Statistics of Weapons -- what should they model?

[Diagoras]

 

Imagine if you went back in time and effected things so that small-scale combat and individual/party-based mercenary specialist groups were FAR more common. Would the weaponry not have ended up being designed differently, to accommodate what is essentially the demand of invention at the time? I mean, even without all the magic and fiction. Just completely real-world stuff that HAPPENED to have developed a certain way. You go back and replace a certain ruler, and dictate some certain decree, and designs and various other decisions are going to follow that politically-powered decision. Right?

 

That's what I ended up concluding in my previous post.

 

But we need to be careful to avoid assuming that the design of weapon and armor systems was just a random choice. Culture does have some effect, but materials, strategy, and tactics are the rgeal deciders of what's developed and what isn't. The nice thing about magic is that it's a brilliant tweaker of these variables, allowing all sorts of combinations to exist that didn't in the past.

 

 

I'm just curious, here, but, would a hunting bow differ from a military bow? Because I would think they'd be designed differently. I just don't know the specifics. So, could they, for example, go with hunting-type constructions of bows as a more sensical starting point?

 

Hmm...you know that might not be a bad place to start. Look at what people used to hunt lions and tigers as what adventurers might reasonably adapt to hunting manticores and dragons.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Diagoras

[Lephys]

That's what I ended up concluding in my previous post.

 

But we need to be careful to avoid assuming that the design of weapon and armor systems was just a random choice. Culture does have some effect, but materials, strategy, and tactics are the rgeal deciders of what's developed and what isn't. The nice thing about magic is that it's a brilliant tweaker of these variables, allowing all sorts of combinations to exist that didn't in the past.

Oh, not at all, not at all. I didn't mean that it's random. I just meant that certain factors can change what was feasible. You know... places it "never" rains, people aren't likely to carry umbrellas. Go back in time and change that climate, and I bet now people there would have umbrellas. You know... mutually exclusive historical circumstances. 8P.

 

Also, the human decision factor. Look at warfare around the Revolutionary War. Even though marching toward each other and standing about forming ranks wasn't the absolute BEST strategy for being victorious, it was deemed "civil," and preference overruled practicality, to a degree. Go back in time and replace the top brass who demanded "civil" combat, and you'd see people choosing drastically different tactics during the same era, with the same weapons and technology.

 

I've always thought things like that would be interesting. Like... imagine if the Roman empire never fell. But it was now the year 2013. I wonder how our technology and designs would differ. I realize that's a lot more factors and ripples than we can even fathom. But, it would be incredibly interesting to see how that affected things, in reality rather than fiction.

 

The things I ponder...

[TrashMan]

In almost all contexts, yes. The closest thing we have to single men using firearms in the era are sharpshooters on both the defensive and offensive sides during a siege. They may also have played some role in skirmishing during actual field battles, but that is less clear.

Regardless, they served a very specific purpose in a very specific context - and would be almost completely useless in a standard RPG encounter.

 

I disagree.

Plenty of weapons used in large-scale formations are also usefull and effective when used in small groups.

 

While some weapons are more specialzed and usefull in certain situation, it's rarely such a narrow focus that makes it unusable in other situations.

There are techniques and weapon variants for a reason.

 

 

Not really. Plate is far easier to mass produce, as it's capital intensive rather than labor intensive. By the era P:E is set in, "munitions plate" is common and standard gear for professional and semi-professional soldiers includes, at the very least, a breastplate.

The idea that plate armor was more expensive than chain may have held true during the transitional and early plate periods, but a quick examination of the armor of a pikemen from the 1450s onwards should show that it was far more common. P:E seems to be set in an era roughly

equivalent to the 1520s - near or just after the peak of metal armor production and use.

 

Full plate was aways expensive and time-consuming. Armorsmiths that make replicas pretty much agree on this. You are a full of BS.

Breastplates did become more common in mercenary bands and elite troops - who both had money. But mind you, they don't cover the whole body.

And at no time perdiod was plate armor so common thet you expected to see it everywhere. What is even more important is that you aren't going to be facing organized human armies - most of your opponents will be monsters and various creates that either don't have armor, or have cruder ones.

 

 

If you were going to hunt down a dangerous madman hiding in your house, you would not bring along a warhammer, longbow, crossbow, poleaxe, pike, or even a longsword into those cramped quarters. Adventurers seem to spend most of their time in narrow caves and catacombs - what's with all the giant two handed weapons? On the other hand, the more open field situations bring their own concerns in - like why everyone just doesn't wear the best plate they can buy, as I noted. Even just a steel breastplate is a huge advantage, as you're practically invulnerable to

most slashing weapons that hit your chest.

 

Everything that can be used as a weapon and is effective enough will be used.

I COULD use a longsword or a warhammer in a house. And I COULD bash your head in if you came at me with a dagger.

 

After all, there is a reason why not everyone owns the best and most expensive, efficient weapon and armor - the same reason why not everyone struts around in the field plate - because you simply can't get it that easily.

 

Again, we can talk about levels of realism, but it's pointless.

 

 

 

a common tendency to inaccurately depict just how amazing plate armor was

 

Really? I actually feel they do the opposite - make plate severly worse to make other armors equally valid choice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 31, 2013 by TrashMan

[JFSOCC]

can you see it rather than "You must gather your party before venturing forth" the most hated sentence in RPG gaming will become "You cannot use this weapon in confined spaces".

Not that it will bother my main character, My love for Kali will ensure she uses daggers and batons, and a last resort pistol.

[Diagoras]

 

Plenty of weapons used in large-scale formations are also usefull and effective when used in small groups.

 

Can you give examples? Primary sources? Did people commonly keep longswords and warhammers as self-defense weapons?

 

I'm genuinely curious, as my understanding was that outside of cheap daggers and swords, almost all other weapons were military weapons. Similar to how there are relatively few differences between categories of civilian firearms (handgun, shotgun, rifle) compare to military weapons (all of the above plus assault rifles, sniper rifle, grenade launcher, LMG, SMG).

 

 

Full plate was aways expensive and time-consuming. Armorsmiths that make replicas pretty much agree on this. You are a full of BS.

 

If you're going to accuse me of lying, I'd prefer if you'd read what I wrote. I specifically noted that it was munitions plate that became increasingly common, not full plate harness. Munitions plate was the term for cheap, knock-off plate armor that usually consisted of a helmet, cuirass, and some neck/arm/leg protection that was used to protect infantry. But even full plate became cheaper and more accessible, even as it was abandoned for half-plate by most cavalry. Of course, Maximillian or Gothic plate still cost a ridiculous amount, but that wasn't the question.

 

 

Breastplates did become more common in mercenary bands and elite troops - who both had money. But mind you, they don't cover the whole body.

 

First, I believe you're wrong. Breastplates were incredibly common by the 16th century, as a combination of the dropping price of steel production and the increasing professionalization of armies shrank the size of militaries from large peasant levies to increasingly small numbers of professional and semi-professional troops - the end result of a trend that had been going for a few hundred years. Remember, a breastplate refers to just the front part of a cuirass, excluding the backplate. But even the "standard" armor for a pikemen involved at the very least a full cuirass, if not a set of munitions plate. It appears to have varied based on your place in the formation and the specific unit in combat. But every pikemen would wear, at the very least, a steel breastplate.

 

 

And at no time perdiod was plate armor so common thet you expected to see it everywhere.

 

If we're just talking about plate armor components as opposed to full plate harness, then I believe you're wrong. The 15th and 16th centuries saw an explosion in the use of metal armor and a corresponding drop in the size of armies as they professionalized. On a 16th century battlefield, you'd expect every pikeman, every cavalryman, and even every gunner to be wearing some amount of plate armor - a breastplate at the very least, but often more. That's one of the major reasons that firearms displaced bows on the battlefield at every tier of skill - because bows lacked the armor penetration at range that firearms had against armies that increasingly involved men in some amount of plate armor.

 

 

 What is even more important is that you aren't going to be facing organized human armies - most of your opponents will be monsters and various creates that either don't have armor, or have cruder ones.

 

IIRC, I was talking about what PCs would wear, not enemies.

 

 

Everything that can be used as a weapon and is effective enough will be used.

I COULD use a longsword or a warhammer in a house.

 

Yes, but that wouldn't be very clever. Are we assuming stupid adventurers?

 

 

After all, there is a reason why not everyone owns the best and most expensive, efficient weapon and armor - the same reason why not everyone struts around in the field plate - because you simply can't get it that easily.

 

That's my whole point. Normally, there isn't a "best  and most expensive, efficient weapon and armor" because of the variety of military weapons that existed to counter each other and specific enemies. When you get to the general case (ie. adventuring), many of these specific weapons are just inferior to their generic equivalent. What's the point of a pike without a pike formation? What's the point of a warhammer if you're not fighting enemies in plate?

 

 

Again, we can talk about levels of realism, but it's pointless.

 

Why? You don't think it's worth asking why we'd statistically model real weapons before we do it? My point is, while reality is a helpful reference to achieve verisimilitude, you have to figure out how your gameplay mechanics and setting work and then work backwards from them - though you can still be inspired by certain era. But slavishly modeling the complete weapon and armors of the 16th century is unhelpful, as there's a good chance that 99% of them aren't going into the game as they are in real life.

 

 

Really? I actually feel they do the opposite - make plate severly worse to make other armors equally valid choice.

 

That's what I said, I think. There's a reason why everyone who could use plate, did use plate on the battlefield. And why it became so common.

Edited January 31, 2013 by Diagoras

[TrashMan]

 

Can you give examples? Primary sources? Did people commonly keep longswords and warhammers as self-defense weapons?

 

I'm genuinely curious, as my understanding was that outside of cheap daggers and swords, almost all other weapons were military weapons.

Similar to how there are relatively few differences between categories of civilian firearms (handgun, shotgun, rifle) compare to military weapons (all of the above plus assault rifles, sniper rifle, grenade

launcher, LMG, SMG).

 

You answered your own question.

 

Civilians of today use handguns for self-defnse, because it's not necessary to get anything better. And it's not easy to get to boot.

An assult rifle or a carabine/SMG is no doubt superior - in both RoF, precision and lethality... yet a common citizen doesn't need it. And yet you still have some citizen that do have it.

 

Your aventuring party doesn't have much in common with civilians. They have more in comon with mercenary bands - and mercenary bands did use military weapons. Blackwater and similar companies don't use handguns as their primary weapons.

 

The idea that a wepon like a pike or a zweihander is useless outside of a formation is redicolous. There are teachniques and stlyes developed for 1-on-1 combat. Additions that have little practical value in large formation warfare.

 

 

 

If you're going to accuse me of lying, I'd prefer if you'd read what I wrote. I specifically noted that it was munitions plate that became increasingly common, not full plate harness. Munitions

plate was the term for cheap, knock-off plate armor that usually consisted of a helmet, cuirass, and some neck/arm/leg protection that was used to protect infantry. But even full plate became cheaper and more accessible, even as it was abandoned for half-plate by most cavalry. Of course, Maximillian or Gothic plate still cost a ridiculous amount, but that wasn't the question.[/qutoe]

 

My bad - still munition plate was neither as thick or as well-made a full plate, nor did it protect as well.

Therefore, a guy with a dagger can still kill a guy in munitions plate...especially if he was something like a stiletto.

 

 

 

IIRC, I was talking about what PCs would wear, not enemies.

 

Then why were you complaining about a PC with dagger being ineffective? Unless I misunderstood you somewhere along the line.

 

 

 

Yes,

but that wouldn't be very clever. Are we assuming stupid adventurers?

 

Wouldn't be clever? Sez who?

When I bash the head of the intruder, we'll see who's laughing. Houses aren't that small ya know.

 

 

That's my whole point. Normally, there isn't a "best  and most expensive, efficient weapon and armor" because of the variety of military weapons that existed to counter each other and specific

enemies. When you get to the general case (ie. adventuring), many of these specific weapons are just inferior to their generic equivalent.

What's the point of a pike without a pike formation? What's the point of a warhammer if you're not fighting enemies in plate?

 

Because a warhammer is ineffective against peopel not in plate?

Dude, the opposite - against someone in leather or chainmail, a warhamemr would break half the bones in their body.

It's actually the worst against the plate, simply because plate is rigid and distributes the blunt force. Lether or chan offers practiacly NO protection whatsoever against a hammer blow.

 

Pike? Pike has range. It has a piercing tip, a hook. Various version of polearms can get even nastier. It is a versatile weapon and only in confined spaces does it loose it's shine. Pike does have a point without a pike formation. A deadly weapon is a deadly weapon.

 

[TRX850]

Because a warhammer is ineffective against peopel not in plate?

Dude, the opposite - against someone in leather or chainmail, a warhamemr would break half the bones in their body.

It's actually the worst against the plate, simply because plate is rigid and distributes the blunt force. Lether or chan offers practiacly NO protection whatsoever against a hammer blow.

 

That's not entirely accurate.

 

Back in my SCA days, my plate armoured sparring partners and I put this to the test, and I can assure you an impact weapon is *very* effective against plate armour.

 

Chain armour or anything non-rigid will inevitably be worse against a hammer or mace etc, but plate is in no way a safeguard against crushing weapons.

[Diagoras]

Could I see citations for any of those claims of individual or small unit tactic use of pikes? Or of an established tradition of small unit tactics in general, including weapons? Because as far as I was aware, the military tradition of Western Europe at the time was the development of tactics and weapons for large-scale warfare - with most weapons being designed to integrate into the larger weapons system of the unit they were used in.

[PrimeJunta]

One thing that's annoyed me no end in all cRPG's I've played is how difficult it is to block enemy movement. At most you suffer an attack of opportunity when moving past someone, and what with the hit points to damage ratios we have, that's often a small price to pay. The upshot is that the most you can do is block a door, and that by packing several meat shields shoulder to shoulder in front of it.

 

I would like to see combat mechanics that fixed this. Basically, you should not be able to move through an active enemy's zone of control at all. Then you could add things specifically to deal with this -- a short-duration stun effect that would allow you to pass the stunned enemy, a rogue special ability that would let you tumble through it, and so on.

 

And I would like to see this worked into weapon mechanics. Reach and facing would become way more important. Two swordsmen facing two spearmen would be a standoff, but replace the swordsman with an acrobatic rogue who's able to tumble past the spearmen to get behind them, and the whole situation will change.

 

This would make combat much more tactical. Positioning would matter. There would be such a thing as a defensive line. Getting behind one could swing the entire battle. It would be more RTS-y, yes, but IMO in a good way, and in a way that would enhance the entire game.

[Diagoras]

That does sound good, PrimeJunta - and I may be reading between the lines here, but I think that's the sort of stuff Obsidian has been talking about in terms of making the tactical combat more tactical.

[Lephys]

One thing that's annoyed me no end in all cRPG's I've played is how difficult it is to block enemy movement. 

 

That, and to intentionally control enemy movement in any capacity (lure, turn, reposition, etc.). I think 99% of the typical systems have basically assumed one only two things:

 

A) You wish to get away from the enemy, specifically for the purposes of avoiding damage.

B) You wish to move towards/to an enemy, specifically for the purposes of attacking or direct engagement.

 

RPGs typically don't like to give us ways for our characters to INTENTIONALLY block/relocate/lure enemies.

 

Spontaneous, slightly-relevant thought: I want a fear spell/effect that actually lets me herd enemies into a field of traps, or a corridor/corner of a room or something. Not just "run sort of maybe away from me, and maybe just in whatever direction. The main point is that you're not doing damage to me or my party, so this is a stun, only more annoying."

 

But, yeah, I know spells typically give you roots and paralysis, but I want to see stuff that can easily be done with weapons/physical-combat be available.

 

I'm with Diagoras. I know we don't have all the info yet, but I got a REALLY good feeling when I read about the Fighter's Defender modal ability, and the Rogue's Reversal. Not to mention simple strategic things, such as the Wizard's familiar's ability to serve as the source of spell targeting.

[jamoecw]

well being a military history buff i can tell you that quite a few weapons have been used in small unit combats, in fact more so than that of which was used in large formations.  being in the military i can tell you that, as far as small arms goes, there is far more diversity in the civilian market than the military.  most crpgs try to recreate the 'romantic middle ages' and thus fail to accurately represent historical reality.

 

modern example:

in the military there are: assault rifles, handguns, shotguns, precision rifles (not sniper rifles), anti material rifles, rpgs, grenade launchers, saws, smgs, grenades.

civilian: gallery target rifles, hunting rifles, survival rifles, high power target rifles, target handguns, hunting handguns, self defense handguns, sport shotguns, hunting shotguns, street sweepers, machine pistols, starter pistols, flare guns, and all of the military weapons in a modified form.

 

large military requires uniformity for logistics, while civilians and small units do not.  various weapons are not feasible in formations, while some weapons require special training to use when not in formation.

 

plate armor is awesome at protecting someone, while it has drawbacks, such as poor repairability in field, slow donning and doffing (even with help), requires lots of metal (relatively) and skilled labor.  chain mail on the other hand is much more friendly to people away from civilization.  cloth armors (leather, linothorax, padded cloth) were comfortable and light.

 

there are lots and lots of different things one could look at when making a realistic model, but when it is simplified, things don't always add up.  i don't know if any of you played darklands at all, but from the developer video talking about how they wanted combat to go it sounded like they were going in the same direction.  it sounds as if they found the issue that when it is done that way you would only have reason for say 2-4 weapons for your entire group:

1-armor piercing weapon, melee

2-high damage weapon, melee

3-ranged weapon

4-back up weapon

you may only use 2 weapons depending on preference, but too simple of weapon structure ends up with very few weapons being used, which is actually quite realistic, though not very fun.  in fact the only time period that jumps out at me that had a variety of weapons in use by small units was early helenistic.

[TrashMan]

 

Because a warhammer is ineffective against peopel not in plate?

Dude, the opposite - against someone in leather or chainmail, a warhamemr would break half the bones in their body.

It's actually the worst against the plate, simply because plate is rigid and distributes the blunt force. Lether or chan offers practiacly NO protection whatsoever against a hammer blow.

 

That's not entirely accurate.

 

Back in my SCA days, my plate armoured sparring partners and I put this to the test, and I can assure you an impact weapon is *very* effective against plate armour.

 

Chain armour or anything non-rigid will inevitably be worse against a hammer or mace etc, but plate is in no way a safeguard against crushing weapons.

 

How is that not accurate?

 

Of all armors, plate fairs best against blunt weapons like hammers. True or not?

[TRX850]

 

 

Because a warhammer is ineffective against peopel not in plate?

Dude, the opposite - against someone in leather or chainmail, a warhamemr would break half the bones in their body.

It's actually the worst against the plate, simply because plate is rigid and distributes the blunt force. Lether or chan offers practiacly NO protection whatsoever against a hammer blow.

 

That's not entirely accurate.

 

Back in my SCA days, my plate armoured sparring partners and I put this to the test, and I can assure you an impact weapon is *very* effective against plate armour.

 

Chain armour or anything non-rigid will inevitably be worse against a hammer or mace etc, but plate is in no way a safeguard against crushing weapons.

 

How is that not accurate?

 

Of all armors, plate fairs best against blunt weapons like hammers. True or not?

 

I meant the bit about distributing blunt force. When a weapon/object strikes another object, it's a transfer of energy in the direction of travel. And so that energy has to go somewhere. A large scale example is a tsunami: it doesn't hit the first row of buildings it comes to then travels upward and stops. It keeps travelling forward. Plate armour doesn't dissipate blunt force for the same reason. It's the energy transfer that causes the damage. Plate is better as deflecting thrusting weapons than other armours though.

[PrimeJunta]

Interesting tangent, this. How does padded armor do against blunt force? Or, put another way, how thick would the padding have to be turn a life-threatening hammer blow into one that just knocked the wind out of you?

 

How about a Kevlar vest?

[TRX850]

I don't know the exact physics behind energy distribution. If we had some engineers or physics types here, they could answer that. On its own, padded armour does seem a bit wasted, but I suppose it's an abstract system that has to demonstrate a perceived difference between nothing and "slightly better than nothing".

 

I'm sure there's a formulaic thickness of "absorbent" material you could place between your body and the inside of your plate armour that would reduce the energy transfer. The more padding though, the hotter and more uncomfortable it will be. My SCA friends and I had rubber-foam-lined plate (12 gauge stainless steel with 10 gauge reinforcement around pivot points like elbows and knees), over a double-quilted gabardine. And while it gave the perception of protection against stabbing and bladed weapons, anytime you were struck hard, especially with an impact weapon like a mace, it was clear that the advantage was lost.

 

Even with modern materials like Kevlar, which are designed to prevent high velocity piercing, they still leave impact wounds on the body.

Edited February 4, 2013 by TRX850

[TrashMan]

@ TRX850

 

I'm curious - how period accurate were your armors and weapons?

I'm asking because that are a LOT of low-quality replicas out there, and they really handle completely different than the real thing. Which is why I look at really reputable sources - like ARMA.

[general_azure]

Someone called for a physicist? =P

 

Basic mechanics say the two straightforward ways to protect against pretty much any impact are large stiff plates (to increase the area pushed against your chest, decreasing pressure) and padding (to stretch the timeframe in which momentum is transfered to your squishy parts, which is equivalent to reducing force). The former should make a larger difference due to quadratic scaling, but that doesn't mean padding can be ignored. Note that total energy and momentum transfer doesn't care about either one, it just increases the space/time in which that transfer has to take place.

 

Kevlar without ceramic or metal plate inlays is usually a bad idea, the kevlar mesh will keep the weapon from entering your body, but it will barely absorb or distribute the impact. Meaning your chest will have to do that instead.

Should work well against cutting though.

[Diagoras]

 

well being a military history buff i can tell you that quite a few weapons have been used in small unit combats, in fact more so than that of which was used in large formations.

 

Could I see a citation? Primary if possible, but secondary would also be fine. We're talking about the Late Medieval period, to be clear. As mass combat was the standard, I'd be surprised to see military weapons and tactics developed for small-unit tactics - excluding thing like dueling, of course.

 

 

plate armor is awesome at protecting someone, while it has drawbacks, such as poor repairability in field, slow donning and doffing (even with help), requires lots of metal (relatively) and skilled labor.

 

All of that I'd agree with - except the skilled labor part. My understanding is that plate armor is primarily capital intensive (ie. really big ovens, good steel) while mail is labor intensive (ie. getting someone well-trained to hammer all those little links). This is why you see an explosion in the use of plate armor that you never saw with chainmail - it's way easier to scale capital than to scale skilled labor.

[TRX850]

Someone called for a physicist? =P

 

Basic mechanics say the two straightforward ways to protect against pretty much any impact are large stiff plates (to increase the area pushed against your chest, decreasing pressure) and padding (to stretch the timeframe in which momentum is transfered to your squishy parts, which is equivalent to reducing force). The former should make a larger difference due to quadratic scaling, but that doesn't mean padding can be ignored. Note that total energy and momentum transfer doesn't care about either one, it just increases the space/time in which that transfer has to take place.

 

Kevlar without ceramic or metal plate inlays is usually a bad idea, the kevlar mesh will keep the weapon from entering your body, but it will barely absorb or distribute the impact. Meaning your chest will have to do that instead.

Should work well against cutting though.

 

My earlier point was along the lines of your example here.  When a bludgeoning weapon like a warhammer or maul strikes plate armour, the weapon surface area and contact mass tend to be higher than say, the edge of a sword blade or spear tip.  So whilst all weapon types can potentially cause great injury, either from blunt force energy or slashing/piercing damage, there's a definite advantage to wielding a blunt weapon against plate armour.  Also, plate armour tends to have "deflection ribs" that deflect thrust attacks away from the center of mass.  Therefore:

 

Thrusting = Good.

Slashing = Better.

Blunt = Best.

[general_azure]

That larger weapon surface area is actually decreasing performance, put a good pointy spike on that hammer and you'd get a real armor killer. Same total energy/momentum transfer with the added chance of penetrating plate due to increased shear stress. Though this might have trouble with getting stuck in the armor or the spike breaking off if it's too thin/sharp , so not sure how viable that would be. Don't try on your friend, in any case.

[TRX850]

That larger weapon surface area is actually decreasing performance, put a good pointy spike on that hammer and you'd get a real armor killer. Same total energy/momentum transfer with the added chance of penetrating plate due to increased shear stress. Though this might have trouble with getting stuck in the armor or the spike breaking off if it's too thin/sharp , so not sure how viable that would be. Don't try on your friend, in any case.

 

Well yes, like a spiked club or morning star for example.  Various polearms throughout history also acted as armour "can openers".  The point (no pun intended) is that there is usually more mass focused at the point of contact with a blunt weapon, and therefore more energy transfer.  So if you struck plate mail with a longsword using STR x and SPEED y, then struck the same plate mail with a maul using STR x and SPEED y, the maul would do more damage because more of the weapon's weight and mass is at the contact point than the longsword.

 

Has anyone ever tried hammering in nails with the flat of a sword?  There's a reason it would be ineffective.  Assuming a warhammer and longsword were the same overall weight, the warhammer is effective because more of its weight and mass is at the contact point that drives the nail in.

Edited February 6, 2013 by TRX850

[jamoecw]

 

 

well being a military history buff i can tell you that quite a few weapons have been used in small unit combats, in fact more so than that of which was used in large formations.

 

Could I see a citation? Primary if possible, but secondary would also be fine. We're talking about the Late Medieval period, to be clear. As mass combat was the standard, I'd be surprised to see military weapons and tactics developed for small-unit tactics - excluding thing like dueling, of course.

 

> 

plate armor is awesome at protecting someone, while it has drawbacks, such as poor repairability in field, slow donning and doffing (even with help), requires lots of metal (relatively) and skilled labor.

 

All of that I'd agree with - except the skilled labor part. My understanding is that plate armor is primarily capital intensive (ie. really big ovens, good steel) while mail is labor intensive (ie. getting someone well-trained to hammer all those little links). This is why you see an explosion in the use of plate armor that you never saw with chainmail - it's way easier to scale capital than to scale skilled labor.

 

http://www.arador.com/construction/armourstart.html

it doesn't directly state that plate is harder to make, but it does hint at it.  if you think about it with mail, you are forging links, which are then assembled and riveted (most likely) into a shape, thus you don't need experienced armorers except to make the links.  with plate, you need to make several form fitting sheets of metal, which is not as simple as just making the same link over and over (oversimplification of forging components for mail).

 

well for just the medieval period, and europe itself does narrow it considerably, though any knight sought out and fought other knights, and did in fact operate in small units when needed.  thus any weapon used by a knight was used in small unit tactics:

 

archery stuff:

 

pretty much weapons that needed room to use was mainly a small unit weapon.  a formation of pikes was very different than a group of men with 2 handed swords.  with pikes you could have men beside you and behind you helping out, but with great swords people to the side of you would limit your ability to swing and fight, and those behind you could really help out.

[TrashMan]

 

 

Well yes, like a spiked club or morning star for example.  Various polearms throughout history also acted as armour "can openers".  The point (no pun intended) is that there is usually more mass focused at the point of contact with a blunt weapon, and therefore more energy transfer.  So if you struck plate mail with a longsword using STR x and SPEED y, then struck the same plate mail with a maul using STR x and SPEED y, the maul would do more damage because more of the weapon's weight and mass is at the contact point than the longsword.

 

Has anyone ever tried hammering in nails with the flat of a sword?  There's a reason it would be ineffective.  Assuming a warhammer and longsword were the same overall weight, the warhammer is effective because more of its weight and mass is at the contact point that drives the nail in.

 

When you add a spike, you aren't really doing blunt damage anymore, but piercing...or should I say, you're doing primarily piercing, since blunt is a constant companion.

 

And all that mass at the tip of maces/hammers and such also makes them more sluggish and difficult to recover.

[Bitula]

I like compexity and realism. So the more complex and the more realistic is the better for me. I just wonder who else shares this view/desire...