Piercing vs Skeleton and Skeleton in general

[walltar]

I agree that the sword wasn't really designed for fighting armor. Some large swords were meant to be used upside-down (held on the blade and swung like a hammer) against heavy armor.

Still, it's not like swords won't do damage against armor. Even in plate mail, you're still getting hit with a lot of hard steel. (Did some searching, apparently plate mail was usually only 1 to 3mm thick)

Anyways, I have a skeleton-related question. Should they be able to wear armor? If an armored skelly get smashed up, does the armor fall off (can the player loot it) before the skeleton starts to form back together?

Well if you can loot skeletons before they reform just loot his leg and leave poor bugger to his fate. What would you do with old totally rusted armor anyways?

I think if you use sword against heavy armored oponent you are going to have bad time ... sword weights around 1-1,5 kilos, so if you strike plate you do nothing maybe slight bruising. Maybe if you used big 3kg doublehander you could do some damage but generaly you have to strike less armored parts so you are not efficient. If you are going against heavy armor use war hammer ... i love that weapon pointy end on one side blunt on the other, you have answer to all your enemy needs.

And about thickness ... What was worn underneath plate? Was there another layer of amour or only padding?

 

[Bibidibop]

No, they can't. It is the reason the nobility started using axes and picks instead. The estoc is the only sword that was actually built to stab a knight in full armor. Even if your sword was strong enough to pierce, no swordsmen (human at least) is capable to do that. Even early firearms could not pierce quality armor at close point, a knights only hope against another knight if he only had his long sword was to slash through the places where the armor meets as those places are normally the least protected.

I'm not saying the specialized weapons weren't better at defeating armor, but it still doesn't mean the sword was useless, just harder to use in that area, since it needed half-swording with grappling technique. We're really not in disagreement.

I vaguely recall something about it being common for a mounted knight to carry sword, mace, and lance.

Ermy gives a poor showing of Western swords, but he does put a, probably useless, hole in the plate. I'm not saying it's what you would want to do; you're right about going for weak points.

6:39

I agree that the sword wasn't really designed for fighting armor. Some large swords were meant to be used upside-down (held on the blade and swung like a hammer) against heavy armor.

Still, it's not like swords won't do damage against armor. Even in plate mail, you're still getting hit with a lot of hard steel. (Did some searching, apparently plate mail was usually only 1 to 3mm thick)

Anyways, I have a skeleton-related question. Should they be able to wear armor? If an armored skelly get smashed up, does the armor fall off (can the player loot it) before the skeleton starts to form back together?

Here's some stuff on armored sword fighting; I haven't read it all, it's just stuff I found.
http://www.thearma.org/essays/armoredlongsword.html
http://www.thearma.org/essays/Talhoffer/HT-Web.htm\

In the inventory news at Kickstart, it says you can collect any piece of equipment an opponent is shown to have, once they die. However, taking equipment while the skeleton is incapacitated is very interesting. Maybe the ability to take stuff should always be on, and only broken by defense or offensive movement. That might fit smoothly with pickpocketing. That way, the skeleton basically being unconscious would provide the opportunity to disarm it.

Then again, it's magic, so maybe anything you take would just fly back to the skeleton until the magic is broken. Or, more amusingly, maybe if you place a skeleton item in your bag the bag flies to the skeleton, or pulls you to the skeleton with the force of someone tugging on you with all their weight.

 

[Bibidibop]

I found a video by a real historian, who knows how to fight, in which he explores sword use and armor, as well as other aspects of combat in other videos.

Swords

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCRJ4gprJQ0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0593o7jlPTk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s9F3XNOALA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3qqfrL8Frk

Armour
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbGFb1Pu-YA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdPt2ZVk4Yg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dasPQW1fjPM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVPVRhszj6k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7jatJI63Ao
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cOqXBmfvAk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1aO-oWUWJw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mElmWHG4ZsA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCIvsBI0SgI

 

[Ickorus]

I'd like to see enemies have specific traits to them, in the case of a standard, unarmored skeleton I would go for something like this:

- Immune to decapitation.
- Immune to bleeding.
- Resistant to cutting attacks. (Swords)
- Weak to smashing attacks. (Maces)

The thought process behind this is that a Skeleton doesn't bleed and if they end up anything like the ones in the videos they also reform so decapitation won't do the job, a sword being a weapon designed to cut isn't going to be the most effective weapon due to the skeleton having no flesh to cut into but given that it is made of little more than bones it'll be rather easy to smash it into tiny pieces until it stops getting up.

Of course, you'd still be able to kill it with a sword because it has weight behind it which will invariably still mean it is capable of breaking bones but it's just not a specialised smashing weapon like a mace is.

I plan on making a more in-depth thread on this at some point when I have some spare time because I'd love to see different enemies provide a different experience each time unlike most games at the moment which shove something in front of you and tell you to hit it until it's dead and it doesn't really matter what you use to get the job done.

 

[Rod_Lightning]

It'd be funny if through the stabbing attack your sword actually gets stuck in a skeleton's ribcase thus forcing you to leave that weapon behind until you can finish him off or taking a punishing blow as you wrestle to regain the sword.

 

[the0thMonkey]

It'd be funny if through the stabbing attack your sword actually gets stuck in a skeleton's ribcase thus forcing you to leave that weapon behind until you can finish him off or taking a punishing blow as you wrestle to regain the sword.

I can just imagine coming across a skeleton with a sword stuck through its sternum, left over from some adventurer long gone who didn't manage to get his sword back.

 

[Cooper Holt]

I must admit, I have a serious sweet-tooth for forward-curved swords.
You can tell by my profile page!

 

[Cooper Holt]

It'd be funny if through the stabbing attack your sword actually gets stuck in a skeleton's ribcase thus forcing you to leave that weapon behind until you can finish him off or taking a punishing blow as you wrestle to regain the sword.

Until you killed it with your other sword!

 

[Cooper Holt]

There all bent.

Forward-curved swords gave slightly more power with slightly less effort, but there was always the trouble of having your sword stuck in something with that design.
I believe this was fixed by Hannibal the Great, by adding a small, gripped curve at the butt of the handle. I say that I "believe" this because his armies were among the first to use this simple idea.
Backward-curved swords needed larger swings to hit the opponent, but completely removed the threat of having your weapon stuck in an opponent.

 

[Cooper Holt]

OR, even better, let the player choose what type of weapon they want to start with, whether it be a dagger or a spear or a hand axe or whatever. Everyone's happy that way.

I think that the player should start out by choosing a simple weapon / weapon combination (e.g. Battle-axe,
Hand-axe and Buckler) of relatively poor quality, and should appear in an area without too much danger.
Don't want to start any downward-spirals, do we?

 

[the0thMonkey]

I think that the player should start out by choosing a simple weapon / weapon combination (e.g. Battle-axe,
Hand-axe and Buckler) of relatively poor quality, and should appear in an area without too much danger.
Don't want to start any downward-spirals, do we?

After looking at some of the ExtraCreditz videos (linked in the "gaming articles" thread), I've learned that apparently the first 5 minutes of the game are the most important in terms of creating an impression on the player. This is kind of off-topic, but I think that should be factored into consideration when choosing starting weapons, etc.

That being said, everybody on this forum is going to play SG for way more than five minutes even if the first five minutes suck. But I doubt they will. Right devs?

Also, nice triple post!

 

[Cooper Holt]

Bashiness and sliciness

Don't forget Stabbiness!

 

[Cooper Holt]

Also, nice triple post!

What do you mean?
Edit: Oh, I see. I posted three times in sequence. It's a hat-trick!
I was just going through the thread.

 

[BigT2themax]

Even better, Cooper. It was actually a quadruple post. If the0thMonkey hadn't made a post, you'd have had an even 5.

Anyways, why is everyone still obsessed with complete and utter realism when it comes to weapons and how they're used?
The main selling point is physics-based combat and an open world and all that, not a total medieval life simulator.

EDIT: Aaaaand, I just noticed this thread's been dead since thursday. My bad. Disregard this, I've been a rather silly chap just now, it seems.

 

[Cooper Holt]

Aaaaand, I just noticed this thread's been dead since thursday. My bad. Disregard this, I've been a rather silly chap just now, it seems.

Just because a thread is dead doesn't mean you can't revive it!

 

[Psychomorph]

But must possess the threadromancer skill.

 

[BigT2themax]

Seeing as how nobody is talking about the topic, I'd say it was a failed casting of "thread revival". Perhaps I need to invest more skill points in it, or look towards other skills.

 

[Bibidibop]

Hey, BigT2themax, I agree, this game needs guns. Actually, having cannon, siege explosives, grenades, and hand cannon would be fantastic. They would all be horribly dangerous to the user, extremely slow, variable, and inaccurate. Though usable by the player, the point would be to face groups of enemies, or have allies, who use these weapons.

I think that the player should start out by choosing a simple weapon / weapon combination (e.g. Battle-axe,
Hand-axe and Buckler) of relatively poor quality, and should appear in an area without too much danger.
Don't want to start any downward-spirals, do we?

You've given me mind things! How about, bucket and kitchen knife? If I'm not mistaken, a Medieval bucket would have a fixed peg handle, so you could hold it bottom forward, as a very crappy shield, or use it like a bludgeon. A kitchen knife would be iron and could easily shatter against plate armor or any other hard surface, but shattered weapons should not be useless, just short, and have poor stabbing character.

 

[Cooper Holt]

Hey, BigT2themax, I agree, this game needs guns. Actually, having cannon, siege explosives, grenades, and hand cannon would be fantastic. They would all be horribly dangerous to the user, extremely slow, variable, and inaccurate.

I don't think that this game should have guns. I think that the most advanced ranged weapon should be a crossbow - if that.
The same goes for explosives, in my opinion.

 

[Psychomorph]

I don't see guns to be part of the world in SG, but I imagine lethal or non-lethal tools based on chemistry could exist, such as primitive throw-able bombs, especially sort of smoke bombs.