Any reason not to use shields?

[Tony]

While the damage models may be tweaked some as the game progresses I don't expect it to change drastically from how it functions now. Two-handed weapons in the game are much better than one-handed weapons when facing someone wearing plate. The same applies to weapons with higher impact damage. One-handed swords are probably one of the worst non-improvised weapons currently in the game when facing someone wearing plate (they're definitely not equal to other weapons). If someone knows they're likely to face a heavily armored opponent then preparation is key: make sure to have something more appropriate than a one-handed sword on you.

Will the devs take it one step further so that it's nearly impossible to defeat someone using a one-handed sword if they are wearing plate? I doubt it. I don't think they're planning on recreating a 100% accurate or realistic fight model. If this was their plan they wouldn't give all weapons the same basic three attacks (which really isn't an accurate way to use the weapons in the first place). Will it be rather difficult to defeat someone who is heavily armored while using a one-handed sword? Yes, it already is. Using a one-handed sword vs. someone in plate puts you at a huge disadvantage.

There are also other gameplay reasons for using one-handed swords, such as holding a torch in the offhand for a source of light. In the dungeon one-handed swords are actually ideal since most opponents aren't heavily armored and you can hold a torch in your off hand. They are also less likely to get caught on other objects in the environment when fighting in tight corridors.

 

[MathieuG89]

Why would it be impossible to defeat someone using a one-handed sword if they are wearing plate? I would rather wield a shield to bash my opponent into a vulnerable condition and a short sharply pointed one-handed sword to thrust into gaps and joints than a two-handed sword!

Just how often do you expect having to fight an opponent wearing complete plate armor in Sui Generis to justify shields and one-handed swords are useless anyway?

 

[Madoc]

You cannot cut someone in full plate with a sword unless you luckily manage to get a gap in the armour, and if it's only a small gap then the armour will still mostly protect from it. If your skill in combat is so vastly superior to theirs that you can whack them really hard with your sword (which may as well be a metal stick) enough times before they swat you away with a more appropriate weapon, then yes, you can eventually beat them into submission. We do not have an exhaustion mechanic but the stamina system is still symbolic of it, if you have the upper hand in combat then you can wear your opponent down even without wounding them.

One handed swords are already a very poor choice of weapon against plate armour, more so as we increase realism in other ways, such as not being able to immediately interrupt an armoured opponent's attack by "tickling them with a sword". There are also other still one handed weapons such as warhammers and flanged maces that are specifically designed to be effective against armour.

As for the shields vs armour argument, our intent is not to cater to everyone but it is to provide a variety of viable builds for (the same) players to have access to. We certainly don't want to make all things equal, we want tradeoffs and variety. What experts consider realistic is important to us and we accomodate it as much as we can but ultimately it's secondary to providing a fun experience for the rest of us if it imposes serious restrictions in terms of gameplay and other things. "It's a game" doesn't mean all logic goes out the window, but games do have distinctly different behaviours and goals to real life.

As for details about what was and wasn't done, where it's a matter of history rather than physical imperatives, we are ultimately free to do as we please. We borrow things that we believe are interesting but the game is not set in medieval Europe nor does it share the same conditions that shaped it.

I am not rejecting input here, I genuinely appreciate all the information that experts share with us and on this forum, it has shaped the game in what I believe are very positive ways. I also understand the basic desire for realism and accuracy, you can probably imagine how I react to virtually every holywood film scene involving computers. We do however need to compromise and strike a balance, it's easy to just be critical and look for flaws but not solutions. Total realism obviously cannot be achieved and a bit of open-mindedness can go a long way to enabling a good experience for everyone.

 

[Marius Voinescu]

Well total realism really wont be possible you will most likely have crossbows and long bows weapons designed to defeated armor at close and far range and yet I'm quite sure aonly one bolt from a arbalest wont kill a player regardless where it strikes. But what about shields as weapons?

 

[tiny lampe]

more so as we increase realism in other ways, such as not being able to immediately interrupt an armoured opponent's attack by "tickling them with a sword".

Excellent change!

 

[Beaushizzle]

Bullethead, not to be a jerk, but you are wrong on several points. Plate was not proof against the crossbow. One of the popes actually banned the weapon because of its effectiveness against all armor, excepting shields. Also plate armor did not ruin the use of one-handed weapons. This is evidenced by use of flails, maces, small hammers, and picks as well as a large variety of unedged swords with thick blades and long, tapering points designed solely to exploit gaps, or, on occasion, punch through the plate.
You are also forgetting that for a large part of the Middle Ages, the vast majority of armor on the field was of leather, maille, and partial plate armor. A knight (or man-at-arms wealthy enough to afford full plate) faced far more opponents without full plate than with.
Even when more soldiers began wearing plate as armies became more professional and recruitment shifted from conscripts to standing armies, the vast majority wore partial plate, generally a breastplate and tassets to protect their thighs along with a helmet.
The swords you talk about for civilian use in the 17th century and onwards were not meant to fight armored opponents. The weapons and styles were devised for use against opponents wearing everyday garb, not 1/8th inch armor. Hence the reason for swords becoming slimmer, smaller and lighter. You don't need to crush through or exploit gaps in plate anymore; defence was mobility, agility, and skill. Knights did not wear armor EXPECTING to be hit. They wore armor IN CASE they got hit. Modern soldiers don't wear Kevlar so they can wade into a hail of gunfire; they wear it as protection IF they get hit.

 

[Marius Voinescu]

You are also forgetting that for a large part of the Middle Ages, the vast majority of armor on the field was of leather, maille, and partial plate armor. A knight (or man-at-arms wealthy enough to afford full plate) faced far more opponents without full plate than with.
Even when more soldiers began wearing plate as armies became more professional and recruitment shifted from conscripts to standing armies, the vast majority wore partial plate, generally a breastplate and tassets to protect their thighs along with a helmet.

And I only hope Bare Mettle have the time and pattience to design so much armor since clearly there was a lot of variety in the Middle ages. Since they put in armor that was representative of the 13th and 16th century they prety much got their work cut out puting in all the variations and evolutions of every possible piece of kit developed between 3 centuries of warfare.

Take the great helm for example it started its evolution in the early crusades with the generally flat toped design and was later rounded with the sugarloaf similar to the helm worn by the normans, and generally went out of favor by the end of the 14th century only ever being used for parades and ceremonial jousting. What came after was a increased use of Bascinets with various visors, to gothic helms again with different visors.

Generally all across the ages metal helmets were the norm since the head is the most vital area in need of protection but that's not to say that some hard leather helms could not and were not used.

 

[MathieuG89]

And I only hope Bare Mettle have the time and pattience to design so much armor since clearly there was a lot of variety in the Middle ages. Since they put in armor that was representative of the 13th and 16th century they prety much got their work cut out puting in all the variations and evolutions of every possible piece of kit developed between 3 centuries of warfare.

Take the great helm for example it started its evolution in the early crusades with the generally flat toped design and was later rounded with the sugarloaf similar to the helm worn by the normans, and generally went out of favor by the end of the 14th century only ever being used for parades and ceremonial jousting. What came after was a increased use of Bascinets with various visors, to gothic helms again with different visors.

Generally all across the ages metal helmets were the norm since the head is the most vital area in need of protection but that's not to say that some hard leather helms could not and were not used.

I really hope that complete set of plate armor won't be a common sight in Sui Generis. And that obtaining such a set of armor be a very difficult challenge and almost impossible task. At least not until very late in the game. Am I the only one who doesn't drool all over the place for plate armor?

 

[ZaratanCho]

Am I the only one who doesn't drool all over the place for plate armor?

No. ;d

 

[Scarecrow]

I really hope that complete set of plate armor won't be a common sight in Sui Generis. And that obtaining such a set of armor be a very difficult challenge and almost impossible task. At least not until very late in the game. Am I the only one who doesn't drool all over the place for plate armor?

Well, I'm pretty sure that will vary on the plate armor. You will have different quality plates, you will have half plates, etc. A low/average quality plate set won't be too difficult to come across I think. A high quality plate set on the other hand should be pretty rare, and armor with enchantments should be incredibly rare.

Armor and weapons are ultimately expendable though. Sui Generis is supposed to be a challenging game, and you are supposed to lose your armor and weapons upon death. I think getting a full set of place should definitely be an accomplishment, but shouldn't be so rare that it feels like an incredible feat.

 

[Marius Voinescu]

Lets not forget that rare as it may be it cant be to rare, sure only a small number of fighting men and in this case women could have it, but it cant be as rare as say diamonds in minecraft.

Also the whole discusion starter from shields and i would certainly like to see more shields and different kinds of shields. Here are two fine examples

 

[Bullethead]

Bullethead, not to be a jerk, but you are wrong on several points. Plate was not proof against the crossbow.

If you want to believe that, fine. But go look it up. There are beaucoup suits of antique armor in museums with proof marks of crossbow bolts.

Also, look at Late Medieval paintings and the field armor in museums from that period (not tournament armor). You'll find few, if any, shields or 1-handed weapons. It's almost all 2-handed swords and pole arms. There was a transitional period where there was still more mail than plate, and the plate wasn't the fully articulated stuff, and some specialized 1-handed weapons and shields were still somewhat effective then. But that pretty much went away when plate armor reached its highest development.

You are also forgetting that for a large part of the Middle Ages, the vast majority of armor on the field was of leather, maille, and partial plate armor. A knight (or man-at-arms wealthy enough to afford full plate) faced far more opponents without full plate than with.

I'm not forgetting that at all. I put quite a lot of text into that very subject. What the lone adventure needs for most of his work doesn't have to take plate into account. I'm just saying, plate DOES exist in the game and the player will eventually have to fight it (probably with increasing frequency as he gets further along in the story and/or deeper into dungeons). Therefore, unless the player has some skill with anti-plate weapons, he's going to be up a creek at some point. So in the context of the original post, the question was, why not use a shield? And my answer is, because you'll have to fight plate someday, so you need to spend your skill points with that in mind beforehand. If all you spend points on are light 1-hand weapons and shields, then you'll be at a grave disadvantage against plate.

 

[ZaratanCho]

Not if you use a one handed mace and a shield. ;d Think it will be just 1 handed weapons skill, not light/heavy etc.

 

[Anthony Obilor]

To be honest iI believe Madoc has already made their stance on the subject clear a few posts ago. Further debate on the need of shields and the indomitable nature of plate, and the historic and realistic weapons and armor of the time line is just beating a dead horse. It has been mentioned that it is not entirely realistic but gameplay has a higher value over total realism. History has 0 input apart from being a visual and creative guide for ascetics and feel. @Bullethead it is obvious you know ur history, but I've has been said, it is understandable some things will irk you, but if you cannot accept the necessity for gameplay over reality then you will always see it as a fault. Saying the system is faulty because it does not conform to reality and history is the wrongest way to look at any game, even games that emulate our history like the total War series, world War games.

They are emulating the physics of collision and interaction not the atoms and elements that make up the metals of armors and weapons. There will be alot of faked physics to support function but it will look realistic not be realistic. Hope u get what i mean, i am kind of in the middle of a smoke.

 

[Beaushizzle]

On Crossbows vs. Plate
http://militaryhistorynow.com/2012/05/23/the-crossbow-a-medieval-wmd/
"...arbalests bolts could penetrate chain and plate armour at distances of up to 300 yards; bows were far less powerful. In a highly stratified society like medieval Europe, any technology that could put the power to instantly kill a chivalric knight, a nobleman, or even a king into the hands of a rank amateur was seen as an abomination. Crossbows weren’t just weapons that could quickly win battles, to the ruling class they were downright terrifying. Accordingly, Pope Urban II banned the use of crossbows in 1096; a prohibition that was upheld by Pope Innocent II in 1139."

http://www.medieval-life-and-times.info/medieval-weapons/crossbow.htm

Spoiler

On One-Handed Weapons
http://www.imaginingthepast.com/violence/violence-and-vengeance/weapons-and-armor-the-technology-of-medieval-warfare/

Spoiler

On Historical Paintings of 13th-16th Century Use of Shields

Spoiler

Spoiler

I had several more, but the pics are too big to upload.

 

[Elaxter]

Even if crossbows were shot at pieces of armor to make a "proof mark," I still wouldn't want to get hit by one. It wouldn't be fatal by Bullethead's claims, but it would be a terrible disadvantage. Imagine a dent near the shoulder or in the stomach. It would hinder movement, making it easier for some farmer to tackle you and kill you.

 

[NachoDawg]

@Elaxter and getting plonked on the head probably hurts a lot

 

[turtleman155]

even if the Armour doesn't get pierced the bolt will break ribs at least.

 

[Hedgehog-of-Fog]

even if the Armour doesn't get pierced the bolt will break ribs at least.

It depends of too many circumstances as physique of target, gambeson under armor, shooting distance, strength and direction of wind, angle of impact.

 

[Bullethead]

even if the Armour doesn't get pierced the bolt will break ribs at least.

Not so much. Medieval breast plates (and continuing right down to the quirassiers of the late 1800s) had pot bellies. This usually wasn't because the wearer was fat but for practical defense. The pot belly (sometimes even a vertical keeled ridge) not only created a sloped, curved surface for better deflection, but also provided stand-off distance between the armor and the guy inside.