Two handed swords

[Malkaven]

I really hope Obsidian gives attention to this thread. Weapons to a fighter are as important as spells to a Wizard. Having drawbacks and best use scenarios on weapons is a great idea and adds to the realism. I agree 100% with the OP.

[Merlkir]

Well, I would assume quite similar to what a critical strike with other weapons:

 

This could represent an attack that hits harder, a lucky strike or damaging a weak area on an opponent.

 

Notice I didn't write about a strike TO the head (headshot? location damage was in the Fallout games, right?), but WITH the head, the head of the axe. (the metal cutting bit, as opposed to the wooden haft bit)

 

Sorry missunderstanding, but its still same thats why we have damage treshold, 1-6 if you hit for 1dmg than bad luck you hit him with hilt, if you score 6 than good, you place good and precise strike. What are we talking about now?

 

It's just level of complexity. Or more variety, depends on how you look at it. If you have damage types, you can have damage type resistences for armour and creatures.

 

example following the axe - if you're facing a heavily armoured opponent, you'll want to hit him right with the head, because it has some chance of armor penetration, he'd just shrug off any hits with the wooden handle (because of padding). If you're facing a lightly armoured opponent, you don't have to care so much about proper distance, which can be useful, especially if he has a dagger and wants to get as close to you as possible.

 

It really is a bit of a rock/paper/scissors kind of functionality, which in itself is an inaccurate rule-ification. But it adds complexity and playstyles not present if you just have damage ranges.

 

 

if we wanted to take abstraction the other way, we could give weapons a single number, or even decide the battle with one dice roll. I've heard this actually suggested for other games as a fight system - one number for weapons. Of course, we love our numbers and weapons need to be differentiated, so we don't usually use it.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Merlkir

[Malkaven]

Well, I would assume quite similar to what a critical strike with other weapons:

 

This could represent an attack that hits harder, a lucky strike or damaging a weak area on an opponent.

 

Notice I didn't write about a strike TO the head (headshot? location damage was in the Fallout games, right?), but WITH the head, the head of the axe. (the metal cutting bit, as opposed to the wooden haft bit)

 

Sorry missunderstanding, but its still same thats why we have damage treshold, 1-6 if you hit for 1dmg than bad luck you hit him with hilt, if you score 6 than good, you place good and precise strike. What are we talking about now?

 

It's just level of complexity. Or more variety, depends on how you look at it. If you have damage types, you can have damage type resistences for armour and creatures.

 

example following the axe - if you're facing a heavily armoured opponent, you'll want to hit him right with the head, because it has some chance of armor penetration, he'd just shrug off any hits with the wooden handle (because of padding). If you're facing a lightly armoured opponent, you don't have to care so much about proper distance, which can be useful, especially if he has a dagger and wants to get as close to you as possible.

 

It really is a bit of a rock/paper/scissors kind of functionality, which in itself is an inaccurate rule-ification. But it adds complexity and playstyles not present if you just have damage ranges.

 

 

if we wanted to take abstraction the other way, we could give weapons a single number, or even decide the battle with one dice roll. I've heard this actually suggested for other games as a fight system - one number for weapons. Of course, we love our numbers and weapons need to be differentiated, so we don't usually use it.

 

Blunt weapons in Neverwinter Nights were more effective against undead than sharp pointy ones. So the system that your proposing exists in one form or another. It was done in DDO(Dungeons and Dragons Online) as well. However in DDO, IMO, it was completely over done to the point where your inventory was always full because you needed a different weapon type for each type of fight.

[Merlkir]

Yeah, mine's different in the way weapons deal different type of damage depending on how they're used, but yeah. Pretty much. It alleviates the full inventory problem somewhat. If you only have a cool sword and are fighting a skeleton, you can cave its skull in with the pommel, stuff like that.

[Rink]

I still think you have to watch at weapons from the fantasy-world itself. If people are bigger and stronger than in our middle-ages, then they will have bigger two-handers, right? Bigger twohanders are heavier, because there is more material on them, right? If they are heavier, then they get slower to fight with and less flexible in combat. So THEN the stereotype is more true to the fictional reality you created than our middle ages. I think that's how weapons should be created, born from the world they were developed for. And I would love to see innovation there.

 

Secondly if u watch at the setting from a realistic perspective: wouldn't some weapons be clearly better than others? Where is the balancing? A game has to even out weapons in a way that they are distinct and have their own playstyle advantages and disadvantages (that are easy to understand or hidden in game-mechanics) and still not be much mightier than other weapons other players may have chosen.

 

I think it is ok as an idea to implement different playing styles for weapons that are better against specific foes. But you pointed out yourself that some of the weapons are not made for some fightingstyles and would do less damage with it even if it would be better against some opponents. So even if such a system would be implemented, there would have to be a simplification, because you would have to reduce the realistic imbalances between weapons, you would have to reduce the type of damages you can deal (for example all weapons do damage with three kinds of different fightingstyles like blunt, piercing and slashing attack) and you would have to make a simple system of what damage type is effective against what foe (Even though in reality it doesn't only depend on foe-type). There is no way around simplification and changing realistic approaches for games and that is exactly where all the stereotypes come from, there is reality and physics in those stereotypes, it is just made understandable, balanced and fits in the setting. I am not saying "bring back the stereotypes we have seen 100 times because we know them", but I also cannot understand this huge aversion against it.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Rink

[Merlkir]

I still think you have to watch at weapons from the fantasy-world itself. If people are bigger and stronger than in our middle-ages, then they will have bigger two-handers, right? Bigger twohanders are heavier, because there is more material on them, right? If they are heavier, then they get slower to fight with and less flexible in combat.

 

I agree with everything except the last conclusion. If these guys are bigger and stronger, their swords are heavier, yes. But they're strong enough to handle them, so they fight as quickly and with such finesse as anyone of normal size with a normal sized weapon.

 

There have been weapons found which are "oversized", it's clear certain individuals had greater strength and could wield such "monstrous" weapons. Nobody would wield a sword that would make more damage, but which would move slower, that'd be pretty much suicide.

 

I think it'd be even more terrifying and intimidating to see a half giant with such a massive sword, and realize he's moving it around as quickly as any other swordsman. That speed + that mass, the carnage would be immense. :D

 

In fact, someone mentioned it already, but now I really really want to see a race of four armed humanoids wielding two two-handed swords simultaneously. Such a race would probably develop some kind of complex fighting method just for that.

Such an opponent would make my fighter character pee his pants most likely.

 

(like, look at some of the videos posted here, look at this one and imagine that speed and that intensity. Times two. :D

)

[jezz555]

If you want finesse use a rapier, if you want defense use a sword and shield, if you want offense and power use a two-handed weapon, if you want offense and speed dual wield. Thats how its always been, and imo that's how it should stay. A two-handed weapon doesn't have to be a gigantic sword, it could be a smaller one so long as you wield it with two hands. I don't really see the point here tbh

 

*sigh* yeah, dem awesome false stereotypes.

 

And isnt it true? I mean if I put aside man vs man fight and put in man vs eg. minotaur than it makes perfect sense. You will do more damage with 2h, you will attack more times with 2 weapons and you will have better defense with shield. I still see here people lamenting about how was 2H used in history but well, this is not historically accurate world or fencing simulator. Live with it or kill it with fire.

 

No, it really isn't true.

 

1) 2h swords were only a bit heavier than 1h ones and the power added by the other hand was more for better control than significantly more damage. A rapier stab could inflict a much more serious wound than a longsword slice, so how do you measure damage?

2) 2 weapons weren't a very common thing used in history. And certainly it doesn't mean you attack twice as many times in the same time as with just one weapon, it's much more complex than that. It was something unusual, something not everyone would be prepared to and expect in a fight, that gave you some advantage. (similarly to being left handed)

3) you have different kind of defense with a shield and it protects you from projectiles.

 

This "2h do more damage, rapiers are about finesse (whatever that means mechanically) and shields give you better defense" is just a simplification of reality to fit in a specific ruleset, not a very accurate one at that. It mostly stems from wrong assumptions and ideas people have about medieval combat.

 

But I know, people don't care about learning something about reality, let's just keep doing what everyone's done in the past.

 

You know what? I'd rather kill it with fire then. "This is not a fencing simulator, it's just a game..." - this makes me sick. Yes, it IS a fencing simulator, you're having characters fight with swords and you simulate the result. You're just using it as excuse for familiarity, laziness and ignorance.

 

It's not like anyone is asking to turn PE into a Mount and Blade kind of game, or CLANG. If we have that knowledge and if we have some understanding of those principles, why not apply them? Why not do things slightly differently and possibly better?

 

 

I'm really not so sure what you mean when you say laziness. Games use a rock-paper-scissors styled system in order to provide an incentive for the use of each weapon, there's nothing lazy about it, it's so you don't just end up with a bunch of characters doing the same thing. Dual wielding was not commonly done, because its much more difficult to parry with a dagger than it is to block with a shield, but people are going to want to do it, and I think its perfectly reasonable that the system should allow for that because historically it was a technique used by some people, if not many. Furthermore the idea that a rapier could inflict a more serious injury than a long sword is ludicrous, rapiers weren't used in military combat, because people wore armor that would snap a blade that thin and because they required much more skill to poke somebody in a vital area id est. finesse. If instead of just shooting down the status quo, you have a better idea, I think we'd all be glad to hear it.

[Solviulnir the Soulbinder]

Don't forget that there are many kinds of two handed swords and their use requires specific techniques...

 

I don't think that wielding a typical zweihander would require a large dose of finesse from a person using it. I think it would most likely be a tall and strong fighter, wearing heavy armour (to make up for the lack of shield maybe), who most likely focuses on successfully landing as many devastating blows as possible in order to physically damage the opponents armour, or at least stun/immobilize him.

 

Fighting with a nodachi on the other hand, would certainly involve a greater dose of finesse, fluence and speed - thus imposing some restrictions on the use of certain heavy armours. Person using such weapon would most likely focus on hitting vital organs, in order to quickly incapacitate the opponent, going for less protected parts of the his body (armour joints and gaps, arteries, neck, eyes, or cut off or knock a weapon off enemy's hands.)

 

I think that this relationship/synergy i.e. between the weapon used and an appropriate armour best suited to use with it, would be nice to explore...

 

But then again, maybe I'm entirely wrong... I'm not really an expert when it comes to mediaeval weaponry.

 

edit:

Very nice artworks in your portfolio Merlkir.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Solviulnir the Soulbinder

[Merlkir]

Furthermore the idea that a rapier could inflict a more serious injury than a long sword is ludicrous, rapiers weren't used in military combat, because people wore armor that would snap a blade that thin and because they required much more skill to poke somebody in a vital area id est. finesse.

 

Sorry to be quotepicking, but this is the only bit I'm interested in replying to. No, this is not correct.

 

1) there were military rapiers.

2) in the time when rapiers saw widespread use, people didn't wear that much armour. Also, "poking" someone with a longsword (in the hypothetical case of one being used at the same time) would require the same amount of finesse, as the longsword won't cut through armour, so you have to hit vital spots as well.

 

You know what's ludicrous? The idea that medieval swords were used to just vaguely hack in the enemy's direction and hope that'll kill him somehow. That ties to the next bit:

 

I don't think that wielding a typical zweihander would require a large dose of finesse from a person using it

Fighting with a nodachi on the other hand, would certainly involve a greater dose of finesse, fluence and speed -

 

Not really. I wish I could find a specific video I have in mind, of a guy using a zweihander in a duel against a longsword (iirc). It's all fluid movement, one efficient motion leading into another. Definitely no wild swings trying to crush the other guy, or simply hack him in half. You can't afford to do stuff like that if you want to stay alive, because your opponent probably will know what he's doing.

 

If anyone here wanted to get a solid lecture of real swordfighting basics, I heartily recommend the "Reclaiming the Blade" documentary. Very accessible to beginners, explains well why we associate "finesse" with more recent "fencing" and how the myth of knights bashing each other with blunt swords until one of them drops came to be.

 

(I think it's even available on Youtube)

 

 

edit: OK, I found another one. It's stage fighting, so they do the grunting and it's not anywhere near full speed. But you can see how the attacks and parries flow quite nicely.

 

http://www.stream.cz/uservideo/68255-zoldaci-video-3

Edited October 30, 2012 by Merlkir

[Elerond]

 

I had to put this commercial here as it shows cutting and thrusting capacities, but you can also see its weaknesses and probably could deduce why it sometime better use finesse instead of raw power. End of the video you can see that great sword is also good throwing weapon

Edited October 30, 2012 by Elerond

[John Lemon]

I had to put this commercial here as it shows cutting and thrusting capacities, but you can also see its weaknesses and probably could deduce why it sometime better use finesse instead of raw power. End of the video you can see that great sword is also good throwing weapon

That's... more a video on the use of sledgehammers than swords. I'll raise you an ARMA video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v4j3mvrDyQ

[Dunedain]

Thanks for the videos. In that first one posted, you can get an idea how dangerous a long sword in the hands of a skilled knight is, utterly lethal...

[Merlkir]

Oh the Cold Steel guys. :D They don't have much skill, but certainly ooze enthusiasm.

 

(these tests are more amusing than really informative, you can cut bamboo with a blunt sword. It sure is fun to see them cut the meat boots though :D

Oh and the mail at the end most likely wasn't riveted, they never use the right make in tests like this. If it were riveted, I'm fairly certain the sword would not poke through.)

Edited October 31, 2012 by Merlkir

[TrashMan]

I don't think that wielding a typical zweihander would require a large dose of finesse from a person using it. I think it would most likely be a tall and strong fighter, wearing heavy armour (to make up for the lack of shield maybe), who most likely focuses on successfully landing as many devastating blows as possible in order to physically damage the opponents armour, or at least stun/immobilize him.

 

Fighting with a nodachi on the other hand, would certainly involve a greater dose of finesse, fluence and speed - thus imposing some restrictions on the use of certain heavy armours. Person using such weapon would most likely focus on hitting vital organs, in order to quickly incapacitate the opponent, going for less protected parts of the his body (armour joints and gaps, arteries, neck, eyes, or cut off or knock a weapon off enemy's hands.)

 

What you think is wrong.

Stereotypes and preconceptions.

There's a lot of people thinking that medieval knights used brute strength and samurai were masters of finesse. In realtiy that is not the case (and it probably was the other way around).

 

 

****

 

A rapier stab could inflict a much more serious wound than a longsword slice, so how do you measure damage?

 

Typicly by how good it is at cutting/stabing. A sword that produces bigger, deeper wounds can be considered to be more damaging.

A rapier that misses all vital organs isn't deadly at all.

A zweihander stab that misses all vital organ will cerantly produce a lot bigger wound.

[jezz555]

Furthermore the idea that a rapier could inflict a more serious injury than a long sword is ludicrous, rapiers weren't used in military combat, because people wore armor that would snap a blade that thin and because they required much more skill to poke somebody in a vital area id est. finesse.

 

Sorry to be quotepicking, but this is the only bit I'm interested in replying to. No, this is not correct.

 

1) there were military rapiers.

2) in the time when rapiers saw widespread use, people didn't wear that much armour. Also, "poking" someone with a longsword (in the hypothetical case of one being used at the same time) would require the same amount of finesse, as the longsword won't cut through armour, so you have to hit vital spots as well.

 

You know what's ludicrous? The idea that medieval swords were used to just vaguely hack in the enemy's direction and hope that'll kill him somehow. That ties to the next bit:

I'm going to have to disagree with you yet again. Rapier's were most commonly used as a dueling sword, there were military rapiers yes, but they were more or less long-swords that emphasized stabbing, I maintain that your statement was ludicrous. People wear full plate armor in Project Eternity, so the point that "when rapiers saw widespread use people didn't wear much armor" is irrelevant. A long sword requires less finesse because it can slash or stab, and has more weight behind it for hacking blows, it's more versatile and requires less skill, and less knowledge of anatomy to wield effectively, but regardless your entire point is poorly conceived because hell, a broken plastic spoon could inflict a more serious injury than a long sword slice or a rapier stab, depending on what you did with it. TrashMan basically, said what I was going to so I'm not going to restate his point, I will simply end this by saying that knowing a lot about swords, does not mean you know a lot about game design, and lest we forget, this is a game.

[Sensuki]

Enemy in full plate?

 

time to break out the ole' war hammer.

[Merlkir]

I'm going to have to disagree with you yet again. Rapier's were most commonly used as a dueling sword, there were military rapiers yes, but they were more or less long-swords that emphasized stabbing, I maintain that your statement was ludicrous. People wear full plate armor in Project Eternity, so the point that "when rapiers saw widespread use people didn't wear much armor" is irrelevant. A long sword requires less finesse because it can slash or stab, and has more weight behind it for hacking blows, it's more versatile and requires less skill, and less knowledge of anatomy to wield effectively, but regardless your entire point is poorly conceived because hell, a broken plastic spoon could inflict a more serious injury than a long sword slice or a rapier stab, depending on what you did with it. TrashMan basically, said what I was going to so I'm not going to restate his point, I will simply end this by saying that knowing a lot about swords, does not mean you know a lot about game design, and lest we forget, this is a game.

 

You're not making any sense. If the opponent is wearing full plate, a longsword is going to do exactly d.ick against it. You can't slash, hack or stab through plate.

So just like with a rapier, you'd have to get the guy on the ground and stick a dagger inbetween the armour.

 

A longsword is a less specialized weapon, sure. That doesn't mean it requires less finesse. (whatever the bloomin' heck that is in your book) That means you don't have to concentrate on just stabbing the guy.

 

But hey, all those guys who entered fencing schools and tried to learn the longsword were just wasting their time. It's enough to just hack at the enemy, you'll manage.

 

Right.

 

(also, a longsword really is a two handed one, so military rapiers certainly weren't longswords in any way)

Edited October 31, 2012 by Merlkir

[Elerond]

Great information about rapiers and how they developed during in their history and why they came to be obsolete http://www.historynet.com/weaponry-the-rapier.htm

 

And another great article where writer explain how longsword fencing differs from modern fencing.

[Chilloutman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_hfLZozBVpM

 

I had to put this commercial here as it shows cutting and thrusting capacities, but you can also see its weaknesses and probably could deduce why it sometime better use finesse instead of raw power. End of the video you can see that great sword is also good throwing weapon

 

This quite morbid video shows why i think Two handed sword shoud have greater damage.Its not best fencing weapon but when it goes dow to choping head of troll its your weapon of choice. You dont want to fance with rapier with him for 10 minutes. You just try to chop as much meat of that m**herf***er as fast and as much as possible

[Elerond]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_hfLZozBVpM

 

I had to put this commercial here as it shows cutting and thrusting capacities, but you can also see its weaknesses and probably could deduce why it sometime better use finesse instead of raw power. End of the video you can see that great sword is also good throwing weapon

 

This quite morbid video shows why i think Two handed sword shoud have greater damage.Its not best fencing weapon but when it goes dow to choping head of troll its your weapon of choice. You dont want to fance with rapier with him for 10 minutes. You just try to chop as much meat of that m**herf***er as fast and as much as possible

 

In fight one should very rarelly use any sword as meat cleaver, because such blows are easy to anticipate and block especially if blocker is much stronger than wielder. And futhermore heavy blows will tire wielder very quickly. So fighter with two handed sword should use caution and finesse, against bigger and badder opponents. Same goes for single handed sword wielders.

 

So tactics, like hit troll on knee, hope that you broke it and decapitated troll or pierce troll's head when it's down, would be preferable.

[Merlkir]

The problem with fighting monsters is - they didn't exist, so we can't say what was used and effective against them. We can only guess. I suppose the best analog would be large animals, perhaps predators like tigers, or just large beasts such as elephants.

 

I think I'd rather have a long spear than a sword against troll.

[Water Rabbit]

OK, you "weapon experts" here is your challenge. You and 5 of your friends can take any muscle powered weapon you want plus any armor you want to trudge around in. I am going to send you back in time some 66 million years and have you fight a T-Rex. What are you going to take? It is not going to be a sword of any kind. Most likely it will be your running shoes to out run your five friends. Dragons would be typically thought of as tougher.

 

Or you get to go fight a grizzly bear with a melee weapon, which one is it going to be? When people hunted large boar they don't take either rapiers or arming swords, they take a long spear and even then there is quite a bit of danger. To take down large game humans historically have used pack tactics when all they had were muscle powered weapons – generally spears and bows.

 

From a game design standpoint weapons fall into two major classes based on how they are used -- swinging or thrusting; # of hands required. They can then be classified based on how they deliver their damage: piercing, crushing, and slashing (some add chopping).

 

An attack can be blocked, parried, dodged, or absorbed (purposely or because of a failed block, parry, dodge). If an attack is taken, then armor (if any) can deflect, absorb, or disperse the energy of the blow; it can also fail. The partial or full energy of the blow is then applied to a bag of salt water that is internally organized. The bag can either leak (rupture) and/or create hydrostatic shock that disrupts the internal organization.

 

All of the above are mathematical calculations that are trivial for a computer to grind through and have been done in many many games.

 

The rest are the visual elements that create the aesthetics of combat -- how it is animated, how the weapons are employed, the frequency of attacks, how the weapons are modeled. In some games the math and the animations are coupled and in others they are not. For example, in NWN the "Dance of Death" has little to do with the math of how the attacks are delivered. In games that are "action RPGs" they are more tightly coupled.

 

Since this is a combat with pause game, I would suspect that animations are going to be loosely coupled with the actual attacks.

 

I personally would prefer the combat animations and the weapons to not look dorky. The IE games in the past have done a reasonable job of keeping out the extremely dorky weapons. I hope we don’t see double-bladed axes. I hope that the weight and length of weapons and armor are reasonablly close to the real-world analogs. I hope they don’t use dorky movie style combat animations. I hope they allow combat options that are at least as interesting as previous IE games, preferably better. I hope that weapons, shields, and armor present reasonable tactics based-upon their perceived funciton – ie, polearms might aid in tripping attacks, but daggers won’t. I would hope that someone in the equivalent of full plate or plate and chain could just overrun an unarmored person with just a dagger or club, etc -- as a person in armor can use the armor as a weapon against an unarmored foe. However, I would also how that a single person even if armored could be dogpiled by a bunch of lesser foes if they just stood around without trying to maneuver.

 

However, I guess we will see.

[jezz555]

I'm going to have to disagree with you yet again. Rapier's were most commonly used as a dueling sword, there were military rapiers yes, but they were more or less long-swords that emphasized stabbing, I maintain that your statement was ludicrous. People wear full plate armor in Project Eternity, so the point that "when rapiers saw widespread use people didn't wear much armor" is irrelevant. A long sword requires less finesse because it can slash or stab, and has more weight behind it for hacking blows, it's more versatile and requires less skill, and less knowledge of anatomy to wield effectively, but regardless your entire point is poorly conceived because hell, a broken plastic spoon could inflict a more serious injury than a long sword slice or a rapier stab, depending on what you did with it. TrashMan basically, said what I was going to so I'm not going to restate his point, I will simply end this by saying that knowing a lot about swords, does not mean you know a lot about game design, and lest we forget, this is a game.

 

You're not making any sense. If the opponent is wearing full plate, a longsword is going to do exactly d.ick against it. You can't slash, hack or stab through plate.

So just like with a rapier, you'd have to get the guy on the ground and stick a dagger inbetween the armour.

 

A longsword is a less specialized weapon, sure. That doesn't mean it requires less finesse. (whatever the bloomin' heck that is in your book) That means you don't have to concentrate on just stabbing the guy.

 

But hey, all those guys who entered fencing schools and tried to learn the longsword were just wasting their time. It's enough to just hack at the enemy, you'll manage.

 

Right.

 

(also, a longsword really is a two handed one, so military rapiers certainly weren't longswords in any way)

 

This argument has carried on for far too long as is, but, it is possible to penetrate full plate with a long sword, in fact swords in the late medieval period were crafted with just such a purpose in mind, they just , while versatile, weren't best suited for it. You'd be far better off with a war-hammer or military pick, not a dagger between the armor wherever you got that idea...Furthermore I already explained the term finesse, which you seem to have overlooked, so once again, using a rapier requires you to stab somebody in a specific vital area. Whereas a long sword relies largely on bloodletting, aided by the exertion of combat, regardless of your training if you are relatively strong and you beat somebody over the head with a long-sword they will likely die, if you attempt the same with a rapier...well good luck. Finally your wrong once again in stating that a long sword is a two handed weapon, I don't claim to be an expert, but the distinction has always been clear long-swords are one handed, bastard swords are hand and a half, and greatswords are two-handed. I think your misunderstanding my argument here, my claim was never that martial training in a weapon wouldn't improve your effectiveness with it, I don't think anyone was making that claim. All I was saying is that a long-sword requires less training to be effective and practically none to be lethal, a sword is a sword if you hit somebody with it, they will likely die, technique can help you to be sure, but its a much smaller factor than you are making it out to be.

[Merlkir]

:D sorry, you're wrong in too many places. Almost everything you're repeating over and over is wrong, demonstrably so.

 

If you will not scoff at Wikipedia as a source (of course I can provide much more expert-like websites or books):

 

1) Longsword as a two handed type of sword: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword

2) Two myths you repeat are addressed here: http://www.thearma.org/essays/TopMyths.htm I recommend paying attention to their myths number 5,7,18 and 25. Especially 18 is relevant to the piercing issue. As they explain, armor penetration with cuts was impossible, penetration with thrusts was rare and mostly successful when aimed at weak points such as joints. You'd use a halfsworded sharply tapering blade, or indeed other weapons made for such purpose. (such as a dagger. As they also mention "Yet descriptions of fights with specialized weapons designed for fighting plate armor, such as pole-axes and maces, reveal even they were able to pierce through armor only infrequently."")

 

this point is also addressed in this popular-educational PDF made by Albion, probably the most famous modern sword manufacturing company:

 

http://www.albion-swords.com/articles/images/sword-myth-quiz.pdf

 

Swords were made to cut through armour -- FALSE

Period armour was often work- and case-hardened and curved such that it is difficult to hit at a right

angle. Late Medieval thrusting swords -- even the ones with a reinforced point -- were used to thrust

into the gaps in armour, not through the plate.

 

The ARMA myth number 25 addresses your idea of the amount of training and "finesse" required to fight with non-rapier swords.

[Elerond]

Long-sword meant any sword with long cutting blade

Bastard sword refered to irregular swords or swords of uncertain origin

Great Sword is modern term that which don't has any historical preference. But Scottish Claymore in it's Gaelic form (claidheamh mor) means literally great sword, but it was hand and half sword.

German's had Zweihänder which literally means two-hander and is sword type what people usually mean when they speak about great swords.

 

So dividing swords to these three types can be very difficult time to time, as there is no specific specs what sword should have that it could be put in one.