Poll: REALISTIC medieval combat

[Mordekaien]

The closest thing to gunpoweder weapons was a shitty version of a cannon. Training with guns? Look, this isn't the English Longbow.

So you're saying that handling of guns from that era doesn't require any skill?
And as far as bows go, most nations weren't going for pinpoint accuracy shots, but for volleys of arrows, making sure some of those arrows land in on something in that area it hits. Sharpshooters were much less common.

 

[antipirate]

EDIT: Also the way you're toting this it sounds like you want a duelling sort of game. Well that cuts about half the weapons choices out. Because a lot of an armies choice of weapons wasn't what would be best in single combat, but what would be effective in group combat.

I just wanted to second this

 

[Frankster]

There's a free game on steam called Age of Chivalry.

OP that might satisfy you, whilst it doen't completely answer your wishes it is biled as a somewhat realistic medievil multi game.

 

[spartan231490]

Not to say that a game like that wouldn't have some novelty value, but it would be really boring. Not to mention prohibitively difficult. Also, if you wanted it to be truly realistic, you would have to take into account that piercing is not the only way to do damage through armor, you can just use a massive war hammer where the energy translates through the armor and deals some pretty serious internal injuries. In fact, you would almost certainly need to do some information gathering in the real world if you wanted it to be truly realistic.

For example, i had always thought that a sword or axe would go through chain-mail with a direct hit, but on that show where they compare ancient soldiers against each other, they had some "samurai" try to cut through some chain-mail and they couldn't. they didn't even come close. On the other hand, something like a very long hilted curved chopping sword would probably cut through to some extent. Don't know what it's called, the guy at the renaissance fair called it a "Mongolian long sword" but googling that gives a completely different image. Even then, a system like that almost completely reduces the game to nothing more than who has the best gear. Particularly since a truly accurate game wouldn't have "health" it would need to be something like a kill or not system, or perhaps health based on bleeding.

 

[Caligulove]

It would be fun for a bit of entertainment, but I'd be lying to myself if I thought it could really have any lasting fun factor or that it could really catch on in popularity to make it anything other than on the level of a mod with a devoted fan base. Which is perfectly fine.

 

[evilneko]

Honestly I think this search for perfect realism is just a misdirected effort. What we really want is "Logical" take for example, mass effect. It's not "Realistic" but it makes some kind of logical sense in the context of the game. "Okay, fictional element bends the rules of physics allowing fantastical feats of technology." You're able to suspend your disbelief because it -SEEMS- at least slightly plausible.

Bingo. [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WillingSuspensionOfDisbelief]

Yeah. I just linked TVTropes. Mwahahaha.

It is a good idea to create a "realistic" medieval game, but there are several issues that you would have to address. First, basically that "realism" is never reality itself, and that there will always be distortions when the media, like games, tries to portray things. For example: did you know that Alexander the Great only lost 75 men due to battle injuries during his entire drive eastward? The media tends to romanticize medieval and classical combat, but in many cases, it was well-trained and armed soldiers fighting against rag-tag combatants. Alexander lost far more men fue to construction accidents and disease then he ever lost to the sword.

No wonder his Ionian Hetairoi army was so massive!

And he also lost far more of them to "accidents" than to swords, too. Massive parallels!

 

[Ryan Hughes]

No wonder his Ionian Hetairoi army was so massive!

And he also lost far more of them to "accidents" than to swords, too. Massive parallels!

Actually, I made a bit of a typo, I meant to say 750 men lost, not 75. . . Though, that is still an amazing number for what he conquered.

 

[Dansen]

War of the Roses is...damn it, ninja'd.

 

[demoman_chaos]

-snip-

Few issues lad. Mail was very hard to pierce, which is why it was used from 300 bc to even now in the form of shark protection. If mail was easy to pierce, it wouldn't have been the go to armor for centuries.
Full plate armor weighs only 60-80 lbs, with the armor on the arms and legs thinner and the entire suit designed to fit the individual. With a bit of time to get used to it, the armor all but disappears on you (I know from experience with my chainmail). The helmet is all that restricts your breathing a bit (plus your vision and hearing).

Umm.. Not entirely which post of mine you are referring to. Could you help me out a little bit?

Your opening one. You posted quite a few myths, the ones that bug me more than most anything else.

 

[A Weakgeek]

-snip-

Few issues lad. Mail was very hard to pierce, which is why it was used from 300 bc to even now in the form of shark protection. If mail was easy to pierce, it wouldn't have been the go to armor for centuries.
Full plate armor weighs only 60-80 lbs, with the armor on the arms and legs thinner and the entire suit designed to fit the individual. With a bit of time to get used to it, the armor all but disappears on you (I know from experience with my chainmail). The helmet is all that restricts your breathing a bit (plus your vision and hearing).

Umm.. Not entirely which post of mine you are referring to. Could you help me out a little bit?

Your opening one. You posted quite a few myths, the ones that bug me more than most anything else.

I'm... still not quite sure about the "myths" I posted, unless you are referring to the fact where I said heavier armor would slow and fatigue you more? I thought that was just logic, surely a man trained to wear full plate armor would still move faster/with more ease if he was wearing something lighter?

 

[demoman_chaos]

I'm... still not quite sure about the "myths" I posted, unless you are referring to the fact where I said heavier armor would slow and fatigue you more? I thought that was just logic, surely a man trained to wear full plate armor would still move faster/with more ease if he was wearing something lighter?

You said mail was easily pierced in point #2 of your opening post, it is quite the opposite. Butted reenactment mail that everyone tests is not historically accurate. It is like testing sheet metal to see how strong tempered plate is. Real mail intended for use in battle would use a mix of riveted and solid rings, which would hold together while butted mail rings unbend and let the blades slide through.

For #3, the stamina bar is flawed. As it works in games like Oblivion, it is not accurate. If anything, it should be a a gradual loss the occurs over the course of a long battle. I do live steel viking reenactment combat, and I can go 4 or 5 fights while wearing my chainmail and still be able to fight effectively (though I do prefer having a break from the fighting when winded like that). I've worn my mail all day a few times with no issues. Armor is easier to wear than a backpack because of how its weight is distributed on you.

 

[ThePenguinKnight]

Realistic medieval combat would be very slow, clunky, and awkward. But would I be interested in it? Sure, at least it's something somewhat new and I'm getting pretty tired of the button mashing hack and slash garbage were currently getting.