153 réponses à ce sujet

[Mlaar]

Polearms and thier like were originally created to combat mounted foes either by catching the riders and bringing them to the ground or by inflicting horrendous damage to a charge afterwards the weapon was dropped in favor of smaller weapons as already said, with the lack of mounted foes in the world its hardly suprising that the creation of this style of weapon has not come to pass.
The other use of the polearm was mainly in a ceremonial role i.e guards around the cities as it stands as an imposing weapon but even then each guard was equiped with a sword or such for more pratical use.
Flails morning stars however would be a good addition to weapon sets providing they don't try and make them dual wield weapons not practical as these weapons were designed for power in the strike, and the chain links would be to unpredictable to control weilding two at a time.

Modifié par Mlaar, 21 octobre 2010 - 11:29 .

[KLUME777]

I think they should have spears - in cool cut scenes. Not the actual game.



My idea:



Don't waste resources on making the spear a usable weapon, i wouldn't use it, however, we could have a cool cut scene where they throw spears in some battle, or some guards guarding a door have spears in there hands - basically, just don't use them in the games actual combat.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Mlaar wrote...

Polearms and thier like were originally created to combat mounted foes either by catching the riders and bringing them to the ground or by inflicting horrendous damage to a charge afterwards the weapon was dropped in favor of smaller weapons as already said, with the lack of mounted foes in the world its hardly suprising that the creation of this style of weapon has not come to pass.
The other use of the polearm was mainly in a ceremonial role i.e guards around the cities as it stands as an imposing weapon but even then each guard was equiped with a sword or such for more pratical use.
Flails morning stars however would be a good addition to weapon sets providing they don't try and make them dual wield weapons not practical as these weapons were designed for power in the strike, and the chain links would be to unpredictable to control weilding two at a time.

Spears weren't designed to be anti-cavalry weapons, they were designed to give reach aswell as power to the soldier. The Haleberd weren't an exclusively anti-cavalry weapon either, more an "anti-armored foe" weapon. Both these weapons did excel against cavalry though. The pike however was designed to be anti-cavalry.
The reason the Spear isn't in the game is more likely because the spear is best used in mass formations not single or small group combat.

[TheMufflon]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Spears weren't designed to be anti-cavalry weapons, they were designed to give reach aswell as power to the soldier.

Actually, they were designed to be hunting implements. Their design is based on simplicity rather than some form of  combat efficacy.

Modifié par TheMufflon, 21 octobre 2010 - 01:06 .

[Sir JK]

I just want to point out, again, that beyond the pike there really isn't any weapon in the world that only works in formation fighting. The reason? Because formations gets broken up and when that happens you don't want to hold a useless weapon (for reference, pikemen usually dropped the pike and drew their swords at that point). Shorter polearms, however, like spears, glaives, pollaxes and halberds are excellent single-combat weapons.



This video is a interpretation of halberds that's supposedly very good. Very intensive, flexible and versatile. Very deadly in single combat.



There's also this which shows the poll-axe (note, not halberds. A completely different polearm) at 1:20 and onwards. Interpreted form various fechtbuchs. It also shows how some other weapons are used, specifically the knife, the messer (which is a single-edged dagger/shortsword), the buckler and the longsword (which is the real name for two-handed swords).



The videos also neatly demonstrates why these weapons aren't in the game, I think. It's way more to those wepaons than standing still and trying to stick them into the opponent.

[Lotion Soronarr]

It's also wooden halbers vs. wooden halberd (or wooden sword) in those videos.

So basicly, those videos are rather useless.



I'd always rather choose a sword over a spear/halbeard.

[Sir JK]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

It's also wooden halbers vs. wooden halberd (or wooden sword) in those videos.
So basicly, those videos are rather useless.

I'd always rather choose a sword over a spear/halbeard.

That's because there's generally no material available at all regarding [weapon] vs. [oyher type of weapon]. Sure, that halberd fight is against another halberd, which thus only shows us how they fare against other polearms. But the same thing applies to swords. The only information at all on swords is... vs. other swords of the same type. There isn't any material at all on how you use a sword against a polearm or a mace for instance.
The videos shows gives us an idea on how the weapons are used  but not how they would fare against another weapon. My point was that polearms are not bad weapons in single combat, because they're very versatile and do have single-combat styles. Wether a sword would be better is impossible to know (and let's face it... if a sworduser charges you and you hold a halberd, then you'll have to make the best of the situation and use it).

[EmperorSahlertz]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Spears weren't designed to be anti-cavalry weapons, they were designed to give reach aswell as power to the soldier.

Actually, they were designed to be hunting implements. Their design is based on simplicity rather than some form of  combat efficacy.
Well, yes. But I would argue tehre is a huge difference between a hunting spear and a spear meant for warfare. But originally the spear was meant for hunting.

Sir JK wrote...

I just want to point out, again, that beyond the pike there really isn't any weapon in the world that only works in formation fighting. The reason? Because formations gets broken up and when that happens you don't want to hold a useless weapon (for reference, pikemen usually dropped the pike and drew their swords at that point). Shorter polearms, however, like spears, glaives, pollaxes and halberds are excellent single-combat weapons.

This video is a interpretation of halberds that's supposedly very good. Very intensive, flexible and versatile. Very deadly in single combat.

There's also this which shows the poll-axe (note, not halberds. A completely different polearm) at 1:20 and onwards. Interpreted form various fechtbuchs. It also shows how some other weapons are used, specifically the knife, the messer (which is a single-edged dagger/shortsword), the buckler and the longsword (which is the real name for two-handed swords).

The videos also neatly demonstrates why these weapons aren't in the game, I think. It's way more to those wepaons than standing still and trying to stick them into the opponent.

Every soldier throughout history has always carried a secondary weapon for when his primary would lose function. Hence the spearman carried a sword. However that doesn't change the fact that the spear isn't as favorable as a sword when it comes to close combat.

[Sir JK]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Every soldier throughout history has always carried a secondary weapon for when his primary would lose function. Hence the spearman carried a sword. However that doesn't change the fact that the spear isn't as favorable as a sword when it comes to close combat.

To be honest, that secondary weapon were more often than not a dagger. Swords were expensive for the most part. But yes, swords are good weapons. There's no denying that. That does not mean spears are bad in single combat. Nor any other polearms.
Heh... if the spearman/polearm-user controls the fight then their weapon will be the better because they'll keep the swordsman at optimal reach (which coincidentally is outside the reach of their sword). Conversely, if the swordsman gets inside the reach of the spear/polearm then the spearman is dead. It's not so simple as to say: "swords are better than spears", it's far more complex.

But yes: Swords are very good weapons in single combat (most one-handed swords are intended to be used from horseback though). Spears/halberds are too. Not at exactly the same stuff, but enough to have a chance at living regardless of what contemptory weapon you face.

[Bobad]

I'd rrather like dual falchions for a rogue, brutally thuggish.

[Rieverre]

As long as they actually implement the weapons that _are_ supposed to be there correctly, I won't be too out of sorts.



On the other hand, if the situation from DA:O repeats itself and I'll be treated to deathblow animations where, for example, my character is _stabbing people to death with a hammer_ (or axe, though that just looked awkward instead of plain silly), expect me to start throwing hissy-fits.

[Giant ambush beetle]

Polearms weren't only limited to combat in formations, as example the Lucerne Hammer ( a war hammer - halberd hybrid which counts as polearm) has been used in close quarter combat and knightly duels.



Duel:


That wasn't the only polearm used by a single soldier outside formations to fight heavily armored enemies, another good example is the pollaxe.

What I'm trying to say is, statements like ''polearms aren't good in close quarter combat'' or ''they haven't been used outside formations'' or ''they have only been used on mounted enemies'' are untrue.

And yes, I'm very sad that DA2 won't feature any polearms, in my opinion, fighting dragons and big boss enemies just screams for polearms like spears and/or lucerne hammers etc.
I SO wanted to make my Hawke a spear wielding warrior, swords are great weapons, heck, I own several swords but hey - after a while using the same weapon over and over and over again just gets plain boring and tiresome. (Ok, I couldn't stand DAO's hammers..)
Flails would have been cool too, although they've only played a minor role in medieval combat.

*edit* WTF is wrong with spacing?

Modifié par The Woldan , 21 octobre 2010 - 08:21 .

[FellowerOfOdin]

Polearms were incredibly ineffetive weapons. They were completely useless in a bigger battle and even in a 1vs1 combat, you could hardly use the range advantage as they were too heavy and thus made you too slow to properly react, leaving you very vulnerable to your enemy.



Not to mention that this kind of weapon would not really fit to what Bioware, according to some interviews, planned with the combat aka make it more intuitive and "faster", I still remember that quote by one of the folks saying that when he wants Alistair to attack the amazon (btw, what amazon lol!), he is to immediately attack her not turn around, walk to her and then attack...

[Tsuga C]

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

Polearms were incredibly ineffetive weapons.

Yes, so incredibly ineffective were they that they were used by every army from the farthest reaches of antiquity through part of the 19th Century.  Spend some time in a good book store and read up on military history.  Right now you're just embarrassing yourself.  

[FellowerOfOdin]

Tsuga C wrote...

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

Polearms were incredibly ineffetive weapons.

Yes, so incredibly ineffective were they that they were used by every army from the farthest reaches of antiquity through part of the 19th Century.  Spend some time in a good book store and read up on military history.  Right now you're just embarrassing yourself.  

Just in case that you did not notice, Dragon Age is not supposed to play in a time similar to the 19th Century.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

Tsuga C wrote...

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

Polearms were incredibly ineffetive weapons.

Yes, so incredibly ineffective were they that they were used by every army from the farthest reaches of antiquity through part of the 19th Century.  Spend some time in a good book store and read up on military history.  Right now you're just embarrassing yourself.  

Just in case that you did not notice, Dragon Age is not supposed to play in a time similar to the 19th Century.

Nice deflection attempt after someone called you on some total bs. wtg! 

[Giant ambush beetle]

Polearms were incredibly ineffetive weapons. They were completely useless in a bigger battle and even in a 1vs1 combat, you could hardly use the range advantage as they were too heavy

You just made so many dead medieval soldiers rage in their graves because your statement is so very wrong.



Slow? Go buy a pollaxe try to make some fighting moves then come back here and regret saying they're slow. Been there, done that, and they are not slow at all, not slower than a big sword. In fact, you can wield them faster if you shift your grip towards the head of polearm, they are very versatile and effective weapons.



And polearms were often as heavy as the biggest two handed swords (4kg)...since Hawke can wield swords almost 1.5 times the size and thickness of real greatswords it shouldn't be very hard for him/her to wield a really really heavy lucerne hammer or halberd the same speed, right?

[Tsuga C]

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

Tsuga C wrote...

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

Polearms were incredibly ineffetive weapons.

Yes, so incredibly ineffective were they that they were used by every army from the farthest reaches of antiquity through part of the 19th Century.  Spend some time in a good book store and read up on military history.  Right now you're just embarrassing yourself.  

Just in case that you did not notice, Dragon Age is not supposed to play in a time similar to the 19th Century.

Thank you, Professor Klopf-flieger!  Your expertise is invaluable in teaching one and all about knowing when to hold your tongue lest you dig yourself into a deeper hole. 

Modifié par Tsuga C, 21 octobre 2010 - 10:54 .

[FellowerOfOdin]

Aye, my bad, mixed it up with a pike - apologies, my fault

[Skalman91]

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

Tsuga C wrote...

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

Polearms were incredibly ineffetive weapons.

Yes, so incredibly ineffective were they that they were used by every army from the farthest reaches of antiquity through part of the 19th Century.  Spend some time in a good book store and read up on military history.  Right now you're just embarrassing yourself.  

Just in case that you did not notice, Dragon Age is not supposed to play in a time similar to the 19th Century.

Oh wow...

I suggest you read his comment again, I think you might have missed something...

[FellowerOfOdin]

I thought you'd support Hawke.



Anyway, what exactly do you mean when speaking of polearms? Just "the" polearm with the axe / hammer head or ALL polearms including pikes?



Ny Name is FellowerOfOdin and I do not approve of pikes.

[Sir JK]

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

Polearms were incredibly ineffetive weapons. They were completely useless in a bigger battle and even in a 1vs1 combat, you could hardly use the range advantage as they were too heavy and thus made you too slow to properly react, leaving you very vulnerable to your enemy.

As has been pointed out, this is simply not true. Halberds especially have been described as one of the most deadly, flexible and effective weapons in history (which explains why it is one of few weapons that remained roughly the same for 200-300 years. Unlike the swords of the same period).
It quite simple really. Noone uses ineffective weapons. If a weapon cannot protect it's users then it joins it's wielder in the grave and is never used again. Polearms quickly became a favourite for equipping armies with (and armies notoriously constantly shifted towards the more effective). Furthermore, polearms (especially the halberd) became something of a favourite for the various city guards, who would very rarely fight in a formation (and they could definantely afford swords, given that towards the end of the period they started wearing full plate harnesses).
Look at the pictures from the fechtbuchs (fighting manuals for one on one combat) that was posted above or the youtube videos I provided (then compare the poll-axe/halberd with the sword videos and you'll see that the polearms sometimes moves faster than the swords).

Basically, swords have their strengths and weaknesses. Polearms have their strengths and weaknesses. One particular advantage with polearms is that you can with the help of the staff both defend yourself and attack in the same motion, or feint and attack with the lower end. 
In single combat neither is distinctly superior to the other as long as they're both used correctly.

Not to mention that this kind of weapon would not really fit to what Bioware, according to some interviews, planned with the combat aka make it more intuitive and "faster", I still remember that quote by one of the folks saying that when he wants Alistair to attack the amazon (btw, what amazon lol!), he is to immediately attack her not turn around, walk to her and then attack...

I think it's more likely that polearms require extreme mobility of their users and essntially that you "wrestle" your way past your opponents defences. If like in Dragon age, attacker and defenders are separate and only really interact with each others in kiling blows and certain special skills, then polearms will just look ridiculous. The fighting style are quite simply, too complex to add to the game at this point.

[Giant ambush beetle]

^ Good post!


@ Fod
Do we really have to go through this again? Some polearms were made for soldiers in formation combat only (10ft pike), some polearms were issued to the individual soldier for close quarter combat (pollaxe, Lucerne Hammer), some were hybrids (warfork, spear, glaive).....polearms were incredibly versatile weapons with many different uses in combat.

As example you can even have a club / spear combo, the Flemish Goedendag. They have been used to fend of heavy cavalry (spear) and to battle heavily armored enemies on foot. ( two handed club)



However, you said all polearms are slow and ineffective, not just the pike so....

Modifié par The Woldan , 22 octobre 2010 - 12:26 .

[Hollingdale]

We need these:
http://img714.images...themen1863.png/

They look damn cruel.

Modifié par Hollingdale, 22 octobre 2010 - 12:31 .

[Dan-mac RI]

That might be in there if the trailer is to be believed. Also, your link isn't working. I had to google it myself.