You seem extremely negative and pessimistic…
There’s a right way and a wrong way to go about giving constructive feedback and criticism to the dev team. And I must say I think you’re going about it all the wrong way.
Why not present what you feel needs improvement in an ordered list or dot pointed, rather than going straight on the hate offensive. You might get a few more people onside with that type of measured approach over and above what I’ve seen from you to date.
Sir, I’ve read through this entire thread, and I would like to ask you something - have you ever fought (sparred, dueled, etc.) a real, live opponent, using a real, physical sword? Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but from your comments, I would bet that you haven’t. Seeing as you’re basing “realism” off of games like Chivalry and M&B, I would guess that you don’t have any experience with actual - however lacking in technique or form - sword-fighting. Now, I do have a little bit of experience - don’t get me wrong, I am by not, by ANY stretch of the imagination, an expert, in fact, I generally only spar with friends using kendo shinai’s since we don’t have blunted metal swords to use 
. Most of my knowledge comes from Guy Windsor’s book The Swordsman’s Companion. I would say that I’ve only scratched the surface. However, I do think that I have a basic grasp of techniques, and I would say that KC:D is FAR more realistic than both Chivalry and M&B. In light of this, I would like to address some of your concerns.
First, lock-on.
To start with, lock-on (I know that throughout this discussion it has come to light that it might not be permanent, but meh 
). The way I see it, lock-on is a simulation of where you would be focusing if this were real life. In real life, when you fight an opponent - using historical combat techniques, upon which the combat in this game is based - you face him. You step around, towards, away from, passing, but you are always focusing on him. In the game, you can shift which opponent you are locking onto, just as in real life you could change where you’re looking. When using an arming sword, or even a longsword, you don’t usually try to attempt strokes that would hit multiple opponents. The amount of force lost to the first target would render the force applied to an adjacent opponent ineffectual, and would leave you open to attack. It just isn’t practical.
I will agree that, with keyboard and mouse, changing the lock is a pain. Like, no friggin kidding. But as it has been said, if you hold “shift”, then it will quickly break off the lock.
Your other concern, I would guess, is that combat isn’t enough like Chivalry?
It seems that you keep coming back to Chivalry as the epitome of combat realism, simply because it “gives you 100% control.” Chivalry doesn’t give you 100% control. If you read through historical manuscripts - which the devs of this game have - then you realize that a fair portion of tactics in sword-fighting involves grapples. How many times in Chivalry have you been able to grab the person immediately in front of you, and throw them. Now I’ve put a modest 165 hours into Chivalry, and I don’t recall being able to grab. Ever. Or even do a real parry-riposte. They call blocking, then skipping wind-up a “parry-riposte,” but that is not correct. How often have you gotten in a bind? How many times have you circle-passed around an opponent under his guard, parrying their mandrito fendete, and delivered a killing stroke to their back? I believe the correct answer to these questions, is C.) Never.
Next, some of the moves that can be pulled off in Chivalry are no where NEAR realistic. I can’t count how many times I’ve been killed by a vanguard overhead swing, executed while facing away from me, while crouched, and leaning back all the way. Try doing this in real life. I dare you. See how many times the opponent will kick you over, stab you, or slash you before you can finish crouching. Chivalry gives you control, but it is not necessarily realistic. Seriously try some of the stuff that is effective in Chivalry, in real life. It isn’t effective. Chivalry is, undeniably, a fun game, but not realistic.
To wrap this up, I would like to state that - as far as I’m aware, and I may be wrong - Chivalry did not focus on real, historical, fighting techniques when designing their combat system. The dev team for KC:D does. They have used motion-capture to capture the movements of modern experts who have also studied historical manuscripts, and practiced the techniques, to create the basis for the animations used in combat. It would seem that your concept of what is real, and what is not, has become distorted by its portrayal in video games. The combat in this game is the very reason I backed it - a realistic portrayal of medieval combat in video games is sorely lacking, and I have yet to find something about it that really bothers me.
I’m even starting to doubt op plays chivalry all that much. I have 760 hours in the game, and the combat is far from realistic. Especially in higher rank fights. It just turns into dragging, and reverse over heads. If you don’t know what those are, it involves you leaning backwards and doing an overhead strike, that hits the enemy behind you in the head.
Like you said chivalry is fun, but its not realistic.
You can allways break the lock by holding down left shift (at least I can)
And the system of combos is actually most realistic thing you can do while developing game. Player wouldnt be able to invent “their own combos” except the most basic one. Chivlary and M&B shows that realistic game cant be build on full control but on known techniques and timing.
The lock is, I believe, not there becouse of controllers but becouse the animations and such. Both opponents need to be align to have them right (dont forget the physic behind the animations).
This is mentioned by the dev team in a few interviews and I believe the video update.
This combat system is focused on realistic techniques (as well as can be freely implemented in a game).
I can agree that the lock on can be annoying sometimes and feel like your not in control. However it should be noted that this is the first combat build and is comprised of over 2000 animations (that’s allot of work especially with all of the object collision and accurate physical reactions).
Video games have to simulate many things that we natural have senses for and reactions we would have either subconsciously or instinctively. For me the lock on system justified for the reason that when I am sparring in RL I do not have to (consciously) think about moving my stance and position to my opponent, it is simply instinctual because of my training.
The system allows for you to stay focused on your opponent when moving not moving without taking any focus away from your ability to interpret the actions of your opponent. This is the first combat system where you can accurately read the intention to attack from the AI’s body language and respond to it appropriately.
The combat system needs polishing. The locking system needs to be refined, and combat against more then one opponent has not even been implemented.
Overall for being the first public build this combat system is hit straight out of the park. The notion that this system is unrealistic is naive and displays and overall ignorance of Historical European Martial Arts and combat mechanics.
There is a very big difference in what is realistic and what others find enjoyable.
Hey there,
just backed and played today for the first time.
I have to say that I would love to see some M&B like combat in there.
I’ve read the whole thread and all the replies. May I ask you one question?
Is there any evidence of those techniques beeing used by common soldiers? I sure know that there are books from that medieval time, but I haven’t ever heard of evidence for those techniques beeing used often to that time. Sure those are pretty damn usefull in a duel or sparing, but I guess they are useless in battles. So why would a common soldier invest years and lots of money just to get trained or reading books that are only helping in a duel? That doesn’t make much sense for me. Feel free to discuss this with me, but please don’t forget about the much less possibillities of getting knowledge back then.
Common soldiers usually didn’t use sword much. They were given a spear.
Sword was a sidearm, not meant for battle unless you somehow lost your main weapon. It was easy to carry and usable to defend yourself if you were attacked. AFAIK the techniques from the books aren’t limited to duels, but also deal with stuff like how to defend yourself when you are suddenly attacked and your sword is in scabbard, how to throw your sword properly etc.
The fencing schools that produced the books were not only for nobles but I think also mercenaries were part of the fencing guilds. Definitely though the lower nobles and second sons were trained in fencing and during middle ages those people were main people doing the fighting.
Good points you got there, I haven’t thought about that enough. But I still don’t understand why the whole combat mechanics have to feature those techiques. Because if everyone is using them (more or less) doesn’t it mean that all the people you can fight with had been a part of one of those fencing guilds? (or atleast been trained by one of the guild members) I just can’t believe that they all knew about those techniques back then. Maybe they did “hack’n slash” and watched for thiere cover instead of using certain techniques teached by fencing schools. Thats kinda why I prefer the M&B’ish combat much more, because it doesn’t limit you to those techniques. Maybe wielding the M&B mechanics and those techniques together would create the most realistic combat system.
Edit:
[quote]Definitely though the lower nobles and second sons were trained in
fencing and during middle ages those people were main people doing the
fighting.
[/quote]
Those nobles did the most dueling, thats right.
But those nobles weren’t regulary Guardsmen or Soldiers.
Most of the soldiers (those you fight ingame) were poorish.
Also I don’t expect the hero fighting against polearms at the current state of mechanisms, what is kinda sad for a medieval game. But I hope I am wrong with that and they do implement that.
By the late medieval period swords was a common weapon.
Sure it was not always the primary weapon, but that don’t mean that it was rare used or only used by the nobility.
Also most soldiers was professionals.
It is one of the effects of the plague. Armies got a lot smaller and more professional.
I’ve never heard of any evidence that shows most soldiers as professionals. Most of them were farmers who gathered experience on the battles they fought for thiere lords. Maybe they even trained before that, but I wouldn’t name them professionals.
not after the plagues in the mid 14th century… it changed things. Armies got a lot smaller and most soldiers where mercenaries or household troops. There was a lack of peasants to actually farm the available fields… so loosing them in a war was bad for your taxes.
Also 10 peasants eat way more than one man-at-arms… or crossbowman and is worth a lot less on the battlefield.
So in every way using a smaller army of higher quality troops was better.
When we talk the English armies during the 100 year war they were all paid professionals.
This was the case with the armies raised by Edward III… and the same with the later armies.
A raised militia only had to serve for typically 40 days. In some cases only in their own area.
And even if you could legally use them outside that area, the time they had to serve was time no where what you need to do any sort of offensive move.
And your start to see a (slow) change from a duty to perform military service to a tax. (that was then used to hire professionals)
Many of the fundamentals were just as applicable to the battlefield as they were in duels. ESPECIALLY once you get into the parts covering use of the polearm. There were also sections of the different fechtbuchen which covered one vs. many combat, which would be no less applicable to the battlefield.
Professionalism in the English armies goes back even further than that to Saxon times (the Saxon army was NOT a general levy). However England was also unique compared to the rest of Western Europe in that it had a strong central monarchy, whereas continental kings tended not to have the same power over their vassals the English kings enjoyed (which was a big part of what led to the early English successes in the Hundred Years War).
They were mercenaries and not professionals. Thats a huge difference. Those mercenaries were simply farmers or craftsmen before they got hired. Like I said they got thier experience from the Battlefield. Sure they did some simple training before they had to enter a battle, but most of them weren’t even able to read a book or had the amount of money to hire a trainer.
Okay you got me, I apologize for my lazyness of not reading them myself 
Also just a little hint: the plural of Fechtbuch is Fechtbücher/ Fechtbuecher 
Ehrm, all English freedmen were REQUIRED to train in the use of the longbow in their spare time. BY LAW. So no, they didn’t just get a bit of simple training right before a battle. And the English themselves were hired by foreign powers as mercenaries (eg the condotierri).
Also, one doesn’t need to be able to read themselves to learn how to fight. Most of the European martial traditions would have been passed down orally LONG before they were ever actually written down.
Yeah, I knew that with the archery training. There is even evidence showing that the bones in the arms of those people were much stonger and thicker than others. What means that they allready trained as children. But I tried to difference between mercenaries and professionals in general. And don’t forget that KC:D is not about the english way of life. Also this only approves, that they did archery training. Maybe they didn’t even train melee because there is nearly no need for that as an archer.
You’ re right, there was no need to read a book. But because of that fact it can’t be proven, that those techniques described in the Fechtbücher were common martial traditions in a fight.
I guess this topic turns out to become more philosophical.
I think when it comes down to it - if i’m interpreting this correctly - you will normally be fighting other soldiers; i.e. men who know what to do with a sword. Yes, the devs say that they want you to be able to attack anyone, but I get the feeling that most people you would normally attack, or be attacked by, would have SOME knowledge about fencing. If not, why would they be attacking you, or why would you need to attack them - if they’re a peasant, why not just threaten them? I can understand wanting a system for people that are not “trained,” but creating a whole different set of combat animations just for those less common instances seems like a lot of work for not a whole lot of reward. Of course, if the Act I is a success, then i wouldn’t mind seeing something like that in the Acts II or III.
You are just wrong.
A professional is a person who makes his living but doing something.
When a person gets paid to kick a soccer ball and he can make a living on that pay, then he is a professional soccer player.
If he is hired for 2 years, then he is a professional soccer player during that two years.
Mercenaries say something about their employment status. Unlike Household troops or levies they are fighting for someone who they own no allegiance.
So mercenaries are professionals, since they make their living by renting out their military skills.
Being able to read or not got nothing to do with it. The fact that you even mention it show a lack of understanding of medieval society. Reading was not that common outside “the people who pray”
(but also not rare)
Basic armed fighting Technics are universal since they are based on physic and body mechanics.
And naturally it was something that was tough from person to person…
Or do you think no one knew how to run a farm, just because we don’t have a book telling us how to do it?
Getting hired doesn’t mean being a professional. It does only mean someone gives you money to make you do what he wants you to do. Also not all of those techniques were common. The point about about the farming ist completely wrong. We do know what kinds of tools they used for farming also there is enough evidence about farming in the medieval times.
A professional is a member of a profession or any person who earns their living from a specified activity
Therefore if you are hired in the field you are specialized in you are professional.
So if someone repeatedly earns money by getting hired as mercenary, he is professional.
You should learn what the word Professional mean.
And yes we know the tools they used for fighting and there is enough evidence about fighting in the medieval times.
So we have a pretty good idea about how it was done.
