Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Historical Sword Maintenance Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next 
Author Message
Tom King




Location: florida
Joined: 11 Sep 2009
Likes: 2 pages

Posts: 429

PostPosted: Fri 21 Aug, 2015 8:58 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Matt J wrote:

Tom:
"sword+ buckler is commonplace as backup arms for people of working class soldiery needs who do not have full plate to facilitate a 2h sword as an effective primary or secondary arm."

Full plate facilitates a 2h sword? To what extent? How bad is a 2h sword without full plate? Why, how. lol, I'd really appreciate an explanation, or at the least, point me in the direction to learn what you know.

I am a huge fan of 2 handed swords, and I'm assuming you are not referring to a longsword, but a true 2 hander. I've learned a little about the 2 handers, in real life. I've learned that they are very long (6ft) but that they are not thick or wide, like giant swords, they are thin. I know the Claymore is super wide, and I think it's heavier and a tad shorter, generally. From what I've read, the claymore seems very similar to the "zweihander" but looking at them, I feel like they'd actually be quite different, so I'm not sure. I read that the zweihander actually performs more similarly to a poleweapon than a sword, which is interesting. I've read that they were commonly used to cleave off spear and pike tips, though I've also read that this was less likely, and it was more likely that they batted the tips aside and moved in for their own thrusts. It seems, to me, that the largest weakness to a greatsword is the same as its greatest strength, it's length. If you were too close to an enemy, I don't think you'd be able to strike effectively, nor thrust at all. Half-swording (or simply backing up, right?) should solve this issue.

That, plus the fact that it's huge and you can cleave people's heads off, is about the extent of my knowledge lol.


the easiest way to relay it if you don't have a buckler floating around is to hold a paper plate at arms length and look in the mirror of how much of your body it covers. I your armor extends to nothing more than a Padded Jack and a steel cap style helmet that little circle of wood/metal protects quite a bit of your body when utilized properly.


An arming sword and a buckler are also more convenient on foot than a true two handed longsword on your hip; a hand and a half cut and thrust arming sword with a ~34" blade like an Albion Burgundian can be used with one or two hands, with or without a buckler, and doesn't get in the way when you're wielding a Bill or similar 15'+ polearm.

In a half or full harness of transitional period/white harness armor you don't need to rely on a shield for defense. You aren't just running in as a brawler, not caring about blows hitting you but anything errant that gets through your efforts with your cutdown lance/poleaxe/longsword isn't going to do much when a piece of plate is in the way. A buckler is kind of superfluous compared to the added power, dexterity, and speed of using a two handed weapon without having to worry about intercepting every thrust coming your way.

From personal experience it is a pain in the *ss after a few hours just walking around with my HT longsword, but my VA Bristol (fishtail pommel hand and a half sword, 26" blade) with a buckler is no problem even when running around and using other toys.


I reiterate that swords were the sidearm of the medieval world. In a wartime scenario or "questing" you'd want your players/enemies to be using them as such. A noble paladin with his longsword is going to have a bad time fighting several BBEGs who are coming at him full bore with poleaxes. Now a cramped dungeon crawl with a 7ft high ceiling and stone walls 3ft in each direction... are surprisingly also dominated by thrusting polearms. 2-3 guys with poleaxes up front and full armor could stop many times thier number in enemy mobs as thier support characters do the bulk of the slaughter from relative safety. if you look at the inventories of 15th century english households poleaxes and crossbows were the go to home defense weapons for fortified manors.


Slaughter swords like you are talking about from the renaissance period were pretty much used as sword shaped polearms in formation.
[/img]
View user's profile Send private message
Tom King




Location: florida
Joined: 11 Sep 2009
Likes: 2 pages

Posts: 429

PostPosted: Fri 21 Aug, 2015 9:23 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Ah the age old question of representing damage properly...

short answer: you can't without the game being either really easy or really unfair, most likely both at the same time. Traditional hitpoint/damage range systems obviously aren't how it works in real life.

any "damage" that gets past armor, some kind of block/dodge/luck/armor role, etc. would be immediately incapacitating and rapidly deadly. 3" eating knife or 30" of a 40" sword between your ribs will kill you just as dead and you can't effectively fight with a lacerate extremity. You have more leeway with the high fantasy setting due to tropes like instant healing so your player characters wouldn't be laid up for 3 months after getting thier forearm cut to the bone, but armor and weapon skill is the only thing stopping death; no one just shrugs off a serious wound.

the easy way out is to treat HP as more of a luck well and consider hits more of a go no go thing, not so much "the colbold brutally strikes you in the face with his stone mace, you take one damage" but more of a "a few dozen more attacks like that and you'll get your face smashed in and killed in this starter quest".

the grimdark way would be to establish weapon/armor/skill characteristics and have a saving roll on whether you get killed, maimed, etc. IE rondel dagger=3A, breastplate=10D, maille voider covering armpit=2D, poleaxe blade=6A, spike=10A, beak=10A and so on with the idea being that if you eat it on all your modifiers it comes down to whether the weapon will penetrate what it's hitting if the hit is good. That way a revolting peasant mob can't kill a fully armored knight with wooden pitchforks but if that peasant mob gets through the meat grinder and jabs at the right place Sir ______ could end up slayed by a rusty belt knife to the groin after he was pulled to the ground.
View user's profile Send private message
Matt J




Location: Durham, NC
Joined: 18 Aug 2015

Posts: 68

PostPosted: Fri 21 Aug, 2015 9:25 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Got it, that all makes perfect sense.

I've held a metal buckler before, with a plastic arming sword (is it called a fedder if it's plastic?). I understood the basis of using it to protect a larger area than it's own size, it was very interesting.

That makes sense, did people in full plate not tend to use shields?

Was that the point of plate armor? If you didn't have plate, you'd have to choose between a pole weapon or having a shield, but if you could wear full plate, that choice because simple.

In your example, would you say that you would take with you a Poleaxe (or similar poleweapon) as your primary weapon, in addition to a hand and a half sword as your secondary weapon. With a buckler too, unless you were wearing plate armor.

"I reiterate that swords were the sidearm of the medieval world. In a wartime scenario or "questing" you'd want your players/enemies to be using them as such. A noble paladin with his longsword is going to have a bad time fighting several BBEGs who are coming at him full bore with poleaxes. Now a cramped dungeon crawl with a 7ft high ceiling and stone walls 3ft in each direction... are surprisingly also dominated by thrusting polearms. 2-3 guys with poleaxes up front and full armor could stop many times thier number in enemy mobs as thier support characters do the bulk of the slaughter from relative safety. if you look at the inventories of 15th century english households poleaxes and crossbows were the go to home defense weapons for fortified manors."

This confused me a bit. What is a BBEGs? What would a typical noble paladin be using as a primary weapon? A poleaxe, halberd, maul, spear, etc? With a longsword at his side, and, a shield too if not in full plate armor?

Why was a poleaxe so good? Because you could thrust the spear point with all the mass from the hammer and axe? And then, also, because you had a heavy axe and hammer head for flesh or armor? It seems better than a halberd to me, unless the hook is good for infantry as well as cavalry.

The slaughter swords of the renaissance is exactly what I am referring to. I know this is late into the ages, and that I am not taking firearms, but I am still taking these weapons, even though they were all around during the same period (right?).

Would a Claymore, Zweihander, and other "slaughter swords" of that period be useful weapons? If you got to choose your weapons, would there be a reason to take a claymore or even a swordstaff, as your primary weapon, and use its length, like a poleweapon? Or do poleweapons excel because they provide the versatility with the reach?

That picture that you've posted, I've read the page on their website about that/those weapon.
View user's profile Send private message
Marcus O





Joined: 31 Jul 2011

Posts: 2

PostPosted: Sat 22 Aug, 2015 5:30 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Tom King wrote:
Slaughter swords like you are talking about from the renaissance period were pretty much used as sword shaped polearms in formation.
[/img]


I have seen this mentioned a few times but I have never seen any evidence to support it, do you happen to have a source/reference? (not saying you're wrong, I'm just really intrigued by the idea)
View user's profile Send private message
Pieter B.





Joined: 16 Feb 2014
Reading list: 10 books

Posts: 645

PostPosted: Sat 22 Aug, 2015 6:29 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
That makes sense, did people in full plate not tend to use shields?


I cannot make sweeping statements but they generally stopped using shields when they started wearing full plate armor. It didn't disappear entirely but it's probably fair to say the majority of Men-At-Arms went to war without one.



Quote:
Was that the point of plate armor? If you didn't have plate, you'd have to choose between a pole weapon or having a shield, but if you could wear full plate, that choice because simple.


The armor provides protection, that's the point of it. Wink

Even those who only had a steel breastplate and helmet or even just a jack (padded garment) started using two handed weapons such as pikes or polearms in the 15th century. Some would use a shield but that limits the person to using thrust centric weapons.


Quote:
"I reiterate that swords were the sidearm of the medieval world. In a wartime scenario or "questing" you'd want your players/enemies to be using them as such. A noble paladin with his longsword is going to have a bad time fighting several BBEGs who are coming at him full bore with poleaxes. Now a cramped dungeon crawl with a 7ft high ceiling and stone walls 3ft in each direction... are surprisingly also dominated by thrusting polearms. 2-3 guys with poleaxes up front and full armor could stop many times thier number in enemy mobs as thier support characters do the bulk of the slaughter from relative safety. if you look at the inventories of 15th century english households poleaxes and crossbows were the go to home defense weapons for fortified manors."

This confused me a bit. What is a BBEGs? What would a typical noble paladin be using as a primary weapon? A poleaxe, halberd, maul, spear, etc? With a longsword at his side, and, a shield too if not in full plate armor?


Big Bad Evil Guy, grunts, stormtroopers, mooks, redshirts, the guys out there to kill you!

What kind of weapon would a noble paladin be using? If we ignore the paladin bit and just focus on the noble then a primary weapon on foot is a polearm. Pikes or cut down lances were occasionally used but they seem a bit less versatile than a normal polearm. Plate armor is going to be a pain in the bottom if you don't have a support crew standing ready to maintain it and such. It's bad armor for the lone adventurer.



Quote:
Why was a poleaxe so good? Because you could thrust the spear point with all the mass from the hammer and axe?


It's has a nice spike on top, not a nice little spear point but an actual spike, I'm not really sure if the extra mass makes it more effective than a normal spear. The top spike is something that makes it a versatile weapon, you can cut or cleave with the axe blade but you can also offend the enemy with the top spike and present it forward to block a passage.

I don't know an awful lot about halberds but in general they seem to be a bit longer than the average poleaxe and I assume they're cheaper to make.
View user's profile Send private message
Matt J




Location: Durham, NC
Joined: 18 Aug 2015

Posts: 68

PostPosted: Sat 22 Aug, 2015 8:09 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Did people in heavy armor usually use shields? Such as this Paladin. A usual paladin is seen wielding a one handed sword (or hammer) with a heater or knight type shield. (knight being the crusader one that was a more fancy-looking heater). Equally, a paladin would be using a 2 hander.

Now, paladins are usually depicted as wearing plater armor. I like the paladin analogy for several reasons. 1) Paladins are essentially the fantasy equivalents to medieval holy warriors (like crusaders), though, they are not usually as restricted to mail as historical ones (many reasons why). and 2) they did actually exist, though, not in the way they have been reinvented. But there are accounts of Paladins and a small amount of information on what that word means historically. Which, in a fantasy game, I'd prefer to take the root cause of something, instead of its face value.

Would a Mercenary/Man at Arms carry and/or typically wield a shield (buckler to scutum) with plate armor?

For those who are unfamiliar with gaming, putting a character in full plate armor and giving him a shield is how you make a "tank." Which, in gaming, refers to a character that is very tough and durable, that, while may not inflict heavy damage, can spend long durations holding off many enemies without taking heavy injury. This results in other people traveling with you to be able to safely focus on their offensiveness, while you maintain defense for the entire group.

I'm looking at Romans and their legionnaire armor (Lorica Segmentata, which I am going to call Laminar). I'm calling it laminar first and foremost because that is what I've found it to be. It is the only form of laminar I have been able to find, and it also seems that it is really just a primitive form of plate, and not really it's own form of armor at all, though, I'm hoping someone here corrects any of my mistakes.

Romans wore this decent armor with a large shield. I know that context is important, and there are more factors than I am aware of. But, what are the reasons why someone would carry a shield with full plate, if there are any.

Is a shield more effective if you are unarmored? Try imaging this using numerical values, such as in a video game. If having holding a shield when unarmored gives me +5 to my defenses (or something of that nature), would holding a shield increases my "defense" less, because I am fully armored? Or would it defend me the same amount, added to my armor, making it a "double" ish amount of defense? I know a certain amount is redundant, but surely a heater shield and full plate are not redundant.

Even those who could afford only the cheapest armor used pole weapons? Why would I choose to use a pollaxe with my padded jack armor instead of a sword and buckler? Because that reach is pretty much just as easy to defend with as a shield? Or, was it simply the lesser of two evils? You'd rather be able to kill than survive? Did it have to do with formations? A line of people with poleweapons is more effective than swords and shields? This would mean that individual fighting would not follow the same parameters. I need to keep this in mind as the context of my game involves small groups of fighters, not regiments of disciplined troops.

I need to look at the Romans more and how they designed their military service system. Who maintained their armor, etc?
View user's profile Send private message
Tom King




Location: florida
Joined: 11 Sep 2009
Likes: 2 pages

Posts: 429

PostPosted: Sat 22 Aug, 2015 10:51 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Matt J wrote:
Why would I choose to use a poleaxe with my padded jack armor instead of a sword and buckler? Because that reach is pretty much just as easy to defend with as a shield?


a poleaxe is a ~5-6ft polearm with about 30" of length past your dominant hand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsXsAJxSJnk
A bill, halberd, glaive, etc. is a ~10ft polearm with about 5ft of length past the dominant hand.


the latter would be the primary weapon of choice for the high medieval infantryman with light to partial armor, although it could also be the choice of a man in full plate. No hard rules. The former requires you to get pretty up close and personal with your opponent(s) and in a fight against enemies with longer reach it'd put you at a disadvantage without armor that would protect you from a poke to the chest.

https://youtu.be/ZVcTzyO3U70?t=974
^about 5s of this clip shows a relatively realistic representation of a 15th century fight between infantry. A poleaxe isn't a logical weapon for a man attempting to fight a bunch of guys with spears, glaives, and bills unless he's in full white harness and is relatively immune to them as he attempts to get past thier zone of effectiveness.



It isn't that sidearms are useless or anything, but they are sidearms. put in a situation where you don't have your primary weapon or your primary weapon doesn't make sense to use thats when the swords come out. A guy with a poleaxe could (depending on building size and goals) fight indoors effectively whereas a guy with a bill couldn't. It could be that space is too cramped or there was no logical reason to bring a poleaxe even if you had one VS only carrying your sidearms.

A group of say 5 of your mercenaries composed of one man at arms ("knight"/full armored infantry/cavalry), two melee dps billmen, an archer or crossbowman, and a obligatory magic user/healer would be a competent unit in the 1:1-1:3 fights you're thinking of. knight in front between the billmen, billmen behind him about a half step, magic user and archer behind them off to the sides or shooting through the formation at the baddies being held in check by your small wall of gleaming weapon points.

I wouldn't count shields as a stacking defense, but more of an active defense. You have to physically use a shield to make it effective, whereas armor is there for if you fail to block a blow. If your party starts low level with low level gear the "tank" should probably have one until he approaches half harness territory, then abandon it in favor of two handed weapons; you can't hit what you can't touch and keeping someone at bay within the effective killzone of your buddies longer polearms via darting thrusts with a poleaxe spike serves the same "tank" purpose as blocking blows with your shield.

If you're going by a D&D style weapon reach system the poleaxe would be treated like a 2H sword rather than a polearm; longer reach that a single handed weapon but no dead zone of effectiveness like a polearm.
View user's profile Send private message
Pieter B.





Joined: 16 Feb 2014
Reading list: 10 books

Posts: 645

PostPosted: Sat 22 Aug, 2015 12:43 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
Did people in heavy armor usually use shields? Such as this Paladin. A usual paladin is seen wielding a one handed sword (or hammer) with a heater or knight type shield. (knight being the crusader one that was a more fancy-looking heater). Equally, a paladin would be using a 2 hander.

Now, paladins are usually depicted as wearing plater armor. I like the paladin analogy for several reasons. 1) Paladins are essentially the fantasy equivalents to medieval holy warriors (like crusaders), though, they are not usually as restricted to mail as historical ones (many reasons why). and 2) they did actually exist, though, not in the way they have been reinvented. But there are accounts of Paladins and a small amount of information on what that word means historically. Which, in a fantasy game, I'd prefer to take the root cause of something, instead of its face value.

Would a Mercenary/Man at Arms carry and/or typically wield a shield (buckler to scutum) with plate armor?

For those who are unfamiliar with gaming, putting a character in full plate armor and giving him a shield is how you make a "tank." Which, in gaming, refers to a character that is very tough and durable, that, while may not inflict heavy damage, can spend long durations holding off many enemies without taking heavy injury. This results in other people traveling with you to be able to safely focus on their offensiveness, while you maintain defense for the entire group.


I'm not exactly sure what you are asking but:

A paladin in fantasy terms is something invented in the 1970s. I believe the name comes from a few knights/soldiers Charlemagne kept around.

In nine out of ten cases it wouldn't make much sense to use a shield with plate armor and a one handed weapon. You would be sacrificing a lot of reach and "power" for something that adds a negligible amount of protection.


Quote:
Or would it defend me the same amount, added to my armor, making it a "double" ish amount of defense? I know a certain amount is redundant, but surely a heater shield and full plate are not redundant.


You essentially loose 1 hand if you use a shield with a shield strap. It makes you limited to 1 handed weapons like swords, maces and some spears. On paper or your character sheet in DnD that doesn't matter to much because a one handed mace will still deal damage and the shield adds a defensive bonus. In a more historical scenario you would be handicapping yourself by not using a two handed weapon (if you wear plate armor).


Quote:
Even those who could afford only the cheapest armor used pole weapons? Why would I choose to use a pollaxe with my padded jack armor instead of a sword and buckler? Because that reach is pretty much just as easy to defend with as a shield? Or, was it simply the lesser of two evils? You'd rather be able to kill than survive? Did it have to do with formations? A line of people with poleweapons is more effective than swords and shields? This would mean that individual fighting would not follow the same parameters. I need to keep this in mind as the context of my game involves small groups of fighters, not regiments of disciplined troops.


Well not the entire medieval period but towards the end there was a trend to discard shields in favor or two handed pole arms. Reach is indeed a key word but this applies to both formation fighting and one on one fights.

I think pictures might illustrate what I mean.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Deutsche_Geschichte5-230.jpg


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Zuerichkrieg_1444.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KD9tfbtd1-M/TgRQ3zq...es+252.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1wav2L0V1GE/TgRDAAz...es+222.jpg



What Matt Easton says in this video regarding spears is more or less the same for polearms, except that most polearms can cut too which eliminates one of the weak points of spears.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2YgGY_OBx8
View user's profile Send private message
Pieter B.





Joined: 16 Feb 2014
Reading list: 10 books

Posts: 645

PostPosted: Sat 22 Aug, 2015 12:58 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

If you want more examples or analogies in regards to the sidearm statement.

In a movie or RPG the lone lightly armored hero (Aragorn) takes on the armies of doom and infiltrates the big scary castle with a sword and kills every enemy he comes across.





That's pretty much what James Bond does. He takes out the entire north Korean army with a 9mm pistol while wearing a tuxedo. Both are about equally realistic.

Very entertaining though.
View user's profile Send private message
Matt J




Location: Durham, NC
Joined: 18 Aug 2015

Posts: 68

PostPosted: Sat 22 Aug, 2015 9:01 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Pieter, that illustrated the image very nicely. All the while, I was thinking a competent swordsman could "walk through enemies."

So, it is all coming together. I might need to re-evaluate armor. Something needs to happen to you when you are struck by an attack, but it wouldn't be damage, with plate.

Anyway, I see what you guys are saying. I'd like to make a list of weapons that you would use from, as a mercenary, to do your job. These would be exclusive to the parameters of you cannot carry this weapon on your body. It can be any size, but you must hold it in your hand(s) when you are not fighting with it.

I have a very long list of weapons, as I've just looked up all of the varieties of weapons throughout history. I notice a lot overlap, and I gather a lot of superior versions of others. I'd like to figure out which ones would be generally seen as the better ones, more common ones, or really... any that would be on the market for a professional soldier.

Spear, Glaive, Halberd, Pollaxe (shorter), Great Sword (shorter, but due to the way you hold it, it equates to the same as the longer weapons?), Maul, Bardiche? Lucerne Hammer? Bow, obviously it is not a pole weapon, but it is a weapon that you would have to carry with you, it would be your primary. Lochaber Axes, Dane Axes, and other long hafted Axes?

I've extended my search outside of the parameters a lot of you are thinking, but that may have to do with the weapons you are talking about being superior. So, of these weapons I listed, and other weapons I forgot, are these the "rifle" versions of medieval weapons you were referring to?
View user's profile Send private message
Pieter B.





Joined: 16 Feb 2014
Reading list: 10 books

Posts: 645

PostPosted: Sun 23 Aug, 2015 11:12 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Matt J wrote:
Pieter, that illustrated the image very nicely. All the while, I was thinking a competent swordsman could "walk through enemies."


The first competent enemy with a halberd or short spear he's gonna come across will have a definite advantage against that swordsman, unless he has superpowers/is descended from ancient seven feet tall middle earth guys.


Quote:
So, it is all coming together. I might need to re-evaluate armor. Something needs to happen to you when you are struck by an attack, but it wouldn't be damage, with plate.



No gaming system is good at representing damage Hit points and reduced damage are there to make a game fun to play. I think some sort of deflection system would do a good job at representing how armor worked.

You could give certain body parts health, so maybe your head has 10 hitpoints

Say you got a helmet made out of steel of good quality. An attack made against it with an edged weapon will be completely deflected if the damage falls in a range between say 0-30 and will only get damaged between 30-35.

So if an angry orc were to cut your helmet with a crappy sword and the attack does 26 damage the player wearing the helmet takes 0 damage because the hit was deflected. You could create another damage zone (30-35) in which the helmet gets compromised/damaged but not sufficient enough to cause damage to the "head hitpoints", although the next attack in that similar spot would deal damage as if no, or very little, armor is there. Above that range you can start deducting damage from your "head hitpoints" So say another orc attacks your head with a two handed axe with a blow that deals 43 damage, it goes through the armor and deals 43-30 OR 43-35 (depending on whether or no implement a damage range at which only the helmet is damage) = 13 or 8 damage to the head. If your characters head has 10 hit points that means he's either dead or very near death.

Of course this is not a perfect system either and I have never played an RPG of any kind so I don't know if this is workable. It's truly a lot more complex than this, consider exposed parts in the armor or an open visor and the fact that damage to your pinky is probably less severe than a wide gash in your arteries. On top of that you got percussion weapons which could deal damage without damaging the armor.




Quote:
Anyway, I see what you guys are saying. I'd like to make a list of weapons that you would use from, as a mercenary, to do your job. These would be exclusive to the parameters of you cannot carry this weapon on your body. It can be any size, but you must hold it in your hand(s) when you are not fighting with it.

I have a very long list of weapons, as I've just looked up all of the varieties of weapons throughout history. I notice a lot overlap, and I gather a lot of superior versions of others. I'd like to figure out which ones would be generally seen as the better ones, more common ones, or really... any that would be on the market for a professional soldier.

Spear, Glaive, Halberd, Pollaxe (shorter), Great Sword (shorter, but due to the way you hold it, it equates to the same as the longer weapons?), Maul, Bardiche? Lucerne Hammer? Bow, obviously it is not a pole weapon, but it is a weapon that you would have to carry with you, it would be your primary. Lochaber Axes, Dane Axes, and other long hafted Axes?


If you are traveling with an army you could probably ditch the two handed weapon on a cart or wagon and possible hitch a ride yourself. Your upper middle class soldier/mercenary might ride a horse or have a pack horse handy for him and a few of his mates. Carrying a halberd on the march isn't the worst thing either:

http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk50/Dstab...40028a.jpg

http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk50/Dstab...szug-1.jpg

http://armoury.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/1.png

PS, I believe you can unstring a bow and carry it across your back in a canvas sack.
View user's profile Send private message
Matt J




Location: Durham, NC
Joined: 18 Aug 2015

Posts: 68

PostPosted: Sun 23 Aug, 2015 3:44 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The metaphors are working very well.

I really like how you explained how armor should work. It is VERY similar to how I am designing it.

First point I'd like to make, tell me if I'm wrong. You do not get to pick the part of your enemy that you attack, you mostly have whatever openings he allows you to have. Being unable to protect his whole body, you will attack what he is not currently protecting. You do not pick where you strike or thrust, you strike or thrust whereever is convenient at the time. So, different parts of your body have different values, depending on the likelihood of it being the target. These values are represented in the amount of protection armor provides in that area.

For example, percentages of wearing armor. You head, being an extremely vital target, but small, will be 30% of your total. Your torso, being a moderately vital target, but much larger and easier to hit, is also 30% of your total. Your lower body, which encompasses 40% of your entire mass and size, will be 25% of your total. The reasoning behind this is that the chest and head are more prime targets, despite being smaller. Your arms, from finger tip to shoulder, is 15%. These are just estimates for armor creation. They are not hard numbers.

Now, my second point, lets talk about metaphors. I believe, based on what I've learned here and elsewhere, I have been watching Matt Easton's videos religiously and researching all the features on this site, plus thearma.org. I am determined to accurately represent reality. It bothers me so much when things aren't realistic... and I've fallen down the rabbit hole. Sorry.... I believe, based on what I've learned, is that armored combat is much like Tank warfare.

Now, I only know Warhammer 40k vehicles (fantasy game), I'm not great with historical tanks and armored vehicles. Hopefully, neither are you guys! Lol.

With tanks, you don't health the same way as with humans. With tanks, it's a lot of times you explode or your dont. But then, it's more complicated.

I have a hitting system on a 20 sided die, like DnD. You will miss if you roll a 1-4 (20% chance), you will get a glancing hit on a 5-10 (30% chance), you will get a penetrating hit on an 11-18 (40% chance), and you will crit on an 18-20 (10%).

A glancing hit is not what the weapon is designed for. If you glancingly hit a person with a sword, you'll still severely harm them. If they are wearing armor, even really, a padded jack, unless its a thrust, you won't be getting much. Penetrating hits, however, are much better, but even a sword vs mail would do very little. Criticals are much better, obviously.

Now, these aren't as simple as saying criticals ignore armor.

You have people arguing over whether or not arrows penetrate plate, yadda yadda. And yes, it's important to know, and I'm sure most people just want to know, while I wan't to know for the purposes of recreating the events.

The reason why games do not represent combat very well lies in the fact that they have a Health and Damage system. Why is a spear better than a sword? Because I can stab you before you stab me. What if you survive the stab? Because everyone has enough health to survive a single hit. Well... now the sword is easily capable of being equal. Because, you get hit once, move in, and keep fighting. The spear only gets the single hit as an advantage.

I'm designing my game to where this will not happen. People will have low health. The kind of health that a good sword or axe hit will kill you if not blocked by a shield or armor. A mace will not kill you, without a crit (head), but it will stagger you and break bones. If you wear plate armor, all of a sudden, a mace is no longer damaging you, it only staggers you, which means your arm did not break, yay, but it is still not good, they will attack again. But wearing plate is the difference between an attack killing you, and attack simply knocking you slightly, moderately, or severely.

A sword won't usually kill you in one hit, but you'll bleed out in a matter of seconds and die, not to mention, you are incapacitated prior to death. Even a glancing hit. The only way to survive a sword strike would be to be wearing some amount of armor to where as the glancing hit only cut you a little, a glancing hit without armor is going to tear through your flesh easily (not quilted armor!).

In most fantasy games, what happens when you get hit? You take x damage, subtract if from y health and keep going.

What actually happens when you get hit? You take x damage, you are staggered and knocked in a direction, then, if you survive, you will hold your wound while you sit on the ground and bleed out. Maybe, you can kill your target before you bleed out, but he'll probably finish you off first. If you only took a glancing hit, you might be able to keep fighting.

When I play Warhammer, and with Tanks, if you take out all the infantry and talk about the game mechanics of tanks... this is what you get. Long Range = King. When you get hit, best case scenario is you are stunned or shaken for a turn (can't move, or can't move OR shoot), while the worst thing that can happen is you explode (die). Tanks can get wrecked and "die" without exploding, but that is irrelevent in the case of this metaphor. The ONLY reason a tank would EVER have a closer ranged weapon would be if the tank was super decked out in protective armor.

I'm thinking, people should not die every hit. The majority of hits will either inflict a lot damage and either kill you now, or soon, OR they will be small cuts that do very little, except give you a small edge at the beginning. More importantly, most successful hits will stagger and slow your target, meaning, it will take one hit to facilitate a second hit. A lot of times, you need the first hit in order to force the opening you want for your second hit, which is the killer. This is, of course, if you are wearing armor. For unarmored combat, it's mostly whoever gets the first "real" hit wins. A couple glancing hits may or may not result in victory depending the specifics, but a single penetrating hit will ensure victory, while a critical hit will result in the inability to offer mercy lol.

Of course, there is a huge gray area in between death and incapacitation. There is magic, there are healers. One can be bleeding on the ground, and then be healed and get back up. Others, even closer to death, may return to a fight, while you may find an enemy actually regenerates the small wounds, and you will have to rely on a really good strike or thrust, otherwise, all the small cuts in the world won't add up to anything.
View user's profile Send private message
Tom King




Location: florida
Joined: 11 Sep 2009
Likes: 2 pages

Posts: 429

PostPosted: Mon 24 Aug, 2015 1:22 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

To make the early game more survivable, i'd limit (alive) humanoid enemies for a good while. Say you start at a backwater northern settlement with nothing but basic weapons and civilian clothes, a swarm of goblins could wipe the party, whereas in a more "traditional" tabletop they'd be swordfood and barely get the tank past 3/4 health at lv1. Shambling corpses, corrupted animals, lone evil faction scouts... fairer fight.

make sure to link the system you're developing one it's complete, realistic "grimdark" RPGs are hard to come by. It'd be interesting to see how it compares.
View user's profile Send private message
Raman A




Location: United States
Joined: 25 Aug 2011

Posts: 148

PostPosted: Tue 25 Aug, 2015 4:45 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Matt J wrote:
I have taken martial arts (taekwondo and judo) when I was younger and 2 classes of longsword martial arts, which I understand is essentially the same as none :P


Cool, I've trained in judo myself. Many of the same throws come up in western martial arts as well. Research some of the manuals (you can find most of them hosted at http://wiktenauer.com/) and you'll see what I mean. Actually, researching the manuals in general is a good idea to inspire combat in your game.

Quote:
I have a simple question. Would stabbing someone with a short blade (dagger), a medium blade (sword), a long blade (longsword), and a blade on a stick (spear) all feel the same? Assuming it is the same 6" blade tip on the end. Does the extra mass in the weapon increase its ability to punch through flesh? Or would these all be relatively similar, and only really effect it's ability to punch through armor?


That's a subjective question so it can't really be answered unless someone volunteers to be stabbed with all of those weapons. I have been hit with practice weapons while wearing protective gear, and spears definitely hit harder than swords. It's actually a problem; the larger weapons are more dangerous to practice with. I theorize that's why period sources emphasize training the sword, it's safer and all of the skills transfer over to other weapons. I don't joust so I have no idea what being hit by a mounted weapon is like. From what I've heard, it's an entire order of magnitude higher in terms of power.

Quote:
The level of technology is pre-gun powder. You have access to all forms of armor, quilted armor, leather, and iron/steel. Mail, Plate, Laminar, Lamellar. Until I discover more, which I am really hoping for. You have access to things up until around 1600-1700, that's about as late as it gets. There may be some later things. There will be firearms, but these will be Exotic, Legendary, Epic, if you are familiar these terms. They will be so rare that you should assume they do not exist.


II don't understand the setting. It's basically 16th century Europe if firearms development was delayed? Do I have that right? In real history gunpowder weaponry was in use by the 14th century, and developed further during the 15th. During the 16th century armies transitioned from Medieval style ones to primarily firearms focused ones. When I use the term gunpowder weaponry I'm referring not just to handheld firearms but also to cannons and bombs.

I think if you really want to focus your setting, you should focus on early to mid 15th century Europe. That seems to be the sort of flavor you're going for.

Quote:
In a fight, you'd have a sword on your waist, a dagger on your chest(?), a poleweapon in your hand, and a shield in your hand or on your back. Yeah?


I'd like to have a sword on my left hip, a dagger or knife on my right hip, and a spear or halberd in my hands. If were wearing a plate harness I'd skip the shield. Actually, since I only expect to fight unarmed zombies I would skip the shield no matter what. Shields are primarily a defense against projectiles, and since the enemies aren't going to be firing arrows at me it's just an extra burden. I don't expect any of the enemies to be able to hurt me through my armor. Especially if I'm wearing plate, they will break their bones before I feel anything. I would primarily be worried about being overwhelmed and pinned to the ground in a dog pile.

Quote:
Say, you are getting on your horse and you will ride for half a day to an outpost several miles (however far it'd take 6 hours to go) away. At this outpost, you expect to find other humans, but it is possible everyone will be dead. You are expecting to see undead on the way, though it is unlikely that you'd be forced to fight them, you are on horseback. However, when you get to the outpost, you should expect to be fighting. If you ever fight anything, it will always include unarmored undead peasants. It may, or may not, include more powerful creatures such as undead crusaders like yourself, in armor, with weapons, or large creatures. Then you may also fight things such as harpies or demented wolves. Animals and creatures that will be hostile, and not care about their life (fight to the death).

It is safe to say, the majority of your foes are unarmed, and most unarmored too. They very, but a lot of the undead, demons, and mutant creatures will have only the natural weapons and armor of their kind


I'd divide the party up into those fighting with spears and those with bows, crossbows, or darts (throwing spears). Everyone would be armored, otherwise I would treat it just like a hunt. For this purpose I would also like to have plenty of dogs. Look up Medieval boar and bear hunting and you'll get an idea of what I mean.

Quote:
Knights had squires, but Mercenaries had servants too? Did these people join you in battles? Either by fighting too, or standing nearby with the rest of your equipment, or did they follow you on campaigns and stay waaaay behind or something. Do most mercenaries work near home? Or do they work for months and then return for months?


It depends, mercenary is just an occupation. A knight is a title. A knight could be a mercenary, and often they were in between wars. Look up the Italian condottieri for a real life example of mercenary knights. A mercenary could be dirt poor or rich. The same goes for someone holding the title of knight.

A common unit in Medieval warfare was the lance, which consisted of a man-at-arms who could act in whatever position was required of him, usually heavy cavalry but also as light cavalry or heavy infantry. Under his command he had a few servants who could join in battle as archers or light cavalry, and a few more servants who did not fight at all. Five people total was typical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federico_da_Montefeltro
I suggest you read this wikipedia page on Montefeltro, who was an Italian Duke who worked as a mercenary. He was a noble who began working as a mercenary at 16 and worked his way up the ranks. Look at his 1475 self-portrait. He was a man of considerable wealth and learning. A mercenary doesn't have to be some grungy guy traveling alone, barely getting by.

Quote:
Did the medieval period have things set up that would be similar to Military Bases? If I was a Man at arms, would I live at my house until war time and then I'd just be hiking all day until battles. Then when the war ends I go home.


I'm already talking far more generally about history than I like to. It really depends, you should read some accounts of actual wars. Froissart's chronicles are a good place to start. During times of peace a knight could simply train and tend to his estate, or become a mercenary, or pursue some other occupation such as merchant. When he was called into service he would need to come equipped as specified in the muster, and also bring the appropriate amount of troops as required of him. If they were defending territory they might take up residence in a castle or town and act as garrison. If they were attacking they would march wherever they needed to and set up camp in tents.

Just to clear up some terminology: Knight is a title held by lesser nobility. Depending on the period, it bestowed certain privileges and responsibilities. A person holding this title may or may not act as a man-at-arms. Man-at-arms is a general term for a soldier who can afford enough gear to act in the role of heavy cavalry. They may or may not have a title, and may or may not actually act in the role of heavy cavalry. Often they acted as light cavalry or heavy infantry. They could be knights, or they could be dukes, earls, or kings. Mercenary is just a profession. Mercenaries could consist of crossbowman, archers, pikemen, men-at-arms, etc. They may or may be nobility. Generally if they were nobility they would act as an officer in some capacity with troops and servants under their command.
View user's profile Send private message
Raman A




Location: United States
Joined: 25 Aug 2011

Posts: 148

PostPosted: Tue 25 Aug, 2015 4:56 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Also, I don't play pen and paper RPGs so I can't really offer much advice there. If you don't watch lindybeige's channel then I recommend you do, he has quite a few videos on the topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MF8UU4pqefk

This video in particular came to mind. All of his videos are worth watching, though.
View user's profile Send private message
Matt J




Location: Durham, NC
Joined: 18 Aug 2015

Posts: 68

PostPosted: Wed 26 Aug, 2015 12:29 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

This site is like a well of information, I love it.

Raman: I have seen some of his videos. The thing that concerned me is that one of his videos ended with him coming back saying he was wrong. And other videos he seems less confident in certain things. While I like to see people being true and honest, I also want to avoid wasting time listening to something that may or may not be entirely accurate. But then, maybe I should start looking at everything I'm learning with more grains of salt.

I researched Lietchenauer (sp) for about a week after I first started getting interested. Like, reading, taking notes, trying to make sense of it all. I've always wanted to be a knight... before I grew up and realized what it was, and then when I grew up and realized what it actually was. I will definitely look in there again.

I plan to have basic combat systems in play. First off, you act each half second. So there will be partial actions that you take. You won't be able to swing with your sword in 1 simple turn. You will have stances that you go into. Guarded with your sword threatening your target's head, at this point you can thrust, but not strike. You can Ready, which would be "cocking" your arm, preparing for a strike, so that you could strike next turn. You could have already been Readied before you made it to combat range. You can choose between taking a step and not taking a step during each of your small actions. You can ward. You cannot block thrusts without a shield. Strikes have the advantage of possibly breaking bones or cutting off limbs, while thrusts have their own, more glaringly obvious advantages.

From here, you can learn techniques. Things like Crooked Strike, Wrath Strike, Mortar Strike, etc, etc. I'd like to add options to learn different stances. Such as the Vom-Tag version with your sword over your head. A very, very offensive stance, unlike the other two, where you leave yourself completely open, though can still potentially ward, in an attempt to gain maximum damage potential.

In terms of dagger vs sword vs great sword vs spear, I think you did answer my question. I was wondering if being stabbed by a 2 blades, exactly the same, but one being pushed by a small handle and the other being pushed by a long pole, would damage your body equally, or if the one with the long pole would produce more force. But force is tricky. I am not referring to the force needed to penetrate armor (or flesh), but, the ability for the weapon to hurt your body. Does a more forceful thrust damage your flesh more than a less forceful thrust? Assuming both penetrate to the same extent, neither blade displacing more flesh. Or, is the advantage of that extra mass exclusively its ability to penetrate harder surfaces (steel).

When I posted those dates, I wasn't fully aware of what I was saying. I found a great picture of the different "outfits" of various warriors. Starting with what looked like a viking kind of set up for battle of hastings, to something happening in jerusalem that looked like a crusader (plus, I've seen Kingdom of Heaven, so yeah), also, another battle, with a soldier described as a Man At Arms, looking just as had been described.

You are right, 15th Century. I am focusing mainly on, I think, around that period. However, this is not exclusive to Europe, I'm just starting there as that is was interests me. Medieval japan, the good ole Samurai, will be a part of this too. In my mind, I had lots and lots of people, Vikings, Greeks, Romans, Aztecs, Egyptians, etc. I'm working through the kinks... trying to figure out if balancing a Spartan to be able to stand next to a man at arms and not feel outclasses is worth the amount of realism that it would ruin. Is there any plausible situation where a Sparta, with his skill and equipment, to be able to fight against any of the things the 15th Century has to throw at him? Of course, this Spartan will be given carbon steel equivalents of his gear... he'll be up to date on the new trends... but you can't put a spartan in full plate and call him a spartan. He needs to be naked with a huge shield, spear, sword smaller than a dagger, helmet, and greaves. Maybe, some have a breastplate. But the point is, would a Spartan vs a Knight be a realistic fantasy? Or an unrealistic fantasy? I understand this is a paradox, but the goal is a fantasy world that does not make up realism, but simply adds fantasy to real life.

If you took two people today, and they trained for X years to battle each other. Battle until the other asks for mercy, like... not a sparring match. One had equipment like that of a decently wealthy man at arms, while the other had the equipment of a spartan. Obviously training in each aspect too. Now, they fought. How outmatched is the Spartan? How much bull**** do you speculate would need to be made in order to make the Spartan on a level playing field. Is plate, or even mail, so effective that humans simply don't do as well without it? Would you need to be super human in order to use agility and dexterity in a way that is portayed in the general media? How would a rogue/ninja type character combat a man at arms? I view Spartans a lot like rogues, light infantry character that relies on skill and precision over protection. The underlying idea behind this theory is that plate armor actually does provide negative factors, in terms of combat exclusively. Things like over heating are irrelevant. But, to what extend does plate slow your running speed, and how does it slow your finer movements like weapon swinging, pivoting, and other things. Or even vision. Is it possible, possible to point of being something you rely on, for an unarmored person to kill an armored person with a physical, non-ranged weapon?

I'm glad you mention that shields are primarily for projectiles. I was intending for players to use shields as a means for defense in general. But, if it's "main" objective (or selling point) is the idea that it protects you from ranged attacks.... well, I better start working on a plethora of ranged abilities for my creatures.

As a guy in plate armor, being bogged down is the weakness I, as the DM, will attempt to exploit. It takes only 1 zombie to tackle you to the ground before it takes too long to get back up.

I am extremely interested in this idea of the Lance. I've evolved my thinking, to where I want parties of varying levels. You don't gain levels by leveling up and getting better, you simply find and unlock new things. Higher level players only have the advantage of options, not capability. I want it to be a master apprentice kind of thing, on top of the group dynamic of 3-5 players. You will have your Man At Arms with his buddy, and they'll bring a long a few newbs. It's more dynamic to have varying degrees of characters, and I think it works historically really well too. Fighting a small skirmish with some people being more competent than others.

Thank you for the links and suggestions. I will check them out, as I've done with everything you've all sent me. The terminology is helpful too. These words have such backwards definitions in my mind from years of World of Warcraft, Warhammer, Dungeons and Dragons, and countless other games that have mislead my perception of reality.
View user's profile Send private message
Pieter B.





Joined: 16 Feb 2014
Reading list: 10 books

Posts: 645

PostPosted: Wed 26 Aug, 2015 4:55 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Matt J wrote:


You are right, 15th Century. I am focusing mainly on, I think, around that period. However, this is not exclusive to Europe, I'm just starting there as that is was interests me. Medieval japan, the good ole Samurai, will be a part of this too. In my mind, I had lots and lots of people, Vikings, Greeks, Romans, Aztecs, Egyptians, etc. I'm working through the kinks... trying to figure out if balancing a Spartan to be able to stand next to a man at arms and not feel outclasses is worth the amount of realism that it would ruin. Is there any plausible situation where a Sparta, with his skill and equipment, to be able to fight against any of the things the 15th Century has to throw at him? Of course, this Spartan will be given carbon steel equivalents of his gear... he'll be up to date on the new trends... but you can't put a spartan in full plate and call him a spartan. He needs to be naked with a huge shield, spear, sword smaller than a dagger, helmet, and greaves. Maybe, some have a breastplate. But the point is, would a Spartan vs a Knight be a realistic fantasy? Or an unrealistic fantasy? I understand this is a paradox, but the goal is a fantasy world that does not make up realism, but simply adds fantasy to real life.

If you took two people today, and they trained for X years to battle each other. Battle until the other asks for mercy, like... not a sparring match. One had equipment like that of a decently wealthy man at arms, while the other had the equipment of a spartan. Obviously training in each aspect too. Now, they fought. How outmatched is the Spartan? How much bull**** do you speculate would need to be made in order to make the Spartan on a level playing field. Is plate, or even mail, so effective that humans simply don't do as well without it? Would you need to be super human in order to use agility and dexterity in a way that is portayed in the general media? How would a rogue/ninja type character combat a man at arms? I view Spartans a lot like rogues, light infantry character that relies on skill and precision over protection. The underlying idea behind this theory is that plate armor actually does provide negative factors, in terms of combat exclusively. Things like over heating are irrelevant. But, to what extend does plate slow your running speed, and how does it slow your finer movements like weapon swinging, pivoting, and other things. Or even vision. Is it possible, possible to point of being something you rely on, for an unarmored person to kill an armored person with a physical, non-ranged weapon?

I'm glad you mention that shields are primarily for projectiles. I was intending for players to use shields as a means for defense in general. But, if it's "main" objective (or selling point) is the idea that it protects you from ranged attacks.... well, I better start working on a plethora of ranged abilities for my creatures.

As a guy in plate armor, being bogged down is the weakness I, as the DM, will attempt to exploit. It takes only 1 zombie to tackle you to the ground before it takes too long to get back up.

I am extremely interested in this idea of the Lance. I've evolved my thinking, to where I want parties of varying levels. You don't gain levels by leveling up and getting better, you simply find and unlock new things. Higher level players only have the advantage of options, not capability. I want it to be a master apprentice kind of thing, on top of the group dynamic of 3-5 players. You will have your Man At Arms with his buddy, and they'll bring a long a few newbs. It's more dynamic to have varying degrees of characters, and I think it works historically really well too. Fighting a small skirmish with some people being more competent than others.

Thank you for the links and suggestions. I will check them out, as I've done with everything you've all sent me. The terminology is helpful too. These words have such backwards definitions in my mind from years of World of Warcraft, Warhammer, Dungeons and Dragons, and countless other games that have mislead my perception of reality.



A spartan soldier and a 15th century man-at-arms are the product of their society. If you want to have a Spartan you first need the justify the existence of a Spartan state next to a 15th century one. How would a slave owning, pagan monarchy with dreadlock warriors, triremes (ships) and a preference for prepubescent boys exist next to a medieval one? If Europe is anything to go by it would have been Christianized a long time ago, unless cultural and military resistance prevented that.

Maybe you could have an area of the medieval world that experiences a sort of renaissance and starts to use Spartan inspired armor. However the way I see it a Spartan is an economic class lower than the average man-at-arms. You're comparing spear armed infantry with multirole medieval warriors. A one on one match is a sort of silly anyways, some equipment combinations are meant to be used in a large group formation (phalanx) you'cant really say the pike is a bad weapon if you use it in a 1 vs. 1 fight against an archer.

In general plate armor is a good thing to have if you can support it. It needs to be made, maintained, transported etc etc. Things that generally make it unsuited to Dungeon crawling. Outside of that it's just plain better than most armor around.
View user's profile Send private message
Ryan A. Currier





Joined: 03 Jan 2011

Posts: 50

PostPosted: Wed 26 Aug, 2015 7:27 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sorry I'm late, but maybe something in this quick before work post will be useful for you.

Sword maintenance:

Hilt in the rain all vary but a "good" iron or steel generally doesn't need to be babysat till you get the chance in a dry spot or before bed in camp. BUT sometimes.... Ugh.

Sword blade after blood gets on it... Can discolor pretty damned quick?
What you really want to worry about isn't blood; it sheds and a rag paper towel or anything really takes what little stays off. The fat that will be an ass to get off and hide on your edge is the shit part. Thrusting generally doesn't get your blade covered in blood unless you half sword and torque into a boar or something to bleed it quicker and or are scared it's about to get you. (No gloves and skin on my hands ripped small against my hard pull but no blood)

Cutting into a fresh carcass doesn't leave much on a thin cutting blade, in my limited experience. It was a clean through though... Idk.

ALL swords I have (even by really great makers) all seem to react to the same environmental hazards with different outcomes. I have swords that go straight to patina. And some that go orange at humidity and patina underneath, some spot rust (if it happens) won't have patina under it... EVEN on the same pommel after a camping trip or a day at the faire in the rain it can look different a spot over....

Also about wounds and such: how much you oil your blades changes everything! (Always have characters carry grit or grit rocks or something or make their weapons suffer for fat and gore after combat not being cleaned properly?)

Edges: burrs and such are an easy sit down and fix after you hit something you shouldn't.

Cloth becomes difficult to cut first when the sword has seen spongy and squish stuff a bit, no matter the cleaning... So wet stone. Something. Someone in your party better have something to sharpen and work edges and grind shit down or it'll make fine edges a lot less fine and the finer the edge the quicker this has happened but the less fine and the worse it is against clothes.

I hit a cutting stand once and rolled an edge a bit (t post) and it would have killed a scabbard so you'll probably not want to resheath anything before cleaning it. Cleaning it well under good light.

...um. Grips discolor if natural leather REALLY quick. Or even light colors but done naturally.

"On wounds" as I'm working on this as I didn't get to post it when I wanted... You asked if there was a difference between weapons. A wound from the last bit of a knife versus the last bit of something the same size is going to end up the same. (I remember you used some numbers) So... If they are both sharp and get forced in the same amount and are the same size: same... I am pretty sure. Knife, sword, etc...

....hmm. And axes are easier to fix with the edges being a bit different (even thin combat axes have shorter edges too!).
My advice for your characters: kill someone with a knife or stick or rock or axe if the sword doesn't give you an advantage.

However, swords can take abuse. Swords can survive getting wet. Mileage may vary, but if you take care of them you don't have to babysit them....... Euros anyway. I used to fiddle with Katana and got bored of that mess, lol.

Well trained swordsman wading through people: I foam fought with a group once and it literally came down to me and a seventeen year old every time. I was 26?? We'd smack the people who had no clue regardless of what they were doing and focus on getting to each other.... But don't be too obvious or brash because you want to hide in plain sight get your whacks in and not get a bunch of spears on you or you are done without friends who know you are worth saving because you can save them....... Bridge battle? Tiny spaces? If I didn't have a man in front of me with a shield and spear working for my defense I couldn't be a weapon for my team and got poked first for my reputation earned in a few hours of one day.

Great swords are like.... You have a long weapon and versatile and if it weighs the same as a spear and you have your distance and timing right it's a god in that PLAY fighting........ But I wouldn't want to deal with taking care of that edge and that much exposed steel for any campaign.

Adventurer load out would be anything but a sword for carry and first use.
Sword when it is most advantageous and without hesitation because stab wounds and lacerations hurt (farm work type injuries here!).

Hmm...... Did I ramble? Lol
Hopefully SOMETHING was useful to you here!!!

Oh yeah! Combat groups with arrows scare me. I can't "slaughter" the other team because I'm shit with a shield and either am two handing a spear or great sword or have a sword and buckler...
I have chased broken spears around with single sword before and that spear is useless when you don't let them gang up on you and you move fast and not straight at them. Knock it in the dirt and take a few out and they all freak out!
Having been on both sides of this kind of thing.... When your buddies break and you are confident you can get that guy. Well, we played points sometimes and I would forget and self preserve to at least not give them a total win.

So... Weapons are important, armor, but play psyche stuff too???
View user's profile Send private message
Matt J




Location: Durham, NC
Joined: 18 Aug 2015

Posts: 68

PostPosted: Wed 26 Aug, 2015 9:01 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Pieter:
Figuring out why and how the Spartans exist when the other guys exist is not really a concern of mine. That is something I can figure out after I've decide to keep them in. This is a huge world, and the 15th century european people are a tiny part of the world, most of which is in control of the Roman Empire. But, again, I started with the idea of a historical mixing pot for players to choose from, and then head out to kill demons and undead.

I will not be using real religions. I will also not be using actual names. Everything will be made up and fantasized so that there is no clear and obvious choice. I don't want people pigeonholing themselves thinking that they should pick something for any reason other than that they like it.

Neither a spartan, nor a man at arms, is an idiot. Both are trained warriors. There must be something to be said about the Spartan warrior-culture, there also must be something to be said about them only existing to a tiny, tiny amount of time. But, a Spartan is not going to rely on his phalanx formation in a duel. A spartan knows how to fight one on one, maybe he is not trained to duel like a european who used that mechanic as a means for legal judgment, but a spartan would at least know how to fight a single foe. Plus, a spartan living in a society with a dueling system would have learned these skills. But, this is a little irrelevant as the Greeks are kind of further away. The european society is a very new group. They used to be a civilization before the [Roman] Empire took them over. Then, they foresaw the invasion of the demons, and no one believed them. Now, they are gaining A LOT of power and support.... like a catholic church. I'm really screwing around with the order of events, my idea was made before I did one bit of research. Back when my fantasy mind thought that Vikings, Samurai, Knights, (persian) Immortals, Spartans (greeks), Romans, Aztecs, Egyptians, could all be smooshed together. China and Korea mixed with Japan, maybe some Thai stuff. Indian and middle eastern/arabia with the persians.

In a fantasy, a completely naked spartan with a shield and spear fighting a heavily armored knight with a pollaxe is an even fight. The spartan will use agility, speed, and skill while the knight uses his own advantages - not to say he isn't nimble, quick, and skilled. Such as Game of Thrones' Oberyn vs the Mountain. Oberyn, in all of his light-no armor fighting against that massive blob of steel.

I'd gladly remove Spartans (and anything else), that would realistically not be able to stand up to future soldiers, even if offered their updated equivalent gear. Any man can kill another man, a spartan is the same thing as a knight, when you take away the equipment, training, and era... he is just a man. It is this spartan's equipment and tactics that would be put into the game (plus culture). If the spartan's equipment is just simply inferior (carbon steel spartan gear vs carbon steel european gear, ignoring bronze) than there is no reason why anyone would use it. I don't need to keep or add anything that is not going to be able to survive against the other people in the world. But, I still have a huge level of leeway with magic.

Ryan, that is helpful. Would sword durability be lower than other weapons? Swords are commonly worn because they are comfortable, but they also suffer from less durability (I mean, hey, you can't really break a mace)?

If wearing a sword is more comfortable (how would you represent this), but they have less durability (easy to represent) then that would work well to keep a reason for why you'd want an axe or mace (plus the anti-armor part). If this is the case, part of me wants to not give any negatives for comfort when holding a non-sword weapon, and I want to give swords, maces, and axes the same durability. Sort of, like, these abstract rules cancel eachother out before they become strange.

Now, on the other hand, if they don't really break or get damaged any quicker... than they will provide a clear advantage, being equal (but different) in every way, except that they are easier to carry. This might be a good thing. If swords are superior to axes and maces, than it makes armor more powerful. Which in turn makes the axe and mace powerful again.
View user's profile Send private message
Pieter B.





Joined: 16 Feb 2014
Reading list: 10 books

Posts: 645

PostPosted: Wed 26 Aug, 2015 9:57 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
Pieter:
Figuring out why and how the Spartans exist when the other guys exist is not really a concern of mine. That is something I can figure out after I've decide to keep them in. This is a huge world, and the 15th century european people are a tiny part of the world, most of which is in control of the Roman Empire. But, again, I started with the idea of a historical mixing pot for players to choose from, and then head out to kill demons and undead.

I will not be using real religions. I will also not be using actual names. Everything will be made up and fantasized so that there is no clear and obvious choice. I don't want people pigeonholing themselves thinking that they should pick something for any reason other than that they like it.


Well if you figure out why a Spartan state is still around you might be able to justify why Spartan warriors still exist. What they lack for in punching power they make up for in numbers, ambush tactics and a harsh homeland that no one even wants to invade.

Maybe I lack the fantasy to build an RPG world but why is only a part of the world 15th century? What is stopping them from conquering other regions, are these different humans or different kings? Why do they have 15th century military technology while the other has iron age stuff? Did ancient Sparta evolve into a 15th century city state that relies mainly on spear armed infantry, a highly trained militia so to speak.



http://www.ducksters.com/history/ancient_gree...arrior.jpg

http://www.studiolum.com/wang/hu/nandorfehervar/17.jpg


https://sites.google.com/site/mijindarer/_/rsrc/1428820136355/home/aspetner/4483941954_c1599c7eac_b.jpg


Quote:
Neither a spartan, nor a man at arms, is an idiot. Both are trained warriors. There must be something to be said about the Spartan warrior-culture, there also must be something to be said about them only existing to a tiny, tiny amount of time. But, a Spartan is not going to rely on his phalanx formation in a duel. A spartan knows how to fight one on one, maybe he is not trained to duel like a european who used that mechanic as a means for legal judgment, but a spartan would at least know how to fight a single foe. Plus, a spartan living in a society with a dueling system would have learned these skills. But, this is a little irrelevant as the Greeks are kind of further away.


Both are trained yes but for different things, one is an infantry soldier in a time when decisive infantry fighting was the way to go. The other originated from armored heavy cavalry. One on one fighting isn't something they existed for and the fact that a knight outclassed a Spartan warrior in terms of armor starts to matter less when the Spartan state could put 30 trained soldiers (just a random number) in the field for every Knight.



Quote:
In a fantasy, a completely naked spartan with a shield and spear fighting a heavily armored knight with a pollaxe is an even fight.


Well okay, if you want that in your game then I'd say go for it but why are you asking us if it's a realistic or unrealistic matchup?

PS, why naked? I believe they had sufficient armor.
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Historical Sword Maintenance
Page 2 of 3 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum