A Debate to End All Debate - Two Handed Swords Too Fast

[kongxinga]

Not sure why we are all talking about armour, but back to 2 handers.

I do not think 2 handers are too fast, for the simple reason they are being swung from 2 hands. No, I do not spend my spare time swinging swords. But a bit of playing tennis, and you know you can backhand with 2 hands faster and smoother than trying to backhand with one.

That said, in game terms, if the two hander is agressively swinging, the sword and board (why do people call one handing sword and board, is this some kind of technical fighting term?) guy needs to agressively feint as well. Try to feint to get chamber blocks, then swing when there is an opening. Now when the shield blows, you might be sadly out of luck, but you might have a chance if you pull off a parry (not a block). Otherwise, this is the reason you bring along someone to be your pike support.

Now I see a lot of video evidence, and I greatly enjoyed the manly Indian men fight, but the rest of it has been claimed by both camps to be inaccurate. Now you might think that it is impossible to see real sword combat in combat environment on video, because, after all, those existed till the renaissance at latest. Well, luckily, there is a good proxy, and that is archival footage of the chinese war of Resistance, or 2nd Sino Japanese war. Now unlike decadent western countries (I am joking), where food was plentiful, artillery support was being given out like candy, and soldiers rode in APCs, people in China had to sometimes fight with swords. Now the da dao is probably closer to the bastard family of swords, since it can be swung with one hand or two, but looking at the footage, one can see that even an underfed chinese reluctant volunteer could swing that thing very fast. Perhaps even faster than mount and blade bastard swords. Now the average da dao was not balanced, was heavy and cumbersome, and were often made with scrap iron scavenged from destroyed railroads. One can expect a good 2 hander made with high quality smiths at the peak of their profession to allow a user to swing even faster.

 

[AoC]

Are you serious? Because if you are, let me break it for you,  you're ignorant as hell. You have TONS of examples in literary accounts of people who drown because of the armor, mostly when an army routed, but not only so. The most famous case being of Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor, who drowned in the river going to a crusade.

Plate armour consisted of a helmet, a gorget (or bevor), pauldrons (or spaulders), couters, vambraces, gauntlets, a cuirass (back and breastplate) with a fauld, tassets and a culet, a mail skirt, cuisses, poleyns, greaves, and sabatons. At a minimum full plate armour set could be as light as only 20 kg (45 pounds).

You would swim like a brick after 30 seconds.

Yup, there are also numerous sources of fit people who drowned WITHOUT armour, who could swim just fine. NOW. In 21th century. Do you think that it's good argument that swimming without armour is impossible ?

 

[kingofnoobia]

Heavy armored knights where put on their heavy horses (not that fancy light charger you can see on  movies but that heavy horse used to pull heavy lifts) by some cranes (my english isnt good enough to say right word for it).

Armour isn't that cumbersome. You can simply climb up a horse in full armour really. Not exactly what you said, but this video shows quite well that the mobility of a man in armour isn't as compromised as popular belief indicates: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMuNXWFPewg

You can even swim in plate armour, if you're fit enough.

Are you serious? Because if you are, let me break it for you,  you're ignorant as hell. You have TONS of examples in literary accounts of people who drown because of the armor, mostly when an army routed, but not only so. The most famous case being of Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor, who drowned in the river going to a crusade.

Plate armour consisted of a helmet, a gorget (or bevor), pauldrons (or spaulders), couters, vambraces, gauntlets, a cuirass (back and breastplate) with a fauld, tassets and a culet, a mail skirt, cuisses, poleyns, greaves, and sabatons. At a minimum full plate armour set could be as light as only 20 kg (45 pounds).

You would swim like a brick after 30 seconds.

I am serious. Modern reenactment has proven this. And of course, it would be very tiring, and I presume that you wouldn't last too long. And in a river with a strong current, you're probably dead too. But if you go swimming in a pond for five minutes, in your plate armour, you'll be fine. You won't sink like a brick, if you have a decent constitution. Reenactment has also shown men in plate armour outrunning men without armour or in light armour, if they are considerably more fit.

And if you'd use your brain for 3 seconds, you'd be able to have imagined that before starting your poo slinging. 20 kg isn't all that much for a trained adult, and it's even less in water. Not to mention that it's very well distributed among your body. According to your logic, it would be impossible to save someone that is drowning that weighs over 20 kg. Makes perfect sense.

 

[Kodashi]

The swing speed of a Two-Handed weapon isn't so much the problem.  The greatswords I used to practice years ago weighed in a +/- 6lbs and could generate quite a fast swing arc.  However, readying them for another swing takes a good deal of effort.

The issue in M&B is that two-handers can ready between swings way too quickly and can ready from a successful parry to a full swing way too quickly and too easily.  They also function equally will in close as they do at optimal range.  This is what imbalances two-handers and not their actual attack speed.

 

[LaoTze]

Well we have some very defensive viewpoints on this topic. I agree that two handed swords should be quick. What I don't like is the two handed axes have the same swing speed as the swords. I'm aware of the dane axe, but axes are not properly balanced like a well made sword. So maybe slow the shiled crushing axes down a tad. Besides when my horse gets killed under me I go down and am very vulnerable. Why aren't these axes getting lodged in the shields they're choppping into pieces. Axes get stuck in wood plenty. Chop some firewood to see for yourself.

The other thing that I don't like and it has already been touched on is the the way weapons (not just two-handers) do damage sideways. A couched lance on the right side of a cav turned left and hit with the pole and killed me. Not sayin it wouldn't hurt but I shouldn't be getting couch type damage off the side of the lance. And this goes for all the long weapons swing a spear and you don't have to hit the target with the tip of the spear to hurt something just the wooden side of the spear will do. This negates the range advantage of one handers who get in close. Who really should at least be able to stab under or over the shield while guarding. Spears as well on that thought.

 

[Andalusian_Guard]

the problem isnt in the speed its that a two hander can kill even though the person is soo close to the wielder that they would be unable to really get off a good swing because they would have no room. Thats the good thing about short weapons is they are designed to strike in small areas but that advantage isnt given in this game where two handed weapons dont take into account minimum striking distances.

 

[Lerxst]

the problem isnt in the speed its that a two hander can kill even though the person is soo close to the wielder that they would be unable to really get off a good swing because they would have no room. Thats the good thing about short weapons is they are designed to strike in small areas but that advantage isnt given in this game where two handed weapons dont take into account minimum striking distances.

This +

Your original argument stands for the first... oh... say 5 swings.  Beyond that, there's not a person alive who would be able to swing a two handed weapon with nearly the speed this game portrays.  Methinks you've been watching a little too much Hollywood style combat, eh?

The weight isn't as much of an issue as the bulk.  Being able to lift 5 lbs repeatedly is one thing, most people can.  Being able to swing it with enough force to damage someone wearing minimal armor, plus the 3 feet of steel it's attached to over and over and over again, is insane!

 

[Berserker Pride]

I haven't got the game yet since beta ended.  But has the spinning to hit someone at the very start of the attack animation been fixed yet?  Not only do medieval ballerinas looks ridiculous but they unbalance the two-handed swords by making them attack near-instantaneously.

 

[Lerxst]

I haven't got the game yet since beta ended.  But has the spinning to hit someone at the very start of the attack animation been fixed yet?  Not only do medieval ballerinas looks ridiculous but they unbalance the two-handed swords by making them attack near-instantaneously.

Hehe, you brought up another point.  Take my above post and then add this - centripetal force.  This is the outward force on an object moving in a circle.  Ever watch someone hold a bat and swing really... and I mean really hard?  Most of the time, if the bat doesn't just fly out of their hand, they end up eating the ground after the bat spins them in a circle.

So the short answer to your question is, no.

 

[RaVeN]

I haven't got the game yet since beta ended.  But has the spinning to hit someone at the very start of the attack animation been fixed yet?  Not only do medieval ballerinas looks ridiculous but they unbalance the two-handed swords by making them attack near-instantaneously.

I ran into a player who did a 360 degrees of death. I was killed before I even noticed he released a swing. So no, it hasn't really be fixed but that doesn't have anything to do with a two hander does it? Because you can do a 360 deg of death with a spear, short sword, etc...

 

[Yodarkore]

I am very much against stamina. I would absolutely hate it if I can no longer fight due to a bar being empty.
And I may be wrong, but the combat in that game looks crap to me. It's simply the movements that **** it up completely. Too much running and jumping about. And I don't like the mechanics you describe either. Stun/recoil simply isn't cool. No one should be completely defenseless, at any moment, in my opinion. Yes, I dislike knockdown and kick (at least the kickslashing part) in MnB too.

As for a bar being depleted and not being able to do anything, did you ever played "serious" PvE fights in some well known MMO?

Heavy armored knights where put on their heavy horses (not that fancy light charger you can see on  movies but that heavy horse used to pull heavy lifts) by some cranes (my english isnt good enough to say right word for it).

Umm no. Knights most certainly were not lifted by cranes onto their horses.
As for stamina: it wouldn't really be relevant as each battle only lasts around 5 minutes, 90% of which is spent running around rather than actually attacking. Also, I don't like the concept.

Again, i'm not "inventing" that fact. I'm european being, and i like medieval time history research, and what i found so far, is when a knight was knocked out of its heavy lift horse (no fancy charger here again, a "regular" courser couldnt even be able to wear a fully armored knight, thats a fact also), he was as vulnerable as a turtle is on its back. The single fact that being knocked out from its own height with a pretty heavy lift would lead to a KO for many many folks, but the most trained ones (and supposing they were in a good shape before the fight). I dont invent it myself, i'm firefighter irl (and i'm not the truth bringer in any form by stating it), and i can swear that wearing 25 kg stuff for hours (even an half one) IS REALLY a pain, that, i can tell its true, its a fact.

You can even swim in plate armour, if you're fit enough.

I would be curious to see that. Again, as i stated, i'm firefighter, and before being a firefighter, i'm a decent swimmer, and was trained to first aid at water. Lifting a wounded people or any "fake" wounded one (while being naked) is really tough to not get drowned too, unless training. Thats "human body" and "sport" facts.

Back on topic, i think that 2H weapons arent meant to be slower than 1H + shield weaps. Again, wearing the weight of the shield + trying to hurt anyone with the weap in the other hand, might lead to be very tired pretty quickly. If someone argue that in warband fights doesnt last more than 5min, doesnt mean that irl battles in those civilized times last for 5 min... And again, we all agree that M&B is one of the most accurate game for simulating those gentlemen fights

 

[Berserker Pride]

The spinning seems to benefit the two-handed weapons the most.  Something about the way the animation is held straight out to your side makes it easy to gauge how much to spin to perform an instahit.  One-handed weapons have a shorter ranged left to right swing which means you can only really effectively spin the right to left swing. 

The polearm animation is more choked toward the middle and sacrifices a lot of reach on the swing attack.  But the instaspin issue does still exist there as well.  I find most of the "so-and-so weapon is too fast" has the root cause being the spinning.  People complain about great long axes being too fast but they actually aren't...  until you spin them for an instaswing.

But two-handed swords are the fastest two-handers and this become even more so when people spin them.

 

[Seawied86]

Yodarkore, I frequently swim with weights on, and as long as the weight is distributed properly, you can manage. I've also rescued people from the water, and out of the two, carrying a body is much more difficult. Keep in mind two things

#1) Carrying a human body is a different situation entirely. When you rescue someone from water, all their weight is on a small part of your body, and most likely they are panicking and flailing, even drowning you. Additionally, a human body weighs more than armor.

#2) armor was designed for mobility. Even though its dense and heavy, if you have good technique and are in good shape, the weight of the armor will be distributed to more muscles, making it easier to move around.

 

[Yodarkore]

#2) armor was designed for mobility. Even though its dense and heavy, if you have good technique and are in good shape, the weight of the armor will be distributed to more muscles, making it easier to move around.

Okay on the first one, i'm a bit exaggerating with the example in rescuing someone in water (about the gravity center and such "physical" things, altough key to success doing so is to wisely put the gravity center of whole the rescued guy and yourself in a "manageable" one, again, my english isnt good enough to put right sentence on it)

As for "armor" and "well balanced" weight all around the body (beside any swimming training) why so many sailors sunk straight when they fall in water with their fisherman stuff on them, especially boots who get filled of water, adding HEAVY weight to your water movement? Again, you might be better swimmer than i am, but i would be curious to see anyone swimming with just say "medieval boots".

I'm off topic by stating such examples, but so far, i think that adding some "stamina" bar is the best way to prevent weapon spamming (either bow, 1H, 1H + shield, 2H and the fancy dual 1H) and those "bunny hoppers" we can see in every MP MMO game.

Edit:  I'm not superman (neither or such movie heroe that every geek is used to see on their PC while eating chips and cookies), but i know (somewhat barely, again, i'm not any superman or wanabee sunday heroe) where are some limits to what the human body can do or cannot, at some extend. For example, as being a "trained" swimmer, i wouldnt get in deep water with my firefighter stuff on myself.

Edit 2: Adding some stamina bar would work beter for SP since in MP it seems that we get all STR, AGI and related skills maxed out, and i think such "bar" should be STR, AGI and athletic related (some might even argue that INT should come in since "mental" is doing a lot in being able to do "impossible" things )

 

[freezefail]

Heavy armored knights where put on their heavy horses (not that fancy light charger you can see on  movies but that heavy horse used to pull heavy lifts) by some cranes (my english isnt good enough to say right word for it).

Armour isn't that cumbersome. You can simply climb up a horse in full armour really. Not exactly what you said, but this video shows quite well that the mobility of a man in armour isn't as compromised as popular belief indicates: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMuNXWFPewg

You can even swim in plate armour, if you're fit enough.

Are you serious? Because if you are, let me break it for you,  you're ignorant as hell. You have TONS of examples in literary accounts of people who drown because of the armor, mostly when an army routed, but not only so. The most famous case being of Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor, who drowned in the river going to a crusade.

Plate armour consisted of a helmet, a gorget (or bevor), pauldrons (or spaulders), couters, vambraces, gauntlets, a cuirass (back and breastplate) with a fauld, tassets and a culet, a mail skirt, cuisses, poleyns, greaves, and sabatons. At a minimum full plate armour set could be as light as only 20 kg (45 pounds).

You would swim like a brick after 30 seconds.

I am serious. Modern reenactment has proven this. And of course, it would be very tiring, and I presume that you wouldn't last too long. And in a river with a strong current, you're probably dead too. But if you go swimming in a pond for five minutes, in your plate armour, you'll be fine. You won't sink like a brick, if you have a decent constitution. Reenactment has also shown men in plate armour outrunning men without armour or in light armour, if they are considerably more fit.

And if you'd use your brain for 3 seconds, you'd be able to have imagined that before starting your poo slinging. 20 kg isn't all that much for a trained adult, and it's even less in water. Not to mention that it's very well distributed among your body. According to your logic, it would be impossible to save someone that is drowning that weighs over 20 kg. Makes perfect sense.

sorry but when i read this I just had to jump in...lol

If you'd use your brain for 1 second, you'd be able to take account into the fact that to breath while swimming you need to expand your chest. Last I checked, fully plated armor doesn't expand to allow chest expansion for proper inhalation.

Next.

If you'd use your brain for 2 seconds, you'd be able to figure out that someone else would be able to figure out you googled up your arguement, and ended up on wikipedia, and copied your answers word for word with little paraphrase....which is really pathetic. Although I do agree they were mobile. I'm just arguing your swimming part.

While it looks heavy, a full plate armour set could be as light as only 20 kg (45 pounds) if well made of tempered steel.[2] This is less than the weight of modern combat gear of an infantry soldier (usually 25 to 35 kg), and the weight is more evenly distributed. The weight was so well spread over the body that a fit man could run, or jump into his saddle. Modern re-enactment activity has proven it is even possible to swim in armour, though it is difficult. It is possible for a fit and trained man in armour to run after and catch an unarmoured archer, as witnessed in re-enactment combat.

Third,

Look up Teutonic Knights at the Battle of Ice at Peipus Lake, 1242. Drowned.

Fourth...a bit funny but I'll say it anyways....read some Shakespeare will you?

From Shakespeare's Richard III, 1594:

CATESBY:
Rescue, my Lord of Norfolk, rescue, rescue!
The king enacts more wonders than a man,
Daring an opposite to every danger:
His horse is slain, and all on foot he fights,
Seeking for Richmond in the throat of death.
Rescue, fair lord, or else the day is lost!

KING RICHARD III:
A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse!

CATESBY:
Withdraw, my lord; I'll help you to a horse.

Fifth, another example...

Holy Roman Emporer Frederick Barbarossa. Full Plate Armor, Drowned.

Finally, if you used your brain at ALL?! You would know that when rescuing a drowning person, whether it be in a pool, or out in open waters, personal safety comes first. Sorry if anyone thinks other wises. This is rule of thumb from Red Cross and probably many other organizations. Would be stupid to try and save someone too big for yourself and end up killing yourself in the process. Furthermore, lifeguards always have flotation devices to aid them, and people who go swimming usually aren't in armor, which allows them to float, greatly reducing the load of the rescuer.
Also, ARMOR, logs water, making the overall person (or object in physics perspective) have much higher density, which = drowned. Why do you think boats are hollow? Even battleships and cruisers are built to have as much hollow space as required to stay a float. As long as the object is less dense than water, it will float. Watch titanic, maybe you learn something... Not only is metal, or in the case of armor, OXIDIZED, tempered, mixture of various metals, is ridiculously more dense than water. Ever see a floating metal sword?

SIGH....done.

Yodarkore, I frequently swim with weights on, and as long as the weight is distributed properly, you can manage. I've also rescued people from the water, and out of the two, carrying a body is much more difficult. Keep in mind two things

#1) Carrying a human body is a different situation entirely. When you rescue someone from water, all their weight is on a small part of your body, and most likely they are panicking and flailing, even drowning you. Additionally, a human body weighs more than armor.

#2) armor was designed for mobility. Even though its dense and heavy, if you have good technique and are in good shape, the weight of the armor will be distributed to more muscles, making it easier to move around.

First, the weights you swam with on don't water log. Rescuing humans.....read above. No matter how strong you think your are, your can't beat laws of physics, sorry.

 

[Stabbing Hobo]

Heavy armored knights where put on their heavy horses (not that fancy light charger you can see on  movies but that heavy horse used to pull heavy lifts) by some cranes (my english isnt good enough to say right word for it).

Umm no. Knights most certainly were not lifted by cranes onto their horses.
As for stamina: it wouldn't really be relevant as each battle only lasts around 5 minutes, 90% of which is spent running around rather than actually attacking. Also, I don't like the concept.

Again, i'm not "inventing" that fact. I'm european being, and i like medieval time history research, and what i found so far, is when a knight was knocked out of its heavy lift horse (no fancy charger here again, a "regular" courser couldnt even be able to wear a fully armored knight, thats a fact also), he was as vulnerable as a turtle is on its back. The single fact that being knocked out from its own height with a pretty heavy lift would lead to a KO for many many folks, but the most trained ones (and supposing they were in a good shape before the fight). I dont invent it myself, i'm firefighter irl (and i'm not the truth bringer in any form by stating it), and i can swear that wearing 25 kg stuff for hours (even an half one) IS REALLY a pain, that, i can tell its true, its a fact.

You might not be inventing this "fact", but it doesn't make it right. All knights were able to mount their horses without help, even without stirrups. That crane myth was made popular by Mark Twain or something like that, but it's still a myth. About horses not being able to carry knights, complete, utter bull****. See Wikipedia
[quote author=Wikipedia]Perhaps one reason for the pervasive belief that the medieval war horse had to be of draught horse type is the assumption, still held by many, that medieval armour was heavy. In fact, even the heaviest tournament armour (for knights) weighed little more than 90 pounds (41 kg), and field (war) armour 40 to 70 pounds (18 to 32 kg); barding, or horse armour, more common in tournaments than war, rarely weighed more than 70 pounds (32 kg).[51] For horses, Cuir bouilli (a type of hardened leather), and padded caparisons would have been more common,[52] and probably as effective.[53] Allowing for the weight of the rider and other equipment, horses can carry approximately 30% of their weight; thus such loads could certainly be carried by a heavy riding horse in the 1,200 to 1,300 pounds (540 to 590 kg) range, and a draught horse was not needed.[54][/quote]

 

[Yodarkore]

First, the weights you swam with on don't water log. Rescuing humans.....read above. No matter how strong you think your are, your can't beat laws of physics, sorry.

Out of topic again, but i would consider myself twice before rescuing "human whales"  (no offense here), altough again, other might argue that fat is lower density than water :p

 

[kingofnoobia]

I would be curious to see that. Again, as i stated, i'm firefighter, and before being a firefighter, i'm a decent swimmer, and was trained to first aid at water. Lifting a wounded people or any "fake" wounded one (while being naked) is really tough to not get drowned too, unless training. Thats "human body" and "sport" facts.

Well, getting wounded people out of the water is also a lot harder than swimming with armour. First of all: people are heavier than armour. On top of that, you have to actively carry these people, their weight is very poorly distributed. Also, people tend to try to drag you with them when they are drowning, afaik, they aren't exactly cooperative when they are being saved.

Plate armour, on the other hand, weighs a third of a human being. The weight is very well distributed among your body.


I just discovered something quite amusing.
[quote author=Condestavel]
Plate armour consisted of a helmet, a gorget (or bevor), pauldrons (or spaulders), couters, vambraces, gauntlets, a cuirass (back and breastplate) with a fauld, tassets and a culet, a mail skirt, cuisses, poleyns, greaves, and sabatons. At a minimum full plate armour set could be as light as only 20 kg (45 pounds).
[/quote]
Condestavel copied this directly from Wikipedia. Now, the funny thing is that a few lines further, one can find the following lines...

[quote author=wikipedia]
Plate armour could have consisted of a helmet, a gorget (or bevor), pauldrons  (or spaulders), couters, vambraces, gauntlets, a cuirass (back and breastplate) with a fauld, tassets and a culet, a mail skirt, cuisses, poleyns, greaves, and sabatons. While it looks heavy, a full plate armour set could be as light as only 20 kg (45 pounds) if well made of tempered steel.[2]  This is less than the weight of modern combat gear of an infantry soldier (usually 25 to 35 kg), and the weight is more evenly distributed. The weight was so well spread over the body that a fit man could run, or jump into his saddle. Modern re-enactment activity has proven it is even possible to swim in armour, though it is difficult. It is possible for a fit and trained man in armour to run after and catch an unarmoured archer, as witnessed in re-enactment combat.
[/quote]
Is there anything left to say?

[quote author=Condestavel]
Are you serious? Because if you are, let me break it for you,  you're ignorant as hell.
[/quote]
Just wondering whether I'd get an apology for that. Might be in place.

 

[Frankmuddy]

Or set up machine gun nests, mine fields, and flame throwers and see if he can swing throught that!

Oh no.. wait, wrong century.

Mad Jack Churchill laughs at your ranged weapons.

 

[kingofnoobia]

Again, i'm not "inventing" that fact. I'm european being, and i like medieval time history research, and what i found so far, is when a knight was knocked out of its heavy lift horse (no fancy charger here again, a "regular" courser couldnt even be able to wear a fully armored knight, thats a fact also), he was as vulnerable as a turtle is on its back. The single fact that being knocked out from its own height with a pretty heavy lift would lead to a KO for many many folks, but the most trained ones (and supposing they were in a good shape before the fight). I dont invent it myself, i'm firefighter irl (and i'm not the truth bringer in any form by stating it), and i can swear that wearing 25 kg stuff for hours (even an half one) IS REALLY a pain, that, i can tell its true, its a fact.

I posted a ****ing video that directly proved you wrong: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMuNXWFPewg. Down from horseback in armour does not mean you are helpless at all.

And 25 kg isn't such a huge load for a trained soldier, afaik. IIRC, Roman legionairies had an average load of 30 kg and marched about 30 kilometres a day.