Medieval Combat System

While reading, I immediately remembered ye olde "Weapon vs. Armor Type" table from my days of playing AD&D (2nd edition forever!). The advantage of using the table is that mixing units and equipment can be a strategic choice to maximize as much offense against the widest array of opponents.

The disadvantage? Yeah, lots of bookkeeping. So if your target audience is accustomed to that level of tracking, referencing tables, etc. then sure, give it a try. For those not so much into the C&C block style and/or wargaming play with some wrinkles, then they'll elect to stay far, far away from it. To the inexperienced player, it would seem too much trouble for what it's worth.

For reference, I couldn't find the table online anywhere, but this commentary explains a few examples in significant detail.

https://trekhead.livejournal.com/93653.html

There were also weapon damage variances depending on the size of the opponent/target struck, but in your game I assume you are having opponents all of the same general size and physiognomy, so small vs. medium vs. large isn't much of a factor.

For me personally, our gaming group opted to use standard damage for weapons, but we modified the status of critical hits. Different weapon types (Slash, Pierce, Blunt) would affect opponents in different, potentially-lethal ways, never in a good way for the receiver. The most complex lookup we ever dealt with was whether or not the target was wearing a helmet.

Who attacks first?

Do you accommodate for the size/encumbrance of weapons in determining when attacks occur, and/or if smaller weapons allow for additional attacks?

...Asking for a friend.

I am curious how much health you are using in your game.

Because average weapon damage is not always correct.
Average hit points for every weapon and health combination is more accurate.

Would you consider a ruling that weapons with a high Length rating can only be used in an initial engagement with an opponent, but then must be abandoned for a smaller-size weapon or the user suffers a kind of penalty?

I suggest this because is a defender with a lower-Length weapon is allowed to respond to the attack, they must have closed the distance between the two and Length no longer provides its initial advantage. It's doubtful they'll voluntarily retreat to effective striking range for the glaive when they've snaked in close enough to stab with a dagger. Maybe ignore the penalty if the polearm-armed unit voluntarily retreats?

Any thoughts on this, bottercot?

Just trying to convey some friendly advice from one noobie designer to another:

When designing a game, and specifically when looking for feedback, I feel like it's important to decide from the beginning what some of the unshakeable tenets of your game will be, the bones and pillars that are just non-negotiable. Once you know what they are...focus on getting feedback on other aspects of the game. Getting people's opinions on these pillars is still important, but try to make it clear what you're actually looking at modifying based on feedback.

For example, one of my games has no dice. This is not something that occurred through the natural evolution of design: I set out to make a game without dice, because I hate them. Therefore, no matter how much feedback I may receive to the contrary, there will never be dice in this game. Otherwise, there's no longer any point in the game.

However, you specifically asked whether people think your system is too complicated for its target. The majority opinion happens to be that it is (I more or less agree, btw). Now, a lot of this is not even saying that the game or components are in themselves too complicated, from my understanding. Just that perhaps you should START narrower, and broaden from there. To me, that's just sound advice regardless. Especially in playtesting.

Just remember (and I swear I'm talking to myself here too): It's your job to build the game. It's everybody else's job to tear it apart. And that's a good thing. When you are passionate about your game, it's pretty freaking hard not to get defensive about it. I do it. I bet everyone else here has done it at some point. But it's not productive. Use it to fuel progress on your game so that it becomes a product that defends itself.

I'm in danger of beginning to ramble, so I'll just cut myself off on this: I like where your head is at with the concept for your game. I like the basic scheme you have in place. I do think that, like any game this early in its process, it's going to need some substantial work. But keep me in the loop because I am definitely interested.

I don't remember short swords to be used as battlefield weapon by any medieval army.

Another thing is there would not be a unit of "swordsmen" or "axemen" or "macemen" in a medieval army. Unless we are talking about ranged or pole weapons, medieval infantry "units" would use whatever weapons they owned. Same goes for armor.

Unless you are making a dueling game, there's no reason, really, to distinguish most of the melee weapons. In a mass battle, there is very little difference between them in terms of efficiency. And making uniformly-armed units would not be historically correct either.

Speaking of "medieval", which period of medieval do you have in mind? Late medieval military equipment and tactics would differ substantially from the early middle ages.

11th century knight: https://i.imgur.com/fmaEQAh.jpg
15th century knight: https://cdn.waterstones.com/lookinside/9781846030772_3.jpg