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.
If all else fails, wikipedia it! According to the wiki article on rapiers, they were meant for 'civilian self defense and dueling.' They were known in Spain as a 'dress sword.' So they were essentially the equivalent of a child's BB gun. They were meant for show rather than use, and while they could be used, they were really not effective as an instrument of death. They only had to be light and fast, since they were meant to be a person's only defense in both civilian use and in a duel. On the battlefield armor is worn, and so a heavier weapon makes more sense, but when both combatants are armorless a rapier is a decent weapon for protecting the user from harm.
Also, I think it might be frowned upon to kill a mugger in the street, while bloodying him up a bit with a less lethal weapon would be seen as much more civilized.
And as far as the repeating ballista goes, there is a great description of how it works here.
Ugh wikipedia. Its okay as a general resource but often its just the cumulative best guess of the internet. Written over the previous best guess of the internet I might add.
Swords were also considered expensive and fancy, so as well as a "gentleman's" weapon they doubled as a status symbol. Knights generally used other weapons like axes because hitting plate armour with a sword is a good way to wreck the edge. As well lmastering the sword can take many years, far longer than other simpler weapons.
That depends entirely on the alignment rules for the game/civ scenario. If a culture values peace above all, conflicts that yield bruises are signs of weakness and blood is a clear marker of failure. But if obedience to law comes first and coercing gifts from a weaker person is a crime, it isn't quite so clear.
You got that right, neighbor. How I see it swords, in general, were like a Rolls Royce in modern thinking. Expensive, both in making and in materials, and naturally only those with status had them. Where as in comparison a spear (a simple garden variety, nothing fancy spear) was more a kin to a VW Beetle, just about anyone with a little money could afford one.
And I do agree that Wiki is a good general source of info. But since the content is user created there tends to be a little bias, like the EA games Wikipedia scandal (just type in EA Games on wikipedia and have a good laugh) or it tends to be limited on some subjects. And this comes from a guy who uses Wiki regularly.
And yes, while rapiers and some of their cousins were civilian toys for aristicrats, they were for the most part a bit inaffective in warfare given the fact that they had a frail frame and could break easily, under the right circumstances, and the only form of armor they might be able to penitrait was chain mail (that is if the chain links were big enough and the rapier was narrow enough, mostly likely an epee would work better). To my knowledge the only real fencing sword that saw real warfare was the sabre, likely because its design allowed it to have a good slashing power.
Heh, I always get tempted to become frothy mouthed whenever anyone compares modern sports fencing to medieval combat. I mean just consider the following:
What did Bruce Lee call matches likes that again?.... Oh now I remember, "Over glorified games of tag."
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
