Parrying with daggers

Ha.. hmm I don't think it's impossible as much as highly improbably.. but in the scenario I'm thinking of you'd do just as well getting out of the way so it's a moot point. It would depend on the swing. A downward swing you could step under and beat aside but you probably wouldn't redirect it much.. easier to just step under and keep going. but a wide clearing swing.. well.. move first.. block 2nd.. Ok if you want to say my 'parry' would be too ineffective to call a 'parry' I suppose I can live with that. Given the speed and weight even if you could pull it off it probably wouldn't do anything noticeable. You'd be much better served with a two handed hafted weapon.. but personally I think if I saw that coming at me I'd just take several steps back and wait for you to get tired.

Hopefully we won't have 20 lb weapons in the game is all I can say (mauls or otherwise). For once I'd like to see weapons realistically weighed.

 

In fact, if we wanted to get nitty gritty, you probably COULD parry my maul swing, or my flamberge, or my falchion, with a weapon of SIMILAR weight. But if you've forgotten, this thread is called parrying with daggers, and I was raising the point that while I am all for using off hand parry bonuses, they should be restricted to only working against weapons within a certain weight class. If I'm using ANY of the big heavy two handed weapons, you don't GET a parry % with a main gauche. That's what shields are for.

 

I was thinking of daggers but not for a game scenario in which case I agree. Any kind of defensive work with a weapon should take weight into consideration. Especially with daggers.. there's only so much you can do vs a heavy weapon. And before anyone starts considering special bonuses for materials.. it's not about weapon strength.. it's about physics. You've got a large weapon in motion and a small weapon like a dagger just doesn't give you enough leverage to do much. So speaking of game mechanics yeah.. odds are the opportunity to pull off a parry of any kind in that scenario might be slim enough to not even account for it.. or in the very least lower the % chance.

And if we're really getting technical to further the point.. even blocking a large weapon with your shield could potentially break your arm if you take the blow in the wrong spot.

On the same point but slightly off topic.. the same basic notion applies to blocking with weapons. You definitely do not block a two handers with a dagger.. It's possible to block with daggers if you hold them inverted against your forearm but 1: It's only going to be effective vs 1 handed blades.. and definitely not an impact weapon (including axes).. 2: If you don't do it just right your arm will take at least part of the blow.. which makes an interesting idea for advanced dagger skills.

But also you don't want to stop block larger weapons or standard swords with a rapier. You'll snap it in two. (assuming we have rapiers).

 

I'm thinking, there should be four categories of combat at least. Magic, ranged, light melee, heavy melee. Each would have it's own mechanics, likely it's own time and place in the game. The difference between light and heavy melee is significant, if we allow on one hand a character designed around stealth and quickness, using, say, rapier and main gauche, padded vest and sleeves, maybe some good boots, and on the other hand we have the classic knight in full plate with shield and sword. Technically, a life and death duel between the two could go either way, would depend heavily on skill, and might be very interesting to watch. It would interest me FAR more though, if they actually had to work with reasonable mechanics that made them fight with strategies that actually mimicked what might happen in a real version of the fight. If the Knight were slower, and had to deal with reduced accuracy and lower attack rate, and the (for ease of reference) Knave had to use that increased mobility because he couldn't parry, and his limited armor wouldn't stop a good thrust from a broadsword. But a well aimed rapier COULD slip through gaps in the Knight's armor, whittling him down. Miss a dodge, though, and the Knight makes up a huge amount of ground, a sword made for use against armored foes does bad things to an unprotected stomach.

 

I'm fairly certain you'd appreciate the combat system I'd like to build one day. Unfortunately it requires on-the-fly animation and gets pretty detailed.. but for SotA I recall in another post that I'd break down weapon skills into short blades (including daggers), swords, impact weapons (including axes), pole arms and other 2 handed or something along those lines.

I think we're getting a tad off topic though. What were we talking about again? Ah right.. parrying with daggers.

 

If the apology felt veiled, and you think it'll help. Then yes, sorry for the misread.

On miscomunication. In short: yes. Long answer: it depends a bit on the conversation, but this case was pretty obvious I was in the weeds. Now that I see who you were debating (I have some people on ignore), I can understand your frustration and defensiveness. So lets just chalk it up to circumstances contributing to things.

As for finding a history teacher, I gotta say: What? I know you don't know this but I play D&D with a history teacher. Most of my friends in SCA are history teachers. I study historical weapons and fighting styles and am a 6th degree black belt. If you don't have anything to back up your claim that's fine, but then I have to stand by my original point that its always better to have something in your off hand.

 

Bushido Blade 1 and 2 (PS1)

Where's my bridge

(Actually, in all seriousness, check out the second one, it's a great game)

 

Whoa whoa whoa... watch out guys, we got an internet tough guy here.

 

Ok.

 

Randomly coming back to this, I really DO want to see dual Shield style. The animation could be based off of unarmed/boxing, the benefit could be a slight increase in defense, but you have to rely only on shield bash/shield charge/spiked shield for damage. I think that could be a really cool option. Very silly, but cool.

 

Since it's been awhile and I vaguely remember dual shields coming up I don't recall if I've brought this up before or not. Dual "shields" would be impractical due to the size of the shields.. BUT.. dual bucklers.. that I've seen before and could use something similiar to unarmed/punching animations.. and would be very cool. Getting hit with one would be akin to bring hit with an armored fist except the impact would be less focused.

 

Well, consider this. The kite shield is built (in a style I've seen in real life, this isn't ALL conjecture) with the leading upper corner extended slightly and sharpened, so that it functions as a very broad punching dagger. The shield arms are held slighly extended in a narrow stance, forming a wedge in front of the user. Outside edges may be spiked, depends on how that works with everything else. To make an ATTACK, you either punch with that corner, or do an outward sweep with the arm, bashing as you would with any shield or spiked shield. Returning to the wedge, you get excellent coverage against any horizontal swings, and can maneuver the gap between shields from side to side to foil thrusts. The two shields can be brought together to give you a supported, two handed block against any strong swings, and raising the shields, crossing the corners, would give a block vs overhand strikes. What you gain is the protection of a shield on both sides, what you LOSE is maneuverability, and some vision (similar to the downsides of wearing heavy armor, which I think would combine well with this approach), as well as very clearly LOWER damage. Nobody is going to get off a one shot kill bashing his opponents together with a spiked shield, but that double shield wedge stance does give quite a bit of protection against the forward target. I'm thinking it might be a viable tanking build. Wouldn't be the first time I've seen a build that was more dependent on the shield than the sword, but it would be the first time I've seen it done with dual shield.

 

Ok here's my problem with this. Firstly you couldn't really overlap them meaning you're not really getting extra protection from those powerful hits.. they're either taken by one or the other. 2ndly.. blocking and overhead strike with both shields.. is not only leaving your entire body exposed.. it's blocking your vision.. blocked vision = very bad and usually = very dead. You're certainly not gaining any manueverability.. in fact having used shields before I would expect some loss.. at least in the arms and especially with large shields.

Even if you are overlaping the edges.. that overlap is a weak point unless the shields are somehow specially designed to interlock (ie interlocking jagged edges). The rest of the shield has your forearm for support.. right in the middle has nothing.. and even then you don't want to take a direct hit on the shield where your forearm is or you risk breaking your arm. In either case I can't really see a scenario where it's worth bringing them together that doesn't block your vision.

The idea would be more viable with smaller shields but larger ones?

 

I apologize, I missed a word in typing, read it again, I was proposing to LOSE maneuverability and vision.

As for being exposed when blocking an overhand, when AREN'T you being exposed somewhere when you block elsewhere? If I am fighting a single opponent with a polearm, for example, and he attempts an overhead smash, then I'm momentarily not worried about low thrusts, his weapon is high and committed, if my movements are smaller and I stay aware of his weapon, then he won't suddenly be disemboweling me. If I am fighting an opponent with smaller weapons, I don't have to worry about massive overhead blows, I just lean back a bit and raise the shield edge to carry high thrusts and swings off target.

Now, the interlock thing, I was thinking just put the corner of one shield inside the other, so that I have a second support strut at the far end of my forearm. The near end has my elbow, which gives the very solid support from my upper arm, but the leading edge of my shield has far less support. If, however, I can reach across and brace that far corner with the other arm, via whatever point of contact is most convenient/effective, then I have added to my ability to absorb an impact. A serrated leading edge on the shields would not only help interlock and support but would open up the idea of a slashing forearm swing.

Again, I don't think it's the kind of weapon that would rule the world with it's awesome versatility, but IF you gave it enough synergistically aligned edges and spikes so that it functioned as a weapon AND a shield, and then used two of them, you'd be trading attack for defense, and for SOME strategies, that's exactly what the player wants.

 

I was wondering about that but the major point was that exposure and blocked vision is very very bad.. It's not the same your back being exposed while your enemy is in front of you or to the side.. raising both shields exposed you in 360 degrees at a time when you can't see what your opponent is doing.

 

Bowen your perceived knowledge of possible real life weaponry is truly nerdy. However at some point you have to relinquish your grip on the real world and start thinking like a game dev.

If you come up with a real life combat system for a game, it is going to be so quick and boring that nobody is ever going to want to play it.

 

That all depends on the scenario. People seem to enjoy wading through masses of fodder where combat is generally quick.

Let's assume for a moment I do think ilke a game dev. Believability lends a lot to entertainment. If something is so far out there that it doesn't make any sense it won't be as entertaining to watch. That includes combat. When it comes to games combat needs to be entertaining.. more like stage work that real combat.. since as you say too much realism as the fight is over too quickly.. Usually within a coulpe seconds.. maybe 3 or 4 moves. Not entertaining. I would never imagine a combat system THAT realistic.

 

I've found that the decreasing lifebar/HP count/color status of my enemies, used as a shortcut by virutally every video game I've played, is frequently exciting in and of itself. You are right that entertainment is a very important component, I think that the dev team from HALO said it well (paraphrasing) "You create eighteen seconds of fun, so that the player says 'that was awesome'. And then you get it to repeat, over and over."

 

That sounds like about right on the time frame for most fights (with some variation). Unless it's a climactic battle you don't want it to drag on for too long.