What type of sword?

An arming sword or broadsword has different characteristics than a side sword or rapier.

Short and long spears have different characteristics as well.

True, it's a broad generalization, but indeed, a 2 handed sword would have different properties than a rapier.

It isn't meant as an end-all-be-all guide, just more of an overview and a discussion starter.

I'm missing warhammers ;)

Yeah it completely depends on the the sub-categories of the weapons.

Swords for instance, as Chipla noted, can range SUPER hard.

You had weapons like Messers that could either be a two handed Krieg-Messer or one handed Langes-Messer.

You have Sabers and then you had friggin elven looking two-handed Swiss Sabers

Spears? Depends if you're locking that in with Pikes cuz that's a whole different ball-park.

This generalizations is a bit too vague and isn't really digging into the complexities and situation's that's suited per weapons.

Like in a pike formation, was it just mixed with pikes or were there some weird mixes? Example: a montante being mixed in with the pikes to disrupt formation and to break down anybody who got past the points.

So that example shows that swords were not just for sidearms.

And Parrying with a spear being low? Pfft, there's a lot of techniques with that stuff, and I'm not talking about the Eastern interpretations of the weapons.

The amount of effort that'll be used to describe each intricacies of each weapon would be on par with a doctorates thesis, and even then there are those who've gone and research these weapons that'd argue with you and they may have legitimate points of views.

Good points Jouten.

Yes, there's a lot of variety, and I hope the game will have many fighting styles that somewhat accurately represent each weapon.

Skallagrim made a nice video on axes/maces/swords too (but again, it's very general).

I mainly just hope that like IRL, each weapon will have distinct properties and fighting styles.

A strike with a heavy weapon, like an ax, should have more momentum behind it, and require more force to stop mid-swing than for example a sword. Those kind of things.

What really gets annoying is when techniques start crossing the weapons. Some of the slicing techniques in Joachim Meyer's fechtbuch's section for Rapier (whose first plays are cutting, not thrusting) is used for both the longsword and dussack and some of the ringen/wrestling techniques crosses into the staff stuff. Kinda forces you to read the whole thing or you'll end up missing half of the techniques for a specific weapon.

I would generally hope that techniques are locked to the weapon properties on a vague sense.

"X" Sword

• Does it have a blade?

  Yes

• Is it one sided or two?

  Two

• "Primarily" one handed, two handed, or both?

  One handed

• Blade Length? S,M, L?

  M

"Here are the list of techniques that can be applied"

Posted By Varhukan at 2:53 PM - Wed May 16 2018

Cool topic, I like to change it up but defensive combat styles have always been a favorite of mine.

Not just in the sword and shield way but stance, and I wonder if you could incorporate differing stances with the same weapon.

High stance with a typical sword, Low stance with a typical sword, Reversed grip stance with a typical sword.

How it will be to change stances in the midst of combat.

Generally you'd just want to be in the opposite of what your opponent is. If he's high, go low. If he's low, go high. It gets weird in the middle cuz you just...kinda stay in the middle. If he lean back in wraith, you lean in with pflug. Keep measure, never give them the vor (initiative) unless you're fooling him into thinking he's in vor. Cut where he cuts from, and always fence to live, not to get a point. Study your opponent and bait him. Never attack with the intent of a second intention or third intention to land if you don't expect the first intention to hit. Annoying your opponent is valid. Reset if weak on weak, flee if he's weak on your middle, stand and wind if you're middle on middle, and get ready for fists and throwing if you're strong on strong. Never stop at one cut and always cut or keep the point towards your opponent when you leave after a strike.

Posted By Jouten at 8:53 PM - Wed May 16 2018

What really gets annoying is when techniques start crossing the weapons. Some of the slicing techniques in Joachim Meyer's fechtbuch's section for Rapier (whose first plays are cutting, not thrusting) is used for both the longsword and dussack and some of the ringen/wrestling techniques crosses into the staff stuff. Kinda forces you to read the whole thing or you'll end up missing half of the techniques for a specific weapon.

I would generally hope that techniques are locked to the weapon properties on a vague sense.

---

"X" Sword

• Does it have a blade?

  Yes

• Is it one sided or two?

  Two

• "Primarily" one handed, two handed, or both?

  One handed

• Blade Length? S,M, L?

  M

"Here are the list of techniques that can be applied"

That would make sense, like a flowchart of possible techniques (even if they'r less efficient)

Swords are very versatile in use though. You have so many techniques. Halfswording, hitting with the pommel, thrusting, slicing, parrying, etc. And that's not even taking into account all the different kinds of swords. I hope all of that will be considered.

Posted By Jouten at 8:59 PM - Wed May 16 2018

Posted By Varhukan at 2:53 PM - Wed May 16 2018

Cool topic, I like to change it up but defensive combat styles have always been a favorite of mine.

Not just in the sword and shield way but stance, and I wonder if you could incorporate differing stances with the same weapon.

High stance with a typical sword, Low stance with a typical sword, Reversed grip stance with a typical sword.

How it will be to change stances in the midst of combat.

Generally you'd just want to be in the opposite of what your opponent is. If he's high, go low. If he's low, go high. It gets weird in the middle cuz you just...kinda stay in the middle. If he lean back in wraith, you lean in with pflug. Keep measure, never give them the vor (initiative) unless you're fooling him into thinking he's in vor. Cut where he cuts from, and always fence to live, not to get a point. Study your opponent and bait him. Never attack with the intent of a second intention or third intention to land if you don't expect the first intention to hit. Annoying your opponent is valid. Reset if weak on weak, flee if he's weak on your middle, stand and wind if you're middle on middle, and get ready for fists and throwing if you're strong on strong. Never stop at one cut and always cut or keep the point towards your opponent when you leave after a strike.

I don't understand half of what you just said, too technical.

Posted By zimmah at 3:10 PM - Wed May 16 2018

I don't understand half of what you just said, too technical.

Tis the beauty of fencing. Cuz it is.

This diagram might help with the weak, middle, strong part.

Measure - It is the idea of knowing what your striking distance is in one attack, either by doing a passing step (moving your back leg towards the front as you cut) or how far you can lunge, while also understanding how far your opponent can hit. If he has a longer reach than you, then you'll be in his measure before he's in yours. Be aware of that and work your measure into his either through subtle movements or through initiative tactics.

Winding - if your swords (or any other weapon) meet at the middle of their lengths, work on twisting the blade while not disengaging with their weapon. Literally winding the weapon around their weapon while protecting yourself.

Intention - Some fencers assume their first attack will not land and will immediately feint their first attack to set up their second. You should never do that. If your first intention, your first cut, isn't plausible, there's a high chance an experienced fencer will be aware of that and the second you attempt to make that second intention attack, they'll exploit you for not being a threat with the first attack.

Vor/Initiative - Generally controlling the flow of the fight. Forcing your opponent to move as you move. It can be as subtle as moving to a specific beat to threatening them so hard that they HAVE to react.

Posted By zimmah at

Note: Spears are more effective in formation.
Swords were often used as a sidearm.

The weapons have been very generalized, and of course there's many variations in the weapons, and armor/shields and formations affect a lot on how effective a weapon is.

While I know little about European style swords, I'd have to say that a Katana is A for both cutting and thrusting, a Nodachi is C for Parrying (too big and cumbersome) but A for Cutting and a Kodachi would be A for thrusting and B for Cutting and exceptional for Parrying.

just my 2 cents

Unpopular opinion - the spadroon was an underrated sword.

I'll back it up by saying it's designed as a gentleman's war sword so isn't overly great as an infantry or cavalry weapon but the ability to cut like a broadsword and thrust like a small sword makes it an extremely efficient officers sword for naval boarding actions.

Posted By HajimeSaito at 4:48 PM - Wed May 16 2018

While I know little about European style swords, I'd have to say that a Katana is A for both cutting and thrusting, a Nodachi is C for Parrying (too big and cumbersome) but A for Cutting and a Kodachi would be A for thrusting and B for Cutting and exceptional for Parrying.

just my 2 cents

Two expand on that (cuz hot damn this is my jam and I'm sorry for the spam...) a lot of styles DO carry over from one culture to another depending on the weapon configurations.

These images are mix of Italian, German (mostly German cuz that's what I know), Chinese, Korean, and Japanese fencing manuals. The first one shows that a halberd, in some cultures, may share a few guards or strikes. Same for long two handed swords. There'll be a lot of differences of what happens in between or intent of each technique, but there WILL be some things that bleed over.

Here are few examples:

Chinese Fencing Manual in case you want to look at it.

Posted By HajimeSaito at 10:48 PM - Wed May 16 2018

While I know little about European style swords, I'd have to say that a Katana is A for both cutting and thrusting, a Nodachi is C for Parrying (too big and cumbersome) but A for Cutting and a Kodachi would be A for thrusting and B for Cutting and exceptional for Parrying.

So, as long as A doesn't stand for average, a Katana isn't an A in thrusting for two reasons:

• The point's geometry.

• The curvature of the blade.

Let's just compare it to an actual dedicated thrusting point.

So the thin lines show that a katana's point isn't all that pointy, while the thick line shows, that the handle doesn't align with the point.

A nodachi is probably not heavier than a greatsword, and thus not too cumbersome to block and deflect with.

Furthermore, what exactly do you understand as parrying, because in no way is any type of katana-like sword exceptional for defending yourself.

Really, the only way this makes sense to me is if, as I mentioned in the beginning you interpret A as average, but I don't think you do, so ... back to slicing off mountain tops with your glorious, a gazillion times folded, nippon steel.

Posted By chipla at 11:07 PM - Wed May 16 2018

Unpopular opinion - the spadroon was an underrated sword.

I'll back it up by saying it's designed as a gentleman's war sword so isn't overly great as an infantry or cavalry weapon but the ability to cut like a broadsword and thrust like a small sword makes it an extremely efficient officers sword for naval boarding actions.

Memeing with the best of them, hmm? ;)

Agile as a dragon, strong as a hawk