Agreed.I can easily defeat a fully-plated master with a swift one-handed sword, doesn't even take that long.
Should Masters use weapons other than polearms?
Oh, i thought that would EXACTLY make sense, since the mace is pretty damn effective against armourThey should be given two-handed swords, mace and shield wouldn't make sense since they're in full plate armor, but just a flanged mace would be cool too.
If a knight knows that he's going to fight another knight in full plate armor, he will bring a pollaxe which is a weapon that is VERY well designed to fighting armor. A sword may have the addition of being able to use it as an anti-armor weapon if the need arises, but no intelligent soldier would use a sword to fight a full plate armor opponent if they also have access to a dedicated anti-armor weapon such as a pollaxe or a mace.do you know half swording search for it two handed swords where made around 14 century they used them grabbing them from the blade and aiming for the gaps of the armor and sometimes grabbing the sword with 2 hands from the blade and using the guard as a mace
Because shields had become redundant once knights were able to cover almost their entire body in plates, so they historically stopped using them. My main complaint is that it would just look tacky seeing them carrying a wooden round shield or heater shield when they have full plate armor. However, if there was a larger metal shield added into the game in an upcoming update, I wouldn't mind seeing full plate armor knights with it, since at least it would match their armor. I do think that "knights" carried such shields at times, as seen in this picture.Oh, i thought that would EXACTLY make sense, since the mace is pretty damn effective against armour
If we're talking about master against master, a two handed sword would make less sense than a mace.
OR
Are you talking about how it doesn't make sense, if you give them a shield to go with it? Surely a shield would help you not getting hit and at this point using a shield doesn't give you any adverse effects.
Maybe i'm missing something here.
If a knight knows that he's going to fight another knight in full plate armor, he will bring a pollaxe which is a weapon that is VERY well designed to fighting armor. A sword may have the addition of being able to use it as an anti-armor weapon if the need arises, but no intelligent soldier would use a sword to fight a full plate armor opponent if they also have access to a dedicated anti-armor weapon such as a pollaxe or a mace.
This is why I stated that if a master level opponent challenges someone from the adept rank or lower, they should be more likely to bring a weapon like a sword or maybe even a halberd instead of dedicated anti-armor weapons like a pollaxe or pole hammer.
Because shields had become redundant once knights were able to cover almost their entire body in plates, so they historically stopped using them. My main complaint is that it would just look tacky seeing them carrying a wooden round shield or heater shield when they have full plate armor. However, if there was a larger metal shield added into the game in an upcoming update, I wouldn't mind seeing full plate armor knights with it, since at least it would match their armor. I do think that "knights" carried such shields at times, as seen in this picture.