry, its "parierstange" in german, you know the things above the handle... ) as a blunt weapon, like they used it to be, they will have such a force that they might break your arm, or straingin your muscles in a way they just cramp, rendering it useless.

Shields do NOT make you invulnerable. It was more a matter to sacrife mobility and possibly their arm, against an additional, moveable layer of armor, against strong attacks (lances, 2 handed weaps in general, and most important RANGED ATTACKS!)

In M&B you are, shortly said, invincible while the shield is up. Thats nonsense.
Yes, in warband there are "unbalanced" weapons like the big hammers, which can knock you down even when using shield.

Your talkin abour "realism", show me a friggn knight, which took a crouched, riding lance attack straight on with a shield! NOT FRIGGN POSSIBLE <.<
here comes it again: DEFLECTING not BLOCKING.

Allright, gonna quit here, since i start repeating and gettin worked up, hopefully no one feels insultet or whatever...

*edit:
The bigger problem was that weapons might get stuck in wooden shields, not bouncing off, if you swing on them

[Vrundriath]

You are wrong. No amount of getting worked up will make you right, so don't get worked up. Getting hit on your shield does not damage you unless you block poorly with your shield, or your shield is damaged. (Both of which mean, of course, you didn't actually block the blow.)

End of story.

With that being said, I'm fine with the implementation of a visual representation of a "poor" block and still taking damage. I'm also fine with a visual representation of shields being broken or damaged by extremely strong hits that cause you to also take damage. That makes sense. But that is not the system in the game right now. That would be a great system. That isn't the system we have here.

I'm not fine with taking damage through your shield just because the game mechanics are coded poorly for blocking and parrying. Giving them a passive damage de-buff in the background numbers instead of actual collision recognition is easier, but not realistic or ideal.

M&B was the only game that got this right.

[FearTheAmish]

You are wrong. No amount of getting worked up will make you right, so don't get worked up. Getting hit on your shield does not damage you unless you block poorly with your shield, or your shield is damaged. (Both of which mean, of course, you didn't actually block the blow.)

End of story.

With that being said, I'm fine with the implementation of a visual representation of a "poor" block and still taking damage. I'm also fine with a visual representation of shields being broken or damaged by extremely strong hits that cause you to also take damage. That makes sense. But that is not the system in the game right now. That would be a great system. That isn't the system we have here.

I'm not fine with taking damage through your shield just because the game mechanics are coded poorly for blocking and parrying. Giving them a passive damage de-buff in the background numbers instead of actual collision recognition is easier, but not realistic or ideal.

M&B was the only game that got this right.

lol when even TV Tropes has an article on it you are fighting the wrong fight...

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... sAllDamage

Because the way kinetic energy works it HAS to go somewhere. With a shield it goes into your arm either making it numb or breaking your arm.

For Parries i want you to take a piece of pipe and then hit it as hard as you can against another piece of pipe... tell me how awesome your hand feels after that.

[Ontrose]

I dont think we can agree on that points here.
We both think we are right, i because i got reallife experience with that stuff, including a partly torn muscle and a broken arm, and you, well i dont know your source.

p.s.
Thank you Mister "FearTheAmish".
At least someone who thought it through and informed himself from legit sources =)

As i said, "parry" normally means to redirect hits if possible

[VindicteMortis]

lol do people actually believe that blocks and parries are perfect like in hollywood movies?

Actually go onto youtube now and watch peopel dueling with medieval weapons and armour.

The majority of parries and blocks are not perfect and only reduce the incoming blow rather than negate it.

[Ontrose]

And i got worked up, BECAUSE i got reallife experience and knew what im talkin about ^^
not because you had a different opinion, cos you were simply wrong here =)
On every other topic we can discuss on and off and i will be relaxed >

Guess your outnumbered now ;D

Nice topic though =)

[FearTheAmish]

I dont think we can agree on that points here.
We both think we are right, i because i got reallife experience with that stuff, including a partly torn muscle and a broken arm, and you, well i dont know your source.

p.s.
Thank you Mister "FearTheAmish".
At least someone who thought it through and informed himself from legit sources =)

As i said, "parry" normally means to redirect hits if possible

Did a lot of fencing in college trust me i know how much a botched parry can hurt even with a rapier... can only imagine with a real sword. To get you hands used to it my trainer had a solid steel pole in cement outside that you would take a a pipe to and hit over and over an hour a day. When we practiced crossbows we used to use cowhide covered shields as targets and between 80-90% of our shots would go through to some extent.

[Vrundriath]

You are wrong. No amount of getting worked up will make you right, so don't get worked up. Getting hit on your shield does not damage you unless you block poorly with your shield, or your shield is damaged. (Both of which mean, of course, you didn't actually block the blow.)

End of story.

With that being said, I'm fine with the implementation of a visual representation of a "poor" block and still taking damage. I'm also fine with a visual representation of shields being broken or damaged by extremely strong hits that cause you to also take damage. That makes sense. But that is not the system in the game right now. That would be a great system. That isn't the system we have here.

I'm not fine with taking damage through your shield just because the game mechanics are coded poorly for blocking and parrying. Giving them a passive damage de-buff in the background numbers instead of actual collision recognition is easier, but not realistic or ideal.

M&B was the only game that got this right.

lol when even TV Tropes has an article on it you are fighting the wrong fight...

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... sAllDamage

Because the way kinetic energy works it HAS to go somewhere. With a shield it goes into your arm either making it numb or breaking your arm.

For Parries i want you to take a piece of pipe and then hit it as hard as you can against another piece of pipe... tell me how awesome your hand feels after that.

You do realize your article agrees with me right?

From your article:

In combat, blocking an opponent's attack is one of the most pivotal (and in some styles the single) facets. Fiction, however, equates blocking attacks to being invulnerable to them. This disregards the fact that blocking still requires taking the force and momentum of the attack, just on something a little less (and in some examples more) vulnerable to injury. This fact is why armor was typically worn over a layer of padding (even modern ballistic body armor includes several layers of padding in addition to the kevlar weave and armor plates.)

First off all, the article your referenced is poorly written and not credible. It also has absolutely nothing to do with shields and is referencing blocking punches in hand-to-hand combat in movies.

If you are going to reference an article, reference an article that actually relates to the topic. It will help your argument much more.

[Vrundriath]

And i got worked up, BECAUSE i got reallife experience and knew what im talkin about ^^
not because you had a different opinion, cos you were simply wrong here =)
On every other topic we can discuss on and off and i will be relaxed >

Guess your outnumbered now ;D

Nice topic though =)

Unless you have been on a battlefield in the 15th century wielding edged swords and carrying a shield in combat against a neighboring kingdom, you have no first-hand experience, because that is what we are talking about.

You experienced mock combat in a mock combat setting as a mock combat fighter from a mock combat fighter background. Which is probably why you injured yourself. Good for you. By your logic Chuck Norris is a champion UFC fighter and can comment on everything related there-in and would be correct.

The basic fundamentals for the game remain. If blocking doesn't actually block, and parrying doesn't actually parry, which is the system we have now....you end up with sprint-fest speed-swing fights, which is what is in the game.

As I said, I'm fine with damage breaking shields and the implementation of "poor" blocks causing you to still be damaged, (which is what you are advocating, and I agree with that), but, that isn't the system in the game. I would love that system.

[FearTheAmish]

You are wrong. No amount of getting worked up will make you right, so don't get worked up. Getting hit on your shield does not damage you unless you block poorly with your shield, or your shield is damaged. (Both of which mean, of course, you didn't actually block the blow.)

End of story.

lol when even TV Tropes has an article on it you are fighting the wrong fight...

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... sAllDamage

Because the way kinetic energy works it HAS to go somewhere. With a shield it goes into your arm either making it numb or breaking your arm.

For Parries i want you to take a piece of pipe and then hit it as hard as you can against another piece of pipe... tell me how awesome your hand feels after that.

You do realize your article agrees with me right?

From your article:

In combat, blocking an opponent's attack is one of the most pivotal (and in some styles the single) facets. Fiction, however, equates blocking attacks to being invulnerable to them. This disregards the fact that blocking still requires taking the force and momentum of the attack, just on something a little less (and in some examples more) vulnerable to injury. This fact is why armor was typically worn over a layer of padding (even modern ballistic body armor includes several layers of padding in addition to the kevlar weave and armor plates.)

First off all, the article your referenced is poorly written and not credible. It also has absolutely nothing to do with shields and is referencing blocking punches in hand-to-hand combat in movies.

If you are going to reference an article, reference an article that actually relates to the topic. It will help your argument much more.

I was referencing the fact that TVtropes (a site that makes fun of people who base their opinions off movies/tv shows) has an article about how movies make shields impervious to all. If you want proof of how they still hurt... its pretty easy to do strap a piece of wood to your arm and have a friend hit it with a piece of metal at full strength, you will be in pain. OR! take a steel pipe and hit another steel pipe (don't do it with swords because when you drop it don't want you cutting your foot off). Me and others that have done fencing or spent some time using medieval weapons know from experience how much it hurts. From sparing (blunted weapons) with swords/shields i have dislocated my shoulder twice, broken my wrist, My radius and my Ulna. So have fun go ahead... Also... most of my references are in book form but even wikipedia agrees...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield

"Although the size of shield would vary due to personal preference and role, most were thin compared to common belief (a misconception aided by the depiction of heavy shields in films). When used in fighting, shields were most effective when used to deflect glancing blows. By deflecting a sword blow to the side, rather than blocking it head on, the attacker could be rendered open to a counterattack. This technique allowed the shield to be made lighter and more easily wielded, while reducing the amount of energy and risk of injury posed to the shield-bearer."

[Vrundriath]

Again, I'm fine with a poor block still causing damage through a shield. The current system has ALL blocks causing damage through a shield, poor or not. It also has no collision recognition, which I think we can both agree is not realistic.

I would love to see that. I would love that system, but that isn't the system we have. Your wiki article is only agreeing with me and I appreciate you referencing it.

[FearTheAmish]

Again, I'm fine with a poor block still causing damage through a shield.

I would love to see that. I would love that system, but that isn't the system we have. Your wiki article is only agreeing with me and I appreciate you referencing it.

You seem to think most blocks aren't poor... its split second decisions with people trying to kill you. I would be fine with 1 in 5 not causing damage not the other way around.

[VindicteMortis]

another good tv trope article

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... lProtectMe

"Shields in film and fiction tend to be far more durable and effective than contemporary accounts would suggest. In the Iliad, warriors are regularly described thrusting their spears right through their opponents' shields. Norse sagas generally describe warriors' round shields being battered to pieces after a few minutes of combat.note The Romans, meanwhile, preferred to disable their enemies' shields by throwing pilum javelins into them, which would bend on impact and prove very hard to pull out, making the shields too cumbersome to use. Shields in fiction tend to be sturdier or these tactics go unused."

[Vrundriath]

Again, I'm fine with a poor block still causing damage through a shield.

I would love to see that. I would love that system, but that isn't the system we have. Your wiki article is only agreeing with me and I appreciate you referencing it.

You seem to think most blocks aren't poor... its split second decisions with people trying to kill you. I would be fine with 1 in 5 not causing damage not the other way around.

You seem to think that every single sword swing was thrown with enough force to break bones through shields.

It's split second decisions with people trying to kill you and not over-extend so they aren't killed in return. I would be fine with 1 in 5 still causing damage, not the other way around.

(See how that works?)

[Vrundriath]

another good tv trope article

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... lProtectMe

"Shields in film and fiction tend to be far more durable and effective than contemporary accounts would suggest. In the Iliad, warriors are regularly described thrusting their spears right through their opponents' shields. Norse sagas generally describe warriors' round shields being battered to pieces after a few minutes of combat.note The Romans, meanwhile, preferred to disable their enemies' shields by throwing pilum javelins into them, which would bend on impact and prove very hard to pull out, making the shields too cumbersome to use. Shields in fiction tend to be sturdier or these tactics go unused."

I would love to see shields actually break or become damaged in game under the right stresses and circumstances. That is however not the system we have. I would love that system.

M&B actually does this fairly well, at least better than any other game I have seen as far as shields wearing down and breaking from damage.

[Ontrose]

Unless you have been on a battlefield in the 15th century wielding edged swords and carrying a shield in combat against a neighboring kingdom, you have no first-hand experience, because that is what we are talking about.

You experienced mock combat in a mock combat setting as a mock combat fighter from a mock combat fighter background. Which is probably why you injured yourself. Good for you. By your logic Chuck Norris is a champion UFC fighter and can comment on everything related there-in and would be correct.

The basic fundamentals for the game remain. If blocking doesn't actually block, and parrying doesn't actually parry, which is the system we have now....you end up with sprint-fest speed-swing fights, which is what is in the game.

As I said, I'm fine with damage breaking shields and the implementation of "poor" blocks causing you to still be damaged, (which is what you are advocating, and I agree with that), but, that isn't the system in the game. I would love that system.

Nope, i have not been a fighter in the 18th century.
Yes the moves have been with real (unsharpened) swords.
Same weights, lenghts, material etc.
same goes for the shields we used.
No, it is not about "poor" blocks or "good" blocks.
Every hit damages you, when blocked, IF it got the right momentum behind it. I think i mentioned the difference about 1h weapons and 2 handed weapons and even said theres a difference between edged and blunt wepons?

I made it semiprofessional in agroup with a couple of "gigs" each year. So yes, i friggn KNOW what im talking about.
Or do you think just cos the defender got more str and stamina then i do, he could block a friggn SLEDGEHAMMER without damaging himself?
Thats a friggn moviecrap. Next you want to say, just cos you wear plate armor, you need a crane (is that the right word) to get you up on the horse mechanically?

Where do YOU have the info from? Guess just from mount and blade?

[Vrundriath]

You are a guy playing with toy blunted swords against other guys with toy blunted swords.

You aren't trained for the rigors of combat in a real combat situation.

The reason you can't take your "real world experience" and apply it, is the same reason Sylvester Stallone can't step into the ring with Mike Tyson and win just because he played Rocky Balboa in a movie.

I understand you -think- you are a skilled medieval combatant, but you aren't, and your experiences aren't related.

[Ontrose]

Wow, i dont know what to say <.<

No, im not fully trained, compared to a KNIGHT.
Most of the army have been Farmers and milita units XD
Do you honestly think there have been only knights trained nearly from birth on? XD

Even then, show me proof of a knight, who blocked a sledge hammer without gettin dmg.

Have you ever been on such a convetion/event?
Have you ever fought such a "mocking" fight?
with "mocking" swords?

Asking for the third time now i think, what are YOUR sources?

You just disregard my talking as "dumb" "unknowing" "unrealstic" etc. what proof do you HAVE?

I did not see one point where you brought anything up...

The facts here are:
I brought up my experience ("real" fighting, however mocked it might sound for you!"
Anotherone brought his experience in.


There are even researches about that, from historians.