KO vs. kill system. [Combat/Gameplay]

Story & Setting
#1

I’d like to see a KO system like in the German game ‘GOTHIC II’ (Piranha Bytes, 2002), where (in certain situations) you can win a fight by knocking an opponent out without directly killing them – the opponent would then lie unconscious on the ground for some time, and you could take their weapons (thus render them harmless), kill them by impaling them with the sword, wait until they wake up (or kick them awake) and start/continue dialogue with new options, or simply walk away.

It is different from that used in Skyrim.

What say you?

4 Likes
Morale vs. Reputation system. [Gameplay]
Don Quijote's wishlist [Gameplay/Combat]
Can we reason with our foes?
#2

I feel as though I have read this before…

#3

Yes you have on my “Wishlist.” :slight_smile: I thought that if I break it in separate topics, maybe people would be more eager to reply. Maybe some like only some of the things mentioned there, while others they do not.

#5

Sorry to pull away from the topic, but I assume you recommend the Gothic series? I am looking at steam now, and I could get all three for 20$ I was just wondering if I should.

#6

That sounds like a pretty good deal, the Gothic series is a good classic old-school RPG. I played Gothic 2 and 3 and I like them both. Hardcore fans frown upon the 3rd installment, but I don’t think it’s that bad actually.

Anyway, the KO-and-then-finish system would be great, especially considering that the guys from Warhorse want to include the option to kill any character in the game (no NPC immortality). This would present a good optional failsafe, allowing you to defeat any character without necessarily killing him in the process (which you can always do afterwards, if that’s really your intention).

Not to mention that it’s also much more realistic, aside from fatal injuries to the heart or the head (or to multiple vital organs at the same time) a man doesn’t usually die instantly from combat injury IRL.

1 Like
#8

Gothic 1 and 2 are awesome. Also they are quite similar, although G2 included some small imrpovements. Gothic 3 radically changed everything, and many of us dislike it. Honestly I can’t see how could anyone think it’s a good game. Maybe t’s just because I played G1 and G2 before G3, but… To me it feels like it’s objectively bad.

If you end up liking G1 and G2, also check out Risen. It’s the spiritual successor.

@don_qujote Yes, I would expect to be able to KO somebody… As long as we are not using lethal force (ie sharpened swords) against him.

1 Like
#9

@qwar

“Yes, I would expect to be able to KO somebody… As long as we are not using lethal force (i.e. sharpened swords) against him.”

(Keyword: sharpened…)

Yes, but do not forget that most of your opponents are wearing armor. Also, in reality, you could hit them with the broad side of your sword. Ever seen A Knight’s Tale (2001)? It’s a silly movie… :slight_smile:

“A Knight’s Tale” Sword Fight [@ :30] - YouTube

#10

Yeah my bet would be making a “lethal force” combat mode and a “non-lethal force” combat mode.
Some weapons would have both of them (like swords). In that case, the non-lethal would deal less damage overall, but it wouldn’t kill the enemy.

Other weapons could have only one of the modes. A military flail cannot be used safely to knock out an oponent. On the other hand, a chair leg won’t outright kill an oponent. That would require a conscious execution once the opponent is KO.

This described above is the system used by D&D 3.5 (but not many people use it, since lethal force is required 99% of the usual combats).

As for armor… Yes, a sword isn’t that lethal against a guy in armor. But that’s because you’re not dealing any damage to him. To use RPG terms, the plate armor is absorbing damage, not mitigating it. Therefore once you get around the armor and hit where it cannot negate the damage (you put a dagger through the visor), it’s dealing only lethal damage. You hardly would ever get to do any non-lethal damage, since it would be mitigated twice, once by your containment, another by the armor.

1 Like
#11

@qwar

“Other weapons could have only one of the modes. A military flail…”

There won’t be any flails in this game. They would require different and too complicated animations and such stuff.

“Therefore once you get around the armor and hit where it cannot negate…”

I have already mentioned this on my “Wishlist:”

“I’d like to see an armor/health/strength/damage system similar to that employed in the game ‘THE BANNER SAGA’ (Stoic Studio, 2013):”

To Stoic's great credit, this isn't the kind of game that allows you to rush in and win. It largely achieves this effect by slapping units with one value for armor and another for health and strength combined, which means you'll have to whittle down the armor of the most beastly Dredge before you can make any notable dent in their health. It seems a little too gamey at times – one of the best tactics for success is to leave enemies with one point of health and strength, thus effectively converting their resulting weak strikes into a wasted turn. Alas, it's a strategy that works both ways. Consequently, if you haven't nibbled away a strong unit's armor and you're near death, you might as well be battling with baguettes.

But all hope isn't lost. Stoic wisely accommodated for such scenarios with its idiosyncratic Willpower stat. Although limited, Willpower lets characters exert themselves more, such as by moving up an extra grid on the map or adding more force to standard attacks or special abilities. It adds the necessary element of calculated chance to battles. (IGN)
#12

It was just an example. Could have said a pike, too. Or bow & arrows.

By the way, I recall the video in which they mention flails says “not for now”, or “not at release, maybe later”. It doesn’t categorically deny that there will ever be flails, like it would sound from your post.

2 Likes
#13

I would like it merely on the basis that most confrontations don’t result in death. It would suck if every drunken scramble ended in the death of the town blacksmith or cobbler.

1 Like
#14

why are guys citing a knights tale for discussion realistic combat technique?

i highly doubt such techniques gained widespread use in actual combat. margin of error super tiny when you’re moving around and trying not to get killed.

i think pommel strike or a strike using the pole of a polearm would be a much more reliable non lethal alternative as it has a better chance of knocking someone out or otherwise stunning them for a long period, and relatively large margin of error.

1 Like
#15

Well, maybe because the only things we know about sword fighting come from the movies. :slight_smile: I have mentioned that it’s a silly movie, but used it to demonstrate that theoretically it is possible to use a sword in a non-lethal way.

#16

For what I’ve come to understand and see in some reenactments, swordfighting between fully armored opponents came down to judo, more than actual swordfigthing. Swords are pretty much useless against armor, so it’s a matter of knocking down your opponent somehow (the function of the sword in this was to serve as a lever), then applying the right amount of pointy stuff to the opponent’s eyes.

Search for Battle of nations at youtube if you want to see some real life swordmanship (albeit quite amateur, it illustrates how pointless is all that swordplaying if the opponent is wearing full plate).

1 Like
#17

as far as i can tell, watching your stamina will be crucial in combat. therefore it seemed natural to me if you could defeat an opponent by simply exhausting him and forcing him to surrender without severely injuring him.

2 Likes
#20

Found this somewhere on the forum:

Le combat en armure au XVe siecle - YouTube
(15th century armored combat)

#21

Very good suggestion!
I back you up on thi!
One little thing - kicking a knocked man to wake up doesn’t seem the most realistic thing to do. If you watch combat sports you will notice that people wake the knocked fighters very differently than kicking them :smile:

1 Like
© 2015 Warhorse Studios www.warhorsestudios.cz