153 réponses à ce sujet

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Woldan wrote...

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?

You are forgetting that every such tournament was decided long before. Like "what weapons to be used", and "who to fight". Even waht weapons were to be used, had been decided long before. If anyone had a "free" to fight 1-on-1 they would always pick a sword (that would be any kind of sword), simply because they got so many different uses.

Flais are simply useless. They only ever shined agaisnt other armored oppenents (opponenets whom were very outnumbered). Sure you could use it against an armored opponent, but against an unarmored, or lightly armored oppenent, they were useless.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sir JK wrote...

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.

That's not what I was aiming at. All the blocks/parries in the video were done with the wooden haft. You can't do that against a steel sword or a mace.

Now, can you use a polearm in a dule? Of course you can. You can use anything as a weapon, let alone a real weapon. There were a few techniques for it's use in close quarters. But for the most part, you'd avoid it. Polarms weren't made for blocking - they were made for taking the fight to the enmy but not leting him get close. If an opponent with a sword is in a position to strike at you, you already lost your biggest polearm advantage.

The sword being the most common weapon in duels does tell us a lot. And that is that is simply was the most versatile weapon and most prefered in duels. And since everyone wanted to win, they use what gave them the biggest advantage. Their choice was the sword.

Where polearms really shine is defense. An excellent weapon to have on the walls during a sige - you are abel to harass the enemy trying to clib to you and can keep him at a distance. Also, if oyu get the element of surprise, in a phalanx formation they would be deadly....But a phalanx caught by surprise or flanked? That lad to bad things.

Also, polearms were cheaper and easier to mass produce than swords.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 22 octobre 2010 - 07:25 .

[_-Greywolf-_]

Well if you guys are going to use the "realism" angle as to why spears and halberds shouldnt be in Dragon Age shouldnt that also apply to the 2handed swords? The swords found in Origins would probably be best compared to the zweihänder and as you are all such medieval warfare buffs you should know that they were mostly used and effective against spearmen, with the way they were handled in Origins one could argue that in reality they would be even less effective against a man with a smaller weapon than a spear or halberd would be?

[Lotion Soronarr]

No.
Zweihanders were brutally effective weapons, used by the elite. And elite likes to use the best - because they can afford to choose.
They were terrifying in close combat.

www.youtube.com/watch
www.youtube.com/watch

This one is interesting - you got a guy doing karate moves in full plate!
www.youtube.com/watch

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 22 octobre 2010 - 08:40 .

[_-Greywolf-_]

Ah, well I guess that still shows that the 2 handed swords in DA werent designed with realism in mind however so I guess my point still stands.

Modifié par _-Greywolf-_, 22 octobre 2010 - 08:56 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

From what I've seen so far, no weapons were.



The two-handed axe I've seen from that behind -the-scenes video is bigger than anything in Origins. Someone in the art deparment must have smoked something mighty.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The weapons are exaggerated to be easier to indentify. They are also exaggerated to look cool.

[Lotion Soronarr]

They are neither easier to indentify (cause I don't need them to be massive, I'm not friggin blind), nor are they cool. They are anti-cool. Bigness DOES NOT equal coolnes.

Simply put, the weapons as I've seen so far SUCK.


Both the visuals and the mechanics seem to be going futher and further away from what I consider good in many places, and htat trubles me. Hence, why I didn't pre-order. I'm waiting to see and hear more.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 22 octobre 2010 - 09:40 .

[FlintlockJazz]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

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.

That's not what I was aiming at. All the blocks/parries in the video were done with the wooden haft. You can't do that against a steel sword or a mace.

Now, can you use a polearm in a dule? Of course you can. You can use anything as a weapon, let alone a real weapon. There were a few techniques for it's use in close quarters. But for the most part, you'd avoid it. Polarms weren't made for blocking - they were made for taking the fight to the enmy but not leting him get close. If an opponent with a sword is in a position to strike at you, you already lost your biggest polearm advantage.

Which is why you don't let the opponent get close.  In a gentleman's duel you may start at a set distance but in most combats your opponent first has to close with you to be able to use a sword, which means entering your range before he can enter his, and so you can get a few good hits while stopping him from getting any closer (and despite what fanasy RPG tells us, you only need one good hit to end a fight).

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
The sword being the most common weapon in duels does tell us a lot. And that is that is simply was the most versatile weapon and most prefered in duels. And since everyone wanted to win, they use what gave them the biggest advantage. Their choice was the sword.

Never underestimate symbolism.  The sword had symbolic power as the weapon of the upper class and romantic ideals of knighthood, same reason why today so many people gush over the katana.  It was also an easier weapon to walk around with when not in battle, hence easier to access for duels.

[Sir JK]

Lotion: Like FlintlockJazz said, swords were status weapons. They feature prominentely because in the early middle ages only the nobility to could afford them and unlike most other weapons they have only uses in war. There isn't any sword variants used as tools or hunting equipment. So it carried the symbol of war and heroism. But it was also widely spread that only the nobility was allowed to carry them, back home in Sweden you could get executed for carrying a sword without permission as a commoner.

Swords were quite simply fashionably. A symbol of power and wealth. Hence why they were so popular. Not that they're bad weapons mind.





And Zweihanders weren't used by the elite. The elite sat on horses. The only users of twohanded weapons in warfare were retainers of the elite that were equipped with the swords and sent to break up formations. Just like how the spanish used their Rodeleros. Some of them also had other special roles, like the flamberge intended to be able to sever the legs of horses.

That said, you're absolutely right in that they were devestating weapons. They weren't the only ones though.



The thing about defence however, is correct. Polearms (and especially pikes) shine in formation because they form an inpenetrable war of sharp sticks. Horses absolutely refuse to ride into such things, even trained warsteeds, and will stop dead in it's tracks if forced to ride against one (and cavalry are only truly vurnerable when standing still. This is why polearms are good against cavalry, not because they are effective at killing them but that they can force them to stop and are safe from being attacked.)

But as you said, they were also extremely good weapons for defending walls. However... defending walls are almost exclusively single combat. There simply isn't room for formations there. But you're also correct in that a polearm user that's flanked is in real trouble... then again, so would a swordsman be. 2 vs 1 is never good odds.



Oh, and the staff of a polearm were often reinforced with iron or steel at the ends (which would be the areas you use for parries, blocks and feints). Not that cutting through the staff would be easy, most likely the sword would just get stuck after which the polearmsman would twist the staff and you'd find your sword flying away from you. They use proper oak or other really durable wood for the things after all.



Polerams are good wellrounded weapons, that one of the reasons they were so popular. Swords are also good wellrounded weapons. Also led to their popularity.

You'd do best in choosing the one that you feel you're most skilled in using. If that is the sword then choose the sword, if that is the halberd choose the halberd.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sir JK wrote...

Lotion: Like FlintlockJazz said, swords were status weapons. They feature prominentely because in the early middle ages only the nobility to could afford them and unlike most other weapons they have only uses in war. There isn't any sword variants used as tools or hunting equipment. So it carried the symbol of war and heroism. But it was also widely spread that only the nobility was allowed to carry them, back home in Sweden you could get executed for carrying a sword without permission as a commoner.
Swords were quite simply fashionably. A symbol of power and wealth. Hence why they were so popular. Not that they're bad weapons mind.

They were also the most versatile weapons. There's no point in arguing that. No other weapon has so many different fight styles and guards, and such felxibility.

And Zweihanders weren't used by the elite. The elite sat on horses. The only users of twohanded weapons in warfare were retainers of the elite that were equipped with the swords and sent to break up formations. Just like how the spanish used their Rodeleros. Some of them also had other special roles, like the flamberge intended to be able to sever the legs of horses.
That said, you're absolutely right in that they were devestating weapons. They weren't the only ones though.

Yes they were. Elite doesn't consist soley of knights on horses. Mercenries and profesional soldier became more common with time. Using a zweihander was considered a special skill, meriting double pay. That sez enough. Why would they get double pay if they weren't elite, or if the double pay wasn't worth it? Clearly the generals of that time though it's very much worth it.
Also, a zwei-hander was a not a weapon for mounted combat. So no, knight on horses didn't use it. However, after tehy dismounted? Yes, many used them.

Oh, and the staff of a polearm were often reinforced with iron or steel at the ends (which would be the areas you use for parries, blocks and feints). Not that cutting through the staff would be easy, most likely the sword would just get stuck after which the polearmsman would twist the staff and you'd find your sword flying away from you. They use proper oak or other really durable wood for the things after all.

The guys in the vids didn't use the ends for parrying...
I'm not saying that halberds aren't usefull and durable weapons - but swords were clearly prefered in 1 on 1 combat. You can claim status symbols or sumsuch as a cause, but with you life on the line, ouy use what's best. Or would you bring a knife to a gun fight just because its' cool to have a knife?
Oh, and swrods were no where near the status symbols they were in japan. They were just weapons.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 22 octobre 2010 - 12:08 .

[Arkynomicon]

I'm sick of polearms getting shafted in so many western RPG's. I swear it started with Oblivion.

[Sir JK]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
They were also the most versatile weapons. There's no point in arguing that. No other weapon has so many different fight styles and guards, and such felxibility.

This I can agree with. This doesn't necessarily mean they're superior, but they're certainly damn useful weapons.

Yes they were. Elite doesn't consist soley of knights on horses. Mercenries and profesional soldier became more common with time. Using a zweihander was considered a special skill, meriting double pay. That sez enough. Why would they get double pay if they weren't elite, or if the double pay wasn't worth it? Clearly the generals of that time though it's very much worth it.
Also, a zwei-hander was a not a weapon for mounted combat. So no, knight on horses didn't use it. However, after tehy dismounted? Yes, many used them.

Ah, but with the exception of sieges knights as a rule didn't fight on foot (if knocked out of their saddle/the horse died they made their way back to their squires and backup horses. Knights, like all cavalry, made sure never to be stuck in a prolonged fight. Their fighting style was strictly hit-and-run (well.. Charge-Crush-Reform-Charge again).
The twohanded weapons started showing up when the italian/german professional armies started come into play in the early renaissance. They share time period with the pikes, the polearms, the plate harnesses and the early firearms. These armies were fully paid for and the footsoldiers were often professional citzen militias from big cities like Venice, Milan, Genoa, Antwerpen, Hamburg, Münich, Prague and so on.
The knights remianed in their saddles, but hired big fellows, decked them in plate harnesses, bought them long swords pointed them in the direction of the otherwise invurnerable pikeformations and said: Break their formation so we can charge. You're right that they were a bit special in their higher wage, but remember that good crossbowmen were often paid 5 times as much as regular soldiers.

Mind... I'm using elite as social elite. If you refer to them as being exceptional soldiers then I fully agree.

The guys in the vids didn't use the ends for parrying...
I'm not saying that halberds aren't usefull and durable weapons - but swords were clearly prefered in 1 on 1 combat. You can claim status symbols or sumsuch as a cause, but with you life on the line, ouy use what's best. Or would you bring a knife to a gun fight just because its' cool to have a knife?
Oh, and swrods were no where near the status symbols they were in japan. They were just weapons.

The guys in the vids weren't facing swords either, now were they 
How about we agree that the issue is complex and which weapon is best isn't an asily answered question? They have differents strengths and different weaknesses on a individual level and you're better of with either than neither. Should you ever be faced in a choice between a sword and a halberd, choose both to be on the safe side

And swords really were that kind of status symbol in certain parts of Europe. In Sweden it really was capital offence to have a sword if you weren't noble. The german noble (lower nobility) title of freiherr (free man) originated in that he owned a sword, otherwise he was not a free man and thus not noble. Nobles are sired with swords and monarchs crowned by having one tap their shoulders... it really was a huge status symbol.
Once the renaissance hit however, they started to become a bit more widespread.

[TheMufflon]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

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.

You can argue all you want, but they're not. There are only so many variations of a long stick with a sharp point.

Every soldier throughout history has always carried a secondary weapon for when his primary would lose function. Hence the spearman carried a sword.

Not really. Swords were actually very uncommon among medieval soldiery, it was mostly reserved for the nobility and was as much a status symbol as a weapon.

Modifié par TheMufflon, 22 octobre 2010 - 03:39 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sir JK wrote...

Ah, but with the exception of sieges knights as a rule didn't fight on foot (if knocked out of their saddle/the horse died they made their way back to their squires and backup horses. Knights, like all cavalry, made sure never to be stuck in a prolonged fight. Their fighting style was strictly hit-and-run (well.. Charge-Crush-Reform-Charge again).
The twohanded weapons started showing up when the italian/german professional armies started come into play in the early renaissance. They share time period with the pikes, the polearms, the plate harnesses and the early firearms. These armies were fully paid for and the footsoldiers were often professional citzen militias from big cities like Venice, Milan, Genoa, Antwerpen, Hamburg, Münich, Prague and so on.
The knights remianed in their saddles, but hired big fellows, decked them in plate harnesses, bought them long swords pointed them in the direction of the otherwise invurnerable pikeformations and said: Break their formation so we can charge. You're right that they were a bit special in their higher wage, but remember that good crossbowmen were often paid 5 times as much as regular soldiers.

I don't recall crossbowmen getting 5 times bigger wages. Crosbows became popular because they were simple to use. You didn't have to be strong to operate it efficiently (in comparison to longbows). You didn't require years of training to be any good with it.

That said, knight fought mostly on horses, that's true - but zweihanders were used in important positions - in duels, in castel defenses, guarding the banner (which was a VERY important position back then), as bodyguards.

And swords really were that kind of status symbol in certain parts of Europe. In Sweden it really was capital offence to have a sword if you weren't noble. The german noble (lower nobility) title of freiherr (free man) originated in that he owned a sword, otherwise he was not a free man and thus not noble. Nobles are sired with swords and monarchs crowned by having one tap their shoulders... it really was a huge status symbol.
Once the renaissance hit however, they started to become a bit more widespread.

in Japan it was a capital offence to own a katana if you weren't a samurai...but in eurpoe? Never heard of it.
Either way, it is irrelevant when in a life-and-death fight.

Suffice to say, I'm a hard believer in the superiority of the sword.
Not that I'd mind seeing polearms in the game - I quite like polarms too. By all means.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 22 octobre 2010 - 05:43 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

TheMufflon wrote...
Not really. Swords were actually very uncommon among medieval soldiery, it was mostly reserved for the nobility and was as much a status symbol as a weapon.

Quality swords were expensive. Hence, why short swords of daggers were used as secondaries, and why clubs/spears/maces formes the mainstray of most armies.

Economy ALWAYS plays a big role.
A common solder isn't equipped wiht the best body armor and best rifles even today, now is he?

[SXOSXO]

I believe the OP's question was answered a few pages back. This has now turned into an "I know more than you" debate.

[bzombo]

hmmm.....what about weapons that, at least to my way of thinking, would be more in line with the animations da already has? i'm thinking scimitars, short swords, clubs, etc. would weapons like that be more feasible? anything simple that could provide a wider array of weapon choice i'm sure would be welcomed.

[General Malor]

I've been hoping for spears since I heard of the first Dragon Age. They are my favorite weapon, in fantasy and real life. I find them so fluid and useful. It doesn't matter if I'm trying to fend off four people* or just a single man my spear has never let me down. So I would love to see spears as a weapon but alas one of the greatest historical weapons is left by the wayside because of costs and time constraints. It's sad. Just how you can't get a decent tomahawk or machete. Bums me out man.



(*Note the four people I fought at once were three younger people I'd been training with and my brother who's a bit older than me, they said they could take me down all together because one on one they kept failing. So I indulged them and the outcome was a solid and clear win. Also I don't understand how people can say they can't be used in close-quaters. I do this all the time, if an opponent breaks my wall I simply throw him away with a quick kick or actual throw.*)

[EmperorSahlertz]

TheMufflon wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

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.

You can argue all you want, but they're not. There are only so many variations of a long stick with a sharp point.

....... There are dozens of different variations between spears. Just like there are dozens of variations of swords. Of course it all boils down to a pointy stick, but that is simply just an oversimplification.

TheMufflon wrote...

Every soldier throughout history has always carried a secondary weapon for when his primary would lose function. Hence the spearman carried a sword.

Not really. Swords were actually very uncommon among medieval soldiery, it was mostly reserved for the nobility and was as much a status symbol as a weapon.

Fine... Call it a dagger or shortsword, both are basically swords by the end of the day anyway..

General Malor wrote...

I've been hoping for spears since I heard of the first Dragon Age. They are my favorite weapon, in fantasy and real life. I find them so fluid and useful. It doesn't matter if I'm trying to fend off four people* or just a single man my spear has never let me down. So I would love to see spears as a weapon but alas one of the greatest historical weapons is left by the wayside because of costs and time constraints. It's sad. Just how you can't get a decent tomahawk or machete. Bums me out man. 

Why would any one want a stone axe when they are facing people in full plate armor?.... And machetes aren't all that different for swords, except they can't really stab.

[General Malor]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Why would any one want a stone axe when they are facing people in full plate armor?.... And machetes aren't all that different for swords, except they can't really stab.

Please do some weapons research before stating something...like tomahawks are only formed from stone. It's applications are many and varied, you get a war spike on the opposite end and then you could get piercing damage, it's light, quick and has a great deal of force brought to a focal point giving the axe head incredible armor piercing capabilities.

Now Machetes would be akin to daggers but have greater hacking capabilities than a dagger, but great speed than a sword.

Here's a bit of info about tomahawks, if it peaks your interest then there's a huge wealth of knowledge about them out there. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_%28axe%29

[EmperorSahlertz]

Tomahawks was only (relatively) recently updated to be made of steel, and aren't all the different from most waraxes anyway.

I just don't see what either a tomahawk or a machete could add to the game, other than an aesthetically difference from the more "traditionnal" weapons.

[LokiHades]

Maconbar wrote...

I think that animations for whips, flails, mornings stars, and alike would be challenging because of the motion of these weapons.

Morning stars would fit into the mace catagory. Whips can be done ala Shadow of Darkness (Castlevania game on the 360/PS3 full 3D, etc etc), flails can just be maces with animated chains (nothing too fancy, a tad difficult, but doable).

Honestly, they're not necessary, but these kind've weapons are nice to have. I like the arsenal being bigger, but for Bioware games, I just look towards the story and characters more than the weapons (Though they make beautiful armor, most games lack proper armor).

[General Malor]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Tomahawks were only (relatively) recently updated to be made of steel, and aren't all the different from most waraxes anyway.
I just don't see what either a tomahawk or a machete could add to the game, other than an aesthetically difference from the more "traditionnal" weapons.

As I said the Machete could be used to take up a slot for certain short swords. Like you could get special items like Chasind machete. And what I would love to see, Dalish tomahawk. I only bring up the machete because not only is it great for hacking but because it's so widely used throughout history but is often neglected. Now I'm not saying it needs it's own weapon class but they could call a short sword a machete. I'm a role player, I mean actually a role player, so the details get me and I like the little things.

[aaniadyen]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

No.
Zweihanders were brutally effective weapons, used by the elite. And elite likes to use the best - because they can afford to choose.
They were terrifying in close combat.

www.youtube.com/watch
www.youtube.com/watch

This one is interesting - you got a guy doing karate moves in full plate!
www.youtube.com/watch

Interesting, but not any karate I've ever seen.