Sword to sword Interactions

I would only support damaging weapons if regular versions of weapons become far more common. I would get SO angry if my 'Sword' broke. I regularly have to go through days and days of gameplay with Rusty and Chipped swords before finally finding a regular one. And if my Balanced Sword ever broke and was hard to replace, I swear I'd stop playing M&B just on principle.

Weren't swords made out of 2 outer layers of steel and an inner layer of iron? I always thought swords were extremely hard to break.

My understanding is that swords are, as Raz says, incredibly difficult to break (most european ones at least) - but that is certainly not true for the variety of hafted weapons in the game.

Swords should be Heir-looms - passed down the generations because they last and really can take a beating that would save your life.  An axe? Sure the're deadly but you're not going to be passing it on to your children because its going to need the haft replacing and the blade could get lost/shattered in the process of breaking.

You could simply have a threshold for each item (I include sheilds in this too) which if crossed in terms of damage blocked degrades the weapon (cracked/bent - whatever).  A second (and much higher threshold) could exist for destruction of the item (like trying to block a Black Knight's lance with a sheild ) Damage above this destruction threshold would carry over to the character.  Actually I think I'd prefer that overall for general sheild useage too - and get rid of the messy HP system (imo)

Eird-Way said:

We really do have the tendency to imagine swords bouncing off one another a lot more than they really did. No one who knows anything about history can watch action movies because actors always attack the opponent's weapon, not the opponent. That makes you lose. Even a sport fencer knows that.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Attacking the opponent's weapon is known as parrying, and is quite effective, both at preventing a blow from landing, and at binding and gaining control of opponent's blade. By doing so, one effectively siezes the initiative. Sport fencing has become something really divorced from real sword play.

Swords were made in many different ways. It's rather impossible to categorically say "swords were always made like this." A katana, for instance, is rather easy to break due to its inherent hardness and lack of flex. A 'Viking sword,' however, will quite literally double over itself without breaking in some cases, due to being made of softer iron and less carbon.

Swords should be Heir-looms - passed down the generations because they last and really can take a beating that would save your life.

Click to expand...

This is actually a myth. Swords really don't last all that long if used heavily. Even the best sword is going to suffer nicks, notches, and rolled edges. Shaving these off slowly decreases the width of the blade, and its integrity. Over time, the sword will become less and less useful. Likewise, it becomes more and more likely to suffer microscopic stress fractures that can result in the blade breaking. While the 'sword of my father's father's father' is a nice piece of fantasy, it's not practical for a war-weapon. This would be more common in decorative/dress weapons that saw little real combat.


I disagree. Attacking the opponent's weapon is known as parrying, and is quite effective, both at preventing a blow from landing, and at binding and gaining control of opponent's blade. By doing so, one effectively siezes the initiative.

You're both right. Parrying a weapon was a relatively common practice. But as it pertains to film and television, well - it's wrong. Firstly, the wide sweeping arcs that end in two weapons slamming headlong into each other is complete fantasy. A proper parry 'sets aside' the opponent's weapon when he's on the attack already. You don't actively attempt to smack your weapon against his while he's on the defensive. Further, parrying is a defensive tactic, and the AMOUNT of it done in cinema is entertaining, but wrong. Attacking your opponents weapon with complete disregard for attacking your -opponent- is silly. When he opens himself up, you strike him, not his weapon. The living warrior is the warrior that kills his enemy as quickly as possible.

In response to Damien:

I see - that does make alot of sense.  Of course the point about swords lasting (if properly cared for) longer and being tougher than many of the other weapons still stands.  Swords would more than likely outlast hafted weapons - but hafted weapons would generally be cheaper (as I understand it - feel free to correct me if i'm totally wrong).

No, you're absolutely right. Any weapon made almost entirely out of metal is going to last far longer than a weapon with a lot of wood in its composition. Wood doesn't have the structural integrity or resilience of steel. As a matter of fact, it wasn't uncommon for lances to not last even an entire battle or even to break on first contact. A sword will outlast virtually any other weapon on the field. But it's not impervious, and won't last for generation upon generation.

Damien said:

Swords should be Heir-looms - passed down the generations because they last and really can take a beating that would save your life.

Click to expand...

This is actually a myth. Swords really don't last all that long if used heavily. Even the best sword is going to suffer nicks, notches, and rolled edges. Shaving these off slowly decreases the width of the blade, and its integrity. Over time, the sword will become less and less useful. Likewise, it becomes more and more likely to suffer microscopic stress fractures that can result in the blade breaking. While the 'sword of my father's father's father' is a nice piece of fantasy, it's not practical for a war-weapon. This would be more common in decorative/dress weapons that saw little real combat.

Click to expand...

Oakeshott said the adverage sword had 300 years, or three MAJOR battles in it, whichever came first. There are however exceptions. There was a German Kazenbalger, which was found to be a rehilted sword from around 800-900 years prior to the Katzenbalger hilt design. During the Dark Ages, swords were heirlooms, but only really nice ones. If you take care of a sword, it will last a long time. If you abuse it, it won't.

However, sword on sword contact was actually rather common for all the periods we have a lot of information on the techniques of. MSI-33 shows a great deal of it. ARMA has drastically overestmated the fragility of swords. That's not to say they are super tough, but rather that there are about 15 million designs, and some styles DO show hard blocks. IE, In this game, the "Over the head block" is a real position known as the St. George guard in English swordplay. The proper responce to it (I'm told, I'm only starting out in English styles) is to let your sword slide off, and hit him in the face.

But he will KNOW you plan to do that, and immediately after contact will move sideways and try to slide into you, so you can't slide off, turing his point into your face right after you've been stopped.

A hard block amoung those who are better at the English styles then I, is called a 'stop.' the idea being to stop the other sword, then attack before he can get energy back into his blade, and we have rather speicific information that it WAS done with the edge of the sword, near the hilt, with the baskethilt turned into the blow.

In German Swordplay on the other hand, when you have sword on sword contact, when you look at the angles involved, it's just not an issue.


The important thing to remember here is that swords SLIDE a lot.

I disagree. Attacking the opponent's weapon is known as parrying, and is quite effective, both at preventing a blow from landing, and at binding and gaining control of opponent's blade. By doing so, one effectively siezes the initiative.

Click to expand...

PErsonally, I'd like to see the term 'parry' go away altogether, as it's just to vague in the modern world. I perfer the terms 'bind' 'setting aside' 'stop' and so fourth. These terms tell you right out what is being done, whereas parry seems to be used for anything the least bit defencive.

You're both right. Parrying a weapon was a relatively common practice.

Click to expand...

Quite so. You bind swords to control him, and hit him at the same time.

But as it pertains to film and television, well - it's wrong. Firstly, the wide sweeping arcs that end in two weapons slamming headlong into each other is complete fantasy.

Click to expand...

Heh. Doebringer talked about this sort of thing on the stage, and he said "And for this, they recieve praise from the ignorant."

A proper parry 'sets aside' the opponent's weapon when he's on the attack already.

Click to expand...

Or you attack from an angle which nullifies anything he can do from his position.... of course, that's not really a parry, though it might end up as one... depending on the definition of 'parry.'

You don't actively attempt to smack your weapon against his while he's on the defensive.

Click to expand...

Unless you are trying to control him prior to the killing. Like in MSI-33 when you fall under the sword, and you do this by binding sword, (Then making a follow up choice) which might lead to say, pushing his sword way down, then binding his hands with your buckler, THEN hitting him in the head.

I don't think the parrying and the sword collisions will work properly in M&B unless the swords themselves, and the arms controlling the swords can be physically modelled. So that when you hit a thrusting sword from the side, it will move sideways while still keeping its forward momentum.

I can't really think of a simpler process to abstract this.

Ingolifs said:

I don't think the parrying and the sword collisions will work properly in M&B unless the swords themselves, and the arms controlling the swords can be physically modelled. So that when you hit a thrusting sword from the side, it will move sideways while still keeping its forward momentum.

I can't really think of a simpler process to abstract this.

Click to expand...

yeah, physics. I mentioned that before. Would be great, but I doubt it will be implemented any time soon.

Orion said:

As Merlkir said, this isn't fencing, and even in fencing, you have "clangery."

Saber vs. Saber is bound to have "clangery," and pretty much all of the swords in M&B are slashing, cutting weapons, and not thrusting weapons.

Click to expand...

Ahem... Sabre IS bound to have "Clangery," and it does have a good deal of it, but I've seen many a time when a sabreist can dodge a blow by moving the area which his/her opponent was aiming for, or by moving back slightly. As for the thrusting part... As a national-level epeeist, and yes, fencing isn't neccessarily true to war-like swordplay, I know that there's a good deal of parrying even with thrusting weapons. No, you sure as heck don't parry when your opponent is being defensive, not unless you want to just budge their sword out of the way then make a quick stab to the wrist, or take away their control of their blade and go for an attack (I'm being VERY general in this). But, for EXAMPLE, if you beat, then lunge at the chest, and your opponent dodges it or parries, then attacks you, and you recover from your lunge when you're being attacked, and your opponent gets close to you, you'll do feinting and countering, yes, but I and most the fencers that I know will parry/riposte on that if they can't land a hit on their opponent right away. Also, about wide, sweeping parries. Bad in general, but there are instances where they work, albeit those are very few instances. The close-up stuff I mentioned before, if you parry a wide, sweeping parry and riposte while in close combat, it CAN work.

There, just had to give my opinion ^-^

Orion said:

Dodging is annoying, and the Zendar Trainer lies.

You CAN rush in to battle swinging wildly and emerge the victor.

You just need a charger and a balanced sword of war.

Click to expand...

Yup strike fast and mow'em down!

Eird-Way said:

Well, in an honest-to-goodness fight, the weapons aren't hitting each other as much as we often imagine. They can actually get damaged pretty easily, and from what I understand parrying is quite a tricky business. Mostly you just get out of the way. What I would really like is for, when one person has an attack poised, the enemy backpedals until out of range and readies an attack. That way, since blocking is really not the best option, and the enemy is stepping back so that he can get his swing started hopefully while you're swinging at air, you can raise your longsword and look from enemy to enemy, threatening them, keeping them back with your superior range.

I say -- not more clangery, but more footwork is what this game needs.

Click to expand...

Thats true.

Knight of the Realm said:

Eird-Way said:

Well, in an honest-to-goodness fight, the weapons aren't hitting each other as much as we often imagine. They can actually get damaged pretty easily, and from what I understand parrying is quite a tricky business. Mostly you just get out of the way. What I would really like is for, when one person has an attack poised, the enemy backpedals until out of range and readies an attack. That way, since blocking is really not the best option, and the enemy is stepping back so that he can get his swing started hopefully while you're swinging at air, you can raise your longsword and look from enemy to enemy, threatening them, keeping them back with your superior range.

I say -- not more clangery, but more footwork is what this game needs.

Click to expand...

Thats true.

Click to expand...

Footwork yes, quite true. Sword on sword action being uncommon, not true.

What about the possibility of CUTTING THE POLE of a pole weapon with a great sword, great axes or halberds? (as dopplesolders did, if historic speculations are correct)
leaving it useless or cracked? (or transformed in a half staff lol)
Maybe adding a damage level/resistance for those kind of weapons (pole) as shields have?

This has already been discussed... it seems that, with both weapons free to move, a strike from a Two-hander would be infinitely more likely to simply push the polearm away rather than to actually cut through the wood.  For it to cut, you would need to hold the polearm down so that you could hack at it with minimal bouncy-ness... not a particularly likely scenario on a battlefield.

Rannen said:

This has already been discussed... it seems that, with both weapons free to move, a strike from a Two-hander would be infinitely more likely to simply push the polearm away rather than to actually cut through the wood.  For it to cut, you would need to hold the polearm down so that you could hack at it with minimal bouncy-ness... not a particularly likely scenario on a battlefield.

Click to expand...

The other view, which has NOT been successfully debunked, is that the sword would cut through the pike in much the same way a machete cuts grass. The power of the blow is so overwhelming that it doesn't matter how solid the wood is held in place.

Digrassi SPECIFICALLY said you could cut the pike. As he said this in the late 1500s, I'd take it as true.


He said
[With]The Partisan, Halberd, and Bill...he must ward and beat off the points and
thrusts of the Pikes and other weapons, and having made
way, must enter with the increase of a pace of the hindfoot,
and in the same instant, let fall his weapon as forcibly as he
may, and strike with the edge athwart the Pikes. This kind
of blow is so strong (being delivered as it ought, considering
it comes from above downwards, and the weapon of itself is
very heavy) that it will cut asunder not only Pikes, but also
any other forcible impediment.

Now, he IS talking about a polearm here! But that's still cutting shafts. The Giant swords used by the dopplesoldiers also have more in common with polearms then they do with the

EDIT! Opps! I left off the end. They have more in common with polearms then with regular swords of any type, due to the sheer width of the blade, the grippable riccasso, and the length of the handle. If you put one hand on the ricasso, and the other on the pommel, you have a distance between your hands which is compariable to a polearm.

These are all great ideas that would help the game dramatically.  Also I wouldn't mind seeing the possibility of weapons being broken.  This wouldn't happen much and certain weapons would be more prone to break than others.  What I'm getting at is I find it hard to believe that a wooden handel of an axe can block a vicious blow from a great big whopping metal sword without breaking.

then all the weapons should have a "life bar" or resitance points, that the use, strikes, a powerful attack etc could take out.
an option that brings the posibility of repair the weapon in some kind of smith, as Craftmod does.

I would say that the length of a Halberd or some other such bladed polearm would cause a (more powerful) strike much further back along the pike, closer to where it is being held firmly in place by the grip of the enemy.  Even if the Doppelsoldner greatweapons were to be just as long as a polearm, their balance would make it necessary to strike more with the center of the blade for a fully effective blow.  This means that a shot from such a greatweapon would land more toward the point of the pike, leaving it ample leverage to bounce rather than cut.  Also, pike wood is somewhat more sturdy than grass.  Machete are large blades as it is... if something proportional is needed to overcome the bounce factor of a pike, it would be quite alot bigger than a doppelsoldner blade.