View Full Version : dex based swords??
awkward silence
01-04-04, 08:03
Should some swords or so on be melee in general? I think yes.
Just wanna see what ya all think?
=\
Only real reason I can gripe about this one is because Spies can get on an equal level with tanks with the best potential of this idea....something I don't necessarily want, though I think spies need a boost somehow... O_o
As sword technology progressed from big bashing weps to smaller bladed priecing type swords, dex and agiltity was just as important if not more in using the new weapons. I see no reason not to have dex based melee wepons that do less damage but strike faster.
Ok thats reality, now for game mechanics. It would be very hard to make this happen. More then KK would be willing to put in. What skill would be used for them or would they create a new dex subskill and add some implants for boost then have to create psi boost for them its a mess. I like the idea of dex based melee weps. Just wont happen.
Originally posted by Kenjuten
=\
Only real reason I can gripe about this one is because Spies can get on an equal level with tanks with the best potential of this idea....something I don't necessarily want, though I think spies need a boost somehow... O_o
very confused on how this would make spies anywhere close to tanks with the armor and con delt of the two. But if I didnt have to put up with a aiming ret I might go that way.
lets give tanks str based pistols and rifles too!!!
Originally posted by Bl@zed
lets give tanks str based pistols and rifles too!!!
w0t he said..
even though I don´t think he meant it..
**Voted Restrictions needed but yes.
Maybe they could run off the subskill agility?
I mean the only problem with that is the fact you'll have 150+ agility and you'll be faster then shit off a stick :p
Considering how you use melee weapons its kinda silly that its all
about str considering that in reality "dex" is far more important.
But then again thats not the only thing thats a bit weird in this
game. Now, would it really unbalance things to have dex based
melee weapons? Spies would have shitty M-C anyway and
wouldnt be able to get that good dmg/rof, and PEs that chose to
go with melee instead of pistols for example.. wouldnt that be
pretty cool and add flavour? I mean it wouldnt be hard to
balance, just decrease the TL of the dex based melee weaps if
they turn out to be too powerfull.
Originally posted by Bl@zed
lets give tanks str based pistols and rifles too!!!
Urrr.... Yuh! Because in RL pistols and rifles do require strength. You see, in RL Melee weapons actually do require Dex as well. So whilst our idea is working within the restraints of what is generally accepted as possible.... your idea is stupid.
Jadzia Eleazar
01-04-04, 14:03
A DEX and STR based Katana requiring a litte bit of M-C would be fine. You don't need much strength to wield a Katana so DEX based swords are definetly a viable thing.
Just my 2 cents
PS: How much STR would anyone require to use a pistol/rifle? Apart from babies anyone can use a gun.
mm..
"PS: How much STR would anyone require to use a pistol/rifle? Apart from babies anyone can use a gun."
Heavy Weapons are guns/weapons that require strength to use/throw properly...no?
I do like the idea of dex-based melee, for the cut of str they can be speedy. I used to play that kind of char elsewhere. :D
So long as Spies (and PEs) are able to use this kind of thing without overshadowing the Tank, I'm down. :cool:
Kenjuten, I think its more than Heavy Weapons need enough strength to be able to realistically deal with lifting the damn thing, holding it steady, then comping with the recoil. They don't actually need str to fire them, which is why they need HC to actually use them, and Weapon Lore to be able to aim them.
Thats how I see it.
Also, if you think about Dex based Swords they shouldn't do as much damage as normal Melee, because they are a completely different playstyle. Stealth would almost be a prequisite to using Dex based Melee weapons as without that you would just be a gimped tank, rather than having a completely different playstyle.
Originally posted by Judge
Kenjuten, I think its more than Heavy Weapons need enough strength to be able to realistically deal with lifting the damn thing, holding it steady, then comping with the recoil. They don't actually need str to fire them, which is why they need HC to actually use them, and Weapon Lore to be able to aim them.
Thats how I see it.
Also, if you think about Dex based Swords they shouldn't do as much damage as normal Melee, because they are a completely different playstyle. Stealth would almost be a prequisite to using Dex based Melee weapons as without that you would just be a gimped tank, rather than having a completely different playstyle.
Uhm...that's what I meant. O_o;
Well, except for the last paragraph. Wtf are you talking about? Stealth being a prerequisite to using stealth-based weapons? O_o
I understand what you're trying to say, but...
It is true that in another certain game, the Thief class (who used daggers, which were different from swords so that this fast class could use them) and the Assassin/Rogue classes (upgraded versions of Thief) use elements of hiding and moving while invisible to kill enemies.
But I don't believe stealth will be necessary for Dex-Based weapons...nerf str-based weapons to have a slow max rof and there you go. :p
Of course, this has no thought upon the actual balance of the game aside from what you said.
No no, I don't mean that stealth should actually be a prequisite. I was just pointing out that if you wanted to use the Dex based Melee fully then you would basically have to have stealth. Without stealth you would be loosing out quite a lot on the sort of Ninja style playtype.
Originally posted by Judge
Urrr.... Yuh! Because in RL pistols and rifles do require strength. You see, in RL Melee weapons actually do require Dex as well. So whilst our idea is working within the restraints of what is generally accepted as possible.... your idea is stupid.
I think he was taking the piss :rolleyes:
Whats the point in having different items if we have a variation of each type of weapon to suit each class...Like dex armour and int armour and dex melee weapons and int heavy weapons, this idea is stupid.
Stealth would almost be a prequisite to using Dex based Melee weapons as without that you would just be a gimped tank, rather than having a completely different playstyle.
So I stealth then get behind someone and as my stealth is about to end a D10 rolls on my screen :D
No.
The best way to fix most of our problems is to reduce specialization, not add in more things to specialize in.
steweygrrr
01-04-04, 22:06
Originally posted by amfest
So I stealth then get behind someone and as my stealth is about to end a D10 rolls on my screen :D
rofl!!!:lol: :lol: :lol:
That would be nice and cool to put sword skills in DEX
but there would have to make new style of swords
let the tanks with their HUGE SWORDS who can break every head down ^^
lets create some new ones ,like katanas ^^they will have less power but there will also be faster
Originally posted by alig
Whats the point in having different items if we have a variation of each type of weapon to suit each class...Like dex armour and int armour and dex melee weapons and int heavy weapons, this idea is stupid.
Why is it stupid? Do you have a reason for it to be stupid? Or are you just so stupid that you can't see why people want this idea and not "int heavy weapons"?
:rolleyes:
Okay people, most other god damn MMORPG's have 3 different types of melee weapons
Heavy Weapons - Broadswords, Warhammers, Battleaxes, Scythes, Longswords, Maces and the like.
Light Weapons (Weapons which require finesse) - Shortswords, Daggers, Tantos, Knuckles, Hatchets.. also laserblades could be included to this, since laserblades are energy they dont weigh anything therefore just need skill to use and the str to lift the handle, unless u got a little nuke reactor in there.
Psi Weapons - Okay the weapons usually associated with Psi powers and magic, Staves, Staffs, Rods and such, most are light and flimsy and their power comes from the user, really only viable in neocron if another subskill is included in PSI maybe PSI manisfestation and soul clusters could use this aswell, maybe the ability to forge weapons out of Psinetic energy? None of this "Sword of Mordankain" or whatever u call it but more soul reaver type spike growing from arm weapon which may act like stealth and disable all weapons for a certain amount of time, but is very powerful... so it's like a all or nothing attack against an enemy.
Most of that is a load of crap, but im ill and tired so just shout at me if you wish, but give tanks the heavy weapons, knock down the RoF up the damage and you've got heavy weapons (I was going to say run speed penalty but I want to keep my life)
Spies/PE's can have light weapons so they can have their damn katanas and stuff and MAYBE (havnt really thought about it in detail so i dont know how you could impliment it) give Monks Psi weapons, but since i dont play a high level monk if you want turn them into D&D Wizards I dont really care, lol... atleast then I can roll a dice whenever I drink cron beer to see if I get drunk :p
-Scarus
[EDIT] Spelling > Me
Originally posted by Bl@zed
lets give tanks str based pistols and rifles too!!!
If you think about it there are str based swords in rl like claymores and large 2 handed swords and there are also dex based swords like rapiers.
Your reasoning is totally defunct.
Originally posted by Judge
Why is it stupid? Do you have a reason for it to be stupid? Or are you just so stupid that you can't see why people want this idea and not "int heavy weapons"?
:rolleyes:
Read my post. I make it quite clear.
:rolleyes:
Originally posted by Katherine
If you think about it there are str based swords in rl like claymores and large 2 handed swords and there are also dex based swords like rapiers.
Your reasoning is totally defunct.
In the end, the person using the sword requires strength in order to do proper damage. A rapier is only as deadly as the thrusting ability of the fencer. The fencer must work hard and build muscle in order to deal decent and quick blows. While agility is important in sword fighting, brute force is more so - no matter what blade type is used.
All the Yoga in the world won't help you parry or preform ripostes any better.
Unless you do 'COMBAT TRAINING YOGA'!
Originally posted by Marx
In the end, the person using the sword requires strength in order to do proper damage. A rapier is only as deadly as the thrusting ability of the fencer. The fencer must work hard and build muscle in order to deal decent and quick blows. While agility is important in sword fighting, brute force is more so - no matter what blade type is used.
Not really, it is easy to pierce someone with a sword, the problem is hitting them, the only way that STR would help is cutting through armour and PA so yes that is a big factor in NC, they may have to add a new "Slashing" resist onto armours instead of just piercing and force, but I dunno
Originally posted by Scarus
Not really, it is easy to pierce someone with a sword, the problem is hitting them, the only way that STR would help is cutting through armour and PA so yes that is a big factor in NC, they may have to add a new "Slashing" resist onto armours instead of just piercing and force, but I dunno
Well, since everyone in neocron wears armor nowadays I sincerely doubt any sort of thrusting weapon would common sensically do much in terms of damage.
Slashing makes sense, if it won't cut the target outright, it will still expend the force it built during the swing on the target which will still cause damage even if the armor is not ruptured. Claymores of old were really nothing more than sword shaped bludgeons. Hardly anyone was cut up by a claymore... But they sure did get bones broken and parts fractured.
I mean, If you had to go mano-e-mano with someone in platemail, what would you rather have? A bludgeon sword? Or a thin sword with which you thrust?
Which makes sense?
Heh, I understood you Judge, my edit didn't go through tho..
Bleh, I must have been too tired when I woke up to re-correct myself. :D
At the time, I was just saying that you don't need to be a Ninja or a type of character like those I mentioned to utilize dex based weapons well...sure, it helps.
But there are non-'Ninja' dex based weapons such as fencing/piercing-horizontal swords, as example the Rapier which was mentioned above.
Anyways, this post is just to correct myself from earlier, and has little to do with the current posts. :)
Originally posted by Marx
In the end, the person using the sword requires strength in order to do proper damage. A rapier is only as deadly as the thrusting ability of the fencer. The fencer must work hard and build muscle in order to deal decent and quick blows. While agility is important in sword fighting, brute force is more so - no matter what blade type is used.
All the Yoga in the world won't help you parry or preform ripostes any better.
Unless you do 'COMBAT TRAINING YOGA'!
Uh, actually now, in melee combat just as with ranged combat its
all about "shot placement", which comes down to "dex". You ever
practiced combat with some sort of melee weapon? Once you are
strong enough to handle it, its all about technique, not strength.
And then add to the fact that we are talking sci-fi weapons, we
have laserblades, vibroblades, monoblades and whatnot that
doesnt require actually strength to penetrate the opponents
armor with. It actually makes alot _less_ sense to have melee
weapons being str than dex.
Originally posted by Rade
Uh, actually now, in melee combat just as with ranged combat its
all about "shot placement", which comes down to "dex". You ever
practiced combat with some sort of melee weapon? Once you are
strong enough to handle it, its all about technique, not strength.
And then add to the fact that we are talking sci-fi weapons, we
have laserblades, vibroblades, monoblades and whatnot that
doesnt require actually strength to penetrate the opponents
armor with. It actually makes alot _less_ sense to have melee
weapons being str than dex.
Well, let me begin by saying that its a pain to compare game mechanics to real life principles. As I mentioned previously, its easier to reduce specialization than make a dex based form of something that already exists.
Anyway, in real life as you probably know its not about technique or shot placement unless you're out there trying to make a pretty display.
Its all about landing a shot (anywhere) and making it do as much damage as possible. I've yet to meet a combat arms instructer who says 'do the tango with your opponent', they tell you to 'take a shot and follow it through', and that 'blah blah a good fighter can incapacitate their opponent in one blow blah blah' - that's with knife fighting mind you. The idea is to land one shot, make it count and then use it to your advantage. Doing anything else risks too much.
We have laserblades yes, but if we followed the proper way they work, any person who runs into or somehow comes in contact with the blade would have to take damage, you know, since its always on.
arent tanks faster because of enhanced reflexes? so the nimbleness and speed part to make them dext is kinda a non issue. if you make a lighter sword, then technically they should make laserblades in that class too, eliminating the melee tank.
-Crono
I fence and I'm pretty small in real life. It hardly requires any strength at all. Agility and dexterity are what helps a fencer.
People who say that fencing requires strength have obviously NEVER fenced ever, and therefore should not speak like they know alot about it.
o_O
have you ever held a real kitana?
quite a bit heavier then a thin fencing sword. totally different man.
so unless this new dext based sword is going to be a fencing sword that doesnt really apply. anyways, the strength doesnt come from being able to hold it. it comes from being able to keep pushing against the mobs/enemies resistance with the weapon. nimbleness and agility helps, but take 2 people with the same skills, then make one stronger, that person wins ;P strength is a factor. anyone can wave a sword around, but you need to be strong to be able to keep it up with resistance of another (which is much harder when using a sword with real weight)
-Crono
Originally posted by Crono
o_O
have you ever held a real kitana?
I do, I have several REAL katana's, I also have one my grandfather gave me.. I have been doing Kendo for almost 14 years.. ^_^ Agility, endurance, and strength are very important.. I dont see a problem with there being DEX swords.. ^_^ I am very small in size but I have beaten people bigger than me! ^_^ I also use the naginata.. :)
I indeed have held a katana. I used to take Akido and on the weekends I would go to Sensei's house to take private kendo lessons.
I remember the first time I got to hold a real Katana it was pretty heavy, but lighter than what I expected. But after practicing with a Daito for about a month I started practicing with a steel practice sword and it was much lighter than I remembered.
I must have gained STR lvl points while I "exped" haha. :p
But to sum it up... Katanas arent THAT heavy if you practice with them.
:)
the main factor that you NEED strength is the resistance factor, unless your dext based weaponry makes you go out on the side and rest every 10 minuits. because the ability to keep going on with the swings against al the enemies risistance requires allot of strength. Big Big difference from holding and swinging around a weapon then it is using fully weighted swords against each other (fencing/rapiers excludded, but their not funconial here)
everyone loves the idea of the nice nimble ninja with low muscle mass, but good reflexes overcomming, i guess because they can relate to them more, but if you have seen most of the martial artists that acually compeate with others, they have a Ton of muscle mass, just very toned, but its still pretty bulky. because you Need that extra strength to overcome your enemy fron direc hits. nimbleness doesnt cover everything.
-Crono
Originally posted by Crono
:)
the main factor that you NEED strength is the resistance factor, unless your dext based weaponry makes you go out on the side and rest every 10 minuits. because the ability to keep going on with the swings against al the enemies risistance requires allot of strength. Big Big difference from holding and swinging around a weapon then it is using fully weighted swords against each other (fencing/rapiers excludded, but their not funconial here)
-Crono
This is also a game.. ^_^
yea its a game, but then again if thats the answer, there is no point defending the reasons it should be Dext :P
Originally posted by Crono
yea its a game, but then again if thats the answer, there is no point defending the reasons it should be Dext :P
I was trying to figure out a good explanation but it seems to be to difficult for me to put it into words so I guess you win.. ^-^
technical win, I suppose.
The point of defending the dex-based swords is because it's an idea.
The point of stopping the dissing on the dex swords was because it's a game.
How's that, Kasumi? :p
Originally posted by Crono
:)
the main factor that you NEED strength is the resistance factor, unless your dext based weaponry makes you go out on the side and rest every 10 minuits. because the ability to keep going on with the swings against al the enemies risistance requires allot of strength. Big Big difference from holding and swinging around a weapon then it is using fully weighted swords against each other (fencing/rapiers excludded, but their not funconial here)
-Crono
A real life fight with katanas would be over in just a few strokes. Contrary to movies you might have seen swords rarely ever touch each other it would ruin the sword.
Kasumi said "its just a game" because no where in real life would a real swordsman or swordswoman in our cases be involved in a fight that lasted longer than 1 or 2 minutes.
10 minute sword fights are pretty unfriggin realistic, and thus she said "it's just a game"
Even the great Samurai fell after a couple strokes in battle.
:)
^^
Is this a story thread ? o_O
I got a finger on my right hand cut open (REALLY OPEN) by a pencil, whilst i was bored in a math lesson in 9th grade ^^
............
THE PEN IS MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD !!
......hmm............introduce Pencils... (Sharpened Sharpened Pencil o_O )
Originally posted by naimex
I got a finger on my right hand cut open (REALLY OPEN) by a pencil, whilst i was bored in a math lesson in 9th grade ^^
You too? I still got about 2 internal pencil marks, one on each hand. Well..one of them disappeared.
Originally posted by naimex
......hmm............introduce Pencils... (Sharpened Sharpened Pencil o_O ) '
..Er...to be TOTALLY honest, when I first glanced here I thought the Pencil was written as something else...not saying you edited; it was a mind trick O_o
... ... amazing. O_o
Oh, and nice pun with the modding. :p
i stepped on a pencil when i was 10 and the peice of lead is still in my big toe :D you can see it through the skin
I don't have a piece of lead (well, it's actually GRAPHITE, not lead. Real lead kills.) persay, but the mark is still inside my hand somewhere. I can see it. It looks weird. 8|
As has been pointed out, when you simplify things down, there are two classes of melee weapons: [1] strength based that are primarily chopping oriented (bastard sword, scimitar, axe, etc.) or smashing oriented (mace, hammer, etc) , and [2] dexterity that are primarily piercing (rapier, roman shortsword, etc.) and slicing (katana, saber, etc). Sure, for the edged weapons you can both slice and poke with most of them but in reality they usually had a primary attack form; e.g. a great many katanas never had a sharp point for thrusting/piercing, you instead drew the blade across a part of the body thereby doing a slicing wound, and rapiers had a slicing edge but that was not often brought into play.
And yes, a certain amount of personal strength was needed for proper use of dexterity weapons, but nothing like the body strength needed for the chopping and bashing stuff. That was, after all, the whole point of dexterity weapons: they became deadly tools for people who didnt have the requisite strength for the other weapons, and could even be used to defeat people who used strength weapons through skilled knowledge of new-style "fencing" attack and defense techniques that were developed in parallel.
That being said, the current M-C could be renamed to SM-C for Strength-oriented Melee Combat, and a new subskill called DM-C for Dexterity-oriented Melee Combat could be created under dexterity. Dex and Str weapons would then have their own separate requirements for use.
Furthermore, if KK wanted to do it closer to reality, for both weapons you would get a damage bonus based upon how strong you actually are, with the bonus being noticeably larger for SM-C weapons than DM-C weapons; there would be no corresponding damage bonus for how dexterous you are, since it doesnt work that way, rather one might argue that the higher your Dex the better the chance you have of scoring a hit and parrying, and that bonus would be higher for Dex weapons than Str weapons. But perhaps this all gets rolled into the actual weapon attributes as a result of their base Str/SM-C/Dex/DM-C requirements for use.
The kind of damage dealt would obviously depend on the nature of the weapon, but could readilly include most if not all of the current damage types.
So sure, i could see NC having dex melee weapons, although i would not be interested in using them myself. To keep the two basic types special, i could even see the difference being that the strength weapons do significantly more damage but are slower to use, whereas the dexterity weapons do noticeably less damage but can be used for faster attacks.
Spook
maby against players, but when your slashing against a hardened monster, or metal robot for a minuit straight, Str may come into account :D
its not real life so truthfully my point or anyones doesnt really matter :D so whatever i guess. mele is a tanks weapon in this game, kinda sucks to have that taken away because someone wants to be a ninja.
-Crono
Originally posted by Crono
maby against players, but when your slashing against a hardened monster, or metal robot for a minuit straight, Str may come into account :D
*cough* cables and wires *cough*
There is another kind of weapon not necessarily discussed but since it is more towards the str-based weapons there's little point for me to point it out.
Clubs/Maces/Warhammers/Mauls anyone? :D
I think the point Crono is trying to make is, if you are not very strong, and your opponent is, and he swings a heavy sword at you (not a katana but a greatsword or something) then all the nimbleness in the world isn't going to let you block that swing.
Besides melee already takes this into account. Agility influences M-C RoF if I remember correctly.
usually importnt things are kept under armor ;P what kind of retarted desighn woult it be if they made armored deth robits that had vital wires out in the open exposed :D
-Crono
Originally posted by Crono
usually importnt things are kept under armor ;P what kind of retarted desighn woult it be if they made armored deth robits that had vital wires out in the open exposed :D
-Crono
point taken.
....REDESIGN WARBOTS !!!
I think it's just Neocron's way of dissing DoY, by making like they're stupid like that. :p
Originally posted by Scikar
I think the point Crono is trying to make is, if you are not very strong, and your opponent is, and he swings a heavy sword at you (not a katana but a greatsword or something) then all the nimbleness in the world isn't going to let you block that swing.
Besides melee already takes this into account. Agility influences M-C RoF if I remember correctly.
Yes you will. Parrying doesnt always, and not even most of the
time, mean that you completely block someones blow like you
usually do with a shield, you redirect their blow. But yeah, if
someone has a big heavy weapon you will probably not parry it,
rather, dodge it (by stepping backwards in 99% of the cases) and
then counterattack.
I cant help but to think that conan and D&D raised a whole
generation of people that somehow think strength is what
matters in melee combat, if you actually practice it you will notice
how far from the truth that is. And all warhammers and twohand
swords and whatnot in fantasy games/books/movies did their
part to help. There werent any widespread use of crushing
weapons, there were the helmcrusher but they were one-handed
and pretty light and thats pretty much it. The twohand swords
were never a big hit anywhere because, duh, they sucked. The
vikings had heavy swords made mostly of iron but they never
won a fight due to proficiency, they won due to lack of skilled
resistance. If they would have fought roman legionaires or
saracens they would have been mincemeat but waving a heavy
chunk of metal works against farmers and militia.
Yes, strength matter to a certain degree, and you have to have a
certain amount of strength to properly manouvre a weapon, but
beyond that its 90% technique and 10% strength.
*rant off*
Heh. I knew you were going to say dodge it. :p
I just get the impression that strength is always going to help. And as you say, it's technique rather than actual dexterity, so the M-C thing still kinda works.
And my only film influence in that area would be Braveheart, and being someone kinda interested in guns I know never to trust a film when it comes to realistic combat. ;)
Yeah I agree that its more technique than dexterity, but the
technique come more from dexterity than strength if you see
what I mean. Im not saying strength doesnt matter however.
Imo the most realistic way to do it would be to have M-C be a
Dex subskill, due to the nature of the technique, but have the the
req on melee weapons be based on str, to see if the char is
strong enough to use that weapon. That wouldnt be very
practical looking at how the game is set up atm however. And
there wouldnt really be any realism behind a weapon with more
than say 70 str req, so meh. However if we just want to make it
simple I dont see any reason not to implement some melee
weapons with dex reqs instead of str, and it wouldnt be hard to
balance it either.
**edit: well dodging is the wrong word, sidestepping would be
better i guess.
strength is always going to help, even bruce lee knew that.
and you do not dodge a sword that is alwready is swing, thats a fantisy brought up by movies, like dodging a bullet ;P
streangth and technique are important. are you really saying your goping to use tech alone to go slash after slash on huge monster mobs? were not talking about duals here.
why do most people think strength means bulky muscel thats slow? thats compleatly Wrong. thats whyt the gen tanks are strong And the fastest. could always make it a athletics based thing :P
noone has any idea if a laserblade is light either. it could be like the resistance of a blowtorch x100.
str doesnt mean brute and slow. and dext doesnt nesicarily mean agil melee. since melee is alwready in str, why not work with that instead of trying to get it moved to your PE's ;P
-Crono
Strength, by definition, simply refers to the maximum energy you can transfer. Combining speed and strength is what gives you power, and power is what we're really talking about.
Re: dodging, I was using the greatsword example as an extreme. I'd expect more realistically, say a longsword, and there's someone running towards you to attack. Time it right, swing as hard as you can, and cut him as he steps into range.
And Crono's example is also very valid. I'd much rather have a greatsword than a rapier to take down a Grim Chaser. 8|
EDIT: Actually it can't be the max energy you can transfer, thinking about it. But the classic example is, weightlifting is a strength activity, whereas running, swimming, shot putt, etc. are power activities.
I never said anything about being bulky, I also never said that
strength didnt help. I just stated that its a 9/1 ratio between
technique and strength. Anyone that has trained with melee is
bound to realise this. No of course you dont dodge a sword going
for your head like in the matrix or whatever, but the feinting and
reading eachothers movement and stepping out of reach or
whatever, thats what I mean by dodging, if you find a better
word for it then let me know. Thats what dodging used to mean
but nowadays people seem to think that you refer to dodging
bullets or something o_O
Strength while good is inferior to technique, which is based on
motorics and whatnot. Im _still_ not saying that we, in neocron,
should move melee from str to dex. But people used the "fact"
that it didnt make sense to have melee weapons being dex
based, Im just trying to get into those peoples head that it
wouldnt be a problem if you go by realism to have a melee
weapon or two that had dex reqs instead of str.
Originally posted by Katherine
I fence and I'm pretty small in real life. It hardly requires any strength at all. Agility and dexterity are what helps a fencer.
People who say that fencing requires strength have obviously NEVER fenced ever, and therefore should not speak like they know alot about it.
Do you work out? When I was on my schools fencing team we always did. A fat small person will not do better than a fit large person. Why? In order to be 'quick' you have to have the muscles to enable you to be so.
Dexterity is a pretty stupid concept in regards to strength seeing as agility and dexterity are both rooted in 'strength'. You cannot say that a tiny person is more dexterious than say... An olympic marathon runner... Those runners have the proper musculature to do what they do - and last time I checked the universally recognized term for muscular ability is 'strength'.
But to sum it up... Katanas arent THAT heavy if you practice with them.
Which would mean you have "built up the proper strength to use the item", right?
Originally posted by Scikar
I think the point Crono is trying to make is, if you are not very strong, and your opponent is, and he swings a heavy sword at you (not a katana but a greatsword or something) then all the nimbleness in the world isn't going to let you block that swing.
Besides melee already takes this into account. Agility influences M-C RoF if I remember correctly.
Even if you had a compartively weak person vs' a 'strong' person in a battle using katanas or an equally 'light' sword... Odds would still favor the strong person.
And yes, agility does supposedly factor into MC.
Orinally posted by Rade
I never said anything about being bulky, I also never said that
strength didnt help. I just stated that its a 9/1 ratio between
technique and strength. Anyone that has trained with melee is
bound to realise this. No of course you dont dodge a sword going
for your head like in the matrix or whatever, but the feinting and
reading eachothers movement and stepping out of reach or
whatever, thats what I mean by dodging, if you find a better
word for it then let me know. Thats what dodging used to mean
but nowadays people seem to think that you refer to dodging
bullets or something
Who would be able to dodge and feint better, the buttertroll or the fit person?
While fencing we had to work our thighs and calves to the point of having blood spurting out the knee cap so as to improve range of motion, we did drills to improve our response time which would be akin to our 'quickness'. While doing my Cadet unarmed course our workouts constantly worked our core muscles, because balance is key in any fight. If you have a good sense of balance, you can then feint, dodge, hell... Do a jig a whole lot easier and a whole lot more efficiently.
Strength while good is inferior to technique
I can't agree because to me, one has to have the proper strength to do the proper technique.
And lastly, I say again - fight for a reduction in specialization, and you wouldn't have to go and fight for dex based weaponry.
greendonkeyuk
02-04-04, 19:45
well you guys know your stuff when it comes to melee fighting, have any of you ever been involved in sealed knot reenactments or jus grew up on rough council estates! j/k
Real world aside (i only ever learnt unarmed fighting so dont know where to begin when it comes to knives, swords and cudgels. i too jus rolled my d10 and hoped for the best)
I think this is a very viable idea for ALL the classes tbh. Bearing in mind Tanks have 70 dex... only 10 behind pes they too would be proficient at least i would say in this new form of combat. Melee tanks would be dually viable, having one lightning fast weapon to do lots of small hits and one big slow weapon to do high damage once it hits. If it was to be derived from agility (thats how agility was meant to work originally wasnt it? albeit a reduction in damage AGAINST melee attacks) then it would be useful to pretty much everyone. Melee pes would have some nice weapons (tanks would be able to use the lowest ones id guess at a push), Spies would prolly have some use for them too. Droners would receive a nice boost here (no drones left and the chaser is nearly dead, ok whip out your rapier and hack at the blighter!). A nice melee-dex weapon would be good for them most i expect without having to spec melee instead of transport. Monks even... (PPUS) could perhaps use the low end weapons as a form of defence? (remove para - end subliminal message).
My only question is how would we differentiate between the two styles of combat? Would "traditional" (never thought of a paw of bear as traditional but hey im open to it) melee weapons now have a reduced RoF/accuracy but increased damage. I guess the new weapons would have a Massive Rof and very little damage. It sounds like a heck of a lot of tweaking to me but if it was agility derived then there wouldnt be much need to tweak current spells i guess and on the whole less work for kk.
I like the idea. 5 stars.
Actually I dont see why any changes in the system is necesary.
Just make some melee weapons with dex reqs instead of str
reqs. Probably shouldnt be above TL80 or so.
Originally posted by Rade
Actually I dont see why any changes in the system is necesary.
Just make some melee weapons with dex reqs instead of str
reqs. Probably shouldnt be above TL80 or so.
So you'd want a dex based weapon which relies pretty much purely on a str based skill?
Why not have Str based pistols? I mean, you got .50 cal "handcannons" that require brute strength to use properly, how come we don't see those?
Doing something like this would set a very bad precident which would lead to alot of future whining.
dext alone isnt viable at all.
you do not melee train without strength training. everything you do is a sort of strength training. and tech while it outways str, tech it doesnt make it dext. thats an intelegence thing, nothing to do with dext. and this isnt a kung foo movie where the hero can use his technique to fight off hundreds of ninjas that are running at him 1 at a time. strength is important, you need a good base strength to build your tech around, you cant be some thin scrawany weak person and have good stamina. dext and stamina is something that roots in strength. close quarters fencing matches are very very different then any sort of real hand to hand fight. Ninja movies and anime, not Conan movies are whats kinda warping everyones minds :/ the old kung foo masters on there have most likley spent every waking hour of their life doing what their doing. i havent seen one real martial artist that isnt jacked. and those american black belt instructors dont seem to be fitting the bill latley :/ if i see one more out of shape instructor im gonna go nuts.
-Crono
[edit]
but more to ne of your points raide, a few melee weapons could deffinetly be dext based. problem is, their dualing type weapons, not ones that will deal huge amounts of damage to some of these far out monsters in this game unless it has bolth a dext and str req.
Originally posted by Crono
dext alone isnt viable at all.
Just felt like I had to capitalize on this one...
In the game I mentioned a while back, if you had all dex and no str, you'd be doing only 1s in damage instead of 100's and so. Which is why numerous members of the Assassin Guild specced for immense Str and Luk/critical hits.
Whether you used Str or Dex oriented weapons, it was *always* a matter of developing agility, athletics, strength, and endurance *together* ... along with the actual weapons skills and the requisite mental focus/conditioning ... in order to be a successful and deadly fighter.
By the way, you *can* dodge serious broad-bladed sword attacks, because controlling distance is part of the skills you learn, so being able to sway out of the way or take the step or half-step back to maintain distance and avoid an attack becomes fundamental, as does parrying/redirecting the blow with weapon or shield when the opponent is otherwise too close. Even a small or light weight weapon (e.g. rapier) can be used effectively to assist in defending against (and defeating) a classic sword bearing knight ... *if* you have the more modern fighting skills and knowledge that was developed long after stereo-typical knightly combat. Whereas if you had only the same skills and knowledge as that knight you would probably be dead
Put a good fencer up against a good old-fashioned warrior with a bastard sword and the fencer would usually win. Honest. Unless the fencer decided to toy with the warrior and "delay the inevitable", in which case the warrior would look for the key moment and then deliver a horrendous chopping wound that would kill the surprised fencer stone cold dead - i think that lesson was taught rather well in the movie Rob Roy. If you are interested, there is tons of authentic literature on the subject, and you can also take classes.
Realize, though, that what you would learn in fencing / foil / saber classes bears little to no resemblance to the hack and slash that really took place in those far off days of knightly yore. Even back then there was meaningful skill needed for sword work ... but fencing brought about an amazing revolution in sword fighting techniques that eventually replaced the old fashioned kind of fighting ... i.e. the evolution from strength oriented weapons and skills to dexterity oriented ones across the european continent. Yes, strength still plays a key role, but you no longer tried to hack off an enemy's head or chop through his rib cage ... instead you skewered the bastard or sliced a vital area, which takes much less body strength - but notably more *overall* body skills and fighting skills, and could be accomplished faster. But of course there were also combinations along the line, such as rudimentary fencing skills taught to British navy sailors during the 1700s who used a combination of those skills with traditional hack-and-slash melee techniques when fighting with a cutlass.
Oh, and forget what you see in Conan movies and the like. They can be fun to watch, all the terrific sword weaves and stances Arnold makes, especially in the first Conan film ... but those did not exist way back when ... that's just Hollywood magic like fast draw gunfights in "the old west" (which also did not really exist). That neat-o kind of fighting was a later development, seriously influenced by far eastern techniques melded with later european advances and was not present during the classic ages of sword fighting that people romanticize in films and fiction these days.
And no weapon was ever considered to be very heavy by the professional who used it ... because they developed the body strength and endurance needed to wield it effectively ... rendering it rather light weight (relatively speaking) in actual use. It is/was standard practice in many cultures to exercise and train with weapons much heavier than the real ones so that in fights the real ones were/are far easier to use than you would imagine.
Spook
happyslinky
03-04-04, 07:59
dex based swords would make sense..
really all melee should require a mix of dex and str maybe something like:
accuracy/rof: (60%)agl+ (20%)mc + (20%)dex
dmg: (60%)mc+ (20%)agl + (20%)str
with their massively superior con tanks will always have a huge advantage in melee. Personally i think every class should be equally viable (just through different routes), i'd like to see some way to deflect attacks. Something like higher agility means a higher chance to block. Then a dex based melee char could do less dmg with a faster rof and make up the con difference by higher defense.
happyslinky
03-04-04, 08:19
in response to megacorp:
back in the "hack and slash" days brute strength didnt get you very far with blade weapons. It is extremely difficult to cut through armor. To do so requires a swing that leaves the attacker too vulnerable to be useful. A deep cut with a blade also runs the risk of getting the sword stuck, which leaves the attacker completely vulnerable. Blocking with a flat-blade weapon (like a broadsword) is also extremely difficult and requires excellent control of the blade. The swords have to meet blade to edge or the defender's sword will break (even the strongest sword cant block an attack with its edge.. hollywood be damned), and it must be angeled in a way that will deflect the impact of the blow (if the swords meet at a 90 degree angle there's a much higher chance the defender's sword will break).
Because of all this (who would have thought sword fighting was so complicated??) sword fighters attempted to "bleed each other to death". In any armor (even today.. not that we fight with swords much) the weakest points are at the joints. Fighters would slash at joints (and a few other weak areas), this was effective because it: left the attacker vulnerable for the smallest amount of time and posed the least chance of getting the blade stuck. The idea was to make the other guy lose as much blood as possible. When he was slowed down/passed out then a stabbing blow could be used to kill him.
now to the point (holy crap i wrote a book heh)
maybe all blade weapons should be dex based and a new class of melee weapons should be introduced that are str based (like maces).
sorry for writing so much :p it's interesting stuff (to me..)
Once again, I reiterate: dexterity = strength. A fit person will be more 'dexterous' than the person who's spent 80 days in a cubicle. What makes a fit person dexterous? Their muscle tissue. What is the generic term for muscle tissue performance? Strength.
So we can run in circles in regards to what goes where, but in all honesty there's no reason to change anything, is there? A spy can use decent melee weapons, he or she might just have to drug up... With the melee revamp, it will be even easier for melee spies and melee PE's.
while all that makes perfect sence, it still doesnt exactly make an argument that it isnt relyant on strength. dext roots in strength. even with all you said, the weapons were heavy and required strength to move them fast.
prob here is that the classes of skills that they made arent really clear cut. because most things root into strength some way. and technique roots in int. (so good tech has nothing to do with dext)
so its comming down to 2 sides wanting the same weapons and trying to make an argument why they should have it. PE's arent more nimble in that respect, gen tanks on a general are a much faster class, so speed and reflexes are also an issue which tanks have better. maby make it agil based too ;P
to swing these sword type weapons so many times in sucsession takes strength dont matter how you look at it. regardless of how the fighting was really done in 1v1, thats not really what you get here. this melee is all about taking hundreds of swings every few minuits. their releativly heavy type weapons too, doesnt make sence to take the current mele weapons, make them dext based (or in other words, changed to PE's or Spy's) then introduce maces for tanks, when it would make more sence to make the nimble weapons like raipiers and give them dext requs. though i cant see those weapons working on anything armored. (rember, there is 0 proof in any way that the laserblades are light, think cutting torch resistance x100)
-Crono
while all that makes perfect sence, it still doesnt exactly make an argument that it isnt relyant on strength. dext roots in strength. even with all you said, the weapons were heavy and required strength to move them fast.Doesn't even have to be a heavy weapon. Look at it the way I do, think hand to hand combat. Balance, quickness, and your ability to strike back is all dependent on how you've built your body. In my mind, melee is no different.
prob here is that the classes of skills that they made arent really clear cut. because most things root into strength some way. and technique roots in int. (so good tech has nothing to do with dext)Well, to be frank - as I mentioned before... Technique isn't a necessity. So tanks with thier low int are in the win. heh.
so its comming down to 2 sides wanting the same weapons and trying to make an argument why they should have it. PE's arent more nimble in that respect, gen tanks on a general are a much faster class, so speed and reflexes are also an issue which tanks have better. maby make it agil based too ;PI recall threads in the past about making agility a strength based skill. I was in favor of that 1000%.
Frankly, I would stand behind this idea if alongside this, you also had STR based Pistols and Rifles... Seeing as one could logically argue that they exist in real life. We'd also need psi based melee/pistols/rifles seeing as we can't go and overpower all the other classes and forget the monks...
As I keep saying, if people want to make special characters like this, argue for the end of specialization - don't argue for more things to specialize in.
E/ I also say, wait for all the proposed changes.
E again/ spelling > me, think I missed a few. bed.
marx and crono, im not going to disagree that dex is based on strength etc.
All those are tied together but have you guys missed that in neocron they
are separated into different cathegories? If neocrons strength was renamed
to "physical aptitude" or something and dexterity to "motorics" maybe I would
agree with your view of things but right now we have physical aptitude split
up into different skills which forces us to convert the rl "system" into
neocrons system. What strength shows here is your amount of musclemass,
the brute force, and dexterity shows how good your control of your body is.
And shooting big weapons doesnt take any strength thats just another myth
which neocron has decided to latch on to, when I did army service we were
shooting all sorts of anti-tank weapons and machine guns and there its yet
again all about motorics, and absolutely nothing about being rambo. Shooting
a 50 cal handgun just requires you to have enough strength not to break
your wrist, but how well you hit has _nothing_ to do with strength.
Ah fuck Im too hung over to be coherent. Ill dive into this again tomorrow or
something. If Im not hung over again. Which Ill probably be. Cya monday.
lets break this down to what everyone really means here:
Strength = Tank
Dext = PE
the names as you hinted are really just generic titles for the skill sets below them. because if this was Rl, you need a bit of all to do things. as dext without strength is worthless, and strength with out dext is also. and unless you want weapons with a bit of EVERYTHING in there for requs, its best to no longer argue which skill it should better be suited for based on RL, because it doesnt belong in just one. And nimbleness is a Non Issue when dealing with heavy weapons untill you build the strength to weild them as if they were light. then dext training comes into effect. be as nimble as you want, put a 20-30 pound weapon in your hands and all that is worthless unless your strong enough to weild it as if it was light. (and yea, that is light untill you have been swinging it for 30 minuits ;P ) everything is needed, you cant excel in one without the other, so RL examples are bad for this.
So basicly what this is, is PE's want melee, and want it moved to their main skill group to make it easier for them. it was made to be a Tanks weapon, just let it be, or spec M-C in Str. You can argue anything you want about how they dont have to be heavy because its the future and they have the technology to make them lighter. in that same sence you would think Tewch based guns would have self balancers and major dext skill wouldnt be required for anyone to use them. infact why are guns dext based? shouldnt they be all weapon lore based, and maby requiring like 10 str, and maby 14 str on heavier rifles? if a sword is light, then so is a gun, and all you got to do is be able to hold it up and control recoil. besids that its all int ;P its obvious they desighned these things not as much as a reality based, but more a class sancioned type thing, and gave it names that they sort of have to do with in RL to make it sound better.
-Crono
Ok I thought it was pretty clear that I dont give a fuck wether or not PEs
can get melee weapons if you read my posts but obviously not. Im just
annoyed at the people who think that having melee weapons which have dex
and m-c reqs instead of str and m-c reqs would be unrealistic. Thats all. If
you dont think dex and m-c reqs are unrealistic then this is not directed at
you. Im not here to talk about game balance or anything like that (this time),
Im just stating that it wouldnt be any problem from a realism point of view to
have such weapons.
ahh ok man
there could/should be melee weapons based off of dext,b ecause as you said there are ones that need very little strength to use, thye just arent ingame. (besides the week melee weapons like knives and such, they could deffinetly be argued dext)
i wasnt saying there couldnt be dext based melee, i was just annoyed that some people were trying to say the current melee weapons out there should be made into dext based because you diddnt need str to use them.
-Crono
Sorry if I came off harsh btw. Just got annoyed when I realised Ive been
arguing about something for twentyzillion pages and we arent even talking
about the same thing :p
marx and crono, im not going to disagree that dex is based on strength etc.
All those are tied together but have you guys missed that in neocron they
are separated into different cathegories? If neocrons strength was renamed
to "physical aptitude" or something and dexterity to "motorics" maybe I would
agree with your view of things but right now we have physical aptitude split
up into different skills which forces us to convert the rl "system" into
neocrons system. What strength shows here is your amount of musclemass,
the brute force, and dexterity shows how good your control of your body is.
And shooting big weapons doesnt take any strength thats just another myth
which neocron has decided to latch on to, when I did army service we were
shooting all sorts of anti-tank weapons and machine guns and there its yet
again all about motorics, and absolutely nothing about being rambo. Shooting
a 50 cal handgun just requires you to have enough strength not to break
your wrist, but how well you hit has _nothing_ to do with strength.I don't know about the military you served in, but the one I'm familiar with doesn't have twigs using main support weapons. I'd presume theres a reason for that, no?
And any sort of large handgun does rely on strength. I can get a decent .50 cal handgun which weights eight pounds. I can get ones that are even heavier. You can argue about motoric ability all you want, but in the end its your brute strength which will determine your ability to aim and operate it.
My main point again which no one wants to even touch. 1.) There's no neccesity for this, all it would do is make it easier for other classes while making no definate change for the whole. 2.) It sets a nasty precident.
:P
in the game Anarchy online there is a class cald a Shade that came with the new expansion thats almost exactly what your talking about. uses melee, but lighter weapons, and does mor dmg based off of presision type shots like backstab and such as apposed to just massive blows with a sword. unfortunatly in that game its all just about the "hit the attack button and hlet the random dmg generator do its thing untill the battles over" ;P
it would be kinda hard to impliment dext based melee properly :/ because it would all be about presision shots and not hack after hack. for heavily armored mobs im not shure how they could impliment the way it does dmg properly :/
-Crono
I don't know about the military you served in, but the one I'm familiar with doesn't have twigs using main support weapons. I'd presume theres a reason for that, no?
And any sort of large handgun does rely on strength. I can get a decent .50 cal handgun which weights eight pounds. I can get ones that are even heavier. You can argue about motoric ability all you want, but in the end its your brute strength which will determine your ability to aim and operate it.
I guess I defy all laws of nature then. Then again I find it more likely that you
are wrong.
I guess I defy all laws of nature then. Then again I find it more likely that you
are wrong.Or maybe your definition of strength is borked?
:rolleyes:
http://dirtynuke.net/muscles.gif
Looking like this is not a necessity to be 'strong'.
Im not a big guy, what I have going for me is speed and reflexes. In the army
I was an excellent shot even with the big heavy guns, according to your
logic the big guys would have pwned me, well it was quite the opposite. Then
its the medieval stunt shows where I work as stuntman with a few friends,
we practice shitloads with all sorts of weapons and while (of course) the
fights we do for an audience are always very carefully coreographed (sp?)
we practice alot of "real" fighting as well, to make sure its real, its done with
dummy weapons with realistic weight tho. And there its the same thing, what
matters isnt your musclemass but how good you are at controlling your body.
Ive never had a problem fighting guys who are significantly stronger because
i will hit them in a deabilitating way before they can hit me. Ive also
done alot of martial arts more or less my whole life and there you are
somewhat right however, since those fights doesnt end after one or two hits
the strength really really matters. Now Ive tried to keep my own experience
out of this thread because it sounds so damn silly, but this happen to be one
thing where I have alot of personal experience and almost everything you say
goes against what I know to be true. Yes, sure, strength matters, to a
degree. There are other things that matter more. As for how "strength" is
defined, we could discuss that forever, and I think we would probably agree
somewhere, but now KK has done that job for us and divided up dexterity
and strength as two different skills, and those are the terms I use in this
discussion. And you cant deny that its possible for someone to
have "strength" and still be clumpsy or a bad fighter. What I dont understand
is why we've spent page up and page down twisting how to define the word
strength, and if nothing new comes into this discussion Im not going to
bother with it anymore.
And for your "main points" marx, how many times do I have to point out that
Im not discussing the implementation of these weapons but wether or not it
would be realistic? I even said it three posts up and you still miss it?
Now I gotta run off and get drunk so this rant has to end here. dut dut dut
dut.
-stuff-As I said, you don't have to be big to be strong, and the fact that you do things like stunting at medievil shows and such show that you're not a 'twig'.
A 'twig' would not be able to do the things you do.
While you talk about control - that is what benefits you at the current. What happens when you come across your equal who has strong limbs?
Yes, it is possible for a 'strong' person to be a bad fighter, but as Crono alluded to, the ability to think through your actions which you say you do very well would fall under intelligence, no? I mean, it would be the same thing as weapons lore. Sure, you can be dexterous... But technique falls under the mental shield seeing as its something that you're consciously doing.
I reiterate my points in every post because this forum is riddled with people who don't read the whole thread before posting, so those reiterations were not neccesarily aimed at you. However, I still state that it would not be realistic, in my opinion.
Seeing as we'll never agree since we're on two different planets so to say, I figure I'll drop my end since you're dropping yours
:lol:
What happens when you come across your equal who has strong limbs?
Ah, here is something I maybe wasnt clear about. I never meant to say
that "strength" was useless. And if I would meet someone whos just like me
in every aspect only he is "stronger" of course I would lose (if chance was
eliminated that is). "Strength" is still a benefit, just not as important as
technique. Thats why I think that some melee weapons with dex and m-c
reqs wouldnt be a problem, since that would take both aspects into
consideration. Right now melee combat is only focused around "strength"
which imo is worse, when taking realism into account that is, than having
them split up either by moving m-c to dex or having dex reqs.
As for setting a nasty precedent, I dont agree there, I would like to see more
items which have their reqs split up between several attributes and several
skills under different attribute trees. I think it would be much more interesting
if there was a nasty mess of cross-connected prepreqs that you would have
to navigate through. But thats another discussion entirely.
what dermines technique?
dext or int?
for ranged weapons use, dext lets you use the bigger and better weapons, but int's weapon lore is what makes you a better shot.
-Crono
what dermines technique?
dext or int?
for ranged weapons use, dext lets you use the bigger and better weapons, but int's weapon lore is what makes you a better shot.
-Crono
I would say dexterity without doubt since that to me represents motorics and
reflexes, whereas int represents the ability to solve a logical puzzle etc.
When shooting you dont actually "think" much, its more getting a "feel" of
what you are doing. I guess that its, once again, a matter of how you
interpret neocrons attributes.
this enough for me.
Rade, remind me to punch myself in the face next time i try to rationalize this
games mechanics ;P
-Crono
I guess it doesnt matter to me whether Dexterity weapons are introduced or not. But there *is* a reasonable basis in reality, should KK decide to add them. But I suggest there is still a Strength requirement associated with them along with the addition of a Dexterity requirement - just not as high a Strength as other melee weapons that obviously involve brute force. Lastly, either the Melee Combat requirement for these new weapons never gets too high so that other classes can use the weapons, or there is a new Dexterity subkill that is used instead.
Given the armor and natural resists people use, some science fiction oriented candidates for Dexterity weapon types are: vibra-blades (vibrating edged weapons), mono-filament "blades" (aka wire weapons), and energy blades ... all of which cut/shear via their own internal power or nature rather than requiring lots of strength/applied force. They could even require powercells/batteries which have to be replaced after so many hits, just like ammo oriented weapons.
Spook
Make the class of Dex Weapons get a sensitive recticle.
Done.
Some interesting reading on swords versus armor ...
"Another sword that needs to be looked at is the medieval or knightly cruciform sword that is always incorrectly referred to as a broadsword. This sword can easily be traced back to the beginning of the Iron Age. For our purposes, we can start with the Vikings.
The early Viking sword in general use was long -- about 33-34 inches -- broad -- 2-2.5 inches -- with a single fuller. The blade had parallel sides, with little or no taper. Steel was quite valuable, and at this time making large quantities was quite difficult. As a result, the swords were made by a process called pattern welding.
In this process, steel bars containing a good deal of carbon were welded to iron bars, then all were twisted and rewelded to produce the patterns we refer to as Damascus. A high-carbon edge was then welded on, the sword was filed, ground, tempered and polished. The end result was a light and fast blade, capable of delivering a terrible shearing cut. A good Viking sword was flexible, yet had a very hard edge.
This sword was designed to be used in conjunction with a wooden shield. It would be facing, more than likely, another wooden shield, and a foe wearing an iron helmet and armored with leather. If that opponent were very rich he would be wearing a mail shirt.
The sword, therefore, had to be flexible. It needed to take a lot of shock when hitting a shield, and cutting into a torso or even a leg -- the most likely target -- put a lot of strain on the sword. If it wasn't flexible, then it would bend easily. Of course, the sword could have been made thicker, but then the weight would be too great for combat. Swords at this time weighed between 2 and 3 pounds, tops. One wins an encounter with swords by cutting the other fellow first. In the 14th century, given the state of defensive armor, that meant leg cuts. Of the hundreds of corpses piled at Visby in 1361, 70% had leg wounds, most of them deep enough to be seen in the bones 500 years later.
The edge, we see, had to be hard. Bone is tough, so is a steel rimmed shield. And there was always the likelihood of hitting mail. One tried to avoid this by cutting at the neck, the hands and arms and, particularly, the legs.
Sometimes you got an opening and just had to take a cut. Mail is tough, composed of iron wire. It was not tempered and is somewhat soft. Tempered mail is not a good idea -- under a blow, such mail will break, giving free rein to the edge. Soft mail will bend and deform, resisting the cut a long way. Any mail will nick the edge, but if the blow is delivered accurately, at the proper angle and with a great deal of force, this sword can and will cut mail.
That is the sword in general use in Europe at the beginning of the Viking Age.
Around 900 AD, a new sword appeared. The blade was slightly shorter -- 32 inches average -- but with the same width. It tapered much more acutely, and ended in a good serviceable point. The change in blade shape makes this a much faster sword in both the cut and the recovery. By throwing the weight closer to the hand, the sword becomes easier to maneuver.
Those features weren't the big difference. The real biggie was that the whole sword was made of steel. No matter how good the smith, a pattern-welded sword was an expensive and slow production. With large pieces of steel, the whole process is speeded up, the sword is cheaper, and just as good. But the new sword had to be better because the armor had also started to improve. Actually, the armor was pretty much the same, except there was now more of it, and mail was more likely to be encountered because it was accumulating, generation by generation.
The next 200 years saw more changes. Mail now covered the whole body. Fighting on foot was left to the peasant. The knight, fully armored, held a good solid wooden shield and the lance was the main weapon. The sword became secondary, a back-up, and was used against lightly armored foot soldiers.
The sword had changed again. Its shape reverted and the two edges were more nearly parallel. Speed was not quite as important now as the weight of the blow. The blade had become slightly longer to give greater impetus to the blow, and to give the horseman greater reach.
The next 200-year jump brings us to 1300 AD, and even more changes.
At this time, armor was beginning to win the eternal fight with arms. Mail was slightly thicker and stronger, and strengthened with plates and splints of steel. These changes brought about changes in sword design and new types of swords appeared.
The most prominent of these swords was the Great Sword or War Sword. This is a long-bladed sword, and blades average about 40 inches in length. The sword is not particularly heavy, weighing 4 to 5 pounds. It is light enough to be swung one-handed in conjunction with a shield, but the grip is long enough to accommodate another hand, so that the sword can be used two-handed. The great length increases velocity and cutting power. Along with the long-bladed Great Sword, a shorter weapon appears, with a blade shape similar to the later Viking swords, but more exaggerated. These are big swords, with very wide blades tapering sharply. The wide blade increases the cutting power of the sword, while the strong taper makes the point a most important part of the sword. Flexibility is now sacrificed for rigidity to strengthen the thrust.
Even a third sword achieved new use. The falchion had always been around, but with the increase in protective capability of armor the falchion became a most useful weapon. With a short very wide blade, single-edged, it is capable of delivering a terrible blow. Shaped like a modern Shriner's scimitar, it became popular not only with knights, but with archers and men-at-arms.
From here until the 1650s the changes in arms and armor became more rapid.
Mail, that most ancient and honored form of defense, was discarded in favor of plate. The skill of the armorer reached heights that have never been, and never will, be equaled. Plate armor is a light, rigid defense that allows a man to move quite freely, and yet gives great protection. The only real drawback is that it is extremely hot. Ventilation is almost nil, and this can cause exhaustion. Fighting on horseback, when the main body parts used are the arms, is OK. One can do this for a rather long while. However, on foot, when the legs are used, much more heat is generated and more oxygen required and plate is less useful.
Swordmakers made one last attempt to overcome the new armor.
Light and flat cutting blades were abandoned. The sword profile with a blade wide at the top and tapering very sharply, stayed pretty much the same. However, the cross-section became a thick, flattened diamond, and the sword became quite rigid. Weight varied a great deal. Some blades stayed light, weighing 2 to 3 pounds, while others went upwards of 5 pounds. These heavy swords became nothing but sharpened bars of steel. Both the heavy and the light versions were attempts to punch through the armor, and it could be done if the blow was heavy and square. In a slightly off-center blow, there was a chance the sword would slide into a crevice or chink and wound the man. And the heavy swords also tried to "break" the armor by sheer weight and force.
This was the last attempt of the sword to overcome armor and that fight was abandoned. There was simply no way that a sword was going to cut through steel plate. Axes, maces and war hammers became the weapons of armored combat.
The sword was by no means abandoned. It simply was not used when fighting armored knights. The sword was too important socially and traditionally to be cast aside. Civilian swords became important items of dress. In combat, the flat, light cutting sword came back and was carried to fight men at arms and other lightly armed troops.
This is, of course, a quick and simplified view of the whole thing. Obviously, the bow and the pike were to render armor almost obsolete, and gunpowder administered the coup de grace. However, we can see here that swords are all shaped to achieve specific goals while overcoming specific obstacles. Each new type of sword was a response to a new development in armor or fighting style."
Quotation from "There Is No 'Best Sword': If there were no firearms, they'd still be designing new swords", By Hank Reinhardt ARMA Senior Advisor
Spook
With regard to formalized sword fighting techniques, in particular parrying sword with sword: The Royal Armouries in Leeds, England, has the earliest surviving manual of swordsmanship known. It is an anonymous manuscript dating from around 1300. It depicts pairs of unarmoured combatants in a variety of stances, executing techniques that include cuts, thrusts, parries, and disarming maneuvers.
As for the typical weapons of the 1300s: "The most prominent of these swords was the Great Sword or War Sword. This is a long-bladed sword, and blades average about 40 inches in length. The sword is not particularly heavy, weighing 4 to 5 pounds. It is light enough to be swung one-handed in conjunction with a shield, but the grip is long enough to accommodate another hand, so that the sword can be used two-handed. The great length increases velocity and cutting power. Along with the long-bladed Great Sword, a shorter weapon appears, with a blade shape similar to the later Viking swords, but more exaggerated. These are big swords, with very wide blades tapering sharply. The wide blade increases the cutting power of the sword, while the strong taper makes the point a most important part of the sword. Flexibility is now sacrificed for rigidity to strengthen the thrust. Even a third sword achieved new use. The falchion had always been around, but with the increase in protective capability of armor the falchion became a most useful weapon. With a short very wide blade, single-edged, it is capable of delivering a terrible blow. Shaped like a modern Shriner's scimitar, it became popular not only with knights, but with archers and men-at-arms."
Quotation from "There Is No 'Best Sword': If there were no firearms, they'd still be designing new swords", By Hank Reinhardt ARMA Senior Advisor
Spook
I do not see how Strength equates to Dexterity. Rather they work together cooperatively and are often essential to each other, and yes by developing one you will also develop the other to some degree ... but they are far from being the same, nor does one of them mean commensurate ability in the other.
Strength and Dexterity and Endurance (Stamina in NC) are the key factors in fighting, but it boils down to a matter of degree, depending on the fighting style and the needs of the weapon used. Fencing for example does not really require much upper body strength per se, but does require you to develop endurance, good leg muscles, and overall agility / athletics. Whereas using old-fashioned melee weapons generally also requires upper body strength. To repeat, no you dont need a lot of strength to be a fencer - thats the whole point of the idea (pun intended) ... you can kill and/or inflict serious to fatal wounding *easilly* because of the force/dynamics of a slim pointy blade being pushed into muscle and tissue - it goes in quick and easy, i assure you.
And knife fighting anyone? A knife fighter needs no more than modest strength with a focus on agility / athletics / endurance. To my mind a highly-skilled knife fighter would probably kill an average-skilled classic sword wielder if the swordsman was unarmored ... with the swordsman's first over-confident swing or thrust the knife guy would dodge it, move in close - inside the reach of the sword - and ... one dead swordsman. Give the knifer (PE or Spy) a high-tech vibra-knife and there is the same likely outcome against a PA3 armored, Devil's Grace wielding Tank if that Tank is also similarly outclassed with regard to personal skills. Whereas if that Tank is just as skilled (and better armored) then you bury the knifer instead.
Hence i figure it would be reasonable to introduce melee weapons that are not so seriously strength oriented. As mentioned in one of my prior postings, KK could introduce *powered* melee weapons that essentially do the damage themselves, which makes high brute force strength no longer necessary. The new weapons would still have Strength and M-C requirements, but low enough in value to be useable by other classes; higher TLs might still need STR/M-C implants. In addition, there would be one or more other requirements such as Dexterity (as a top level attribute) and/or Agility (a Dexterity subskill) which would range from low to very high value as appropriate for the TL. The items could even be charged and need to have their powercells replaced after some number of attacks.
Spook
I do not see how Strength equates to Dexterity. Rather they work together cooperatively and are often essential to each other, and yes by developing one you will also develop the other to some degree ... but they are far from being the same, nor does one of them mean commensurate ability in the other.
You cannot be dexterous without strength, though you can be strong and not dexterous. A bag of bones is not more agile than a rock climber, yet that same rock climber would probably be more dexterous than the beefcake. Before this this goes full circle again, I'll cut it off at the head: Dexterity requires the proper build of muscles for whatever task the person is dexterous in. With that said, the universal term for muscular ability is strength.
A knife fighter needs no more than modest strength
A knife fighter needs strength in the right places. Granted, one might not need strong limbs, but if their core muscles are not developed, they will have a hard time maintaining balance while feinting and dodging. Loss of balance in a knife fight would mean certain death.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for different melee weapons. However, if one wants to make dexterity a key factor, I simply say: Don't forget strength. Because they do walk hand in hand, as to in which amounts... That's debatable.
Hence i figure it would be reasonable to introduce melee weapons that are not so seriously strength oriented
Make the shocker require only tech combat.
:D
if their core muscles are not developed, they will have a hard time maintaining balance while feinting and dodging
We seem to be miscommunicating some how. What you mention has nothing to do with upper body strength (which is what i tend to associate with the Strength attribute in games), and is instead subsumed in my own statement that knife fighters need "agility / athletics / endurance" ... that's where balance and coordination were fully covered. Hence my saying they dont need raw brute force strength like a guy wielding a mace smashing at a plate armored knight certainly does - the strength that comes from chest muscles, shoulder muscles, and arm muscles that deliver the major trauma a knife figher isnt expected to do or need to do because he is using a knife and not an armor smashing weapon. I believe my point is still valid.
You cannot be dexterous without strength, though you can be strong and not dexterous
I fear you are mistaken. It is quite possible to be highly dexterous and yet not be especially strong with regard to upper body strength. Although i could continue to name examples, in sports and in fighting arts, i guess that would be a waste of time because we simply disagree. Fair enough.
Spook
P.S. one last try maybe ... a professional ballerina is highly dexterous with superbly developed agility, athletics, endurance and has a strength proportional to her needs ... but she has not the upper body strength to pull a longbow nor wield a mace or a great sword. But she has all that she needs except the basic weapon training to be a dynamite knife fighter.
The difference between your stance and mine solely revolves around our ideas as to what constitutes strength.
the strength that comes from chest muscles, shoulder muscles, and arm muscles that deliver the major trauma a knife figher isnt expected to do or need to do because he is using a knife and not an armor smashing weapon. I believe my point is still valid.Any weapon can be used to smash armor, it all depends on the amount of force put behind the weapon and how the armor absorbs and redirects that force. Your point isn't as valid as you tote it to be.
I fear you are mistaken. It is quite possible to be highly dexterous and yet not be especially strong with regard to upper body strength. Although i could continue to name examples, in sports and in fighting arts, i guess that would be a waste of time because we simply disagree. Fair enough.
You seem to me suffering from a misconception here. Muscles line the human body. In order to be dexterous one has to be able to use those muscles, they cannot be in the process of atrophying due to non-use. One who works those specific muscles for their specific task will be 'more dextrous', than one who isn't. When one works those muscles, they build strength and depending on their workout setup - can make themselves more dextrous. Professional dancers have some of the most notoriously 'hard bodies' in the world. Why? Because in order to do what they do to the best of their ability, they have to have the proper muscle strength to do so. Everything you do, no matter how trivial relies on strength. Taking a poo' relies on the strength of your sphincter muscles. Imagine not having any control over them... Walking along and "Awww, shit, my pants... Again..."
A person who's lain in a coma for 4 months cannot just jump up out of bed and say "Hey, I'm gonna do a jig", then do a jig better than a person who's spent their life WORKING OUT to get in the PROPER SHAPE to do that same jig.
Back to my earlier example... So stick in an olympic runner instead of rock climber if you want. They have a more developed core and lowerbody muscle groups, and are therefore more 'strong' than a bag of bones... And because of how they've developed their musculature they're then more dexterous than the beefcake who relies on mass tissue scarring to look huge. Mass tissue scarring which makes for big muscles limits your range of motion. This is why body buliding to the extreme is in most cases bad for you. Its better to be 'fit' than 'huge'.
but she has not the upper body strength to pull a longbow nor wield a mace or a great sword. But she has all that she needs except the basic weapon training to be a dynamite knife fighter.Just because their limbs are not strong, doesn't mean their body isn't. Dancers work their core, their balance muscles. Because of this, they can be amazingly agile - But it doesn't change the fact that they work out to get to that spot, it isn't just granted to them. They have to build the strength of those groupings.
Never mind, let's simply disagree and leave it at that.
Spook
:lol:
How about this idea then:
Currently Melee weapons have str & M-C determining the major damage and major attack speed of the weapon, while agility helps affect the attack speed of the weapon.
If dex weapons HAVE to be made, let the dex & agility be the main damager/attackspeed and M-C be the attack speed modifier.
Its simply the inverse of one another.
And I still say give the dex weapons a sensitive recticle.
Edit: For those who advocate the fencing/technique point/concept, we could always allow WEP to affect the Dex Melee weapons slightly.
Edit2: I'm arriving at this big picture concept based on the posts of everyone here thus far. I feel it's the best version of Dex Melee weapons I can think of.
Urrr.... Yuh! Because in RL pistols and rifles do require strength. You see, in RL Melee weapons actually do require Dex as well. So whilst our idea is working within the restraints of what is generally accepted as possible.... your idea is stupid.
who cares about comparing shit to RL...the silent hunter, if modeled around a RL sniper rifle...you shouldnt be able to fight with it up close, and the freq would be twice as high...GG....deal with it. :rolleyes:
who cares about comparing shit to RL...the silent hunter, if modeled around a RL sniper rifle...you shouldnt be able to fight with it up close, and the freq would be twice as high...GG....deal with it. :rolleyes:You can fight with a sniper rifle at close range in real life. The same way you can use an M-16 or any combat rifle up close... And dependent on the size of the cartridge, the rate of fire might even be slower to allow a proper period for chamber cooling and reaiming - hell, thats if its not bolt action.
However, using a 'sniper' rifle up close completely undermines the whole idea of it being a 'sniper' weapon... So methinks most people wouldn't even dream of doing that unless absolutely forced otherwise.
too long to care version: You can use a sniper rifle up close, it just doesn't make any damn sense to.
Rereading through this thread i just realized that a number of people have noted their "credentials" as supporting info for their comments. So, okay, for what its worth, i have been trained in Shorinru Karate, Tae Kwon Do, classic sword, rapier, rapier and dagger, and i own and use an authentic longbow. [shrug]
Spook
P.S. and i also know how to play Mumbly Peg with a real jack-knife :lol:
Marx, I understand perfectly well what you are saying, but I think using the
term "strength" for an overall physical condition as you do is a bit off in this
discussion because KK has already divided that trait into several
others. In neocron, which this discussion is based on, "strength" in your
terms are divided between strength, dexterity and constitution, these are
what we have to work with and because of that I think we should use those
terms in this discussion. Wether or not the true definition of strength is
something else irl, here it means "brute force" or somesuch, and thats the
terms we have been discussing around. In rl terms, the ballerina is high dex
and low str, meaning low musclemass and lacking the ability to for example
carry heavy things, punch hard, etc. The professional weightlifter from the
50ies have high str but low dex, whereas the professional heavy weight
martial artist is exceptional in both. Now, we shouldnt have to argue about
the definition of the stats, thats just petty.
**edit: megacorp, alot of the things from that book you qouted goes heavily
against accepted knowledge about medieval warfare, are you sure its
reliable. For example the swords he describe from early viking era would be
way too expensive for anyone but the lords and most of the swords we have
been digging up around here are 100% crappy iron. Also he say that the
bowmen are one reason the fullplate got discarded which is completely
untrue, the soft iron bodkin tips bends when it hits the steel plate, they
_cant_ pierce it. The fullplate was an excellent protection against the
longbow. And it goes on...
Um, sorry Rade, but the text i quoted is actually consistent with the widely held views today with regards to experts and scholars. The problem is that there were evidently tons of misconceptions and misunderstandings and ignorant biases that arose during the 18th and 19th centuries that existed until fairly recent times, and Hollywood and pulp fiction made matters worse by remuddying the waters. And unfortunately you are one of the victims.
Here is another interesting quote on that subject:
Despite frequent claims to the contrary, Medieval swords were indeed light, manageable, and on average weighed less than four pounds. As leading sword expert Ewart Oakeshott unequivocally stated: “Medieval Swords are neither unwieldably heavy nor all alike…the average weight of any one of normal size is between 2.5 lb. and 3.5 lbs. Even the big hand-and-a-half ‘war’ swords rarely weigh more than 4.5 lbs. Such weights, to men who were trained to use the sword from the age of seven (and who had to be tough specimens to survive that age), were by no means too great to be practical.”(Oakeshott, Sword in Hand, p. 13). Oakeshott, the 20th century’s leading author and researcher of European swords would certainly know. He had handled thousands of swords in his lifetime and at one time or another personally owned dozens of the finest examples ranging from the Bronze Age to the 19th century.
Some other (possibly) relevant remarks by J. Clemens, an instructor in Renaissance Martial Arts, with regard to some of the issues people have raised in this thread:
"Additionally, I typically suggest a tapering bastard sword for my novice female students. For acquisition of fundamental motions and core principles it's lighter, more agile, and more adept at thrusting, yet does not require the upper body strength for powerful cutting blows and counter-strikes as do more robust long-swords and great-swords. The weapon is more finely balanced for using closer and tighter movements rather than wider cutting arcs. I find it better suits female students better and that they enjoy its versatility more than learning with other style war swords. The same moves must still be learned as for heavier and wider blades, but in my experience the tapered weapon is generally found to be better adapted to the natural inclinations of most female students (i.e., counter-thrusting in time as opposed to counter-cutting breaks or initiating powerful combination cuts). However, each person must always choose the tool they feel best fits their disposition as a fighter."
Also, as for the notion of fighting by inducing a series of blood letting cuts instead of more pronounced follow-through blows that seriously wound or kill ... there are multiple historically significant instructional texts on the longsword that were written in the 14th and 15th centuries that repeatedly stressed fighting strongly, with the full strength of the body. Here are some further remarks on that subject by J. Clemens:
"There is plenty of evidence from the historical Masters instructing with longswords to pass and step into blows so as to put the whole body behind cuts and to strike from the shoulder. The historical Masters tell us to strike strongly, to strike repeatedly and nimbly from opening to opening at quarter to quarter, but they say nothing about killing adversaries by shooting out quick drawing slices or short jabbing thrusts.
Though human flesh is highly susceptible to terrible injury from impacts by sharp metal things, in combat one had to be sure of taking out an opponent as quickly and efficiently as possible, and not striking in the hope of wounding with minimal effort. You must be sure he is unable to strike back. Against armors, both soft and hard, cuts that would have been debilitating or lethal on bare flesh alone, might have no effect if they were too weak. But if executed with appropriate strength, they could traumatized the tissues and bone below and incapacitate the target. This may be why the German masters so repeatedly stressed the need for “fencing with strength.” One could never count on just using blows sufficient for only fighting unarmored opponents, but had to be able to strike hard against cloth doublets, leather and maile defenses, and even attempt to damage underneath plate armor. While a cut or even a thrust might not penetrate them, a strong blow might yet still cripple the opponent or at least open them to a follow on thrust. Thus, in one sense, a skillful fighter would have been one who was able to strike quickly with the appropriate kind of blow as needed on a variety of targets, armored or not. Besides, practicing to fence strongly and hit hard also applied to other weapons besides swords."
Lastly, you are very mistaken about longbows. The English longbowmen where able to drive a shaft through solid knightly plate armor with incredible ease. This is known fact. The penultimate demonstrations were at the battles of Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt. There is ample literature on the subject. And as a side note, the famous "clothyard shaft" or "Flemish Yard":
The final and most conclusive argument for a war arrow length of a "Flemish yard" is the sole surviving Medieval war arrow. The artifact, now in the Library of Westminster Abbey, was found in one of the turrets of the Chapter House in 1878. The exact age of the arrow is unknown; but, due to the construction of the war head, it was probably made during the second half of the Hundred Years War. Dr. Howard M. Nixon, Abbey Librarian, notes the head belongs to type 16 in the London Museum Catalogue: "This is a typical medieval war head, with small barbs to prevent the arrow from being easily withdrawn. It seems likely that the wood is either ash or birch."
This type of war head was devised to negate the protection offered by the combination mail and plate armour, which came into wide use after the Battle of Poitiers (1356). (Froissart tells us that the archers of the Black Prince shot (broadhead) "bearded" arrows). The Chapter House Arrow is 30.5 inches long. The diameter of the shaft varies from 1.07 centimeters at the war head to a maximum of 1.14 centimeters at a distance of 30.5 centimeters from head. The diameter reduces to 0.756 centimeters at the nock. The total weight is 1.5 ounces. This arrow is a 27 inch shaft (approximately) mounted to a 4 inch or 5 inch socketed war head. [The Medieval English Longbow, by Robert E. Kaiser, M.A.]
I am sort of an avid fan of what ye olde weapons were really like, and read a lot of historical literature.
Spook
Well, Im a big fan as well, and I practice with authentical weapon from that
era. The litterature I have read and analysing archelogical digouts are hardly
false. Most of the stuff about the swords seem right however the swords
that he describe from the early viking age are hardly the average sword, it
must be the best possible from that age. We have shitloads of old viking
swords from digouts here in sweden and almost all of them are pure iron of
very bad quality, those would not have been possible to sharpen much and
to keep sharp due to the bad quality of the iron. They also couldnt afford
steel on a big scale.
Now, as for the bodkin arrows and plate mail, tests done very recently (I
think it was something like two years ago) shows that bodkin heads on the
bows were too soft to penetrate the steel of the high quality fullplates. They
bend, there is no way those heads can go through plate. Do some google
search on it there shouldnt be a problem finding info on that.
Sorry, but i recommend google search right back to you. Perhaps this is another case of agreeing to disagree, because our individual sources (the ones we personally believe in) show differing conclusions. And i too have training and practice with the weapons of that era. And own and use a longbow. With a draw weight of 90 to 110 lbs, think of longbows as the early precursor to bullets ... longbows had serious penetrating power. And bodkin war heads were also made of steel, and a steel projectile can certainly penetrate steel plate.
Spook
Sorry, but i recommend google search right back to you. Perhaps this is another case of agreeing to disagree, because our individual sources (the ones we personally believe in) show differing conclusions
Spook
Actually, just do the test yourself, you said you owned a longbow. It has to
be possible to get a bodkin head made of similar iron and a piece of steel with
the right thickness and hardness. Then try to shoot through it, even at a
perfect angle you will just dent it, then try to shoot the plate at an angle
(which is most often the case since the plate were constructed to be struck
from an angle, take the neck protector for example) and you wont even get
a dent.
**edit: oh, I dont argue with the fact that bodkin heads were constructed
to pierce armor, but what they pierced were ring- or scalemails. Its simple
physics really, its not an issue which has to be debated in terms of what you
believe in, it can be tested scientificaly. The strength of the iron, the
strength and thickness of the steel, and the force of the arrow.
Steel bodkin versus steel plate, not iron versus steel.
But, unfortunately, i cant make that test. I dont have the upper body strength those English bowmen developed by practicing from their youth. Mine is just a 55 lb draw weight, when what is needed is like 90 to 110. So mine is only good for up to mail, not plate, and has less range. In recent times there *was* a famous archer who was highly skilled with a 110 lb longbow. His name was Howard Hill. He hunted elephants and rhinos with his own handmade longbows. And he was consultant on the Errol Flynn "Robin Hood" movie and was the guy who actually did Errol's/Robin's archery in the film. He went into bussiness making and selling longbows and other archery equipment and his sons still run it today i believe: Howard Hill Archery. I own and use some of that equipment.
Spook
Prodigious
04-04-04, 15:09
Whats the point in having different items if we have a variation of each type of weapon to suit each class...Like dex armour and int armour and dex melee weapons and int heavy weapons, this idea is stupid.
the point i have been trying to get accross for as long as i can remember, if you want to play melee, roll a tank, next thing we'll be asking for intelligence psi modules, so spies can get a shelter without drugging, im all up for variation but you cant just say, i want to do melee with my PE, i know lets have dex based melee weapons.
You have to have consistency with the game and this would not match up to any consistency we do have. This is why I am so disappointed at PE's getting their own PA and PA's having a magical class only tag, its not consistent.......
Plus if spies are gonna get melee then what new toy do tanks want, and what about those poor monkehs?
Heres a google search for ya btw..
Materials Characterization 29:111-117, Peter N. Jones P115-116.
"The armor targets were set up in a frame that was adjustable in terms of angle of obliquity with respect to the incoming arrow. In front of this was a pair of sky screens that were used to measure the velocity of each arrow. The arrows were shot from a 70 pound self yew bow at a draw length of 28 inches. A detailed discussion of the characteristics of the longbow and it's history can be found in ref 5. The distance between the archer, Mr. John Waller, and the target was 10m. The arrow impacts were recorded by using a high speed Fastax camera, framing speed of 500 frames per second.
Each shot was recorded as
1. Failure to penetrate, recorded as F
2. Failure to penetrate and arrow broke up, designated as F&A
3. Penetration achieved, designated as P, as in figure 11
Table 3. Penetration results for a 70 pound longbow.
Arrow Velocity Target Angle of Penetration Result
Weight (m/sec) Thickness Obliquity (mm)
(g) (mm) (degrees)
62 39 3 0 0 F
55 40 2 0 11 P
60 39 1 20 0 F
62 39 1 0 51 P
60 39 1 20 43 P
63 38 1 20 43 P
61 39 1 40 0 F&A
65 37 1 40 0 F&A
As can be seen from Table 3, the arrows failed to penetrate 3 mm of plate, thus the armored head was completely protected. The 2-mm plate at normal obliquity was penetrated but with only 11 mm or arrowhead through the target. Medical opinion is that thi s is not enough to causes a debilitating wound [4]. Significant penetrations were achieved through the 1-mm plate, which would have caused loss of arm and leg function. The powerful effect of plate obliquity was well demonstrated with quite modest varia tions from normal, causing the arrow shaft to shatter. Penetration when it occurred was invariably by tensile tearing of the plate with some material detaching as spall. This latter phenomenon occurs because the iron is very dirty."
The targets were wrought iron plates, rolled to the appropriate thickness and annealed to the fully soft condition. The thickness selected represented the armours of head, breastplate and limb armor. The arrowheads were long bodkin points made of low carbon iron with a vickers hardness of 350.
What you can see here is that only at a perfect angle can an iron bodkin
penetrate a 2 mm steel plate, and then still not by much, a 3 mm which is
whats used all over in the later high quality fullplates isnt possible to
penetrate even at a perfect angle (which you will never have). The reason
everyone is talking about iron bodkins in this area is because that was what
was used, steel was stupidly expensive and shooting away steel didnt even
cross peoples minds. Albeit I agree steel bodkins would give a different result
altogether, it just wasnt possible.
**edit: another thing thats highly exaggerated is the skill of the english
longbowmen. They werent some elite force, they were average guys who had
a little practice with bows, the reason that they were used widely was that
they were very cheap to hire, this information is also easy to find.
Dribble Joy
04-04-04, 15:21
Long bows and some compound bows with 100+ lb pulls are seriously evil weapons. My Grandfather (Ray Gallop, dunno if you have heard of him, does judgeing and such now), owns a plethora of bows and extensive knowledge on the subject.
Plate mail is too thin to withstand a full strength long bow hit, simply from an engineering perspective, the plate is at its weakest in a perpendicular collision within a small area.
Don't make me dig up my statics notes and show you :p.
//edit iron = poop, also 40 ms-1 seems a little slow.
Heres a google search for ya btw..
What you can see here is that only at a perfect angle can an iron bodkin
penetrate a 2 mm steel plate, and then still not by much, a 3 mm which is
whats used all over in the later high quality fullplates isnt possible to
penetrate even at a perfect angle (which you will never have). The reason
everyone is talking about iron bodkins in this area is because that was what
was used, steel was stupidly expensive and shooting away steel didnt even
cross peoples minds. Albeit I agree steel bodkins would give a different result
altogether, it just wasnt possible.
**edit: another thing thats highly exaggerated is the skill of the english
longbowmen. They werent some elite force, they were average guys who had
a little practice with bows, the reason that they were used widely was that
they were very cheap to hire, this information is also easy to find.
Every other sport bar archery was banned on a Sunday. They may have been average blokes, but they were training every week with their weapons. This is a lot more than the militia of other armies would have trained, though less than a knight would.
Also it wasn't bows that rendered such armor obsolete. It was crossbows.
Look, I was always a "rogue" fan, daggers and bows, that sort off stuff. Imo
plates and knights and all that stuff is a bit silly, I always liked the idea of a
knight dead on the ground with a bunch of arrows protruding from him, but I
know alot of people who are, just like me, really into this stuff, and some of
them started trying to convince me about the how good the armors actually
were and how much punch the bows carried, I tried to prove them wrong for
the longest time but I cant argue when I have nothing to base my opinions
on other than hearsay and all numbers and tests shows the opposite, so I
gave in. Now Im here doing the same thing to you, just look around and you
will see that every single test using the average equipment and average
people from that age shows that an arrow cant penetrate. Sure if you start
using steel bodkins or get a guy which pulls 478lbs or whatever you will get
other results, but thats pretty irrelevant. Maybe there were exceptional
archers that could on a good day get lucky and get the perfect angle and
punch through a 3mm steel plate, but if so that was extremely rare.
Wrong draw weight Rade. That table shows a dinkie 70 lb pull. Way too weak. Mine is only 55 lb and i am not especially strong; and i happen to be familiar with 70 lb longbows as well - i know from experience what a 70 lb is like - i have a helluva hard time drawing it because i'm not that well developed yet, although i have admittedly gotten beyond 55 lbs already (just havent upgraded yet). With luck and lots of practice maybe i'll get up to 75 to 80 in terms of easy pull. So ... find tests with 90 to 110 lbs, with the proper bodkins, and you will get markedly different results.
Spook
Also it wasn't bows that rendered such armor obsolete. It was crossbows.
Well, crossbows helped but plates were still pretty effective, gunpowder put
the final nail in.
Wrong draw weight Rade. That table shows a dinkie 70 lb pull. Way too weak. Mine is only 55 lb and i am not especially strong; and i happen to be familiar with 70 lb longbows as well - i know from experience what a 70 lb is like - i have a helluva hard time drawing it because i'm not that well developed yet, although i have admittedly past 55 lbs already (just havent upgraded yet). With luck and lots of practice maybe i'll get up to 75 to 80 in terms of easy pull. So ... find tests with 90 to 110 lbs, with the proper bodkins, and you will get markedly different results.
Spook
Oh wtf, Im not going to spend all day doing google searches just to convince
you. Ive even seen videos of people doing these tests with real equipment
(as opposed to recreating them in a lab) and the guys shooting were expert
bowmen, they couldnt penetrate a piece of steel even with a perfect angle,
then they shoot at it from an angle and then the arrows just shattered. Its
not my job to enlighten you, if you are really this into this stuff then you
should find out on your own, because I dont think anything I say or show you
will affect your opinion the slightest.
The reason longbows got the medal, as it were, was because the English trounced the French so decisively with their longbowmen at key battles. You see ... the longbowmen had significantly greater range and faster rate than the French crossbowen (which i believe were actually hired mercenaries from some other country, i forget which). But yes, crossbows of sufficient power can also hole plate armor.
Spook
P.S. its very pleasant to have an argument with people who don't resort to name calling and smartass remarks, which is all to common on these forums. Thank you.
have you seen that new documentary of the battle at agincourt btw? the
fabled huge win for the english longbowmen, turns out it didnt actually have
anything to do with longbows.
**edit: yeah I like it as well, altho it feels like this discussion has gone into a
dead-end, maybe we should drop it here.
Actually, no, i haven't. Maybe you have me on that one. We'll see. ;)
Its not my job to enlighten you, if you are really this into this stuff then you
should find out on your own, because I dont think anything I say or show you
will affect your opinion the slightest.
Cuts both ways, yes?
Spook
Dribble Joy
04-04-04, 15:57
Longbowmen were there though weren't they?
Longbowmen were there though weren't they?
Oh yeah, the english forces were something like 80% longbowmen, watch the
documentary tho, its pretty interesting :)
Well, through the ages factual events and factual information have often been exaggerated into myths and legends and tall tales. It will be interesting to see (in years to come) how the "longbow" evolves and whether - or to what degree - it has (or will) succumb as well. [i think thats my way of saying i am prepared to be proven wrong but will be saddened if that is indeed the case because it is such a fine story as is]
altho it feels like this discussion has gone into a dead-end, maybe we should drop it here.
I agree, let's let it rest for now.
Spook
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.