I wonder how realistic the "rules of engagement" on the battlefield will be?

Combat system
#1

Ok, first, I admit, I had no idea of what Im talking about.

But I see the trailer and one thing that dont strike as realistic was the part at 1:30 to 1:38, when a soldier attack is repelled and another came in, the first one seems to “wait” until the second is defeated in order to attack…

So, this individual duels were the rule back then? I imagine that in the chaos of a battle is more likely that some soldier were sourrounded by enemies and killed easily, if they got alone vs many, and not so much the honorable one vs one duel…

If this is a game mechanic to made, well, a game more enjoyable, im totally ok with that, but I feel that is a down on realism.

I remember the first time I ever play any ARMA game (in my opinion, the most realistic modern war game) and the first minutes for me were totaly frustrating, to adjust from any FPS where you are invencible, to get the idea of really using cover, advance with your allies, using cover fire and so, even with all that, the one hit dead from a lucky bullet is a constant menace that keep you at the edge the entire battle… totally frustrating, but on the other side, I really enjoy the whole achivement of getting it.

How is gonna be in this game, a caothic battlefield where you need to stay in formation to survive, fighting back to back with comrades so you dont get backstab, arrows and others projectices raining from the sky with constant fear of get hit and dead, or a less demanding one on one figths with cero chances to get an arrow to the knee (jeje)…

Im ok either way, but Im just wandering…

PD: srry for the awful english, its not my first language :smile:

2 Likes
#2

Don´t worry, the trailer is old and I believe the final game will not be like that. This all is highly working in progress and I assume multiple enemies will not fight on 1on1 duells with you.

#3

Pretty much this. The trailer is all old information so it may not be accurate to the state of the combat system as it actually exists.

#4

Thanks for the answers :smile:

I totally stand by my first statement “I had no idea of what Im talking about.” :wink:

Just to say, Im all for realistic caothic battles when surviving is above the holliwood romantic view of fighting… And I just discover (yeah, just, well, this game started my interest of medieval realism…) this videos, im not sure if this is acurate, but im think is honest fighting:

By the way, how cool is that!!! :smile:

#5

It is just a sport inspired by the medieval period… nothing more.

A historical “weapons” with many that are way to heavy, the use of modern padding under he armour, a lot of historial Technics is not allowed… you get the point.

1 Like
#6

I totally agree - the ACL awesome - but, as @ThomasAagaard pointed out, it is just a sport. The rules for elimination (i.e. “death”) are essentially getting knocked to the ground. The fights involve much more grappling and trying to throw opponents to the ground, than actual “killing” strikes. As a side note, thrusting attacks are not allowed (except under certain situations with polearms), eliminating shield/spear walls as an effective strategy - it makes me sad :disappointed:

Also, as far as enemies attacking, or not attacking, you at the same time - if they aren’t in any formation then attacking at the same time is actually dangerous for them. My friends and I occasionally spar, and if you have two on one, coordinating attacks so that you don’t accidentally kill your teammate is more difficult than it might seem. So hesitation when in smaller groups is understandable, but yes, in a large battle it wouldn’t be very realistic.

2 Likes
#7

For what I’ve heard and read, These rules of engagements only applied to knights, who had swore an oath to follow the rules of chivalry. That’s why france got wrecked in battle of agincourt because their knights where attacked by many commoner archers in melee. (fighting multiple opponents in battle was a new thing for french knights)

Edit. This was ment to be a reply to the original post.

#8

The French knights got wrecked primarily because they were outflanked by the archers, the ground was prepared with trenches, stakes, and caltrops preventing the use of horse, and the English had a strong position that nullified the French advantage in numbers, with the muddy ground also having an effect.

Chivalry and unfamiliarity with fighting multiple opponents had nothing to do with it.

5 Likes
#9

Yes I am sorry, I didn’t really state it clearly. What I ment was that the knights who got involved in melee got wrecked because of what I said. You are right tho on the fact why most of their army was destroyed.

#10

How dare you say that English is not your first language! You speak it better than at least 70% of English and 100% better than any American! Seriously, I had no idea until the end of your post that you didn’t speak English as your native language (Coming from an Englishman).

As for the fighting, it will be realistic; however it is a hard mindset for soldiers (melee) to engage one person at the same time as you need to coordinate your attacks together well in order for them to work (Eg: striking left and right at the same time.) so it is extremely unlikely to happen in a fight. However, once your buddy has landed or his blow deflected, it is alot easier to then strike (working as a duel team, one strikes then the other etc… etc…). In my fighting style (with lance or sword) we always fight the opponent in front of our buddy to the sides of us while blocking attacks directly in front of us. This way it confuses the enemy who are advancing to where the strikes / hits are coming in while looking after ourselves in defence. We work as a single unit, looking out for eachother but letting them handle it themselves unless they look like they’re in trouble. We never step back or step forward either, we hold the line unless ordered to do otherwise. It’s real good fun and would recommend it to anyone who likes history and aren’t afraid of getting hit!

Regards,
Warrior Rose

1 Like
#11

and 100% better than any American!

As an English speaking American, I’m afraid I must disagree on that point (granted, I WOULD say that he speaks/types (especially types) English better than your average American) - however, everything else you said I DO agree with :smile: :

#12

Yeah you know those stupid ass illiterate Americas. The same ones who walked on the moon… and to my knowledge is the only nation to do so. Come talk to me when Britain does the same yeah?

2 Likes
#13

I have nothing against any U.S. citizen, but walking on the moon has nothing to do with grammar.
Moreover man landing on the moon has actually little practical in it. It was just to show russians their power.

Also when internet is flooded by US culture and by immensly stupid things americans can do (though everybody sometimes does something stupid), you cannot be surprised that word “American” is now synonym to “stupid”.
Not saying it is true but it is nowadays trend.

No need to be offended… well… unless you are stupid. (hehe)

(though i must admit that if someone calls German beer the best I take it as insult to whole Czech population)

1 Like
#14

Wrong it was not prepared but cheer luck for brits cause night before battle there were heavy rain that made battlefield a field of mud. French cavalry thus was slow as hell and knights knee deep in mud while arrows rained on em and in melee less armored archers had more agility and not tired as french knights.

#15

But,… but Bavarian beer is the best. Sorry it´s true. :wink:
Tastes are different( of beer and people).

1 Like
#16

Just using it as an example to show we’re not the brain dead idiots you think we are.

But yes you’re right ill bring up British grammar in a nut shell. Oh shut up ya fat blody wanka i kic you arse i swur on me mums life.

Yeah but you would think Europeans having god like intelligence would understand that idiots can exist in other countries. :open_mouth: (strange concept i know).

(ps there is a troll cave on this forum if we continue this conversation it should probably be in there)

2 Likes
#18

…anyway taunting (as we just demonstrated) is also one of possible engagements on the battlefield.

(phew… i managed to turn the topic back to its original course)

2 Likes
#19

Because the whole space research has never had any practical use in our everyday lives…

What Bavarian beer? Because last time I checked most beers in Bavaria were named after Pilsner Urquell.

#20

taunting (as we just demonstrated) is also one of possible engagements on the battlefield.

I never thought of that - and now I sincerely hope that there is, at the very least, a taunt button (my mind goes to Sid Meier’s Pirates - I tried to find a video, but couldn’t :pensive:).

1 Like
#21

On battlefield is the first and only rule: survive! For this you should be able to use “dirty” tricks…

Rules of engagement: maybe Warhorse can (or will) differ with the difficulty level of the game, how many foes are attacking you.
Exemple: on easy - one, normal - one or two, hardcore - no limit

But there should always be an option to run and hide(it´s a rpg, not everybody is a warrior).

off-topic:

You are joking. Around my town, there are more than five private, local, little brewerys. They have all good or excellent stuff. For every taste. What kind of beer do you prefer?

http://www.brauerei-schoenram.de/produkte.htm
http://www.buergerbraeu.com/index.php/sortiment/unserebiere
http://www.hofbrauhaus-berchtesgaden.de/unsere_biere.html
http://www.hb-ts.de/unsere-biere/
http://www.wieninger.de/index.php?id=wieningerbier

© 2015 Warhorse Studios www.warhorsestudios.cz