The WORST way of recreating combat-styles is by looking at movies. Everything in a movie is dictated by how it looks, not by if it works. Real fights make bad pictorials so directors do not use it.
I am going to assume that your intent here was to say.... The WORST way of recreating combat-style if you want authentic, historically accurate modeling, is by looking at movies. With that assumption in place, I disagree that it's the WORST, but do acknowledge that it is not the best.
That being said - I never indicated that I wanted an authentic, historically accurate modeling... I want something fun for my players to enjoy. I want the same thing that those movie directors do excitement, and simplicity.
Jdale has the right of it: using 2 weapons or a shield & weapon gives such a huge advantage that using a cloak as a shield/ weapon was preferable over wielding just one weapon.
Guess what... if all you had was a sword and a cloak in my game, I want you to use the cloak to disrupt your opponent's attack. It adds fun. I would not allow it to be very effective (soft cover and unless trained in using it no real parry capability), but I would applaud the player who had their character do that.
The advantage lies in being able to control the opponent's weapon and getting out of the way to get in one's own strike.
And therein lies the issue I have with HARP's shield rules. In HARP you gain either some shield bonus or full shield bonus (a 15-25 point DB bonus depending upon your shield type) after spending 10 DP. The assumption here is either you know how to use a shield or you don't. Everything else in ICE games is skill driven, but Shield is an on/off switch gained by a talent.
You are also making an assumption that the 2-weapon combo costing would be kept the same as it is now. In HARP right now 2 weapon combo is handled by gaining skill in A, gaining skill in B and then gaining skill in A/B. Why not have the A be the sword, B be the shield, and then you need to invest DP in developing the sword/shield combo? If it is deemed valid for using a long sword, short sword combination - why not a sword/shield combination?
Another factor in one's defense is training. In later periods, such as the late medieval period, martial arts had come a long way: Attacks, master strikes, counter strikes to that. Basically a musketeer would have a field day in ancient Rome: he would be able to deal with and have a deadly answer to anything a Roman sword master could come up with, due to tapping from a martial history that included the Roman traditions. Even a Norman knight would beat a Roman soldier and not because of equipment, but because the Roman tricks of the trade are the Norman's basics.
Seen as system in RM; I could allow martial traditions use parry more effectively than earlier counter parts. Whether this is a penalty or a fraction for the disadvantaged (such as a Roman's parry is just 50% effective against a Landsknecht attacks) or a bonus/ factor (The Spanish conquistador gets a +20 bonus on any parry when fighting an Inca Jaguar soldier) for the more advanced party.
I have no argument against this other than to say, if you want a realistic based RPG then you need to make those adjustments and limit the weaponry/skill sets to fit your setting. If you create a mixture of cultures and weaponry/skills in a melting pot of a setting, you may not want to go to that level of detail - otherwise there is an opportunity for major min/max gaming. Of course, you may want that as a way to show a certain clan/guild/alliance is better trained and armed.... it's up to you.
