Speed is a joke?



  • @SlyGoat:

    Yeah, VG’s lack of shield and horrible horrible armor against piercing damage (barely taking less than a Man-at-Arms does) is intended to make archers counter VGs. I think they counter him a little too effectively now though, honestly.

    Are you kidding me? It takes 2-4 shots to kill a vanguard which is almost impossible ever during average conditions of 30ish ping… and that’s with a bow or javelin, crossbow is screwed if the vanguard is focusing on him at all…



  • @GhoXen:

    @yedrellow:

    @Dabu:

    IMO that break for a little the survival for the Archer. Because if you are runing away from 3 enemies, you never will stay a live

    Unlock the thrusting dagger, learn to block with it, then you will never complain about a knight catching up to you again. Also, armour isn’t as heavy as you think it is, in fact, a lot of the plate is lighter than the kit that modern infantry use today.

    This is true. Most 2-handed swords in medieval times were also a lot lighter than assault rifles like AK47 (4.78kg) and M16 (3.6kg). Most Medieval Zweihanders weigh only 3kg, and war swords weigh under 2kg.

    I don’t know what is your information source, but you should stop using it. Zweihander - 20-25kg, bastard swords around 12 kg. And knight’s armor is not 100 kg as someone said earlier, it is around 40 kg. I can’t imagine anyone walking with another 100 kg on him and fight in that condition. Good lord, I don’t think horses would charge with ~200 kg on their back. In regards to the main topic the running speed is not a joke. According to many respected sources such as wikipedia (giggle) and historical shows (they acctualy tested what a knight in such armor could do) that heavy, slow,“deffensive” class can run realy well on short distances, but I don’t think they should catch an archer in “piyamas”. If they don’t get a hit on him right away.



  • @tamashi:

    I don’t know what is your information source, but you should stop using it. Zweihander - 20-25kg

    You might want to edit wikipedia then as it clearly says a Zweihander with a weight higher than 4kg is considered to be more ceremonial than practical.

    EDIT: In fact I couldn’t even find your claim that a Zweihander weighs 20-25 kg. Not on any of the medieval weaponry fan sites nor wikipedia.



  • Hey guys, I don’t care about the weight of the medieval or actual weapons. This Post is for Speed system, thank you.



  • @Dabu:

    Hey guys, I don’t care about the weight of the medieval or actual weapons. This Post is for Speed system, thank you.

    We’re doing that… people saying whether or not a knight would be able to chase down an archer. And as said before, there clearly are some misconceptions about the weight a full-plated knight is carrying.



  • @Siegfried:

    @tamashi:

    I don’t know what is your information source, but you should stop using it. Zweihander - 20-25kg

    You might want to edit wikipedia then as it clearly says a Zweihander with a weight higher than 4kg is considered to be more ceremonial than practical.

    The problem is, i didn’t read wikipedia before posting it. I said that wikipedia is a not reliable source of information.
    And that statement about zweihander that if it weights more than 4 kg its a ceremonial sword not practical is completely incorrect. Imagine a situation where a knight with zweihander attacks another knight. If that sword would weight <4kg it would do almost nothing to the enemy, since he is wearing an armor. Then let’s see a 3 hour ceremony where a guy who is supposed to be a royal guard faints because of holding up a weapon that weights more than 4 kg (lets say around 10kg). What you’re trying to say is that people were so strong back then, that they would crush through enemy armor with their strengh dealing most of the damage, and they would hold up 10 kg in the air for an extended period of time. Makes no sense to me.



  • @tamashi:

    @Siegfried:

    @tamashi:

    I don’t know what is your information source, but you should stop using it. Zweihander - 20-25kg

    You might want to edit wikipedia then as it clearly says a Zweihander with a weight higher than 4kg is considered to be more ceremonial than practical.

    The problem is, i didn’t read wikipedia before posting it. I said that wikipedia is a not reliable source of information.
    And that statement about zweihander that if it weights more than 4 kg its a ceremonial sword not practical is completely incorrect. Imagine a situation where a knight with zweihander attacks another knight. If that sword would weight <4kg it would do almost nothing to the enemy, since he is wearing an armor. Then let’s see a 3 hour ceremony where a guy who is supposed to be a royal guard faints bacuse of holding up a weapon that weights more than 4 kg (lets say around 10kg). What you’re trying to say is that people were that so strong back then, that they would crush through enemy armor with their strengh dealing most of the damage, and they would hold up 10 kg in the air for an extended period of time. Makes no sense to me.

    I’m not an expert, but every single fan site I found agrees with wikipedia. In fact even http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html says that such weights is one of the most outrageous statements ever made (and that it was in fact made by a ‘respected scholar and expert on medieval warfare’)
    What is your information source?



  • What can i say? Everything you point out now seems legit and I have no expert opinion to back up my thesis. My sources of information as i said earlier are historical programs. I personaly can’t believe that such a long sword would have weight of 3.6kg, because it makes no sense. To get enough momentum to crush through armor would require enormuos speed. Anyway, with those new facts on the scene I understand that my assumption was incorrect.



  • @tamashi:

    What can i say? Everything you point out now seems legit and I have no expert opinion to back up my thesis. My sources of information as i said earlier are historical programs. I personaly can’t believe that such a long sword would have weight of 3.6kg, because it makes no sense. To get enough momentum to crush through armor would require enormuos speed. Anyway, with those new facts on the scene I understand that my assumption was incorrect.

    Maybe the armor wasn’t as sturdy or thick as one would imagine? Like I said, I’m not an expert, but atleast I’m glad to have taught you something and possibly anyone that reads this :D



  • @SlyGoat:

    Yeah, VG’s lack of shield and horrible horrible armor against piercing damage (barely taking less than a Man-at-Arms does) is intended to make archers counter VGs. I think they counter him a little too effectively now though, honestly.

    Frustratingly so. I mostly play Vanguard but lately I usually get oneshotted during or after a fight by an archer. If not that, one shot brings you down so far the enemy only has to look at you and you’re dead. It’s making the game boring for me to the point that I’m thinking of not playing it anymore until the Vanguard gets a boost against arrows. I can barely keep my k/d score balanced because of archers alone.

    Kill one guy, get killed by an arrow. Rinse and repeat. Boring.



  • @tamashi:

    What can i say? Everything you point out now seems legit and I have no expert opinion to back up my thesis. My sources of information as i said earlier are historical programs. I personaly can’t believe that such a long sword would have weight of 3.6kg, because it makes no sense. To get enough momentum to crush through armor would require enormuos speed. Anyway, with those new facts on the scene I understand that my assumption was incorrect.

    First of all, congrats on being a bigger person than most people on any gaming forum, ever.
    As someone who’s had training in sword fighting, I can tell you that your problems imagining swords being light probably stem from a) misconceptions of the physics behind it and b) misconceptions of the way in which the swords were used (due to a).
    Please take this as a well-meaning FYI, rather than a “I, Lord God King Sperglord of Swords, laugh at your ignorance.”
    Swords as heavy as you initially proposed are simply unusable in a real fight. If you feel like you need mass to crush someone’s armor, use a hammer, mace, or anything of the like (and even those will be much lighter than you think!).
    Swords are always tailored to specific tasks, some are more specialized than others - so generalizing assumptions about swords is risky. That said, most swords are about speed (speed and leverage is what makes them deadly; the leverage, by the way, is increased by the left hand pulling on the pummel, while the right hand guides the blade towards the target - the ‘swinging for the fences’ move where both hands basically touch on the hilt is not ‘proper’ technique).
    Even with a lot of plate mail around, the versatility of hand-and-a-half swords is nothing to sneeze at, though - which is why there are a lot of techniques where one hand is on the blade, and the sword is then either used as a lever in grappling moves (to throw the opponent off his feet), or in precision thrusts to the weak points of the opponent’s armor (generally the joints, commonly the arm pit).



  • @tamashi:

    I don’t know what is your information source, but you should stop using it. Zweihander - 20-25kg, bastard swords around 12 kg.



  • I’m realy sorry bout the language of the site, but here is what i got. http://www.dawneuzbrojenie.republika.pl/cz13.html
    Miecz dwur?czny (niem. Zweihänder, Bidenhänder, staroang. long sword) wykszta?ci? si? w Zachodniej Europie, którym na polu bitwy pos?ugiwa?a si? piechota, nigdy nie rycerstwo czy jazda. Mia? on pot??ne rozmiary dochodz?ce do 170 - 180 cm d?ugo?ci o g?owni ok. 150 cm i wadze 3 - 12 kg.
    In english : Two handed sword (in german. Zweihänder, Bidenhänder, staroang. long sword) was developed in western europe, which was used on the battlefield by infantry, but not by chivalry or any kind of cavalry. It had great size, lenght around 170-180 cm, weight around 3-12 kg.
    So was i that wrong “swordmen”?

    Oh wait there is more! “Prince of Wales ordered his men to use swords which had about 220 cm lenght and over 40 kg weight.” Which were obviously used only in for ceremonial stuff, where i will admit that i was terribly mistaken that those swords wasn’t heavy.



  • this game is made to have tons of fun… if u are looking for realistic here change game then



  • @tamashi:

    What can i say? Everything you point out now seems legit and I have no expert opinion to back up my thesis. My sources of information as i said earlier are historical programs. I personaly can’t believe that such a long sword would have weight of 3.6kg, because it makes no sense. To get enough momentum to crush through armor would require enormuos speed. Anyway, with those new facts on the scene I understand that my assumption was incorrect.

    I was genuinely surprised when I first found out too. After reading some articles, it started to make sense. The main reason for their light-weight is due to the low density of the swords. Although they are quite long, the blade itself is very thin, unlike the body of an assault rifle, or a magazine filled with bullets. Hypothetically speaking, if there is a M16 and a regular Zweihander both purely made out of metal, you will get a bigger ingot from smelting the M16 than the Zweihander.



  • @tamashi:

    I’m realy sorry bout the language of the site, but here is what i got. http://www.dawneuzbrojenie.republika.pl/cz13.html
    Miecz dwur?czny (niem. Zweihänder, Bidenhänder, staroang. long sword) wykszta?ci? si? w Zachodniej Europie, którym na polu bitwy pos?ugiwa?a si? piechota, nigdy nie rycerstwo czy jazda. Mia? on pot??ne rozmiary dochodz?ce do 170 - 180 cm d?ugo?ci o g?owni ok. 150 cm i wadze 3 - 12 kg.
    In english : Two handed sword (in german. Zweihänder, Bidenhänder, staroang. long sword) was developed in western europe, which was used on the battlefield by infantry, but not by chivalry or any kind of cavalry. It had great size, lenght around 170-180 cm, weight around 3-12 kg.
    So was i that wrong “swordmen”?

    Oh wait there is more! “Prince of Wales ordered his men to use swords which had about 220 cm lenght and over 40 kg weight.” Which were obviously used only in for ceremonial stuff, where i will admit that i was terribly mistaken that those swords wasn’t heavy.

    **
    Wow, random internet source - must be true!** :roll:



  • As true as every other can be. Btw your posts are bringing very much to this thread.



  • Well, they clearly deliver the message that YOU should not lecture others about their sources and then dare to bring in this crap of 20kg+ for a friggin sword.

    That is so outta boundaries, it is simply ridiculous! Now go, grab a book and come back when you actually are the one than can add useful stuff here.

    Disney fairytales like that are definately not useful.



  • @William:

    Well, they clearly deliver the message that YOU should not lecture others about their sources and then dare to bring in this crap of 20kg+ for a friggin sword.

    That is so outta boundaries, it is simply ridiculous! Now go, grab a book and come back when you actually are the one than can add useful stuff here.

    Disney fairytales like that are definately not useful.

    He was actually mature enough to admit that he was wrong. As someone congratulated him earlier, he’s better than most people on the internet. There’s no need to be so blunt and rude, all you’re doing is derailing the thread. And I regret making this post, because I’m fully aware I’m doing the exact same thing now.



  • And since when you can lecture me? I know for a fact that swords with that mass existed. And as i said earlier, i am terribly sorry for taking that for a fact that swords were used to fight.


Log in to reply