One-handed

[staggerlee]

Even so, free-handed swordsmen were in no way inferior to shield-users, dual-wielders, or two-handers.

There's no reason one weapon freehand shouldn't have a weapon skill.

The same could be said for unarmed, but I suppose these will be taken into account for Reborn.

To my understanding sword combat never really dominated warfare anyway. It's just sort of impractical outside of the hands of the privileged and sports fighting. Sabers were mostly used for horseback if guns failed, and fencing is a sport more than anything.

I think that arguments about weapon use in arm are, and should be, based around aesthetic more than realism. The question isn't "how effective is fighting with an open fist" so much as "does fighting with a free hand adequately represent Armageddon's style."

In a world of obsidian spears, jagged blades, bone mauls and armor made of the chitin of giant bugs, the answer so far has always seemed to be no.  I've always had the impression that combat on Arm is meant to be dominated by weapon and shield, dual wielding, and generally gigantic, clumsy stone or chitinous weapons.

My own interpretation of that could be somewhat off base and not all weapons in game are necessarily representative of that to the same degree, but the point is that style must dominate over realism in these cases, and I believe it does.

[Halcyon]

For those that dont think two weapon combat really works...


The book of five rings (1645) has a discussion on two weapon work, including a commentary on the great variety of the schools of combat of the day.  

The training manual by Hans Tallhoffer (1467) (germany) includes a few plates on longsword and spear forms for the judicial combat matches of the day.  They arent quite what you'd think of when you think of a guy using two shortswords, but some of his plates with longsword and buckler show a knife held in the buckler hand, point down.

Escrima was mentioned earlier, using 24-36 inch sticks in each hand, or, machete, or sometimes knives.

In 16th century France and Italy, case of rapier (a rapier in each hand), rapier and dagger, rapier and cloak, and rapier and cane are all well-documented in training manuals.

There are quite a few traditional chinese systems that use paired weapons in each hand (two swords, two short-staves, or others).

Several of the other medieval fechtbooks (Fiore, i33, etc) suggest situations with sword and buckler where the buckler is used offensively.  


While its true that some people dont have the timing or physical strength to manage two three and a half pound broadswords at once, there is a reality to the physical shape people get into living a martial lifestyle.  

[staggerlee]

For those that dont think two weapon combat really works...


The book of five rings (1645) has a discussion on two weapon work, including a commentary on the great variety of the schools of combat of the day.  

The training manual by Hans Tallhoffer (1467) (germany) includes a few plates on longsword and spear forms for the judicial combat matches of the day.  They arent quite what you'd think of when you think of a guy using two shortswords, but some of his plates with longsword and buckler show a knife held in the buckler hand, point down.

Escrima was mentioned earlier, using 24-36 inch sticks in each hand, or, machete, or sometimes knives.

In 16th century France and Italy, case of rapier (a rapier in each hand), rapier and dagger, rapier and cloak, and rapier and cane are all well-documented in training manuals.

There are quite a few traditional chinese systems that use paired weapons in each hand (two swords, two short-staves, or others).

Several of the other medieval fechtbooks (Fiore, i33, etc) suggest situations with sword and buckler where the buckler is used offensively.  


While its true that some people dont have the timing or physical strength to manage two three and a half pound broadswords at once, there is a reality to the physical shape people get into living a martial lifestyle.  

Well it was never really used to any scale worth mentioning. Sport fighting and exceptions. The only time swords were really used with much regularity in warfare at all was when other more useful weapons failed. Backup to a spear, backup to a gun, etc.
But that's neither here nor there.  I don't think debate over realism or real life examples are a good direction to pull the conversation in.

[Qzzrbl]

While its true that some people dont have the timing or physical strength to manage two three and a half pound broadswords at once, there is a reality to the physical shape people get into living a martial lifestyle.  

Which is especially true in arm, where some one-handed weapons weigh over 10 stones.



Now that I think about it though, spears with a free hand don't really make sense, though neither does dual-wielding them.

The current weapon system could use a bit of an overhaul.... It's always bugged me that training with a six foot long spear will make you proficient with short daggers, and that training with a six foot long spear won't make you better in any way with a six foot long staff.

But I'm de-railing here.

I'll buy that one-handed fighting might as well be taken into account by weapon skills.

Makes enough sense.

Same for Offense taking up for unarmed combat.

[Twilight]

Gladius, anyone?  Throw your javelins, then it was gladius and shield time.  And if you don't figure the Roman legions as a major militiary force...

What surprises me about this thread is that everyone seems to be talking about things like they should be linear.  Like the relationship between how the styles work with an unskilled warrior should be the same as how they should work with a skilled warrior.

Way I see it, if you have an unskilled warrior, it should be easiest with one weapon and an open hand.  Easier to balance.  Easier to concentrate on what you are doing.  You only have one weapon to worry about, and are probably more maneuverable than the guy with the two handed weapon, as far as dodging (your main defense) by moving your body.  So, for unskilled warriors I could see one weapon with a free hand being best.

For skilled warriors, the other guys took a bit longer, but now they have the blocking power of the shield, the defensive/striking ability of two swords, or the raw power and speed of a two handed weapon.  Your one weapon and one open hand guy is going to get owned, all else being equal, although it might not exactly be fast.

I think the relationships between the different styles, and their advantages and disadvantages, should change depending on the skill of the warrior.

[staggerlee]

Gladius, anyone?  Throw your javelins, then it was gladius and shield time.  And if you don't figure the Roman legions as a major militiary force...

What surprises me about this thread is that everyone seems to be talking about things like they should be linear.  Like the relationship between how the styles work with an unskilled warrior should be the same as how they should work with a skilled warrior.

Way I see it, if you have an unskilled warrior, it should be easiest with one weapon and an open hand.  Easier to balance.  Easier to concentrate on what you are doing.  You only have one weapon to worry about, and are probably more maneuverable than the guy with the two handed weapon, as far as dodging (your main defense) by moving your body.  So, for unskilled warriors I could see one weapon with a free hand being best.

For skilled warriors, the other guys took a bit longer, but now they have the blocking power of the shield, the defensive/striking ability of two swords, or the raw power and speed of a two handed weapon.  Your one weapon and one open hand guy is going to get owned, all else being equal, although it might not exactly be fast.

I think the relationships between the different styles, and their advantages and disadvantages, should change depending on the skill of the warrior.

The point is, things like gladius' were usually used as backup weapons, once your spear had been used.

As far as arming the incompetent, generally you're looking for simplicity and/or range. Spears, pikes, pitchforks, crossbows or guns being favorites, followed with fun things like clubs and axes, often paired with a shield.  Despite our romanticized ideas of medieval war, swords were never all that dominant to my understanding.

But as I was saying earlier... I think on arm it's more a question of style, and what fits the game world.  I think it's an aesthetic choice more than a realism one, and I don't believe that real world examples serve the discussion.

Now with that said, what I'd like to see more of is a move away from swords towards things that are more reasonable with Zalanthan technology: Spears, daggers, knives, clubs, axes, bows, pikes, maces, or pretty much anything but a sword.   Technologically and aesthetically I think moving away from the single handed broadsword is a win.

[Twilight]

I can't tell if you are thinking of hoplites (spear and shield, backup sword) or Romans.  Romans did not use a spear.  They used javelins, 3-4 of them, and they were only used for distance.  Roman legions primarily used a gladius for melee.

[staggerlee]

I can't tell if you are thinking of hoplites (spear and shield, backup sword) or Romans.  Romans did not use a spear.  They used javelins, 3-4 of them, and they were only used for distance.  Roman legions primarily used a gladius for melee.

I think you missed the driving point of my post.
When fighting in armies, you usually want range, the romans generally held a close quarters weapon in reserve for once things got tight. Specific weapon types depends on the period.  They did use spears and javelins, yes.

Swords have been used throughout history, but haven't been all that significant as far as warfare is concerned, when compared to other less romanticized weapons.

...the part that really matters though is that real world examples are not relevant to the discussion at hand.

[Jingo]

My understanding is that swords were useful when fighting got thick in crowded enviroments. If you wanted to storm a city, or a fortress, you would do so with swordsmen.

At least that is what Sid Meier's Civilization would have me believe.

[SMuz]

Ohhhh.. I found the advantage with using a weapon with one hand GDB rules won't let me point it out.. but yeah, there's an advantage and it works similarly to how it would IRL. You don't actually get 'one handed' skill, but it works like it should. If you want to make a swashbuckler with a longsword, go ahead, it works.

Way I see it, if you have an unskilled warrior, it should be easiest with one weapon and an open hand.  Easier to balance.  Easier to concentrate on what you are doing.  You only have one weapon to worry about, and are probably more maneuverable than the guy with the two handed weapon, as far as dodging (your main defense) by moving your body.  So, for unskilled warriors I could see one weapon with a free hand being best.

Since merchants, etc, don't start off with the weapon combo skills, an untrained warrior may actually be better than a skilled warrior in one-handing a weapon, if other weapon styles don't suit his stats. So, that's already technically accurate in this game.

Point is, do what you like with one-handed. Don't worry about the code. Just because it's not an official 'skill', doesn't mean it doesn't work and you can master it, just like you can master making an unarmed character in this game.


Anyway, guys, swords have been a significant part of a lot of armies, especially those who can afford making a long, sharp piece of metal. In Armageddon, sword materials are ridiculously cheap. Wood is cheaper if made into swords instead of spears; obsidian is also technically good because it requires little tech to make, compared to a metal sword, and obsidian is very easy to keep sharp, with the weight to deal heavy damage. Real life is.. complicated and different. Can't really compare it to the game.

[Agent_137]

just because zalanthas isn't real doesn't mean that the old adage of balancing realism and playability doesn't apply. "realism" just comes to mean "believability and logical implementation." So please continue bringing up real world examples because I want Zalanthas to be logical within its own rules of physics and magick.

[Nyr]

just because zalanthas isn't real doesn't mean that the old adage of balancing realism and playability doesn't apply. "realism" just comes to mean "believability and logical implementation." So please continue bringing up real world examples because I want Zalanthas to be logical within its own rules of physics and magick.

This is worth repeating, so I quoted it and said that it is worth repeating.

[SMuz]

just because zalanthas isn't real doesn't mean that the old adage of balancing realism and playability doesn't apply. "realism" just comes to mean "believability and logical implementation." So please continue bringing up real world examples because I want Zalanthas to be logical within its own rules of physics and magick.

Ah, now why I said that was because "reality" itself is often poorly documented and misinterpreted, as what seems to be happening here. We basically don't live as warriors and there's no way 99% of us could even understand what it's like for someone who spends his life as a warrior would act.

Case in point - martial arts. In the olde days, martial arts that don't work would be wiped out by one that did work. These days, easily 90% of martial arts will fail under an actual combat situation. Fencing, probably one of the main single-hand techniques today may or may not work; I've never fought a fencer while wielding a sledgehammer.

Weapon techniques is a loose one. Obviously, two weapons are hard to pick up for us, just like any illiterate Zalanthan bodyguard would have trouble learning C++. But it's not impossible at all, even if there's little documentation of people doing so. It's just most massive armies consisted of poorly trained militia who only studied it for 2 years or so, as opposed to the true master swordsmen who do it from birth. Why do so many armies use spears and shields? Because spears and shields are cheap weapons that simply require movement in a formation and some jabbing.

An experienced solo warrior would do excellently with two weapons or one, but there's never been any reliable documentation to prove that it can happen. Anyone who can hold his own against a lot of warriors (e.g. Miyamoto Musashi, Achilles) would fall into myth rather than reality... and thus, you'll be grounding your facts on fantasy. Warrior-nobles (those who were literally born to fight) throughout the world did use swords extensively, as well every other type of weapon. The average PC resembles an Earth noble more than a militia. Earth militia fight like Zalanthan pickpockets

Also, note that without metal, things are very different. Weapon technology is different. Obsidian swords should technically not even exist, but since Allanaki obsidian technology is good enough that they managed to smooth 'sid into hundreds of thousands of little dime-like coins, certainly they could chip a large chunk into a big-ass sword. But in real life, obsidian swords don't exist - because metallurgists decided that it's much easier to make a sword out of the abundant iron instead of more rare obsidian. Also let's not forget that Zalanthan mounts are horribly slow, so most great warriors are infantry rather than cavalry.

So, you can't apply real world examples, at least not in the way that everyone else has been doing in this thread, because the "real world" functions differently. I can give several more pages of examples if you like

[Comrade Canadia]

SMuz hits the nail on the head here. What we're doing in this thread is thinking of aesthetic choices (fighting with a single sword) and then attempting to misinterpret weapons history in order to make the argument feasible. If we wanted realism, people would likely be using slings over bows, nobody would be using bone longswords, and NOBODY would cover themselves head-to-toe in chitin and leather while living in a scorching hot desert.

Armag's weapons and armour are -all- based on aesthetics. Nothing in this game with regards to weapons/armour is realistic. Why, just now, do we decide that it's appropriate to bring up history and realism? We've already set the criteria - what's the point in lying about it?

[Halcyon]

SMuz hits the nail on the head here. What we're doing in this thread is thinking of aesthetic choices (fighting with a single sword) and then attempting to misinterpret weapons history in order to make the argument feasible. If we wanted realism, people would likely be using slings over bows, nobody would be using bone longswords, and NOBODY would cover themselves head-to-toe in chitin and leather while living in a scorching hot desert.

Armag's weapons and armour are -all- based on aesthetics. Nothing in this game with regards to weapons/armour is realistic. Why, just now, do we decide that it's appropriate to bring up history and realism? We've already set the criteria - what's the point in lying about it?

Respectfully, the persian empire had a long tradition of plate and chain, the romans in north africa still used lorica (banded plates), indonesian countries used mail (like the Moro brigandine), and crusaders in the middle east still used the chain and leather that served as the European armor of the day.  Heavy armor in high temperatures sucks, trust me, but fighting in low-medicene environments has some massive incentive to heavy armor use.

[staggerlee]

SMuz hits the nail on the head here. What we're doing in this thread is thinking of aesthetic choices (fighting with a single sword) and then attempting to misinterpret weapons history in order to make the argument feasible. If we wanted realism, people would likely be using slings over bows, nobody would be using bone longswords, and NOBODY would cover themselves head-to-toe in chitin and leather while living in a scorching hot desert.

Armag's weapons and armour are -all- based on aesthetics. Nothing in this game with regards to weapons/armour is realistic. Why, just now, do we decide that it's appropriate to bring up history and realism? We've already set the criteria - what's the point in lying about it?

EXACTLY

I think that what you're looking for is internal consistency, not realism.
Believability within a specific context.

[Comrade Canadia]

Halcyon - if that's the case, sure! However, you're tackling the wrong part of my argument. I still think I'm on pretty safe ground when I say that armag's weapons and armour in general aren't based on realism, but instead are based on aesthetic. Although I've bitched about this for years, I've made my peace with it. The game is plenty immersive.

Restating my point - if we can accept that armag's weapons and armour aren't realistic, why do we bring realism into arguments when talking about new code? That flies in the face of the established continuity, instead of building on it. If one-handed weapons are as cool to people as dual wielding spears, then go for it.