Put my swords in the game. Dual ninja machete swords (basically extra sharp machetes that can be attached to each other in a variety of ways to make a variety of different weapons) would be awesome :).
That is kinda depressing to hear, will there be any advantage at all to using light weapons or is it going to turn into a simple game of bigger is better?
hanging around
So, finally, mansions will become useful.[/quote]
Maces, warhammers and battleaxes please. Also on topic, lot of people don’t seem to understand what a parry is. It’s not really a block or a clashing of swords like you see in the movies, it’s a redirection. i.e, a guy swings for you. You slightly twist your sword, causing him to slide off and embed his sword in the mud or overbalance. He’s now open for a brutal counterattack.
Also Glyph is kinda right, Stands to reason you wouldn’t be able to crit them same as a human or other living beings. Not sure how best piercing weapons would best be balanced for it though.
That is kinda depressing to hear, will there be any advantage at all to using light weapons or is it going to turn into a simple game of bigger is better?[/quote]
Smaller weapons are already faster, and this will still be the case. A combat knife or hand axe is fast and cutting based, so would be effective, similarly a light bashing weapon such as a Shillegah, basebal bat or small hammer will still be fast and reasonably effective. It’s not an issue of small/large, it’s bashing/cutting vs piercing, or more generally precise targeting vs gross trauma.
Also, zombies aren’t the only enemies around, precision strikes will still be useful against misc wildlife, giant insects and NPCs.
I like the idea of making damage apply more realistically to opponents. It only makes sense that stabbing an animated corpse would in fact do very little, whereas pulping it with a bat or slicing its limbs off would be far more effective.
Speaking of slicing off limbs… is that planned, too?
Well, I guess you leave me no choice… I REQUEST ZWIEHANDERS… or a claymore, or whatever the hell you want to call a big ass european two handed sword, and it should definately hit adjacent enemies like the sledge >_>.
Sword sharp is still quite sharp. In untrained hands it might not cut a piece of paper cleanly, but the difference between a European sword (for which ever sword you might have in mind given the great differences in the make of them) and a katana or any other eastern, middle eastern, Eurasian, or Indian sword is negligible when used correctly.
Sword sharp is still quite sharp. In untrained hands it might not cut a piece of paper cleanly, but the difference between a European sword (for which ever sword you might have in mind given the great differences in the make of them) and a katana or any other eastern, middle eastern, Eurasian, or Indian sword is negligible when used correctly.[/quote]
Actually, you are very wrong there. The style and proper use of the blades differ greatly. Also, you can’t very well lump an entire regions weaponry in a single clump.
If you tried to hack with later era european arming swords, you would be lucky to pierce the skin. They were designed for stabbing, to the point where the “blade” can actually be held by an unarmored hand to aid with said stabbing. In contrast, a stabbing with a katana is idiotic as any solid object will warp or break the blade. In the case of larger european swords, they are actually designed to be swung, but their edge was designed to be more like a wedge that could pierce armor and badly break bones.
With 2 different weapons in the proper hands, you will never see the same style used.
Where do sickles fit into all this? Are they sharp and fast but fragile like katanas or does the “arch” allow them to be structurally strong and play an armor piercing role with their tip. Or are they different all together and perform a stab and drag role like small billhooks?
Btw this game doesn’t give polearms nearly enough love. Scythes, voulges, pikes could have reach attacks allowing them to strike targets one square away. Or “reaping” attacks that hit multiple attacks like the sledgehammer, aka great maul.
Combat sickles were largely used to stab, but they had the benefit of being able to “hook” shields for a counter attack. They were also modified farm tools, so they tended to be more on the sturdy side.
Sword sharp is still quite sharp. In untrained hands it might not cut a piece of paper cleanly, but the difference between a European sword (for which ever sword you might have in mind given the great differences in the make of them) and a katana or any other eastern, middle eastern, Eurasian, or Indian sword is negligible when used correctly.[/quote]
Actually, you are very wrong there. The style and proper use of the blades differ greatly. Also, you can’t very well lump an entire regions weaponry in a single clump.[/quote]
With all due respect, I’m not the one who said European swords had no cutting ability. If you reread my comments, you’ll see that I’m saying that most swords the world over have the same cutting ability.
If you tried to hack with later era european arming swords, you would be lucky to pierce the skin. They were designed for stabbing, to the point where the "blade" can actually be held by an unarmored hand to aid with said stabbing. In contrast, a stabbing with a katana is idiotic as any solid object will warp or break the blade. In the case of larger european swords, they are actually designed to be swung, but their edge was designed to be more like a wedge that could pierce armor and badly break bones.
I’m not sure where you’re getting this information from, but I would advise you to treat the source as suspect especially when it makes sweeping generalizations that European swords have no cutting ability, European swords were mainly employed in thrusts to puncture armor, makes references to vague terms like “later era European”, and can’t even distinguish the blunt ricasso from the rest of the blade when referring to half-swording.
First of all, on the topic of sharpness. http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=1980
"“Razor” sharp is a meaningless term. As I’ve seen it applied to swords it can mean anything from “stupid” sharp, to relatively blunt {one major catalog vendor used to use “razor” sharp to describe the secondary bevel they applied to their swords, secondary bevel having an included angle of 60 degrees}.
“Stupid” sharp is so sharp that the edge is actually dangerous. The edge is a very good cutting edge, but is not sustainable and will need lots of maintenance…
“Paper” sharp is still real sharp, sharp enough to do everything “Stupid” sharp will do when the sword is used as a sword, but will also cut paper, the paper dragged across the edge…
“Sword” sharp won’t cut paper reliably the way “Paper” sharp will. However, “Sword” sharp will do everything that paper sharp will cutting, and is far more sustainable. "
We have ample evidence that European swords were sharp, if you look at the fighting manuals like the Nürnberger Handschrift, Filippo Vadi, Royal Armouries Manuscript I.33 all of them makes use of swipes, sweeps, and cuts along with the strikes and the thrusts, and other more exotic moves.
Swords like these:
From the 10th, 12th, and 15th centuries respectively, are incredibly thin and at most having a thickness of 3mm. These are swords that are meant to be sharp first and foremost, and secondly to retain that edge when used. Yes thrusting is an integral part of the European martial arts that employed these tools, but so were cuts.
As for stabbing with a katana is not idiotic, people did do this historically. Even for the Japanese now watered-down martial arts that utilize swords like Kendo, you’ll find that they make extensive use of thrusts. This sport might not have been the same as taught back then when people really were training to kill people with these instructions, but in most cases where a martial art has to adapt to being a sport when the tools it uses fall out of practicality, it still retains most of the core techniques. All they drop are the more dangerous and hard to control moves that might end up seriously hurting a sparring partner.
What you’ve probably encountered in the way of swords are actually sword-like objects, they’re made to look like swords, but their metallurgical constitution are far from the real thing, and most are kept blunt because they can’t sustain a sharp edge and would chip if force was applied to one that was. Modern day replicas might seem like they’d be superior to the ones made back then, what with othe advance in technology that’s taken place, but this is generally not so. Most of the swords on the market right now are little more than wall hangers. Functional SLOs go up into the range of a cost of an second had car. The more expensive ones that actually mimic museum pieces in weight, constitution, and balance go for far more than that. This is not to mention the weight and balance are often off, but that’s beside this point.
There are swords that are used when fighting a heavily armored opponent like this: http://www.zornhau.de/wordpress/wp-content/gallery/zef-waffen/zornhau-zef-7-gross.jpg
Still retain a cutting edge, for the most part because swords were meant to be used around armor rather than against it and to find the weaker points like the armpits and the neck. And truthfully, even in the transitional stage in the 1400s to the late mid 1500s where the stage is in full swing, and the renaissance was getting into full swing, fully armored opponents were still a rarity on the field. That’s to say nothing about the medieval period. Even in the early renaissance period where munitions grade armor plating was being produced, it was still a scarce thing to find on the battlefield, and they often didn’t perform close to the quality plates anyway.
You’re probably thinking of an estoc, which is basically a rod with a reinforce tip with guard and handle. This thing was meant to fight armored opponents, but it’s relatively rare for the aforementioned reasons. For the most part in the medieval ages, many of the people fighting were not properly armored contrary to what movies and video games depict.
As for the comment about grabbing the sword when stabbing. This move is called half-swording. The blade near the guard is often kept blunt if the wearer doesn’t have any preferably hand protection, or if they do have hand protection in the form of maille mittens, or quality made leather on the palms of their hand, the blade can still remain quite sharp. The blunted area, if it’s blunted, is called the ricasso and is gripped when half-swording.
This technique is often used when fighting an armored opponent. A Brief Introduction to Armoured Longsword Combat
That being said, people armored like the two in the link are quite rare on the battle field. Most medieval armies, as well as early renaissance armies were levies and conscripts. Only a tiny section of officers, nobles, and their retainers had the ability to afford any significant protection, and they’re often the ones who helped in cutting through the unarmored folk where a sharp blade is preferred.
With 2 different weapons in the proper hands, you will never see the same style used.
As far as I’ve seen, there are some technical differences, but the human body is mostly the same the world over. The Japanese don’t have any extra joints in their arms or legs, extra muscle groups, or can bend their spine better than an Arabic person. Most of the styles employed are quite like each other because the basic human frame limits the possible movements one can make.
If you look at the stances across cultures that people use when holding a two handed sword, you’ll find that many of the neutral stances are the same. As well as the techniques involved.
But this is getting beside the point. My original comment wasn’t that people fought the same way, because they obviously didn’t though did operate within the same framework for some weapons, but that in skilled or trained hands, a European sword, or any other sword that has comparable specifications, will be able to cut things mostly on par with each other.
I like that people are putting so much thought into “the reality” of European and Japanese swordsmanship. With games, television, and movies being the primary source of information for most people, and historical documentation being infrequent, damaged, or otherwise hard to understand, there is a lot of debate about what did and did not happen in actual combat. Just as in historical times, a majority of the enemies we face in game do not wear armor. Weapons that are specifically made to pierce or bypass armor in close combat without being able to just as efficiently deal with unarmored opponents would be an impractical choice to bring to the battlefield when your life depended on it. One could get by with no armor piercing capability at all so long as he could otherwise disable his opponent. A man knocked down in heavy armor will have a hard time getting up quickly, and a simple knife between the helm and the breastplate would be all that is required to finish an opponent in such a state.
For an unarmored enemy, one clean hit would usually be enough with most any weapon to put the opponent in a state where they could not effectively respond. In situations like this REACH was the most important factor because it determined who got hit first… that and the cheap cost and simplicity of production made the spear the workhorse of many battles. They had the additional benefit of great effectiveness against charging cavalry.
Rapiers were dueling weapons, intended for aristocratic single combat. These finesse battles usually did NOT involve armor, rather the light piercing nature combined with its length was more suited to quick stabbing attacks at exposed areas of your opponent, so being capable of bypassing armor is not really relevant. Add that the very nature of this games primary opponents, zombies, is an unrelenting horde that simply aggressively charges its opponent with little sense of well being and diminished susceptibility to weak-point attacks, and it is clear that I should amend my request.
After doing some research myself and reading everything you have all had to say I am convinced that despite my love of rapier combat it is not well suited for the task of dispatching hordes of zombies. Although I still advocate the adding of parry to it, the broadsword, the combat knife, and similarly lighter weight edged weapons, I think my rapier is probably about where it should be now after all in terms of offensive power.
I have decided to shift my focus to advocating my second love, and that is the larger two handed category of European weaponry. Although the Katana does fill its role admirably versus single targets, there is still room in the multi target melee weapon category currently occupied only by the lonely sledge hammer. I thank everyone here for their input and critique on the topic so far.
You just proved your own point there. A knight in full plate would actually be considerably less encumbered than a modern infantryman. Plate armor is said to have weighed no more than 70 pounds, while a modern soldier often carries well over a hundred. Anyone in full plate would also be extensively trained in using it, many for most of their lives.
Furthermore, suits of armor were incredibly expensive because they were forged by masters and designed to offer maximum protection and flexibility. Armor that could not allow for the necessities of combat would not have been used for that purpose.
Actually modern soldiers only rarely carry over 100 lbs, and then usually only for short periods of time. The average weight carried by the modern infantry actually tends to average between 50-80 lbs, depending on the exact loadout that they are carrying (full pack ends up coming out to around ~70 IIRC).
If the plates were tempered, the weight of the armor can reputably go down to 40lbs.
On top of this. Unlike maille or infantry packs, the weight is very well distributed across the entire body. While it might be the same weight as some infantry packs, the feel of the armor is much lighter than it should be.
I am not trying to perpetuate any myths that the armor they wore was debilitating, all I mean by “heavy” armor is the level of protection it affords. The articulation on many older suits combined with the fact that they were personally fitted to the wearer meant that they would not be TOO encumbering and would be worth the trade offs to wear. When the weight is distributed over the body it is not nearly as hard to carry, but it still makes you very hot and limits your range of movement. Training and good physical conditioning can help you mitigate this in the thick of combat but it is going to slow you down and drain your stamina more compared to not wearing any at all. Tactical combat is about pressing the advantage, and you can be sure that if you get knocked on your ass in armor your at a serious disadvantage versus your opponent. Even an additional second of weakness is enough time to plunge a dagger or knife between the joints.
What I am trying to say is you don’t have to use a weapon that bypasses the armor for general combat so long as you can otherwise disable them. Whether this means inflicting enough blunt force trauma to break bones or simply gaining an advantage as above and using a sidearm to finish the job at close range. Of course, having a weapon that is capable of doing so (as most standard European swords were) is a lot more convenient, it is just that the most important thing is being able to efficiently deal with the bulk of your opponents which is, in this case, unarmored foes.
It is kinda a different beast to compare to “modern” infantry as the protection, weapons, and needs they have are very different. They can remove their backpacks when necessary to engage in combat, they require significantly less range of movement in the upper body in order to use their firearms than would be required of a sword user. Most of that weight is concentrated on the torso area leaving your arms and legs relatively less encumbered. The most important factor is that you can still RUN effectively, something that was fairly difficult to do in full body metal armor.
No one is contesting that someone wearing plate will tire out much faster or that they’re going to be slower, but I think you’re exaggerating the effects of plate armor on movement. Especially later in the medieval period, plate was becoming increasingly lighter, and late gothic or milan plate is often the picture most people have of “traditional” plate armor. If a piece of armor is so heavy that they would be heavily encumbered by it, they’d probably just remove some of it.
In fact, part of what might be colouring common perception of armor reducing the agility of the person, might be from tournament plate. The breast plates on these sets of armor are much thicker than the ones carried into actual battle, and where it might have originated that some people can’t get up after being knocked down wearing these suits.
The fact is, it’s not impossible to run or do somersaults in armor. The length of time people can do these things is often lower, but someone trained to use it will for the most part move on par agility wise with someone who isn’t wearing any armor. Short of chasing someone not weighted down by armor at all, in a fight the armored person will be able to move at comparable speeds and without having to worry about every glancing blow.
The fatigue issue is addressed through the fact that very few people in the medieval ages, spanning into the transitional age fought alone. Even in pitched battles, people at the front of the group who, might have not even be wearing any plate at all, get tired fighting often have chances where they can disengage and recuperate while the second line or mob takes up the fight. People don’t really go all out like they do in the movies without a shred of self preservation. Battles were often very long drawn out affairs where fighting intensifies and sees low spots.
You are right, force can be transmitted through hard armor. But it still stands that one needs a really good hit on an armored person for this to take effect. People don’t wear plate or maille straight on their skin, there is a sufficient amount of padding underneath to weather blows. A glancing strike or a partial strike that would have incapacitated or knocked out a lesser armored man would likely not be a problem for the plate wearing combatant.
Modern day infantry still needs to run, and often even had to run a lot faster than what a hand to hand fighter might have needed to do. Soldiers can’t remove their packs when they engage combat, primarily because that 50-80 pounds is essential combat gear. Most of the weight they carry is in their rifle resistant vests, and other armor. The rest is the weapon and the ammunition, and other utilities like radios and batteries. In any case, it’s not like you can pick where you want to fight, especially where an insurgency is taking place and patrols are subject to ambush.
As much as I would love to continue conversationally jousting about the drawbacks of armor I would just be going even further off topic than I already have. Going to take the “I agree to disagree” route on this one.
Screw it, im dumping some fuel on the fire.
Some notes, knights where expected to be able to dance gracefully in full plate, there where noted occasions where knights would swim across deep rivers wearing full plate on bets or just to show how big their balls where. The stuff wasnt actually that restrictive, you can see vids about with actual (not replica, real stuff) plate armor being shown and the level of movement in the joints on things like knees and feet is amazing, by the end these things where real works of engineering. The whole ‘turtle on his back’ thing is a myth. Some tourny armor might have been like this, but I doubt even that was ever so restrictive.
From my understanding most of the soldiers by the end of the middle ages where actually armed with pikes and polearms rather than swords as they where cheaper, hit harder and 500 guys with 6ft toys will probably have an edge on 500 guys with 4ft toys.
Ive always figured a zombie attack was probably something like a rugby tackle with more biting, you might be able to fend one off with a huge euro sword, or better yet a pitchfork or the like, but I defiantly cant see you doing it with a katana, let alone a rapier. A week of judo would probably give you a better chance to ‘parry’ a charging Z than a year of fencing training. It would be more about footwork than anything you could do with a thin sword.
Zombies themselves are the problem, If your average human gets hit hard enough they will stop an attack, pull back for a second, etc. Is your zombie going to do that? You can block a human swing, but to block rather than parry a zombie you are probably going to have to break an arm or the like, smash him hard with something heavy. If you dont, the zombie is just closer to you than before and that isnt good.
Id personally like to see parry taken away from a few things and block moved to some much more ‘blocking’ orientated weapons like a targe or less offensive shields.
I agree it would probably be more appropriate for defense to be moved to things like shields and bracers eventually when using melee. Rather than be a weapon technique, defensive techniques should probably also be moved to melee skill so you unlock them as you raise it. That is going to take a bit more effort than moving a few techs around, however, so it might be best to do it as part of the melee overhaul/rebalance.