Poll: why no polearms?

[nuba km]

snip

the jamie wolf quote points out that someone with a polearm is a lot more effective then someone without a polearm and to me your argument has been that a long polearm isn't good at combat without having other people in a formation and i have been trying to argue they are.

 

[Cheesepower5]

Of course a polearm can be good out of formation, it just depends which one. In 1v1 melee combat a javelin or a lance, or anything like that would be suicide. But if you have a halberd, glaive, or some other type of winged spear then you're probably good to go. The problem with a regular short spear is that you have to fish it out of the schmuck's corpse, which just isn't going to work.

 

[somonels]

Remove reality from the equation and you can make anything cool. I've RPd polearm users, all cool, some rules lawyering may be needed.

 

[Mad Maniac with axe-firing chainsaw]

Polearms have one big advantage over swords when you're in a big gang of blokes: the guy behind you can stab too. This negates the "run past the poor suckers pointy end and stab him in the face as he waves a big stick around" strategy as the guy behind him can stab you in the face with his pointy end.

Also, polearms can carry things other than pointy ends. They can carry hammers, (warhammers) axes, (halberds, or axe-sticks as I prefer to think of them as) sideways-pointing pointy ends (warpicks) and who says they only need to carry one of these? Hell, a bearded axe is practically a polearm; the only thing stopping it from being a halberd is the size of the melon-slicer and the lack of an eye-poker on the end. (keep away from small children.)

There's also impact. You try getting a long blade, and try slashing it to get through a thin sheet of metal. Now try that with the full force of a long spear behind you. I bet you'd make a bigger dent (and a bigger hole in the flesh behind the metal sheet) with the force from the brain impaler than you will with ol' limb-lopper. Spears pack a hell of a lot more punch because their force is directed across a much narrower area. True, you can stab with a sword but you have to get a lot closer.

Finally, yes, you can get past a pike, if you're quick, heavily enough armoured or the pikeman was wearing a blindfold that day for a bet. Thats what the guys behind you and your side weapon is for. Pikemen carried swords as backup weapons when they could afford them. There's a reason, however, that knights considered themselves unarmed when equipped with a sword; knights went into battle generally with some kind of primary weapon; usually the lance, but also maces (a good can-opener) flails (will kill anything with one shot but you won't be able to use it again) javelins (Norman knights had a habit of chucking things at enemy formations) and, eastwards and even in a few cheeky western countries, bows and crossbows- anything but have to keep the enemy away with nothing more than a sharp piece of metal.

Swords are seen as special because thats the weapon you ''died'' with. Its the weapon you drew if there was literally nothing else; your spear had been bypassed by some cheeky bugger, your axe broken by your spoiled little sister throwing a tantrum that scared away half the enemy army, your bows and javelins long since used up on a besotted wager based on how many enemies you could pin to that row of trees stationed conveniently behind them, your lance snapped in twain at your frustration at your horse stealing the beer, and your flail wrapped around your buddys leaking noggin thanks to a drunken rampage the night before involving an argument over your midnight tryst with your allies sister. And even then, a dagger was often more use if your enemy got close enough; swords are pretty piss-poor against plate (though it was admittedly deadly against chain) and a sharp stiletto aimed at the enemies armpits (or testicles) was a frequent ending to battles fought out at close range once all the more awesome weapons were exhausted. Swords were popular secondary weapons but they were just that; secondary. Even cavalry swapped them out for lances, and even then they often drew axes or maces. The one time a sword is an advantage is when your enemy is totally unarmoured and you are at extreme close range; thats when you can cut the poor axe or spearman to pieces as you grapple.

 

[moretimethansense]

I think there should be more, but as has been mentioned polearms are mostly desighned for formation fighting, in a one to one fight they can be a little restricting, and indoors they basicly cripple the weilder.

 

[Mad Maniac with axe-firing chainsaw]

You need the right mechanics for them. For example, as that video demonstrates, a spear can be deceptive; you can keep only four feet of the spear exposed before suddenly producing eight feet and splitting your opponents noggin. So you need a mechanic for shortening and lengthening the blade; in fact, aside from aiming the thing, that might even be your attack mechanic, roll it back to hide the weapon, roll it to full length to extend it and roll it out to your target to strike, before quickly pulling it back in to stab again. They need to be very effective against armour or horses, but rather useless when the enemy gets close. For that matter, they should also be quickly droppable, so you can switch to your sword quickly if the enemy does get past the point. (In fact this should be automatic.)

 

[LiftYourSkinnyFists]

Dynasty warriors had cool pole arms.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Just "polearms" is pretty vague; you could mean spears, halberds, glaives, lances, voulges, poleaxes, etc.

I'll take any of them. It's not like "swords" is any less vague.

Do you know how easy it is to hold off a spear 1v1?

Not very, unless you have a shield. A large shield, not a buckler or similar. A 7' or shorter polearm is basically a reinforced staff (already an awesome weapon) with an extra dangerous end...or two, if you're talking halberds and poleaxes.

Polearms are usually made to fit a purpose.

And in that way, they're no different from swords. An idiot who brings a rapier to an armored duel had better be extremely lucky, while the guy who thinks his shield makes him invincible is going to be violently disillusioned against a hook sword, the guy who uses a kukri for its badassness will probably be skewered by the guy with the shamshir, and someone who tries to use a jian on horseback had better hope his grip is amazing.

Similarly, someone who tries to win a one-on-one fight with a pike or longspear is delusional...as delusional as someone armed with a broadsword who thinks he's going to have an easy time against someone with a poleaxe or naginata.

 

[Wondermint13]

In alot of Games, Polearms often look awsome! so perhaps a few more wouldnt hurt. But from experience they're often really slow to use and stats tend to be aimed at no specific class or style. Best Polearm ever was Lubu's from the original Dynasty Warrior games! It just spun around wiping the floor with everything!!

 

[Retoru]

I think the main reason we don't see a lot of polearms in games is because their usage is rather complicated. It's not like swinging a sword around at melee range, poles are used to stab and gouge and keep enemies at bay. Also, swords, maces, handaxes, etc...can all maim an opponent and speed up the finish of a battle considerably, but a pole can really only push back and eventually kill if the right opening is found, which leads to longer, more protracted battles.

Adding polearms with proper mechanics to action heavy games would add a deeper strategic element to the game, but at the same time it could also slow down the flow of the game, this may be one of the factors behind why they don't make common appearances.

 

[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.

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).

Yes Lances are a type of polearm but I mentioned them for a reason although on reading back I phrased what I wanted to say wrong. Mounted polearms can't work due to balance. They will either have too long of a range or too high damage given their nautre. Spears, glaives, halberds and poleaxes are fine as they are designed for foot infrantry. So unless there is going to be mounted combat Lance type polearms should not be included.

 

[demoman_chaos]

I do wish there were more games with polearms. From long pikes to poleaxes, sharpened things on sticks are always great.
In mass, a wall of pikes is a hard thing to beat with just a sword. For 1 on 1, a poleaxe is better than a sword since you can stab, cut, and hammer with 1 weapon. The most common weapon everywhere was a spear, so why are they so rare in games?

 

[ItsAChiaotzu]

Use them in Demons souls. They they are unbelievably awesome weapons. They get plenty of love in that game.

You cheap bastard, damn noobstick. Kidding of course.


But yeah, this guy ninja'd me, everyone uses the polearms in DS.

 

[Iron Mal]

As a general rule, polearms aren't heroic or villainous weapons.

A hero's usual weapon of choice will often be a sword (usually of western design) and villains will often posess something along the lines of an axe or a mace (if they're supposed to be a 'brutal' or 'barbaric' villain) or a sword of eastern design (middle eastern swords are also popular).

Polearms and spears are usually weapons seen on the faceless, nameless rank and file. This explains why you don't see them in video games so much, you're supposed to be the hero, your outfitting will normally reflect this (and as someone said before me, a duel with swords looks more cinimatic and epic than a standoff with polearms).