Originally Posted by Fish
Can we stop with the historical accuracy argument? Any game which simultaneously uses all armor and all hand-powered weapons from every culture from every period in history is not, by definition, historically accurate. Armor is not designed to resist all weapons, just the weapons it's likely to face. Weapons are likewise designed to beat the armor of the period. Some tactics and some weapons (stirrups, crossbows) made others obsolete. Some never faced each other in combat because they were never designed to.
Can we also stop with the realism arguments? Falling damage would be impossibly difficult to calculate if you had to first work out ½ x mass x velocity^2, where velocity = square root of (2 x gravity x height), adjusted for airflow and wind resistance. A realistic description of combat would impart more swinging damage the farther the point of impact is from the fulcrum. That would be so yawn-inducingly realistic that nobody would get past the realistic character creation (like the 40,000 dice rolls to decide what genetic alleles you're born with).
Yeah that is good point. Not to mention magic which violates the laws of physics utterly.