Edit: The main weave of conversation follows the outline in my second post and explains the details of 3 main points. If you don't feel up to hacking the walls of text that is just fine. In between those posts there is much conversation so feel free to join in.
So, lets talk about weapon mechanics! This thread is not just for me to ramble on. If you see a discrepancy, feel that I am missing something or just have something to add, speak up! The mission of this thread as stated here is: to help us as players teach each other how realistic weapons function and most importantly, ask each other how realistic we want the weapons to be in our games.
To be perfectly clear this thread is about how weapons work. Later on we can start a master list of each weapon we would like to see and the particulars of each.
With the plans for a modular unit design system in the works its apparent that we as players are going to have a lot of choices to pick from. Its easy to provide the developers with a list of weapons that you would like to see in game. But first you must ask yourself if you really want a gigantic selection of choices, most of which a highly redundant. In a statistical sense does it really matter if the developers include katanas, zwiehanders and kopeshi if all of them just end up as Swords with a varying attack strength?
In a word, yes. All of those might be swords in that they share the features of sharp edge and a handgrip. But each weapon has a unique identity that makes it perform differently in combat. If you take the time to include these differences what you end up with is a much more realistic game with choices that affect your gameplay rather than being simply cosmetic. This is what most people would call adding depth to the game. To do this you do not have to detail every single weapon down to the last inch. Instead you must understand and quantify the mechanics that make each weapon work the way it does in real life and should in a computerized setting. If I arm my soldiers with halberds I want that to mean something. Halberds should not be just another spear with a +2 bonus against horses.
Well, it's not necessarily something you specifically set out to do. I have a friend who can do amazing things with programs like paint and simple online drawing tools. He didn't go and try to learn how to do it; he's just great at art, with enough creativity to make incredible things even with limited and simple tools. As far as I can tell it requires a lot of forsight, because until a drawing is finished, or close to it, it looks like crap, but once those finishing touches are put in it starts to shine.
Ive been slowly teaching myself to draw on paper. If there is one thing I have learned its this.
Any drawing is a mistake, until its done.
Formally speaking, I believe you are in serious trouble if any major aspect of your belief system fits neatly on a T-shirt or bumpersticker. But that's a damned awfully good oversimplified and/or essential point. Especially for the vast majority of us who depend on paychecks.
Heh, I knew that statement was oversimplified out the wazoo when I wrote it. But if you expand just a bit on it, it does make a lot of sense in other ways as well. For example, if you trying to learn how to draw, never finishing a drawing can only teach you to make mistakes.
The key is that when you draw things for yourself. YOU are the person who gets to decide when a drawing is finished or not. Being able to competently decide when a drawing is incomplete or when further work would ruin it is a big part of being an artist.
I was doing some thinking in regards to those repeater bolt throwers. Its easy to say "repeater bolt thrower" but I realised I had little idea how such a thing would actually work. As an experiment I'm going to see how well I can draft up the technical details and describe it all on paper. Maybe after that I or someone else can have a go at drawing it.
A crossbow is relatively simple if you leave out advanced features like a trigger. It is simply a bow mounted onto a stick that acts as a guiding track. The main problem is that crossbows are generally very slow to reload compared to thier closest cousins, the bows. There are examples of repeating crossbows in human history but these have technical limitations that put a cap on the strength of the weapon. Most repeating crossbows fired "darts" instead of bolts.
The challenge is to create a realistic crossbow type weapon capable of multiple shots per reloading cycle which retains the destructive power of a siege engine. This requires a number of technological advances, a few of which I took some time to imagine and implement. Doing such a thing with modern technology is relatively simple, so to keep things interesting I tried to stick to medieval ish materials, the techniques used are a bit more modern. But the argument is that if we can think up and build something now using period authentic materials, there is no reason someone back in the middle ages couldn't think up and build something like the compound bow.
--
The first main problem with a "repeating" missile weapon is rate of fire.
I demonstrated earlier how 3 bows can be mounted to use the same firing track, that was the first innovation. When the strings are wound all 3 bows can be bent back at once. When firing the bolt thrower you can release all 3 strings at once for a stronger shot or release them in sequence to fire 3 consecutive shots. Winding these bows back takes a strong mechanism. Most medieval siege engines used a winch to wind cord around a drum. A ratchet prevents this drum from unwinding, allowing men to wind a very strong mechanism in little baby steps. Our bolt thrower is no different.
The top of the firing track is roughly triangular in cross section. The reloading mechanism is a bracket which slides back and forth along the top of the firing track. The mechanism is pushed forward until it engages the strings, after which a ratchet bar on each side of the firing track is set and the loaders begin to wind back the string.
There are two winding mechanisms the loaders can use. The main mechanism is a pair of wheels set on each side of the rear end of the bolt thrower. These wheels have large spokes which the loaders use as handles to turn the wheel. Each has eight spokes and a one eighth rotation will move the ratchet bars back a notch. Normally the loaders work in unison, moving the strings back two notches at a time, resetting thier grips between pulls. Four men work at once to turn the wheels, since this is a very tiring job each thrower usually has more than 4 loaders and they all rotate off as time permits. Depending on the skill and strength of the loaders winding back all 3 strings can take as little as 10 seconds to a minute.
The second mechanism is a smaller winch mounted at the very end of the bolt thrower stock. This winch is meant to be operated by one person and connects to the larger winch through a pair of gears. The gear differential allows him to wind the siege engine by himself but this takes considerably longer and this backup is generally not used in combat.
The second problem with a repeatin bolt thrower is being able to load the machine fast enough. If you are unable to put bolts on the firing track at least as fast as the weapon can launch them, a bottleneck is created that reduces the overall rate of fire.
That will however have to wait till tommorow.
A ratchet looks like this. When you pull an object along the ratchet track a little tab falls into prepared notches. This prevents the object from sliding back down the track.
Most ratchets only have a single tab and one track. Because of the power involved here I used a much safer arrangement. Instead of a single track there is a track on either side. Instead of one tab there are two on each side for a total of four. These tabs are offset slightly so that only one pair is engaged at a time, this means that you must pull only half the distance before the tabs move up another notch. It also acts as a safety feature in that the mechanism will only slide half as far before stopping.
The main bottleneck in regards to rate of fire is the mechanism that resets the string for another shot. The second bottleneck is a loading mechanism that can keep up with it. The loading mechanism on your average crossbow is manual. That is to say the user picks up a bolt one at a time and places it on the firing track after the string has been wound. There are a couple problems with this setup in regards to speed. Namely:
So to attain all possible speed we need a loading mechanism that:
This calls for a box magazine.
Hehe, I think I'm getting way over my head with this. But siege engines will play a part in Elemental and the better we can make them the better the game will be. Im going to try to post this in chunks no more than one screen in height, I have a pretty big monitor so this might vary for you guys.
---
So, what is a box magazine?
Technically a box magazine is just a magazine, shaped like a box. A magazine is a clip with a dispensing mechanism. So the real question is what is a clip? A clip is something that contains ammunition. The size and shape of this clip varies depending on the weapon it is designed for. The purpose of a clip is to keep the ammunition together so that you can place it inside a dispensing mechanism, forming a magazine. Alternately the clip can be used to load ammo into a magazine, after which it is discarded.
The former option is the one we will use for the bolt thrower. It has all of the advantages we need.
Above the bolt thrower firing track there is a large rail, mounted on this rail is a rectangular box shaped assembly open at the top and at either ends.. This is the box magazine that will dispense bolts downwards onto the firing track. By itself it is simply a box, plus a few springs which will come into play later.
The clip used is a framework of wood shaped like a rectangular tube. Inside the clip are a series of rails which grip the bolts inside by the head and fins, preventing them from sliding out of either end of the clip. Both sides of the clip have spring loaded flaps which open when the clip is placed inside the magazine, allowing the bolts to exit. This allows the clip to placed in the magazine either end up.
The method used to place the clips into the magazine varies depending on where the bolt thrower is deployed.
- The most convenient method is to drop the clip into the open topped magazine. However this can only be done if the loader is elevated above the rest of the crew or the bolt thrower is tilted backwards and the rear is lowered into easy reach. This is common in defensive situations where the bolt throwers don't move or aim much.
- The most common method in the field is to rest one end of the clip on the back edge of the magazine and slide it inside. This method does not work if the bolt thrower is tilted too far in one direction.
- If the bolt thrower is depressed forward to shoot at a low target there are only two ways to reload it. The first is to load the thrower from the front, hardly ideal to say the least. The second involves a special bracket mounted at the end of the magazine.
To use it the clip is rested on the back of the magazine at a right angle to the firing track. The clip is then slid upwards until little tabs on either side slot into the bracket. This arrangement is finely balanced so that the back end of the clip can be raised like a teeter totter until the clip is inline with the magazine. The tabs and bracket prevent it from sliding out of place as this happens. It then it pops free of the bracket and gravity takes over to slide it the rest of the way.
(all of this makes a lot more sense if I draw a picture)
How the empty clip is extracted varies. If the clip was loaded by dropping it into the magazine, the now empty clip can be lifted up and out in the same fashion.
In other cases the magazine has an ejection mechanism for use in instances where gravity doesn't do the job. A series of springs in the magazine are coiled by the weight of the clip coming in. If the magazine isn't slanted enough for momentum alone to wind them a loader can coil the springs by pulling a handle. Once wound they have more than enough kick to boot an empty clip out of the magazine.
The clip is usually ejected backwards where it is picked up and set aside to be reloaded later. When speed is of the essense the clip is ejected forwards over the bows. If the bolt thrower is aimed over the edge of a castle wall this tends to result in the loss of the clip.
In special circumstances it is possible to rig the magazine mechanism so that the bolt thrower strings can be used to throw an entire clip, filled or empty, as if it were just another bolt. This is not done very often, usually in cases where the bolt thrower must be disarmed and packed up in a hurry for evacuation.
Man, I just have to say something (in case the karma doesn't mean enough) I like all this work you're putting into repeating crossbows (or whatever) and other weapon mechanics. *claps*
Hopefully this picture makes a bit more sense:
The more you tilt the bolt thrower to one side the more the methods at the top and bottom become convenient. Tilt the bolt thrower too far and they are the only methods that work. The method used has an effect on the speed of reloading. But since it takes more time to wind the strings back than it does to load a fresh clip of bolts this is rarely if ever a problem.
So while the bolt thrower is being wound and loaded it must be aimed. Aiming the bolt thrower takes 3 people:
- The first man is the spotter. If the crew owns a telescope or other aiming device it will be carried by him. His job is to spot targets, estimate range to those targets and inform the gunners, then observe the fall of bolts fired at that target so that the gunners can adjust thier aim. If the targets are close enough the gunners don't need his help to accuratly hit targets then he will instead play sentry. His sight aids allow him to spot threats coming from a long way off, particularly those coming from the sky.
- The second man is gunner #1. His job is perhaps the most important because he controls the elevation of the bolt throwers "barrel". He has the most difficult job and his performance has the greatest effect on long range accuracy. His gunsight is a web of metal shaped roughly like an isosceles triangle with the long point facing down. He crouches beside the "barrel" on the left side, closer to the spotter who usually stands on the left.
When the spotter calls a target the bolt thrower is brought to bear on it. Gunner #1 elevates and depresses the barrel until the correct range increment on his sight corresponds to the target called out by the spotter. To do this he has a series of wheels mounted beside him that link to gears that control the tilt of the firing track. There are 3 wheels of different sizes. The big wheel is used when a large correction is required, the smaller wheels are used to "fine tune" the aim in minute increments using gear differential.
- The third man is gunner #2. He is responsible for the horizontal rotation of the bolt thrower. He crouches below and to the right of the "barrel". His targetting sight is not so much a sight as a big metal comb with a compass attached to it.. When the biggest needle in the middle of the comb is lined up with a target then the bolt thrower is lined up properly. As with the first gunner he also has a series of wheels to control the rotation.
However there are cases where the bolt thrower must be traversed over a wide angle. The wheels that the second gunner has are for fine increments only. To do this gunner #2 yanks a lever which disengages the gears. He then calls to the 4 loaders operating the winch handles and tells them to turn the bolt thrower. If the gunner sees on his sight that the target is 3 big notches left of center, he would hit the lever and call out "3 NOTCHES LEFT!". The base of the bolt thrower has marks on it like a compass. When they hear the call, the loaders will push and pull the thrower 3 notches to the left, matching the marks on the base. The gunner will then hit the lever again and use the wheels for fine adjustments.
As long as aiming is done in fine increments the loading and winding process can take place at the same time. When the bolt throwers aim must be corrected to a degree that it will interfere with the loaders, gunners will aim as normal but they will traverse at a much lower speed. This allows the loaders to carry on as normal while the bolt thrower is turned. The gunners won't be able to fire the bolt thrower at the new target untill it is loaded anyway.
To select how many strings the trigger will release there are two handles set on either side of the barrel. Each gunner controls a single handle. Each handle has three settings, "single shot, multishot and disengaged". Single shot will release a single string. Multishot releases all remaining.
These handles double as the mechanical safety for the trigger mechanism. If both handles are not set to the same selection the trigger will not fire. If both of the handles are set to "disengaged" the trigger mechanism is uncoupled completetly for added safety. The trigger itself is a single lever hanging from the bottom of the "barrel" between and slightly behind the two gunners.
To fire the bolt thrower either gunner smacks the trigger with his elbow.
The bolts fired vary in construction depending on what you plan to do with them. But all of the bolt types share two characteristics.
- Each bolt has at least 4 fins, but they are not arranged into an X pattern. Rather the X is split into two diagonal lines and these are set slightly apart on the bolt shaft. This is done because bolts with X fins can't fit into a vertical stack without bending the fins. By dividing the fins into two, you end up with two stacks of diagonal fins.
- Each bolt type incorporates some form of disabling mechanism that changes or deforms the bolt in some way on impact so that it can't be thrown back with complete accuracy, if at all.
- The fletches on each bolt are very brightly coloured. Generally half red and half neon yellow. This makes it easier for the spotter to see where they land. If the bolts are fired at night a torch can be mounted on the end of the barrel that (hopefully) sets the fletches on fire as bolts are launched. This isn't very practical for accuracy but otherwise makes night shooting barely practical.
-----
There are 3 main types of bolts used most often in combat.
- The first type is a fairly generic bolt and by far the most common. Heavy piercing head, long sleek fins. The bolts are built to be very thin, this allows them to be double stacked within a clip 12 in each. A large clip size is handy for defensive situations because one loader can take care of many bolt throwers at once. Each bolt is quite destructive.
A bolt fired with a single string will pierce anything from two to a dozen men depending on how well armoured they are. Thin shields will shatter like balsawood but a heavier or metal shields just might save you. When fired with all three strings these bolts will split any man-portable shield and will generally only stop if they hit something hard such as rock, or the ground.
To prevent the bolt from being fired back the fins are crafted from thin metal. These are stamped into shape very carefully so as to spin the bolt in flight, stabilizing it. Since the bolts are loaded into clips the fins are protected in transport. On impact these fins bend wildly out of shape, if they don't fall off completetly.
- The second type is heavily specialized towards piercing armour and hard targets. The tip of the bolt is shaped into a long wedge. The surface is smooth except for the leading edge which is slightly serrated. Think of a sledgehammer head stretched and sharpened into an axe blade These bolts are meant for use against hard targets and are issued to crews at a ratio of about 1-5 to the regular bolts. Heavy bolts are generally fired with all three strings. If they are fired with less the bolt will not reach terminal velocity. If however the bolts are fired from a high location then three bolts can be rapid fired and all of them will hit with maximum impact.
Heavy bolts are actually not that effective against infantry. Because they are not "sharp" in the traditional sense they tend to take out a man or two before bowling over all of the men behind them as easily as we could flatted a patch of grass. That said a single bolt will hit with enough force to bring an armoured horse and rider to a dead stop.
On impact with wood or stone the bolt will have a similar effect to a giant chisel, splitting and shattering. The serrations on the leading edge help prevent the bolt from glancing off rounded surfaces. The preffered target for these bolts are fortifications, large beasts and other siege engines.
Mounted near the fins on the shaft of the bolt are two cylinder shaped rings, these are weights that balance out the heavy tip and allow the bolt to fly farther than six feet. On impact with something hard the small wood pins that hold these in place will snap. The weights then fly forwards and slam against the back of the bolt tip, increasing its splitting power even more. Once these weights have been knocked out of place the bolt is almost impossible to fire. If you try anyway the bolt will spin end over end. Assuming you have a bolt thrower strong enough in the first place.
- The third type of bolt requires a bit of a science lesson. This type of bolt is meant for extended range shooting and what makes it work is the same science that runs track and field javelin toss.
There is an aerodynamic principle called "angle of attack". In laymans terms, the higher the angle of attack, the more an object such as an airfoil "bites" into oncoming air and the more lift it produces. To see how this works just stick your hand out the window the next time you ride a car. Holding your hand flat produces little air drag. Holding your hand at an angle will produce more drag but also a lot of lift.
When a javelin flies through the air its angle of attack is not much of a factor until it reaches the top of its arc. At this moment in time the javelin sits flat in midair. If the javelin were a conventional spear it would simply tilt downwards and nosedive the ground. What keeps a javelin from doing just that is its balance. As the javelin comes down from the apex of its flight, the rear end of the javelin starts to dip towards the ground. This increases the angle of attack of the javelins body and produces more lift.
As the javelin slows down the rear end tips further and the lift effect increases. This increase in lift matches the force required to keep the slowing javelin in the air. The result is a much longer and flat trajectory ending with the javelin striking the ground rear first instead of tip first.
Simply put, an extended ranged bolt works just like a javelin. Instead of a sharp pointed end like the regular bolts it has a blade. As well as the four divided X fins it has two horizontal fins set a bit forward of center. The fins increase the lift generated to keep the bolt pointed forward instead of up for as long as possible. The bolt are carefully balanced so that (aided by the secondary fins) the bolt orients the blade up and down. The blade is required because a purely piercing weapon would not be very effective should it fail to strike point-first.
These bolts are always fired with all 3 strings and at a much lower angle than your would expect for shooting at distant targets. The effective range of the bolt is limited because after a certain distance it will no longer strike a target at the near direct angle required to do damage. That said the maximum range they can attain beats the regular bolts by far.
Because of the very fine balance required for these bolts to fly properly, any damage to the fins will make them unusable.
Tamren, I have one question for you. How many hours of study and thought did you put into this? Cause from where I'm sitting it has to be a gratuitous amount. For one thing I am impressed.
As far as thinking goes, probably well over 100 hours if you count all posts made up to now. As for studying, I didn't do a whole lot. Most of the knowledge used was theoretical and I picked it up all over the place. If I googled something it was usually to check the spelling on big words I don't use much. Suggesting ideas for games has long been a hobby of mine. I tend to migrate around to different games and forums, stopping to talk in detail if I catch a bit of inspiration. Just a couple days ago for example I started collecting and recording ideas for a possible L4D mod: "Realism" Mod. I'm sure we will have lots more to talk about once the beta begins.
It might seem strange reading a "gamer thesis" on the science behind plate armour written by someone who readily admits to never have touched a real set. But when you think about it, putting something into an artificial medium (such as computer games) is all about understanding how things work. While I might not own a set of plate armour I did work with sheet metal back in high school. I also once made a Roman Lorica (banded armour essentially) out of cardboard and duct tape just for fun. Even as I type this I have over 4 pounds of hand crafted chainmail sitting on my desk. (and it only covers 1 square foot, heavy stuff!). None of these things qualify me to write a textbook on the subject, but when I go and decide that plate armour would be fun to have in a computer game it gives me all the knowledge required to explain how it does, should and could work.
Anyhow I'm glad you like it. And I do hope Stardock found at least some of it useful or inspiring.
Mmm, Not really. I'm bit of a talesmith and when a i'm writing about battle between foes, I have to take into consideration (especially if I want to go into detail) a myriad things on how an action sequence is to be play out and still sound feasible. How they move, their weapons, whether a certain clothing, like a cape or armor, will hinder movements and the scenery; stuff that I have no academic or Stunt Coordinator knowledge about. Of course, acting out the scene, at a sedated pace in a confined space, helps.
On a side note about Spearmen versus Cavalry, Who wins at a head on collision? I'll put my two cents in.
Largely, victory for either side depends on these things; training, resolve, discipline, numbers and terrain and equipment. Either force need proper training and discipline in fighting as a force rather than as individuals. Their determination for victory most be strong enough that they won't break. The quality of their arms and armor is also vital (better armor and weapons = greater survivability, to an extent). Depending on the solidity of their numbers need to be taken into account as well. Numbers alone, a cavalry force would most like need to be numerically superior in order to everwhelm the spearmen and win. Althouth, cavalry charging towards spear points is down right stupid, with enough horsemen at your disposal you could smash into spearmen so hard they'll most likely break before they recover. Of course, terrain can play a part. If the spearmen are uphill, then facing head on would not be wise. but if their downhill.... "resistance is futile"
Here's a anecdote to help emphasize my point:
It's eleven o'clock in the morning. The sky has been clear of rain for days and ground is hard from the warm summer sun. The air is sweet and there is a gentle breeze. To your left you see a hawk, a noble bird, being routed by two ravens. You assume, logically, that the ravens most be protecting their nest and put the incident aside.
With you is a detachment of knights two hundred strong. Although their armor is not uniform, it is well maintain. Each knight has a freshly sharpened lance and their swords were honed and oiled prior to the march. A shield attached to each knight's left arm is embroidered with their respective family crest. Your orders are to seek out and destroy a band of rebels before they ravage the countryside gain supporters.
You meet the enemy an hour later with your force a top a steep hill the enemy force at the bottom. A tactical blunder on their captain's part. Before you give orders to attack you assess the setuation. To your left is a large, dense forest, a dangerous place where cavalry are most vunerable. Enemy force, themselves, consist of four hundred strong broken up into four companies, three in front and one in back and center.
The first three companies are not much of a threat. Mostly pitchforks and short spears as their weapon of choice. They wear no armor and there is an occasional shield among them. With disdain, you notice that the three companies aslo look poorly trained and will likely break at any moment. But the rear company is a different matter for their men are all wearing light mail and wielding massive shields and nine foot long spears each. If you and your men are to succeed, you will have to the rear guard hard and fast. The rest will lose heart, break and route.
You make a speech to bolster your men. Mostly, your oration consists of questioning the enemies mothers' virtue, poking fun at their social status and making colorful remarks about how their bowels will liquify at the sight of such an awesome and terrifying force like your men. you know, pep talk.
Then you give the orders for your men form up into a wedge formation. Once the men are assembled, you command the trumpeter to sound the charge. Your men stay in formation as they rush down towards the enemy, slamming their horses like a flash flood into the center peasant company. Instead of using their lances, your knights just trample over the peasants foolish enough to stand their ground. Then once you and your men are past the first rank, you lower your lances and smash into the center of the rear guard. Like a cleaver through meat, your knights slice throught the rear guards' middle and then circle around on either side and cut them to ribbins.
The surviving enemy soldier, the one could get a away, flee into the security of the forest. You order the men to regroup and prepare for mop up duty. But just before you can give the command, you notice movement in the forest, lots of movement. Out of the forest comes forth four companies of heavy pikemen each holding a battlestand with the motif of two ravens facing one another. Like the hawk before, the rest of this battle is not in your favor and, much to your chagrin, order your men to withdraw.
The End
In short my point is that although spearmen have an advantage against cavalry in frontal assualts, it doesn't mean a "Scissor's beats Paper" absolute.
There is no such thing as absolutes or accidents, only eventualities. Well, that's what I believe anyway.
Thing is, the specific type of spearmen mentioned in the cavalry > archer > spearmen circle is pikemen. What a pike actually is varies depending on who you ask, but in general a pike is a very long spear. So long in fact that it outreaches all other non missile infantry portable melee weapons. The real reason pikemen tend to beat cavalry is that the pikemen hit first. The pike allows the footman to kill or down the horse at a range where the rider is incapable of hitting back.Even if none of the pikes hit the rider, a fall from horseback at speed is very unhealthy. Should the rider survive the experience he is no longer mounted on a horse and the cavalry unit has ceased to exist.
In this way pikemen beat cavalry by "default". But when combat takes place, who actually wins depends on the number of variables you want to take into account.
Yeah the Pike tends to vary. To some it just another name for a "regular" spear. To others a pike has a striking resemblance to halberds. And to some, like me, the word pike brings to mind a ridiculously long stick with a sharp metal point.
And I agree, Tamren, Pikemen in general have different advantages over just regular spearmen. Namely of which is a longer reach and the fact that the guys in row four can attack as well as the first. But, if you exclude more professional pikemen like the swiss pikemen, it's main weakness was it tended to be a defensive weapon and took time for the troops to get into formation. The other major problems with pikemen is manueverability, weak defenses on the flanks and the rear, the fact that pikemen are not designed for general melee and that the troops who use the pike need a lot of training and discipline in order for the pikemen to use them properly in unison. If you just hand a pike to a guy and only give him training to the extent that all he knows is how to stand really still and go to the bathroom really quickly, then he and those in his unit will not be a very effective force of pikemen.
In theory cavalry could beat a force of pikemen themselves if they can hit the enemy while they're on the move and, thus, before the pikes can be set into place. Naturally, this requires the element of surprise and near perfect timing.
Cavalry charging head on at pikemen on a open field is, of course, suicide. But charging at pikemen as they march around a bend, you're thirty-something feet away and they have little, if any, time to react is borderlining on brilliance. But then such opportunities are rare, very rare.
Of course, a prudent general would give pikemen the proper respect they deserve and use more effective, and practical, means to neutralize them rather than committing a well planned act of recklessness and a liberal shot of stupidity.
For some reason I always associate pikes with phalanxses, to the point that if I see a phalanx with a long spear weapon, I default to them being pikes reguardless of what they actually are.
The only difference I was ever told is that pikes are never intended to be thrown (where some long spears are) and often have more ax-like or reverse sythe like heads on the end to give a wider slashing area against charges, as well as adding a chopping motion to use against riders that have somehow gotten past the very tip. I've not see this head on everything that has been called a 'pike' though. Only some of them.
Kind of like rapiers no one can agree what a pike is. The medieval english pike was often just a sharp stick. The greek pike was called a sarissa (or something like that) and it had a metal speartip and was extremely long. How they were used also varied. In medieval times the pike was aimed with the hands and rested on the ground, using the back foot to anchor the end of the pike. When Alexander the Great came around (or maybe it was his father) he introduced a new tactic to phalanx warfare. Instead of wielding the pike with one hand and a shield in the other, new shields were used allowing the soldier to use a pike with both hands.
So i suppose if we added pikemen to our games we would have to configure them which ever way we think best. (or cool!)
I don't think thats true. In my fencing classes we had the different fencing weapons defined and rapier was in fact defined and presented. They are somewhere between the saber and the epee, in that they have a thick blade (similar to the epee) but also have a edge down the front and about a 4th of the back (like a sabre ). They were very early weapons so their structure changes from region to region, but they represent a range of swords that do not fall into another catigory. So, I would say people can agree what rapiers are, even if that catigory is a little broad. No other weapons fall into it.
Ah, the Sarissa, invented by Phillip II of Macedon (Alexander the Great's pop)
Yeah the new shields, to my understanding, had a strap worn on the shoulder rather on the left arm thus allowing those in the Macedonian Phalanxe to use the Sarissa in two hands so they wouldn't be encombered by the shield. That or they had much smaller shields.
Pike Definition from Wikipedia:
A pike is a pole weapon, a very long thrusting spear used two-handed and used extensively by infantry both for attacks on enemy foot soldiers and as a counter-measure against cavalry assaults. Unlike many similar weapons, the pike is not intended to be thrown. Pikes were used by European troops from the early Middle Ages[1] until around 1700, wielded by foot soldiers deployed in close order. While the soldiers using such spears may not have called them "pikes", their tactical employment of these weapons ran along broadly similar lines....
As general rule of thumb (as I see it) any very long (12-22 feet) thrusting pole weapon could be called by definition a Pike, and since the weapon was used over a broad area it only becomes obvious that there would be differences. Some might have axe heads and scythe-like devises attached to the business end, of course these where likely of the shorter varient as 22 foot long halberds would tend to sag cause of the extra weight and unbalanced distribution of said weight. While others might have had multiple spikes sticking out the top end. Another problem is that weapons during the Middle Ages weren't exactly uniform, fact being different weapon smiths have varying degrees of skill and style, so the two weapons called (by definition) would look different, if not drastically different.
From my understanding halberds, voulges and glaives (depending on the length of the shafts) could all have been used as short pikes in a vaguely similar phalanxe formation or in shock trooper tactics.
Oh we can agree what they are just fine. I mean we can all agree that a spear is a point stick of some description. If it doesn't have a sharp tip then it probably is something else. But when you go and look at historical examples of "rapiers" there is a bewildering array of swords with long thin blades meant for stabbing. Some of them have basket hilts, some have no handguard at all. Some have a triangle cross section, others have double sided blades. When you bring multiple historians together and ask them how these "rapiers" are used you will immediatly run into conflicting information. If rapiers were a stabbing weapon only, how come smiths spent considerable time and effort giving them sharp edges?
I guess as with all imaginary weapons you have to pick the properties that you prefer and describe them to the best of your ability in writing and in game mechanics as well.
Here's a little theory that might explain your question. Taking into consideration that rapiers in general were thrusting weapons, the sharp edges for the most part probably only caused nasty flesh wounds that were painful but not life threatening (so you could take a prisoner or make that mugger think twice). But if you took that same rapier and managed to use its sharp edge to sliced open a major artery, like say on the sides of the neck, the back of the knee or the groin area, your opponent would bleed to death, very quickly.
Most people wouldn't think of such a tactic, so only devious bastards (heh, heh I guess I'm included in that category) with enough imagination and rudimentary knowledge of the human anatomy would.
I'll admit there were probably other reasons why rapiers had sharp edges, but this seems the most likely reason when I think about it.
Still it doesn't quite add up. Long piercing weapons aren't the greatest thing to use while grappling muggers on the street.
I think one of the main reason everyone had them was that people didn't wear much armour outside of battlefields and it was part of the fashion to do so at the time.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
