How viable would be a technigue of using highly armored arm to parry and riposte then stabbing with a bastard/longsword?
Viable sword technigue?
How viable would be a technigue of using highly armored arm to parry and riposte then stabbing with a bastard/longsword?
Pretty gud
The most effective defence is a good offence. Your opponent cannot attack if they are forced to defend.
a buckler is much cheaper and convenient to carry around.
dear diary, today OP was yet again, a homosexual
Poorgay lmao enjoy getting stabbed
there's a reason shields basically disappeared from knight's equipment after full plate armor became common. Swords cannot reliably defeat it. You can indeed just block things with your arms, body, etc.
SoulsShit Parry systems is one of the least satisfying parry/counter systems ever conceived
t. sucks at parrying
Sekiro did it better though
Sekiro and just about every action game
>only frame of reference is other FromSoftware game
Jesus Christ...
Sekiro is a great game though. Deflect feels good even if it's piss easy to do.
>Kunoichi Project
domo arigatou for making me aware of this mod anon
Is that what it's called? Not my footage. Never used it cause can't run this game on my laptop 🙁
>check it out
>adult content, log in to our website to view it goy 🙂
Anyway...hope you have fun with anon. Playing Sekiro as the Ninja Gaiden girls sounds awesome. Does the mod add their voices as well? I wish these costumes were in the actual Ninja Gaiden games, they are both some of the best.
I figured it was a mod and sure enough it was there. And yeah seems like there's a few mods to change the voices, and i think there's even one that tries to edit the npc voice lines to reflect the change of character
swords are very ineffective against armor. there are treatises about half-swording and pinning but in reality we don't actually know how much of it was used in battle since those same treatises are filled with bullshit.
additionally we don't even know if 'armor piercing' weapons like crows beak hammers or halberds were truly effective against plate. testing would argue that they are not. there is a pretty decent argument for halberds and such never being used outside of ceremonial use.
death tolls in medieval battles were incredibly low once armor advanced past great helms and mail, and even before that usually people would try to collect a ransom. a majority of deaths can be attributed to ranged implements like crossbows that could actually pierce armor.
plate armor was extremely effective and until crossbows were widespread (particularly arbalests) and rifled firearms not much could actually beat it.
riposting is a fencing technique, you would not be able to parry and riposte someone wearing armor.
>halberds were never used
That’s moronic, they weren’t literally meant to break armor. The hooks were basically supposed to help you grapple. Warpicks also were meant to target weak points, not literally punching through plates. You could use the blunt side as a hammer to discombobulate the enemy.
there is very little actual evidence that they were used in any lethal capacity against armor, and by the time they were popular, firearms made them basically obsolete. the only evidence for them actually being used to kill people is by (often ceremonial) guardsmen against unarmored targets.
every single weapon cited as being used against full plate are all just hypothetical. A polearm or a warpick COULD be used to stab someone in the arm pit, but how often did that actually happen? especially compared to how many people died from firearms or other ranged weapons.
its just like modern warfare, very few casualties are from people shooting each other with guns, its all mostly from missiles or artillery or explosives or whatever. in the 15th century onward, which is when halberds were mostly used, guns were effectively the artillery of the time, coupled with actual, real artillery because they had that too.
melee weapons were basically a deterrent to keep people from coming close to you while other sources do the actual killing.
>How viable would be a technigue of using highly armored arm
probably OK, but much much much less effective than using a buckler or similar. An off hand weapon or stick is somewhere in between.
Problem is that to defend, you need zone coverage while to attack you need fast routes.
that's why swords are pointy and shields are flat
You'd rather use a buckler or shield but having metal hand protection is far better than nothing. If your enemy's weapon isn't some sledgehammer that'll break your hand and you don't have a shield but have gauntlets, go ahead.
>Parry edge with armoured limb.
>Punch with armoured limb.
>Stab with longsword.
It works, but it's still nice to have something a bit thicker than 1-2mm of steel to parry blows with.
And at that range you'd probably want something shorter like a knife.
Also a riposte is a counter, past-parry, so your riposte would probably be the stab with the longsword.
Really depends on what century we are talking about and under what context. That is essentially what night ruffians and highwaymen started to do though. I'm sure you've seen the fantasy images of a cloaked figure with just one arm/side covered by the cloak. That's derived from realistic depictions. One arm would be covered in mail and cloth and would be used as a means for defense. The cloak would also be used by that hand to help catch blades if needed.
If you've seen the movie The Duelist you've actually seen part of the armor they would used. Fencers and the like used them for training the only difference between that and what was used on the streets is the added chain mail. There is novellas and short stories from those times about how gangs would shake those armored arms to rattle the mail in order to scare or intimidate people or to otherwise show they're not to be messed with. Just another niche era of forgetting history.