Topic: Realism and combat
Started by: Ariakas
Started on: 6/8/2002
Board: The Riddle of Steel
On 6/8/2002 at 9:21am, Ariakas wrote:
Realism and combat
Greetings, everyone. I have come to address the matter of tRoS's combat system and the realism it seeks to create when in action.
Every FRPG I've ever seen has the players trying to get the biggest weapons they can find and effortlessly chop up the opposition with them. The use of, say, unarmed attacks or a small weapon, like a dagger, is almost unheard of, save for when one needs to conceal a weapon or only knock a foe out instead of kill him.
I've played around with tRoS's combat system and I think it's great. However, as a combat system geared toward realism, I have a slight problem with it. You see, every weapon is considered equal in that anyone can pick up and use any weapon as proficiently as any other weapon. As such, anyone going into battle with a dagger to face someone with, say, a polearm, is pretty much screwed no matter what. Because of this, I have devised a method to 'balance' the game's weapons. The idea is not to make it so that no weapon is superior to another, but rather to take into consideration that some weapons are just easier to use than others. Take your fists, for example. You've always got them (usually), and most anyone can fight someone with them. Now, take something heavier, like a maul. Naturally, no one uses a maul as skillfully as they do their fists.
Anyway, this method of mine involves adding an activation cost to actions made with larger weapons. I'll leave the exact rules on this up to you guys. Attacking bare-handed or with a dagger might not require any activation cost, but swinging that big heavy maul might require you to spend 2 or 3 extra dice to use it proficiently. I realize that adding expenses in this manner to someone's attack doesn't make the system any more realistic speed-wise, but it does reflect the increased difficulty to use bigger, heavier weapons proficiently.
When I tried this method of mine, the players told me it was great that they could finally select the weapons they wanted to use, and not just the most damaging one they could find. It seems to have added another level of realism to the combat system; using it, a player's choice of weapon can have greater ramifacations on how he fares in battle, and that's how I think it should be. After all, who would try to fence with a two-handed greatsword?
Well, that's my take on the whole realistic combat thing. As for the system, it's great, with or without my new rules. Keep up the excellent work.
On 6/8/2002 at 12:51pm, Wolfen wrote:
RE: Realism and combat
Hi Ariakas,
I think you make a valid point. A friend of mine, an SCA fighter, mentions that if you are using a greatsword, and you miss, you may not get another shot if your opponent is using a lighter weapon, due to the weight. I sorta discounted that, and didn't think much of it until you brought it back up.. Fact is, you're probably right. If you HIT with the greatsword, game over, most likely, for me. If you miss though, that'll give me time to get in there and nail you, because you're trying to get your sword back around to parry. For this, I would propose the following rules additions to mass weapons and certain types of polearms, and when slashing only...
You do not get a penalty to attack CP on the first action after an initiative roll. This reflects that you have your weapon ready to strike, and can get it into play pretty quickly.
If you miss an attack due to a dodge, you get a penalty to defense CP on the next action, whilst you bring your weapon back into position. Say, 1 or 2 CP, tops. This only counts if you are defending with the weapon, though.
If B beats A's successes by a margin of two or more, then A gets a penalty equal to half of B's success margin, rounded down, on his defense next round. Again, this only applies to defending with the weapon, not dodging or blocking with a shield.
If both attack simultaneously, mass weapons get a -1 die on their reflex roll for determining initiative.
But then again, after taking a look at the weapons and their ATNs/DTNs, I think most of my suggestions are unnecessary. The ATN/DTN of heavier, harder to use weapons is higher, which I believe reflects the speed at which they are wielded. Likewise, the shortsword and punch have low ATN/DTNs to reflect that they are easy to use.
Eh, I dunno. It could go either way, I guess. It would depend on how you choose to run things, and your overall familiarity with actual combat techniques, and the advantages/disadvantages of light -vs- heavy weapons. Jake, care to shed some light on this?
One thing I do think is odd, upon further inspection, is the high ATN for daggers, though. Admittedly, they would be difficult weapons to use against a larger weapon, but that is reflected by the length penalties, I think. Two dagger fighters would, I think, fare about as well as two brawlers, though the results would be much bloodier.
On 6/8/2002 at 2:08pm, Bob Richter wrote:
Re: Realism and combat
Ariakas wrote: Greetings, everyone. I have come to address the matter of tRoS's combat system and the realism it seeks to create when in action.
Every FRPG I've ever seen has the players trying to get the biggest weapons they can find and effortlessly chop up the opposition with them. The use of, say, unarmed attacks or a small weapon, like a dagger, is almost unheard of, save for when one needs to conceal a weapon or only knock a foe out instead of kill him.
I've played around with tRoS's combat system and I think it's great. However, as a combat system geared toward realism, I have a slight problem with it. You see, every weapon is considered equal in that anyone can pick up and use any weapon as proficiently as any other weapon. As such, anyone going into battle with a dagger to face someone with, say, a polearm, is pretty much screwed no matter what. Because of this, I have devised a method to 'balance' the game's weapons. The idea is not to make it so that no weapon is superior to another, but rather to take into consideration that some weapons are just easier to use than others. Take your fists, for example. You've always got them (usually), and most anyone can fight someone with them. Now, take something heavier, like a maul. Naturally, no one uses a maul as skillfully as they do their fists.
Anyway, this method of mine involves adding an activation cost to actions made with larger weapons. I'll leave the exact rules on this up to you guys. Attacking bare-handed or with a dagger might not require any activation cost, but swinging that big heavy maul might require you to spend 2 or 3 extra dice to use it proficiently. I realize that adding expenses in this manner to someone's attack doesn't make the system any more realistic speed-wise, but it does reflect the increased difficulty to use bigger, heavier weapons proficiently.
When I tried this method of mine, the players told me it was great that they could finally select the weapons they wanted to use, and not just the most damaging one they could find. It seems to have added another level of realism to the combat system; using it, a player's choice of weapon can have greater ramifacations on how he fares in battle, and that's how I think it should be. After all, who would try to fence with a two-handed greatsword?
Well, that's my take on the whole realistic combat thing. As for the system, it's great, with or without my new rules. Keep up the excellent work.
It's been my experience that the "Biggest Weapon Theory" doesn't hold in tRoS as-is. But, hey, whatever suits you.
You mention fencing with a two-handed Greatsword.
I feel a combat example coming on.
As it turns out, that's not the greatest idea in tRoS.
I'm going to put Greatsword Joe (who KNOWS that Greatswords are the best thing ever) with 8 CP (and all relevant attribs 4) up against Jack Rapier (uses a Rapier and Buckler), with a similar CP in a shirtsleeves duel over Jack's Mother's Honor.
Now, Joe read his tRoS manual, and thus cautiously chooses a defensive stance, unwittingly telegraphing his die throw.
Jack also chooses to telegraph by taking the Agressive stance.
Dice are thrown.
White. Red (Jack was angry, and he just wants to stick this sumbiatch.)
Jack chooses a straightforward Thrust-to-end-all thrusts: nine dice to the chest (zone XII.) Since he lost a die to Joe's reach, this drains his combat pool: A bold move.
Joe uses his defensive stance to full effect, tossing ten dice for a defensive parry.
Jack rolls against his ATN 5 and gets the (strangely unrandom) result of [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9], yielding 5 successes.
Joe rolls against his DTN 7 and gets the (remarkably similar) result of [10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1], yielding a mere four sucesses.
OH MY GOD! JOE FAILED THE PARRY.
This is going to hurt.
The Rapier's base damage (in my manual, anyway) is STR + 3 (+margin) for a total of 8.
Joe isn't wearing armor, and thus only reduces the damage by his toughness (4.)
A d6 is thrown: 6
Hm.
Chest Shot.
Blood Loss 19
Shock: 13 (bye-bye Combat Pool)
Pain: 13-WP(4): 9 (eh. Double bye-bye Combat Pool)
"Punctured lung with, with serious internal bleeding, death from drowning is very likely."
This duel is clearly over.
On further examination, you will see that Joe was dead the minute he took on a Rapierman with a Greatsword and without armor. Even had he gone offensive, the BEST result he could realistically have hoped for was simply to take Jack with him.
Joe is wising up. He'll use the insight from this one to make a Sorceror who will Smite Jack Rapier. :)
On 6/8/2002 at 2:14pm, Bob Richter wrote:
RE: Realism and combat
Wolfen wrote:
One thing I do think is odd, upon further inspection, is the high ATN for daggers, though. Admittedly, they would be difficult weapons to use against a larger weapon, but that is reflected by the length penalties, I think. Two dagger fighters would, I think, fare about as well as two brawlers, though the results would be much bloodier.
Eh. Actually, parrying or blocking a Dagger is quite difficult.
Usually it's just more effective to stick the guy. (why isn't Thrust a defensive maneuver?)
Thus why Dagger fights are usually quite short. :)
I dunno about the high ATNs though. Maybe Jake can explain the thinking on that?
On 6/8/2002 at 2:24pm, Jaif wrote:
RE: Realism and combat
You see, every weapon is considered equal in that anyone can pick up and use any weapon as proficiently as any other weapon.
No. The manuevers available can be very different. A dagger guy is punching & grappling also: a polearm guy has none of that.
Weapons also have social differences: it's a lot easier to walk into an inn with a dagger than with a polearm.
As to your main point about mass, I think that's covered by the ATNs and DTNs of the weapons. (e.g. Maul = A8/D10, Fist = A5/D6) You may have an argument that, say, daggers aren't given their due, but I think your overall modifications are excessive.
What you may consider is a minimum strength to use these weapons effectively. Obviously Grandma w/her str of 2 shouldn't be tossing a maul about, even if she is fantastic w/the rolling pin.
After all, who would try to fence with a two-handed greatsword?
People did fence with two-handed greatswords: http://www.thehaca.com/manuals.htm, look especially down the page at "Goliath":
Anonymous English manuscript from the late-1400s/early-1500s - Goliath. A significant work covering unarmored great-sword combat and wrestling.
More generally, if you want to make a case for changes to the system, I think you owe it to yourself to check out the background for the system available at the main riddle site. You may disagree, but they do present a large amount of documentation for the combat system; frankly, tons more than most any other game.
-Jeff
On 6/8/2002 at 2:45pm, Jaif wrote:
RE: Realism and combat
As mild counter to what Bob wrote:
- The rapier is a wonder weapon. In fact, there's been some discussion on this board that the rapier a) has too high a damage bonus in general, and b) is far too effective against heavy armor. For now, take it out of the running, and the greatsword/longsword fares somewhat better, but will still lose to cut & thrust styles in no-armor matches.
- The greatsword is really best used when everybody's got lots of armor on. Then you can take the hits, and have the power to dish some out yourself.
- In point of fact, armor changes the game. For my money, mass & shield is the best system in the game once you get heavily armored opponents. Sword & shield may be the best "generic" form of combat. All others shine more in some circumstances than others. (Pugilism's great in a barroom brawl.)
-Jeff
On 6/8/2002 at 2:58pm, Bob Richter wrote:
RE: Realism and combat
Jaif wrote: As mild counter to what Bob wrote:
- The rapier is a wonder weapon. In fact, there's been some discussion on this board that the rapier a) has too high a damage bonus in general, and b) is far too effective against heavy armor. For now, take it out of the running, and the greatsword/longsword fares somewhat better, but will still lose to cut & thrust styles in no-armor matches.
-Jeff
There's a reason it was a favored dueling sword for some three centuries or so in Europe (from near its invention to the death of sword-dueling.)
The Rapier is lethal (no bones about it) on a thrust, and difficult to defend against. Its overall damage bonus seems quite correct to me.
But, yes, as it stands, it is overly effective against armor. When meeting heavy armor, a Rapier has two options: 1) Bend. 2) Break.
I think I'd put an upper bound on Rapier Damage (8 or 9) and *MAYBE* drop the thrust damage to STR + 2.
The problems of Rapier interaction with armor were why I specified that it was a shirtsleeves duel. I didn't want to mess with it.
On 6/8/2002 at 3:34pm, Jaif wrote:
RE: Realism and combat
There's a reason it was a favored dueling sword for some three centuries or so in Europe (from near its invention to the death of sword-dueling.)
Agreed. When I called it a wonder weapon, I was referring to that. The point being that you can put most weapons in the game up against the rapier in a 1-on-1, no armor situation and the result should, and likely will, go to the rapier.
aside - big rapier discussion: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2196&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=rapier&start=0
I've searched, but can not find one thing. I believe Jake said that they were officially reducing the rapier's damage to +2, and allowing it to feint starting w/a thrust. He also (in the thread I referenced) seemed keen on the idea of reducing damage further against heavy armors, but I'm not sure he went the distance for that one. As far as I'm concerned, the heavy armor issue & feints are the important ones, and the damage is obviously debatable, though I tend to favor +2.
-Jeff
P.S. Frankly, I'd treat the rapier as the exact opposite of a mass weapon, so it would have (say) a -2 against hard armors, and a -x shock.
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 2196
On 6/8/2002 at 4:11pm, Jake Norwood wrote:
RE: Realism and combat
I agree with the rapier mods for armor. Pretty much all of them.
As for the SCA guy talking about the non-elegance of the greatsword...
Bullcrap. The greatsword is blindingly fast in the hands of someone who has trained with it, not just "played" with it. I used to belong to the SCA a few years back, and while I'm glad they're having a good time, they're also just playing a game, and rarely is there any real training or historical technique in what they do. My attempt is NOT to bash the SCA, but to kinda boldly sorta say that SCA experience is really pretty much moot when discussing real fighting with real weapons...any of them. If you want more details private message me. I had a wonderful time fighting and goofing off with the SCA guys, but it isn't a martial art.
As discussed the ATN/DTN issue covers things like mass and clumsyness of weapons. There is not need at all for additional die penalties. Every weapon in TROS is modelled as best as we could according to real models. Long recovery time for a maul? You allready paid for it when you used 4 more dice than usual for an attack, draining next exchanges' possible defense. You want to use a dagger vs. a polearm...right... Are you looking for realism or cinematism? I love both, but the distinction is important. Daggers vs. Polarms are for the brave, stupid, or Riddle-masters. In a cinematic game, though, that might be fun.
The high ATN of a dagger...yeah, it's probably a bit excessive. I'm considering dropping it by one in my home games now that I've begun to train weekly with the dagger. On the other hand, it's still easier to grap or punch a guy than to knife him (get some rubber knives, read some of the dagger plates from thearma.org, and go out and try it with a friend...you'll see what I mean). Part of the difficulty isn't sticking your opponent, but doing that in a way that keeps you less open. That's part of the ATN, too--not just attacking, but attacking wisely.
Anyway, this is a great thread. Keep it up.
Jake
On 6/8/2002 at 4:32pm, Wolfen wrote:
RE: Realism and combat
As for the SCA guy talking about the non-elegance of the greatsword...
Bullcrap. The greatsword is blindingly fast in the hands of someone who has trained with it, not just "played" with it.
I overemphasized my point, mostly by omission, methinks. What was said was that, all things being relatively equal (size, speed, skill and armor of the opponents) that if a greatsword misses, a lighter weapon can use the split-second to get in and strike while the greatsword is coming back into play. He was not at all denigrating the greatsword, considering that it was one of his favorite weapons.
If you want more details private message me. I had a wonderful time fighting and goofing off with the SCA guys, but it isn't a martial art.
Actually, been intending to do just that...
On 6/8/2002 at 4:50pm, Bob Richter wrote:
RE: Realism and combat
Jaif wrote:There's a reason it was a favored dueling sword for some three centuries or so in Europe (from near its invention to the death of sword-dueling.)
Agreed. When I called it a wonder weapon, I was referring to that. The point being that you can put most weapons in the game up against the rapier in a 1-on-1, no armor situation and the result should, and likely will, go to the rapier.
aside - big rapier discussion: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2196&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=rapier&start=0
I've searched, but can not find one thing. I believe Jake said that they were officially reducing the rapier's damage to +2, and allowing it to feint starting w/a thrust. He also (in the thread I referenced) seemed keen on the idea of reducing damage further against heavy armors, but I'm not sure he went the distance for that one. As far as I'm concerned, the heavy armor issue & feints are the important ones, and the damage is obviously debatable, though I tend to favor +2.
-Jeff
P.S. Frankly, I'd treat the rapier as the exact opposite of a mass weapon, so it would have (say) a -2 against hard armors, and a -x shock.
Hm. I like treating it like a Scimitar-on-the-cut. That's better than what I was thinking of, and would yield fairly realistic results.
The damage for the Rapier _has_ been officially decreased to +2 (I forget where that one is, too.) I was just going with what's in my book, 'cause I'm not sure what ELSE is going to change before the August edition.
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 2196
On 6/8/2002 at 6:15pm, Bankuei wrote:
RE: Realism and combat
the high ATN of a dagger...yeah, it's probably a bit excessive. I'm considering dropping it by one in my home games now that I've begun to train weekly with the dagger. On the other hand, it's still easier to grap or punch a guy than to knife him (get some rubber knives, read some of the dagger plates from thearma.org, and go out and try it with a friend...you'll see what I mean).
Actually, coming from a martial art that specializes in daggers, the main cause of that is that most people stick for the body/head. Knives are great defensively and offensively if you go for arms until you close in, then start for the meatier targets. Of course, I definitely would drop the ATN on knives, because they are not that much harder to use than your fists, it just requires a slightly different mentality on how to apply them.
Chris
On 6/8/2002 at 6:42pm, Ace wrote:
RE: Realism and combat
Bankuei wrote:the high ATN of a dagger...yeah, it's probably a bit excessive. I'm considering dropping it by one in my home games now that I've begun to train weekly with the dagger. On the other hand, it's still easier to grap or punch a guy than to knife him (get some rubber knives, read some of the dagger plates from thearma.org, and go out and try it with a friend...you'll see what I mean).
Actually, coming from a martial art that specializes in daggers, the main cause of that is that most people stick for the body/head. Knives are great defensively and offensively if you go for arms until you close in, then start for the meatier targets. Of course, I definitely would drop the ATN on knives, because they are not that much harder to use than your fists, it just requires a slightly different mentality on how to apply them.
Chris
Are you practicing Arnis or Escrima? Just curious.
On 6/8/2002 at 6:56pm, Bankuei wrote:
RE: Realism and combat
Are you practicing Arnis or Escrima? Just curious.
Neither, Penjak Silat. Our fighting range is closer than the filipino arts. Escrima range is "long range" for us :)
Chris
On 6/8/2002 at 7:25pm, Ace wrote:
RE: Realism and combat
Bankuei wrote:Are you practicing Arnis or Escrima? Just curious.
Neither, Penjak Silat. Our fighting range is closer than the filipino arts. Escrima range is "long range" for us :)
Chris
Yowza! Well I officially (using my mighty earlier adopter powers) draft you to write it up for us.
Seriously though IIRC Pentjak Silat is one of the only martial arts that emphasizes fighting on different terrain. I wonder if there is a way to model that for The Riddle?
I thought the use of theknife (a kris isn't it)was secondary to unarmed techniques? Are there different style varients or is that a misconception of mine
On 6/8/2002 at 9:24pm, Lyrax wrote:
RE: Realism and combat
Different Terrain? Book Four: the Codex of Battle, a few pages into it. Look there and you will find it.
On 6/8/2002 at 9:35pm, Ace wrote:
RE: Realism and combat
Lyrax wrote: Different Terrain? Book Four: the Codex of Battle, a few pages into it. Look there and you will find it.
I was a little unclear, I meant to say Model the extra training recieved in coping with extra terrain. Maybe removing x dice penalty to represent the training recieved or whatever
On 6/8/2002 at 9:47pm, Lyrax wrote:
RE: Realism and combat
You could lower the TN by one (training), two (extensive training) or three (native). Or you could give bonus dice vs. the terrain.
On 6/8/2002 at 10:07pm, Brian Leybourne wrote:
RE: Realism and combat
Bob Richter wrote:
Eh. Actually, parrying or blocking a Dagger is quite difficult.
Usually it's just more effective to stick the guy. (why isn't Thrust a defensive maneuver?)
Thus why Dagger fights are usually quite short. :)
Thrust *is* a defensive maneuver. Remember that when the other guy attacks you and it's your turn to declare a defense, you can always declare an attack instead. Then you do the whole "attempt to steal initiative" thing and hope you steal it, because then you get an unopposed hit on him (and since you'll probably reduce his CP through shock, he's not attacking you with as many dice probably).
It's even better if you have a decent parrying weapon (which a dagger isn't) or a shield, because then your response to an attack can be a simultaneous block/strike or evasive attack. You don't even need to steal initiative since even though he'll strike first, you do get your defensive bonus, and given that he's already declared his attack, he's got no defense (except luck dice) while you do.
On 6/9/2002 at 2:36am, Stuart wrote:
Rapier Vs Shortsword vs Polearm/Greatsword
Hi I am a member of a serious historical fencing group and would like to say that a greatsword wielder would almost never be defeated by a rapierist. I love rapiers, I really do. They are the weapon I am best at.
Rapier vs Shortsword.
If the shortsword guy knows his rapier, you are dead. The guy with the sword can use hand parries and an aggressive bastard guardant ward coupled with forward passes to get around the point and remove limbs.
I know this because we drilled sword vs rapier just last Thursday.
ANY polearm wielder worth his salt will take out a swordsman unless the sword guy has a shield. A buckler won't cut it. I tried (stupidly) to parry a 5 ft axe with my buckler during a melee and got "killed" easily doing it. The axe just blasted through my defence.
A greatsword is alot like a polearm in the way it is used. Against a rapier wielder, A large blow could be thrown from out of distance on the pass and the rapier guy can either pass back out of distance or die. Don't forget also that one can halfsword with most blades and a greatsword held in the halfsword position would be a formidible weapon.
I know this is a game but the truth is that some weapons have very little chance against others. Read Chuckie's swords post and follow the link I gave. It talks all about which weapons "hath the 'vantage" over others.
Cheers
Stu.
Cheers
Stu.
On 6/9/2002 at 3:48am, Jaif wrote:
RE: Realism and combat
I've got a question for all you knife experts. Now don't laugh at me...
There was a movie... Stevan Segal & Tommy Lee Jones on a battleship (the Iowa?); TLJ is trying to steal nukes, and SS is just a simple cook. In the movie, SS gets in a knife fight, I think w/TLJ. The knife fight looked rather, uh, different.
If you remember the scene/movie, can any of you tell me if the knife fight looked "correct"? I've always wondered if that was pure Hollywood, or if they were emulating some martial art.
-Jeff
On 6/9/2002 at 4:21am, Ace wrote:
RE: Realism and combat
Jaif wrote: I've got a question for all you knife experts. Now don't laugh at me...
There was a movie... Stevan Segal & Tommy Lee Jones on a battleship (the Iowa?); TLJ is trying to steal nukes, and SS is just a simple cook. In the movie, SS gets in a knife fight, I think w/TLJ. The knife fight looked rather, uh, different.
If you remember the scene/movie, can any of you tell me if the knife fight looked "correct"? I've always wondered if that was pure Hollywood, or if they were emulating some martial art.
-Jeff
IAKAKE (I am not a knife expert) just an amatuer but my impression of the scene in Under Seige 2 (the fight between Everett McGill and Seagal is good but kind of Hollywood.
What I saw is a lot of aggresive parrying and fencing action that a real knife fight wouldn't have.
On the good end both of fighters had distinctive styles, Seagal using reverse grip (IIRC) and McGill using the old "sabre" style.
Generally IME the moves were showier than real knife work and there were few limb attacks or attempts to grapple.
Other than that it was head and tails above most of the knife work in movies, especially the knife duels in Teen Punk Epics and Westerns.
At least the two characters showed style and what looks like a measure of skill.
I am told there is an excellent Bali Song scene in the Burt Reynolds Movie Sharkeys Machine but I haven't seen it.
On 6/9/2002 at 5:51am, Bankuei wrote:
RE: Realism and combat
Seriously though IIRC Pentjak Silat is one of the only martial arts that emphasizes fighting on different terrain. I wonder if there is a way to model that for The Riddle?
I thought the use of theknife (a kris isn't it)was secondary to unarmed techniques? Are there different style varients or is that a misconception of mineBack to top
I would probably consider Pentjak as its own proficiency, since it seems proficiencies are based on styles of fighting. Pentjak doesn't train you to not fall down as much as how to fight on the ground to begin with if you're in that situation. In a fight on bad terrain, we'd just go straight to the ground and fight from there. I'd probably eliminate or reduce the penalties for fighting prone as the change to make.
As far as the focus, most people in Indonesia are rice farmers, who carry a variety of blades ranging from machetes to rice cutters(goloks). Most people trained in Silat are farmers defending their villages, so almost everyone is trained in the tools they carry and trained to fight against other blades. Our basic assumptions are 1) you will be attacked by surprise, 2) There will be at least 3 attackers, 3) each will have a weapon for each hand.
Overkill? Yes, but considering that the folks who are teaching come from a place where it happens everyday, and I'm fortunate enough to have never been in a knife fight, I'd say it's intelligent training.
There are different styles dependant on the area, weapons, and folks you'd expect to be fighting out there, so yes, there is quite a room for divergence. As far as the weapon/empty hands training, of the 3 penjak styles I've seen so far, all are designed so that the same moves you use barehanded are the same ones you use armed, although my guru says,"If you can deal with a knife, a punch is nothing..."
Generally IME the moves were showier than real knife work and there were few limb attacks or attempts to grapple.
Which are the primary attack methods in Silat :)
Chris
On 6/9/2002 at 8:32pm, Bob Richter wrote:
Re: Rapier Vs Shortsword vs Polearm/Greatsword
Stuart wrote: Hi I am a member of a serious historical fencing group and would like to say that a greatsword wielder would almost never be defeated by a rapierist. I love rapiers, I really do. They are the weapon I am best at.
Rapier vs Shortsword.
If the shortsword guy knows his rapier, you are dead. The guy with the sword can use hand parries and an aggressive bastard guardant ward coupled with forward passes to get around the point and remove limbs.
I know this because we drilled sword vs rapier just last Thursday.
ANY polearm wielder worth his salt will take out a swordsman unless the sword guy has a shield. A buckler won't cut it. I tried (stupidly) to parry a 5 ft axe with my buckler during a melee and got "killed" easily doing it. The axe just blasted through my defence.
A greatsword is alot like a polearm in the way it is used. Against a rapier wielder, A large blow could be thrown from out of distance on the pass and the rapier guy can either pass back out of distance or die. Don't forget also that one can halfsword with most blades and a greatsword held in the halfsword position would be a formidible weapon.
I know this is a game but the truth is that some weapons have very little chance against others. Read Chuckie's swords post and follow the link I gave. It talks all about which weapons "hath the 'vantage" over others.
Cheers
Stu.
Cheers
Stu.
Not to presume on your real-world experience, but are you saying that...
1) A Rapier, in its favored environment, is a worthless weapon?
2) A Sword, in its favored environment, is a worthless weapon?
Because, if you are, I'm calling BS.
If that were true, mankind would have stuck with polearms and axes.
We didn't, and there are very good reasons for it.
On 6/10/2002 at 7:33am, Lyrax wrote:
RE: Realism and combat
No, Bob, I think Stu's saying that fighting is like a big game of paper-rock-scissors (which is true).
Polearm beats Sword
Sword beats Metal Rat's Tail (Rapier)
Rapier beats Doppelhander
Doppelhander beats polearm
All of it beats Dagger, in a fair faight.
In a fair fight.
On 6/10/2002 at 7:32pm, Bob Richter wrote:
RE: Realism and combat
Lyrax wrote: No, Bob, I think Stu's saying that fighting is like a big game of paper-rock-scissors (which is true).
Polearm beats Sword
Sword beats Metal Rat's Tail (Rapier)
Rapier beats Doppelhander
Doppelhander beats polearm
All of it beats Dagger, in a fair faight.
In a fair fight.
Which weapon has the advantage depends on the environment in which they are used, and HOW they are used. (not which weapon they are.)
Polearm _DOESN'T_ beat sword. Not most of the time, and quite regardless of shields. Because of the way polearms are used, most are no longer than a good long sword, but they lack a hand-guard or a full blade. YES, they're dangerous, but I'd give the advantage to the sword.
Sword _DOESN'T_ beat Rapier...PERIOD, not in the Rapier's favored environment -- a one-on-one duel in no armor heavier than leather. More conventional swords, compared to a Rapier, are either clumsy, short, or both. As mentioned many, many times, though, the Rapier is patently useless on the battlefield. It _IS_ a wonder-weapon, but it has its limits.
Rapier beats Doppelhander -- but only in the same circumstances it beats everything else.
Doppelhander beats polearm -- yes, because it is a large sword purposely built to tackle the longer polearms that would actually give a Greatsword real trouble.
And, yes, Daggers are generally ineffective, in all but the closest of fights.
On 6/10/2002 at 11:44pm, Stuart wrote:
Weapon Strengths
Hi All,
Lyrax has it. Swordsmanship is a game of paper-rock-scissors IMHO.
Bob is right. Environment can make a difference. Dagger will beat forest bill in a dark alley for example.
Rapier does not have the advantage over backsword.
If the sword guy has never seen a rapier before or fenced sword vs rapier he will be easily killed. If he knows what to do then the rapier guy is likely to be the one defeated. Silver has explicit instructions on how to fight thje single rapier with the single sword. Last Thursday was pretty even with the rapier winning about half of the time. Last night, we played a little (only three or four hits) and I didn't even go close to hitting the guy with the sword with my rapier. He made a true cross, got past my point and took off a limb head etc.
Staff (or any other polearm) vs sword or rapier. Again, read Silver. There is a great story about a Stout English chappie named Peake who was captured by Spaniards and forced to fight them. He defeated his first opponent at rapier and dagger but refused to fight on without the true English weapon- The quarterstaff. Peake ended up fighting multiple opponents (4 or 5 from memory) and killed them all with his quarterstaff.
The Spaniards let him go out of respect after that. Such is the power of one of the simplest weapons in existence.
Silver says that a man with quarterstaff is a better weapon than two armed with rapiers or swords.
Bob, this stuff about sword vs rapier from Silver really works. Read the book and give it a try in training.
Cheers
Stu.
Cheers
Stu.
On 6/11/2002 at 2:20am, Wolfen wrote:
RE: Realism and combat
Slight divergence from the topic at hand, but Stu's mention of the Englishman with his Q-staff fighting off multiple opponents reminds me of the scene in... I think the 3rd book of the Wheel of Time, where Mat takes on Gawain and Galad quarterstaff to swords, and whips them both soundly, despite them being the two best students, and his own recent illness. Though I am not familiar with the western use of staves, I think it is a weapon which should not be undervalued.
On 6/11/2002 at 4:52am, Ace wrote:
RE: Realism and combat
Wolfen wrote: Slight divergence from the topic at hand, but Stu's mention of the Englishman with his Q-staff fighting off multiple opponents reminds me of the scene in... I think the 3rd book of the Wheel of Time, where Mat takes on Gawain and Galad quarterstaff to swords, and whips them both soundly, despite them being the two best students, and his own recent illness. Though I am not familiar with the western use of staves, I think it is a weapon which should not be undervalued.
Well IMO the spear is the Queen of Weapons and the staff ,her older sister, a Princess. Both are highly underrated worhorses of the warriors trade.
Shoot only the short sword (as machete) club (and varient the tonfa) the knife and the two sisters (Queen Spear as the Bayonet) are still battlefield weapons
Swords, axes polearms and the others have faded from view and while the swords have t the glamour I would still choose a spear over any other hand weapon in an ancient battlefield.
The only vulnerability a spear has is to a deft fighter with a shield (if you are using it 2 handed) a dopplehander (if you are in formation) or someone really fast.
A spearman better know knife wrestling, :)
On 6/12/2002 at 8:34am, Bob Richter wrote:
Re: Weapon Strengths
Stuart wrote: Hi All,
Lyrax has it. Swordsmanship is a game of paper-rock-scissors IMHO.
Bob is right. Environment can make a difference. Dagger will beat forest bill in a dark alley for example.
Rapier does not have the advantage over backsword.
If the sword guy has never seen a rapier before or fenced sword vs rapier he will be easily killed. If he knows what to do then the rapier guy is likely to be the one defeated. Silver has explicit instructions on how to fight thje single rapier with the single sword. Last Thursday was pretty even with the rapier winning about half of the time. Last night, we played a little (only three or four hits) and I didn't even go close to hitting the guy with the sword with my rapier. He made a true cross, got past my point and took off a limb head etc.
Staff (or any other polearm) vs sword or rapier. Again, read Silver. There is a great story about a Stout English chappie named Peake who was captured by Spaniards and forced to fight them. He defeated his first opponent at rapier and dagger but refused to fight on without the true English weapon- The quarterstaff. Peake ended up fighting multiple opponents (4 or 5 from memory) and killed them all with his quarterstaff.
The Spaniards let him go out of respect after that. Such is the power of one of the simplest weapons in existence.
Silver says that a man with quarterstaff is a better weapon than two armed with rapiers or swords.
Bob, this stuff about sword vs rapier from Silver really works. Read the book and give it a try in training.
Cheers
Stu.
Cheers
Stu.
Rapiers DO have an advantage against any shorter or heavier sword. The length and agility of the blade will often allow it to deliver a killing stroke before an opponent can act.
And do spare me the anecdotal evidence.
"give it a try in training."
Heh. If I trained with a sword, I would. I don't.
Which I why I feel amazingly silly arguing with you.
But do keep these simple facts in mind:
If the Rapier were not a superior duelling sword, it would never have supplanted the others (which it did.)
If the Sword were not a superior battlefield weapon, it would never have supplanted the spear (which it did.)
Combat is NOT rock-paper-scissors.
I do believe this is the last I shall say on the subject.
On 6/12/2002 at 8:44am, Bob Richter wrote:
RE: Realism and combat
Ace wrote:Wolfen wrote: Slight divergence from the topic at hand, but Stu's mention of the Englishman with his Q-staff fighting off multiple opponents reminds me of the scene in... I think the 3rd book of the Wheel of Time, where Mat takes on Gawain and Galad quarterstaff to swords, and whips them both soundly, despite them being the two best students, and his own recent illness. Though I am not familiar with the western use of staves, I think it is a weapon which should not be undervalued.
Well IMO the spear is the Queen of Weapons and the staff ,her older sister, a Princess. Both are highly underrated worhorses of the warriors trade.
Shoot only the short sword (as machete) club (and varient the tonfa) the knife and the two sisters (Queen Spear as the Bayonet) are still battlefield weapons
Swords, axes polearms and the others have faded from view and while the swords have t the glamour I would still choose a spear over any other hand weapon in an ancient battlefield.
The only vulnerability a spear has is to a deft fighter with a shield (if you are using it 2 handed) a dopplehander (if you are in formation) or someone really fast.
A spearman better know knife wrestling, :)
A machete is not a short-sword.
A bayonet is not a spear (It's a dagger on the end of a gun, a different animal entirely,) and it is universally considered both outdated and useless (as its sole purpose was to stop reloading riflemen from being overrun, a function that has not been needed in a century.) Its use is common only among armies that haven't had the brains to discontinue it.
A spear is vulnerable to anyone with the brains to catch and hold the shaft and/or attack the user's hand. It's just a matter of knowing how to fight the weapon.
But I must admit a certain fondness for the spear: unlike a sword, it can be thrown accurately and lethally at an opponent.
On 6/12/2002 at 10:26am, Wolfen wrote:
RE: Realism and combat
Its use is common only among armies that haven't had the brains to discontinue it.
False.
The U.S. Army still issues bayonets, and conducts training in their use. The reason for this is simple.. Sometimes it gets a lot closer than what a rifle is used for, and at that range it is nice to have a weapon close at hand. Normally this is the rifle itself, for the infamous buttstroke (or a pistol for ye old pistol-whip) but a bayonet gives an added edge, no pun intended. While it is certainly not a spear, it is still a viable battlefield weapon, totally aside from it's use as a tool outside of combat situations.
On 6/12/2002 at 10:34am, Jaif wrote:
RE: Realism and combat
Bob, you go too far:
If the Sword were not a superior battlefield weapon, it would never have supplanted the spear (which it did.)
It did not, unless you're being pedantic and saying a pike, et al, is not a spear. The spear has survived throughout history into the pike & shot era, hence the name, which brings us to:
A bayonet is not a spear (It's a dagger on the end of a gun, a different animal entirely,)
I'm sorry, but this is simply ignorant. When the bayonet was developed, it allowed infantry armies to move from musket and pike to straight musket, because now the musketteers could also fill the role of a pikeman in emergancy. Again, the entire point to the exercise was to give the musketteers an emergency spear.
If you want something to hang your hat on, it's this: cavalry were using swords until the end of battlefield cavalry (which sadly took too long because of stupid generals). Of course, there were Polish Lancers hanging around as well, so you still had the remnants of the spear as well.
Combat is NOT rock-paper-scissors.
I'm going to assume you meant dueling, becuase military history is replete with rock-paper-scissors images. I'll name two:
1) Pike, shot, cavalry. Shot beat pike, cavalry beat shot, pike beat cavalry. Think English Civil War.
2) Infantry, cavalry, artillery. Infantry in line would defeat the gunners. Cavalry would defeat Infantry in Line, forcing them to adopt square. Artillery would shoot up squares pretty easily. Classic Napoleanic.
-Jeff
On 6/12/2002 at 1:38pm, Jake Norwood wrote:
RE: Realism and combat
Actually modern bayonet techniques...and old ones...are much similar to many shorter pole-arm techniques, specifically the half-sword, which is thought to be the direct parent of bayonet techniques by many.
Jake
On 6/12/2002 at 2:00pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: Re: Weapon Strengths
Bob Richter wrote: But do keep these simple facts in mind:
If the Rapier were not a superior duelling sword, it would never have supplanted the others (which it did.)
If the Sword were not a superior battlefield weapon, it would never have supplanted the spear (which it did.)
Combat is NOT rock-paper-scissors.
While I largely agree with your overall point, your analysis fails to take into account a very important item...Social Importance...which has had as much (and occassionally more) impact on armarment than actual battle field effectiveness (and still does today in the form of political appropriations).
The sword did not replace the spear as a battle field weapon. In fact, if you view the Pike as an evolution of the spear, the converse happened. What made the sword special was that it was made entirely out of metal. Axes and spears are primarily wood...initially with a stone head, later metal. But the sword...the sword is 100% metal (with non metal accessories). Note here I'm talking European swords, since in other areas of the world there are sword like instruments made out of wood or even obsidian.
That's the key. Metal is expensive. Only the powerful could afford making an entire weapon out of metal, and so the sword became as much a status symbol as an implement of war. A huge part of the widespread use of the sword has as much to do with its role as status symbol as its role as effective weapon. This was conciously reinforced. Throughout most of the middle ages swords could be wielded only by nobility. By the late middle ages and the development of very heavy armor, the sword was still supreme as a status symbol, but in combat, knights would often choose baser weapons as being more effective can openers.
The evolution of the rapier was also heavily influenced by social pressure, and in the case of the evolution of the small sword, primarily influenced by social pressure.
Its not just that the rapier was a better weapon for duelling than the sword (you have George Silver et.al. argueing vehemently the opposite), but that the rapier was far more fashionable. Italy was the source of sophistication and her styles were quickly adopted by fashion concious France and Spain. What hope could crude barbaric England have to resist the spread of Renaissance Pop Culture.
In my estimation the replacement of the Cut and Thrust style by the Rapier was due to both the effectiveness of the Rapier as a dueling weapon AND the social pressures of fashion in equal measure.
On 6/12/2002 at 4:13pm, Jake Norwood wrote:
RE: Realism and combat
I am, more or less, in complete agreement with Ralph, here.
Jake
On 6/12/2002 at 5:18pm, Ace wrote:
RE: Realism and combat
A machete is not a short-sword. .
What would you call it then, a light falchion or a longknife? As I see it a machete is a slashing only short sword. Of course that could be just semantics at work....
A bayonet is not a spear A spear is vulnerable to anyone with the brains to catch and hold the shaft and/or attack the user's hand. It's just a matter of knowing how to fight the weapon
All wapons are vulnerable if you know how to fight them!
As to hand attacks on a spearman, its not that easy to get to the hands on a long spear, its like attacking a swordsmans arms only harder. The key to spear fighting is range control, at least in my limited experience..
Grappling the spear, It can be done but spears are really fast and a good spearman can skewer a clumsy grabbers hand.
If a grab is sucessfull, hey that what long knives are for :)
Spears aren't great against heavy armor, OTOH they are cheap and effective
But I must admit a certain fondness for the spear: unlike a sword, it can be thrown accurately and lethally at an opponent
Only if I have several short ones. Long Spears can be thrown but not that well. The Riddle shows that perfectly.
Anyway spear is a class of weapon including Javelins, Short, Medium and Long Spears, Zulu Assegai, Pike, Bayonets, all kinds of Lances and maybe Spetums as well.
Its one of man kinds oldest battle field weapons, most used, most effective. It just isn't glamerous at all.
On 6/12/2002 at 9:20pm, Bob Richter wrote:
RE: Re: Weapon Strengths
Valamir wrote:Bob Richter wrote:
The sword did not replace the spear as a battle field weapon. In fact, if you view the Pike as an evolution of the spear, the converse happened. What made the sword special was that it was made entirely out of metal. Axes and spears are primarily wood...initially with a stone head, later metal. But the sword...the sword is 100% metal (with non metal accessories). Note here I'm talking European swords, since in other areas of the world there are sword like instruments made out of wood or even obsidian.
I don't disagree with your points on social importance. (It should be noted, however, that England was SO stubborn, they never TRULY adopted the Rapier until quite late. English Rapiers still had much of the sword in them.) One thing to look at is the weapons an army uses at the end of a war, rather than the beginning. :)
But I do not view the Pike as a spear. The Pike was a short-lived (comparitively) specialty weapon whose primary importance lay in the death of Heavy Cavalry. The Pike itself died not long thereafter with pistol-carrying Light Cavalry (Hussars) against which it was ineffective.
If you want to view a bayoneted rifle as a spear (or a very short pike) that's your lookout, but it's really not (for one, it's far too short.) I am not kidding that there is a growing consensus among modern military theorists regarding the uselessness of the weapon.
The Army may issue bayonets to its troops, but the Marine Corps issues swords to its. Neither is used with any frequency in battle.
And, to answer an earlier point, yes: a Machete has more in common with a Falchion than a shortsword. For the first, it's really too long to be considered a SHORTsword (it's got nearly a foot on the Gladius,) For the second, it's a dull, simple blade entirely devoted to hacking. But it differs from either in that it is more a tool than a weapon. In this, it is most closely related to the hatchet, which it greatly resembles in function. :)
On 6/12/2002 at 10:17pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: Re: Weapon Strengths
Bob Richter wrote:
But I do not view the Pike as a spear. The Pike was a short-lived (comparitively) specialty weapon whose primary importance lay in the death of Heavy Cavalry. The Pike itself died not long thereafter with pistol-carrying Light Cavalry (Hussars) against which it was ineffective.
Well, I had not intended to turn this into a treatise on weapon evolution, but the Pike as a weapon has a much longer history than you imply. The long spear as the central weapon of an army dates back to the Phalanx, and its primary use was not against Cavalry (who were not a dominant combat arm at the time) but against other long spear wielding infantry.
The Pike did not so much die because it could no longer do the job as implied by your notes on it being ineffective. Rather it died because its job was no longer necessary. The purpose of the Pike was two fold.
1) Early firearms took colossally long times to load and frequently misfired. The Pike was their to discourage enemies from attacking musket troops while they were reloading.
2) The early firearm was a fairly laborious item to make. Often times it wasn't economically possible to equip all soldiers with one. This can be seen in the Three Musketeers. What is often missed in the tales of swashbuckling derring-do is that the Musketeers were literally firearm wielding soldiers, at a time where it was fairly rare and expensive (and thus prestigious) to be a firearm wielding soldier.
As the quality of firearms was increased and their manufacture became more easily reproduceable all soldiers could be equipped with firearms. The increased rate and volume of fire of these firearms would serve as their own protection. Pike were no longer needed to keep the enemy at bay, the musketmens own rate of fire (combined with tactics like Fire by Platoon) could do that.
You are correct that the bayonet is not a successor to the Pike. The bayonet is essentially a knife with a really long handle. Its function was to give mass troops a close quarter weapon that didn't require them dropping their primary weapon in order to use. You don't want soldiers dropping their guns into the mud in order to draw swords only to find they are now several 100 yards away from their weapons. In this it serves none of the function of the pike. The bayonet was not the anti cavalry weapon that the pike was. Massed artillery and huge volumes of fire were the weapons that ended cavalries role as the primary shock arm and returned them to their ancient role of scout, raider, and auxilliary support.
On 6/12/2002 at 11:09pm, Wolfen wrote:
RE: Realism and combat
I am not kidding that there is a growing consensus among modern military theorists regarding the uselessness of the weapon.
Modern military theorists be damned. I know several grunts (Infantrymen, for those not familiar with mil-speak) with combat experience who wouldn't give up their bayonets if you ordered it. In theory it might not be much of a weapon, because most combats are either long or short range firefights.. But those few who've had the occasion to actually *use* their bayonets are still alive because of them, and probably wouldn't be if they hadn't had one.
On 6/13/2002 at 1:01am, Jaif wrote:
RE: Realism and combat
But I do not view the Pike as a spear. The Pike was a short-lived (comparitively) specialty weapon whose primary importance lay in the death of Heavy Cavalry. The Pike itself died not long thereafter with pistol-carrying Light Cavalry (Hussars) against which it was ineffective.
The Macedonian Phalanx used the pike as the anvil for the army (the companion cavalry was the hammer). When I say "pike" here, I'm not referring to the long spear, I mean a 12-14 foot polearm with a point (don't remember the exact length).
Pikes, as opposed to spears, did require more specialized tactics for effective use, so their use is less common in the long period when it would have been effective. Said another way, for spearmen it's enough to teach them to hold rank, advance, and push hard when they have to. For pikemen, the sheer length of the thing requires much more drill for the troops to be effective. That's why pikes were less used in history; the training involved.
-Jeff
On 6/13/2002 at 2:54am, Stuart wrote:
Rapiers and Swords again.
Hi All,
The spear issue has been adressed well. The rapier issue however hasn't
Bob said"But do keep these simple facts in mind:
If the Rapier were not a superior duelling sword, it would never have supplanted the others (which it did.)
If the Sword were not a superior battlefield weapon, it would never have supplanted the spear (which it did.)
Combat is NOT rock-paper-scissors."
There seems to be a little problem of definition here as to what a rapier is and can do and how long it was around.
Firstly, the rapier was only around for 100 years or so before people went back to light backswords, adopted the sabre and invented the smallsword. Basically, it was realised just how inefficient they were as weapons.
If the rapier was the be all and end all of swords then they would have been around alot longer than the 100 years they were in vogue. I say in vogue because they were a fashion item that makes for a interesting fight in the fencing salle.
Ok. Cutting. I have seen a cut with a blunt rapier using a pulled blow on an exposed head when someone slipped and exposed the back of their head in training. Needed stitches. Imagine what a sharp one swung full force could do.
2. Linearity. A rapier is not wielded like a fencing foil. A double time defence involving a parry riposte is not sound with this weapon which is played at in the round. Traversing to the side against attack is very important as is counterthrusting against incoming attacks and defence with the off hand or with a dagger. As a result, rapier is not played from a side stance. The body is turned forwards so that the dagger or off hand can parry thrusts.
3. Speed. It is important to remember that a true rapier is heavier than a shortsword, even a basket hilted one so attacks are fast only given the speed and no telegraphic nature of the lunge which has little to do with the weapon.
OK Rock paper scissors.
Lets see. Tower manuscript 1.33 (sword and buckler manual circe 1300) is based on the principles of ward (guard) and counterward. There are a number of wards to lie in. Every ward has one or more counters. Sounds like rock paper scissors to me.
Silver 1599. (This is straight out of the book)
Gardant fight stays, puts back, or beats gardant fight.
Open fight stays, puts back, or beats open fight.
Variable fight answers variable fight in the first distance, and not otherwise, except it be with perfect length against imperfect.
Close fight is beaten by gardant fight.
Variable close & gardant fight, beats gardant fight, open fight, variable fight, and close fight. Sounds like rock paper scissors to me.
German Longsword. There are a number of wards which all have a stroke designed to break them. Sounds like rock paper scissors to me.
Cheers
Stu.