Combat improvements discussion

[Callisto]

After what I have just seen, we either need a way to defend against damage-inflicting armor or it needs to be removed.

Certain wrist-wraps, bracers, gloves and gauntlets can do a huge amount of damage in a short amount of time and there is no defense against them other then when you get lucky enough for them to miss, as near as I can tell.

To me, this seems a little off - if someone can't hit you with a weapon, how are they going to manage to slice you up with a spiked bracer?

I think they have a place in the game, but these objects do 1-5 damage on average, have a quick attack speed regardless of agility and there is no real way to defend against them other then to get lucky and have them fail an offense check. I think it needs to be toned down.

[EvilRoeSlade]

Personally, I don't think bracers and wrist razors that deal damage should exist at all.

I'm no fighter, but I just can't imagine being able to scrape someone with a blade attached to your wrist without throwing yourself horribly off balance and leaving yourself wide open to an attack.

[Anonymous]

Personally, I don't think bracers and wrist razors that deal damage should exist at all.

I'm no fighter, but I just can't imagine being able to scrape someone with a blade attached to your wrist without throwing yourself horribly off balance and leaving yourself wide open to an attack.

I agree.  Or, if nothing else, there should be a way for those wrist razors to cut the hell out of everyone around you friend or foe when they are worn just as a regular part of the PC's ensemble.

[Quirk]

Wood Raiders - Axe fighting in scotland - This type of fighting was commonly used by the woodsmen and hunters in scotland. It was developed into a fighting style when the scots began fighting under braveheart. It's uses were due to the fact that scots weren't trained in fighting, but were rather woodsmen that were skilled with the axe.

Uh, this bears no resemblance to the reality. The Lochaber axe was not developed from woodsman's axes. "Woad raiders" to which I think you're referring were a much earlier Celtic development (about a millenium before the Lochaber axe came into vogue) and specialised in a long slashing sword. "Fighting under Braveheart" is pretty meaningless - there was never anyone popularly known as Braveheart in Scotland, despite the film bearing that name. Wallace and Bruce employed schiltrons of pikemen to great effect, placing far less attention on sword and axe-wielding infantry. Although The Bruce is famous for a particular duel on horseback where, charged by a heavily armoured knight with couched lance, he evaded the lance's point and brought his axe down with such force on the knight's head that he clove helm and skull in two, breaking the haft in the process, axes were not however any noticeably more widespread among the Scots at that point than most of the rest of Europe.

Axe fighting is more of a beserking type of fighting due to that it has no rules and was used primarily for large battles in which it's fighters could send several men flying with one swing.

Eh? No. Just... no.

Anglo Saxorny - Mounted sword fighting - Saxonry was a combination of fencing and sword and shield fighting.

Anglo Saxons used a claymore or form of broadsword while mounted on a horse. This allowed for fighters to travel great distances in short amounts of time, while still fighting in large masses.

This name "Anglo Saxonry" isn't a fighting method. The Angles and Saxons were two tribes who conquered large parts of England and settled there. The claymore is a Scottish weapon and refers to two different types of sword - initially, in the early medieval period, a huge double-handed blade, and latterly in the time of the rapier a basket-hilted broadsword. Broadsword of course is a term which is only really meaningful in the rapier period despite its common bastardisation to describe earlier swords - it referred to blades wider than the slender rapier.

A slightly disgruntled Scotsman

[Angela Christine]

Due to their mass I think of half-giants as being more dwarf-shaped than human-shaped.  They are very blocky and muscular, like gigantic hairy dwarves.  Eww, gigantic hairy dwarves, now there's an unpleasant image.

That is all.


Angela Christine

[Trenidor]

Alright, I'm ready to post my second posting...This one hopefully won't be as long.


Spears and Javelins - Spears and javelins were commonly used by throwing them at opponents hurling them long distances to their target.

Spears were used more commonly by the tribes of people living in the Americas. These include but not exclude: Mayans, Aztec, Inca,  and several of the smaller less known tribes. Spears were made by sharpened rocks attached to a wood pole.

Spears were used as well as melee fighting weapons by stricking at opponents with both the pole and the spearhead.

Javelins were more commonly used for throwing purposes and with different types of materials. Javelins were used commonly to puncture shielding and other equipment rendering it useless and too heavy to use. Shields and armor were then abandoned due to sheer weight.

-----------

Poles and stalves

Several cultures used the stalf as a weapon, priests, monks, and several other religious men would commonly defend themselves with a simple walking cane.

The origion centered around these traveling preaches of religion that they would not simply kill with a sword or bloodsheading weapon. Since many of them would carry around walking sticks through their travels, they would train to defend themselves with their sticks.

In India (and other places), monks trained (and still train today) in this art. It is supposed to help with meditation while uplifting the body in rigerous phyiscal training.

Many Asianic cultures still use this type of fighting today.

----------

Pikes and the like

Pikes were developed after mounted combat charge became popular.

Pikes were developed to prevent a horseback charge into the frontlines by stopping the riders horse, goring the horse and flinging the rider, or killing the rider from atop the horse.

Pikemen are placed at the frontlines to stop mounted charge.

Pikes contained sharp heads and a very long pole. Due to the length of the pole, pikes were heaving and required two arms to hold them up. (think of firemen holding a firehose)

Due to the sheer weight of the pike, some armies did not supply shields but rather light armor for their pikemen.
-----------------
Morning star, club, mace - Heavy lengths of various materials with spikes and other such protrusions comming of the top end.

The club was more of a bandit oriented weapon used when buying a fancy weapon is out of the question, and making one is hard (trust me, making weapons is EXTREEMLY HARD)

The morning star was a club with spikes at the top of it to puncture armor and break it more easily. Maces were also called by this name, both of them had different versions including the attachment of a chain to the handle, and a spikey ball at the end of the chain.

Beserker in it's use, some people might have trained in it's uses, but it's highly unlikely much time was given into training with a club.
-----------------
Archers - There are three kinds of archers so I'll split them up:

Longbow --- Longbow archers used a very large bow to shoot great distances.

The longbow had long arrows with sharp tips to be sent far into armies.
Longbows were made of durible matieral that was flexible enough to pull.

Aiming was fair for this type of bow, but aiming wasn't required as much when hurling arrows into large armies.

The Crossbow --- Crossbows were compact versions of the bow better able to travel with.

Crossbows used smaller arrows called bolts that were placed in the crossbow and fired at high speeds.

Crossbows were fairly hard to maintain, several parts of the crossbow were made too fragile that they would breakdown easily.
Crossbows also had the disadvantage of loading, it would take a longer time to load a crossbow than an average bow; Crossbowers would have a ring at the top of the bow where a foot is placed to pull back the bowstring and attach it to the fireing mechanism. Due to amount of time it took, crossbows were hard to use in quicker battles.

The Shortbow --- Shortbows were smaller than the longbow, yet had slightly more acuracy than the longbow.

Shortbows were used for smaller distances due to the lesser amount of power they provided.

Shortbows were the quickest bow to use. Shortbowers could fire around 5-6 shots in the amount of time a longbower could shoot 3-4, or a crossbower 1-3.

----------
In large battles, the bowman became a primary unit, due to the range they could provide, bowmen could easily kill several men before the army reached them. As such, cavalry charges became hard, and often times commanders forced mounted warriors to walk with the other men and fight normal battles.

The invention of the pike further disabled riders from charging through enemy lines which they commonly did before its invention.

Before the inventions of strong armors, footmen were the worst off of wariors having to defend themselves from mounted charges and the harsh flights of arrows became tireing for the footman.

With the invention of strong armors, melee fighting became a more popularity and eventually footmen were commonality. Noblemen often fought battles to show their toughness, and as such the sport of swordsmanship became popular among all.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that covers the basics, it's important to understand the differences between asian and european cultures to better understand why certain things were developed. For instance, crossbows were used in asian areas because of the amount of mountains to travel to go places. It's hard to lug around a bow when you have to travel several mountains before engaging in combat. Also, in asian areas, less armor was used to increase mobility, and instead was replaced by a sharper sword to cut foe in single slice. European culture where traveling was as hard specialized in harder armors and stronger built heavier duty weapons to keep troops alive.
In the tropical/jungle areas as well as the rest of the americas, spears were common hunting weapons, hunters were also the defenders of the tribe, so training was based on who was a better hunter; Since the hunters trained with spears (other weapons as well) there was no need to train with different kinds of weapons.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's my novel, I might as well include an authors note:

Since Zalanthas is a desert planet, I think we should see more commonalities with the middle eastern area, but I also see that culture is an important part of shaping an area, maybe if someone (a storyteller perhaps?) thought about the changes that would come from culture and geography, some more ideas could florish.

Note 2: No where to my knoledge are spiked gloves and other freakish weapons used to fight with; These creations came from later people and their imaginations to form these kind of weapons. If you can prove me wrong, study up into it and explain it, I'd like to hear more about it.

[Tamarin]

Alright, I'm ready to post my second posting...This one hopefully won't be as long.

Good god how long was your first one?

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Good god how long was your first one?

ROFL.

[Trenidor]

Wood Raiders - Axe fighting in scotland - This type of fighting was commonly used by the woodsmen and hunters in scotland. It was developed into a fighting style when the scots began fighting under braveheart. It's uses were due to the fact that scots weren't trained in fighting, but were rather woodsmen that were skilled with the axe.

Uh, this bears no resemblance to the reality. The Lochaber axe was not developed from woodsman's axes. "Woad raiders" to which I think you're referring were a much earlier Celtic development (about a millenium before the Lochaber axe came into vogue) and specialised in a long slashing sword. "Fighting under Braveheart" is pretty meaningless - there was never anyone popularly known as Braveheart in Scotland, despite the film bearing that name. Wallace and Bruce employed schiltrons of pikemen to great effect, placing far less attention on sword and axe-wielding infantry. Although The Bruce is famous for a particular duel on horseback where, charged by a heavily armoured knight with couched lance, he evaded the lance's point and brought his axe down with such force on the knight's head that he clove helm and skull in two, breaking the haft in the process, axes were not however any noticeably more widespread among the Scots at that point than most of the rest of Europe.

Axe fighting is more of a beserking type of fighting due to that it has no rules and was used primarily for large battles in which it's fighters could send several men flying with one swing.

Eh? No. Just... no.

Anglo Saxorny - Mounted sword fighting - Saxonry was a combination of fencing and sword and shield fighting.

Anglo Saxons used a claymore or form of broadsword while mounted on a horse. This allowed for fighters to travel great distances in short amounts of time, while still fighting in large masses.

This name "Anglo Saxonry" isn't a fighting method. The Angles and Saxons were two tribes who conquered large parts of England and settled there. The claymore is a Scottish weapon and refers to two different types of sword - initially, in the early medieval period, a huge double-handed blade, and latterly in the time of the rapier a basket-hilted broadsword. Broadsword of course is a term which is only really meaningful in the rapier period despite its common bastardisation to describe earlier swords - it referred to blades wider than the slender rapier.

A slightly disgruntled Scotsman

Well sorry Quirk...how about you explain it then...

I might have forgoten this stuff, but I belive it was in Great Britian that sword on mount was used to fight the various likes around the island(s)

The only major traces of axe use was around Britain where wood cutters became fighters and they didn't have the nessicary training so they used farming tools and the like: pitchforks, shovels, axes, etc.
I could swear it was Willian Wollace who used this but I could be mistaken.

[Quirk]

Well sorry Quirk...how about you explain it then...

I might have forgoten this stuff, but I belive it was in Great Britian that sword on mount was used to fight the various likes around the island(s)

No more than anywhere else in Europe. Knights carried lances as a primary weapon choice for somewhat obvious reasons although a sword was a likely second armament. The sabre-armed cavalry from several hundred years later also packed guns, but they're probably the closest to what you're referring to, and again were widespread throughout Europe.

The only major traces of axe use was around Britain where wood cutters became fighters and they didn't have the nessicary training so they used farming tools and the like: pitchforks, shovels, axes, etc.
I could swear it was Willian Wollace who used this but I could be mistaken.

Eh, not at all. While peasants going to war certainly used farm implements or anything else they could lay their hands on to suffice as weapons, this is again fairly generally true across ancient Europe. Axes were used to some degree among knights especially as armour became too tough for swords to crack, but the heyday of the axe in the British Isles was likely the usage of the famous Lochaber axe.

Quirk

[Quirk]

Actually Trenidor, most of the content of your posts is entirely, painfully wrong. Shortbows were not used in warfare at the time of the longbow and crossbow, and I've never heard of them firing faster than the former - a longbowman could fire ten to twelve arrows in a minute. The recurved bow as used by the Mongolian horse archers was comparable in speed and power to a longbow, but that's a recurved bow rather than a shortbow.

The mace and axe became the primary close quarter weapons of the heavily armoured nobility shortly before gunpowder came to dominate the battlefield - by that stage swords were proving inadequate to crack the steel shell. Much time would be devoted to mace and morningstar combat.

Infantry played the major role in historic battles up until the invention of the stirrup. Afterwards they continued to be important although to a somewhat lesser degree - infantry did not tend to be anything like as heavily armoured as the mounted nobles despite your post. Pikes, spears and halberds were common choices as defences against cavalry, although sword and buckler infantry remained superior for infantry on infantry combat (as Machiavelli mentioned).

There are many more places I could pick holes, but I don't have time. I've no idea where you've got most of your information on this - it reads like a mishmash of "Age of Empires" style computer game rules and bits taken from films - but I suggest you do some research on the more serious sites like http://www.thehaca.com/ to firm up your knowledge of what medieval combat actually was like.

Quirk

[UnderSeven]

As someone who does archery I can tell you there is NO ACCURACY DIFFERENCE IN A SHORT BOW AND LONG BOW.

The difference is weight.  Where would you see a short bow? On a scout type person or hunter who is doing close quarter shooting or plans to run the hell away very very fast.

Pikes, spears and other long pokey weapons are great for stopping charges as pointed out, at least better than just standing there and swinging at the galloping person before they flatten you, BUT they are also great for standing behind a shield wall and poking at the other guy.  Also great for just standing away and poking the other guy.  If you look all over the world you'll find different uses.  Japanese used them, chinese, native americans, Europeans and not even all for the same uses.

Oh but wait, I had a point.

Instead of seeing how weapons developed in a world unlike Zalathanus (that being our own) Lets try and consider how they might of developed in game instead.  Pikes and spears may likely of been used to stop charges, but more likely were developed for hunting, being as zalathanus doesn't see that many historical massive battles.  

Maces and clubs and such were probably made as a response to obsidian armor (rare but does exist) try piercing rock with a wooden or bone sword...

Anyway, I hate it when people bring up world history and try to apply it to the game.  IT doesn't work, it might have similarities, but ARMAGEDDON IS NOT THE MIDDLE AGES.  It is not our past, it is not a representation of our past, it's a tottally and completely and utterly different world.

[Anonymous]

ALright, here comes my long winded post.

Claymores: You can't fight with them against a swordsman or axeman. You will die quickly, because the time it takes to swing. Claymores were used to wound horses or to knock aside spears, allowing those armed with shorter weapons to dispatch the riders/spearmen.

Maces, Morningstars: Used to crush an enemy's armour. The only problem with them is the reach, they weigh more than a sword, which can be used to strike from a longer distance.

Longswords and broadswords were not easy to cleave armor with, thus thinner, piercing weapons came into play, because they could strike at the armpit/groin, or punch through the armor.

A chained spiked metal head to a mace is not called a mace, nor a morningstar. IT IS A FLAIL!!!! A flail.

In armageddon, I doubt pikes would be used much at all, because of the lances.

Unless war beetles used to be more common, or other types of mounted combat was preferred.

Spears I can see, because they are used for hunting, (think of the benifit of having the distance to poke at H-giants too).

And swords, because with the low level of armor, it would be enough to pierce through. Although macemen would still be used for heavier troops, to take out the elitest armoured foes.

[Bogre]

Fleh at the above post. I didn't remember to log in.

And when I said that on Zalanthas, pikes would not be used, I meant that because of the lack of mounted combat.

[Gorobei]

I hate bloody swords in this game.  This is due to the materials that Zalanthans have to work with.  Swords would -never- be developed, without metal.  Wood, bone and stone are the materials that are available, eh?

Wood - There's no way wood would be able to take an edge useful enough to slice through leather in one stroke.  I admit that Zalanthans may have been able to invent a way due to necessity, but the wood would splinter or be deformed in just a few heavy strokes.

Bone - Again, not much of an edge, and dry bone is so very, very fragile (for a weapon material) (especially if it's been carved, exposing the marrow).

Stone - Stone would make a good blade, I must admit.  I worked with slate over the summer, and I often used it to cut plastic sheeting when I forgot my exacto knife.  I was able to use one piece for a whole day without it getting too dull, most of the time.  The problem is, if it's in sword form, it's either going to be very thin and fragile, and would break from a single hit to the side of the blade, or it would be massively heavy.  The edge would also quickly break against armor, and the edge would have to be rechipped every couple of fights.

Looking at ancient cultures, all three weapon types that aren't swords make an appearance.  Swords only appear once metal becomes ubiquitous.  Native Americans are known for their tomahawks, which could evolve into larger axes in a culture like Zalanthas, eh?  Mayans made plenty of daggers, and spears and shields were what helped the Zulus rebel.  Clubs and hammers are probably the most simple weapons.  I can't think of a specific culture that commonly used clubs, but then I'm no anthropologist, and who can't make a club out of a log?

In conclusion, a curse on swords and the fighters (especially hunters) who wield them.

[Forest Junkie]

Wood - There's no way wood would be able to take an edge useful enough to slice through leather in one stroke.  I admit that Zalanthans may have been able to invent a way due to necessity, but the wood would splinter or be deformed in just a few heavy strokes.

1) That is why there is high probability that wood will shatter in combat, when parried or clashed with another weapon.

2) Perhaps agafari, yypr, baobab, and pymlithe are extremely resilient pieces of wood. Who is to say they resemble their earth counterparts in the least?

Bone - Again, not much of an edge, and dry bone is so very, very fragile (for a weapon material) (especially if it's been carved, exposing the marrow).

1) Most bone is hardened by fire.

2) Bone weapons can take on -very- fine edges, if cut corretly.

3) Again, bone weapons can be shattered.

[Pizza Pizza]

For the most part, Trenidor is correct. There are a few things I think I should discuss though:

*Note: Some parts of this skips around and I arranged it several times to better clarify. Also, I'm talking mainly about the area around Isreal all the way up along the coast to around the roman empire, most of this is based on the babalonian region *

In the BC's around the mediteranian, typical combat consisted of two armies running at each other, weapons held and shields raised. The two would meet at some point and kill as many of each other as possible. There wasn't a general strategy to war for comanders, and the major variable for victory and defeat was who had the larger army. On some occations smaller armies could win, but it was highly unlikely for this to occur.
Later, strategies were developed; this development was caused by different circomstances that caused comanders of these armies to win over opposing armies. With the advancement of new stategies came new weapons. At this point, the decicive variable to winning a battle depended largely on who had better trained armies.

Soldiers of this region typically used such equipment as: A breastplate, a sword or other type of weapon, a shield, a helmet, and whatever type of clothing they wore to cover their skin. Some armies could afford to support with more armor, some could only afford less.
When armies were posted at different cities and towns, they had access to different equipment from that city. Armies could sometimes be found with different equipment entirely than another city from the same country.

I'd also like to support Trenidor's idea on a storyteller being assigned to better defining the different type of combat style for each city/house/whatever has a style of combat. Although it is posted in the general information section on arm; I find this to be rather off from what it actually is.

[Gorobei]

can be shattered.

I realize that.  All weapons can be shattered.  My point is that swords should be breaking all over the place, and at the moment a broken weapon is a rare occurance.

[Anonymous]

To me, this seems a little off - if someone can't hit you with a weapon, how are they going to manage to slice you up with a spiked bracer?

Odd, noone who couldn't hit me with a weapon ever managed to hit me with these types of items...also, I've never had them deal any more than a few points of damage.

[Forest Junkie]

can be shattered.

I realize that.  All weapons can be shattered.  My point is that swords should be breaking all over the place, and at the moment a broken weapon is a rare occurance.

Realism or playability my friend. Take your pick.

[Anonymous]

In conclusion, a curse on swords and the fighters (especially hunters) who wield them.

Here here! And hunters with armor too.

[Gorobei]

Realism.  There are plenty of weapons to choose from.  Pick one that makes sense.  Swords = ornaments.

[Forest Junkie]

Realism.  There are plenty of weapons to choose from.  Pick one that makes sense.  Swords = ornaments.

Swords=deathbringers.

It's a game, not RL. If the game were "realistic", then it would no longer be a game, but merely a world with the same limitations as Earth. And that's not really cool. Sounds rather boring, actually. =P

[X-D]

A point on swords and arm, At one time metals were far more common, as where metal swords and knives, so it stands to reason that people would still make what they were used to and had combat styles for....at least for a time, personaly I think it is long past time for swords to be fading out, well, except for a few styles that are supposed to have very heavy blades, lik a sappara or any of the toothed swords.

[Gorobei]

Swords=deathbringers.

It's a game, not RL. If the game were "realistic", then it would no longer be a game, but merely a world with the same limitations as Earth. And that's not really cool. Sounds rather boring, actually. =P

This is a game, but it's not Diablo 2.  I'll also remind you that it's described as a simulation, and is meant to be realistic (with the addition of magick and alien creatures, of course).