Why does every developer get it wrong?

Absofuckinglutely not
Animator here, it's the same shit. Devs are just lazy fucking retards that take their inspiration from OTHER GAMES THAT DO IT WRONG instead of actual fighting.
You can totally exagerate real sword moves instead of doing everything wrong and blaming it on anything other than sheer, pure incompetence.

Where the FUCK is Mordhau?

Attached: 1517266504304.jpg (850x687, 120K)

Is this right or wrong?

Attached: KCD - Duel 02.webm (720x480, 2.91M)

>holding a sword by the handle
Everyone knows knights held swords by the blade and hit enemies with the pommel because blunt strikes are more effective, don't you know anything about swords

this thread ISNT ABOUT SWORD COMBAT

Bit too much movement on the feet.

YOU HAVE AUTISM

DUDE YOU CANT READ STFU

They're holding swords right?

their hands are off screen or obscured like 99% of the vid, i cant tell for sure

>slash the helmet
>blood comes out
worthless eurojank, next

I'm pretty sure Henry is holding the sword the same way as the enemy knight.

i cant see the enemy guys hands, theyre obscured

Just play Chivalry, at this point they play almost exactly the same except that Mordhau is slightly faster paced. That said, the former is garbage and the latter is rapidly approaching that state.

Soon

Attached: Mordhau.jpg (590x332, 65K)

Mordhau is far beyond Chivalry and the only people I've seen disagree are shitters or hoping for a HEMA sim

No one cares about your thread. we just here to shit in it.

Whenever i see a game that says "Clips" instead of magazines i cringe

You need the animations, hitboxes, attack range to be something that functions and is understandable to the player in a game design sense. Fuck off, realism fags.

It's the people who are pissed off that ballerinas and dragging are back when the devs for Mordhau claimed they would never have it when Mordhau was first announced. That was the "feature" that was meant to set it apart from Chivalry and now they too have taken to calling it an intended mechanic.

what the fuck are you talking about?

Whats the thread about then.

NO! The argument is NOT realism vs. fun like you fags would make it out to be. It's a matter of devs being lazy, that's literally it. A game can be both realistic AND fun, they aren't mutually exclusive holy shit.

>pic thats says how to hold your sword
>pic of a guy holding the sword
maybe HOLDING THE SWORD

Dragging has always always always been an intended mechanic but it is far toned down from chivalry. All it is, is moving your torso while swinging

There are also no reverse hits like in chivalry and spinning too much during an attack causes greatly reduced damage, called a glancing blow. Fov is also capped much lower than chiv

Drags used to be more powerful in early alpha builds, so if anything the game has become less and less like chiv over time

why bother with swords when clubs are better

Kingdom Come.

I see absolutely no reason to have you thumb over the cross guard.

This.

Attached: mace.jpg (1800x920, 194K)

name one club

What kind of person actually cares about how you hold a sword in a video game?

eh boring sword combat is more interesting and would cover both your proposed topic and more points.

If you hate dragging a sword in a melee game so much, boy do I have the series for you.
It's a wonderful little set of first person RPG games by the developer Bethesda, and man the melee combat is just an absolute blast.

Manchester United

Attached: 1515947762183.webm (626x352, 2.71M)

Why is he sparring without any gear

Good thing he was carrying that shitty, dull blade around. He might not have stood a chance without his fingers.

Attached: 1516601656683.webm (1280x720, 2.97M)

retard alert

You mean they don't fold their steel 10000 times in america?

>really excited for the breadth of customization options
>slap on a progression system because "i want to be rewarded for playing!!! >:C"
fuck you, i fucking hate retarded grinds to get the gear i would like, especially if it has no gameplay influence
there is literally no reason to implement this beyond giving whales a sense of shallow satisfaction, or because you are worried about playerbase retention
just let me customize my guy, PLEASE

>actually fucking hits the guy
ow

From an actual sword fighting manual.

Attached: Augsburg_Cod.I.6.4º.2_(Codex_Wallerstein)_107v.jpg (1228x819, 481K)

>countering a half-assed preplanned attack with no follow up
must be historically accurate because of that one drawing

the fuck

BACK IN MY DAY GAMES GAVE YOU EVERYTHING ON DAY ONE AND PEOPLE PLAYED THOSE FUCKING GAMES FOR YEARS BECAUSE THEY WERE FUN

NOWADAYS THE AVERAGE SHOOTER CAN BARELY MAINTAIN A PLAYERBASE FOR SIX MONTHS SINCE EVERYBODY GETS BORED WITH THE GRIND OR GETS TO THE MAX RANK AND THEN NO LONGER HAS SHIT TO MINDLESSLY GRIND TOWARDS

DUDE
MORDHAU
LMAO

Who cares.
Game had some promise but it's turned into shit. The animations are so bad that the most effective "high level" tactic is obscuring your windup by retarded feints, morphing, body feints, whatever retarded non realistic bullshit you can come up with (along with a mediocre internet connection or subpar framerate) then just do drag downs or abuse some weapon.

The few people who will buy it will be discouraged by autistic 4channers who peruse reddit on a daily basis.

A bad sword fighting manual from an era where every manual about every thing was bad.

They really nailed burning witches though.

Why does he throw his sword like that? lmao

Seems practical to me. One guy is trying to stab through the unarmored bits and the other is trying to bash his fokn ead in.

what's your ign?

youtube.com/watch?v=vwuQPfvSSlo&t=316s

Ahem

You want to use the hilt as a club vs armor since your sword will have a hard time penetrating it.
Not using something blunt to dent the armor would be a bad move.

Fighting armor without a blunt weapon is a bad idea. Holding a bladed weapon by the edge is an even worse idea, about a hundred times worse. The simple and logical approach to fighting a heavily armored opponent when you are not holding a proper blunt weapon is to use the weapon normally and attempt to shove, grapple, trip or wrestle the opponent to the ground whenever possible and then stab through a gap in the armor. A heavily armed opponent that falls flat on the ground is an opponent that has been defeated. Using a bladed weapon upside down is a meme and you're a meme for defending it.

doesn't look as cool as holding it with just one arm
rule of cool > OP pic

How the fuck does anyone get killed in real combat by those half-assed swings

This might be hard to believe, but murdering someone while trying to not get hurt at all can lead to some awkward movement

Dummy

Exanima and Die By the Sword are the only games to get close

this but unironically. i hate grinding for cosmetics.

Swords that length weren't typically all that sharp. They were used for stabbing and bashing, not cutting.

half swording is pretty retarded, like he said, might as well use a mace or a hammer

Let's be real, if you have to resort to halfswording at all, you're probably fucked anyway. Because you're basically in a situation where you'd really, REALLY prefer a warhammer or a mace, but since you have neither of those things, you've resorted to holding your sword upside down and you're probably going to die. Halfswording is a desperation ploy.

You'll break your thumb like that. And hurt your shoulder.

You realize their hands had armor right?

MY STATEMENT IS ALSO UNIRONIC
THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF MODERN GAMES HAVE OSTRACIZED ACTUAL PLAYERS IN FAVOR OF WHALES, GAMBLERS, AND DOPAMINE-SEEKERS WHO WILLINGLY PLAY MEDIOCRE SHIT FOR MONTHS IF NOT YEARS TO SEE NUMBERS RISE AND LOOT DROP THAN PLAY AN ACTUAL GAME WHERE THEY IMPROVE AS PLAYERS

People who know about history, how would you fight a guy in an armor like that? I know even a greatsword wouldn't be able to cut him.

Armpits, neck or between some of the plates, it would be a war of attrition either way.

Isn't his neck covered?

Depends on the helm, if they have mail and padding it can still be pierced
Halfswording is also good, people saying bullshit about the blade cutting you or stupid shit like that is just that, bullshit.

last youtube video i saw on the matter said use the block on the end of the handle to conk the cunts nut

With a fucking mace. Halfswording is the last resort.

>A heavily armed opponent that falls flat on the ground is an opponent that has been defeated.

Not by a long shot, faggot.

Ya got three options:
>Hit him in the head really hard and knock him out, then stab him in the eye or neck when he's on the ground.
>Fight until he (hopefully) gets tired and injured and then wrestle him to the ground and knife him in the face.
>Wrestle him to the ground and knife him in the face.

With armored combat, pretty much everything revolves around getting the gun on the ground and then coup de gracing the guy through the eye holes or by removing his helmet. You will, never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever stick someone with a sword under the armpit or whatever while they're still standing and armed, that's a complete myth that never happened.

Attached: strong maid who don't need no man.jpg (644x627, 93K)

Source on these claims? can you show me where it is stated in a historical document it's a last resort?

just making sure you aren't just spewing bullshit

You get about 20 of your peasant friends, lose about 9 of them to dick face's shiny fuck stick, then hold him down with the remaining 10 dudes while you smash in his fucking skull with a rock

It's for those situations when you don't have a mace or a hammer because your squire got killed, your men at arms are routing and there's a French bastard in full harness yelling something in frog at you, charging you while all you've got is your arming sword.

Because if you HAD a mace, you'd be fucking using it. If you're fighting a guy in full plate armor, that probably means you're in a battlefield and if you're fighting in a large battle, then you should have a mace or a spear or fucking SOMETHING other than just your sword.

So no historical facts? just your opinion? make sure you clearly state what you are saying are opinions not fact.

You use the greatsword as a lever/wrench and wrestle him onto the ground. Then curse, grapple and drag at least a bit of his armor/helmet loose and stab him there with your dagger. Full plate, even half plate, made you practically invincible to infantry that didn't have specialized anti armor weapons.

I'm disappointed that sekiro didn't get this right with the armored warrior. I thought it was finally going to be a realistic take on sword vs armor, where sekiro has to wear him down enough to open him up to stab him in the eye, but then a deathblow didn't do jack shit even though sekiro impales the dude.

Why didn't they just use maces then?

Why does everyone in Medieval art look faintly bemused? Did other expressions just not exist?

Are you actually trying to argue that if you had another, better option available, you'd still use your sword upside-down?

I am arguing you are spewing your opinions on the matter as fact, when you are just talking about how you think it would go.

most people weren't knights.

You'd be better served asking how could you live in those times and not be perpetually bemused.

Attached: War isn't so bad after all.png (391x346, 273K)

It's fucking common sense. If you had a mace, you'd use it.

A mace is a simpler weapon to construct than a sword.

Who the fuck cares.

Post the proof of this, show me were it is stated.

otherwise just stop replying.

but you wanted swords to fight everyone except knights you giant bumbling brainlet.

> Mordhau
> Realistic
The game has women Knights.

If you had a sword, you'd use it as opposed to your bare hands. You gonna argue that this is an opinion too?

yes.

nice strawman

>can you show me where it is stated in a historical document it's a last resort?
youtube.com/watch?v=JkEXUFlh_EA

But a mace is effective against unarmored opponents.

can't even identify logical fallacies correctly. pathetic.

how come every sword thread always has some mace autist?

well smart guy you said it yourself people used swords despite supposedly being hard to construct

do you think they used swords for funsies? it was because they were more effective, shit for brains.

>it was because they were more effective

I'd argue that in the hands of a lower class fighter, spears were king. That said I'm not even going to begin to pretend I know jack shit about history.

They used swords because they were cool. You can't *teleprompters behind you* "heh, nothin personnel kid" with a mace.

>. That said I'm not even going to begin to pretend I know jack shit about history.
then why the fuck are you here bickering over things you know nothing about and wasting everyone's time you massive autist?

>Because they were more effective
Or alternatively because they looked cool and combined the advantage points of a spear, axe and mace and also really expensive to make.

All the aforementioned weapons were still better than a sword.

>Discussing obsolete and utterly hilarious methods of combat in the 21st century.
Why would you expect these threads to be full of anything BUT autists?

this. also flipping sword and pummeling

*ahem*

Fuck Axes
Fuck Maces
And Fuck Swords

Attached: ZodiacSpear-ffxii.png (511x515, 23K)

NOISE WARNING HEAVY CLANG-CLANG AHEAD

youtube.com/watch?v=kTB1dDVyROs

youtube.com/channel/UCDel2Bxg6LBT2zEaXJdjovw/videos

based shinobi hunter filtering casuals by the thousands.

So how would you make compelling gameplay of a character in proper plate armor?

>Useless in close combat
>Useless in a confined space
>Useless on the ground
Good for waving a white flag around though.

if i remember my german right it should translate right into murderstroke, or murderblow.

This

Attached: 10923184701414.jpg (602x269, 69K)

cope more sword fag You don't need close range if you kill them before they get that close

God fantasty medieval combat is so much fucking cooler than the real thing.

WRONG!: youtube.com/watch?v=d86sT3cF1Eo

>spears are well known to be shitter weapons that carry shitters through sheer range
lmao at all spearshitters

>Enemy gets closer
>just bring the spear blade closer to you to compensate

Swords are for slaughtering peasants, not fighting armored knights.

get your mate to wrestle him to the ground from behind and stab the cunt in the armpits with your dagger
fuck chivalry

t. inbred longbowman

>An entire video of SPEAR cope
Yikes.

Spears needing to cope when almost every strong military in the real world used them as weapon of choice

Yikes Swordfags are projecting again

t. sword virgin
youtu.be/afqhBODc_8U?t=189

Knock him down, disarm him and then ransom him for money. If he's rich enough to wear all of that he's rich enough for his family to pay for his life.

Is that Wojak on the left?

>he isn't a peasant and enjoys killing royalty
lmao'ing at ur life right now, noble

You can't except japs not to go for the flamboyant ending, it's in their blood.

Virtually all illuminations were painted by artists who were educated in monasteries and religious universities where the prevailing attitude was that serenity and solemness is a heroic virtue.

Swords were used because they're a versatile close combat weapon that has better range than a knife and is more agile and effective against soft armor than axes and maces (no, axes and maces are NOT good against soft armor).

Attached: 7c0f8940ee16b85bc87529aa2dac5100.jpg (700x965, 212K)

same reason why japs don't have any noses

>Lindybeige

Attached: 1401568373303.jpg (955x1430, 1.02M)

If you followed my advice you wouldn't need to be a peasant.

Which one is supposed to be Lindybeige?

*pierces your platemail in the hands of an untrained peasant*

Attached: crossbow.jpg (600x387, 33K)

By using a lucerne hammer, war hammer, mace or specialised dagger.

Attached: 80.jpg (800x1088, 280K)

Fuck didn't mean to reply

>Lindybeige
Did he ever release the results of the DNA ancestry test?

history often doesn't fucking make sense

tfw rarely warhammers in vidya

>draw a meme book
>sell it to idiot nobles to get them killed
>hundreds of years later LARPer nerds think you wrote a book with secret anime techniques

Attached: The+medieval+kht+fighting+a+snail+is+because+scholars+in+_ec2a82c5da80e32a0594b0f4cbe7f7d5.jpg (1000x524, 132K)

Attached: swing-a-way-portable-can-opener.jpg (900x900, 45K)

He did: youtube.com/watch?v=9X3QVCOZlvU

you don't know what demonstration means do you

Lure him to a body of water, push him in, and let the weight of the armor do the rest.

>Fuck Armored Knight

Attached: 3649712336_3c7affc155_o.jpg (912x698, 221K)

Battle Brothers is a rare game in that it did warhammers justice. Subpar against unarmored enemies, but able to absolutely tear through armor while sword and spearfags are stuck spending multiple turns trying to get through it. You pretty much have to have a few dedicated hammermen when fighting heavily armored orcs or noble armies.

Attached: hammer.png (289x461, 24K)

Alright tell me about your expriences in medieval combat and then come pretend like you know anything

Lars Anderson in a nutshell

dude's carrying a fucking at cannon. 30 years of style

too bad the game is garbage

not with that attitude

Same reason most go on about swords, and not the better weapon that was used more by knights; because it isn't as 'heroic' and shit.

Attached: 6345345342534.jpg (660x660, 65K)

Have you heard about our lord and savior QUARTERSTAFF?
Poking/thrusting? Staff, shit hurts
whack a knight? Staff
Less lethal? Knock their stupid bucket with a stick

>Neckbeards who never engaged in combat how would you fight this men

Yeah ask people who start heavily breathing when going to their microwave to put hot pockets into them how they would fight with a 20+kg armor and a heavy sword against a men who trained his entire life
Lmao 99% of people here couldnt even lift the sword more than 5 times hahahahaha

Attached: 521352315.gif (402x251, 2.63M)

So I get why holding a sword by the blade is fucking retarded for extremely obvious reasons, but in what world is using a weapon like a warhammer a bad idea against somebody in armor?

Attached: warhammer-large.jpg (300x300, 7K)

>34 minute video

I thought rapiers weren't a battlefield weapon?

>ITT: people talking about medieval combat as if it was all about 1v1 against armored knights

Attached: 1544831506627.jpg (754x1200, 189K)

>expriences in medieval combat

Everyone with experience in medieval combat is DEAD

Attached: 1462519556606.jpg (570x449, 80K)

youtube.com/watch?v=MZUgxWLfCwY
by using a Pollaxe

have sex

It's not a bad idea, that's what they were used for. The counter to warhammers was quilted armour, which meant covering your amour in a load of quilts.

None of that is true at all though, you can no longer do that shit

The single most jank thing you can currently do is a pale imitation of the Waterfall that only functions as an even slower overhead deceleration

a pike is a weapon.

sometimes you also use a gun, but it's nor a proper waffen like a pike.

swords are for intimidating peasants and personal defense

Oh, fuck. I misread your original post as "fighting armor with a blunt weapon is a bad idea"

Attached: 1554540542843.png (621x702, 56K)

Because the common consensus still is that HEMA is for embarrassing LARP nerds, that developers don't want to associate with to learn any better.

Imagine making a thread so shitty nobody gets it, Good luck next time, OP once again, a complete faggot.

Attached: 1554636887598.jpg (480x480, 27K)

t. 17th century footsoldier

truly war is hell

Name one (1) reason to believe manuals weren't the tacticool shit/youtube martial arts of their time. Real shit always look awkward just look at judofags demonstrating and then pulling each other for 2 minutes before one suddenly ends up on the ground

This is why spearchads are superior.

Attached: main-qimg-d971a5902ef135e30d1d9fcea4156206-c.jpg (600x400, 48K)

Im no combat expert but… couldn't the guy in full armour just stampede over the peasant? You know, getting so close to the halfswording idiot that he wouldn't be able to generate enough power into his swings to harm you. Considering he's reliant on utilising the swords guard for pummeling all you'd have to do is just get inside the swings arch.

And to finish the fight you'd just hold the sword from the handle like you are fucking supposed to do and stab from close range while the assburger is fumbling with the ridiculous halfswording meme

well, it is.

lmao
you guys realise that nobody used big swords or wore big suits of armour in the past, right?
those were all just for show at tournaments or parades and stuff

getting smacked on the head can give you a serious concussion even if you've got a good helmet. stampeding is a good way to eat shit to a cheapshot

Any other armor types used in the medieval combat times?

>Holding a bladed weapon by the edge is an even worse idea, about a hundred times worse.
Swords were never that sharp. Think about a steel ruler, would you feel uncomfortable gripping it tightly? Definitely not. Would you want to be hit really hard with the edge of one? Fuck no. That's how medieval swords worked.

Just read Some flemish history and their knight killing hobby. They used woorden clubs and beat the tin cans into the swamp they came from

There's always that guy with a his regular clothes, a gambeson and maybe a chainmail but a mace is still bad news.

Mail Armor
Lamellar Armor
Brigandine
Coat Of Plate

Rapiers were pretty much universally the sword for musketeers because at the time the only armor most other foot soldiers wore was a breast plate and helmet, which meant that having a long bladed sword that could thrust and cut at the unarmored areas like the face, arms and lower torso was ideal.
There were still sometimes specialized swordsmen who used very large two handed swords or shield and sword combinations, but they were primarily for breaking up pike formations and didn't last.

Attached: eae49349625c57d310077a46cbc263a5.jpg (736x1023, 346K)

Wouldn't it be a really poor grip? A thin blade isn't exactly a solid thing to grab onto, especially if you are wearing bulky mail gauntlets. It seems like it would be easy to lose your grip entirely.

I teach kids who pay me money how to do hema and shit what do you guys want to know about it

no way, you are supposed to hold your sword like this retard

Attached: ff-vii-1485891162930_960w.jpg (960x719, 101K)

Nothing because i already know all of it

youre fuckin clueless lol.
stop typing and spreading wrong trash

ah ok. to be honest that's really about it too, just somewhat invent "fitness" shit to do and get paid. simple job

>Think about a steel ruler, would you feel uncomfortable gripping it tightly? Definitely not

unless it's had its edges smoothed that sounds like a good way to cut your hand tbqh

Maybe "stampede" was a bit too colourful choice of words

I meant more like just walking up to the peasant so that you could basically hug him and just still keep walking, all the while driving your weapon through him

Yeah running charge could be just be dodged over and over until you tire

love how the media directly creates experts of something who haven't touched a sword or a weapon in their life. go back to video games

That's a really good analogy, Imma steal it for later

>take step forward
>other guy takes a step back

so much for that cunning plan

>Wouldn't it be a really poor grip?
It wouldn't be great, but it's better than trying to use the business end against another noble in full plate. You brought the sword along to hack away at the thirty unarmored militia you already killed before shit got dire and you had to fight somebody with training and more equipment than a sharp stick.

Nani?!

>especially if you are wearing bulky mail gauntlets
You would never be wearing gauntlets that had mail on the inside of the hand, most fighters just wore leather gloves.

[citation needed and will never be provided]

You could walk the peasant out of his lands which would achieve the original goal of conquest anyways, gg

Being sharp is irrelevant
You can grip a razor sharp sword and half-sword it with no danger.

Historians have literally no idea what fully armored sword fights were like. They best they have to go on is crude illustrations.

Save it, it's all yours my friend.

I can't tell who's winning but I do know they're both going to trip over those spears.

>You can grip a razor sharp sword and half-sword it with no danger.
Okay no, that's an exaggeration. There's not NO danger. If you're doing it correctly you're going to be mostly safe, sure, but in reality you're under extreme pressure, the sword is going to get jostled on impacts, and everybody fucks up once in a while, so you could definitely get cut if the sword was razor sharp.

But again it wouldn't be, so that's a moot point.

>Me, when fighting an armed opponent in middle ages

Attached: 8575403.webm (638x360, 239K)

personal defense 101

>it just works!

>KEK Hollywood movies are so much more betterer than people shooting each other in real combat!

You woulnd't say that if you were a retarded farmer being chased by the medieval version of a tank.

I think the big problem is that it was probably extremely rare for knights to fight other knights in mortal combat. Lance and sword were used with great effect to cut down poorly trained and equipped peasant rabble. For jousts, I think full armor and blunt swords are fully sufficient for a tough sparring match (the melee).

>thinking people willfully rush to their deaths like that
ok.

Can't wait for realistic full-dive VR games, where you can bury all these medieval larpers and their "historically accurate" teachings

>keep on taking steps forward until the invader walks all the way out of your kingdom

Attached: 1554102469015.png (721x491, 85K)

>knights had air traffic wands
What is this bullshit?

Attached: proxy.duckduckgo.com.jpg (394x226, 24K)

>Just play Chivalry
Not him but I tried it after a long break and there was always 2 top dudes killing literally everyone that got close to them and was impossible to counter for anyone apparently. They knew how to avoid archers and the like so even that was no good against them. Couldn't tell if they cheated or the game legit breaks that hard when someone knows all the quirks.

>Couldn't tell if they cheated or the game legit breaks that hard when someone knows all the quirks
It does, it's a broken game

Remember that the video is of a non-lethal recreation. We don't actually know what the real thing was like and would likely contain more grappling rather than rapid-fire jabbing for points.

>realistic VR
>manlets get BTFO by superior reach

Why would swords not be supremely sharp when the majority of your opponents are not plate armored knights? Why would it not be sharp even against plate armor if that's all you got? A simple glove nullifies any damage from half-swording a sharp sword.

Its a rondel dagger. And if you think this bullshit just wait until you find out about bollock daggers.

Attached: bollock dagger.png (380x734, 660K)

Protip: swords are sharp

Preferably with a polearm or even a hammer. If you have to use a sword, you do this: youtu.be/5hlIUrd7d1Q

That's historically accurate depiction of a sword duel in heavy armour.

Attached: 496f0109b5261e7e0db.jpg (453x604, 71K)

With enough force, a completely blunt object can go through someone. Butter knives aren't sharp, but you could still kill a man with one

Why do you imply you'd desire a sub optimal weapon for cutting?

Wrestle him down and stab him in the eye with your dagger.

>A heavily armed opponent that falls flat on the ground is an opponent that has been defeated.
Says it all, you don't know shit.

Swords are sharp but not at the part that you grip. The tip and upper part of the sword is what's sharp since that's the part you cut with.

Because it doesn't need to be sharp for the intended effect. The weight alone is enough for it to cause damage and cut, imagine swinging a bat at someone but that it has a wedge

shoot him

>take their inspiration from OTHER GAMES THAT DO IT WRONG instead of actual fighting

But user, it HAS TO be like Street Fighter or Tekken or else it can't really be called fighting.

That felt obvious now that you say it.

And what benefit is this compared to sharp? It does the job but a sharp weapon does it better, what does a blunt sword do better?

Stab the bastards in the open bits. Specifically, visor, sometimes neck.
In that video in particular, you can see the man raising his sword a lot. That leaves his underarms massively vulnerable, as plate armor cannot cover that without restricting movement and making you permanently T-Pose. That's in a sense, mostly unprotected. Unless he's wearing gambeson (which he appears to be wearing on top of his armor, strangely) or a chainmail gousset underneath his armor, that's a brilliant fleshy bit to stab. Keep in mind that you have major arteries in your arm and it's close to your heart, meaning that you'll do a lot of damage if you were to plunge your sword in the underarm.
Knees, sometimes ankles and the groin are also areas that can be unprotected, but you want to generally go for the underarm.

Your tactic for fighting a knight in medieval plate armor is not to stab him with your sword. You wouldn't be able to cut his plate, as you correctly identified, even with a halberd. You'd have to use your sword for blunt force or tactically strike any of the spots I've referred to up there. You'd generally use your sword to batter and wap your opponent until you can push or shove or knock him over. When on the ground, it's hard to get up with an opponent lusting for your blood. Unless you were to stab him with your sword on the ground (can't remember the term for it right now), you'd usually drop or move your sword out the way, draw your dagger from your belt and move down and stab them in the underarms if they didn't yield.

>inb4 what do u kno fgt u weren't there
historical texts and your mom told me

>This book has a picture on it so it must be true!!!1
I'm all for more realistic gameplay, but HEMAfags acting like some sort of authority in the matter, when most of their larp is based on just theories really rustles my jimmies.

Nothing, he's just arguing for the sake of arguing. Swords were kept sharp when possible but combat wasn't always as pretty as it is in movies. You'd fight with whatever you had and sometimes it was a blunt sword.

If you want historical accuracy, check out schola gladiatoria on youtube. They deal with medieval weapons and armour while striving for historical accuracy. They also review movie and TV show fight scenes and explain what's realistic about them and what's fantasy.

There's also HEMA sparring vids where you can see what actual sword combat looked like, what the stances and moves were like etc. It wasn't nearly as flashy as vidya/movie combat which is why accurate combat isn't being used. It's just not fun.

I'm and I can give you a really, really simple answer.
You know surface area, right? The more surface area, the more particles can react, that kind of thing?
When it comes to attacking someone in plate armor, you don't want to cut. You want to apply force. A sharp knife edge? You try to hit with that and it's going to slip. Your hands might twist and you're not going to apply as much force. But, a more blunted edge which is just a bit more wide, there's a less chance of that happening and you apply greater pressure to the area you strike because it's still got a narrow surface area, but it's great enough that you can get a full blow in without it slipping off.

That's why the discussion earlier in the thread is a bit dumb. I imagine that some knights would have hit other knights with their hilt. It's probably not their smartest endeavour, but they needed to pummel their foes and if they had a super sharp blade (which wouldn't have cut them due to their gauntlets) then they would have probably turned it round.

Solved that armor problem ya'll were dealing with

Attached: 1532891414764.jpg (800x716, 28K)

>when most of their larp is based on just theories
As opposed to what? There is no alternative.

>he doesn't watch M1 Medieval
youtu.be/uGlDFrrZFrE
Watch that you fags. Swords are blunt but it's the closest to real combat you're getting. They score points for clean hits, there's swords and shields being broken like in real combat, there's punching, kicking, wrestling, people getting knocked the fuck out.

You can also see how effective armor is since they're delivering full strength blows to each other. Even with a blunt sword that would crack your skull open without a helmet.

This or a halberd formation are really the only answers
without considering guns obviously

This isnt true at all.

Where the F U C K is Bannerlord?

on the EGS

spears killed way more people than any other weapon by far

The issue with kingdom come isn't whether it is right or wrong.
In fact, the animations certainly are more right than wrong, in the sense of being the most physically advantageous movements to swing such weapons.

However, the game has two major issues:

First they wanted to make it very realistic, but that poses two problems.
>realistic doesn't equal fun
>realistic equals unlimited possible animations

Secondly, the underlying game mechanics, rules and systems are poorly thought out, again posing multiple problems.
>the character gets too strong (stats and equipment) too quickly
>the optimal fighting style is exactly the opposite of being realistic
>there is a single attack that is better than any other attack, allowing to cheese through all of the game
>the blocking isn't skill based
>the damage and armor values are retarded
>npcs are massively retarded
>fighting multiple enemies controls like shit, yet still no challenges, because npcs are retarded
>there are just too many ways to cheese fights
>overall huge balancing issues (value of equipment, power of skills / weapons / armor etc.)

So to make the game fun, it would have to simplify and reduce the amount of possible actions to an enjoyable level (like in mount&blade) and also hire some competent game designers and not some autists that don't know what fun is.

This seems to imply they had swords specifically blunted for combat against plate armor but has that ever been the case when other weapons were specifically made to combat armor? I get they appear to use the hilt and pommel to pound when that's all you got but that still does not suggest anyone would want their sword anything but sharp. Maybe there are somewhat blunted armor bashing swords (using the edge) but I have never heard about such a thing and I would find it hard to believe.

>manlets create giant avatars
>get knees slashed by hobbits

Well another user posted it earlier, but crossbows were so unbalanced for the time period they held their own geneva convention to ban them.

Attached: 1529267967162.png (850x850, 84K)

Wouldn't even care at this point, just RELEASE THE FUCKING GAME

Exanima is drunken fighting.

But the combat is good, the only problem is that it gets too easy as time goes on.

I'm no expert in swordsmanship or anything, but doesn't the sharp end usually go forward?

>>realistic doesn't equal fun

It can. I had plenty of fun with the fighting in Kingdom Come. The only thing I didn't like was switching the targeting.

>I know even a greatsword wouldn't be able to cut him

What do you think the armor's made of? Vibranium? A full-force hit will cleave through plate, break bone, and wreck muscles, no question about it. The point of armor is mainly to guard against indirect hits and minor cuts that would still be deadly to an unprotected combatant.

It got old for me really quick and relied to heavily on number padding in the end.

>spears killed way more people than any other weapon by far

What are bows?

No, what do YOU think swords are made of? Adamantium?
At best a hit would dent armor a little bit you stupid fuck, not to mention the padding completely absorbing the force of the blow.

The only reason for this happening is because piercing movers are prohibitted.

Didn't "they" appeal to the pope to ban them but it didn't go through?

You don't. Those who wore full body armor were either knights or nobles and lords, they very rarely died on the battlefield. This is why nobles were portrayed as having a cup of tea with one another before or after a battle or some such, it was just a game to them because they objectively had the best gear out of their entire army which was very expensive to both acquire and maintain. Nobles and knights had so little fear on the battlefield, they developed a false sense of historical bravery and valor. They weren't afraid even against a line of spears and charged straight into enemy formations because they simply would not be killed by a spear line that's shitting their pants at decked out stallions and fully armored nobles. A spear won't kill a horse in full armor, and a sword won't kill a knight in full armor unless it was a careful duel, or he was mobbed by peasants.

The only way to truly figure this shit out is to have actual deathmatches, maybe in the future we will know, who knows.

How about you go actually work with steel to see what it's like and come back after. Making an armor that durable would also make it impossibly heavy to wear.

you can stab the pointy bits onto the armor but doubtful it'll go all the way through, or if it hits a rounded surface it'll glide right off
sometimes its more reliable to clunk their noggin

Those swords are ineffective as piercing weapons against armor.

What if two other guys wrestled down a knight and you took a big fucking shit right down his vizor? He'd either choke and die or survive and die from disease later.

What if that knight was a cute girl and she would like it? What if she licks your butthole clean after shitting?

mace>>>>every other close range weapon, it has an answer to every situation. prove me wrong you literally can't

Attached: Blackwake_Nock_Volley_Gun.jpg (1100x618, 72K)

>3v1
bullshit unfair

Nice how chivalry only swings from one side huh? See that knight? You can shoot him with a crossbow and he's fucking dead.

I would run away. I heard those full plate guys could only run around for a bit before they'd exhaust themselves and most murders on the battlefield were people just walking up to them when they collapsed and sticking a knife in them. Which is a pretty shit way to go if true.

Most/many knights were on horseback to alleviate this. Riding together to mitigate the risk of getting pulled off. As you say, it doesn't sound like fun times running into the enemy from neutral lines and being twice as exhausted as them once you get into melee.

steps forward are fast and reliable.
steps back are slow and each one has a probability of tripping

And fuck ever being in video games, because devs are lazy shits.
>spears were in morrowind

-heavy
-blow ends all momentum
That's why you carry a saber as a sidearm.

Realistic swordplay(game wise) is boring anyway.

Attached: 589408935.jpg (1920x1080, 344K)

>We have purposely trained him wrong, as a joke.

careful with those jade empire spoilers

>accurate stances and movements
is that too much to ask?