Realism; Strength is not important for swordsmanship(?)

[Gerrard of Titan Server]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

But wielding any object fast takes strength.

Is that even true in a real and meaningful sense? For a heavy object, I can more easily buy that, but swords only weigh 2 to 4 lb. Historical one-handed maces weighed 2.5 lb or less. Etc. Real historical lowtech melee weapons are exceptionally light compared to modern expectations.

Consider an out-of-shape person, and take an Olympic athlete strength trainer of some sort, and compare how fast that they can swing a bat. Would the difference really be that large?

According to some random sources found via google, children in little league can swing a bat up to 60 mph (tip speed?), and adults who play baseball professionally only swing a bat up to 80 mph (tip speed?). That's not a big variation. The kinetic energy difference would be larger because kinetic energy is the square of speed, but IIRC GURPS damage is generally treated as the sqrt of kinetic energy, so we're back to about 60 vs 80. (And there's the whole problem of using kinetic energy or momentum as a baseline for determining damage.)

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

And if anything is in the way of that flesh, it will take more force to poke through it.

Here, my naive understanding has some sympathy, especially for lighter armors, like clothes, or leather, or something, but even then I don't really know, because I am grossly ignorant on the matter.

What really complicates the issue for me is part of the above link, where it claims that proper form with a sword delivers like 100x less impact force than simply swinging it as hard as you can. My question also gets into the whole problem of chopping vs slashing aka draw cuts, and it might even be the same question.

This also gets to my understanding of the realism but not RAW of Balanced vs Unbalanced weapons. From my understanding, one can swing a sword very hard like one might swing a battleaxe, and then the sword would be out of position and unable to be used in parrying, but most sword strikes are not full out like that, which allows the sword to be quickly repositioned, which is why swords can be used for "simultaneous" attack and parry, but battleaxes cannot.

[Bilanthri]

Originally Posted by Gerrard of Titan Server

Consider an out-of-shape person, and take an Olympic athlete strength trainer of some sort, and compare how fast that they can swing a bat. Would the difference really be that large?

...

The kinetic energy difference would be larger because kinetic energy is the square of speed, but IIRC GURPS damage is generally treated as the sqrt of kinetic energy, so we're back to about 60 vs 80.

While the kinetic energy imparted in a swung weapon is an important factor when calculating shearing forces and whatnot, it seems that a better comparison comes from looking at Newton's Second Law:

F=ma

Since trying to land a crushing blow is less important than landing a well-placed blow, a stronger wielder may not swing their weapon that much faster than a weaker person. However, they would have an advantage in being able to bring their weapon up to speed quicker, as well as being able to continue to accelerate into the blow.

Why, may you ask, would one continue accelerating into their strike? For the same reason that empty-hand techniques teach practitioners to strike "through" their target. You don't want to level off or slow down before the impact...that's called pulling your punch. It can mean the difference between a bloodied, angry opponent and one who's been floored.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Bilanthri

Why, may you ask, would one continue accelerating into their strike? For the same reason that empty-hand techniques teach practitioners to strike "through" their target.

That reason being a psychological trick -- it's not that accelerating actually meaningfully affects damage, it's that not decelerating does, and human instinct causes you to decelerate shortly before reaching the point you're aiming at.

[Bilanthri]

Originally Posted by Anthony

That reason being a psychological trick -- it's not that accelerating actually meaningfully affects damage, it's that not decelerating does, and human instinct causes you to decelerate shortly before reaching the point you're aiming at.

So you're suggesting that accelerating into the point of impact would not have a noticeable effect on measured force of impact, relative to a strike with no delta-v? I find that hard to believe, considering the math.

I was reminded of a fun video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZblxX_AzNjg

Look at the slow-motion capture and you can see how he is accelerating into the target. The auto-collision expert mentions "build(ing) up enough velocity" which is exactly what I'm referring to by bringing up Newton's Second Law. But, I think what's more interesting is how little rebound his fist undergoes. Essentially, he is counteracting the effects of deceleration on impact by accelerating into the impact.

Oh, and he hits as hard as a 35mph car collision.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Bilanthri

So you're suggesting that accelerating into the point of impact would not have a noticeable effect on measured force of impact, relative to a strike with no delta-v?

Energy is equal to to force times distance. The amount of force you can apply to an already near peak speed is low, and the distance you are applying the force over is very short, so yes -- we're typically talking under 1%.

Note that you can achieve acceleration immediately before impact via a whip crack energy transfer through the wrist, but this has very little to do with muscles. In addition, you can push the target after the initial impact, but while that is relevant to knockback, and to the injury from a stabbing weapon that has penetrated armor, it has negligible effect on armor penetration.

[Lord Azagthoth]

If your attack doesn't accelerate anymore from a certain point then you have initiated the attack to far off the target; Ideally, you would like to hit your opponent just before you reach maximum velocity and the range you need you would like that to be a short as possible. The longer the range the slower the acceleration (or it stops accelerating and continues at the same speed or even slows down) the more your opponent is able to defend himself.

And don't start talking about that this is already in the rules because you get extra damage. The extra damage is nice to have, but to lessen the chance of your attack getting parried is what you want.

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by Lord Azagthoth

If your attack doesn't accelerate anymore from a certain point then you have initiated the attack to far off the target; Ideally, you would like to hit your opponent just before you reach maximum velocity and the range you need you would like that to be a short as possible. The longer the range the slower the acceleration (or it stops accelerating and continues at the same speed or even slows down) the more your opponent is able to defend himself.

And don't start talking about that this is already in the rules because you get extra damage. The extra damage is nice to have, but to lessen the chance of your attack getting parried is what you want.

Hmm. That sounds like a form of Deceptive Attack.