Does this game have?



  • I am looking at getting this game but while watching a few videos was put off by a few things.
    So I have a few questions….

    • Fists seem to be able to actually kill fully armoured knights
    • No cavalry
    • Petardiers seem to be OP
    • Is there a true physics engine for close combat motion? I notice hits do not seem to show how hard
    • A one handed mace seemed to CHOP a mans head off while looking like a normal powered hit
    • Medieval soldiers from the 1200s seem to be fighting along side knights from 1300s. It just seems a bit strange to me. Even the parts of the world these four characters come from seem ranged from eastern to western. Where and when is this game actually set? I would have a hard time seeing a musketeer fighting along side a bar gunner for instance. The same as I would have seeing a mongolian archer armed with a longbow.
    • Troop types seem to be based on clones. While you can choose weapons everything else looks the same?
    • Team colours The blue or the red team. Medieval warfare is more colourfull than this
    • Team names are complete fabrications with no base in history?
    • The engine seems to only allow for painting armour onto a basic skeleton rather than the armour having its own seperate shape and parts.
    • dis-memberment seems way too easy
    • Considering medieval battles often went for hours with very few casualties I wonder why fights are so damned quick.It seems that one or two at most hits to a fully armoured knight will kill from any angle.
    • Why do the models not move their knees and always look like they are limping or legs separated from torso?
    • Why do the models look like fat re-enactors waddling around?
    • I have not seen anybody play with a visor down yet. Where can I see this?
    • Will their be weapon customisation in this
    • Graphically it looks very dated. I imagine this is related to the engine being used. For $20 I do not care about this though.
    • Can anybody tell me how many different hit boxes their are on a man?
    • Why do the guys hold their weapons out in front of them like a knife and fork at dinner? It looks un-natural?
    • How many parts of the pole axe can I use? hammer, axe, point and sides?

    In closing I am worried I will not enjoy this as there is no specific medieval setting this game is based on and that while it looks fun that perhaps it should have focussed on a setting and then expansions rather than a hodge podge of whatever being thrown in for the most variety.

    Just my take though and my style of play.
    What I do like about what I see:

    • First person!!! GREAT
    • Levels and modes!!! GREAT - if a little “fantastical”
    • No bandaging or reviving!! GREAT But spawn speed kinda moots this
    • Love the fact it looks like their are a few moves and pushes that make combat interesting.
    • I think I see a swing fatigue system?? But in videos people do not seem to last long enough to need it?

    P.S. I am loving the fact that so many medieval games are arriving on the scene.
    WOTR, M&B Warband 2 and now this…



  • Here is a good breakdown of the game:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GnuCjueong



  • I think I know you from the TaleWorlds forums :)

    @Destraex:

    • Fists seem to be able to actually kill fully armoured knights

    They can. This could be nerfed a bit. But actually it’s quite fun. Why would someone ever use fists if they had not effect at all…

    • A one handed mace seemed to CHOP a mans head off while looking like a normal powered hit

    I think it makes a head literally explode to tiny pieces.

    • Medieval soldiers from the 1200s seem to be fighting along side knights from 1300s. It just seems a bit strange to me. Even the parts of the world these four characters come from seem ranged from eastern to western. Where and when is this game actually set? I would have a hard time seeing a musketeer fighting along side a bar gunner for instance. The same as I would have seeing a mongolian archer armed with a longbow.

    I would say the Agatha knights could even be from the 1400s. The game is set in a fantasy world. Like in Lord of the Rings where Rohan warriors have some early medieval/Anglo Saxon appeal while Gondor looks late medieval with plate armor, or Game of Thrones where there are full plated armors and occasional great helms.
    It’s all definitely pre-gunpowder era.

    • Troop types seem to be based on clones. While you can choose weapons everything else looks the same?

    I hope we will yet see some customization options.

    • Team colours The blue or the red team. Medieval warfare is more colourfull than this

    It is, but they are striving for a “realistic”/hollywood like feel. You don’t see any banner upon your lads’ heads. So there has to be any way to clearly see who is who. Besides the faction colors aren’t that much distinct. The Agatha knight is full plated. He has a little cloth with some blueish pattern. The mason Man-at-Arms is more brownish. When there are more customization options you need to tell the guys apart by the color scheme.
    When I look at depictions from the hundred years war the French are tinted in blue while the English are red. Maybe it’s not that unrealistic, I’m not sure.

    • Team names are complete fabrications with no base in history?

    Nop, fantasy.

    • The engine seems to only allow for painting armour onto a basic skeleton rather than the armour having its own seperate shape and parts.

    Don’t know what you mean. Looks pretty good to me.

    • dis-memberment seems way too easy

    Yes… but it’s fun, so…

    • Considering medieval battles often went for hours with very few casualties I wonder why fights are so damned quick.It seems that one or two at most hits to a fully armoured knight will kill from any angle.

    Again, it’s fun. You can easily rip someone apart if two knights are engaging an enemy. It just feels cool.
    On the other hand it takes skill to defend yourself but you can do it. If you’re good you can avoid being killed for a very long time.
    The armored knights class can take 4 strikes from a Man-at-Arms I believe. It’s really not very different to Warband. You’re taking a few hits and you’re going down.

    • Why do the models not move their knees and always look like they are limping or legs separated from torso?
    • Why do the models look like fat re-enactors waddling around?

    I’m loving the animations.

    • I have not seen anybody play with a visor down yet. Where can I see this?

    Isn’t implemented (yet?).

    • Will their be weapon customisation in this

    There is. You chose from a variety of weapons.

    • Graphically it looks very dated. I imagine this is related to the engine being used. For $20 I do not care about this though.

    $25.
    I think the graphics are beautiful.

    In closing I am worried I will not enjoy this as there is no specific medieval setting this game is based on and that while it looks fun that perhaps it should have focussed on a setting and then expansions rather than a hodge podge of whatever being thrown in for the most variety.

    Well again, it’s a medieval fantasy scenario. That is quite common among video games. Nothing wrong with it. Same with M&B. War of the Roses seems to be the exception. And there both factions look the same. I wouldn’t know which one to pick.
    In Chivalry there are the “good” and the “bad”. They look/sound different and have different objectives. This is more fun if you ask me.



  • Wow that’s a long list. I had to laugh at the graphics part though, I’m not sure which vids you’re basing that off of but the graphics in this game aren’t hardly outdated. Some of the ground textures could be better, but the environment, background, and player models look amazing imo.

    Everything else you mentioned I think you’re overthinking tbh. Honestly the game is so fun you won’t care which periods the different classes are from. You won’t be thinking of any of that in the heat of battle. What it probably comes down to though is balance, sometimes sacrifices have to be made in historical accuracy in order to produce a balanced and deep game.

    Fighting for hours and only having a few kills to show for it wouldn’t be much fun.

    This isn’t a historical sim. But, imo the obj game modes really create for a realistic backdrop.


  • Developer

    Most of your points of concern seem to come from you hoping for a historically accurate medieval world. That is not the goal with Chivalry, instead our goal was “Hollywood Realism”. To make players feel like they are on a medieval battlefield as a medieval battlefield is portrayed in epic sword fighting movies such as 300, Gladiator, Troy and Braveheart.



  • Thanks Seigbert. I think I remember you too :)

    As for the engine thing. I am looking at the knights and they seem to be wearing more like suits or armour painted onto body suites. It just looks like the models are made of very few separate parts.

    I guess I would actually have to see more than videos.

    Personally I am just not a great fan of fantasy settings for medieval games. I play mount and blade and maybe perhaps this hoping for a first person WOTR.
    I just really dig what medieval warriors did in RL. Thats all.
    I am a computer wargamer so I play a lot of other stuff that goes into insane detail.

    Plus I really don’t think a lot of people who play medieval games have as much knowledge of the period as they do on world war 2. So things obvious to me just look normal to them.

    Hopefully when people learn more they will not be so accepting.

    Its the same with medieval total war. Love the game but hope for more realistic factions and weapons mixes in formations for the next one.

    Just my opinion. I like to get into the history and read/research for most games. I just find it fun.
    The double edge is that fantasy games just look completely stupid to me.

    This game though would be good for LANs where everybody is just out for a quick bash. Might be better than WOTR for that?

    P.S. Siegbert by weapons customisation I did not mean weapon variety but actually choosing pomels fighting styles how the blade is forged etc.



  • @Tibberius:

    Most of your points of concern seem to come from you hoping for a historically accurate medieval world. That is not the goal with Chivalry, instead our goal was “Hollywood Realism”. To make players feel like they are on a medieval battlefield as a medieval battlefield is portrayed in epic sword fighting movies such as 300, Gladiator, Troy and Braveheart.

    I laughed all the way through the movies you mention. I generally watch them once find them entertaining but have no respect what so ever for them.
    Those movies are just another director wanting to make a quick buck over some mindless trash.
    In the end there is nothing for you to take away from them.

    In fact now that you mention movies there are hardly any that actually have good armour and correct stories. Why not learn something off a movie if its going to be based on truth?
    So much richness and story that is TRUE and nobody cares or has a clue about it. More interested in fantasy.
    Real life is stranger than fiction……


  • Developer

    It seems unlikely to me that Chivalry is the game for you then, you might still enjoy the gameplay though.



  • @Destraex:

    Personally I am just not a great fan of fantasy settings for medieval games. I play mount and blade and maybe perhaps this hoping for a first person WOTR.
    I just really dig what medieval warriors did in RL. Thats all.

    I’m also more for historical/authentic setting. In case of games I can understand they are taking fantasy factions and continents so they have a bit of freedom to do the game they want without being too much bound to historical accuracies.
    Here the characters can bear custom coat of arms in faction colors rather than historically accurate ones and every faction is using a hollywood style language rather than contemporary dialects.
    Maybe there’ll be a mod with historical factions but I don’t think it’s that important.

    This game though would be good for LANs where everybody is just out for a quick bash. Might be better than WOTR for that?

    It’s better than WotR in every aspect ^^ (I just don’t like it very much. It’s overrated imo)

    P.S. Siegbert by weapons customisation I did not mean weapon variety but actually choosing pomels fighting styles how the blade is forged etc.

    I see. Don’t think we will see this nor that it’s important. Maybe there will be a wider variety of weapons to chose from like in M&B.

    I laughed all the way through the movies you mention. I generally watch them once find them entertaining but have no respect what so ever for them.
    Those movies are just another director wanting to make a quick buck over some mindless trash.
    In the end there is nothing for you to take away from them.

    In fact now that you mention movies there are hardly any that actually have good armour and correct stories. Why not learn something off a movie if its going to be based on truth?
    So much richness and story that is TRUE and nobody cares or has a clue about it. More interested in fantasy.
    Real life is stranger than fiction……

    Well, most people don’t know what actual medieval battles looked and felt like. Tibberius is mentioning those movies not for their historical accuracy but the excitement the portrayed battles scenes deliver. And that’s what they want the game to give you as well.



  • While this game is not realistic, it feels very AUTHENTIC (there is a difference). That is all that matters to me. The fighting mechanics are awesome and this is the best medieval fighting game right now on the market. The fighting mechanics in WotR are not nearly as good as those in Chivalry (I played both betas).



  • @Destraex:

    Hopefully when people learn more they will not be so accepting.

    Everyone already knows that the game isn’t a sim, so there’s nothing that we’re giving it a pass on or reluctantly accepting in that regard. That’s not why we’re here. Right now you’re watching a football game and arguing that not enough jump shots are being taken.

    I’m a big wargamer myself, moreso modern era with TacOps 4, Decisive Action, Scourge of War, etc. So i know your desire for realsim, but that shouldn’t mean that every game has to be realistic, some games, rightfully so, aren’t trying to be super realistic and that’s fine.



  • To have realistic settings or to have gameplay , tough question :D .

    You know there are books .
    But :
    Keep in mind that some of the authors of those books probably were inspired by Indy to learn archeology back in the day …

    Anyway I really enojyed reading this topic :D .
    Diversity is a good thing ;) .



  • Historical accuracy can be good, but if one follows that path too much, the games become boring, unsavoury for most and properly unbalanced.

    For example you would have hour-long battles for one or two kills, when you die no respawning, with thousands of bots on the field to make for accurate numbers, formations that limit freedom, armors that look the same from one faction to the other, and from one class to the next (at least for heavy and light armor considered seperately), classes with a restricted number (like infinite men at arms, 10 vanguards and three knights, as in “there’s one knight for every 100 peasants fighting”), and knights would be overpowered because of their heavy armor and superior training and weapons.

    That’s closer to realism and accuracy, but that makes for horrible gameplay.

    Also, as many others said, this is biased toward “Hollywood realism”, not because it is better, but because it is more spectacular and more entertaining than strict history. Also, fantasy worlds FTW.

    PS: you talked about mixed weapons in medieval Total War, and I can’t but remind this was skipped to allow for better visibility of units’ roles and for a clear gameplay (spears don’t act the same as swords in those games, so there needs to be separate units).



  • Jihel exactly. That is why I look forward to the mixed weapons units in the next game. I know Rome2 says they will do it for barbarians so it will prolly be in med3 if they do that.

    Thanks for understanding my wargaming side. I for one also like scourge of war. Just wish the graphics were better. It is such a niche we are in looking for the perfect wave…. which does not exist :) YET!

    I am leaning towards trying this and just pretending I am playing a fantasy game like game of thrones to suspend my WTF disbelief.

    I do love medieval combat and have done some sword and board and longsword training in RL.
    Not much but enough to know whats going to be real… thats apart from being a BIG history buff when it comes to warfare :)

    I just like to know how stuff was done and how battles worked…

    Some theatres had more of a mix of armour than others. WOTR is in a period where virtually everybody was very well armed… so it makes sense. NOt many peasants and they did not bother the public… was mainly professionals or well armed semi professionals most with experience in the earlier french wars.
    In essense its a perfect theatre for a good portrayal.

    It would have been good to do something similar with this game… perhaps in the 1200s with class restrictions making people take turns as the knights.


  • Developer

    This game is about skill, chaos and belly laughs. Good times.



  • You did not mention history. :)



  • @Destraex:

    I laughed all the way through the movies you mention. I generally watch them once find them entertaining but have no respect what so ever for them.
    Those movies are just another director wanting to make a quick buck over some mindless trash.
    In the end there is nothing for you to take away from them.

    In fact now that you mention movies there are hardly any that actually have good armour and correct stories. Why not learn something off a movie if its going to be based on truth?
    So much richness and story that is TRUE and nobody cares or has a clue about it. More interested in fantasy.
    Real life is stranger than fiction……

    Hey uh 300 was a true story. Sure it was exaggerated and was change up a bit but 300 spartans and other greeks really did make a last stand at the narrow gates of Thermopylae. King Leonidas and Xerxes are not fictional. As for the actual battles they probably just made things up to be more hollywood friendly since we don’t know the actual battles i think. And the spartans did actually wear armor. It was incredible and you could take lots of things away from that besides being a great action movie. As for Troy, that comes from Homer’s lliad (not sure how to spell) and people think that actually happened because i believe evidence was found but i’m not sure. I do not know about Gladiator’s historicalness. I’m pretty sure Braveheart was the scottish revolution



  • @Destraex:

    You did not mention history. :)

    It’s about the history of a fictional world, if that helps ;)



  • Well, apart from Braveheart being the only 1 of those movies set in the medieval era… They’ve got awesome action, which is kind of the developer’s point. It’s about epic fighting. With swords. And axes. And bows. What’s not to love. I’ll be playing historical games alongside and get my fix from there, but any sort of decent game will let you stray from historical fact, cause otherwise there is no point in it being a game, really. Games are about taking control, doing your thing and delving into all-around badassness. And if you do that your gonna change history. Otherwise you wouldn’t have an impact and then there would be no need of you. Historical accurasy is much better for books and films. Just my 2 cents. Can’t wait to get my hands on this game!



  • @Spartan_8822:

    @Destraex:

    I laughed all the way through the movies you mention. I generally watch them once find them entertaining but have no respect what so ever for them.
    Those movies are just another director wanting to make a quick buck over some mindless trash.
    In the end there is nothing for you to take away from them.

    In fact now that you mention movies there are hardly any that actually have good armour and correct stories. Why not learn something off a movie if its going to be based on truth?
    So much richness and story that is TRUE and nobody cares or has a clue about it. More interested in fantasy.
    Real life is stranger than fiction……

    Hey uh 300 was a true story. Sure it was exaggerated and was change up a bit but 300 spartans and other greeks really did make a last stand at the narrow gates of Thermopylae. King Leonidas and Xerxes are not fictional. As for the actual battles they probably just made things up to be more hollywood friendly since we don’t know the actual battles i think. And the spartans did actually wear armor. It was incredible and you could take lots of things away from that besides being a great action movie. As for Troy, that comes from Homer’s lliad (not sure how to spell) and people think that actually happened because i believe evidence was found but i’m not sure. I do not know about Gladiator’s historicalness. I’m pretty sure Braveheart was the scottish revolution

    Spartan I know the history of Thermoplae very well. I have read “gates of fire” for fun and have MANY books on the actual battle itself and its detail. The 300 was a complete joke and based not on history but a comic book fantasy (it was literally taken from the pages of a real comic book ). Essentially they took the bits of history they liked and twisted them until nothing resembled the poor men who actually fought and died on that battlefield.
    We know a lot about what the spartans wore to battle and let me tell you they were wearing armour not naked like the 300 film.
    As for all the beasts and other complete BS like floating fotresses what a croc

    Troy is about something that is already so steeped in mysticism and mystery that the directors could almost not base it on history at all. I have no doubt it happened but also that the real story is lost to the sands of time.

    Gladiator - Loosely based on history. This is probably the best of the lot, but it does not really show any battle apart from its scene at the beginning. However it is not Medieval

    Braveheart - where do I start about this travesty :(. They mixed a lot of history up for this.
    For example:
    The Scottish DID NOT wear kilts - thats from a much later period
    The Scottish DID NOT paint their faces - thats from the Roman period and picts
    The Scottish knights looked exactly the same as the English ones!! William wallace did not look like a peasant and nor did robert bruce!
    They mixed up a lot of the characters and iirc a lot of the good robert bruce did was mixed to give william wallace the glory
    The story they put in of the english impregnating scottish wemon on their wedding night I think was not what actually happened in this case.
    I could go on and on.

    The only films I have seen with reasonable (still very bad) depictions of medieval armour are a joan of arc film and maybe a knight tale or kingdom of heavan….
    Oh and ARN and ARNII
    Still very fantasy but worth a look.



    As I remember it Kingdom of Heaven was famous in the historical communities for introducing two handed swords and specific training on them waaaaay too early in history.


Log in to reply