Realistic combat, stances, guards, and grappling

Combat system
#42

Thats a really good point. I doubt there will be much grapling since that dont look as good as a bad ass sword fight. I would say kicks and pommel strikes will be as close to punching and grabing as you can get in the game.

The stances are really good idea. And it would be nice to see (some middle eastern trainer for example) to be able to teach you a little better moves. Dunno its possible. It is an rpg so there is a good chances most of the skills will touch combat directly. And in some cases change it drastically.

#43

Have to agree that grabbing and wrestling would be awesome. The basics of all martial combat, medieval or not, is based on the understanding of how the human body moves and how the human physics and body mechanics can be utilized for your benefit. This holds true whether or not you have a weapon. The thing is, I honestly do not believe that you can implement a first person system that can simulate this, because you cant feel your own body or your weapon nor the forces of your opponent or the environment. This is why I would much more prefer third person over first. It would be much more easier to get the “feeling” of your own movement. On the other hand, however, this would make it more difficult to see your own weapon/hands. Therefore I really hope that the system does not rely to much on the player’s skills. If you can’t simulate the feeling of your blade and and the opposing forces, please, don’t make a system where you are required to react on the opponent’s movement. It would be cumbersome and difficult to master. I don’t wish an arcade game, but a game where your character can be a medieval swordmastah even though you are not.

#44

I kinda disagree with the whole wrestling and grabbing. It honestly doesnt look that good as a sword fight. And 2 heavilly armored warriors trying to grapple someone on the battlefield would look kinda silly. The closest you get to the whole wrestling thingy, would be pommel strikes, kicks, maybe some smashes with one hand weapon.

The first person is there for a reason. And that reason is immersion (that and oculus rift). Making a third person would always make a third person advantageous, ALWAYS (and unrealistically advantageous). Thats why things like missdirection, feints and other fints dont work in third person (yeah they work if you are having not so great reflexes, but the whole picture makes you simply asset the situation incredibly fast). And once again thats unrealistic.

You are saying cumbersome and difficult to master. I say it would be awesome, realistic and incredibly fun. And they want to make it realistic. You wont react to every strike (you can hold down a button that blocks it for you), or you can try deflect it. Anyway complaning about how you need skills in combat mechanics, just doesnt make sense ? Do you want to dumbed it down ?

#45

myself im really looking forward to how the different techniques like halfswording work in practice

#46

What I’m saying is that I would love to see a combat system that simulates the skills of your character and not too much the motoric skills of the player. As far as I understood, the game should be an rpg, not a multiplayerreactionslasherthing, like Chivalry. Moreover, there is no such thing as combat without wrestling. That’s called boxing or fencing, not combat. As I said, I think that 3rd person would make it possible to implement a system where your character could fight and not just fence. Don’t see that possible in first person though, but hopefully the guys in Warhorse prove me wrong. At least not on 2d screen, maybe with Oculus rift
 Have to agree with you regarding the immersion. In any case, it’s a trade off.

Oh, and about blocking: if they really wanted to make it realistic, they should acknowledge that a non-offensive block was always the last resort. All techniques were supposed to be both offensive and defensive, so that your move opens the opponent’s defenses and protects your own body at the same time. We should not separate blocking from attacking, that’s just a stupid convention in video games (and Hollywood films).

#47

Yeah I know there wouldnt be any combat without wrestling etc
 But I’m saying the wrestling isnt a popular atraction, but swords are. If you saw 2 knights lying trying to get the leverage. It would have to be implemented in the form of quick time events or similiar button mashing controlls. And that isnt very realistic, nor fun (At least for me). And it really isnt possible in first person. And because the fact that they stated that they dont plan any other (camera persons :P) because it would ruin the immersion. And it would ruin it because the third person is always advantageous etc


Yeah I agree. It is realistic to attack all the time. To block and attack at the same time, to attack from the side etc
 But ,did you saw the combat video ? That blocks and counters seemed pretty fucking offensive(offensive as agressive, not as insulting [I dont know why I must to clarify it each time ?]) to me. But nevertheless at the end of the day, your the one controlling the character. And if you want to block purelly for defensive reasons, game should give you that option. And I can pretty much guarantee it wouldnt be the optimall way to play the game, to block all the time. I’m not saying make the combat entire realistic, but make it fun with the realism in mind. If they want to make a piruet move, some badass finisher, that is not possible in real life, sure why not ? If it doesnt sounds too impossible I’m not against it.

#48

@Gladix , look silly? Because it was a big part of combat of that time, even on the battlefield.

The closest you would get would be kicks and pommel strikes? Sources?

There’s a reason that grappling was one of the main foundations that combat teachers of that era used. Half swording/grappling are one of the main tools you would use to fight against someone in armor if you used a sword.

When you are using a sword against plate, slashing isn’t the focus, it’s on getting the sword into an open area or between the armor. Thus grappling is EXTREMELY important.

Look up any number of surviving combat manuals and see how much grappling you can find, half swording, trips, etc. It’s all there in tihe historical manuals.

Also doesn’t look good? From what? There has never really been a movie nor game that showed the grappling techniques and moveset that they had back then. Theres no basis for “it doesn’t look good” since most people have never seen it in the first place.

I for one think a game that would use historical grappling techniques,t rips, and other things could be quite visceral and look amazing if done right.

I mean think about it, imagine in Kingdom Come you’re fighting in a large battle and nearing the end, you come across one of the knights fighting against your side. You have an intense battle with longswords and he comes in and grabs your sword and trips you to the ground, then he’s on top of you trying to drive his sword into your visor slit and you’re trying to get him off of you and turn the tables.

To me that kind of experience would be a lot more memorable then your usual “stand back and swing your weapon” that we normally always see in games.

#49

Ok jus so we dont missunderstand each other. This looks silly.. This also looks silly. Is it realistic yes, is it visually appealing ? Now. Grapling like taking leverage whilst striking, or burrying the blade between the plates. That would look awesome, and maybe we see that, maybe as some sort of finisher, or skill. But I can guarantee there wont be any serious fist fights and wrestling while in battle.

Why ? Because first person. And yes, its never been done. And it wont be in first person (how would you controll that ?). Can you honestly tell me that the soldiers in the first video didnt look silly for non iniciated people in the medieavall combat ? If, in some game will be grapple and wrestle mechanic, it will be choreographed to look somehow appealing (wont be realistic tho) and the game wont be played in first person.

Pomell, strikes sources ? Non, just speculations based on the observation of the mechanics and them saying there will be kicks and pommel strikes in the game.

#50

I am talking about these kinds of examples:


http://www.aemma.org/onlineResources/liberi/flos_dellaSpada.pdf

you can see countless grappling moves using weapons all throughout both combat manuals, with swords, heck even polearms.

Regarding sources, I was referring to this comment you made, “The closest you get to the whole wrestling thingy, would be pommel strikes, kicks, maybe some smashes with one hand weapon.”

I assumed you were saying that in historical battles you wouldn’t see grappling. That would mean that it has no point in the combat manuals.

#51

No, I ancknowlege that grappling was just part of the combat. Since I know almost nothing about it. I was saying that regarding the game. I’m saying we wont see any huge wrestling and grappling moves due to the first person view. But the examples of combat stances is excellent idea. And could change the way you fight based on the strength of the opponent etc


#52

If they’re aiming for realistic combat, they NEED to have varying guards, because that’s integral to the combat style. Liechtenauer outright says that you should be constantly shifting your guard position. Every step should have a change in guard. The guards in the German tradition that were named at this time would have been:

Alber (low guard, blade pointed at the ground), Pflug (the classic hilt at the hips, point at the opponent’s face stance), Langen Ort (sword extended towards the opponent), Ochs (hilts above the shoulder, point at the opponent’s face) and Vom Tag (hilts a bit below the shoulder and point angling back over the shoulder, or hilts above the head depending on what you wanted). There were other guards that developed later, but that’s getting into treatises like Talhoffer and Meyer, well after this period.

It was important to change guards because that changed where your openings were. IE, Vom Tag at the right shoulder closes off the line to the right side of your head, and opens up the other three quadrants (upper left, lower left, lower right). You constantly shifted your guard position because that kept your opponent guessing where you were open (while Alber is used to lure your opponent in).

1 Like
#53

As nice as it would be to have actually realistic medieval combat that is as deep as the real thing, it’s just not going to happen. The problem is our control input methods. None of them come close to matching the enormous amounts of movements humans are capable of. They also want this game to be accessible and expecting all their customers to have studied the medieval combat treatises is a bit much. Now of course grappling was a very important part of medieval martial arts, especially in armoured fighting, but I doubt they could make it look good when performed in game. It would probably just be a mess different textures whizzing over your screen as your head moves.

#55

I think I saw in the clips a decent Von Tag (over the head), (or Posta di falcone) stance by the player, and multiple times the Pflug / posta breve stance.
So we can assume that there is a decent base of stances, but maybe stuff like Absetzen, master strokes and countermoves on counter strokes is a bit much to expect
 Although we can hope:wink:
Maybe they could use the AI programs also for the combat mechanics so the NPC’s know how to respond on certain stances, base moves, master strokes, disarming and wrestling
 I don’t know

#56

The meaning of consultant is to have someone to ask if you’re interested in obtaining information, not someone who tells you how to do things and when.

Historical medieval fencing is something which is now rising but yet has a long way to become a common thing. I am quite a veteran, 3 years and a half but I know people who are going on it from far longer and most of them had the hard work of recovering the ancient manuals of fighting and having from the best interpretation possible (most of them are cryptic, the translations are not so good or not so easy and the drawings are far less accurate than nowadays).

These knowledge is useful and valuable and I think is a good thing to offer (and I say offer, not impose). Our goal is the same: fidelity of a medieval game. Of course we also understand that is not easy to do and will not be always able to achieve it perfectly. But as I said, I think we are all here to help (or at least is what it shows our purchase on kickstarter).

Said that, grappling was common as any armor cannot save you from breaking an ankle or twisting your wrist, but it was always used when you reached close combat (basically when your sword didn’t fit between you and your opponent and/or tangled with his sword). Otherwise is asking for a quick death.

It was faster than drawing a dagger and it was safer (as you restricted your opponent movement, and you can push and pull to throw off-balance, something you cannot do with a dagger). Most movements where mainly focused on disarming or projecting your opponent to the ground to finish or threaten him while on ground.

For heavy armored combatants, the system was usually adress as “half-sword” in which the game of fight was mostly with the point of the sword to pierce within the joints of the armor.

About mass combat, the sword art lacked style. I was dire, dirty and unfair. The best tactic was to be near your comrades and avoid being overwhelmed by several oponents. And of course a lot of luck xd.

@Lorthirk I am currently studying in rome in la Accademia Romana d’armi. Maybe I’ll be able to meet you at GISS? sent me a private as I don’t know how to do it yet.

#57

Since you can choose the way of the shadow-walker, choke hold and disarmament technique in game seems opportune.

“Com on wanre niht scriðan sceadugenga”

#58

As far as I understand combat very often involved, hooking the opponent with the guard of the sword, striking with the butt and stabbing with the sword held halfway down the blade. Also many long sword technicies involves complex movements where you block and cut in the same move.
For an plated enemy the only way to really kill him is to get him on the ground so you can make a coup de grace. A moving opponent Is pretty much impossible to kill if hes in a proper armor. As for plate armor the most common weapon was the pollaxe, the “can opener”. But even with this heavy striking weapon the only way to kill an armored opponent is on the ground.
Mike Loads seems to be a good source of information.
Check his “Weapons that made Britain” on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As1rGnx9vng

edit: also one quite iportant thing is the parry. the parry must have been made with the flat of the sword. A parry edge to edge is a true way to destroy a sword. This is a bit of a strange thing for most since all we’ve ever seen in movies and such is edge on edge parry. This is rubbish! Sword fighting in movies and fights in real life a two very different things.

#59

This is mostly true with japanese swords, as they were thinner and the iron was not so good. On european medieval warfare this is half-truth. By hitting the edge of the blade, you have great possibilities of denting your blade but also of lodging the sword opponent, preventing the blade from sliding. Parrying with the flat plane is intuitively better, but the sliding of the blade can go directly to your fingers, unprotected by the hilt, so you can lose half a hand, break some finger if you carry mail or plate and of course, loose the weapon (that’s why rings start to be added to the grip and this tendency slowly evolves into a single piece guard).

Now, from the dueling theory, egdge or half-edge is used but applying some sense. I’ll try to explain although is difficult to put into words.

First, we split the blade in 3 parts: Strong (near the grip), medium (the center), weak (the end point).

Let’s say your opponent throws an horizontal cut (Plane A). If you parry generating another plane, let’s say by intersecting your sword vertically (plane B), the following thing can happens (i won’t develop all the cases though, otherwise it will be impossible to read xd) :

- Your opponent has a greater blade parts than you: Your blade will move and you will be mostly sure striked. This is physics and momentum upon your hands, so it won’t matter how strong you are.

- Your opponent has a lesser blade parts than you: Mostly sure you will parry, the blade will receive the all the impact, your opponent will have his point end within angle and your are not preventing (if your blade is vertical) from his approach or the next attack.

So, how is it done the parry then? the answer is by creating a plane that matches a “cone” between you and your opponent (you aim your point at the face of your opponent and you place your hands slightly outside your body). This way you never place a “orthogonal plane” and any strong hit will mostly sure slid, throwing the opponent point end out of reach or making you gain blades part over your opponent.

This can be applied to most medieval swords (although with a shield, it changes a little bit of course).

After the heavy answer. Also bear in mind that weapon destruction during war was common and combatants usually carried between 3-5 weapons to use through the combat, without counting the ones that can take from the fallen ones.

1 Like
#60

Regarding edge vs. flat parries:

It’s not that you wanted to parry with the flat of your blade. You wanted to parry to the flat of your OPPONENT’S blade. Mechanically, parrying your opponent’s edge with your own flat makes for a much weaker bind, and makes it MUCH easier for him to push and control your blade. So when you defend you really want to strike his flat with your edge, as that gives you much more control in the bind.

#61

Fiore Dei Liberi says that a thrust from a pollaxe can go through a breastplate, when the enemy is standing up.

I also keep seeing medieval paintings of helmets being cleft and blood coming out with they are standing up.

It’s a bit like saying “no man can break a brick with his bare hand”. Medieval men at arms would have been very strong and also skilled, and not all wearing pure steel.

#62

I have a hard time seeing how you are supposed to parry the flat of the opponents blade. If you mean by pushing the opponent blade during a cut, is not really a parry but a deviation of the blow (and can be very dangerous). If I am taking it the wrong way, please give me more details about it.

About blade control, is far more exclusive by the distance between the contact of blades to the respective grips than the type of contacts (it can be seen with a large stick, you just need some to pick the stick from different distances to your grip while you try to move his/her hand. Near the end of the stick you’ll require a lot of effort, if you’re able, to move his/her hand).

Blade/flat contact defines de mobility of the bind but not the binding itself. Flat vs flat does nothing, flat vs edge give better pressure to gravity-assited movements (going down xd). edge vs egde on to sharp blades is something meant to stuck hard, requiring one of the combatants to separate in order to continue the swordplay. The binding of a weapon is usually more related to the movement of the action or its force, if none of them is applied, the opponent can free his/her sword (so he’s not binded anymore).

It is awfully difficult to explain concepts while making it short xd.

© 2015 Warhorse Studios www.warhorsestudios.cz