This was a really interesting read, I think the age of "naive video game developers" who know nothing about history is coming to an end, well at least it is starting to change for indie developers.

There are plenty of historical videos that like to point out historical flaws in videogames and other oddities that are not realistic and would not work in period related combat.

That's all well and good but I think these historians as well as other players that like to assume that us game developers are completely clueless really should remember about "context".

Just like how context is so important in determining whether something is truly historically accurate despite it coming from a historical source, I believe the same should be applied when pointing out oddities within the context of a game.

Medieval combat has been a big influence in my own design decisions for Dead Monarchy but the reality is, it is still a game. If I wanted to be closer to historical accuracy then "heavy" armour in my own game should technically outclass light/medium in every way and it should not have any sort of real "Stamina/Movement" penalties as it has been debunked several times that plate armour specifically designed for combat was required to be flexible and relatively lightweight when the weight was properly dispersed.

If I did do that though, I would be severely limiting the tactical choices players have during combat. After all it is only through turn-based combat that skills/perks/abilities are truly accentuated and feel unique as the player has the time to process each decision.

I love feedback of all kinds but deep down I cringe every time someone tries to correct me of my "odd" naming conventions, such as calling a shield a "Pavise" and assuming that I am absolutely clueless because I have derived all my knowledge from Hollywood films. The pavise in Dead Monarchy is based on a hand pavise however the pavise in general has a distinct shape and for me to create 5 tiers of quality all based on a "historically accurate pavise" would result in 5 tiers of shields that essentially all the look the same and it would be hard to quickly spot the difference in tiers during combat with the camera zoomed back. Why not just call it a "shield" then? Because shield is too bland and eventually future games would have different "shield" types like scutum, aspis, targe (reserved for northern cultures) based on different cultures and I prefer to keep them all singular terms. Thus, "Pavise" was conceived as an umbrella term that would cover "Medieval European" styled shields.

This is just another example of "context". For all the effort that a historian takes in trying to debunk historical inaccuracies in videogames, I think they should also devote the same amount of time and energy into simply finding out about game design and the possible challenges you face when trying to adapt it to history. Wouldn't hurt to also read up on a developer's past postings to see if he is truly as clueless as you think. I mean after all, historians are required to read a lot right? All that knowledge, all the time spent debunking something, cross-referencing different sources? Should not be any different when calling out historical inaccuracies in videogames too right? They should be doing a deep analysis on the developer, gauging his knowledge and seeing things from multiple angles right?

The day I introduce a "polespear" into one of my future games is probably the same day someone will have an aneurysm over it. What is this vile "polespear" you speak of? Why not simply call it a spear, halberd or even a billhook? Well good sir, it's because eventually I will have over 50 types of weapons and I need a specific naming convention that will allow the player to quickly identify what type of weapon they are dealing with. One-handed weapons have singular names, sword/axe/spear (one-handed) and distinct fighting styles. If I have over 15+ polearm weapons and they are a variant of a base one-handed weapon, calling a polearm weapon a "polesword" immediately tells the player it is a polearm weapon and the fighting style would be similar to a "sword". An even more blasphemous term would be "poleclub", it would be a polearm type weapon with the properties of the one-handed club, IE stunning.

Everything I've said is in good spirit though. I think it is great developers are starting to take more interest in authenticity when it comes to medieval/ancient history and if players and historians want to educate a game developer on his historical failings then so be it. But remember, context is everything

I think turn-based combat is actually the best genre to demonstrate medieval combat in. The reason I say that is because in real-time game combat, the complex decisions that take place in a fighter's mind (IE HEMA practitioner) never really manifest itself onto the screen. It's like watching a boxing match vs watching a breakdown video of the same boxing match. You as the viewer never really picked up the subtle shifts in movement that led to setting up a knockout punch unless it is paused, highlighted and broken down to you.

As for me, after going through many combat prototypes, I've settled on the decision to just provide the player with as much tactical options as possible. I will leave the pursuit of replicating historically accurate medieval combat to developers far more talented than me.

Personally, what works best for me is taking a concept that was used in medieval history and greatly exaggerating it. Just like back to the "Pavise" debacle. I wanted shields from different cultures that were all single worded. Single worded because it is a base "weapon" type, just like the one-handed weapons I mentioned above. The first region in Dead Monarchy is obviously medieval European inspired and what is a "shield" type used in medieval European history that is also singularly named? Well, that would be a Pavise.

All the best with Zodiac Legions, I am looking forward to playing it!

Thank you for your detailed reply!

Originally posted by Kevin Zhang:

This was a really interesting read, I think the age of "naive video game developers" who know nothing about history is coming to an end, well at least it is starting to change for indie developers.

There are plenty of historical videos that like to point out historical flaws in videogames and other oddities that are not realistic and would not work in period related combat.

That's all well and good but I think these historians as well as other players that like to assume that us game developers are completely clueless really should remember about "context".

Just like how context is so important in determining whether something is truly historically accurate despite it coming from a historical source, I believe the same should be applied when pointing out oddities within the context of a game.

You are right about that. Most probably just don't think historical accuracy matters at all compared to the game mechanics they envision.
On the other end of the spectrum, quite a few developers, won't settle for anything less than exact orders of battles.
We are a bit in between, in that we don't mind twisting some parameters and abstracting others, but we want our game to have a strong coupling between mechanics and theme.

Originally posted by Kevin Zhang:

Medieval combat has been a big influence in my own design decisions for Dead Monarchy but the reality is, it is still a game. If I wanted to be closer to historical accuracy then "heavy" armour in my own game should technically outclass light/medium in every way and it should not have any sort of real "Stamina/Movement" penalties as it has been debunked several times that plate armour specifically designed for combat was required to be flexible and relatively lightweight when the weight was properly dispersed.

If I did do that though, I would be severely limiting the tactical choices players have during combat. After all it is only through turn-based combat that skills/perks/abilities are truly accentuated and feel unique as the player has the time to process each decision.

That is true regarding the way we represent armor in games, but even in that time, some decided to do away with some parts of the armor (pauldrons, greaves, ...), so there was a real trade off (it is still very tiring to fight in armor actually. It just is not as bad as some make it seem). Anyway, I still think it is possible to combine both realism and interesting decisions. After all, the decisions of the time were not so trivial. It also is surprisingly original, as most other tactical RPG don't try at all, but some of the most important factors, like reach just cannot be translated easily in the context of a grid turn based game.

Regarding armor encumbrance, it is still a bit of both. Even a simple gambison with a fencing helmet, neckguard and kevlar greaves do limit my mobility when sparring. High stances become much harder to hold because of how inflexible the gambeson is. It also makes it much more tiring when fighting under the sun. I cannot imagine the horror of fighting in full plate at 30°C or more.

Originally posted by Kevin Zhang:

The day I introduce a "polespear" into one of my future games is probably the same day someone will have an aneurysm over it. What is this vile "polespear" you speak of? Why not simply call it a spear, halberd or even a billhook? Well good sir, it's because eventually I will have over 50 types of weapons and I need a specific naming convention that will allow the player to quickly identify what type of weapon they are dealing with. One-handed weapons have singular names, sword/axe/spear (one-handed) and distinct fighting styles. If I have over 15+ polearm weapons and they are a variant of a base one-handed weapon, calling a polearm weapon a "polesword" immediately tells the player it is a polearm weapon and the fighting style would be similar to a "sword". An even more blasphemous term would be "poleclub", it would be a polearm type weapon with the properties of the one-handed club, IE stunning.

TBH, I got a bit triggered by the polesword, but most of the medieval denomation was only added much later, so you can safely justify whatever you want. Also, some classes were way too broad (like the poleaxes!).

Originally posted by Kevin Zhang:

Everything I've said is in good spirit though. I think it is great developers are starting to take more interest in authenticity when it comes to medieval/ancient history and if players and historians want to educate a game developer on his historical failings then so be it. But remember, context is everything

I think turn-based combat is actually the best genre to demonstrate medieval combat in. The reason I say that is because in real-time game combat, the complex decisions that take place in a fighter's mind (IE HEMA practitioner) never really manifest itself onto the screen. It's like watching a boxing match vs watching a breakdown video of the same boxing match. You as the viewer never really picked up the subtle shifts in movement that led to setting up a knockout punch unless it is paused, highlighted and broken down to you.

As for me, after going through many combat prototypes, I've settled on the decision to just provide the player with as much tactical options as possible. I will leave the pursuit of replicating historically accurate medieval combat to developers far more talented than me.

Personally, what works best for me is taking a concept that was used in medieval history and greatly exaggerating it. Just like back to the "Pavise" debacle. I wanted shields from different cultures that were all single worded. Single worded because it is a base "weapon" type, just like the one-handed weapons I mentioned above. The first region in Dead Monarchy is obviously medieval European inspired and what is a "shield" type used in medieval European history that is also singularly named? Well, that would be a Pavise.

All the best with Zodiac Legions, I am looking forward to playing it!

Actually, I still think a lot of the fighter decisions need to be abstracted in the context of Zodiac Legion. HEMA is still also a very partial view of the past, because we can only rely on a few sources, and most manuals don't really describe how a battle played out from the view of the warriors, when the scale was not personal anymore, so the view of medieval warfare presented there is ours only! There is no real consensus, even among historians, about the tactical considerations of ther times.
Thank you for your kind words!