Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-12-2016, 09:22 PM   #21
safisher
Gunnery Sergeant,
 Imperial Marines
Coauthor,
 GURPS High-Tech
 
safisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Default Re: Swords and plate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucian View Post
Swords can't pierce plate armor.
In reality, never on a cutting attack,
Thrusting, with 2 hands you might only pierce
A few centimeters....
In gurps any mook with about 14 15 st
SO basically, you've made some absolute statements, which are controversial to say the least, and followed it up by really mucking up the ST and damage rules in GURPS. And now you want help?
__________________
Buy my stuff on E23. Fav Blogs: Doug Cole here , C.R. Rice's here, & Hans Christian Vortisch here.
safisher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 09:24 PM   #22
safisher
Gunnery Sergeant,
 Imperial Marines
Coauthor,
 GURPS High-Tech
 
safisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Default Re: Swords and plate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyndaran View Post
Unless you're fighting well braced blocks of wood, axes are horrible metal weapons. You poke holes in armor not cleave in twain.
If the weapon looks too similar to a tool it's probably not optimal as a weapon.

The only way a realistic human will penetrate properly made plate armor with hand weapons in bob-and-weave combat is via chinks or swung impalers.
Polearms were mostly against cavalry if I remember correctly.
Good plate armor cost as much as a nice car or even small house. Local battles shouldn't be crawling with such rich nigh impervious mooks.
Basically none of this is true. You might read Sydney Anglo's work, or check out some of the historical fighting manuals here, where you will find instructions of using poll weapons and axes, etc.:
http://www.thearma.org/manuals.htm#.V4WyybsrLIU
__________________
Buy my stuff on E23. Fav Blogs: Doug Cole here , C.R. Rice's here, & Hans Christian Vortisch here.
safisher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 11:22 PM   #23
Railstar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Default Re: Swords and plate

Quote:
Originally Posted by GodBeastX View Post
Where is the information that says swords don't cut into plate?

I'm not saying I don't believe it, I just never read anything like that before.

I did see this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osTQrJ_axfc Which makes it seem like you can't really get through plate.

I'm not looking for debate on validity, just some references to read through.
For a big pile of primary sources covering the topic, try here - http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Category:Armored_Fencing - we see how people were taught to fight against armour, which notably didn't include attempts to cut through.

ARMA (Association Renaissance Martial Arts) & also any HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts) group will have a fair amount to say about it.

Scholagladiatoria has some videos on the topic, a start is this one - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBwtkRd8xzU

Mike Loades in Swords & Swordsmen (it was pretty expensive when I got it, however) makes some discussion of using swords against armour, with some variation in different examples but consistently that the method was not to cut through plate.

I hope that helps!
Railstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2016, 12:15 AM   #24
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Swords and plate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucian View Post
Another post brought up a fact I knew about but have long forgotten.

Swords can't pierce plate armor.

In reality, never on a cutting attack,
Thrusting, with 2 hands you might only pierce
A few centimeters....
Quote:
Originally Posted by safisher View Post
SO basically, you've made some absolute statements, which are controversial to say the least, ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by safisher View Post
Basically none of this is true. You might read Sydney Anglo's work, or check out some of the historical fighting manuals here, where you will find instructions of using poll weapons and axes, etc.:
http://www.thearma.org/manuals.htm#.V4WyybsrLIU
Sorry just listing some manuals is not the same as saying these manuals say that that axes blades were used to cut through plate. Because ARMA themselves pretty much don't agree with your assessment.

If you could actually cite a specific manual (or later experiment) that actually states that axes (or axe blades on pole arms) were reliably used to chop through proper plate armour as a combat technique, that would be great.

Last edited by Tomsdad; 07-13-2016 at 03:13 AM. Reason: Added a couple of earlier posts to put some direct context in
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2016, 01:14 AM   #25
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Swords and plate

Quote:
Originally Posted by safisher View Post
I see this come up a lot, but Edge Protection is a spectacularly bad rule. It's too complex and it punishes well known armor-piercing weapons like axes and polearms.
Such weapons were not well known armour piercing weapons because of their cutting blades. Well known hand held armour defeating weapons were weapons that used ether very narrow pick heads (often targeting weak point or chinks that an axe blade would not be suited to do) or blunt impact on weak points as well. I'm not even sure that you'd call axes well known armour piecing weapons at all.




Quote:
Originally Posted by safisher View Post
You want to speed play and change as little about the game as possible. EP changes all kinds of assumptions about what DR is -- and in GURPS, DR protects from injury.

A simple rule, for those persuaded that swords should never cut through armor,
It's not so much we're persuaded just on a whim, it's that all the evidence points to the fact, if you can produce evidence to the contrary that it regularly happened, I think we'd be happy to look at it.



Quote:
Originally Posted by safisher View Post
would be to give all sword-like weapons swing damage an armor divisor of (0.5). Put it right on the weapons tables. Thus, it changes as little as possible, and has predictable effects. You might compensate your swordsmen, if you were so disposed, by treating all sword thrusts as (2)
That would make it far too easy to thrust through armour. A ST10 chap with a broad sword would be capable of thrusting through a DR9 jousting breastplate a third of the time




Quote:
Originally Posted by safisher View Post
and give them the +2 for targeting gaps that estocs and stilettos get.
Ironically those are well known armour piecing/defeating weapons, and they were because they were used in that manner. I.e. targeting chinks etc. The thing is they were specifically designed for that purpose being specialised developments of weapons. Historically thee were other tactics for less specialised weapons in order to get the same benefit, half swording with swords that have rigid tapered points (and half swording gives the same bonus to target chinks in MA)




Quote:
Originally Posted by safisher View Post
Thus swordsmen will attack armored foes with thrusts, and will save their edges for unarmored targets. It may overplay both a little, but it's aiming at getting the right tactics going.
I think I'd say giving thrusting attacks AD(2) vs. armour is rather more than over playing it. And given the ubiquity of spears on the historical battlefield, would have pretty much rendered armour irrelevant, which wasn't the case.

The current chinks rules already play to thrusting attacks as they are limited to Pi & Imp, thus larger restricted to thrusting attacks when it comes to melee weapons.

I think that you're suggesting this more from a game balance point of view in order to balance swords against armour? Which is fine from a game balance point of view. But I think historically swords (and lots of weapons) were just sub optimal against armour.



Quote:
Originally Posted by safisher View Post
Now, if you wanted to have swordsmen in armor batter on each other, with some effect, one might also count blunt trauma damage against all armor, not just flexible, and treat sword swing damage as crushing for that purpose only. Thus, a swordsman could bang on an armored knight and do some damage, giving them the feeling of accomplishment, rather than utter futility.

That would remove one of advantages that crushing weapon enjoy against armour over cutting weapons, which is why those well know armour defeating pole arms you mentioned earlier often had crushing heads for armour rather than using their cutting heads. I quite like the idea of adjusting the flexible / non-flexible hard distinction though There was recent thread on this (actually it came up in the resurrected portion of this thread, post 141+)

Quote:
Originally Posted by safisher View Post
I'll note also that the rules for attacking joint articulation (Targeting Armor in LTC2) were designed specifically to allow plate armor to have some weaknesses. Ditto the armpit location -- using the +2 for gaps, above, and +4 for a telegraphic attack, as well as "crippling" attacks on legs and arms, it's possible to take the knights down.
Again that is historically one of the main ways you defeated chaps in plate, that's how you get round the sense of utter futility you mentioned.


It actually goes to half the point of armour, yes it stops damage. But the follow on to that is it forces your opponent to rely on a narrow and difficult (thus disadvantageous) set of tactics to defeat it

e.g Yes penalties to hit chinks can be compensated for by telegraphic or AoA attacks. But the armour wearer can capitalise on that. Moreover if I'm in armour that my opponent has to use TA or AoA to get around and even then it's not a sure thing, I myself can use Committed or AoA's at less risk (with AoA even if you can defend the downsides for me getting hit back afterwards is less because of my armour). Or say I know you need to go with half swording or grappling, then I'll keep my distance and punish you when you are forced to move in as you can't trade blows with me at longer reaches.

Last edited by Tomsdad; 07-13-2016 at 07:30 AM. Reason: Wasn't quick in the end!
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2016, 01:32 AM   #26
Railstar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Default Re: Swords and plate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyndaran View Post
Unless you're fighting well braced blocks of wood, axes are horrible metal weapons. You poke holes in armor not cleave in twain.
If the weapon looks too similar to a tool it's probably not optimal as a weapon.

...
Polearms were mostly against cavalry if I remember correctly.
...
Polearms were popular all-purpose weapons, rather than mostly against cavalry they did nearly everything. The Swiss halberdiers used them as their weapon of choice before adopting the pike. More or less anyone not an archer would use a polearm in the Wars of the Roses. Landsknecht made use of halberdiers against other pike squares.

Axes were overall pretty good, not ideal for armour piercing, but certainly far from horrible metal weapons.
Railstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2016, 01:49 AM   #27
Flyndaran
Untagged
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Forest Grove, Beaverton, Oregon
Default Re: Swords and plate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Railstar View Post
Polearms were popular all-purpose weapons, rather than mostly against cavalry they did nearly everything. The Swiss halberdiers used them as their weapon of choice before adopting the pike. More or less anyone not an archer would use a polearm in the Wars of the Roses. Landsknecht made use of halberdiers against other pike squares.

Axes were overall pretty good, not ideal for armour piercing, but certainly far from horrible metal weapons.
Compared to swords for versatility, picks and maces against armor, axes were horrible
__________________
Beware, poor communication skills. No offense intended. If offended, it just means that I failed my writing skill check.
Flyndaran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2016, 01:57 AM   #28
McAllister
 
McAllister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: Swords and plate

I'm telling y'all, Super Edge Protection is the way to go if you're concerned about swinging swords being to effective against armor, and how slipping a few points of impaling damage through armor at a time is ridiculous.

Crushing damage against armor is unchanged.

Impaling damage needs to beat 2xDR: otherwise, anything over DR is converted to crushing. If impaling damage reaches the threshold, though, it's all impaling: either it manages a bit of blunt trauma, or it punches through and ruins your day.

Cutting damage is as above, but it needs to beat 3xDR. How strong do you need to be to cut through chainmail? Crazy strong.

These are the thresholds for mail, scale, and other non-plate metal armor. Fibrous armor (paper, straw, cloth etc) is good against impaling, rubbish against cutting. Leather armor is good against cutting, rubbish against impaling. Plate armor is like mail, but just better. There's a reason a suit of light plate costs $3,000. But if you wanted to multiply plate DR by 2/3, it would still be damn fine armor.

Oh, and someone mentioned how good axes are at chopping braced targets? It turns out most things are, so give AD(2) to all attacks against a prone opponent from above.
McAllister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2016, 02:03 AM   #29
McAllister
 
McAllister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: Swords and plate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyndaran View Post
Compared to swords for versatility, picks and maces against armor, axes were horrible
Well, the thrusting broadsword makes any one-handed axe look like trash, and the thrusting greatsword makes any two-handed axe look like trash... but if you're poor as hell and you want to do swing damage, I can see it.

Thing is, in TL 2-4 warfare, the peasants basically stuck to thrust damage, didn't they?
McAllister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2016, 03:01 AM   #30
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Swords and plate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Railstar View Post
Polearms were popular all-purpose weapons, rather than mostly against cavalry – they did nearly everything. The Swiss halberdiers used them as their weapon of choice before adopting the pike. More or less anyone not an archer would use a polearm in the Wars of the Roses. Landsknecht made use of halberdiers against other pike squares.
Polearms we're exceptionally versatile, and came with other advantages such as being cheap, relatively easy to drill with and allowed dense formations etc (although this later depends on what polearms and how they were used).

All of which is demonstrated by the fact that nasty things on the end of long sticks (which includes spears) were basically the pre-eminent battlefield melee weapon for thousands of years. However...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Railstar View Post
Axes were overall pretty good, not ideal for armour piercing, but certainly far from horrible metal weapons.
... the same can not be said of axes, despite their relative cheapness and wide spread use and availability outside the battlefield. The oft cited John II at Poitiers preference for an axe only goes so far in a wider context.

Last edited by Tomsdad; 07-13-2016 at 07:31 AM.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
armor, hema

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.