Blocking with a shield and swinging a weapon simultaneously

[Valvar]

Please, PLEASE somehow fix the game so that this will be possible. I understand that this is a balance issue, but it would add so much to the immersion and realism.
This comes from someone who has done quite a bit of LARPing, and usually fights with a shield. I talked to a couple of friends who do re-enactments about this back when we were playing quite a bit of Warband, and they agreed.
A shield should be quite a powerful item, rather than a temporary blocking device.
I do understand that it would seem overpowered, but you could balance it out by making swings while blocking a lot weaker.
Seriously, this is the one feature I really felt was missing from Warband.

[Kamikazuh]

Well..
This would be really quite unbalanced. You'd be invulnerable while you are blocking. So what would make you not to keep your shield up all the time, and swing also. Making you practically unbeatable, untill your shield breaks.

In this, as in warband, while you block, you block all attacking directions. Which would make it really hard to attack aswell. While in reality attacking simultaneously with a shield, you will give your opponent atleast a couple of openings. So I don't think it would create realism (or immersion). You simply cannot sit behind your shield while (effectively) swinging your weapon. He'd just cut your arm off.

[ElricVonRabe]

Or you could just add shield-bashing, if it's not already implemented.

[Siegbert85]

Please, don't listen to OP ^^
The way M&B did it was just fine. No need to change it.

[Pouring]

I think they've mentioned the perk shield-bash a few times.

[Valvar]

Shield-bashing is not really what I am asking for, if you read the OP. As mentioned, when you do attack from behind a shield in real-life you do create a few slight openings. Being cut in the arm should definitely be a possibility in my opinion (in reality, of course, you can block with both your sword and shield).

[ElricVonRabe]

There are more than just a few slight openings when you attack while blocking with a shield.

Of course War of the Roses can't simulate all the tricks and things you can pull of in a real fight with sword & shield, so I'm not saying all of this has to be included, or anything, but I'll use it to "counter" your argument.

Attacking with a shield raised like you imply is absolutely ineffective with anything but a spear.
I know it's shown in Hollywood all the time, but those are all choreography.

I'm not saying it's always bad to raise your shield and stab away, but you leave far more openings than just "your arm to cut". Not to mention that cutting damage isn't the most dangerous thing in the period War of the Roses is set in, as plate armour negates almost ALL cutting damage.

Now enough rambling, I'll get to the point:

If you raise your shield while attacking, you do alot of things to restrict yourself:

1. You block alot of your vision, at least if the shield is held in the typical "straight forward" stance that is seen in most games and movies, and which is very ineffective at anything but for forming a shieldwall.

2. You restrict the movement of your weapon arm. You have to stretch out your arm alot to even reach the opponent, and the force your blows will have if you attack like that is very low most of the time (stabbing is a different matter, there are alot of things you can do when stabbing while using a shield)

3. You restrict your movement in general and are very vulnerable to pushing (again, if the shield is held straight out to cover your body), since you can't really balance any pushing impact you get from the front in that pose.

On the other hand, the guy you're trying to attack while you block has so many ways to hurt you:


1. He can simply sidestep your blow, if it isn't a very fast step, go around your shield and hit you however he likes, if you don't back off fast enough.

2. He can block your attack by attacking himself (<- VERY IMPORTANT for combat in general - ALWAYS be the AGGRESSOR, never the defender), while simply bashing down your shield and hitting you in the face, bringing you off balance even if you wear a helmet

3. He can block your attack by sidestepping, or attacking, or even simply blocking, and just bash you away, or even grapple you. Remember, you're in an awkward stance if you hold your shield out straight to the front.


Of course you can attack while using your shield, but most of the time, it's while using your shield to BASH, to interrupt and hold off your opponents weapon, not to just hold it in front of you.

Well, you could duck, holding your shield high above you to protect your head, and stab and swing at his torso, but you'd have to rely on your opponent not getting around your shield fast enough, and that is always a very risky gamble. Or you could let your sword slide around your shield, stabbing when an opening is coming up.

Summary:

Simply waving your sword around while holding your shield in front of you is stupid. You will get hit. And die, eventually.
There are only a few "techniques" you can use effectively while actively defending with your shield.

Shield bashing on the other hand, was (and is) widely used - it's so much better than simply blocking - you do not only interrupt or redirect your opponents weapon, you also restrict his movement by closing in and if it works out well, even manage to get a few blows in.

And those heavy steel shields shown in the alpha, those pack a punch.
So yeah, I'm all for shield-bashing, but swinging away while just holding block, hell no. Stabbing maybe... but yeah, I've already mentioned that.

Anyways, those are my opinions on this suggestion.
You may now disagree or agree with them, or curse or bless them, I don't mind.

[Valvar]

Thank you, your post is great and you do have a few points. However, a few of them are also inaccurate.

My response is that of LARPer. Of course it is not as realistic as re-enactments at all, but I do have some experience with fighting fake battles with a shield.

"1. You block alot of your vision, at least if the shield is held in the typical "straight forward" stance that is seen in most games and movies, and which is very ineffective at anything but for forming a shieldwall."

I have never had a problem with my vision being blocked. I typically hold my large square shield so that the upper edge at throat or chin level, exposing the head and the lower parts of my legs. Smaller shields are lighter and more mobile while covering less area of the body.

"2. You restrict the movement of your weapon arm. You have to stretch out your arm alot to even reach the opponent, and the force your blows will have if you attack like that is very low most of the time (stabbing is a different matter, there are alot of things you can do when stabbing while using a shield)"

This is absolutely true. This is why I said that the arm is vulnerable, because it is a common place to get hurt when attacking from behind a shield. That and the head as well as the legs. The restriction doesn't matter too much, though, because you don't have to block effectively with your sword as you can already do that with your shield. The strength of your hits will of course be weaker. I don't know about stabbing; I don't have any experience with that as it has always been banned on the LARPs that I have been to.

"3. You restrict your movement in general and are very vulnerable to pushing (again, if the shield is held straight out to cover your body), since you can't really balance any pushing impact you get from the front in that pose."

I'd rather say the opposite. A shield is very good for protecting against pushing. While you are not very agile and it is harder to dodge incoming threats, it is not a very good idea to "push" a shieldman. The only time that it is a good idea is when rushing a shield wall, to remove the advantage of the shields. And that is still a very risky thing to do, and is fatal to the aggressors if not successful.



"1. He can simply sidestep your blow, if it isn't a very fast step, go around your shield and hit you however he likes, if you don't back off fast enough."

Exactly. This is how you fight someone with a shield, and would be how you would fight someone with a shield in WotR.


"2. He can block your attack by attacking himself (<- VERY IMPORTANT for combat in general - ALWAYS be the AGGRESSOR, never the defender), while simply bashing down your shield and hitting you in the face, bringing you off balance even if you wear a helmet"

Well, that is the point of the shield. It makes simply bashing away at you a pretty ineffective method. "Simply bashing down your shield and hitting you in the face, bringing you off balance" isn't quite that "simple". What you said about being the aggressor is partly true, but it depends a lot on the situation. If you are behind a shield you want to be a bit passive and wait your opponent out, as in wait for him to attack recklessly and make a mistake.

"3. He can block your attack by sidestepping, or attacking, or even simply blocking, and just bash you away, or even grapple you. Remember, you're in an awkward stance if you hold your shield out straight to the front."

Well, yes, but the word "simply" does not fit very well here. Despite what you think, a person behind a shield can be surprisingly fast in close quarters. A shield does not make your reaction time slower, and you can still counter blows just as efficiently. "Bashing away at you", "attacking" and "grappling" are all things that if not executed with high skill aren't very clever to use against someone with a shield.


"Simply waving your sword around while holding your shield in front of you is stupid. You will get hit. And die, eventually.
There are only a few "techniques" you can use effectively while actively defending with your shield. "

A shield provides A LOT of defence. Of course you will get hit and die eventually, but it will take three times as long as without a shield. This comes at the expense of not being as deadly and fast as someone without a shield.


"Shield bashing on the other hand, was (and is) widely used - it's so much better than simply blocking - you do not only interrupt or redirect your opponents weapon, you also restrict his movement by closing in and if it works out well, even manage to get a few blows in."

It is indeed a good thing to do, but if fighting multiple opponents or executed in a bad way can be fatal as you leave huge openings.

[ElricVonRabe]

Thank you, your post is great and you do have a few points. However, a few of them are also inaccurate.

Please understand how hard it is for me to not just go "Larping is not combat" on some of your arguments, I'll try to adress them properly, without any disrespect.

And please use the quote function next time, so it's more easy to see what is part of my original post, and what your replies are.

"1. You block alot of your vision, at least if the shield is held in the typical "straight forward" stance that is seen in most games and movies, and which is very ineffective at anything but for forming a shieldwall."

I have never had a problem with my vision being blocked. I typically hold my large square shield so that the upper edge at throat or chin level, exposing the head and the lower parts of my legs. Smaller shields are lighter and more mobile while covering less area of the body.

The issue is, if you hold your shield like that, your head is exposed.

With armour as advanced as in War of the Roses, the head is the main target. Concussion on the head always works, if there is enough force behind an attack. Most of your body is protected by your armour anyway, but the head is always vulnerable to strong attacks, stabs, buttstrikes, even tough punches. If you hold your shield like that, you will get hit on the head. Alot. Till you tell them to stop. Because you're getting dizzy. Even IF you manage to hold your shield high enough to cover your head fast enough, the force of a blow will simply bring your shield down and continue it's way to end up on your head. Yes, with less force, but once your guard is down, further attacks will follow.

"3. You restrict your movement in general and are very vulnerable to pushing (again, if the shield is held straight out to cover your body), since you can't really balance any pushing impact you get from the front in that pose."

I'd rather say the opposite. A shield is very good for protecting against pushing. While you are not very agile and it is harder to dodge incoming threats, it is not a very good idea to "push" a shieldman. The only time that it is a good idea is when rushing a shield wall, to remove the advantage of the shields. And that is still a very risky thing to do, and is fatal to the aggressors if not successful.

I politely disagree.

I've seen an unarmed martial-artist just make his way trough a shield wall, with shields used exactly like described in your argument.
It's even more effective when supported by 20Kg of armour. Stopping that metal cannonball running at you full speed doesn't happen by holding your shield in front of you. It happens due to a real wall or a sidestep. There was a reason shields were discarded in most battles in the period of WotR.

"2. He can block your attack by attacking himself (<- VERY IMPORTANT for combat in general - ALWAYS be the AGGRESSOR, never the defender), while simply bashing down your shield and hitting you in the face, bringing you off balance even if you wear a helmet"

Well, that is the point of the shield. It makes simply bashing away at you a pretty ineffective method. "Simply bashing down your shield and hitting you in the face, bringing you off balance" isn't quite that "simple". What you said about being the aggressor is partly true, but it depends a lot on the situation. If you are behind a shield you want to be a bit passive and wait your opponent out, as in wait for him to attack recklessly and make a mistake.

I'll just say that I believe that your opinion on this is due to your lack of experience in full-force combat, with no corners cut. Which is not BAD, don't get me wrong - it's perfectly fine that not all people like being hit by metal objects all the time.

The second you stop being the aggressor, you're the one trying not to get hit. When you're the one trying not to get hit, you're the one not paying enough attention to FUCKING BASH YOUR OPPONENTS HEAD IN. Staying on the defense and not ultimately lose is something almost impossible in a real fight. Always be in the state of mind that makes you want to hit your opponent hard, to get the heck in there and rip his heart out.

Also, seriously. You can hold your shield up high. A good fighter, in plate armour like in WotR would just grab your shield, get it out of the way, and bash your bloody face with his weapon, armoured fist or elbow, till you're giving up, get so dizzy you fall down, or just lose the will to fight since you're being the defender AND being beaten to a pulp.

In armour like that, why should your opponent give a shit about if you manage to hit him with the other arm holding your weapon?
As long as he keeps from hitting his head or other vital parts, which is very much possible by simply restricting and disrupting your movements with his other arm, he's not using to bash your face in, he's good. A scratch on the armour doesn't put him out of the fight. Getting the crap beaten our of your head Power-Armoured Muhammed Ali style WILL put you out of the fight soon enough.

I'm sorry if this comes across in any kind of wrong way, that's not the intention: I merely have to use very direct language to get my point across. So please don't be offended - it's not my intention to offend you.

"3. He can block your attack by sidestepping, or attacking, or even simply blocking, and just bash you away, or even grapple you. Remember, you're in an awkward stance if you hold your shield out straight to the front."

Well, yes, but the word "simply" does not fit very well here. Despite what you think, a person behind a shield can be surprisingly fast in close quarters. A shield does not make your reaction time slower, and you can still counter blows just as efficiently. "Bashing away at you", "attacking" and "grappling" are all things that if not executed with high skill aren't very clever to use against someone with a shield.

I use a shield half the time, I know how fast it can be. But can you grab with a shield? No. The other guy can just GRAB your shield and make it useless. You can't do that. (Not saying that it's always easy to just grab a shield and drag it somewhere useless for the guy using it) And real steel shields like in WotR do weigh a lot, I know, I use them. They don't slow your reaction time, but the time your arm needs to GET where you want it to be.

You always have to look at it this way: There is a god running at you with rage in his face, he wants to hit you, he wants to kill you. If there is a bloody shield in the way, he will find away around, find a way to put it out of business, while trying to hit you all the time. There is NO TIME in a real fight. Of course, WotR is a game, you have time for thinking about things like that, but when shit hits the fan in real life, you will not have enough time to do things completely your way, ever. Things just happen, you can't plan them.

That last paragraph does not apply to video games though, I just had to say it - I Apologise for that.

"Simply waving your sword around while holding your shield in front of you is stupid. You will get hit. And die, eventually.
There are only a few "techniques" you can use effectively while actively defending with your shield. "

A shield provides A LOT of defence. Of course you will get hit and die eventually, but it will take three times as long as without a shield. This comes at the expense of not being as deadly and fast as someone without a shield.

You contradict yourself - earlier, you mentioned that someone can be surprisingly fast with a shield, and that it doesn't slow you down: now you say it does. It would improve your arguments if you decided on sticking to what you said earlier in the same post. This is an online board, it's not important, and nobody here will be able to really get to you by calling out the inconsistence in your arguments - it's just a hint for future, serious debates.

Also, someone with a shield can be just as deadly as someone without a shield. The shield is weapon as well, we all agree on that I think.
It does provide defense, but saying that it'll take 3 times as long to bring a person with a shield down than it takes to get someone not using a shield, that's rather exaggerated. If you mess up, a shield is no good. If you mess up, nothing will save you but pure armour, if you're lucky.

"Shield bashing on the other hand, was (and is) widely used - it's so much better than simply blocking - you do not only interrupt or redirect your opponents weapon, you also restrict his movement by closing in and if it works out well, even manage to get a few blows in."

It is indeed a good thing to do, but if fighting multiple opponents or executed in a bad way can be fatal as you leave huge openings.

Anything can be fatal and leave huge openings if executed in a bad way. Fact.
But I just think that the men we are going to play in WotR are going to be battle-hardened veterans, that won't let that happen too often.


Alright, I hope I wasn't too harsh in voicing my opinions, as it wasn't my intention - I just need to bold at times, to get my point across, get those thoughts in the heads of people.

I'm looking forward to replies all around, we have a nice discussion going on here, methinks.

[tubbles]

It seems medieval reenactors are a bit more hardcore than their friends in the Napoleonic community.

As you said, shieldwalls stopped for a reason. They worked well for the Romans because of their whole tactical approach, not just because of their shields. They stopped being as useful in large battles because a proper shieldwall is basically two lines smushed together while the people behind them try to attack legs, arms and heads. As soon as troops became well armoured, this was useless as you couldn't get through armour without the space required to wield the appropriate weapon.
(of course, mail did still negate most hits, but it covered less than plate.) Individual fighting it was more useful to deflect (not block) blows, but heavily armoured soldiers would just use their armour to deflect a sword.

This is from a historian, not a reenactor or anything, so that's my inexpert idea of it.

Seperate point: From what I have seen of paintings of warfare from the medieval period, footsoldiers are very rarely seen with visored helms, but cavalry all have them. Obviously most painters weren't soldiers, so was this true to life at all?
Example image. (also, only 2 shields, and from cavalry)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ndon%29_01.jpg

[Kator Viridian]

It seems medieval reenactors are a bit more hardcore than their friends in the Napoleonic community.

As you said, shieldwalls stopped for a reason. They worked well for the Romans because of their whole tactical approach, not just because of their shields. They stopped being as useful in large battles because a proper shieldwall is basically two lines smushed together while the people behind them try to attack legs, arms and heads. As soon as troops became well armoured, this was useless as you couldn't get through armour without the space required to wield the appropriate weapon.
(of course, mail did still negate most hits, but it covered less than plate.) Individual fighting it was more useful to deflect (not block) blows, but heavily armoured soldiers would just use their armour to deflect a sword.

This is from a historian, not a reenactor or anything, so that's my inexpert idea of it.

Roman formations varied from their time, a "Shield wall" as I would define it was never really used by the romans, more likely and was used by the Vikings and Saxons; The shields interlink by placing the right side of your circular shield over your friends whilst your left was under your friends (or vice versa) ... this in theory made an unbreakable interlinked wall of shields Hence a "Shield wall". The roman tactic was more of a meat grinder approach, move towards the enemy at a steady pace, engage in combat and keep going until everyone was dead, the roman shield for the italian man mainly covered a majority of the body so an individual basically has his own wooden wall, you could push your way through if you wanted to but you'd most likely get stabbed. The roman tactics usually involved a checkerboard of cohorts, that way the line could flex easily but still maintain effectiveness with fresh meat and bodies just behind the engaged cohort.

The battle of Hastings (although quite a way from hastings, only the historian of the day knows why he called it that) is a textbook for shieldwall tactics as well as giving pro's and con's to it in a singular battle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbK7m3w9FXI

Quite fun to watch, just enjoy his enthusiasm really.

[Kal_Zakath]

This comes from someone who has done quite a bit of LARPing, and usually fights with a shield.

Please don't speak of realism when using Larp in the same comment....

[tubbles]

I know how the Romans fought and how shieldwalls work. The Romans were far more complicated than you make out.

Hastings is generally a bad example amongst historians, as there is some debate as to whether it actually happened at all like the tapestry says. Earlier sources and William's character point to a completely different battle.

[GordonVanDyke]

Shields were discarded by the wealthy and sometimes replaced with a buckler, and not everyone in the battle was wealthy. In fact, most weren't wealthy and fought with what they had, which could have been passed down for generations. Also, this was a civil war that disregarded most rules of conduct used previously when warring with foreign adversaries. Hell, it started in the town of St Albans as a street fight. This is why we picked this place in history for our game, it was a win by any means necessary war making it very unorthodox and giving us more freedom to do fun creative things within our game. So, before you starting claiming this is how it was remember none of us really know.

What we do know is we're working our butts off to make the best Medieval combat game ever released that is fun, attracts lots of people who like skilled multiplayer experiences or that wants to get into one, and does well enough to warrant a sequel.

[ElricVonRabe]

Shields were discarded by the wealthy and sometimes replaced with a buckler, and not everyone in the battle was wealthy. In fact, most weren't wealthy and fought with what they had, which could have been passed down for generations. Also, this was a civil war that disregarded most rules of conduct used perviously when warring with foreign adversaries. Hell, it started in the town of St Albans as a street fight. This is why we picked this place in history for our game, it was a win by any means necessary war making it very unorthodox and giving us more freedom to do fun creative things within our game. So, before you starting claiming this is how it was remember none of us really know.

Thank you for replying to this thread!

I believe you're making a very important point.
Being able to live out your creativity, especially in this kind of game, is very important.

Of course you shouldn't completely detach your concepts from reality, but there are SO MANY things that COULD have existed, COULD have been done (and probably were)
Just because we didn't dig up certain pieces of armour doesn't mean they never existed. If it's practical, useful, and when people of that time were able to make it, why wouldn't they have made and used it?

I also strongly agree with your point about the civil war and equipment - it was a civil war - every combatant used what they had - if they had a great helmet from the second crusade, passed down by their uncle, they would have used it. Not everybody could afford a full set of armour made in a particular year. That's what I don't get about some hardcore re-enactors - if you wear armour, every piece has to be from a certain time, otherwise you're not historical accurate.

But what if someone could only afford a breast & back plate of the newest design, but not the rest of the armour? If he had an old helmet from his ancestors, he would have used it, rather than not using a helmet at all.
Mixed armour is a result of many factors. Of course, it would be ideal to have a full set of armour of the same style and the same armoursmith. But how many fighters were able to realise that? How can people claim that they KNOW that some things didn't exist, or worked differently? Apart from ruling out very fantastical things, we simply don't know, because we weren't there.

Enough rambling.

I stick by my comments about the actual combat, it's my expertise - and the nature of close combat has barely changed at all over the history of humanity, once weapons were invented.

What we do know is we're working our butts off to make the best Medieval combat game ever released that is fun, attracts lots of people who like skilled multiplayer experiences or that wants to get into one, and does well enough to warrant a sequel.

I'm would like to help in any way I can, and if it's only by taking part in discussion on this board.
Making this game the best it can be is in the interest of all of us.
I would very much like you and your game to be a great success!

[GordonVanDyke]

Thank you for replying to this thread!

I believe you're making a very important point.
Being able to live out your creativity, especially in this kind of game, is very important.

Of course you shouldn't completely detach your concepts from reality, but there are SO MANY things that COULD have existed, COULD have been done (and probably were)
Just because we didn't dig up certain pieces of armour doesn't mean they never existed. If it's practical, useful, and when people of that time were able to make it, why wouldn't they have made and used it?

I also strongly agree with your point about the civil war and equipment - it was a civil war - every combatant used what they had - if they had a great helmet from the second crusade, passed down by their uncle, they would have used it. Not everybody could afford a full set of armour made in a particular year. That's what I don't get about some hardcore re-enactors - if you wear armour, every piece has to be from a certain time, otherwise you're not historical accurate.

But what if someone could only afford a breast & back plate of the newest design, but not the rest of the armour? If he had an old helmet from his ancestors, he would have used it, rather than not using a helmet at all.
Mixed armour is a result of many factors. Of course, it would be ideal to have a full set of armour of the same style and the same armoursmith. But how many fighters were able to realise that? How can people claim that they KNOW that some things didn't exist, or worked differently? Apart from ruling out very fantastical things, we simply don't know, because we weren't there.

Enough rambling.

I stick by my comments about the actual combat, it's my expertise - and the nature of close combat has barely changed at all over the history of humanity, once weapons were invented.


I'm would like to help in any way I can, and if it's only by taking part in discussion on this board.
Making this game the best it can be is in the interest of all of us.
I would very much like you and your game to be a great success!

Well said, and my pleasure to talk with you and the rest of the people here. Lots of great ideas here, some can work in our game, and some can't. But without discussion you'll never hear the ones that can without hearign the ones that can't, so I enjoy reading every idea regardless. So, keep'em coming!

[Digu21]

Well I be damned, quite the fun reading these threads. Good to get your point of view Gordon !

What ive seen most of your armours and so on, is really good. Do you have heater shields or only bucklers ?

Keep the good work up !

[Kator Viridian]

Shields were discarded by the wealthy and sometimes replaced with a buckler, and not everyone in the battle was wealthy. In fact, most weren't wealthy and fought with what they had, which could have been passed down for generations. Also, this was a civil war that disregarded most rules of conduct used previously when warring with foreign adversaries. Hell, it started in the town of St Albans as a street fight. This is why we picked this place in history for our game, it was a win by any means necessary war making it very unorthodox and giving us more freedom to do fun creative things within our game. So, before you starting claiming this is how it was remember none of us really know.

What we do know is we're working our butts off to make the best Medieval combat game ever released that is fun, attracts lots of people who like skilled multiplayer experiences or that wants to get into one, and does well enough to warrant a sequel.

Problem is with history you never get all the angles or all the peices, there will always be something missed or something not included and it adds to the mystery a bit more.

I completely agree and understand how it feels to try and unearth history, trying to find out what you can about the crusades even though heavily documented from both sides and multiple angles is still very hard to get the whole picture and requires a lot of effort and often a lot of decrypting over the truth and lies ... too much referencing in my history A level made me go nuts after around 2-3 hours trying to make sure I had the truth and not some opinionated peice of rubbish from a historian.

I also enjoy a bit of creativity (Mainly because i'm not a creative man myself), so really do look forward to what is going to be in it, going at this with as little negativity (towards the game than the bugs) as possible when and if I get my hands on this without having to completely replace my computer when this comes out ... which is more than likely ... damn you game that will be more expensive than it seems!!!