Unrealistic. You can kill in a few shots in Ghost Recon because the mechanics for shooting in FPS's give players the opportunity to flex seemingly infinite skill with enough time and practice. However, the mechanics for melee combat are a lot simpler. You just can't do as much with it. That makes the player's influence on the game weak with a weapon. If you could swing your weapon anywhere you want on the screen as if you're swinging a real weapon, then we could start considering this because the player could probably parry any attack made against him with enough practice.

Besides-as much as I love the twitch gameplay of FPS's and other action games, that's not why I play TES. Though, I do think a bit of action is important in order to get the player's adrenaline pumping.

I'd like it somewhere in between. It's an RPG, so I don't want totally realistic. But at the same time, i don't wanna be able to [censored] everything at level one or have the chance of being [censored] by everything at level 30.

when it comes to longswords "realistic" DOES NOT mean 2-3 hits. longswords didnt cut through armor, they dented it. what would happen in combat was swordsman A would dent swordsman B's armor, swordsman B would dent A's armor, and theyd just keep doing that until someone was knocked down and finished with a stab. so, in a nutshell, realistic all the way.

P.S. when it comes to warhammers and maces, then it would be 2-3 hits for a kill

Like Morrowind. At level 1 you are basically slapping someone with the blunt sides of your sword, so it takes several successful attempts to win. At level 35 you've realized all you have to do is stab them and you win!

So essentially unrealistic with little level scaling.

Somewhere inbetween. It's ridiculous that you can turn anyone into a human pin chusion (+50 arrows sticking out of their faces) and they don't die. I also don't like it how one can take over 200 hits without dying.

Still I don't fight to be only 1-3 sword hits or perhaps 5 arrows long.

I think that one way to make a combat system that's challenging without being unrealistic would be to make a combat system where you have a some attack moves available: regular attack, power attack, kick and magic. You could also sneak to make some attacks that focus more on the lower part of the body or jump to focus more on the upper part of the body.
You also have to defend yourself which can be done in 3 different ways; dodge, parry or block.
You will also make different moves if you're running, walking or standing still. Your direction of movement will also influences your moves.

Just like newton's law says; every action has an equal and oppositite reaction. So your attack moves would also have equal defence moves. Just like martial arts.
Of course, your enemy might be so skilled that your defences won't hold and he'll break through.

The players job is to manage his attacks and defences and perform the moves at the right time. Some enemies will be easy because their skills are very low and the player should have little trouble out manouvering them while other will be more difficult.

Then once in a while you would make the enemy stagger, or fall down. You might also cause him to make an opening where you could move in and perform a combo of 4-5 hits in a row. Causing severe damage. You might get into "lockdown" mode where your weapons clash and you could have to push the other down (or burn his face with a fireball) You also have the chance of making counterattacks after a successful dodge or parry, although your enemy might succcessfully defend against them too.

So a fight could go something like this: You attack. Enemy blocks. You powerattack. He blocks but fails and you break through and he is hit. You kick and he falls on the ground. You try to impale him while he's on the ground. He dodges by rolling sideways, and he get's up. You jump and kick at the same time and hit him in the face. He falls again and you throw a fireball on him. He get's up and attacks. You parry. He attacks again and you block. He attacks again and you dodge and perform a counter-move, he blocks it and tries to perform a counter-move on you. You parry and kick him. Then you impale him and he dies.

Your enemies wouldn't be hit all the time and have 200 arrows sticking out everywhere, they would parry and block your attacks until you get a hit. Combat would be challenging but the same time also pretty realistic. It would also be a lot more exciting and not the hack-n-slash that it is now.

Actually that's not "a real-life battle" you're describing here, rather a very civilised duel, a real-life battle is actually a flurry of attacks and blocking, since you don't have space for anything more and that is why morale is so important - nobody want's to get into the middle of that hell unless they're really motivated. A soldier needs luck more than anything else. But that's not the point, realistic would be if we were able to choose the way we want to fight. If I want to swing blindly my warhammer, I should be able to do it just as fairly as someone else should be able to parry, disarm and cripple their opponent.

would be cool if they have a fighting system like dynasty warriors...air combos and all. different weapons need to have different move sets too.

In between - I don't want blows going through the enemy as if by magic and yet it can't be too real either.

Why not? Simple really.

If you hit an unshielded man/beast full-on with a giant waraxe then they are, lets be honest here, f*cked.
Okay for an all out action game but not for a roleplayer.

I think combat ought to be adaptable but with many unique facets. Instead of having just one combat system in which a character might specialize, it would be interesting if a combination of different systems existed which might accomodate characters with different sets of skills.

For instance, there might be a system simulating extremely fast reflexes and smooth reactions to enemy attacks (think star wars) which is mostly available for fighters with light weapons: you'd pre-program set "moves" and reactions to enemy attacks, and then in the normal flow of combat an enemy attack might get countered or dodged that way automatically while you are free to eleborate or stop the flow at any time (for instance, if you react to a lunge by parrying and lunging, and your enemy does the same, you'd be stuck in a loop for a while until one of you breaks it).

Another system would be more tradiitional, with fewer preprogrammed moves (and fewer programs available), but with a very strong attack which might be hard to parry.

The third system might focus exclusively on power, with some very special killing moves against very powerful enemies (breaking through plate mail, damaging large creatures in vulnerable areas, etc). Spinning area-damage, throwing spears, etc.

Depending on your armor and weapon choices, different possiblities would open up. For instance, high endurance would be required to use platemail or heavy armor, which would essentially turn your character into a walking tank. However, you wouldn't be able to dodge around combat very much, leaving you vulnerable to Barbarian-style light/unarmored strength based fighters who could easily dodge attacks and move quickly.

Dodgine attacks could be based on stamina rather than "health," while health changes other things.

Not if it was swung with any real force - Or at least not without snapping your wrists!

and why not exactly??

Beg pardon? :huh:

On edit - Do you mean why not too real? I explained that below the part where I wrote "Why not? Simple really". It's the fact that the hyper real damage a weapon would cause when using a realistic game engine would not translate well to a game where the lead character grows in skill over time. Just how can you show growth with real damage physics? An interesting question. A level 1 guy smashing an unarmoured goblin over the head with a warhammer would likely do so with less skill then a level 30 warhammer master and yet, trust me, the result would more than likely be the same. Brain soup.

I want a in between combat mechanic. I also would like to see a "clashing" system or something. It would would when two melee weapons or spells are swung or casted in the time period it takes for one to hit an opponet. The two weapons would colide, then because of the resistnse pushed back. The wielders wouldn't be knocked back though, they could attack immedeatly again. To add to this everytime two opponets are "clashing" the angle and height of the swung would change.

I am not sure about magic, but maybe when two spells colide, they wouldblock each other or the stronger spell would destroy the other spell and continue its flight.

I have to disagree, a lvl 1 character should not even be able to lift a warhammer. In games such as TES player is not special, just because he can gain levels, other characters also have the ability, which means lvl 1 is not a lvl of a warrior, more like a child. Moreover lack of experience can be translated to the chance of hitting the place you point at with the mouse. Besides there is a difference in real combat between a skilled fighter and a lame one even when it comes to weapons like warhammers and axes. If you don't believe me just try chopping something (wood, or even something softer like a piece of meat) with an axe adding and not adding your strength. Then imagine the difference between that and a huge honkin' weapon which drains your juice with every lifting of it...

A child can kill with a weapon just as an advlt can. Chance-to-hit represented in swing variance seems a bit awkward; it's dice-roll at the core after all, and if we're going to utilize dice-rolls, there are better places to use it (and further, what would swing variance really do? At most, you'd just be striking the person a bit higher or lower than where you intended). A character can also have 100 strength and an axe skill of 5, suggesting that the skill itself is more about the technique of use, not the physical demands of use.

I get what you're saying but we'll have to agree to disagree.

A fully grown Nord, even if he had never weilded a warhammer in his life, could likely pick one up and swing it at the enemy with some force. Hell, even I could. If the blow lands... Well, you get my point.
This is why I'm glad I play games rather than designing the bloody things.

Well put - It's all about the technique, as you say.
I could no doubt kill someone with a dagger, but could I do so with the same flair and ability as one trained with the weapon?
Of course not.

I still say too real is not the way to go. Maybe it would please both sides if it was made to look more real?

If blows were shown to land with force, slices appear on armour and skin and so on it would make the combat seem more real.
However you could keep this merely cosmetic and still determain actual damage based on your skills/attributes.
'Tis all about balance I guess.

Realistic. Armor almost completely blocks damage, but if you do get hit then you're already nearly dead from a single strike. 3 good blows should drop just about anybody, but getting those blows is a matter of weapon skill and player skill as well.

In between. Bethesda already went the route of more mainstream, you cant expect them as a company to do away with the more action oriented combat like in Oblivion. They are still however an RPG, and dice roll, hit/miss should play apart. Maybe a mesh between Oblivion and Morrowind combat systems.

To this I could agree much easier. As for the "fully grown Nord" - the way Beth designed it, he/she wouldn't be lvl 1. And of course, weapons are deadly even when they're just lying around, waiting for someone to trip and get stabbed by accident. However in reality a lot depends on how well you handle them and who you're opponent is. An untrained person will get killed when facing someone more skilled, no matter what they hold in their hands (balance intentionally disturbed with the invention of firearms). Technique in game terms is exactly skills/abilities (i.e. martial arts training could be represented by agility and hand to hand bonus) and I am sure the effects can be properly implemented into a game. I admit that the more control over the character that player has, the harder it gets to balance what is happening in real world and game world (basically at some point winning is about your skill and not your character's, which contradicts RPG fundamentals). Still, I think it's perfectly doable, as long as Bethesda doesn't want TES to become an action game (which for me would seriously svck b***s).

Finally there's something I'm not sure if someone mentioned here that should be considered a realistic feat: hit zones - with them aiming at certain body parts would make sense

Hit zones make perfect sense - Your ability to damage that area/extent of damage inflicted could be improved as your skill increases. For example a character not too skilled in swordmanship might be able to slice at an ogre's leg and do a little damage whereas a skilled swordsman may be able to do serious damage to the limb, slowing the beast down.

Magical attacks (ranged only?) could also work this way, only rather than the damage reflecting skill you would have it reflecting the power of the actual spell cast (so it would also work for scrolls). A strong fireball cast at the arm of a vicious bandit could very well blast his sword out of his hands making him easier for a mage to take care of.

I think this idea could work wonders and also add a huge level of depth to the combat system while still keeping it firmly within roleplaying, rather than all out action, territory.

Two words: Mount and Blade

I count 3...

I vote realistic. One good strike can kill, but getting that one good strike against an evenly skilled opponent could allow a rather interesting fight, rather than continuous hacking and potion-drinking.

I think it should be realistic, but that maybe depending on who defeats you, you might get taken captive rather than be killed. It would also be nice if combat were more about defeating enemies than killing them, unless you were fighting psychopaths or enemy soldiers. For beginning players, this might help ease people into the world without making the world seem to catering at first. If you venture into the wilderness by yourself at a low level, chances are you're going to get captured by bandits and held ransom or something (at which point you could join the bandits, run away, or get bought/rescued by some guild you're affiliated to).

EDIT: I still think it'd be best to have a combination of different combat styles: dodging, power, grappling, and normal parrying/countering. Maybe you would get learning points over time or after fights which you could use to "learn" different counters or attacks (i.e. lunge [target, vats style], parry, acrobatic dodge, slash, etc) in a certain "skilled" style, while learning some special hack'n slash combos for the more powerful styles. I guess rogues would have to dodge in real time, but that would be easier than parrying in real time.

This system could be combined with some really cool spell effects to give certain characters powerful edge in a chess-type rogue vs. rogue fight: for instance, maybe a spell would give you one "free life" or something, which you could use to lunge at an enemy rather than parrying their attack.