/tes/ - The Elder Scrolls Discussion

>Explain why Oblivion and Skyrim didn't have Mount & Blade-tier horse combat, as well as realistic melee combat in general

Because it's a fantasy game with combat systems thrice removed from D&D, it's not even attempting realism.

>Why is cavalry so largely absent in TES? Where are schiltrons/phalanxes/pike squares? Why don't NPCs fight in formations like testudos/shield walls/phalanxes?

Because NPC processing in those games isn't sophisticated enough to handle that and would fall apart pretty quickly if it tried.

>Why are the "longbows" in Skyrim not high powered English warbows that loose bodkins?

Gameplay balance. Archery is already pretty OP in Skyrim, especially when coupled with Stealth. Hence the "Stealth Archer" craze.

Let me guess, Morrowind did everything better?

Morrowind didn't even have horses lmao

>>9389

n'wah, mount & blade borrows more mechanics from pen and paper than Oblivion does

>>9392

>Arena used a modified set of D&D mechanics

>Daggerfall used a modified set of Arena mechanics

>Morrowind used a modified set of Daggerfall mechanics

>Oblivion used a modified set of Morrowind mechanics.

>Repeat until Bethesda stops making RPGs.

M&B aped from pen and paper specifically in an attempt to be more realistic, Bethesda's pen and paper mechanics are basically leftovers from an earlier era. I was mostly answering the later half of that question though, for the cavalry part, it's because Oblivion didn't have mounted combat at all since they couldn't be assed to figure out how to do it and Skyrim had it halfheartedly patched in a long time after launch.

> You have 10 seconds to explain why Oblivion and Skyrim didn't have Mount & Blade-tier horse combat, as well as realistic melee combat in general

Main reason - it's difficult to implement on a cross-system game. While the controls for mount and blade are acceptable on PC (albeit quite hard to get the hang of and very hard to master to the point where you actually feel you can do the moves you want to) the controls would not transfer to a console controller.

The key point with console controllers that most people don't appreciate isn't so much that scrolling/looking/aiming is slow (although it is) compared with a mouse, it's more that movement in the Y axis (that is to say up and down) is much harder than with a mouse.

Slightly off topic, but this is why modern fps games are almost completely 2D in the sense that arenas are not multi-levelled with people shooting down and up - compare that with the PC arena shooters, and even some of the multiplayer maps on the first halo. I could talk a lot about how consoles have indirectly killed the classic fps, but this isn't the place.

Coming back to mounted combat, the issue is that it would not be feasible to aim properly up/down to hit enemies on a horse on a console.

Also, in general terms, the combat in ES games is always a weakness, so finding the mounted combat to be below par is hardly surprising.

> Why is cavalry so largely absent in TES?

From a lore point of view, maybe horses are just less common in tamriel than they were in human history, or maybe its a cultural thing, riding a horse is dishonorable, or maybe horses flat out don't like certain races as you get with some horses not liking some smells in real life?

From a game point of view it's probably a combination of them knowing the horse combat was below par, and it just being generally hard to implement, especially on consoles where too many objects at a time messes up everything.

> Where are schiltrons/phalanxes/pike squares? Why don't NPCs fight in formations like testudos/shield walls/phalanxes?

I've actually put more complicated/tactical/teamwork based combat on the wishlist for ES6 in another thread, like I said there I just don't know how do-able this is from a programming NPC's point of view.

I also think that the focus of ES games is very much on the one-on-one combat, there would not be room in the caves for enemies to do complicated formations and so on.

From a lore and realism point of view, I suppose it's also a bit implausible that a bunch of bandits hiding out together in the woods would have the training and general awareness to be able to organize themselves into formations when I imagine most of them are petty thieves that have run away from town.

It's also a bit implausible to think you could take on a whole cohort/unit/regiment of enemies single handed. This comes back to the "ES is a one on one focused combat game rather than armies/formations" point from earlier,

Team-based tactical fighting is definitely something I would like to see, but I think that rather than proper military formations it would be more relevant and fitting for say a pair of bandits to do things like duck and cover behind each others shields while shooting arrows, or standing side by side in a narrow corridor so you can't flank them.

> Why are the "longbows" in Skyrim not high powered English warbows that loose bodkins?

If you mean in terms of the range, I guess its' just not practical to shoot 300-400 yards as you cant see that far away and there are trees and stuff. It's also not really possible to aim properly with 45 degree arced shot at a single enemy - this works fine if it's a proper medieval battle when you're shooting at a fairly large block of men, but less so in an ES type encounter where you would be shooting at one or two people.

And from a game-play/fun point of view do we really want to see archers become even more OP?

> Are Bethesda completely ignorant of pre-gunpowder combats?

Maybe a little bit, but I think this is more of a fun vs realism argument, with a bit of hard-to-implement thrown in, and a side order of the combat being one-on-one oriented rather than pitched battles.

>>9396

>t's because Oblivion didn't have mounted combat at all since they couldn't be assed to figure out how to do it and Skyrim had it halfheartedly patched in a long time after launch.

>WASD moves horse

>S key makes horse walk backwards

>While mounted, the damage radius includes anywhere the weapon swings, not just the aimer at the center of the screen

>charging knocks down opponents

>holding the attack key while charging coaches lance

>>9397

>Main reason - it's difficult to implement on a cross-system game. While the controls for mount and blade are acceptable on PC (albeit quite hard to get the hang of and very hard to master to the point where you actually feel you can do the moves you want to) the controls would not transfer to a console controller.

Well it's a flaw on their part to even publish a console version to start with. Keeping it PC exclusive would maintain higher quality for the games

>Maybe a little bit, but I think this is more of a fun vs realism argument, with a bit of hard-to-implement thrown in, and a side order of the combat being one-on-one oriented rather than pitched battles.

>realism

>fun

>not synonymous

I think it's safe to blame the presence of console gamers for a lot of these flaws. They have shitty limited hardware, and using shitty hardware for so long stunts their tastes and perspectives. This is why Bethesda is slowly turning into Ubishit; to pander to console peasants

maybe there is no horse combat because tamriel is a really shitty place for horses and they are expensive enough to using them in combat is retarded. For example lets take oblivion, where horses range from 500 to 5000 $, which is a lot, especially for normal humans . Black horse courier doesnt count since they are paid by eldar council which is rottchild tier.

Also, tamriel is generally quite shitty place for horses:

>cyrodil was a jungle. Ever tried being a horse in jungle? i dont think so

>Black marsh is lizard only swamp

>Skyrim is cold and mountainous

>Morrowind is a wasteland

>vallenwood, as the name suggests, is a woodland

>Orsinium, where they dont ride horses. They eat horses.

>Summerset isles, which are just like japan

The rest could have some fine traits for horse husbandry. If they werent barren deserts.

As for unit combat, it shouldnt take place. Maybe in horeographed scripts or cutscenes but not in game itself. as one of these missions in oblivion, where you have to protect martin in battle, shows mass combat using eldar scrolls formula sucks ass.

>>9397

>caring about console controls

Fuck the plebs. If they can't get it on the only real system to play games on, they don't deserve to play the game.

>the xbox and PS3 can't even run Source engine games well

I'm this poster - >>9397

>>9407

I'm not a console user, but I think we have to accept that this is the way the gaming industry has become, you can't make a big title a PC exclusive anymore as it just isn't financially viable.

Would games be better if they were optimized purely for PC, almost certainly, but it isn't going to happen and we just have to accept it.

>>9402

> Well it's a flaw on their part to even publish a console version to start with. Keeping it PC exclusive would maintain higher quality for the games

Of course, dedicated titles for each platform would be the best, but it just isn't viable, and you can't expect a publisher not to release their biggest seller on the consoles.

I don't really like it, but cross-platform games are here to stay, so we just have to accept it.

I think flat out saying all console games are bad, and that console games are bad is a bit harsh, some of the best games in the 90's were console games, Morrowind had a console port on a really weak system and that still manage to be a solid game.

Maybe I'm an optimist when it comes to these things, but I'd rather accept that consoles are here to stay, and say okay how can we improve, than say "consoles have killed everything".

I think Skyrim had a particularly bad time of this, as it came out at the end of the PS3 and 360 lifespans, so it was forced to run on pretty under-powered systems for the time. I think they had planned for the newer gen consoles, but the timing was messed up?

On the newer systems, hopefully this will be less of an issue, but I could see ES6 coming out in 2020, by which time we will either be on the even newer generation systems, painfully old consoles. And lets be honest, the gap between console and PC is definitively not shrinking!

>>9383

Because it's a video game.

>>9413

> For triple AAA RPGs, this is largely true. Not so much for other genres like Grand Strat, RTS, autism simulators, etc

Like I said "you can't expect a publisher not to release their biggest seller on the consoles" - emphasis on "biggest seller", strategy games are never going to be the biggest sellers.

> True, but back then console games were sufficiently different from PC games to justify owning both a PC and a console. You might buy an SNES because Rare (RIP- pic related) platformers were completely and utterly distinct from anything available on PC at the time. Nowadays that isn't the case, seeing as consoles have basically become shitty versions of PCs. I'll even troll a little and state that the only modern console I would consider investing in would be a Nintendo one. Why? Because it's trying to be an actual console and not just a watered-down substitute for a PC. In other words, I don't hate the idea of consoles, and greatly respect many past consoles. What I hate is how modern consoles are just becoming low-end, locked down versions of the PC

100% agree

>>9404

> speculating about regions that have not appeared in games

Given how Cyrodil went from being a jungle to basically France I wouldn't be comfortable saying with any certainty that Valenwood is a wood or Blackmarsh is a marsh

Seriously, I'm taking the piss a bit here, but I would not be that surprised in ES6 in Valenwood isn't a woodland

Going back to the main theme of the thread - specifically "why are the battles in ES not like ones in medieval europe" another answer occurs to me:

In the lore, when you read about the big battles that happened in the past (Tiber Septim era, battle of Red Mountain). There is always significant fantasy stuff going on - I know OP said you can't just say "it's magic" but it kind of is the answer:

Take the battle of Red Mountain - you had the Dwemer automatons fighting, as well as a bunch of Nords that could use dragon shouts. And never mind the fact that the dwemer themselves dissapeared towards the end.

Or how about the Imperial conquest of the Somerset Isles by Tiber Septim - using the Numidium.

Obviously I am being a bit flippant in these descriptions, but I guess what I am saying is that there are not a lot of big pitched battles in the ES universe, and when there are there are always big fantasy elements casting a huge spin on things.

>>9420

Also sorry for the shit video quality. The servers are being laggy right now and it won't let me upload anything in higher resolution

>>9414

I think one of the things I'd be most excited about in an Elder Scrolls game with more realistic formation combat etc would be seeing how the mundane combat tactics and magic interacts with each other.

How are battlemages deployed? Singly, attached to squads/contubernia or are they deployed in squads of magic users?

What about mounted spellcasters?

Interesting stuff.

Back to your post, there are plenty of battles mentioned in the books that are more mundane I think it's just that the magical ones are notable and the truly momentous ones are by nature magical (Siege of Crystal-like-law and Battle of Red Mountain are not regular battles, even in Tamriel)

The Disaster at Ionith book describes Imperial tactics and it basically seems like Iron-age European/Roman combat. Battlemages are used more for communication and reconnaissance than shooting fire.

>>9424

>The Disaster at Ionith book describes Imperial tactics and it basically seems like Iron-age European/Roman combat. Battlemages are used more for communication and reconnaissance than shooting fire.

Makes sense. Even a few historical battles like Agincourt were fought largely with ranged weapons (on the English side at least). I really think longbows/warbows would be a good tactic to counter mages. After all, in the games the witch hunter class uses primarily bows

My main bitching fit about longbows is the fact that Skyrim's "longbows" are simply bows which are long, as opposed to the high powered armor piercing warbows of medieval England and Wales

>>9433

> My main bitching fit about longbows is the fact that Skyrim's "longbows" are simply bows which are long, as opposed to the high powered armor piercing warbows of medieval England and Wales

See >>9397

Specifically:

> If you mean in terms of the range, I guess its' just not practical to shoot 300-400 yards as you cant see that far away and there are trees and stuff. It's also not really possible to aim properly with 45 degree arced shot at a single enemy - this works fine if it's a proper medieval battle when you're shooting at a fairly large block of men, but less so in an ES type encounter where you would be shooting at one or two people.

tldr: the weapons you use as a stand-alone fighter for one-on-one fighting would not be the weapons that are suitable for pitched battles

I'm not really sure what you mean about "bows which are long, as opposed to the high powered armor piercing warbows" - are you saying you think the bows in Skyrim should have done MORE damage? They were already crazy OP.

>>9404

Half of your reasons are retarded, and so are you for even implying Bethesda would actually waste time on the intricacies of "horse husbandry".

>You have 10 seconds to explain why Oblivion and Skyrim didn't have Mount & Blade-tier horse combat, as well as realistic melee combat in general

It should improved even further.Things like shield charge should be added,when you hit and the enemy block the enemy should take a few steps back depeding of how heavy your weapon is.

But oh no, since graphics and "modders will fix it XDDD" mentality is already selling we won't see these good features for atleast 7 years.

>>9448

>we won't see these good features for at least 7 years

Anon, we will never see those features.

>>9397

>>9437

> If you mean in terms of the range, I guess its' just not practical to shoot 300-400 yards as you cant see that far away and there are trees and stuff. It's also not really possible to aim properly with 45 degree arced shot at a single enemy - this works fine if it's a proper medieval battle when you're shooting at a fairly large block of men, but less so in an ES type encounter where you would be shooting at one or two people.

I wouldn't expect the bow to shoot an arc at 45 degrees. I just think the "longbow" should be a high leveled weapon like orcish or ebony, rather than being weaker than a hunter's bow. Also bear in mind that at closer ranges archers would have shot straight, not at a high arc, even with high powered bows like longbows. Video related

Modders did eventually add a real longbow

http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/22316/?

And why are all the player characters in these images women? I'm I the only person who still plays as a dude?

>>9453

> I just think the "longbow" should be a high leveled weapon like orcish or ebony

But they're made of wood? If you're getting a boner for realism surely having a "longbow" made out of an igneous rock (Ebony) or metal would piss you off more?

What I think would make more sense from a gameplay and fun point of view would be to have more than one type of bow - say longbows and shortbows.

"longbows" could be higher damage and range, but lower draw speed and quicker to deteriorate (if the game is going to have weapon decay, but I think this is dead) and short bows could do less damage, but draw faster.

I'd also like to see more of a realistic approach to leveling - rather than leveling up in Marksman just making your bows do more damage it should have other noticeable effects, like your draw speed with the arrows gets faster, and your range increases and so on.

I play lots of characters and try to make each play different to the last so I often play as a woman, just as I often play as a man

>>9454

>But they're made of wood? If you're getting a boner for realism surely having a "longbow" made out of an igneous rock (Ebony) or metal would piss you off more?

I didn't say made out of ebony, I said leveled to have the same stats as ebony

>I'd also like to see more of a realistic approach to leveling - rather than leveling up in Marksman just making your bows do more damage it should have other noticeable effects, like your draw speed with the arrows gets faster, and your range increases and so on.

Perks make a half-assed attempt at this

>>9466

>So it strikes me as odd that some jungle dwellers on an island would also have a bow that would use the same nomenclature as this specific Anglocentric tradition of archery, and even more odd that fictional northern Europeans (Nords) would use a "longbow" more like that of jungle-dwellers than Englishmen

>A powerful but demanding weapon, the long bow is historically associated with Altmer aristocrats and Bosmer hunters. The less-powerful bonemold long bow of Morrowind is traditionally a noble's hunting weapon, but has been adopted for wider use by many outlander sportsmen and mercenaries.

>In the West, the wooden short bow is the standard weapon of Legionary missile troops and scouts.

According to Garothmuk gro-Muzgub long bows are an elvish weapon in TES, and the fact that the descendants of the Chimer would use their own variation of it seems to indicate that long bows have been an elvish weapon for a long time. Traditional style English longbows would probably be more of a Breton thing than a Nordic one because of the influence elvish culture had on High Rock.

I want TES VI to have shortbows and longbows, with longbows having a higher range, higher damage, higher projectile speed but way slower firing speed.

>>9383

Bethesda are a bunch of lazy shits and Gamebryo is utter garbage.

What's my prize?

>>9506

>Gamebryo is utter garbage.

true, but Gamebyro/Creation's lack of quality is to blame for the bugs, not Bethesda's bad design decisions

>>9509

Who made the design decisions for the engine, then?

>>9510

Also Bethesda's. I just don't think a bad engine is an excuse for the poor balancing, much of whixh can be fixed with mods