This argument has come up a lot and it usually starts with someone complaining that 2-handed swords shouldn't be faster than 1-handed swords. I can understand why people would think this since one weapon is obviously larger than the other but after reading through some of your links it appears the weight difference is really only a few pounds. That along with the fact that you are using both arms instead of just one, I can see how a 2-hander may be faster.
It looks as though Crpg may be more realistic than I thought :o
The further away from the fulcrum you are, the more speed & force you need to travel the same distance as a shorter lever.
A real claymore weighs about 9-10 lbs.
A katana ranges from 2-3lbs.
One handed swords usually weight less or around the same as a katana.
A real claymore weighs about 9-10 lbs.
A katana ranges from 2-3lbs.
One handed swords usually weight less or around the same as a katana.
This being said. The main advantage that 1 hander with a shield had over 2 handers was that they could attack and defend at the same time. Since that's impossible with the game engine it would be very imbalanced for 1 handers to be slower. Also with fighting in general, it's more about knocking the enemies weapon away than to hit your opponent. Going straight for the kill was one of the quickest ways to die. Sadly, the only thing closely resembling this is chambering.
No, laymore is 2-2,5 kgs, it's weight is generally exaggerated, because it appears to be big, but it's actually a thin, flexible cutting blade.Soooo, guess we agree then :D
I can't agree with that. One of the main principles of European (German and Italian anyway, two schools we know the most about) fencing was about acting "indes" (German for "inside" or "at the same moment") which involves attacking at the same time your opponent does, utilizing the technique called "master strikes", five strikes which are blocks and attacks at the same time. And from my limited experience with fencing with the shield, the main advantage of it is getting close to your opponent, pressing against him so he can't move his hands, while you're swinging at him.
No, laymore is 2-2,5 kgs, it's weight is generally exaggerated, because it appears to be big, but it's actually a thin, flexible cutting blade.
I can't agree with that. One of the main principles of European (German and Italian anyway, two schools we know the most about) fencing was about acting "indes" (German for "inside" or "at the same moment") which involves attacking at the same time your opponent does, utilizing the technique called "master strikes", five strikes which are blocks and attacks at the same time. And from my limited experience with fencing with the shield, the main advantage of it is getting close to your opponent, pressing against him so he can't move his hands, while you're swinging at him.
Not that I disagree with you, that the low is around 6 really for a claymore, one made today with modern materials and a steel hilt is indeed in this wight class.
http://www.factoryx.com/ProductDetail.aspx?prodID=SL54077&productFor=m
Just as an example.
The further away from the fulcrum you are, the more speed & force you need to travel the same distance as a shorter lever.
weapons were typically 2 to 4 pounds, 4 being a larger 2handed word, maybe up to 5 on a greatsword or long 2handed axe.Indeed.
They were light. Two handed swords do swing faster than a 1hander, but 1 handers get a shield. When you swing with two hands you get two points of influence and it is very easy to swing.
If your weapon was close to 3 pounds, you could swing it around for HOURS while still killing people very very efficiently. Weapons were not heavy, or they could not be used in battle.
For example, one handed battle axes had really small heads and weighed very little. A one handed battle axe would typically weigh 2 to 2.5 pounds
Of course, for game balance one handers and 2 handers swing the same speed. And they do in game. Most shielders seem to have bad footwork and timing which let them get spammed viciously by 2handers. They are not slower weapons in game, contrary to popular belief.
Now for armor. For game balance, you are much slower when wearing armor. Realistically, hardly at all. You can do handstands and cartwheels in platemail, hell you could run a mile at full speed with ease. Knights vaulted up onto their horses with no problem.
Something lighter like Chainmail? You would hardly know you were wearing it. People trained in their armor for years and were completely used to it like it was a part of themselves.
Tears you know full well that cost is not a balancing factor, remember all the crazy suggestions of ultra expansive items, and the trolling that ensued...
My K/D when I'm wearing a Red Gambeson is better than when I'm wearing a Heavy Plate Armor...
I went to a Ren fair a while back and I tried to swing a great sword and that muther musta wight ATLEAST 20 lbs!
No real greatsword weighed more then 8 lbs if used for combative purposes and not ceremonial. rarely did any two handed word exceed 6 lbs and rarely did any one handed exceed 2.
Most people do not have the right muscles built up, and since the swords are so long, it feels heavier then they are.
Well you almsot seemed convincing except you said chainmail.... rpg +1, historical correctness -1.I've seen people doing gymnastics in lamellar scale armour, which, I assure you, is heavier than maile, yet quite usable even by 14 years old person I was at that point.
Apart from that, yes, a plate armor (not mail!) is very flexible and the weight is distributed so well, that you can do gymnastics in it.
However Mailles (what you call chainmail) is very heavy and all the weight is centered on the shoulders. A lot used a belt to make better weight distribution.
A plate armor is in every way more effective than maile or hauberk, but is also about 100 to 200 years younger.
I went to a Ren fair a while back and I tried to swing a great sword and that muther musta wight ATLEAST 20 lbs!
alot of 2 handers (not hand and a half) were taller or as tall as the person wielding them (example: the sword used by William Wallace, and the flamberge). even so they did not weigh that much (10 - 20 pounds). in one of your sources they declare the swords are "Medieval Swords are neither unwieldably heavy..." : / well they weren't heavy or unwieldable but they wouldnt have been your first choice for a dueling weapon, it is also good to note that this source is referring to short swords more than half the time (short swords are maybe 5 inches longer than your average butter knife and for close combat only).
I have a 119.4 cm (47 inches for you Americans) Hanwei Tinker Longsword that weighs about 1.3 kg (2 pounds 13 ounces).Yeah, 2handed weapons are actually quite fast. Even faster is spears and the like (since you hold them further in the middle and stuff). One handed weapons weren't that fast to swing really, their strength was in being able to block and attack at the same time. Not necessarily with what you'd expect. (Blocking with shield, striking with sword. Then suddenly parrying with the sword and shieldbashing, taking away the balance of the enemy). Sadly we can't have that in this game, but one can always hope a game will come with it.
Not heavy at all considering the point of balance is 8.25 cm (3 and 1/4 inch) down the blade. Furthermore, I can swing it as fast, if not faster than a single handed sword, and even with my scrawny muscles, I've done cut tests that have gone through like butter.
i think that shieldbash could be done (kicking animation change to bashing)It was done already in another mod
i think that shieldbash could be done (kicking animation change to bashing)Still wouldn't give us the ability to attack and defend at the same time.
http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html
thats all about 2handed swords, and yes contrary to forum belief they could hack pike shafts as they did (omg what wood is weaker than steel NO WAI)
taken from that article-
"The Italian humanist historian Paulus Jovius writing in the early 1500s also described the two-hand great sword as being used by Swiss soldiers to chop the shafts of pikes at the battle of Fornovo in 1495"
"The fighting two-handed sword, weighed (on average) between 5-7 lbs. I give the following three examples, randomly chosen from our own collections, which I hope are adequate to make the point:
Two-handed sword, German, c.1550 (IX.926). Weight: 7 lb 6oz.
Two-handed sword, German, dated 1529 (IX.991). Weight: 5 lb 1oz.
Two-handed sword, Scottish, mid 16th century, (IX.926). Weight: 5 lb 10oz.
If any post ever needed a +1, the post above does. We should ask for that feature in this sub-forum.Agreed. That was a very nice and informative post. 3 reasons I didn't quote him directly is because of it's length, that I agree with ToD and because ToD is a cute bitch and I like to quote cute bitches xD
ToD avatar is a cute bitch, ToD on the other hand...
Get rid of the cute part and we are getting closer to the truth.
And let me tell you, until you feel these weights in your own hand, and swing the thing around for 20 minutes, its hard to understand, that these are very significant weights to deal with, even if they sound rather low.
You are using 2 hands to spar with your longsword, you gotta take that in account as well.
I am not getting any sword for a while since I am broke as fuck and University began few weeks ago. Besides, I'd rather get a book about the combat technique with an arming sword rather anythign else.