Many RPG systems give a bonus to a fighter that has higher ground in a melee fight. Is there a higher ground advantage IRL, and if there is, why exactly?Star Wars fags, not every thread is about your precious Obi Wan
>>43804918
Yeah there's a higher ground advantage for ants.
Why do we need two threads for this topic, OP?
>>43804918
It's a case-by-case basis. The advantage is in rpgs solely to add tactical depth to the game.
>>43804939
Because the first one is not likely to provide any answers.
>>43804918
According to the few fencers I've discussed with, yes.
Also, ask yourself this simple question. If you could begin a brawl at one end of a flight of stairs, and your opponent at the other, which one would you choose ?
As a kickboxer, my answer is as high as possible. If the fucker can't use his feets to attack while I can kick him in the face with no effort, it's like paradise.
Now, the answer may be different for other martial arts.
>>43804918
Holding the high ground is traditionally more of an advantage in large group combat like military battles, for a variety of reasons that are mostly outside of my knowledge but include things like it being tougher to move uphill than downhill, arrows working better when you aren't fighting gravity so much and the ability to roll shit at shit. In one on one or small group combat you'd need to provide far more detail to the scenario to figure out who has the advantage and why.
>>43804918
When you have the high ground, you're swinging down at your opponent's head and torso, where their vital organs are. Meanwhile they're swinging at your legs.
>>43805009
PROTIP; THIS IS VERY USEFUL VS UNARMOURED PEOPLE AS MANY BLOOD VESSELS ARE IN LEGS
On an incline, the lower person has a greater reach RE the upper person's legs compared to the upper person reaching the lower's head.
In Minecraft you actually want to be one block lower for melee combat due to the way hit boxes, knockback and reach interact. You land significantly more hits and thus kill them sooner assuming equal equipment and both players getting the optimal number of swings in for their position. For ranged combat the extremely high ground is better since bows have a hard cap on height.
This seemed relevant somehow.
>>43805003
>arrows working better when you aren't fighting gravity
arrows are the big one, I think. The higher you are, the further you can fire effectively, which is a massive tactical advantage since you can thin out their numbers before they're able to respond in kind.
>>43805025
You're assuming both are using the same weapon. If you're on the high ground, using a long handled weapon like spear or halberd would be super advantageous.
>>43805297
It would be even more advantageous to the person on the lower ground if the person on the higher ground had a sword because it negates everything that the higher ground is helpful for.
>>43805297
Using the longer range weapon is almost always super advantageous.
>>43805297
high ground is basically a force multiplier for longer ranged weapions. One of many reasons why guards are traditionally given long handled weapons like spears, because they're going to be stationed at places which advantage them.
>>43805025
>THIS IS VERY USEFUL VS UNARMOURED PEOPLE
In a battlefield situation, this doesn't actually matter because the people involved will be wearing armor.
>>43804918
Yes. In simple terms it makes it easier to hit their sensitive areas (head/torso/shoulder joints) while making it harder for them to do the same.
>>43804987
styles that involve grappling and are forearm centric may enjoy being lower on the staircase in particular.
>>43805278
>>43805003
Also tiredness.
Depending on how much your gear weighs (which varies considerably across historical armies - hell, modern armies too) just getting up the hill means you won't enter combat at your freshest. Little things like that can do significant damage to morale.
>>43805025
Also you need your legs to stand up with. Imagine getting hacked so bad you can't stand (which you could probably do in a single blow unless they had high-quality leg armor). How the fuck are you supposed to keep fighting?
>>43805627
Yet for centuries soldiers were taught to strike their opponent's legs, because the joints couldn't be armored as well without sacrificing mobility and a good strike would cripple them, dropping them prone and helpless.
I'm told that Japanese fencing manuals, for example, were big on leg cuts.
No, I don't buy that high ground helps much in a one-vs-one duel. I think if it was that big an advantage, then that Mythbusters test would have shown SOMETHING. If having high ground is so overwhelming, then two modestly trained guys fighting 50 times ought to have found a little shred of evidence for it.
