For balance if they remove crush through, they should also remove shields.
This is the kind of mentality I was criticizing. This fellow here, this Ganon, is void of intellectual abilities but as a normal human being with finished elementary school and enough resources to buy a computer - he can make a post on the internet forum.
I don't mind 'wrong' posts, I just hate posts without intellectual substance which clearly show the poster is a) emotional b) did not put 1 minute into considering the flaws of his statement.
Crush through not only crushes shields but also manual blocks. And even if it crushed only shields, crush through should work much like blunt damage in Native - yes, you have a chance to knock down someone but that chance isn't high. If Bar Mace worked like that, no one would have a problem. But as we saw in this thread, and from my own experience, crush through happens more often than not. Of course, crush through from slow weapons such as Maul should be more consistent, since that's the entire point of using such a weapon, and it has a significant downside (in most cases).
Saying that it's OK to have a hard counter without any significant drawback is silly. In Strategy games, hard counters are weak in everything else. For example, a Pikeman in Age of Empires is very strong against cavalry but usually trash vs everything else. Skirmisher is very strong vs archers, but trash vs anything else. These are hard counters. In Warband Native, a Maul is hard counter to shields and manual blocks, but is very slow, very short, very heavy, and very restricted (to Rhodoks). Bar Mace and plenty other weapons in cRPG have medium range, medium speed, medium weight, can be used by all (need stats ofc), *and* is hard counter to manual blocks and shields. I mean, come on. Axe-weapons are an example of soft counter to shields.
