Melee in PC/Videogames

[Partysan]

Greetings altogether, it's me again, fellow playgrounder and martial arts otaku.
Today I want to talk about melee fighting systems in computer games and inspire discussion about how they could be better than they are. My focus lies on action-RPG games here.

I'll start by outlining a few different kinds of melee systems I have come across in my gaming experience. This list is by no means exhaustive and I will be adding examples made by others.

1. The Standard-Special Attack System
Mostly used in third-person games, this system is one of the most widespread. There will be an attack button that activates a standard strike. If used in succession, the attacks will often form a combination of strikes, sometimes spectacularly animated and sometimes requiring the right timing. However, the combination will still consist of repeatedly pressing the same button.
Defense will probably consist of holding down another button. While held down, the character cannot attack, but parries or blocks normal attacks.
Additionally there might be special attacks, often activated by either combining the attack button with another, jump being a prevalent example, or via an access bar like in MMORPGs.
This system usually doesn't allow moving during an attack, the attack involves a motion of the whole character.

This system is nice for casual fights and those games in which the animation is more important than the actual challenge. The tactical aspects are mainly those of timing and selection of special moves. It's easy to learn and stays fun for a while, especially when well animated. However it can become repetitive and boring quite fast.
Examples: Prince of Persia, Venetica, Fable, maybe Jade Empire (didn't play, but looks like it)

2. The Free Direction Move System
Another very common system is one where the attack animations only involve the upper body, while the feet move separately. The character can walk in any direction while attacking of defending. Often the attack used depends on the direction button that is pressed together with the attack button. There might be special attacks in this system as well, but generally not activated from a bar but by button combinations.
Defense will be much the same as in the previous, although some systems require a block to match the direction of the attack. Sometimes there's no active defense at all. Holding the attack button often loads up the attack, which makes it stronger but all the more obvious.

This system, at least in theory, has a higher tactical demand than the previous one, because it allows multiple directions of attack. However it is prone to some difficulties. For one it doesn't play as fluidly as the first one does. It does also encourage strange types of motion such as zigzagging and jumping around (especially seen in multiplayer) or running backwards while striking out (singleplayer). This makes for rather ugly and unrealistic fights.
Examples: Mount&Blade, Jedi Knight 2/3, Morrowind/Oblivion

3. The Step-based Directional Attack System
Here we have a system that isn't used as often but more realistic than both previous ones. It allows attacks from different directions but restricts movement in that every strike is combined with a step, prohibiting running around while attacking. Defense may be universal or also combined with directions. Special attacks are possible but have appeared rarely.
In most cases this works by activating a "combat mode" when drawing a weapon or otherwise assuming a battle stance, which changes the movement scheme to single steps and sidesteps instead of a fluent running animation.

This system combines elements of both previously mentioned ones and achieves a certain sense of realism in footwork that the Free Direction system lacks while keeping the possibility of directional attacks. However this system is rarely used and thus hasn't been evolved as far. In most instances the controls are a bit clunky and it also is difficult to use for combat against multiple opponents (which, while realistic, impedes fun).
Examples: Gothic(II)

4. The Multiple-Button Combo System
Mostly used in console games this system is a variation of the Standard-Special attack system that, instead of using one attack button and some special commands, has multiple types of attacks with their own buttons that create special attacks or combinations when used in a certain order.
This system probably originates in fighting games but has been observed to cross over into action-RPGs. The most common buttons are one "strong" attack and one "fast" attack, but there are countless variations in play, including having one button for every limb or weapon.
Most games using this system are combat-centric and there is a certain focus on using combos of which every character usually has their own set.

Here we have a system that's born and bred for melee fighting. It is far from perfect though. One issue is that it needs a special control scheme which often is not only new to learn but will be impractical in any area but fighting. Furthermore this system excludes tactical defense once more by usually having only a single button to hold for blocking. In some cases this degenerates into two opponents permanently blocking until one lands an attack and instantly kills the other with an unstoppable combination. This, while ironically being a pretty realistic approach, kills a lot of the fun in the system.
Mostly suffering from the same problems as the Standard-Special attack system this also shares its greatest asset: it is relatively fun to play and, because of the existence of combinations, longer-lived. For a melee-centric game this is a nice system, but it takes a step away from realism again and isn't particularly flexible.
Examples: VirtuaFighter/Tekken/etc; Return of the King

5. The Indirect Activated Special System
A system I don't want to discuss here because it doesn't involve direct control of the character. Used mostly in MMORPGs and tactical mouse-controlled RPGs this system lets the character fight automatically, calculating successes in the background while the player can activate special attacks from a bar.
I only mention it for the sake of completeness.

I will be working on this post, but since I'm already writing it for 3 days I'll post the thread now.
The aim of this discussion is to discuss pros and contras of different implementations of melee fighting and martial arts in games and possibly (hopefully) derive concepts for such implementations to the betterment of those games. Specific weight lies on how to come closer to real martial arts while not spoiling the gameplay.

P.S.: If someone has better or official names for these systems I'd be thankful.

[Partysan]

<reserved for more systems and assets>

[Domochevsky]

Where does Die By The Sword fall into here? :smallconfused:

[Partysan]

Oha, ein Nordlicht.

I haven't played it myself, but from what wikipedia and youtube tell me I'd consider it a variant of number 2, free movement and directional attacks, although the free direct control of the swordarm might be advanced enough to merit its own subcategory.

[warty goblin]

For my money Mount and Blade has the best system for armed combat of any game I've played - attacks are directional and tied to mouse movement, not absolute character movement. However damage done varies in part according to the relative velocity of the combatants, which means that for maximum impact one wants to move into attacks and out of defenses. It captures enough of footwork to be interesting, without the artificial clunkiness of requiring movement in a direction to make an attack.

Until somebody figures out how to model winding, shield deception and different tempos however, I would hardly call it a realistic system. For maximum effect this should be married to a seriously hardcore damage and armor model: I see no reason tank sims should be the only games to get real time dynamic penetration physics.

[Leecros]

For my money Mount and Blade has the best system for armed combat of any game I've played - attacks are directional and tied to mouse movement, not absolute character movement. However damage done varies in part according to the relative velocity of the combatants, which means that for maximum impact one wants to move into attacks and out of defenses. It captures enough of footwork to be interesting, without the artificial clunkiness of requiring movement in a direction to make an attack.

Until somebody figures out how to model winding, shield deception and different tempos however, I would hardly call it a realistic system. For maximum effect this should be married to a seriously hardcore damage and armor model: I see no reason tank sims should be the only games to get real time dynamic penetration physics.

I agree,i do feel that in terms of melee M&B has the best armed combat system that i've seen. However the attacks itself sometimes reminds me of playing Morrowind. You have chops, slashes, and thrusts, along with a few variants of such. It's a bit more flexible than Morrowind's system, but at it's core that's what it is.


Also horse+lance=one-hit-kill even with a low polearm skill, but then again if you have a lance, wooden or otherwise hit you at 25-30mph(average gallop speed of a horse) then you're going to have massive damage upon yourself. My bone to pick is that you can hit someone in armor, which is made in part to redirect polearms, and still kill him with a full-speed lance to the chest.

Also Sieges are utterly ridiculous....



Edited for rantyness

[Gaius Marius]

I agree,i do feel that in terms of melee M&B has the best armed combat system that i've seen. However the attacks itself sometimes reminds me of playing Morrowind. You have chops, slashes, and thrusts, along with a few variants of such. It's a bit more flexible than Morrowind's system, but at it's core that's what it is.


Also horse+lance=one-hit-kill even with a low polearm skill, but then again if you have a lance, wooden or otherwise hit you at 25-30mph(average gallop speed of a horse) then you're going to have massive damage upon yourself. My bone to pick is that you can hit someone in armor, which is made in part to redirect polearms, and still kill him with a full-speed lance to the chest.

Also Sieges are utterly ridiculous....

There are elements to clear up, obviously, but it's still the best combat simulator I've seen in my videogaming life. Flatten out the problems you laid out, add a proper infantry polearm system that allows them to properly defend against the cavalry, add good combat formation and rough directive for your formation (somewhat a la Total War, but with realistic limitations), and you end up with the absolute war-strategy-action-RPG combat system that can be adapted to any time period up, up to Napoleonian warfare.

[warty goblin]

I agree,i do feel that in terms of melee M&B has the best armed combat system that i've seen. However the attacks itself sometimes reminds me of playing Morrowind. You have chops, slashes, and thrusts, along with a few variants of such. It's a bit more flexible than Morrowind's system, but at it's core that's what it is.

Well, really all you've got is strikes and thrusts. But until somebody finds a way to make compelling, controllable gameplay that includes winding and slicing that's about all there is - baring semi-obscure stuff like half-swording or Talhoffer's murder strikes. Adding those would also, I suspect, be highly contingent on solving the first two problems.



Also horse+lance=one-hit-kill even with a low polearm skill, but then again if you have a lance, wooden or otherwise hit you at 25-30mph(average gallop speed of a horse) then you're going to have massive damage upon yourself. My bone to pick is that you can hit someone in armor, which is made in part to redirect polearms, and still kill him with a full-speed lance to the chest.
If you can catch somebody squarely in the chest with a lance designed to penetrate armor, odds are, I think, fairly high that it will in fact do so. Lower than if they weren't wearing armor obviously, but still uncomfortably high for the person on the receiving end. That Mount and Blade doesn't use a model that accounts for deflection is a serious criticism in terms of realism, but I suspect that adding such a system would make the results of a strike feel unpleasantly random and opaque, whereas the current system depends on a relatively few number of fairly transparent variables.

Also Sieges are utterly ridiculous....
If by ridiculous, you mean too easy for the attacker, then yes.

[QUOTE=Gaius Marius;10545697]There are elements to clear up, obviously, but it's still the best combat simulator I've seen in my videogaming life. Flatten out the problems you laid out, add a proper infantry polearm system that allows them to properly defend against the cavalry, add good combat formation and rough directive for your formation (somewhat a la Total War, but with realistic limitations), and you end up with the absolute war-strategy-action-RPG combat system that can be adapted to any time period up, up to Napoleonian warfare.

It's the best medieval combat simulator I've seen, I'll agree to that. If you're looking at combat sims in general there's an exceedingly large number of titles that easily exceed M&B in terms of realism of the systems they model. Granted these more or less only concern themselves with 1939-1945 and a variety of modern stuff, but they model the absolute hell out of them.

And generally I find the new Warband army controls to pretty much satisfy my needs for army control. There's some stuff it'd maybe be nice to have, but given the relatively small size of the battles in the game, adding more options seems likely to explode the complexity for little real benefit.

[endoperez]

There's one combat system you didn't mention. I've only seen it used in one game so far.

Context-based control system
The attack button isn't a specific attack, but implies will to harm an enemy. The actual attack is based on the context. If you're close to the enemy, it's a punch, if the distance is a bit longer, it's a kick. If you're sidestepping, the attack will be a sidekick. If you're crouching, the attack is a sweep. If you are running towards the enemy, or jumping, or behind the enemy, or armed with a weapon, the context is different.
Defense is also contextual. The crouch button usually doubles as an evasion; a properly timed evasion also doubles as a counter/throw. If an enemy punches you, pressing crouch at the right moment evades the punch and strikes him back. This countermove can also be evaded, and if the evasion is timed right, countered. This counter-counter can be evaded. Same applies for the different kicks. Sweeps are evaded by pressing jump, instead.

Theoretically, this kind of system allows the computer to choose the best animation for the situation. With a complex system, the animations could be chosen to match real-world attacks very closely. The player would choose the specific type of attack the character would perform, not by pressing the right button, but by positioning, timing and stepping.



I've heard Rune and Oni had pretty good combat systems. Haven't really played them much myself, so can't comment on that. Oni has some sort of combo system, I don't remember how Rune worked.

[Partysan]

For my money Mount and Blade has the best system for armed combat of any game I've played - attacks are directional and tied to mouse movement, not absolute character movement. However damage done varies in part according to the relative velocity of the combatants, which means that for maximum impact one wants to move into attacks and out of defenses. It captures enough of footwork to be interesting, without the artificial clunkiness of requiring movement in a direction to make an attack.

Until somebody figures out how to model winding, shield deception and different tempos however, I would hardly call it a realistic system. For maximum effect this should be married to a seriously hardcore damage and armor model: I see no reason tank sims should be the only games to get real time dynamic penetration physics.

While I consider M&B to have one of the best-feeling systems on the market I just can't agree with its footwork. You call it artificial clunkyness but the way people run and hop around swinging in games like that just destroys any kind of atmosphere to me. That's just not how it works.
But this opens up an interesting point of discussion: how could footwork be made more realistic without introducing "artificial clunkyness"?


There's one combat system you didn't mention. I've only seen it used in one game so far.

Context-based control system
The attack button isn't a specific attack, but implies will to harm an enemy. The actual attack is based on the context. If you're close to the enemy, it's a punch, if the distance is a bit longer, it's a kick. If you're sidestepping, the attack will be a sidekick. If you're crouching, the attack is a sweep. If you are running towards the enemy, or jumping, or behind the enemy, or armed with a weapon, the context is different.
Defense is also contextual. The crouch button usually doubles as an evasion; a properly timed evasion also doubles as a counter/throw. If an enemy punches you, pressing crouch at the right moment evades the punch and strikes him back. This countermove can also be evaded, and if the evasion is timed right, countered. This counter-counter can be evaded. Same applies for the different kicks. Sweeps are evaded by pressing jump, instead.

Theoretically, this kind of system allows the computer to choose the best animation for the situation. With a complex system, the animations could be chosen to match real-world attacks very closely. The player would choose the specific type of attack the character would perform, not by pressing the right button, but by positioning, timing and stepping.

I've heard Rune and Oni had pretty good combat systems. Haven't really played them much myself, so can't comment on that. Oni has some sort of combo system, I don't remember how Rune worked.

That would be Lugaru, wouldn't it? I liked that game, got it in the humble package and played all of it.
It's a somewhat interesting combination of the first two systems in that it allows directional attacks which however restrict movement. Its attack button works like in a standard-special system but since the animations used do actually make a difference in gameplay they would be considered directional...
I agree that (with a lot of work on the designers part) this system could be made to look very realistic and nice without being difficult to control. Maybe with some advancement and additions this could have promise.

Do we have someone who knows Rune and Oni?

[Leecros]

If you can catch somebody squarely in the chest with a lance designed to penetrate armor, odds are, I think, fairly high that it will in fact do so. Lower than if they weren't wearing armor obviously, but still uncomfortably high for the person on the receiving end. That Mount and Blade doesn't use a model that accounts for deflection is a serious criticism in terms of realism, but I suspect that adding such a system would make the results of a strike feel unpleasantly random and opaque, whereas the current system depends on a relatively few number of fairly transparent variables.
except it can be done with a wooden practice lance when the guy is decked out in metal armor.:smalltongue:


If by ridiculous, you mean too easy for the attacker, then yes.

if the walls are properly defended, i've held off armies into the 2000's.It's quite easy as they only ever come up in one spot. Granted i was well into the thirties at that point in terms of level.

and when attacking it's bothersome as the NPC's can push you out of the way, but you can't push them out of the way. So everytime you go up the ladder you better make sure you're in the middle or have the athletics to move faster than the rest of your army or you're going to fall down a lot.


I say they're ridiculous because it's basically the armies fighting over one point. the attackers are charging into one point on the garrison, the defenders are holding that point. That point being right at the top of the ladder/ramp/siege tower that the attackers are using. You notice it more later on in a siege than earlier, but once the defenders get pushed back, if they manage to push out the attackers they all rush back to that point for the next wave.

Unfortunately with the system they have i can't really think of a way to get it to work in a different way without a large amount of tweaking.

[warty goblin]

While I consider M&B to have one of the best-feeling systems on the market I just can't agree with its footwork. You call it artificial clunkyness but the way people run and hop around swinging in games like that just destroys any kind of atmosphere to me. That's just not how it works.

It's a lot closer to how it works than a pure directional attack system. At least in my experience I do not have to step to the side to swing from the side. In fact for a lot of cuts I don't have to take a step at all. I usually want to, but it is not physically necessary. Now most of my experience is with German and Italian longsword technique, which don't seem to favor the sidestep much at all, so this could be different in other techniques.

Honestly in terms of major problems with the combat, I'd say that the dependence on a dedicated block button for defense is far worse than the footwork. This pretty much limits the game to a double-time tempo, which is simply much slower than what I know of historical fencing. Insofar as I can tell, at least in the German tradition, one is virtually never supposed to block a cut, and even parrying plays a secondary role to straight up counter attacking.


But this opens up an interesting point of discussion: how could footwork be made more realistic without introducing "artificial clunkyness"?
I've thought a while about how to make striking weapon combat in general more realistic. About the only thing I can think of to do is to make it turn based, or preferably real time with automatic pause at certain events. Control would, at this point, obviously be indirect, but it seems the only way to model all the necessary variables without it becoming an unbearable mess.

[Partysan]

It's a lot closer to how it works than a pure directional attack system. At least in my experience I do not have to step to the side to swing from the side. In fact for a lot of cuts I don't have to take a step at all. I usually want to, but it is not physically necessary. Now most of my experience is with German and Italian longsword technique, which don't seem to favor the sidestep much at all, so this could be different in other techniques.

Honestly in terms of major problems with the combat, I'd say that the dependence on a dedicated block button for defense is far worse than the footwork. This pretty much limits the game to a double-time tempo, which is simply much slower than what I know of historical fencing. Insofar as I can tell, at least in the German tradition, one is virtually never supposed to block a cut, and even parrying plays a secondary role to straight up counter attacking.

I have been learning the german long sword for some time and I totally agree with your opinion on directional attacks based on walking direction. But pure directional systems are my least favourite anyway. I actually like forward side steps but not the point here.
As to counterattacks, while I agree on that as well I think that a dedicated defense button isn't that much of a problem as long as the system allows counterattacks, meaning if you block and press the attack button with the right timing you actually perform a counter. In M&B it infuriates me how I raise the sword for an upward block and then, to strike downwards, lower it from the block and then raise it again for the strike. ARGH!

A hypothetical system I have been considering lately would actually be stance-based. You transition between stances and the movements of your swords are your techniques. From a Hut vom Tag into Hut Alber would be perfectly the same as a downward strike and so on.

[bloodlover]

It depends very much on the type of RPG and the way it's designed to be played. You can't play for example BG 2 just controlling one main melee char. Unfortunately video games now try to combine tactical combat with more action oriented one and the result... is a mess (see DA 2).

Also, many games have their own charm when it comes to melee combat. People often find the combat in Gothic 2 to be a pain, but imo it's brilliant and makes you have to coordinate your moves and think ahead. I can play Diablo or any of its clones if I just want to slash my way through the game.

As for melee classes that I like to play... hm... idk I usually go mage but I do like paladins (due to their special abilities) or assassins. This differs much from game to game.

[warty goblin]

I have been learning the german long sword for some time and I totally agree with your opinion on directional attacks based on walking direction.

Excellent, always nice to meet another disciple of Master Liechtenaur.
But pure directional systems are my least favourite anyway. I actually like forward side steps but not the point here.

As to counterattacks, while I agree on that as well I think that a dedicated defense button isn't that much of a problem as long as the system allows counterattacks, meaning if you block and press the attack button with the right timing you actually perform a counter. In M&B it infuriates me how I raise the sword for an upward block and then, to strike downwards, lower it from the block and then raise it again for the strike. ARGH!
The timing thing is basically what bothers me about using a dedicated block button. Essentially it means that every time I want to keep the enemy from striking me I have to surrender the initiative. This is most vexing, and obviously not the correct method. If somebody tries to throw a powerful cut from the right at me, I can't intercept it with a schielhau and in the same movement strike them as is proper.


A hypothetical system I have been considering lately would actually be stance-based. You transition between stances and the movements of your swords are your techniques. From a Hut vom Tag into Hut Alber would be perfectly the same as a downward strike and so on.
I had thought of basically this system as well. The most major problem I can find with it is that it would, for many people, be extremely unintuitive. There's also cases where there are two distinct cuts that nevertheless are transitions between the same guards (consider schielhau and zwerchhau for instance). Thrusts also don't really fit into this paradigm very well insofar as I can tell, and winding is also still going to be hard to work in.

[Gaius Marius]

The timing thing is basically what bothers me about using a dedicated block button. Essentially it means that every time I want to keep the enemy from striking me I have to surrender the initiative. This is most vexing, and obviously not the correct method. If somebody tries to throw a powerful cut from the right at me, I can't intercept it with a schielhau and in the same movement strike them as is proper.


While I agree with your grievances regarding this game, I think it's simply a problem that can be easily solved if the developpers decide to go further into complex combat coegraphies. It ain't that hard to imagine the current game's basic building blocks used with further enhancements.

Like I said earlier, this game has the perfect basis. It just need more polish (or Polish?) to strive toward perfection. You could make a Roman Legion combat simulator as well as a French Musketeer duellist game with the proper developments.

[warty goblin]

While I agree with your grievances regarding this game, I think it's simply a problem that can be easily solved if the developpers decide to go further into complex combat coegraphies. It ain't that hard to imagine the current game's basic building blocks used with further enhancements.

Like I said earlier, this game has the perfect basis. It just need more polish (or Polish?) to strive toward perfection. You could make a Roman Legion combat simulator as well as a French Musketeer duellist game with the proper developments.

I don't seem to be making my point particularly well, so let me try again.

In combat one should seek to win the fight, instead of merely not lot losing. Blocking keeps one from losing, but it does nothing to press the assault on your adversary, and therefore nothing to further your victory. Generally the proper response to an attack is to launch your own attack in such a way as to both nullify the threat to you and threaten your adversary. This allows you to regain or retain the initiative, control the fight, and press your own victory.

Having a block button isn't bad, because it is an option. It's very rarely the best option however, and making it the only choice for defense is a bad thing from a realism point of view.

[Gaius Marius]

I don't seem to be making my point particularly well, so let me try again.


No, actually, you made your point pretty well. You just don't seem to actually read what I wrote.

A complex duelling simulator like the one you mention, with interesting attack/block combinations, or counterattacks, fluid movements, etc.. could actually work very well if they put time developping it, and they'd simply have to add it to the overal game already in place.

[warty goblin]

No, actually, you made your point pretty well. You just don't seem to actually read what I wrote.

A complex duelling simulator like the one you mention, with interesting attack/block combinations, or counterattacks, fluid movements, etc.. could actually work very well if they put time developping it, and they'd simply have to add it to the overal game already in place.

Only by 'add too' you mean 'fundamentally alter at nearly every level.' You simply cannot accurately simulate any swordsmanship tradition with which I am familiar using only blocks, and right now that's all M&B models. Four different strikes at most per weapon and four static blocks.

Liechtenaur's system of combat for longsword against longsword out of harness recognizes four guards positions*, five 'master strikes**,' four displacements to counter the four guards (some of which overlap with the master strikes), and at least according to Ringeck, no less than 24 windings.

*Which are actually six positions, since both Ochs and Pfug can be done on the left or right.

**Again for six distinct strikes, zwerchhau can be thrown to either the left or right side.

To put this in some meaningful perspective, here's an example. If I'm going to fight somebody with a longsword, I am likely to begin in Vom Tag, a position not dissimilar to standing at bat in Baseball. From there I can cut diagonally across my enemy from my right to left (Zornhau), left to right (Krumphau), horizontally from either side at more or less any height (Zwerchau) or vertically down on their shoulder (Schielhau). From the endpoint of any of those strikes I can pursue nearly as many options. Should my sword bind against my adversary's, there are another multitude of options, all depending on where on the blade the contact point is, how much pressure we are exerting on the other's blade, and how each of us is standing.

It's not that M&B just needs fleshed out a little here. It doesn't even come close. Adding counter attacks would be a start, but only that.

[Gaius Marius]

It's not that M&B just needs fleshed out a little here. It doesn't even come close. Adding counter attacks would be a start, but only that.

How about you celebrate every step going the right way, rather than complain that it's not there yet?

I mean, what you are talking about is a big undertaking. It's also a very worthy one, but it'd be hard. Programming these kind of additions in M&B would be neat, but would have to be done by layers rather than an immediate overhaul.

Start by adding counterattacts. Then movement feints, Then strike/blocks, then.. then.. then.. then you end up with a system that is fairly complex in term of duelling medieval combat simulator, and it all comes crashing down in the middle of a 40,000-men battlefield.

[Partysan]

How about you celebrate every step going the right way, rather than complain that it's not there yet?

I mean, what you are talking about is a big undertaking. It's also a very worthy one, but it'd be hard. Programming these kind of additions in M&B would be neat, but would have to be done by layers rather than an immediate overhaul.

Start by adding counterattacts. Then movement feints, Then strike/blocks, then.. then.. then.. then you end up with a system that is fairly complex in term of duelling medieval combat simulator, and it all comes crashing down in the middle of a 40,000-men battlefield.

We do. You can't imagine how much M&B delighted me, but I'm just still not satisfied. And by the way, on a battlefield you rarely use weapons that are suited for fencing and vice versa. Talking about that game I actually think it would be sufficient to add counters and maybe secondary attacks. It can't be perfect, but it could be better.


Excellent, always nice to meet another disciple of Master Liechtenaur.

The timing thing is basically what bothers me about using a dedicated block button. Essentially it means that every time I want to keep the enemy from striking me I have to surrender the initiative. This is most vexing, and obviously not the correct method. If somebody tries to throw a powerful cut from the right at me, I can't intercept it with a schielhau and in the same movement strike them as is proper.

I had thought of basically this system as well. The most major problem I can find with it is that it would, for many people, be extremely unintuitive. There's also cases where there are two distinct cuts that nevertheless are transitions between the same guards (consider schielhau and zwerchhau for instance). Thrusts also don't really fit into this paradigm very well insofar as I can tell, and winding is also still going to be hard to work in.

I think that the problem with tempo could be resolved by using actual physics of momentum and weight. If instead of calculating attacks and defenses and how they match the program would calculate the momentum and weight of the weapons in strike and how they displace each other, then breaking strikes like Liechtenauer's displacements would automatically work by doing the strikes. Not viable for M&B's engine I think but modern physics engines could accomplish that fairly easily.

By the way, I don't think thrusts would be much of a problem, there is actually a stance for that, Langer Ort. Strikes that transition between the same stances however give me some heachache. The biggest problem would be coming up with a control scheme that people can actually use.

And I don't think that every variation of winding has to be in a game, although the major windings would be nice. I'd be glad if there was a game that actually allowed to enter close combat in a meaningful way. Did I mention that I'm a fan of halfswording and wrestling at the sword?