153 réponses à ce sujet

[aaniadyen]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
No doubt it got reach. But it also got a far smaller smaller blade, compared to hilt, which gives the swords a greater cutting surface. Once you negate the spears reach advantage, the spear-wielder is dead.

Maai is a big enough advantage to make killing someone of equal skill much, much more likely. Even the difference between a long and short sword is enough.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
What kind of crap sword would ever shatter from a direct hit? Swords are crafted to be able to parry other steel swords, no sword would ever shatter from being struck by a wooden shaft. Unless it was very poor craftmanship.

A shinken

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Not really. Both cases are extremely dependandt on the nature of the fight. It takes a very skillful spearman to be able to keep his opponent at range in a 1 on 1 situation. In a battle he would have his comrades to help him not being flanked and so on.

If everything is equal, generally speaking, the spearman would win most of the time. I'm not talking about special situations because like I said, it depends a lot on the situation. In a individual duel, it depends on the rules, what counts as a point? From my experience, in most duels it is still very difficult combating an opponant with a spear when you're using a sword.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
A peasant being given a spear and told to kill would be just as effective as a peasant with a sword and same order. Both weapons take a lot of training to master but little to no training to grasp.

No, they wouldn't. An inexperienced pikeman is much more valuable than an inexperienced swordsman.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Swords allow for tactical decision in duels spears do not. The greatest advantage the sword have against the spear in a duel is the fact your left hand is free. You can either just let the left hand be free, or equip a shield, a secondary weapon or whatever the hell you pleases. the Spearman is pretty much locked in a dual grip on his spear to fight effectively in 1 on 1. Had it been in a large battle the spearman would again be able to use a spear, because his comrades were there to help him.

Unless they used a two handed sword, which would be the smartest thing to do given the already large range increment you'd need to overcome. Also, what do you mean by tactical decisions? Naginatadoka would beg to differ.

[aaniadyen]

LOLZAO wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LOLZAO wrote...
And against a dragon i would drop my sword for a Long spear anytime thank you.

Be my guest... I'd be busy running the hell away...

well... i would be running too, but you know if i had to fight the dragon.

Dragons aren't real. If they were real, I'd prefer using artillery or bombs.

Modifié par aaniadyen, 24 octobre 2010 - 05:00 .

[WuWeiWu]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

WuWeiWu wrote...



@all of the people with the silly belief that swords > polearms (such as the one shown in the Destiny? trailer):



Try and use a sword against a bo staff. Now try and use a sword against a bo staff with a sharpened, metal tip. You will fail, and you will fail miserably.

Lets see.... Parry first jab from the polearm wielder. Step within reaching range of the pole of the weapon. Grab it with your free hand. Use your sword to cut open the stomach of the polearm wielder. Have tea with biscuits.



Yeah... a miserable fail... Everyone knows its biscuits then tea.

Please spend a few years training with any style of sword - anything that stems from the Chinese will probably be your best bet (in this specific case). Then go ask any random person off the street to grab a bo staff and duel you.



Please video this, and upload it to YouTube for the merriment of all.



After you get your ass handed to you, imagine that whole fight, but with a metal tip at one end of the bo staff. The quaterstaff is an easy weapon to pick up, and any farmer could take on the swordmaster of the land with nothing more than a reinforced quarterstaff (thank you, Mr. Jordan) and fare pretty damn well.



My turn to play this game! Let us assume that swordmaster Joe is facing stavemaster Jane in a standard styled sword and buckler.









The two rival combatants strode the outskirts of the dueling cricle, each aware of the others prowess. One misstep, one miscalculation, one mistake - that was all it would take, from either of them. Joe was at a disadvantage, his sword couldn't match the reach of Jane's spear, and the flurry of attacks her spear could deliver were much too fast for him to block them all.



This fight was already decided, it was up to an act of God to give Joe the victory. Joe rushed his opponent, with the intent to feint his way to Janes defeat. An overdramatic downard slash led his savage assault on Jane, he hoping to place her on the defensive. Joe knew he wouldn't accomplish much with this, and he was right; Jane sidestepped and deflected the slash, using his momentum to spur her own attack - the end of her spear smashing straight in to Joes smartly placed buckler. The reverbations from the attack pained Joe, the amplified force of her attack fracturing the forearm that held Joes buckler.



Joe grunted through his next swing, but with all of his momentum robbed it didn't have much force to connect. Jane easily caught that attack behind the head of the spear, again turning about the momentum of her swing to whack the face of Joes buckler, and again changing momentum to violently slap the blade of Joes sword. Joe knew he was screwed, but the fight was not yet over.



Joe took a step forward, hoping to limit the reach of his opponents weapon - a step back now would surely end his life. He shield bashed his opponent, hoping to unbalance her, but all Joe got in return was a few cracked and bruised ribs. He used the little space he gained with the shield bash to exploit the strengths of his sword, driving Jane further and further on to the defensive. Joe knew he could only take a few more hits from the length of Janes spear, but for his plan to work he would have to.



Intentionally leaving gaps in his defense, Joe wildly swang his sword at his opponent, taking each light thack as a sign of potential victory. Joe saw his moment - he intentionally took a wrong step, placing him off balance and leaving his weapon hand open. Jane took her opportunity, landing a solid hit on Joes buckler and using the tip of her spear to disarm him.



Joe rolled with the hit, feeling his forearm break under the assault even though he mitigated most of the damage. Picking up a handful of sand as he rolled, Joe finished his tumble and threw it at Janes eyes. Temporarily disoriented, Jane barely saw Joe leap from the ground leading with his shield. Again stepping to the side and using the butt of her spear, Jane sent Joe sprawling to the floor of their dueling circle. Joe regained his sword, but had no real strength left to fight - he was out of options, and Jane hadn't yet broke a sweat.

[aaniadyen]

WuWeiWu wrote...
Please spend a few years training with any style of sword - anything that stems from the Chinese will probably be your best bet (in this specific case). Then go ask any random person off the street to grab a bo staff and duel you.

What do you do?

[WuWeiWu]

aaniadyen wrote...

WuWeiWu wrote...
Please spend a few years training with any style of sword - anything that stems from the Chinese will probably be your best bet (in this specific case). Then go ask any random person off the street to grab a bo staff and duel you.

What do you do?

I train in Aikido and Systema, though neither really focus on any one weapon (especially not Systema). I have dabbled, of course, but the philosophies behind Aikido and Systema, which are at times very similar, have served me well in my life so far and appeal to my inner beliefs and conceptions about combat.

Both are pretty recent developments, considering how long other martial arts have been around.

[aaniadyen]

WuWeiWu wrote...

aaniadyen wrote...

WuWeiWu wrote...
Please spend a few years training with any style of sword - anything that stems from the Chinese will probably be your best bet (in this specific case). Then go ask any random person off the street to grab a bo staff and duel you.

What do you do?

I train in Aikido and Systema, though neither really focus on any one weapon (especially not Systema). I have dabbled, of course, but the philosophies behind Aikido and Systema, which are at times very similar, have served me well in my life so far and appeal to my inner beliefs and conceptions about combat.

Both are pretty recent developments, considering how long other martial arts have been around.

Oh, very cool. I would do Aikido, but unfortunately my schedule conflicts with the classes too much for me to be able to participate for any length of time. I am, however, able to do kendo and iaido. While both of them more or less focus on using a sword exclusively, I am interested in other martial arts, so I like to think the MA I do are kept in perspective.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Dear god sometimes I wonder why I even bother.....

No matter how any of you put it, no matter how fanaticaly devoted to any particular type of weapon you are. None of these weapon types are superior to any other. There is a reason why none of the weapons died out with time, mainly that they all had their uses. The spear is a powerful weapon, no doubt, as is all polearms, however the one shortcomming of the polearm is that only the tip of the weapon is the only killing part of the weapon. If you manage to knock aside the tip of the spear, the spearman can be in serious trouble. Argue all you want, but any weapon can win over any weapon.

[Sir JK]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Dear god sometimes I wonder why I even bother.....
No matter how any of you put it, no matter how fanaticaly devoted to any particular type of weapon you are. None of these weapon types are superior to any other. There is a reason why none of the weapons died out with time, mainly that they all had their uses. The spear is a powerful weapon, no doubt, as is all polearms, however the one shortcomming of the polearm is that only the tip of the weapon is the only killing part of the weapon. If you manage to knock aside the tip of the spear, the spearman can be in serious trouble. Argue all you want, but any weapon can win over any weapon.

I completely agree to the first part, but I'd just like to point out that the pole of any polearm (like spears are) are just as much part of the weapon as the tip. With it you can with the right technique break limbs and crush skulls. Just like the hilt and the crossguard of a sword can be used as deadly weapons as the blade; one particularly famous technique is the mordtschlag (spelling might be incorrect), murderstroke, where you turn the sword around (yes, holding the blade) and use the crossguard as a mace. So too can the pole of a polearm be used to break limbs (by smashing them or by catching and twisting them) and smash skull (by thrusting at the face or just smashing it against the head). Not to mention all techniques used to feint, trip and disarm using the pole (which is even more valueable techniques).

But you're absolutely right in that there are no inferior weapons that remained in service for long. They are all on the whole equal. How effective they are depends on the user and situation more than how they're designed. Ultimately they all do what they're designed to do: they protect their user and kill the opponent. That's all a weapon needs to do.

[EmperorSahlertz]

I meant that primarily the spear is a thrusting weapon. Sure you can use the pole of the weapon too, its just not as effective (it can be caught etc.). You could also argueably use the butt of the sword or flat side of the axe, if the situations warrants it (I have a hard time imagining the last though).

[Lotion Soronarr]

LOLZAO wrote...

I think you can make any weapon effective when your are in a fight to the dead.

Of course, you can...but you'd always want to have the biggest advantage in any given situation. Now, advantage is not a guarantee of victory, but every little bit helps, no?

All weapons had their uses - and while any weapon cAN be used in almost any situation, some fare better than others.

I'd prefer two-hander, simply because I rate it as teh msot deadly and versatile. It's resillient and won't break easily, has reach, has pwoer. One can thrust/Stab, slash or bludgeon someone to death with it..and every single part of it is a weapon. The whole length of the blade can be used. The pommel, the crossguard, the ricasso (got for trapping).

A polearm has two major weaknesses - it's deadly part is it's top, the wooden handle can be used to hit, but it's not as resilient as steel and against an armored foe it will not do much. Are there situations where I'd prefer a polearm? Definately. The best tool for the job is the only sensible course of action. But in a duel, it wouldnt be my pick.

[Sir JK]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

I meant that primarily the spear is a thrusting weapon. Sure you can use the pole of the weapon too, its just not as effective (it can be caught etc.). You could also argueably use the butt of the sword or flat side of the axe, if the situations warrants it (I have a hard time imagining the last though).

Spears are no more primarily thrusting weapons than swords are primarily slashing weapons though, they're both far too versatile to be limited by that. They may be used like that, but just like the sword can thrust the spear can slash (remember, it is a double-edged wedge at the end. It's like a knife on a stick, can definantely cause serious injury to a person in slashing motions). You're right in that the spear can be caught, but I'm sure that there are many techniques that tempts the opponent to do just that, so that the spearman can dislocate their arms or use their hands as fulcrums.
Also, there are many techniques that are unarmoured disarms of swords. Such as simply grabbing the blade and pulling it out of the swordsmans hands or catching the blade between the wrist and elbow and twisting it out of his hands. So it's not like swords don't face the same problem

All weapons have a large part of wrestling, disarms and counters to disarms in their techniques. Just in case someone actually tries to catch their weapons. Basically, all weapons have at least one technique for every situation. So that even if your weapon break or you're disarmed you're not defenceless (you can just take your opponent's weapon if nothing else)
Hmmm... flat side of the axe. I have no doubt there are many techniques using it that way, but I think there are far more that uses it as a hook or that uses the back of it as a mace. All depending on situation.

[aaniadyen]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Dear god sometimes I wonder why I even bother.....
No matter how any of you put it, no matter how fanaticaly devoted to any particular type of weapon you are. None of these weapon types are superior to any other. There is a reason why none of the weapons died out with time, mainly that they all had their uses. The spear is a powerful weapon, no doubt, as is all polearms, however the one shortcomming of the polearm is that only the tip of the weapon is the only killing part of the weapon. If you manage to knock aside the tip of the spear, the spearman can be in serious trouble. Argue all you want, but any weapon can win over any weapon.

It sounds to me like you just don't like being wrong, so you've shifted your point and are trying to pin it to a failure to communicate.

[Lotion Soronarr]

aaniadyen wrote...
Actually, Wu is right. Polearms have several benefits over swords.

1. Maai

WTF is this?....EDIT: Nevermind, figured it out.

2. A solid stick can shatter a sword with a direct hit

Hahaha....seriously? Will not happen.

Didn't you watch mythbusters where they tried to break swords by clashing them with massive force?

[FlintlockJazz]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

It's not a capital offense to own a 42 inch TV or BMW sports car, yet they are still considered status symbols.  The sword WAS consider a weapon of prestige and wealth regardless of how effective it was.  Women were often beheaded with a two handed sword rather than an axe simply because it was considered the chivalric thing to do.

As for the two handers, most knights did NOT use them in combat.  The typical armament of a knight was lance, sword and shield, the sword being one handed so that it could be wielded from horseback after the lance had broken.  Carrying a two hander on a horse was impractical and just unneeded extra weight, since you'd only really get to use it on the ground after you were pulled off your horse, and then you would just use your normal sword for that anyway. 

Not to say that the sword was useless, on the contrary it was a deadly weapon, but it by no means was superior to every other weapon out there.  The dagger was actually one of the most deadliest weapons to have, though it was pretty much a kamikaze weapon (dive on the guy before he can use the reach of his weapon to stop you, but once you were on him any weapon other than a dagger was pretty much useless since they wouldn't have the space to swing or thrust).  In a skirmish (not fighting in formation but rather the style of combat you get in most RPGs where you have small groups fighting each other) most weapons would have some unique advantage or style to bring to the situation.

EDIT:  Just thought I would also mention, swords did indeed break, quite often in fact, which is why most people would try to block with a shield instead of parrying with a sword, and even then a steel shield can break if caught on the edge by a blow.  

Modifié par FlintlockJazz, 24 octobre 2010 - 11:26 .

[aaniadyen]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Hahaha....seriously? Will not happen.

Didn't you watch mythbusters where they tried to break swords by clashing them with massive force?

I don't watch tv, but I have seen a kenshi (shinkage itto ryu) who didn't practice hard enough. In one of the kata against a bo, he was using a shinken. He hesitated and botched one of the parries, his sword was hit and it cracked. It wasn't an inexpensive sword, and a lot of the waza against bo staves are modeled the way they are because your weapon can be broken. Shinkage Ryu likes to boast that they haven't changed their cirriculum for 300+ years. Evidently staves cracking and chipping weapons was enough of an issue that it shaped how they fought.

[Sir JK]

Lotion, Aaniadyen: Remember that there's a great deal of difference between european swords and japanese swords. The former were much more durable constructs (due to much better iron being available, not to mention there being so much more of it) than the latter.
That's not to say european swords didn't break, they frequently did. Chipping and blunting the egde was often enough to warrant reforging the entire blade, and when pressure was applied sideways (like being hit by a mace) they occasionally snapped.

But it would not be a sure bet to say that you can destroy a sword by hitting it in the right way, nor is it certain to say that you can't. You're essentially both correct.
There are probably better ways to use a staff than to try to destroy your opponents blade though...

FlintlockeJazz: Yes, I agree. It should be mentioned though that many swords used one-handed from horseback would be two-handed on the ground (sometimes reffered to as hand-and-a-half swords or by the fantasy name bastard sword). But no knight worth his salt would stay long on foot, they'd run back to their spare horses and spare lances and mount as soon as they could. That's how you deal the real damage. 800 kg of armoured horse and rider delivered at ~50 kmh/h at the tip of a lance... ouch.

You're right about the dagger though. That weapon(-style) has killed more people than all other mediveal weapons... probably combined. Barring the rock of course. Those probably have a higher track-record... then again we've used them for far longer too...

EDIT: We probably should try to bring this topic back on-topic. As interesting as this side-discussion is I'm getting the feeling it's starting to overstay it's welcome.

Modifié par Sir JK, 24 octobre 2010 - 11:53 .

[aaniadyen]

Sir JK wrote...

Lotion, Aaniadyen: Remember that there's a great deal of difference between european swords and japanese swords. The former were much more durable constructs (due to much better iron being available, not to mention there being so much more of it) than the latter.
That's not to say european swords didn't break, they frequently did. Chipping and blunting the egde was often enough to warrant reforging the entire blade, and when pressure was applied sideways (like being hit by a mace) they occasionally snapped.

Oh, without a doubt. These petty forum nit-pick fests just tickle me.

Sir JK wrote...
EDIT: We probably should try to bring this topic back on-topic. As interesting as this side-discussion is I'm getting the feeling it's starting to overstay it's welcome.

You're right, but I thought this thread outlived it's purpose on page 1. So really, everything we've been talking about since has been off topic, right?

Modifié par aaniadyen, 24 octobre 2010 - 12:03 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

FlintlockJazz wrote...
It's not a capital offense to own a 42 inch TV or BMW sports car, yet they are still considered status symbols.  The sword WAS consider a weapon of prestige and wealth regardless of how effective it was.

Of course..It was expensive to produce...anything expensive is asociated with power and wealth.

As for the two handers, most knights did NOT use them in combat.  The typical armament of a knight was lance, sword and shield, the sword being one handed so that it could be wielded from horseback after the lance had broken.  Carrying a two hander on a horse was impractical and just unneeded extra weight, since you'd only really get to use it on the ground after you were pulled off your horse, and then you would just use your normal sword for that anyway.

Since when did I claim mounted knights carried two-handers OR that two-handers were a common weapon?

And no steel swords didn't brake often. they are notoriously hard ot break. You must be thinking of bronze swords...those did break.

[Sir JK]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Since when did I claim mounted knights carried two-handers OR that two-handers were a common weapon?

It's a misinterpretation of the usage of the word elite, like I did I think. He picked up on what I said and read the same meaning, ie. that it's social elite (which is to say a knight).

And no steel swords didn't brake often. they are notoriously hard ot break. You must be thinking of bronze swords...those did break.

Bronze swords lost their edge or got bent after just about every fight, but they could be reforged in a matter of an hour or bent back into shape with no major problem.

Iron and steel swords however suffered a great deal of wear and tear. Beyond blunting, which happened every time they hit or cut through something they also suffered many other damages. If they hit metal, they risk being chipped which can make the sword lose the entire edge, or worse: can actually cleave the sword in two if not dealt with. The problem is that it needs to be reforged. Which takes days.
Furthermore, there have been many occassions when otherwise perfectly normal steel swords simply snapped in two, fell apart, came loose from the hilt and many others. Not seldom due to instabilities in the ore (which are impossible to detect without modern computer tomography). Especially swords that had been with you for a time had a tendency to do this.
Good swordsmiths tried to compensate for this and in the rare cases when they had access to wootz (also known as Damascus or Toledo steel) they could make nigh perfect swords. But remember that they did not make swords out of steel, the swords became steel under the process of becoming swords. But occassionally bad ore caused crystalisation in the blade which weakened it. Though, sometimes the swords that were made would have been superior in every respect to what we can make today (especially wootz blades, that steel cannot be replicated).
But swords did break and it happened often enough to warrant several swordssmiths with every army contstantly making new ones. They had many tricks to make the swords last longer, such as tempering them and testing their flexibility by bending the blade in a full circle and checking if it reverts to it's proper shape.

[Icinix]

Why the hell didn't we get a Jet Pack and missile launcher in DA:O?



THIS BETTER BE RECTIFIED IN DA2 OR THERE WILL BE HELL TO PAY!!!!



< shakes fist angrily at BioWare >

[Sir JK]

filaminstrel wrote...

I would think, if they have animations for attacking with a swordstaff, those are probably pretty close to what they want for attacking with any other polearm... though there's still the issue, if warriors get access to polearms, of needing a new talent tree to accommodate them. I suppose polearms could be put into the 2-hander tree, but, can different weapons in the same talent category use different animation sets, or would polearms have to swing exactly like great swords and mauls? Because I don't think that would do polearms justice, being vastly different weapons, though I suppose you could say great swords and mauls themselves should be handled much differently from one another too. I don't know, though, I'm just talking out of my ***.

Remember that the swordstaff is intended for mages though, so it will only be used in melee when enemies get close to them. Those animations also lack anything for special manouvers and are probably spiced up with a hefty dose of magic (like the flamestrike from the trailer). That alone makes the animations less suitable for warriors.
Not to mention that a swordstaff would only really havy aqnything in common with glaives and possibly war scythes, the other polearms wouldn't handle like that.

But I think you're quite correct in that all talents from a tree will be uniform and that polearms wouldn't be done much justice by being forced into the same style as a two handed sword or maul (and you're correct, they don't fight anything alike.... or in the case of the latter, at all) . Creating a completely unique style for polearms simply for the sake of adding them, while nice, feels like resources that could be better prioritized.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sir JK wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Since when did I claim mounted knights carried two-handers OR that two-handers were a common weapon?

It's a misinterpretation of the usage of the word elite, like I did I think. He picked up on what I said and read the same meaning, ie. that it's social elite (which is to say a knight).

I figured as much. It's not a mounted weapon so knight in mounted combat wouldn't carry them, however they were used when knights fought on foot (castel defense, duels).

*Snip*

Yes I know. Preaching to the choir. My point was that quality steel swords don't break easily.
If it breaks froam single hit, then it was crap.

[Lotion Soronarr]

filaminstrel wrote...

I would think, if they have animations for attacking with a swordstaff, those are probably pretty close to what they want for attacking with any other polearm... though there's still the issue, if warriors get access to polearms, of needing a new talent tree to accommodate them. I suppose polearms could be put into the 2-hander tree, but, can different weapons in the same talent category use different animation sets, or would polearms have to swing exactly like great swords and mauls? Because I don't think that would do polearms justice, being vastly different weapons, though I suppose you could say great swords and mauls themselves should be handled much differently from one another too. I don't know, though, I'm just talking out of my ***.

In this you are correct. Polearms are used in a differnt way than two-handed axes or mauls. same with two-handed swrods. Both one-handed and two-haanded swrod would need a different animation set. It is confirmed that it will not happen.
So be ready to see stabbing someone with a hammer.