A bit more realism. Warning very long.



  • I’m not trying to be a jerk in any way, but I didn’t read any of that because it’s just a wall of words. Is there any way you could edit it into a proper paragraph format or at least break it up into sections? Thanks, man!



  • It’s been said many times, but i think i’ll repeat it. Chivalry isnt really supposed to be realistic or historical, but rather cinematic. Hollywood sword fights are not at all realistic, but they are entertaining.

    Chivalry actually has more realistic swordfights than Hollywood since 50% of all Hollywood swordfights end with the hero punching the bad guy with his fist or throwing his sword at him.

    So yes, some of your points are valid. But as far as game-play mechanics and keeping things simple enough to be fun and not have too steep a learning curve, i think its a decent trade off for the “realism”.



  • @Slaughtervomit:

    I’m not trying to be a jerk in any way, but I didn’t read any of that because it’s just a wall of words. Is there any way you could edit it into a proper paragraph format or at least break it up into sections? Thanks, man!

    I tried my best to not make a single grammatical correction in that post, lol. However, I separated the best I could by each general subject. Hope that helps!

    Anyway, I would like to address the point you made about arrows. Yes, most arrows of those days didn’t always penetrate armour. Depending on the velocity of the arrow, it could possibly do a better job than a sword. If you are shooting an arrow near 200fps with an English Longbow and you have a specifically designed armour piercing missile, then 9 times out of 10 you WILL penetrate most plate armour. Some arrows were even engineered to be blunt so that they caused more blunt damage by severely denting the armour multiple times from a distance, making it relatively more effective than, say a mace. Crossbows on the other hand had a far better time piercing armour than longbows did. A crossbow bolt is far easier to penetrate due to its compacted weight and focused momentum at the tip of the point. The bolt could travel faster than the longbow at around 250-300fps, making it much more likely to pierce the armour. So before making wild, emotional assumptions, do your homework.



  • so you’re saying that knight would be the most overpowerd killing machine ever created if your suggestion would be added? if archer cant kill you with arrows because u have plate armor and can’t even 1v1 duel u because knight can go through arher’s block. i’m sorry but i dont agree with anything in that post of your’s. Chivalry isnt suppose to be fully realistic, go play mount and blade if you want more reaslistic medieval fighting game.



  • As many games are, Chivalry is based on a rock-paper-scissor logic.
    Modifying what you suggest would just ruin the balance.

    The only thing I agree about is one I agreed about before you post came up: Dagger shouldn’t block an overhead maul.



  • But how would that be to the balance and game-play? You want people to become practically useless when they have a dagger versus opponents with big weapons? It’s already a very difficult weapon to use, I don’t see the point in nerfing it.



  • @Kwal:

    But how would that be to the balance and game-play? You want people to become practically useless when they have a dagger versus opponents with big weapons? It’s already a very difficult weapon to use, I don’t see the point in nerfing it.

    A dagger wouldn’t be useless, because basically it is the best against knights so as opposed to trying to knock off the greatsword they are stabbing at you with, get a faster hit in first to stop their attack and keep the pressure on. Also as a side note not just to you, the knight shouldn’t be over powered, in all reality kind of under powered because granted arrows and overhead slashed can’t hurt him stabbing, aka getting under the armor, pretty much locks them down. So to all the archers bitching, you can still kill a knight. Plus I never said crossbows can’t be of use to them. Those things pierce armor pretty good.



  • @The:

    The only thing I agree about is one I agreed about before you post came up: Dagger shouldn’t block an overhead maul.

    Yes, yes, and more yes. Maul should be a brutal crushing force to be feared… At the moment, I think the general idea is “meh, I could parry that with my butterknife big whoop”…

    @Izlude:

    I tried my best to not make a single grammatical correction in that post, lol. However, I separated the best I could by each general subject. Hope that helps!

    Thanks, man! Much better!



  • This is a wargame. Not a simulation. So no. It already is a lot more realistic than many other hack n slashers. I suppose you could go play bushido blade.



  • @VikingTheStolenID:

    A dagger wouldn’t be useless, because basically it is the best against knights so as opposed to trying to knock off the greatsword they are stabbing at you with, get a faster hit in first to stop their attack and keep the pressure on.

    This is already the only useful tactic, it almost looks like you’re saying it’s as much of a hitter as the maul. The dagger is a very decent weapon, although it’s also very arguable whether it’s ‘the best against knights’. I don’t see how nerfing it by making it impossible to block with is a good idea. You have to land a shit load of hits and it’s easy to miss with it, but even if you don’t and have a decent opponent he will manage to block or push you back eventually, which will often mean instant death for you if you can’t block his attack.

    There’s a huge stamina drain and knock-back if you block with it already, that should be enough.


Log in to reply