Guard Positions for other Weapons?

[Jerrit R. Reed]

Hi guys! Long time lurker for ARMA. I really enjoy watching your videos and learning. You guys have a great thing going here. I think I have an decent understanding of basic swordsmanship.

I am actually designing a personal mmorpg video game of sorts. Perhaps some of you are familiar with what I am talking about? For a while now I have been trying to translate swordsmanship into melee combat mechanics for a game. I understand at ARMA the German Guards are mostly used.

I have decided to use 3 core Guards for a player to start from. High Guard, Mid Guard and Low Guard. I see that these 3 positions are the primary positions in which to deliver strikes to. And using other "variations" of guards that players can get eventually use once they have trained more per say. That would include, the Ox, Tail, Wechsel and other guards.

I find it really interesting that to perform a "hit" is through one fluid motion by winding the placement of your hands while cutting. I suppose that would translate to a "hit" in a video game.

In a video game you'll have many different types of weapons used. Such as Polearms, Blunts, Axes, Daggers ect.

My question is simply this. If I wielding a Long Sword and my opponent is wielding a Blunt weapon, would I expect my opponent to be in the same Guard position and posture as I? Do different weapons have different Guards? Or are Guards more ore less universally used with different weapons?

I would like to stay true to swordsmanship as best as I can while designing this mechanic but yet not be overwhelming as a player. I am trying to find a nice middle ground.

Thank you for your time! I look forward to your answers!

[Stacy Clifford]

For the most part, the guards for different weapons are all very similar because they both oppose and create the same universal lines of attack. The sword has the widest variety of guards because it is the most versatile of weapons. Other weapons, such as maces or polearms, may modify or remove certain guards to better suit the capabilities of the weapon. A mace can be used from an ochs guard perfectly well, but because that guard is particularly well suited for thrusting, you probably won't see a mace in that position very often. Most masters who taught the staff and polearms either ignored the high vom tag guard altogether or lowered it in front of the body in more of a flagpole position because the staff is too slow to defend well against thrusts from the traditional vom tag of the longsword, though a strike from there would obviously be quite brutal. Just because a weapon can be used a certain way doesn't always mean it should.

Also, we tend to use the German guards because the names, positions, and number of guards remained relatively standard across Germany for a couple of hundred years. In other cultures of the time, the positions of the guards are generally the same, but the names vary more widely, and some masters may add extra guards up into the dozens, while others teach that you only need as few as three (or even two in the case of Joseph Swetnam). You're not going to go wrong by using Italian, French, or English terminology, but if you're trying to create a common core curriculum for an international membership, the consistency of the German school is highly useful.

By the way, you need to edit your username to your first and last name according to our forum rules.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

I don't think the German tradition is a particularly good choice for building a computer/video game's combat model. There hasn't been any game engine that can represent binding and winding actions satisfactorily (or, indeed, at all) and without these the swordplay wouldn't look like the medieval German tradition at all (although of course there were plenty of actions without binding in the German tradition too). Fiore's tradition would be a much better choice, though not by much (since it seems to use the bind rather less than the German system -- but still a good deal of it).

Ironically, if you want to stick fairly closely to any historical system, you might have to stick to later (and rather anachronistic) systems like 19th-century military sabre or broadsword since their parry-and-riposte mechanics and the small number of defined lines of attack (with the corresponding guards) would be much easier to code into a game with a reasonable level of fidelity.

You've raised the concern that a combat system might stop being enjoyable if it's too realistic. That hits the nail on the head, since gamers (including me) generally play to have fun, not to get bogged down in a history lesson. Try looking at the combat animations in The Witcher; they're as unrealistic as most other games, but the mechanics are decent enough that I think they qualify as a "taolu wushu" version of European sword arts.

[Jerrit R. Reed]

Thank you both for your reply! I really appreciate your insights! I did figure that most different weapons besides a sword would still use the more or less the same postures and positions. You've hit the nail on the head. I am just still trying to figure out the best way to classify different weapons while using Guards. For an example, is the only advantage to using a 2 handed sword over a 2 handed mace is you'd have more access to different guards? From a video game perspective I'd like to have a player choose what type of weapon they would like to use based off their advantages and disadvantages.

Curtis, the idea for the Guard system is to simply allow the player the be able to adapt while in combat. I wanted players to essentially have access to many different options but not limited to their play style. I could use a sword for my character and you could use a polearm for yours and we could just be as effective because we've both mastered the Guard system.

Like above I want the Guard system to be simple but yet offer a lot of different options. To translate swordsmanship into a video game, unfortunately you'll have to sacrifice some of the realism. I don't intend to make a direct simulation of swordsmanship but use it as a catalyst to make melee combat more interesting and adaptable.

Binding will have to happen. The clash of the swords. I expect melee combat to be rather slow to a medium pace and not as fast pace as most mmo combat mechanics are today. And thanks, I'll will check out the Witcher's combat mechanics.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

I am just still trying to figure out the best way to classify different weapons while using Guards. For an example, is the only advantage to using a 2 handed sword over a 2 handed mace is you'd have more access to different guards?

The principles behind the use of both weapons are the same, but these principles are implemented differently. For example, the guards for a sword should facilitate edge alignment (at least if the sword is capable of cutting), while a mace doesn't need that. And a mace generally doesn't have sharp edges along most of its haft, so it's easier to slide the hands up closer to the head if the wielder wants to parry or strike with the butt, while the options for striking with the pommel of a sword are significantly more limited.

Curtis, the idea for the Guard system is to simply allow the player the be able to adapt while in combat. I wanted players to essentially have access to many different options but not limited to their play style. I could use a sword for my character and you could use a polearm for yours and we could just be as effective because we've both mastered the Guard system.

(snip)

Like above I want the Guard system to be simple but yet offer a lot of different options. To translate swordsmanship into a video game, unfortunately you'll have to sacrifice some of the realism. I don't intend to make a direct simulation of swordsmanship but use it as a catalyst to make melee combat more interesting and adaptable.

Well, the case in the real world is a bit more complicated than that. I'd compare the process of learning various weapons to acquiring a piloting licence. Getting a Commercial Pilot's Licence (CPL) certifies a pilot on basic flying skills as well as a decent familiarity with the aircraft types he has trained with, but when he signs up with an airline he'd have to undergo more training to certify himself with every single individual type of aircraft he's going to fly at work. Similarly, even though training with the fundamental weapon of the style (say, longsword in the Liechtenauer lineage, or unarmed wrestling in Fiore's style) provides the student with a solid grounding in that foundation weapon as well as a good (but still rather vague) idea of what he can do with other weapons, he'd still have to spend some time familiarising himself with each weapon before he could really use it effectively.

Of course a certain degree of abstraction and simplification is perfectly justifiable (and absolutely necessary) for a game, and it's up to you to decide how to implement this. Personally, I'm rather partial to a system where acquiring or improving a character's proficiency in one weapon simultaneously raises his proficiency level in all other weapons, but with decreasing percentages as the weapons become less similar to the reference weapon. For example, training in two-handed swords might increase the two-handed sword skill by 20%, but it also raises one-handed sword and polearm skills by 5% and other hand-to-hand weapons by 1% or 2%. Or it might remove non-proficiency penalties from two-handed swords and halve them for polearms and one-handed swords. These are just examples of what I like and whatever system you come up with doesn't have to look exactly like that.

Binding will have to happen.

Well, of course, if that means simply two blades coming into contact and sticking to each other momentarily. But what about actions on the bind like plain old winding (Winden), Auswinden, Ablauffen, Mutieren, or Duplieren? If you can develop an engine and models that will simulate these actions, more power to you -- and I'd certainly like to see the results. But I'm afraid I'll have to be a skeptic and pessimist on this point for the time being.