Realism with weapons.

[JoesshittyOs]

I do find that the massive swords you see in certain animes completely break any immersion or seriousness I could have had for a show, but I also get a bit annoyed at less severe breaches of realism in fantasy, like huge double bitted axes:


Yes, I know it's a nit-pick, but it just annoys me whenever I see one in a film, or someone duel wielding full sized swords, etc.
The more I learn about medieval weapons, the more I find wrong in Hollywood and fantasy depictions, and it can be very immersion breaking.

Huh, I never really thought about that.

To me, the double bitted axe was always the weapon that I didn't use in Oblivion.

 

[demoman_chaos]

...are your spearmen standing still? Or are they fighting people with flails? How exactly is the opponent getting at their back?

Whose imminent death? You mean the sword/ax wielder who's just made their strike pattern very predictable (too close to stab without a knife, and have to swing from one direction, since the haft is blocking the other) and exposed the backs of their legs to any kind of reaping movement?

Yes, I'm being sarcastic, but that's far from an inevitable defeat for either person, unless they just aren't that good with their weapon or if there's some other circumstance limiting their mobility (like a wall, or the aforementioned shields).

And when the worst happens and you are in that range, you hold the spear in the middle because it gives you much more range of motion to parry or (yes) strike.

<url=http://www.thearma.org/essays/Longsword_Differs_From_Modern_Fencing.html>That's exactly what you're supposed to do.

That section is specifically about longsword fighting (especially the closing-in part), but the same principles apply. If I can knock your sword away with the haft of the spear while beaning you with the other end, or block your strike in the same process as shoving you away, I will.

Yes. And I'm arguing generally that just because you mostly kill with one part of the weapon doesn't mean the rest of the weapon is just there to add range and take up space, and specifically that getting inside a spear's range doesn't make beating its wielder inevitable, just possible.

By charging in and swinging their sword.

Spoiler: Not a crudely drawn diagram, but a video

The above video shows a good bit of what I am talking about. The spear beats the sword due to range. It also shows how without a back shield, the spearman's back is open to attack.

When you adjust your grip on a spear, your back hand is still near the back of the spear. You simply pull it backwards through your forehand (you can't quickly move your backhand up the shaft).

Getting within the spear is how you defeat a spear. Getting inside the tip is not 100% guaranteed kill, but the odds become stacked against the spearman.

 

[Wushu Panda]

Ok, I am aware that this is a truely petty quibble, but I hate the way so many fantasy games seem to feel obliged to make weapons not just more powerful as the game progresses, but also progressivly bigger and more ornate. This leads inevitably to having 5'6" elves wielding swords 8' long, 2' wide, and more gaudily decorated than your average christmas tree.
Am I the only person this annoys?
Is anyone realy attracted to a game based on the size of the weapon you get to swing around?

I can tell youve never played a Japanese game, have you?

 

[NeutralDrow]

By charging in and swinging their sword.

Spoiler: Not a crudely drawn diagram, but a video

The above video shows a good bit of what I am talking about. The spear beats the sword due to range. It also shows how without a back shield, the spearman's back is open to attack.

Um...that looked like the spearman's own damn fault. The spearman's back was open to attack because the other guy ran past him, then he himself turned and ran, presenting his back. It feels like he only did that because the backshield let him do it with less risk. Same with insisting on remaining in that really narrow, twisted profile at all times, which I don't quite get; standing sideways makes you a smaller stabbing target, perhaps, and lets you put more force into your stabs, but it's like the guy wasn't using his hips for anything, taking half the advantage and all the disadvantage (see: that sword stab at 0:23).

But speaking of, yeah, I can see the disadvantage you're talking about. It just seems counterintuitive, somehow, to try never to face the enemy. Feels like it limits your footwork and makes you too predictable and easy to maneuver around, when you're using a weapon that should threaten a huge area all around you.

When you adjust your grip on a spear, your back hand is still near the back of the spear. You simply pull it backwards through your forehand (you can't quickly move your backhand up the shaft).

Point conceded, to a point. It's not so much which is your backhand that limits your shift, but which hand is actually bracing the spear and how. Take the guy in the video, for instance. Much of the time, he's got his weapon angled downward and is bracing it with his forehand. He could easily choke up with his backhand. He's also switching his forehand grip from underhand to overhand every so often. Having both hands overhand limits your thrusting force somewhat compared to forehand under/backhand over or end (having an underhand backhand is silly, unless you're stabbing the ground), but it offers more angular motion, and thus more defensive capability, more precise targeting, and the ability to shift your grip with either hand like a staff.

Though granted, he's also usually got his forehand too close to the back to make that wholly feasible.

Getting within the spear is how you defeat a spear. Getting inside the tip is not 100% guaranteed kill, but the odds become stacked against the spearman.

I think we both agree on that first sentence. It's just how much the odds are stacked against the spearman that we're arguing! ^_^

...I wonder if I used enough italics.