Better Axe fighting

[Blackthorn]

Also, why does the spear jab so slowly? It's the fastest weapon on the battlefield...

 

[jlamb]

The two-handed axe should have a very fast swing, devastating effect, even if 'parried' or 'blocked'... (more so if blocked, as most parries are deflections rather than out-and-out blocking counters) but does require recovery time.

Really, rather than actively blocking, your weapon should be capable of passively protecting you, simply by virtue of being between yourself and an incoming attack. Perhaps the method of wielding large axes and polearms I'm familiar with is unique, but a vital component of wielding such weapons is to constantly use them as a shield. You launch the weapon with leg and body movement, positioning yourself behind it relative to your opponent(s) throughout the swing.

Point being, it would certainly take time to intiate any proceeding attacks, but for the same reason a great axe or polearm should also act as an effective defensive barrier.

There are weapons that are easier to return to a guard or striking position with after a blow. I used to fence, your speed at returning to a guard position is very important.

Again, perhaps my understanding of swordwork is simply different... but one way of looking at it anyway, your attacks should essentially be moving through guards to begin with, using the sword as a shield even when you are manuevering in a way that it thrusts into or cuts an opponent. It seems rather silly to stand in place, draw back your sword (creating a huge opening), then lash back using arm and shoulder strength.

not only cause pain but knock the wind or balance out of someone.

Oh how I wish we had disbalancement and knock-back factored in. It would make some weapons so much more valuable. While we're at it, it would also be nice if you could knock opponents into each other Swinging around a huge maul or warhammer with the right timing would be very interesting against some tightly packed foes!

 

[calandale]

in the lastest GURPS Edition, axes are still unbalanced weapons, but you can attack with them every turn - but if you attack with it , you can´t parry in the same turn. However, there are massive weapons (like halberds, warhammers) that still need to be prepared after an attack. The GURPS combat system is amazing, to be true - ít´s major flaw is that it gets too unbalanced if you ignore certain rules (major wounds, shock, stunning)- and there´s a lot of  them.

I always thought the big flaw (beyond those that are specific to the type of system - wholly ripped from RQ) was:

too slow. The number of die rolls required (this pertains to RQ too) were a real pain in the butt. They exacerbate this by using 3 dice instead of 1. Big deal? well, if you want a good man on man system, it ain't bad (C&S was better, but even more cumbersome), but if you're handling a bunch of attacks at once, I found rolling more than one die at a time to double the processing time needed. The ultimate system (I tried, I really did) would incorporate all of the realism, but with only one roll to hit, and then a fairly easy to generate damage roll. I couldn't keep the damage down to one die though (ended up with a 30 sider and 3 sixes), and it required GM interpolation (pros and cons to this).

 

[armagan]

The unbalanced modifier sounds like a good idea indeed. I could use that.

 

[Pnakotus]

Would it be possible to use the 'use' button to switch between 'lance' polearms and 'quarterstaff' polearms?  This would let you use spears (which always seem to be treated as lances, even on foot) as the agile weapons they are.  Maybe you could also let the player choose one- or two-handed for bastard swords etc as well?

 

[Ancientwanker]

Again, perhaps my understanding of swordwork is simply different... but one way of looking at it anyway, your attacks should essentially be moving through guards to begin with, using the sword as a shield even when you are manuevering in a way that it thrusts into or cuts an opponent. It seems rather silly to stand in place, draw back your sword (creating a huge opening), then lash back using arm and shoulder strength.

I dont know about sword work, I just know fencing. In fencing being centered in a guard position is the best place to defend from. You want to strike and get back to it quickly. The time margins are so small that you need evey millisecond to successfully parry. Attacking in fencing often involves the lunge, which you want to be over with as quickly as possible so you can return to the guard position. You dont just stand there in guard, you probe or attack so you are effectively "moving through guard positions" but its still a position you are returning to with both legs and arms. Its the comfort zone. By guard position I dont mean to stand in place, footwork is constant in fencing. It means the position of your weapon and that you are ready to strike or parry on short notice.

But sport fencing is like boxing, not entirely reality based. And of course fencing isnt what your average medieval warrior is going to be doing with his broadword and shield. The idea though that certain weapons are easier to strike and recover with seems sensible though.

The unbalanced modifier sounds like a good idea indeed. I could use that.

Cool!

 

[senoBDEC]

The two-handed axe should have a very fast swing, devastating effect, even if 'parried' or 'blocked'... (more so if blocked, as most parries are deflections rather than out-and-out blocking counters) but does require recovery time.

Really, rather than actively blocking, your weapon should be capable of passively protecting you, simply by virtue of being between yourself and an incoming attack. Perhaps the method of wielding large axes and polearms I'm familiar with is unique, but a vital component of wielding such weapons is to constantly use them as a shield. You launch the weapon with leg and body movement, positioning yourself behind it relative to your opponent(s) throughout the swing.

Actually, that's kind of how ALL weapons are used. Your hand moves first and "supposedly" your foot is grounded and your weight is behind the weapon.... and you have the threat or the attack "covering" yourself as you move into a better position.. the problem with this with axes is as you said, slower recovery time if you attempt to stop it - hence why you keep it moving and alternate with the shield/pole in the way. Slightly O/T but check out some of the axe+buckler work in Gatka for 1H stuff http://www.warriorsaints.com/.  I would like to be able to slash sideways with the spear... and have it actually fast... (but still with a speed penalty with shield) - fast,strong overhand stabs from reverse grip while on horseback would be very nice...

Point being, it would certainly take time to intiate any proceeding attacks, but for the same reason a great axe or polearm should also act as an effective defensive barrier.

So should any rapidly moving large object - obviously a knife or a club wouldn't be terribly great, but you must realize that your polearm is wood... admittedly usually made of wood that is difficult to cut even if supported and stationary, but still wood. A 2H great sword or longsword is also useful as a "defensive barrier" though perhaps less so. Also, I have no idea how this would be implemented

There are weapons that are easier to return to a guard or striking position with after a blow. I used to fence, your speed at returning to a guard position is very important.

Again, perhaps my understanding of swordwork is simply different... but one way of looking at it anyway, your attacks should essentially be moving through guards to begin with, using the sword as a shield even when you are manuevering in a way that it thrusts into or cuts an opponent. It seems rather silly to stand in place, draw back your sword (creating a huge opening), then lash back using arm and shoulder strength.

Exactly. I guess what I've already said is now pointless - must have misunderstood something.

not only cause pain but knock the wind or balance out of someone.

Oh how I wish we had disbalancement and knock-back factored in. It would make some weapons so much more valuable. While we're at it, it would also be nice if you could knock opponents into each other Swinging around a huge maul or warhammer with the right timing would be very interesting against some tightly packed foes!

Amen. It'd be nice to have all sorts of things added to the combat system, effects or moves... but I'm willing to wait.

 

[Blackthorn]

Some weapon stances are a constant passive guard- with the exception of some 'threat' stances- they offer no obvious protection, but they are clearly ''if you slash at my (open) stomach, I will attack your exposed armpit mid-attack"... etc.
The problem with the two-handed axe (reffered to by me as a Dane axe, because it's what I'm used to calling it...) is that to get the full effect of a truly powerful slash, you have to stand in a fairly exposed way.
The counter to this is wearing a backslung shield, and turning more than slightly side-on (which is how most weapon work is done anyway, to give a smaller target area and making it easier to extend your weapon) thus giving your enemy a large expanse of shield and a smaller area of stomach.

Any chance of a backslung shield? Basically it would block 2/3rds of attacks from the rear, but of course be of no practical use to the front. This is a popular way of wearing a shield, especially for those who use two-handed weapons, or fight with a bow, or as light cavalry (you aim a blow as you attack, then as you come away the shield guards from reprisal...)
I'd be very interested to see how it'd work out...

Plus, when a shield is equipped, you don't have your sword in a defensive stance; it's in a position to best take advantage of the oppurtunity to attack. (below the shield, across the shield angled at the enemy's armpit, or behind the shield to bring around a strong, latteral blow)
Any chance, if a secondary-attack thing could be worked out, on slapping a feature where you turn your sword flat-on, on pommel people instead of hacking? It would work similar to the punching feature, but with the obvious damage bonus of striking down with the weight of the sword...

 

[Róisín]

Blackthorn: check out the last page or two of the Shield Bash thread.

ps.  I LOVE the idea of shields protecting your back when not equipped.  The "bag of holding"-style unequipping is definitely one area this game needs improvement in:  it's like the Iron Boots in Zelda: OoT that only make you sink in water when they're on your feet.

 

[calandale]

The problem with a slung shield is it really is just more armor. It shouldn't block an entire attack.

Has anyone noticed that arrows are able to hit the shield and still damage? I think I saw it happen, but I'm not certain.

 

[Blackthorn]

The problem with a slung shield is it really is just more armor. It shouldn't block an entire attack.

Has anyone noticed that arrows are able to hit the shield and still damage? I think I saw it happen, but I'm not certain.

Ever worn one? They do act still as a shield, because they're not directly attached to the body, and the armour below pads impacts., plus I already suggested that even blocking attacks should suffer some kind of penalty if it's a heavy attack; such as double handed axe-blow- this would be especially noticeable in this case (maybe even knock the character over?)

 

[calandale]

Except for some very light armors, most of them are not right on the body - through layering and padding. I don't see any difference. The shield in M&B is treated in a manner which translates no damage through to the user. This is probably unrealistic as hell, but certainly should not be applied to simply strapping one to your back. The smaller shields have some big advantages over static armor, in that the user can deflect the blow, by moving the shield. Larger shields are less capable, and armor even less so. I'm not sure how to reflect this in game, but shield skill should effect the amount of the blow that you 'absorb' (not technically what I mean but I think that it's clear).

 

[Blackthorn]

Except for some very light armors, most of them are not right on the body - through layering and padding. I don't see any difference. The shield in M&B is treated in a manner which translates no damage through to the user. This is probably unrealistic as hell, but certainly should not be applied to simply strapping one to your back. The smaller shields have some big advantages over static armor, in that the user can deflect the blow, by moving the shield. Larger shields are less capable, and armor even less so. I'm not sure how to reflect this in game, but shield skill should effect the amount of the blow that you 'absorb' (not technically what I mean but I think that it's clear).

The point is though that wood absorbs a lot of the force, rather than just transferring it. Even when wearing maille over padding, a lot of the blunt impact force is carried through to the person; in the case of a shield, more is absorbed- especially when loosely slung. Huscarls are known to have backslung their shields as a way of guarding their backs when using Dane-Axes; they deliberately angled their shielded back out at the enemy. These weren't re-enactors, remember, these were men facing sharp lances, spears and axes. They seemed to believe the shield would be sufficient to stop an attack dead.

Another example is the Norman Knight circa 1060. If you look at how the kite-shield is used it's slung loosely across the left-hand side, not always gripped on the arm. Again, they trust the shield, hanging freely, to take the force of a full attack.

I believe a system whereas lighter thrown missiles are simply blocked (arrows, bolts, etc.) and some heavier missiles do lighter damage (javelins, throwing axes, etc.) would reflect the reality of a backslung shield. Remember- a shield on your back just covers the back. A blow angled at the head, sides, or front is still a full blow.
Sharpened weapons such as the longsword are not designed to deliver serious crushing blows, and wouldn't do much damage-wise to a backslung shield. The worst you'd do is damage the rim, or bury your sword in the shield-boards (and therefore lose it).

 

[Delta]

You know, you might start thinking that the shield would be used more effectively if shields were used to deflect melee blows rather than absorb. Like tanks have angled armor to deflect rockets and shells, I'm sure others thought the same when they used shields too.

 

[calandale]

blackth: No question that they were used that way. No question that it was an effective place to keep your shield - which you might need in front of you at other times. It would probably stop or deflect most missiles which hit there. But, so would some of the armors represented in the game. I remember naratives from the first crusade, wherein the harrasing horse bowmen were continuously peppering the crusaders in their padded armor to no effect (except heat exaustion). Now, if this were the case, the armored knight would be nearly invulnerable (in fact, the full plate in the game really was to the weapons of the time). Since this is a game, realism is not the only concern. Since there would be no way to easily injure someone in such armor, and there are no rules right now for knocking them down and finishing them off, does it really make sense to give a makeshift solution (shield on back) a more potent effect?

Delta: Shields are used that way. Plate armor was designed that way. Are you making a suggestion which is implementable in the game, and if so, could you clarify it?

 

[Delta]

Shields are used that way. Plate armor was designed that way. Are you making a suggestion which is implementable in the game, and if so, could you clarify it?

Most people who start using shields try to  block an attack rather than deflect, this tends toward injury. As it is in the game, the shield takes less damage with more skill, but what is being brought to our attention is that any axe hit that hits a shield should still fo damage to the person (via shattering the arm). If that part is implemented, then higher shield skill should also reduce damage dealt in that fashion.

 

[Blackthorn]

blackth: No question that they were used that way. No question that it was an effective place to keep your shield - which you might need in front of you at other times. It would probably stop or deflect most missiles which hit there. But, so would some of the armors represented in the game. I remember naratives from the first crusade, wherein the harrasing horse bowmen were continuously peppering the crusaders in their padded armor to no effect (except heat exaustion). Now, if this were the case, the armored knight would be nearly invulnerable (in fact, the full plate in the game really was to the weapons of the time). Since this is a game, realism is not the only concern. Since there would be no way to easily injure someone in such armor, and there are no rules right now for knocking them down and finishing them off, does it really make sense to give a makeshift solution (shield on back) a more potent effect?

The method of using horse-archers against maille-clad enemies actually does work, long-term. The point about the knights not taking many casualties was mainly due to the type of shield at the time; the kite shield. The arrows would actually happily peirce armour, I've been present at tests proving this myself (within 50 metres, a recurved horse-bow planted an arrow clean through both rivetted maille, and the gambeson beneath).
Full plate is not impenetrable, nor is maille; both armours have severe flaws when it comes to maces, picks, and other high-impact weapons. Slicing through the armours is almost impossible or unheard of, but peircing them with a well-placed thrust, or simply battering the person inside to death via heavy blows was well-known and common.

The horse-archers' method of attack, involving arrows, did actually take a serious toll both on the European Crusaders, and Byzantine Cataphractoi. Cataphractoi themselves were armoured in 'full' european kit, (padded aketon, maille) and also wore an additional 'top layer' armour, usually of lamellar or scale construction on the torso. These men still had a problem with horse-archers, foot-archers, and of course, the internationally renowned crossbow or 'tzangra'. No armour is impermeable.

However a shield is a completely different thing. Not physically attached to the body, it doesn't transfer the blunt force to the body below or beneath- hence it is nigh-on impossible to deliver 'crushing' blows to the body, short of hacking through the shield. This is true even when it is slung over the back. I've recieved a dane-axe blow at full speed when wearing a large roundshield across my back, and it felt little more than a heavy punch. Yes, this is still slightly painful, but it wouldn't make you stop in the heat of a melee to turn and attack someone.
Admittedly, had the axe been sharp, it would probably have seriously damaged the shield, or, of course, followed through to hurt me.
But lighter hacking weapons, such as a sword, hand-axe, falchion, etc. would have little or no effect on a shield, wherever it was worn. I have a re-enactment shield of three years that has been smashed at with a sharpened axe, and it's done little more than nibble at the edge and score the face deeply.

I'm basically saying some attacks should still hurt, no matter WHERE the shield is located. A back-slung shield would still leave a player completely open to head-shots from behind, as well as leg-hits. But I don't think it would be at all keeping with ANY form of realism if a smack to the backshield with a sword resulted in any real damage.

 

[Robinivich]

Alright, so, concerning the plate armour in game, I think the way it takes damage is well implemented, when you are, for instance, being mobbed because you can't run away, you slowly get pulverized into unconsciousness.

A shield on you back distributes the blow, that's how it functions as armour.  Somebody delivering a good amount of force to an area of your back the width and breadth of the cutting edge of an axe blade could quite easily kill you.  However, someone delivering that same amount of force to your entire back would probably not hurt you at all.  We can all agree on this, and this is why a shield on your back helps, because it's resting on a larger portion of you than the armour underneath would have distributed the blow to.

Now, moving from this, why is it that despite this, a trained soldier makes sure to never deliberately turn his back on an enemy, even when he has a shield there?  The shield will probably absorb an impact quite nicely, but of coure, there's more than just the shield for the enemy to hit.  Since he cannot adjust the shield to block, it DOES simply function as more effective armour, armour that can be worked around.  It probably doesn't cover his head, his sides may still be somewhat vulnerable, his legs may be exposed.  If the soldier isn't watching behind him, he will not be able to brace himself and anticipate blows, meaning that a hit that would not normally have phased him, can now potentially knock him flat, even if the blow was to the shield.

Blackthorn, I understand exactly what you mean about a backslung shield making blows effectivly much lighter, but would you turn your back on anyone, in the confidence that your shield would protect you?  Even that light-feeling blow you mentioned, I'm betting that if you hadn't seen it coming, you could have been knocked around by it.

Now, interface wise, there's no efficient way to implement "bracing" against blows that I can think of, and no way so simulate attacks to the shield being different than attacks to the surrounding weak spots (assigning it a hitbox could possibly work, but aiming blows properly would be very complicated to implement)


Read this if you don't want to read the rest 

The point is this, melee combat with a backslung shield couldn't handle a new hitbox arrangement, or a shield-like effect.  It wouldn't function realistically, and I feel would be bad for the gameplay, therefore an equivalent increase in armour would be best (if back-only armour can ever be implemented).  However, ranged combat is a different issue.  An arrow would be stopped by this arrangement, however, if you hadn't seen it coming, an arrow is still a pretty good impact, in absolute terms.  I suggest an arrow/bolt/knife and even axe/javelin catching hitbox, but one that still stuns you, interrupting your attack and movement just like a normal hit.

Do you like?

I fear this whole thing is going to end up too complicated to bother with.

 

[calandale]

No. But I've given you my reasons. And yes, it does look way too complicated.

 

[Blackthorn]

Alright, so, concerning the plate armour in game, I think the way it takes damage is well implemented, when you are, for instance, being mobbed because you can't run away, you slowly get pulverized into unconsciousness.

A shield on you back distributes the blow, that's how it functions as armour.  Somebody delivering a good amount of force to an area of your back the width and breadth of the cutting edge of an axe blade could quite easily kill you.  However, someone delivering that same amount of force to your entire back would probably not hurt you at all.  We can all agree on this, and this is why a shield on your back helps, because it's resting on a larger portion of you than the armour underneath would have distributed the blow to.

Now, moving from this, why is it that despite this, a trained soldier makes sure to never deliberately turn his back on an enemy, even when he has a shield there?  The shield will probably absorb an impact quite nicely, but of coure, there's more than just the shield for the enemy to hit.  Since he cannot adjust the shield to block, it DOES simply function as more effective armour, armour that can be worked around.  It probably doesn't cover his head, his sides may still be somewhat vulnerable, his legs may be exposed.  If the soldier isn't watching behind him, he will not be able to brace himself and anticipate blows, meaning that a hit that would not normally have phased him, can now potentially knock him flat, even if the blow was to the shield.

Blackthorn, I understand exactly what you mean about a backslung shield making blows effectivly much lighter, but would you turn your back on anyone, in the confidence that your shield would protect you?  Even that light-feeling blow you mentioned, I'm betting that if you hadn't seen it coming, you could have been knocked around by it.

Now, interface wise, there's no efficient way to implement "bracing" against blows that I can think of, and no way so simulate attacks to the shield being different than attacks to the surrounding weak spots (assigning it a hitbox could possibly work, but aiming blows properly would be very complicated to implement)


Read this if you don't want to read the rest 

The point is this, melee combat with a backslung shield couldn't handle a new hitbox arrangement, or a shield-like effect.  It wouldn't function realistically, and I feel would be bad for the gameplay, therefore an equivalent increase in armour would be best (if back-only armour can ever be implemented).  However, ranged combat is a different issue.  An arrow would be stopped by this arrangement, however, if you hadn't seen it coming, an arrow is still a pretty good impact, in absolute terms.  I suggest an arrow/bolt/knife and even axe/javelin catching hitbox, but one that still stuns you, interrupting your attack and movement just like a normal hit.

Do you like?

I fear this whole thing is going to end up too complicated to bother with.

I didn't see the axe coming; that's the point.
And trained soldiers frequently turn their back on the enemy; they're called CAVALRY. This is the main area that backslung shields were seen in; as a protection when you were riding clean past, and therefore going to inevitably expose yourself afterwards.

A shield absorbs the force not simply due to surface area, but because of the solid weight. How do you propose to peirce a large, thick, leather-coated wooden board with a sword when the wooden board moves slightly, and therefore you cannot deliver a heavy blow because of movement?

Try it out on a battlefield; half my group wear shields on their back because it's effective for skirmishing and lighter combat.