Feedback Regarding Armor/Weapon Realism

[Berzerker Jay]

FYI -- I shared a copy of De Re Militari, the historical text that outlines how legions were trained, and their drills included throwing one-pound rocks by hand. Consider how hard a baseball player could throw a similar rock, for an example of comparable training.

Definitely a pointed weapon will do little against a steel helmet unless put through one of its gaps. Meanwhile a hammer or rock to the same helmet carries the power to concuss, as well as to crank the neck in innumerable ways including compression.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

If you believe you can take a rock of several pounds thrown full force to your head because you are wearing a helmet, I urge you to reconsider.

 

[Askorti]

If you want invincibility against rocks being hurled against your armour, you aren't seeking realism.

That's a complete strawman argument, as I never talked about invincibility against rocks and I'm going to treat it as one, namely, not address it, since it's completely fallacious.

 

[Tajl]

If you believe you can take a rock of several pounds thrown full force to your head because you are wearing a helmet, I urge you to reconsider.

Without helmet it would break your skull. With helmet it will hurt your neck. Huge difference. Any such hit that would be dangerous for man with good helmet would be instant death for man without helmet. Still practically any other weapon would be more useful. That is like yes you can kill man with pen. Just stick it in his eye. Surely he will die, but it doesn't mean that pen is good melee weapon. Or melee weapon at all.

Definitely a pointed weapon will do little against a steel helmet unless put through one of its gaps. Meanwhile a hammer or rock to the same helmet carries the power to concuss, as well as to crank the neck in innumerable ways including compression.

If that pointed weapon doesn't penetrate that helmet it works just like blunt weapon.
Only force matter and being blunt doesn't generate any extra force.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

That's a complete strawman argument, as I never talked about invincibility against rocks and I'm going to treat it as one, namely, not address it, since it's completely fallacious.

Is it a strawman? Because the argument here is against even a chance of losing a higher tier troop in an encounter with looters, as well as that their rocks shouldn't be able to damage you through heavy armour.

What would you have me call it instead, if not invincibility? Or are you just calling it a strawman so you can say something against it while running away from the counter-argument? If you don't want to respond, just don't, but you sure did.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

Without helmet it would break your skull. With helmet it will hurt your neck. Huge difference. Any such hit that would be dangerous for man with good helmet would be instant death for man without helmet. Still practically any other weapon would be more useful. That is like yes you can kill man with pen. Just stick it in his eye. Surely he will die, but it doesn't mean that pen is good melee weapon. Or melee weapon at all.


If that pointed weapon doesn't penetrate that helmet it works just like blunt weapon.
Only force matter and being blunt doesn't generate any extra force.

Concussive force. Have you ever played any sports? I played hockey, lacrosse, football, et cetera, so I know a little about concussive force and protective gear. Concussive force internally rattles your brain inside its skull, damaging the tissue that cradles it in place. This is why a punch can knock you right unconscious, even though it has little chance at all of breaking your skull.

You seem to think blunt weapons can only do bone-breaking or no damage, but you're not familiar with how blunt weapons were used through history or what kind of damage they actually do. They were literally the counter to heavy armour, and for good reason.

Again, if you think you can take a heavy rock to the head just because you have even the best helmet ever made, I urge you to reconsider.

 

[Akka]

Concussive force. Have you ever played any sports?

Concussive force still has all to do with force and nothing to do with blunt, what he said is still 100 % valid. If you take exactly the same weight traveling exactly at the same speed, it will produce exactly the same amount of force when it will hit. The difference is only the surface on which it will be spread.

BTW, "blunt" weapons were not really used in warfare, because blunt is crap in weapons, because blunt is the most inefficient way to damage through transfering force (because, by definition, it has a large area). "blunt" weapons (like maces and warhammer) actually were spiked/flanged and were designed to puncture with piercing bits.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

Concussive force still has all to do with force and nothing to do with blunt, what he said is still 100 % valid. If you take exactly the same weight traveling exactly at the same speed, it will produce exactly the same amount of force when it will hit. The difference is only the surface on which it will be spread.

BTW, "blunt" weapons were not really used in warfare, because blunt is crap in weapons, because blunt is the most inefficient way to damage through transfering force (because, by definition, it has a large area). "blunt" weapons (like maces and warhammer) actually were spiked/flanged and were designed to puncture with piercing bits.

I mean, your claim that blunt weapons were not really used in warfare only shows a lack of familiarity with historical warfare. I don't even know where to begin with that claim's fallacy -- perhaps you can explain why warhammers entered the battlefield when plate armour did. Maces and hammers...there's also that Roman legions were trained to throw one-pound rocks as weapons even....

Concussive force has nothing to do with blunt? Blunt damage is all about delivering concussive force, so I don't know if you really thought about what you are saying here. I suspect you simply want to disagree, and don't have the data to do so, so instead you're making these unsupported claims and posing them with an authoritative tone? Even ignoring that, blunt weapons are heavier than edged weapons, because each opts for different strategies with regard to mass -- the sword wants to be lighter, while the mace wants to be heavier.

Honestly, I only responded because you quoted me, but it doesn't appear that you actually responded to my points and more just didn't like what I said. I hope if we're going to discuss it further we might be a little more reasonable than this, because I don't think it has value for anyone.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

For sake of clarity, here is a youtube video of Skallagrim testing out various weapons against a strong bascinet.

Note the way the helmet moves from the strikes. Also note the damage to the helmet, and consider how that itself will affect the wearer, who now has their skull being compressed by the metal they're wearing on it.

 

[Akka]

I mean, your claim that blunt weapons were not really used in warfare only shows a lack of familiarity with historical warfare. I don't even know where to begin with that claim's fallacy -- perhaps you can explain why warhammers entered the battlefield when plate armour did.

It's literally spelled out in the rest of the post ?
Like, I don't know :

"blunt" weapons (like maces and warhammer) actually were spiked/flanged and were designed to puncture with piercing bits.

It only is half of the second paragraph, I understand it might be easy to miss.
There were very few really blunt weapons, and mostly only the ones which were either too primitive to be something else (like a stone or a club) or too inaccurate/unwieldy to be able to direct the pointy bits (like some flails).

Maces and hammers...there's also that Roman legions were trained to throw one-pound rocks as weapons even....

Because crap weapon is better than no weapon. They didn't use clubs when they could use gladius, but they rather used clubs than fists.
In fact, most of the use of truly blunt weapons were to subdue people rather than kill them. Because, surprise, blunt is **** as a weapon. That's basic kinetics for you.

Concussive force has nothing to do with blunt? Blunt damage is all about delivering concussive force, so I don't know if you really thought about what you are saying here.

No it has nothing to do with how blunt a weapon is, it has to do with the violence and suddenness of the force you suffer. If you wield a shield and get a heavy hit from an axe, you're likely suffer concussive trauma to the arm even though the axe is a slashing weapon. If you get shot and wear an anti-ballistic jacket, you'll get hit with a piercing weapon but you'll still suffer concussive trauma.

Honestly, I only responded because you quoted me, but it doesn't appear that you actually responded to my points and more just didn't like what I said.

Pot, meet kettle, you completely ignored the arguments just to pretend they weren't there. Stop projecting and start reading. And maybe understanding what you read, but that's perhaps asking too much.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

It's literally spelled out in the rest of the post ?
Like, I don't know :

It only is half of the second paragraph, I understand it might be easy to miss.
There were very few really blunt weapons, and mostly only the ones which were either too primitive to be something else (like a stone or a club) or too inaccurate/unwieldy to be able to direct the pointy bits (like some flails).

Because crap weapon is better than no weapon. They didn't use club when they could use gladius, but they rather used club than fists.

No it has nothing to do with how blunt a weapon is, it has to do with the violence and suddenness of the force you suffer. If you wield a shield and get a heavy hit from an axe, you're likely suffer concussive trauma to the arm even though the axe is a slashing weapon. If you get shot and wear an anti-ballistic jacket, you'll get hit with a piercing weapon but you'll still suffer concussive trauma.

Pot, meet kettle, you completely ignored the arguments just to pretend they weren't there. Stop projecting and start reading. And maybe understanding what you read, but that's perhaps asking too much.

Yeah, they didn't use clubs when they could use maces or warhammers, either.

Honestly, I have no problem with you have an opinion. If you have a valid argument about the game or topic I'd be happy to discuss it.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

I mean, honestly, you're arguing about the concussive force a ballistic jacket will take from a bullet, assumedly in contrast to what it would take from a blunt weapon. I can promise you the concussive force will look dramatically different if the wearer of that ballistic jacket took a flanged-mace instead.

 

[Philozoraptor]

I think some people here are mistaking effect of kinetic energy and momentum. Ability to punch through something hard (armor, skull etc) is based on kinetic energy per contact surface and also strenght of interacting meterials (if difference between materials is too big, much weaker material may break or explode instead of bending or resisting even though it should hypothetically hold the projectile or punch through) - piercing weapons punching through armor. On the other side momentum is more about moving stuff. If you move someones head too fast, his brain will hit his own skull and get damaged - "blunt damage". Kinetic energy is more affected by speed as it is calculated like this: weight * speed * speed * 0,5. Momentum is equaly dependent on both as it is calculated like this: weight * speed. Most of "blunt" weapons had tendency to have its center of mass much closer to impact area (which means more mass being aplied to victim instead of attackers hand) while cutting weapons which are more dependent on kinetic energy (speed) tend to have center of mass near the hand to be more nimble (ofcourse there are hybrid weapons etc...).

Long story short, there is some truth to both sides of the argument although it might be for different reasons than people actually think. Its apples vs oranges situation.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

I think some people here are mistaking effect of kinetic energy and momentum. Ability to punch through something hard (armor, skull etc) is based on kinetic energy per contact surface and also strenght of interacting meterials (if difference between materials is too big, much weaker material may break or explode instead of bending or resisting even though it should hypothetically hold the projectile or punch through) - piercing weapons punching through armor. On the other side momentum is more about moving stuff. If you move someones head too fast, his brain will hit his own skull and get damaged - "blunt damage". Kinetic energy is more affected by speed as it is calculated like this: weight * speed * speed * 0,5. Momentum is equaly dependent on both as it is calculated like this: weight * speed. Most of "blunt" weapons had tendency to have its center of mass much closer to impact area (which means more mass being aplied to victim instead of attackers hand) while cutting weapons which are more dependent on kinetic energy (speed) tend to have center of mass near the hand to be more nimble (ofcourse there are hybrid weapons etc...).

Long story short, there is some truth to both sides of the argument although it might be for different reasons than people actually think. Its apples vs oranges situation.

Exactly. The reason blunt weapons were brought onto the field to counter heavy armour is because they allow you to break the person inside even if you can't break through the armour itself.

I think some of the problem here may be that a lot of people in this day and age have never worn armour or similar protective equipment, or taken a hit in it. If all you have to relate to it by are old video games with simplistic combat systems, then yes, you need to get through the armour to do damage no matter what. But in reality people got knocked out and even died in their intact suits of armour on battlefields.

 

[danEN]

realism

 

[Akka]

Most of "blunt" weapons had tendency to have its center of mass much closer to impact area (which means more mass being aplied to victim instead of attackers hand) while cutting weapons which are more dependent on kinetic energy (speed) tend to have center of mass near the hand to be more nimble (ofcourse there are hybrid weapons etc...).

Mostly true, but it's nothing to do with "blunt" and all to do with "pendulum-based", with all the mass put on the end of a stick to maximize momentum at the point of impact due to centrifugal force. An axe works exactly on this principle and is not a blunt weapon at all.

 

[Mad Vader]

An axe works exactly on this principle and is not a blunt weapon at all.

Oblivion: Blunt is the skill that governs how well your character can use crushing weapons, such as maces, hammers, and axes.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

Mostly true, but it's nothing to do with "blunt" and all to do with "pendulum-based", with all the mass put on the end of a stick to maximize momentum at the point of impact due to centrifugal force. An axe works exactly on this principle and is not a blunt weapon at all.

MadVader nails it.

This highlights an issue with how damage is doled out. It really isn't all black-and-white as presented in the game, and that may be a limitation to the game right now. But it would be very cool to see mixed damage types in weapons. As far as the information displayed for the weapon, it can just show the total damage and the dominant damage type, but items like axes do deal some blunt damage. Some swords, like cleavers, will also deal blunt damage, though a lesser percentage.

I'm not really doing any math here to figure out the numbers, so take these for guidelines, but an axe that does 50 damage might do 30 cutting and 20 blunt damage. A two-handed broad axe that does (and I can't recall really) 90 damage might do 40 cutting and 50 blunt damage. A cleaver that does 90 damage might do 75 cutting and 15 blunt damage.

I think this would make that aspect of the game more fun and realistic. Not sure how well it would be implemented, though.

 

[Akka]

I'm sure that an axe blade does not cut because Oblivion put the axes under the "blunt weapon" skillset :p
Jokes aside, it kinda shows the concrete part where people mix up "pendulum-based" with "blunt", while "blunt" is about surface area instead. Basically, they get it somewhat right by taking it completely the wrong way ^^

Problem being like, when in game, they then apply the approximate perception to parts where it makes no sense because they then go back to what "blunt" means instead of what they used it for (namely "pendulum-based"). So you get a game where people punch through armor with their fists, because a punch is obviously blunt and they decided that blunt should ignore armor because pendulum-based weapons with strong centrifugal force were able to inflict concussive damage due to how much momentum they managed to build.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

An axe will literally inflict blunt damage in addition or even in absence of its cutting damage. You can have the edge taken off an axe entirely and it still remains a devastating weapon, and hitting heavy armour will be equivalent to a flanged mace or similar.

I should know -- for years I carried around a camp-axe with me while backpacking that was never sharpened and blunt as anything. It still chopped wood.