Nerf the Academy

[Shenron]

When de Legro, Indirik, Lil wolf, and myself all agree that the issue with swordfighting skills/dueling is one of culture, not mechanics, then I would go out on a limb say we have a disparate enough set of people to say we have the root of the problem.

I think it is time to change this topic to one of, "How can we influence the BM culture to get more realms/players to think this way"

I will start the ball rolling by saying, "get rid of the law about dueling - making it clear it is a matter between characters, and not something for the Judge to be involved in"

It doesn't eliminate things like the king saying "no dueling" and the Judge handing out fines, but it sets the tone for the direction the game should be going.

I agree to some extent that the culture needs to change (and I like the idea of removing the law on dueling completely and make it kind of like a sacred right) however I think it's still important to address this problem and monotonous and boring training at the academy.

Perhaps we could make the academy more expensive but only available once every three days or something and it is triple as effective as current training. Maybe through reducing the dedication required to become a great swordsman we'll see the playing field even out. Of course those who can't be !@#$ed still won't be able to get ahead.

And yeah obviously that isn't a "good" solution but I think it's important to address the current mechanics as well.

[Norrel]

I agree to some extent that the culture needs to change (and I like the idea of removing the law on dueling completely and make it kind of like a sacred right) however I think it's still important to address this problem and monotonous and boring training at the academy.

Perhaps we could make the academy more expensive but only available once every three days or something and it is triple as effective as current training. Maybe through reducing the dedication required to become a great swordsman we'll see the playing field even out. Of course those who can't be !@#$ed still won't be able to get ahead.

And yeah obviously that isn't a "good" solution but I think it's important to address the current mechanics as well.

I think just straight-up buffing infantry combat is a better solution.

[De-Legro]

We could come up with a training system that requires more then just pushing a button and paying gold? There are many possibilities, mini games being the most immediate that comes to mind.

[Norrel]

There are many possibilities, mini games being the most immediate that comes to mind.

God no.

I have another suggestion, which would influence the stance-choosing metagame. How about, people trained through actual combat get extra boosts to the overrun and aggressive styles, academy gets boosts to the defensive and trick moves styles, and both get boosts to the neutral style? It would be a more realistic portrayal of combat, and could lead to some interesting game theory dilemmas when choosing a style.

[De-Legro]

God no.

I have another suggestion, which would influence the stance-choosing metagame. How about, people trained through actual combat get extra boosts to the overrun and aggressive styles, academy gets boosts to the defensive and trick moves styles, and both get boosts to the neutral style? It would be a more realistic portrayal of combat, and could lead to some interesting game theory dilemmas when choosing a style.

Would it? Think about how a roman legion generally engaged the enemy, shields in front, making short thrusts when the enemy gave an opening. Sounds like a pretty defense stance to me. There are of course particulars and exceptions, but in general when engaging a enemy force that has any sort of training, overly aggressive sword play is only likely to leave you open to getting stabbed from multiple directions at once. Dueling sword play is very different to the sword techniques used in formation fighting. They would be slightly more applicable once formations have broken down into general melee, but then your main concern is trying to watch all directions at once so you don't get stabbed in the back while trying to stab the guy in front of you.

The other question would be how do we store this. Are we changing SF skill from one stat to five? Or are we storing whatever "training" technique your characters has used most and giving a fixed boost? Regardless we need to start tracking new values in the database.

[Norrel]

Would it?

Probably not. Maybe defensive/aggressive for infantry, trick/overrun for academy users? The specifics don't really matter, but it would create an interesting metagame. You could say that people in infantry would have more stamina and discipline from long marches and grueling combat, while academy-trained duellists would have a better reaction time and skill. defensive and aggressive strategies require sheer strength and stamina, since they simply want to outlast the opponent, while super-aggressive and tricky styles require fast reflexes and a keen eye, since they want to end the duel quickly in a flourish of blows. I guess that makes sense?

The other question would be how do we store this. Are we changing SF skill from one stat to five? Or are we storing whatever "training" technique your characters has used most and giving a fixed boost? Regardless we need to start tracking new values in the database.

I have no idea. A fixed, binary boost doesn't seem like a good idea though. You could just include either a single variable, which is kept on a sliding scale and is shifted right or left whenever the character does something, or just two different variables representing their "stamina/discipline" and "reflexes", which go up and down with use/disuse.
I don't code or anything like that, so IDK if this is actually feasible.

[De-Legro]

Probably not. Maybe defensive/aggressive for infantry, trick/overrun for academy users? The specifics don't really matter, but it would create an interesting metagame. You could say that people in infantry would have more stamina and discipline from long marches and grueling combat, while academy-trained duellists would have a better reaction time and skill. defensive and aggressive strategies require sheer strength and stamina, since they simply want to outlast the opponent, while super-aggressive and tricky styles require fast reflexes and a keen eye, since they want to end the duel quickly in a flourish of blows. I guess that makes sense?
I have no idea. A fixed, binary boost doesn't seem like a good idea though. You could just include either a single variable, which is kept on a sliding scale and is shifted right or left whenever the character does something, or just two different variables representing their "stamina/discipline" and "reflexes", which go up and down with use/disuse.
I don't code or anything like that, so IDK if this is actually feasible.

Even if I lead infantry, you can be damn sure as a noble I'm riding a horse from battlefield to battlefield. Training in the academy or on the battlefield is likely to require heavy armour, requiring great stamina. This isn't the age of rapier dueling really. We are talking Trial by Combat, in full battle armour.

[Norrel]

Even if I lead infantry, you can be damn sure as a noble I'm riding a horse from battlefield to battlefield. Training in the academy or on the battlefield is likely to require heavy armour, requiring great stamina. This isn't the age of rapier dueling really. We are talking Trial by Combat, in full battle armour.

Nonetheless, the typical battle lasts for several hours, and isn't based so much on accuracy or quickness as on discipline, bravery and being able to keep fighting, in said full battle armor, for several hours. Sure, the average academy duelist also has quite a bit of stamina, but they would focus more on quickness and accuracy. The average spat in an academy would probably last around the length of a duel, as in like 10 minutes at maximum, punctuated by discussions on theory or breaks for water. One could also assume that, since nobles who actively fight in battles are still nobles, they've been trained as a child and would still have some level of finesse. Nonetheless, it's a matter of degrees, and they focus more on that aspect of a fight.

[De-Legro]

Nonetheless, the typical battle lasts for several hours, and isn't based so much on accuracy or quickness as on discipline, bravery and being able to keep fighting, in said full battle armor, for several hours. Sure, the average academy duelist also has quite a bit of stamina, but they would focus more on quickness and accuracy. The average spat in an academy would probably last around the length of a duel, as in like 10 minutes at maximum, punctuated by discussions on theory or breaks for water. One could also assume that, since nobles who actively fight in battles are still nobles, they've been trained as a child and would still have some level of finesse. Nonetheless, it's a matter of degrees, and they focus more on that aspect of a fight.

You know that in many countries the defender was said to win the duel if they survived until nightfall? Duels of heavily armoured men can last for hours. You have a large sword and they have armour. You aren't looking for some tiny patch of exposed skin, that is fantasy stuff. You are battering at each other, denting each others armour if we have reached the age of plate mail, trying to damage and pierce chain in earlier ages. Most dueling styles included graples, trips and the like. Every part of the sword was used as a weapon, hits and pommels were great for delivering a sharp blow. The idea was to wear down your opponent until they made mistakes as much as it was to overpower them with your skill.

[Norrel]

You know that in many countries the defender was said to win the duel if they survived until nightfall? Duels of heavily armoured men can last for hours. You have a large sword and they have armour. You aren't looking for some tiny patch of exposed skin, that is fantasy stuff. You are battering at each other, denting each others armour if we have reached the age of plate mail, trying to damage and pierce chain in earlier ages. Most dueling styles included graples, trips and the like. Every part of the sword was used as a weapon, hits and pommels were great for delivering a sharp blow. The idea was to wear down your opponent until they made mistakes as much as it was to overpower them with your skill.

Discipline, then. A warrior used to the battlefield would be less likely to flinch during the fight, to stand his ground, to take a wound and keep fighting.

[Zakilevo]

Plate mails.. They lasted for what like one and a half centuries? Two at most? Guess it was that inefficient or did something happen after two centuries? Like early pistols?

[De-Legro]

Plate mails.. They lasted for what like one and a half centuries? Two at most? Guess it was that inefficient or did something happen after two centuries? Like early pistols?

The earlist partial suits of plate mail where the Greek and Roman use of cuirass and the infamous Lorica Segmentata. By the 13th single plates where used again to protect some parts of the body. The full set of plate mail was sometime in the late 14th century. Plate in some form was still extremely popular in the 17th century, such as that seen used by cuirassiers and dragoons. Rifled Firearms in the  18th century finally made high quality plate armour obsolete.

And interesting aside is that the Australian Bush Ranger Ned Kelley used plate armour to great effect when engaging in gun battles with police, that is until they realised he didn't have any armour on his legs.

It also saw limited use in World War 1 and 2

[Zakilevo]

Interesting. So the history of a FULL plate armour is short but partial plate armours were pretty long huh. But the sheer weight of a full plate armour must have been deadly. Falling off a horse while charging would have got a knight killed pretty easily... And crossbows... maces...

[De-Legro]

Interesting. So the history of a FULL plate armour is short but partial plate armours were pretty long huh. But the sheer weight of a full plate armour must have been deadly. Falling off a horse while charging would have got a knight killed pretty easily... And crossbows... maces...

if you consider 300-400 years of a weapon technology to be short, sure why not. Plate Armour wasn't that heavy, the battle load carried by modern infantry is heavier. Falling off a horse while charging when you AREN'T in armour is going to kill you pretty easily as well.

[Zakilevo]

A full Plate armour (the ones knights wore) was developed at the end of 14th century and peaked around 15-16 centuries.

Before that people wore chainmails and partial plates but monglian arrows could penetrate chainmails so they wore plate armours on top of chainmails.

Funny thing is crossbows were banned by the church because it was too cowardly. England used it however. That must made them cowards but who cares when you can win a war.