Talk:Wish List/Character Stats

From BattleMaster Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Allthough it is a great idea to make this improvements, there is a bit of danger within. These extra distinctions would made a too big differences between armies and it would be nearly impossible to coordinate such different tipes of TLs with so different characteristics. I think the complexity would rise too much...Shoenaemaeh 29 December 2005 21:53 (CET)

  • See, I disagree. You pick your weapon to match what you want your unit to be doing. I plan on using mostly archers? Buy a bow or javelin! Also, one person using a different weapon type wouldnt change battles drastically. Vellos 29 December 2005 22:02 (CET)
  • No, one person would not, but if the whole realm has different kinds of weapons it's going to be really difficult for the general to manage it, wouldn't it? Shoenaemaeh 29 December 2005 22:55 (CET)
  • Not really. See, lets say everyone has a different weapon. Lets say each weapon will result in a 15CS difference. Thats a substantial amount. But, really, it wont affect general's planning much. If one man uses a mace and another sword, I doubt if a general or marshall will really bother taking that into account. Now, there might be special task forces where those things are accounted for, but I think, on the whole, weapons would not really be incorporated into planning very much.Vellos 29 December 2005 23:10 (CET)
  • Well i wasn't really thinking about the CS amount, but on the combat positions... I mean the question is? Would different tipes of weapons distinguish whole units? I mean: if an infantry gets lances.... would it become some kind of "archery unit" or something like these which would work better under different Combat Settings? Because that's the real coordination problem for a general... Otherwise the idea is really great without having a drastical dis-/advantage in battles, but giving an excellent RP... Shoenaemaeh 30 December 2005 00:01 (CET)
  • They're CHARACTER weapons, not unit weapons.Vellos 30 December 2005 00:10 (CET)
  • Well, then i did understand it wrong, sorry... I also find the idea a really good one. I like to RP very much, and this gives much to play around. Definitely i like the idea.Shoenaemaeh 30 December 2005 09:44 (CET)
  • I like the idea, and don't think it should make any difference in unit strength. Really, a weapon kills another person just as well as most other weapons. It should effect things more like duels and tournaments instead of warfare itself. And of course RP. Though RP could be improved just with that Character Description (I foresee a lot of nobles describing their weaponry in that place once its completeed!) Olik 30 December 2005 03:44 (CET)
  • Just a thing with the flail/maces: These weapons are made for hitting VERY hard and smashing armour to bits. They're slow and difficult to control, but deliver very lethal wounds. If you're still alive after being hit with a flail and wearing plate mail or chainmail, you have shards of your armour deep in the wounds. Thus I don't see how they should 'do less damage than a Long Sword, but be able to strike much faster'. A great idea though :) Enstance Family
  • Well, actually, that depends. I happen to participate in middle mock-up combat activity, so I've got some measure of experience in weapons. Maces and flails were designed in the age of chain mail, and the idea was to hit the mail so hard that it didnt matter there was no cutting involved. BUT, a skilled macewielder(mace is actually one of my better weapons) can deliver blows at least as fast and much harder than, say, a longsword. The reason is that maces are short and heavy. Their small length means they are very manueverable, and their weight concentrated near the business end means you can get some SERIOUS momentum. Now, WARHAMMERS on the other hand are slow and heavy. Vellos 30 December 2005 15:31 (CET)
    • ACtually, maces probably should, for simplicity's sake, be marked as high damage, low speed. Claymores should be high damage, low speed. SO should axes. Longswords are iffy, it depends on weather you are slashing or stabbing. Lances... I presume this means spears, because an authentic 11 footer lance would be impossible to wield on foot, which is why "Lancers" were always on horseback. Vellos 30 December 2005 15:35 (CET)
  • For some reason, I can't imagine a noble wielding a spear. Spears are cheap weapons designed for the commonfolk soldiers, sometimes wielded by nobles for sport in a boar hunt. Now lances would be used on horseback of course, and to great effect. Also, the heavier weapons would be very difficult to use on horseback as you have to keep in mind the balance. Maybe add your own personal armoury to the game? That'd allow you to choose what weapons to wield when, keeping you out of those irritating situations where you forgot to buy a lance when you hired a unit of cavalry :)
  • While spears were primarily the weapons of peasents, we do have historical and archaelogical evidence of nobles(especially Italian and Byzantine ones) using them. In fact, two Byzantine emperors did not carry a sword, but a spear. Now, there was the little bit about thinking it was the spear that pierced Christ's flesh, though. Vellos 30 December 2005 16:06 (CET)
  • ANother thing, I cant see a katana cutting through armor. Japanese armor was, if I'm not mistaken, silk or something? I really dont see a katana piercing plate armor. Heck, not much of anything pierces plate armor! But I dont really see a katana even getting through chain mail, and it wasnt exactly a smashing weapon...Vellos 30 December 2005 16:09 (CET)
  • A Katana was a slicing weapon. you wouldnt have to go through the plate, just the week spots and joints are enough to let the Katana do its business.
  • When was the last time YOU tried to slice the weak points on plate armor? Its not easy, believe me! Its hard enough 1-on-1, but in the heat of battle, I dont know if it could be done. Vellos 30 December 2005 19:00 (CET)
  • Katana fighting style was not designed to cut through armor, but to cut through the spots that the armor didn't protect adequately. The neck and the joints mostly. It was a sport for a samurai in battle to decapitate as many enemies as he could, and they often collected the heads of their foes as war trophies.
  • Another thing, beneath plate armor, you almost always wear chain mail and a thick woolen hauberk. Right around 1200-1300 in Europe they started figuring out that trying to hack and slash at armor was like tryint to beat a 62,000 CS force with a 29,000 CS force, it cant be done. You had to use crossbows, lances, longbows at short range, stab really hard at weak points(or, if you were really strong, at strong points), or use very large warhammers to break armor with the puncturing end, or cause internal damage with the hammer end. Even plate armor wasnt sure defense against very large warhammers and maces, or even large swords. Vellos 30 December 2005 19:03 (CET)
  • If you train hard enough and dedicate most of your time to using a weapon its very easy to get the weak spots. Its the same as boxing or combat. You aim for the weak spots. Thats what training is for to get used to your weapon and how to use it.
  • I have trained with swords, maces, flails, axes, and glaives. I participate in a sort of medieval combat sport. Trust me, even with months and months of training, its still pretty much luck hitting a weak spot. Vellos 30 December 2005 19:59 (CET)
  • It may be that hard, or even more... But i think the characters in BM are not training for months, but since they were 5 years old holding the weapons of their father they are training, so i think after 15 years training they are quite good warriors...Shoenaemaeh 30 December 2005 20:05 (CET)
  • Well, if we look at the programming in BM, is is distinctly directed to a medieval Europe setup (hence the title "Count" "Duke", etc), and in medieval Europe, I really doubt if they were that good. Plus, especially in the 1500's, armor evolved again. It included thick neck and chin guards, and, especially in Milanese armor, did not have "gaps". At joints and such, they, hmm... cant think of the right word.... fit pieces together to make sort of "unfolding" areas at joints, resulting in total armor coverage. Which is why people started developing guns and cannons, and crossbows came in style. Vellos 30 December 2005 22:20 (CET)
  • Oh, also, katanas never encountered western armor. They fought distinctly different armor. For their culture and area and fighting style, they were excellent weapons. But a katana is remarkably innefective against plate armor, and ESPECIALLY innefective on horseback. Try using a katana against a lance and see what happens. Vellos 30 December 2005 22:23 (CET)
  • Well in my opinion the katana is the fastest and accurated close-combat weapon. Of course daggers are faster, but to make a complete fight (not just one stick) i think that katanas are really a good weapon. I think that if a really heavy armoured soldier with a lance comes to another who isn't armoured whose only weapon's a katana... I will bet blindly on the katana one, the other has nearly no possibilities...Shoenaemaeh 30 December 2005 22:27 (CET)
  • Really? So, if I got in my plate armor(currently, its in my closet) and got my lance(in my garage) and mounted my horse (the one in the field beside my house) and went up against a guy with a katana, you'd bet on the katana?Vellos 30 December 2005 22:46 (CET)
  • I sure would. Samurai were trained to fight all possible foes, including cavalry. They would jump out of the way of the lance, attack the horse's legs so it would trip, and kill the fallen rider before he could even get up to draw his sword. Trust me, to go up against a well-trained samurai, you'd have to be a pretty damn good fighter. Tariq
  • First off, a lance is 12-18 feet long. In medieval jousting, they trained thoroughly to hit targets. They could ajust the aim. You dont just "jump out of the way" of a charging horse with a mounted knight. Also, I've taken armor falls from horses(I used to joust, but it got WAY too expensive) and they arent hard to get up from. Its about 40-65 pounds of armor, but I can do jumping jacks and run in it because its well distributed. I fall, and am up just about a second or two slower than without armor. Also, to an extent, I've fought "trained samurai". I'm a little obsessed with medieval combat, so I play about every medieval combat sport there is, and in one I play, there's a group that has trained for about 3 years in combat situations and training for battle with samurai tactics, and they got slaughtered. Now, you may say, "3 years is different than a lifetime of training" and it is. But, from what I've read in training guides to various martial arts and combat tactics, and the experience I've had with those things, and what I've seen with other people, about 85% of the things you learn, and your training, comes in the first year or two of intensive training. The rest comes gradually, with experience. But, within just a few years, you can master most of the technique and nuance of many martial arts. Vellos
  • Plus, a katana hit, unless across the neck(which I have armor for) is most likely non-lethal. A lance hit to anywhere is essentially lethal, because, with the force the horse has, it lifts you up, and will go all the way through, and, if its and arm, rip pretty much everything off. Same for leg. Head or torso your just plain out dead. Vellos 30 December 2005 23:05 (CET)
  • A well-crafted katana blade can cut through small trees and even metal. There is a demonstration video of a katana cutting a speeding pistol bullet in half, and another of a machine gun firing on a katana blade, taking MANY rounds before shattering the blade. Trust me, a well-placed hit and you can kiss your arm/leg/whatever goodbye. And nobody shrugs that off fast enough to regain control and continue a battle. If a samurai manages to get in a decent hit, your life is pretty much forfeit. Samurai are agile fighters too, don't let their appearance fool you. They may look big and bulky, but they wear lighter armour than most other medieval soldiers. Suppose a knight came charging towards you with a lance in his right hand. If he is quick enough and times his move right, I think it's very possible for a trained samurai to get out of harm's way and onto the knight's left hand side. Tariq
  • This is very very false. Only in movies is a Katana a god-like weapon. In actual history, Japanese steel was a far poorer material than English equivilent. If a Samurai went up against a decent English knight, or even a man-at-arms, any block across the lateral axis or any lateral torque would seriously damage the Katana. They could be made very sharp, but hitting even a poor Western sword or peice of armor would ruin the edge, and if the strike was not perfect, the blade itself. Sorry if I don't trust you, but this is something you learn in a basic Material Science course. Any Katana you see doing amazing things in movies is a modern construct, and mearly a comment on modern materials, not in weapons. If you're weilding a Katana on a 12-th century battlefield, and are going to try and slice through your enemies plate or god forbid, chain mail, you are going to be down one working Katana.
Lets pretend for a second that you made your Katana out of Western steel. Congratulations, you now have a slashing sword equal to that of your enemy. You still can't slice through armor, you still can't move it at beyond-god-like-speed, you still can't do Hiten Miterugi Style Do Ryu Sen magic attacks. It weighs about the same as a Western sword. It holds about the same blade as a Western sword. Having steel in a Katana shape instead of a Saber shape gives you no mystical advatage. It comes down to skill and speed, the same as any other sword fight.
I love Katanas as much as the next guy, guy (maybe even more; I'm an anime fan) but I also have taken Material Science 101. Katanas do have one thing that Western swords don't have; an ethos of coolness, that makes people give them greater power than they actually had. AlexTurner 31 December 2005 01:01 (CET)
  • Yes, they do. :D Actually, katanas were a bit lighter than western weapons, but that just makes it even harder for them to do anything to steel armor. But, if a Katana went up against more like 700-800 AD armor, it might have a fighting chance, as steel was not invented yet. Of course, I dont really know if the katana was either...Vellos 31 December 2005 03:50 (CET)
  • Oh, and, Tariq, I'd like to see that demonstration video. Vellos 31 December 2005 03:50 (CET)
  • A Katana was not just made out of one lump of metal like most western swords were. The Katana was crafted of between 300-400 individuals sheets. They were very fine and a swordsmaster (the guy who created them) took pride in his work, its an antient tradition that still is carried on today. That IS why gunpowder and weapons like that, were outlaw'd in Japan. Bacause the Samuri and Katana were the traditional weapons and fighting impliments
  • Not all katanas are the same, just as not all European longswords are the same. I said a well-crafted katana could cut through trees and metal. Mass-produced katanas were probably the equivalent of mass-produced European swords. High-end katanas were for nobles only, as ordinary foot soldiers could not afford them. - Katana vs. pistol - Sharpness demonstration - Katana vs. machine gun (it takes six .50 caliber bullets in the same spot before shattering, let's see a European sword do that)

I don't exactly know the composition of a .50 cal bullet, but I think that if a katana can split six of them in half at high velocity before shattering, it could cut through a piece of plate armour as well. Tariq

  • I'm sorry, but those videos are laughable for a number of reasons. The first is that those katanas are made of western steel, NOT japanese materials. The second is the sharpness demonstration. Any sword can be sharpened to do that. Katanas aren't miraculously sharp. Another thing is that bullets are LEAD, an amazingly SOFT AND WEAK metal. Any iron or steel sword could cut them in half, it has nothing to do with sharpness. The sheer velocity a bullet goes, if it hits an SOLID IRON BLOCK it splits. I know, I participate in shooting sports, there's a shooting range behind my house. Also, the method of forging a katana, with many individual sheets, is greatly exagerated. Because, see, there is a limit to how thin you can forge metal before it just sort... breaks and pops. Those sheets, to make them come together to make a katana blade, would be far beyond that limit. I can see maybe four or five sheets, but not 300-400, not even 100, not even 50. Now, I CAN see that many if they are smithed together, and then shaved off, basically not doing much in the end. Also, Japanese were not that advanced in metalworking. They did not know how to make true steel. Their weapons were, basically, tempered iron. They didnt learn about steel until westerners started bringing it over, and they soon figured out how to make it. Thus Japanese weapons were naturally inferior. Its like in the Early Iron Age, when armies with iron weapons (Hittites, Assyrians, Egyptians) could easily overrun everyone else using bronze weapons (Phoenicians, Greeks, Hebrews, Nubians), because iron cuts bronze. Its very similar with steel. Use a steel weapon against iron, and you virtually cut through it. Well, not cut THROUGH it, not in one hit. Also, sharpness cannot be increased indefinately. I said any sword can be that sharp, its true. But sharpness is just an angle. WHhile, true, you can keep on getting smaller, it stops mattering after about 1/3 of a degree(most factory made weapons are between 3/5 and 1 degree). Also, have you ever, in real life, actually watched a "samurai" fight? Vellos 31 December 2005 16:23 (CET)
  • I'll try to address your points in order. First, Material Science 101: Swords are not made like you describe. All swords, Western and Eastern, were made not from single peices, not from multiple sheets, but from folding. This results in a 'multiple sheets' effect. As for your sheet-numbers, they are actually way too low; it takes about 15 folds to get around 1500 'sheets'. Sometimes people confuse 'sheets' and folds, and we start hearing of swords folded 200 times that are so strong they can cut god himself, but this is mearly popular culture, and not reality. Both Western and Katanas were folded around 20 times, because if you fold it more than that, bad things happen.
As for the videos, again, Material Science 101; those videos are cool (I want a Katana now!) but those are all made with modern steel and smithing meathods, and are a testement to science, not to a certain blade type. You show me some modern steel and a modern machine-shop, and I could show you a blade of any shape you can imagine doing the same things.
Third point, not all katanas are the same, but there were no mass-produced katanas. In Japan, you have very little steel, and its not hight quality. Thus, you have to make the best out of what you have, and this gave rise to the ancient tradition of craftmanship you speak of. All real Katanas would have been fine weapons, crafted very carfully, with love and care. But this doesn't enable them to behave contrary to the laws of physics.
I would suggest that if you are really interested in swords, to take some Materials Classes, or get some books on Material Science. Finding all your information on the internet will get you mostly information that some guy made up after seeing a cool movie. Wikipedia might actually be better, and as I look at it, it looks good:

AlexTurner 31 December 2005 17:28 (CET)

  • It's great to see how much enthusiasm this idea has! And also great to see the knowledge of some people about swords; i didn't know the most things you mentioned... For example the elaboration of katanas. The thing with metal-sheets... does that mean that they make about 200 ultra-thin metal sheets and then pull them together under a high pressure and temperature so they get together? And what is exactly the "folding" thing? Could someone explain it briefly? (i'm not native english, so don't use too complicated language, hehe...) thanx! Shoenaemaeh 31 December 2005 17:47 (CET)
  • YEah, the folding process is right. It is NOT lots of ultra-thin sheets. They take one big(thin, but big) sheet of iron, not steel. Steel is just iron heated differently. Then it is, well, heated up, and folded to the desired shape. Folded again, and again, producing yes, hundreds of layers. Actually, if my memory serves me correctly, thats how Damascene steel swords were made. But "white steel", the kind we are familiar with today, was made quite differently. Armor or weapons were heated up very hot, and dipped in cold water. It then became brittle, like glass. Then it was reheated and became very, very shiny, and extraordinarily hard. For these "white steel" blades, folding was not the process used(I think). They used "shaving". Where they got a thin(about 3-4 millimeters) block of iron, and heated it up, beat it into shape, and basically shaved it down to the thickness desired, then ran it through a sharpening system. I may be wrong on tha shaving process, but thats what ths History Channel said! :D Yes, I'm aware that HC is not actually a very reliable source.Vellos 31 December 2005 18:47 (CET) is a pretty interesting place for articles on medieval warfare. is an article on Knights vs Samurai. Based purely on equipment, the knight has the advantage but throw in other factors like training and experience it would depend entirely on the users.

Also, samurais were trained in a broad range of military arms, they were proficient with the bow and arrow so they may kill the knight before lancing range.