Realism with weapons.

[Blunderboy]

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.

I'm sure you're fed up with being quoted by now, but thanks. I watched about twenty of these last night.

 

[Treblaine]

With general oversized weapons, I have no problem just assuming "it doesn't weigh as much as it looks."

You swing that thing once, your weapon is going to be impaled a foot into the ground, stuck, wit you having a brocken spine and who every you were trying to kill stabbing you to pieces.

Not if it weighed a realistic amount. In other words, if this picture is more accurate.

It's still shaped impractically for most purposes (may as well be a giant machete), but it probably wouldn't weigh more than five pounds or so. It's thicker than a "typical" zweihander, but also shorter.

This is just me, but judging by appearances the weapon DOES look like it weighs a lot.

Look at the step of the edge, how broad it is and the different shade shows there is a great difference in angle, so the weapon does appear to be very thick, at least an inch thick and most likely 2 inches at the thickest. And it is broad and long, while not made of some lightweight material like wood or even a light metal like Aluminium. It has the dark hue of steel.

I have had to move large blocks of steel like that and I'll tell you I have a GREAT APPRECIATION FOR THEIR WEIGHT. It was so heavy it was like it was welded to the ground, and it was just a slab of iron less than an inch thick, it took such a monumental effort to get it onto a truck and taken away as scrap. We had several men lifting at.

Cloud's buster sword is the size not of a boat's anchor, but the size of a ship's anchor. But that isn't the problem, he can have superpowers or magic, but what I can't appreciate is the loss of momentum.

Regardless of gravity or strength, heavier objects have more momentum when moved. That is precisely what makes such a weapon like the Buster Sword such a fearsome weapon, how once swung it takes a lot to stop it. That momentum crashing into you, the sturdiest beast could crumble before it.

If it did just weight 5 pounds then it would be worthless as a weapon. What makes it so fearsome is that is looks to weight 200lbs at least!

I suppose my issue is consistency. To me there is a disconnect in the perceived power of weapons like the Buster sword. It is a styrofoam toy when wielded one second, then when they need to deal damage against an enemy they are all of a sudden as heavy and hard hitting as a ship's propeller. But after it has been stung around with the momentum of a foam toy it just seems like I am fighting origami toy enemies with paper swords.

So the character MUST be impeded in some way by the weight of their weapon, or it loses its impeding properties against their foes!

 

[Thaluikhain]

You mentioned that the swords are big but not heavy, I suppose that would explain why the characters can hold them, but
1) I have never actually heard anyone state that in a show
2) They would still be very awkward to fight with, regardless of weight. Imagine trying to swordfight with an inflatable couch.

That actually came up in Soul Drinker, a character with a noticeably overlarge sword, that had antigravity motors to compensate...but if you swung it the wrong way, the machinery would make it fly out of your hand.

Large, light objects are also ungainly due to air resistance or wind. Big round shields (think the ones the Rohan used in the LotR movies) can be affected by wind, even re-enactor versions, which tend to be much thicker and heavier (real ones were much lighter to make them easier to use, and if didn't matter if they got hacked up, as long as their user didn't).

Now, if you could ignore conservation of mass, decrease the mass of the sword as you swung it, but increase it just before it hit...

 

[demoman_chaos]

I think you're mixing up spears with pikes, or other oversized polearms. With a normal size spear or shortspear, getting past the tip just means you stopped fighting a spear-wielder, and are now facing a staff-wielder.

Nope, even short spears are the same. I do live steel viking reenactment combat. With a shield, there is little they can do with a spear once you get past the tip other than try to make distance.

 

[Silenttalker22]

Every time you drag reality physics into fantasy discussion, god kills a catgirl. Please, think of the catgirls.

 

[Delsana]

Just an FYI, but realism in games is a key tenet due to the core of immersion that is the focus of most games in terms of stories or getting you into their world.

So yeah, it makes sense to really focus on realism.

But normal axes also look ugly and appeal is another factor.

 

[NeutralDrow]

I don't really have anything to argue with in your previous post. Just so you know I'm not actually ignoring it.

With general oversized weapons, I have no problem just assuming "it doesn't weigh as much as it looks."

You swing that thing once, your weapon is going to be impaled a foot into the ground, stuck, wit you having a brocken spine and who every you were trying to kill stabbing you to pieces.

Not if it weighed a realistic amount. In other words, if this picture is more accurate.

It's still shaped impractically for most purposes (may as well be a giant machete), but it probably wouldn't weigh more than five pounds or so. It's thicker than a "typical" zweihander, but also shorter.

This is just me, but judging by appearances the weapon DOES look like it weighs a lot.

...

Regardless of gravity or strength, heavier objects have more momentum when moved. That is precisely what makes such a weapon like the Buster Sword such a fearsome weapon, how once swung it takes a lot to stop it. That momentum crashing into you, the sturdiest beast could crumble before it.

If it did just weight 5 pounds then it would be worthless as a weapon. What makes it so fearsome is that is looks to weight 200lbs at least!

Actually, <url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un1M7xbCCIs>someone made a full-size buster sword replica, and it weighed 46. Which is certainly much more than it's supposed to weigh in-game.

And no, if it were 5 pounds, it would not be worthless as a weapon. You get far more kinetic energy from velocity than from mass. That's why swords had to be fairly lightweight, partly because after a certain point, you get more force by swinging faster than swinging something heavy, and partly because of the issue of overextending. Excess momentum is for hammers and siege weapons, if someone is leaving craters with a sword, it should be because they're beastly strong.

I suppose my issue is consistency. To me there is a disconnect in the perceived power of weapons like the Buster sword. It is a styrofoam toy when wielded one second, then when they need to deal damage against an enemy they are all of a sudden as heavy and hard hitting as a ship's propeller. But after it has been stung around with the momentum of a foam toy it just seems like I am fighting origami toy enemies with paper swords.

Styrofoam and ship propellers are a bad example. Try an aluminum bat. It's also designed to be swung (and isn't balanced like a sword) and really not heavy, but swing it at something or someone, and you'll hurt them badly.

Really, the most unrealistic thing about the buster sword is that it technically should have a longer hilt.

I think you're mixing up spears with pikes, or other oversized polearms. With a normal size spear or shortspear, getting past the tip just means you stopped fighting a spear-wielder, and are now facing a staff-wielder.

Nope, even short spears are the same. I do live steel viking reenactment combat. With a shield, there is little they can do with a spear once you get past the tip other than try to make distance.

That's because of the shield's advantage, not the spear's disadvantage. I've seen reenactments of sword-and-board versus spear. The shield-user wins by pressing against and binding the enemy's weapon; they still have their own weapon free, while the polearm (or staff, or large sword/ax/mace/etc.) user is literally prevented from moving theirs.

That example's not showing that the spear has a limited strike range, it shows that shields are awesome and can remove other weapons from the equation entirely. Without a shield, the only equivalent way you can keep from getting a spear haft to the face is if you managed to get close and grab their weapon long enough to grapple or stab them.

 

[demoman_chaos]

That's because of the shield's advantage, not the spear's disadvantage. I've seen reenactments of sword-and-board versus spear. The shield-user wins by pressing against and binding the enemy's weapon; they still have their own weapon free, while the polearm (or staff, or large sword/ax/mace/etc.) user is literally prevented from moving theirs.

That example's not showing that the spear has a limited strike range, it shows that shields are awesome and can remove other weapons from the equation entirely. Without a shield, the only equivalent way you can keep from getting a spear haft to the face is if you managed to get close and grab their weapon long enough to grapple or stab them.

Or you can get on the inside of the same side of the spear they are (if you get what I mean by that), and there isn't much they can do. Whack me with the pole if you want, but I'll see your whack and raise you one stab in the face. The spearman will be more worried about not dying than slapping his foe with an attack that won't do much.
That is assuming you could hit him with the shaft. You hold a spear near the back end, meaning there isn't much to hit with even if you can swing it around. They'll be running at you so you'll have little time and the impact won't be significant because of the shallow arc (hitting a ball with a bat near the tip sends it much farther than hitting near the handle). While it would be easier to perform the attack with a short spear, it still won't be of much use.
TLR- Would you rather weakly slap a guy, or keep him from killing you?

 

[dimensional]

um I am confused are we arguing that some weapons in video games, cartoons and movies arent realistic? seriously unless the show/game/whatever is striving for realism I can fully except that characters can take a smack to the face from a 200lb sword wielded like it was 2 lb and survive or that a gun shot just does a certain amount of damage and nothing else and can be healed by waiting afew seconds or the much more realistic `lol` grabbing a health pack.

Games are games real life is real life do not confuse movies , books, games or indeed any work of fiction with real life or assume they are governed even remotely by the same rules.

I do dislike this Fiction lark though it seems like they just make up anything.

 

[NeutralDrow]

That's because of the shield's advantage, not the spear's disadvantage. I've seen reenactments of sword-and-board versus spear. The shield-user wins by pressing against and binding the enemy's weapon; they still have their own weapon free, while the polearm (or staff, or large sword/ax/mace/etc.) user is literally prevented from moving theirs.

That example's not showing that the spear has a limited strike range, it shows that shields are awesome and can remove other weapons from the equation entirely. Without a shield, the only equivalent way you can keep from getting a spear haft to the face is if you managed to get close and grab their weapon long enough to grapple or stab them.

Or you can get on the inside of the same side of the spear they are (if you get what I mean by that), and there isn't much they can do.

Except go to the side and take the easy trip attempt at your exposed legs. If the attacker is that close and misses, they're also in prime grappling range, and you can grapple with staves.

Whack me with the pole if you want, but I'll see your whack and raise you one stab in the face. The spearman will be more worried about not dying than slapping his foe with an attack that won't do much.

"Won't do much?" Have you ever seen quarterstaff fights? They don't always thrust or swing in wide arcs (I think they're called half-staff attacks), and you don't need excessive striking force (though you do notice a "slap" to the head with any blunt instrument) to interfere with the enemy. They're like rapiers and slashing, in that regard.

That is assuming you could hit him with the shaft. You hold a spear near the back end, meaning there isn't much to hit with even if you can swing it around. They'll be running at you so you'll have little time and the impact won't be significant because of the shallow arc (hitting a ball with a bat near the tip sends it much farther than hitting near the handle). While it would be easier to perform the attack with a short spear, it still won't be of much use.

If they're running at you, they're getting impaled. If they dodge past the point, <url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnezTM2UA_k>you shift your grip or die (secondary point: reiterating shield vs. spear advantage). If you only wield a spear by thrusting from the back end, you're either in a formation or you're not a good fighter.

TLR- Would you rather weakly slap a guy, or keep him from killing you?

Why are you assuming those are two different things? Attacking and defending as two separate actions is for sport fencers.

Besides, worst comes to worst? You parry, shove, or dodge and get more distance. The killing power is in the point of the spear. The defending power is in every part.

 

[demoman_chaos]

Except go to the side and take the easy trip attempt at your exposed legs. If the attacker is that close and misses, they're also in prime grappling range, and you can grapple with staves.

"Won't do much?" Have you ever seen quarterstaff fights? They don't always thrust or swing in wide arcs (I think they're called half-staff attacks), and you don't need excessive striking force (though you do notice a "slap" to the head with any blunt instrument) to interfere with the enemy. They're like rapiers and slashing, in that regard.

If they're running at you, they're getting impaled. If they dodge past the point, <url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnezTM2UA_k>you shift your grip or die (secondary point: reiterating shield vs. spear advantage). If you only wield a spear by thrusting from the back end, you're either in a formation or you're not a good fighter.

Why are you assuming those are two different things? Attacking and defending as two separate actions is for sport fencers.

Besides, worst comes to worst? You parry, shove, or dodge and get more distance. The killing power is in the point of the spear. The defending power is in every part.

Your back is very vunerable to attack. If I have a weapon, and I get past the point of your spear, I'm making you bleed. The exposed back problem is why most of the spearmen in my viking reenactment group (Skjaldborg) have shields on their backs. Without a backshield, you are almost certianly get hit if your opponent closes.

Spoiler: ooooo, badly drawn diagram

What you want:
--X
--^
--|
O|

What you don't want:
--^
--|X
O|

What you want even less:
--^
X|
O|

Imminent death is imminent.

If you aren't wielding it by holding near the back end, you aren't holding it right. Spears are good because they are long. If someone has a sword and you have a spear, you try to keep him back. If you get within his range, you are in big trouble. Holding a spear in the middle means the swordsman has much less distance to cover, making his job (killing you) much easier.

Spoiler: Not another one of these

--X
--^
O|
--|

or
--X
--^
--|
O|

Which is better for the spearmen?

You can't skewer someone who is past your point. To beat a spear, the swordsman has to get around the point, run up the length, and make a murder. The hard part is getting past the point. Once you pass the point, there isn't much a spearman can do besides block the attacks, try to make distance, or draw a shorter weapon he should have on his belt (a spearman with a knife at the ready is a tough for to beat).

Attacking and defending are 2 seperate things. Attacking is trying to kill an enemy, defending is trying to keep him from killing you. While it is technically possible to block an attack with an attack, it isn't a feasible tactic you can rely on.

Your last paragraph basically sums up what I am saying. You block, dodge, and try to get away with a spear. The point is the killing part, not the shaft.

I love weapons debates. They are almost always fun.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Except go to the side and take the easy trip attempt at your exposed legs. If the attacker is that close and misses, they're also in prime grappling range, and you can grapple with staves.

"Won't do much?" Have you ever seen quarterstaff fights? They don't always thrust or swing in wide arcs (I think they're called half-staff attacks), and you don't need excessive striking force (though you do notice a "slap" to the head with any blunt instrument) to interfere with the enemy. They're like rapiers and slashing, in that regard.

If they're running at you, they're getting impaled. If they dodge past the point, <url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnezTM2UA_k>you shift your grip or die (secondary point: reiterating shield vs. spear advantage). If you only wield a spear by thrusting from the back end, you're either in a formation or you're not a good fighter.

Why are you assuming those are two different things? Attacking and defending as two separate actions is for sport fencers.

Besides, worst comes to worst? You parry, shove, or dodge and get more distance. The killing power is in the point of the spear. The defending power is in every part.

Your back is very vunerable to attack. If I have a weapon, and I get past the point of your spear, I'm making you bleed. The exposed back problem is why most of the spearmen in my viking reenactment group (Skjaldborg) have shields on their backs. Without a backshield, you are almost certianly get hit if your opponent closes.

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

Spoiler: ooooo, badly drawn diagram

What you want even less:
--^
X|
O|

Imminent death is imminent.

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).

If you aren't wielding it by holding near the back end, you aren't holding it right. Spears are good because they are long. If someone has a sword and you have a spear, you try to keep him back. If you get within his range, you are in big trouble. Holding a spear in the middle means the swordsman has much less distance to cover, making his job (killing you) much easier.

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.

Attacking and defending are 2 seperate things. Attacking is trying to kill an enemy, defending is trying to keep him from killing you. While it is technically possible to block an attack with an attack, it isn't a feasible tactic you can rely on.

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

5. Displacing of Strikes:

The historical source teachings on the longsword are unanimous that defensive actions are best accomplished by offensive actions. They recommend the optimal defense as bring a single-time action---a counter-strike that displaces (or breaks) the oncoming cut or thrust. What is most difficult for modern fencers and sword enthusiasts to grasp is the concept of defense found throughout Renaissance fighting literature: simultaneously delivering a strike while in the same motion closing-in to stifle an attack by encountering the opponent?s weapon near its hilt using your blade near its hilt. This action takes into account the force of the strikes that must be opposed as well as the understanding that closing against an attacker is frequently an ideal option. Where counter-striking a blow is not always possible, warding off or setting aside a cut (by receiving it on the flat of the blade, not the edge) is then proscribed.

However, passively catching oncoming strikes with a rigid block (common practice in modern fencing) was never advised. This is the opposite of the simpler "parry-riposte" theory of swordplay that dominates so many forms of fencing now. Statically taking a blow edge on edge, as became standard operating procedure throughout the post-Renaissance broadsword and cutlass play of the 18th and 19th centuries, was simply not taught. Modern fencing, by comparison, relies almost solely on this "double-time" defense with a separate intentional parrying action (derived from the Baroque smallsword, and even deemed a progressive idea)

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.

Your last paragraph basically sums up what I am saying. You block, dodge, and try to get away with a spear. The point is the killing part, not the shaft.

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.

I love weapons debates. They are almost always fun.

...yeah, this actually is more fun than I was expecting.

 

[Treblaine]

I don't really have anything to argue with in your previous post. Just so you know I'm not actually ignoring it.

With general oversized weapons, I have no problem just assuming "it doesn't weigh as much as it looks."

You swing that thing once, your weapon is going to be impaled a foot into the ground, stuck, wit you having a brocken spine and who every you were trying to kill stabbing you to pieces.

Not if it weighed a realistic amount. In other words, if this picture is more accurate.

It's still shaped impractically for most purposes (may as well be a giant machete), but it probably wouldn't weigh more than five pounds or so. It's thicker than a "typical" zweihander, but also shorter.

This is just me, but judging by appearances the weapon DOES look like it weighs a lot.

...

Regardless of gravity or strength, heavier objects have more momentum when moved. That is precisely what makes such a weapon like the Buster Sword such a fearsome weapon, how once swung it takes a lot to stop it. That momentum crashing into you, the sturdiest beast could crumble before it.

If it did just weight 5 pounds then it would be worthless as a weapon. What makes it so fearsome is that is looks to weight 200lbs at least!

Actually, <url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un1M7xbCCIs>someone made a full-size buster sword replica, and it weighed 46. Which is certainly much more than it's supposed to weigh in-game.

And no, if it were 5 pounds, it would not be worthless as a weapon. You get far more kinetic energy from velocity than from mass. That's why swords had to be fairly lightweight, partly because after a certain point, you get more force by swinging faster than swinging something heavy, and partly because of the issue of overextending. Excess momentum is for hammers and siege weapons, if someone is leaving craters with a sword, it should be because they're beastly strong.

I suppose my issue is consistency. To me there is a disconnect in the perceived power of weapons like the Buster sword. It is a styrofoam toy when wielded one second, then when they need to deal damage against an enemy they are all of a sudden as heavy and hard hitting as a ship's propeller. But after it has been stung around with the momentum of a foam toy it just seems like I am fighting origami toy enemies with paper swords.

Styrofoam and ship propellers are a bad example. Try an aluminum bat. It's also designed to be swung (and isn't balanced like a sword) and really not heavy, but swing it at something or someone, and you'll hurt them badly.

Really, the most unrealistic thing about the buster sword is that it technically should have a longer hilt.

That is NOT a faithful replica. It is no where near thick enough, look at the step on that image, it is a steep angle and long. The in game buster sword is more than just long and broad, it is THICK!

If you are going to have a 5-pound sword, then why make it so bulky? Why not thin and narrow like a Katana sword or sabre? And now my bullshit alarms are really going off, you have a huge weapon that seems to weigh 5-pounds... it doesn't look like I have a steel weapon but a steel-effect painted cosplay weapon! Styrfoam IS a better example than an aluminium bat. Only styrofoam or something like that is low enough density for such a large weapon to be twirled around your wrist like this


2:28 about, his epic spin. You can also clearly see how thick the buster word is supposed to be.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

Guts laughs in the face of your puny realistic weapon sizes.

Practicality is overrated! But seriously, when we're talking videogames and anime we're often dealing with fictional materials too... super strength and super light are often common traits of famous swords.

 

[ChupathingyX]

I love how that guy is complaining about a weapon not being used in a realistic kind of way in fantasy movies/games.

Only if the particular subject is trying to be realistic do I care about the weapons themselves being realistic.

 

[Bishop99999999]

>Play Demons' souls.
>Swing big friggin' two-handed sword at the enemies.
>hits wall, bounces off.
>small rusty dagger in my spleen