Poll: why no polearms?

[EightGaugeHippo]

Polearms would usually beused in formation with other users, like in an army.
A person using a spear on his own would be overwhelmed quickly.

 

[nuba km]

Polearms would usually beused in formation with other users, like in an army.
A person using a spear on his own would be overwhelmed quickly.

1 man with a polearm of any type is a lot more dangourus then 1 man with a sword in fact sword are mainly someone secondary weapon with their primary being bow or polearm.

 

[Layz92]

Polearms are usually made to fit a purpose. Lances on horseback, spears/javelins/pikes in phalanx, halberds and larger spears against cavalry and infantry charges etc. Used for their correct purpose it ruins someones day but in free open combat they become more of a liability. Although in games the actual room needed to move and attack is disregarded frequently so I suppose it would really just be another weapon model like Diablo 2 etc.

that is pretty much how I see it but why won't game developers to that?

Probably because it requires extra work. Where animation is regarded maces can be used in a similar way to swords, warhammers the same as 2 hand swords etc etc. Polearms require an entire different fighting style to be researched and implemented.

 

[EightGaugeHippo]

Polearms would usually beused in formation with other users, like in an army.
A person using a spear on his own would be overwhelmed quickly.

1 man with a polearm of any type is a lot more dangourus then 1 man with a sword in fact sword are mainly someone secondary weapon with their primary being bow or polearm.

A "short spear" or an axe would be the primary weapon of ordinary infantry with a short/long sword at his side yes.

Proper polearms like full length spears and halberds would be used in formation at the front of the army. In single combat a person with a long spear would find it hard to fight a person with a sword or axe, due to the unweildy nature of the weapon.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Well no as they can be used very badly. If they are used well then fair enough. Spears would be a better choice as they are more an infrantry weapon. Things like polearms and lances are more of a Calvalry sorta thing so if they are going for realism they shouldn't be in it.

 

[Firehound]

Mass combat is something videogames do not simulate very well. Much like firearms are simulated about as realisticaly as pain and decapitation. Perhaps if games took a shift from arbitrary hit points and made the people more human, then mass combat would be more likely. As it is, no it won't happen.

 

[nuba km]

Polearms would usually beused in formation with other users, like in an army.
A person using a spear on his own would be overwhelmed quickly.

1 man with a polearm of any type is a lot more dangourus then 1 man with a sword in fact sword are mainly someone secondary weapon with their primary being bow or polearm.

A "short spear" or an axe would be the primary weapon of ordinary infantry with a short/long sword at his side yes.

Proper polearms like full length spears and halberds would be used in formation at the front of the army. In single combat a person with a long spear would find it hard to fight a person with a sword or axe, due to the unweildy nature of the weapon.

no, in a 1 on 1 the person with a proper spear would easily beat someone with a sword as long as both fighters are equally skilled with their weapons. it's simple because a proper spear would have 11 ft range and the end of it would be at least 3 ft away from the user so a 3-11ft range while a swords man would have a 1-3ft range, seeing as a spear would be held with two hands it is very easy to wield. the spear would be hard to block or parry de to it being moved quickly in a jabbing motion only option is to dodge which can leave you open for a quick second jab so you have to go around the person or beat him without going into his range as for the moment you to prober to have a nice new hole in your chest.

 

[nuba km]

Well no as they can be used very badly. If they are used well then fair enough. Spears would be a better choice as they are more an infrantry weapon. Things like polearms and lances are more of a Calvalry sorta thing so if they are going for realism they shouldn't be in it.

lances are polearms also why can't a game where you can use a sword that shoots lightning have a spear, lance, halberd or pole axe (their are more polearms but those are the ones from the top of my head).

 

[Arkley]

They feature fairly prominently in FF XI Online. Dragoons use them as their primary weapon, and Warriors and Samurai sometimes make use of them against enemies weak to piercing-type damage. Paladins can technically use them too, but they have horrendously low skill with them.

 

[EightGaugeHippo]

Polearms would usually beused in formation with other users, like in an army.
A person using a spear on his own would be overwhelmed quickly.

1 man with a polearm of any type is a lot more dangourus then 1 man with a sword in fact sword are mainly someone secondary weapon with their primary being bow or polearm.

A "short spear" or an axe would be the primary weapon of ordinary infantry with a short/long sword at his side yes.

Proper polearms like full length spears and halberds would be used in formation at the front of the army. In single combat a person with a long spear would find it hard to fight a person with a sword or axe, due to the unweildy nature of the weapon.

no, in a 1 on 1 the person with a proper spear would easily beat someone with a sword as long as both fighters are equally skilled with their weapons. it's simple because a proper spear would have 11 ft range and the end of it would be at least 3 ft away from the user so a 3-11ft range while a swords man would have a 1-3ft range, seeing as a spear would be held with two hands it is very easy to wield. the spear would be hard to block or parry de to it being moved quickly in a jabbing motion only option is to dodge which can leave you open for a quick second jab so you have to go around the person or beat him without going into his range as for the moment you to prober to have a nice new hole in your chest.

If the other guy gets within 10ft him, the guy with the spear cannot swing it back round to defend himself, he would have to pull it back and decrease its thrust velocity which would lower the chance of a killing blow.
The guy with the sword could run up to him and deal multiply hits very quickly.
He's essentailly screwed if he dosnt deal a killing blow straight away.

A short spear is much better suited for single combat.
Long polearms are better suited in formation or on horseback where a single combatant cannot get close to you.

 

[nuba km]

snip

no the guy with the spear would be holding it so the end of the spear is 3 ft in front of him guys with sword tries to get close multi pal quick jabs all of which could easily pierce the flesh and the guy with the sword is down before getting any where within range to attack.

 

[EightGaugeHippo]

snip

no the guy with the spear would be holding it so the end of the spear is 3 ft in front of him guys with sword tries to get close multi pal quick jabs all of which could easily pierce the flesh and the guy with the sword is down before getting any where within range to attack.

I get what your saying, but short spears are better suited for that kind of attack. With the long polearms, theres dead weight behind the user, meaning there aim would be affected. Every cm back of the spear moves, it moves 3x that at the front. Short spears are not affected by this law since theres is barely anything behinfd the user.

Also the head of a long pole is bigger and heavier. The defending army on the battlefeild, ground long spears at an angle so the enemy charges into them. The charging army uses 2 people to carry the spear and run.

 

[nuba km]

snip

no the guy with the spear would be holding it so the end of the spear is 3 ft in front of him guys with sword tries to get close multi pal quick jabs all of which could easily pierce the flesh and the guy with the sword is down before getting any where within range to attack.

I get what your saying, but short spears are better suited for that kind of attack. With the long polearms, theres dead weight behind the user, meaning there aim would be affected. Every cm back of the spear moves, it moves 3x that at the front. Short spears are not affected by this law since theres is barely anything behinfd the user.

I still think a long polearm would be still be very effective in 1 on 1 combat while a short polearm would still work in 1 on 1 it would only be more effective then the long polearm at 5ft or less.

 

[nuba km]

snip

Sure, for versimilitude or realism. The main reason why spears were used to equip armies wasn't that they were cheap and inferior, it was that a guy with a spear was MUCH more dangerous than a guy with a sword. It's especially true of unskilled fighters and was even true of elite fighters. If you look back at actual history rather than trying to make guesses or comparing modern techniques with modern reproductions of the weapons, most elite fighters (in pretty much all cultures: Japanese, Chinese, European) carried swords as BACKUPS either to bows or polearms. Groups of people with spears are also remarkably more useful than groups of people with swords.

Unfortunately, the other side is that it's really hard to make combat with polearms look cool. You want vicious in-fighting in most media, not long-range poking. Fighting games and such make use of spinning and even vaulting with polearms, but a lot of that looks ridiculous even for a video game. Your range of motion and ideal range of engagement with a polearm just makes combat decidedly less dramatic.

So in short, yes to polearms for variety and realism, but only when the combat isn't intended to be too flashy. Or when it's intended to be so flashy that you can add ridiculous-looking moves into the mix. Polearms are great for games like Morrowind (and they WOULD have worked well in Oblivion), but they're not what you want for games that are trying to be realistic (ruling out the ridiculous moves) and dramatic (generally favouring close-up, more intense fighting).

this I much better argument then I have been giving

 

[Cogwheel]

Well, Terranigma had spears and rods as the only weapons, for what it's worth. But yeah, rare.

I suppose you always have FF Dragoons?


Edit: Oh, and most "realistic" shooters have javelins.

 

[Cheesepower5]

Polearms kick ass, and they're historically the most common weapon... ever. We made the first one in pre-motherfucking-history to hunt and we stopped using it after the industrial revolution. There were still some in World War 1.

And depending on the kinds, they had a variety of uses. Spears like pilum were used for anti-cavalry weapons, a javelin could be thrown for something to the effect of a closer range arrow, glaives were good for close combat with multiple foes and halberds were useful for all of that. And a bear spear is still a popular hunting weapon among badasses.

 

[EightGaugeHippo]

snip

no the guy with the spear would be holding it so the end of the spear is 3 ft in front of him guys with sword tries to get close multi pal quick jabs all of which could easily pierce the flesh and the guy with the sword is down before getting any where within range to attack.

I get what your saying, but short spears are better suited for that kind of attack. With the long polearms, theres dead weight behind the user, meaning there aim would be affected. Every cm back of the spear moves, it moves 3x that at the front. Short spears are not affected by this law since theres is barely anything behinfd the user.

I still think a long polearm would be still be very effective in 1 on 1 combat while a short polearm would still work in 1 on 1 it would only be more effective then the long polearm at 5ft or less.

Find an 11ft pole and try to thrust and hit a bullseye at its maximum range.
Find a 7ft (usual short spear length) pole and hit a bullseye at its maximum range.

You would find that its easier to weild the 7ft pole because the laws of motion allow for better handling of the weapon.

Also to your jamie wolf qutoed responce, Im not arguing that a sword is better than a spear, im arguing the roles a spearman plays on the feild compared to that of standard infantry.

 

[ChupathingyX]

Play a Dynasty Warriors game. They have plenty of polearms type weapons. Spears, pikes, halberds, glaives, voulages, bo staffs, staffs, staves, guan daos, pole axes.

 

[Jonluw]

In Dante's inferno, you start of with a halberd. Isn't that pretty much the same as a polearm?
And it's not like the combat-mechanics of the scythe are very different from those of the halberd.