Yeah, gotta say one thing that struck me is how there's a skill for every type of weapon... but none for Armour. No Heavy Armour skill? No Light Armour skill? Or perhaps "Plate Armour" and "Chain Armour" skills.
I just don't see it as a skill. It takes some skill to dodge an attack or to block it. It doesn't take much skill to put on armor. Sure, there is some "getting used to", but not enough to turn it into a skill, imo. What would this skill do? Reduce penalties? That's what Crafting does and it makes more sense.
I do disagree with a Armor skill. It's a passive thing, it doesn't require any skill to wear one.
And there are already disadvantages into wearing an heavy armor: less max AP and more weight to carry.
Martial combat treatises (eastern and western) have sections dedicated to armoured combat not because it is practically a complicated thing to wear and to fight with. You don't just put it on and hope that your enemies hit only the spots covered by your armour. They teach how to kill other people in armour, to work around the armour where needed and to prevent one's self from getting killed in armour in the same manner. Armour is not a passive piece of equipment that simply protects unconditionally. And it also requires conditioning by training so that the wearer can withstand longer bouts of fighting carrying that weight.
The disadvantages to wearing various kinds of armour, especially mail or plate, are far smaller than people think. Most armour don't restrict movement to the degree that people are stuck thinking in Hollywood clichés, which wouldn't make any sense to begin with. Ancient Romans marched in mail (plus all of their other equipment) for fucking days straight and then managed to fight and not die in the process.
Training with weapons are handled in a similar manner. Learning how to fight with any given weapon is synonymous with learning how to block, dodge and counter-attack using that weapon. They were taught to fight with weapon of choice vs. many other mainstream weapons. Sword vs. sword. Vs. axe. Vs. spear. They can not be thought of as separate forms of training existing in vacuum (though there can be and are ways of blocking or dodging outside specific weapon skill sets). If there is a "Sword" skill, it should encompass knowing how to block with it or to dodge with it.
Shield also belongs to the same train of thought. In medieval treatises, shields also have their own sections and training. Fighting with and against shield is in a different category than without. Very much like armour and weapons.
I don't agree with the idea of multiple armour skills but I think
one armour skill to use with mail and plates is a must and maybe, two at most to include other lower tiers of armour too but I definitely agree that Block must be replaced with Shield and blocking incorporated into weapon skills and maybe with a bonus from armour skill when in armour (because someone in armour who knows how to fight in armour can afford to commit to his actions more aggressively).
Which brings me to my criticism of AoD's combat and somebody has expressed a similar thing before: it doesn't involve enough and for a game where almost every combat encounter has a very special place in the story, a game with little to no filler combat, it doesn't provide a tactical resource management layer outside ammo (throwing knives, bolts etc.). As someone who is fond of PnP RPG mechanics, I would have expected more PnP-ish things from VD.
Yes, there are a number of attack options but that's pretty much it. You end up defining your play style just by attacking... or not attacking. I would have liked things like offence vs. defense pools, the ability to decide how passive or aggressive I can be outside deciding whether to guerilla warfare or not. I would have liked more interesting *choices*, active choices other than believing in the numbers of my passive skills and hoping for the best.
I would like, for instance, the armour question -and a bunch of other things- to be handled via stamina pools. More an encounter went on, more difficult it gets to maintain efficiency where stamina would be a tactical consideration. More weight and/or more movement, attacking too many times or being attacked too many times and having to block or dodge too many times have an impact on my capabilities. Plan ahead and fight with these considerations in mind. Think of all the great duels in great flims like The Duellists or Rob Roy or what have you where it becomes a question of endurance and will power between opponents of equal skill.
I would have liked to have a active choice on whether I will try to block or dodge the next attack that I anticipate from my opponent when I decide to refrain from spending my APs in my turn and save it for a reaction bonus or whatever it was in AoD when it will be enemy's turn. I want the same to be available to AI and I want to take note whether I can observe the AI opponent preparing to do either when it doesn't spend its APs as well.
I enjoyed the combat demo and THE demo and played both several times to the end but combat left a sour taste in my mouth. It was fun because it was challenging and gruesome and was satisfying when you beat the odds. And it wasn't because it didn't involve me much.
Consider this: I recently played Conquistador and even though it's a far simpler game in terms of abstraction and tactical considerations in regard to skills, the combat experience was far more enjoyable compared to AoD because the game
involved my active choice in a lot of situations where
I alone could decide whether I wanted to attack or defend or flank an opponent or a number of other things. It gave me choices outside moving and attacking.
Rounding a bunch of
passive probability scores under skill names without any involvement of choice is a bit sandboxy in a mainstream way where developers are afraid to give the players too many options because they might confuse and scare the console kiddies.
