ReptilePZ said:
Plate armor really made the difference, and while it obviously can be pierced with a sword, the wearer would have to:
- be stationary, so that swordsman can thrust his sword at an appropriate angle (breastplates were shaped to guide blade sideways);
- be passive, so that the swordsman can put his strength and bodyweight behind the thrust without the risk of his opponent deflecting the sword;
- be really massive, so that the blow won't move him backwards, thus diminishing the force of the blow;
- not be wearing chainmail or leather jacket beneath the plate.
For the record, mutant or not, I don't see Geralt as being able to thrust his entire frigging sword through the front of the plate armor, then a chainmail, then the body, then again through the chainmail and through the back of the plate. Up to the hilt. To a moving target. That would require a sorcerer with some serious strength enhancing magic to do.
This is why European swords were straight and pointy - so that they can be used to thrust between armor joints. And remember how Geralt fought in the books? He would be pirouetting all around the battle ground, slashing his opponents' vital points.
Gameplay-wise fighting armored opponent would be all about finding (or creating) an opportunity for a blow, just like you have to do it with shield-bearers in TW2 - you simply cannot bash with your sword from the front. Then it would be all about playing appropriate animations - thrusting rather than slashing. Also note that even hitting between armor joints doesn't have to be immidiate death for the opponent - after all there is no guarantee you'll hit vital organs or arteries.
BTW One thing I liked about Aryan is that he didn't need some unique armor to distinguish himself from other NPCs. He wore the same armor as many of his other knights, and still he's a strong and memorable character. Like Siegfried. I would very much like this approach to continue.
