Although not many people like it, i think chambering (and block chambering maybe) like you have in M&B is good to have. Although it's not that popular because of how it works, it adds another dimension to the game beyond attacking and blocking. It allows players that have mastered those to go further into developing their skill and make sure that there's always more play styles and things that could catch you out in a fight.
I would like to see something more added towards blocking rather than what we have in the M&B franchise currently. I'm thinking of something similar to what Pugglesworth mentioned but have it so if you time your block well, as it works in real life how bringing power with your sword to block your opponent, would enable you to strike back like we're seeing in M&B. If you don't time it well however, as if you hold it up for too long/early you will get a swift stun, significant enough that you won't have the time to strike back (assuming your opponent knows what he's doing and immediately strikes again) and you will have to once again block only to look for that well timed block which won't stun you, so you can finally swing back and be the agressor. I think this would look more realistic and would probably also be more fun. M&B melee battles is silly in the way that the opponents take turns to swing at each other, block-swing-block-swing without any penalty or award for a "good block".Only suggestion/idea I have is not to copy/use/not rely on any M&B. We have "shit" ton of threads, posts like: gib mi mant end bleyd or M&B wasn't bad at all so let's use this or that solution.
And no, I'm not refeering to parrying, that however should also be in the game to catch your opponent of guard, like in M&B.
Will we lose our ability to fire our muskets if we go into the water like in.... NW?This topic
The bad thing is 99% players on this forum are/were playing NW and mostly due to force of habit they want to have same gameplay here in Holdfast. Quick reminder of what we have in NW:
2. Spinning/Rotations for speed bonus to attack.
3. "Feints" changing attack directions at light speed.By feinting you are abusing the mechanic which enables you to block in the middle of a stab
4. 2 sides for musket attack.
5. Using high mouse speed to get behind an opponent and stab in the back.
Now some about history:
1. The majority of bayonet attacks ended up with one side fleeing before any contact was made. There were bayonet attacks and charges but most of them wasn't a hand to hand cold steel combat. Mostly those were individual 1v1 or small group fights between soldiers than whole regiments.
2. Wounds made by sometimes up to 50cm !! bayonets weren't sliced but puncture. It's more than enough to pierce heart or other vital organs.
According to another sample taken (in 1762) in Invalides;
- 69 % of the wounded were wounded by musket balls
- 14 % by sabers
- 13 % by artillery
- 2 % by bayonets
It doesn't say that bayonets weren't used but they did not cause most of the disabilites. Why ? Because mostly those were lethal wounds ( pierced guts etc. [internal bleeding] ) or easy to heal like stabbed hand or leg ( Without hitting the artery ). Why 69% muskets? They were crushing bones, destroying whole parts of organs and bringing inside body material which caused infection. 3/4 Invalides had amputated limbs due to broken bones. 1 good stab will end opponents life.
3. Melee manuals show that officers from mostly upper class were taught how to fight duels not "Group Fights". Here you have 2 duels: 1st spades 2nd sabers form the most accurate movie about duels in 19th century.
4. In hand to hand combat soldiers were using any kind of weapon. move that could kill the enemy. Puncture strikes, butt bashes ( butt of the musket ) slices etc.
5. Most of the bayonet stabs were reflected not blocked ( you used your own musket to change the direction of enemies stab away from you and use his mass to stab him in the guts ), slices from Sabre briquets, swords or rifle/musket swings were blocked.
Not going to sticky this but thanks for posting it. While some of us did have input into the development of NW Holdfast and Anvil Studios are wholly independent entities. The game will be it's own animal and hopefully something fresh and enjoyable building on what we already know to work.I hope they will make this historically accurate/realistic so you won't be still fighting with internal bleeding.
I totally agree with rutger
AGS doesn't aim to have a real-life simulator 100% historically accurate game.
From their own words : they want to create a a game on which they can build and support an active competitive scene.
Every single word in your post is against it.
And you said it yourself : "99% players on this forum are/were playing NW and mostly due to force of habit they want to have same gameplay here in Holdfast"
Why on earth should they even listen to you, then ? To satisfy the 0.004% players that think the same as you ? (as some people who aren't former NW players don't necessarly agree with you)
You want them to make the game as such, with an exact 69 % of woundeds by musket balls, 14% by sabers, 13% by artillery and 2% by bayonets ?
You also want them to add a hunger system ? a shit 'n piss system ?
And if you get stabbed without being treated afterwards, will you get tetanus ?
Why wouldn't they add a wife&kids system too, would be great.
If you want to play a real-life simulator game that has an absolut priority on virtual-reality experience rather than gameplay experience, go play a game that actually offers it. But not Holdfast.