Why the big swords anyway?

[SlowShootinPete]

Dodging a bullet is indeed different from dodging a sword. You would have to make your move either before [the bullet is fired] or at the very same time that the bullet is fired die. But needless to say dodging a bullet is indeed something that can be done and has undoubtedly been done.

I took the liberty of editing your post.

Depending on the range, you could dodge by moving right as it fires.

Yes, if you are firing the gun from orbit, crimson is right. Okay, to be fair, at a 1/7th of a mile (no idea to what that works out in anywhere else) you have one second to get out of the way. Needless to say, most handguns are slightly inaccurate at that range.

Also factor in human reaction time. I believe it varies between .2 of a second and .5 of a second for most people.

 

[Starke]

Dodging a bullet is indeed different from dodging a sword. You would have to make your move either before [the bullet is fired] or at the very same time that the bullet is fired die. But needless to say dodging a bullet is indeed something that can be done and has undoubtedly been done.

I took the liberty of editing your post.

Depending on the range, you could dodge by moving right as it fires.

You'd have to be far off. Bullets move in the neighborhood of thousands of feet per second.

And slow down quickly. But yes, "dodge" would be an almost accurate phrase. 'Accidentally getting out of the way by luck" would be better.

Very true. At long ranges, the rifle report heard will be the bullet creating its own mini sonic boom (where the 1/7th mile number comes from), and not the shot it self.

IN THEORY, if you're using subsonic loads, then you could be considerably closer, but, I've no idea how close, and subsonic loads are pretty rare outside of special operations.

 

[The Rockerfly]

Probably because they are much easier to draw and levels of detail can be added

Also the symbolic thing of it being quite big, along with the American phrase "bigger is better" these all give the large sword a reason to stay

 

[Yokai]

To my knowledge, giant swords like that were once used to potentially break down the cavalry of enemy troops. The sheer force it took to swing those things could allegedly take down a horse. Would a small sword have a similar effect? That's not likely. Granted, in reality, it would be very hard to swing a giant sword like that, and would most likely require two hands. Either way, this is only to my current knowledge. If it helps explain things, then you're welcome.

I doubt this. War horses weigh in excess of 1200-1400 pounds. Chance you can knock one over with a sword, no matter how large: doubtful.

Big swords like this are useless. A Claymore is about as large as a fully bladed weapon can get without being utterly useless, and even those have massive draw backs with makes their use... questionable.

EDIT: Video games use them as a visual effect, nothing more.

While the ability to take down both a horse and rider in one swing is debatable, the Japanese nodachi was specifically designed with cavalry in mind. It probably wasn't intended to knock the horse over so much as severely wound it as it ran past, causing it to collapse on its own. It's true, it was rather impractical and was used infrequently.

OT: Because it signifies the strength and destructive power of the user. It's impressive and intimidating. It's the same with giant guns. That's why you see Super Mutants with miniguns and not 10mm pistols--it's far more imposing. One of the best ways to portray a character you don't want to screw with is to give him a weapon most people wouldn't even be able to lift.

 

[Starke]

Wait... how did this happen. Is this not a thread about swords the size of a goddamn Boeing 737? How did all these guns get in here?

 

[A1]

There is such thing as body language and there is such a thing as people who can read it. One would also be able to anticipate the trajectory of a bullet by taking additional factors into account such as the position and general behavior of the shooter.

You're talking about Equilibrium again. Guessing where a gun will be pointed, yes, but calculating bullet trajectory would require a graphing calculator.

And now you seem to be starting to venture into hypothetical territory again.

Well, yeah. This is all hypothetical.

And I'm not so sure if there really is much of a point to this debate because even if the variables of combat skill are equal that wouldn't make them any less relevant. It would seem that all that would mean is that the outcome of the fight would be that much harder to predict. This is of course assuming that the one doing the prediction is unbiased.

Actually, no, it would make predicting very easy, because the outcome of the fight would be determined by the one thing that the test is meant to show: which weapon is better. That is the only relevant variable.

That the test is meant to show? That sounds a bit presumptuous. I think that this discussion is becoming pointless for two reasons.

First, I think that it's ultimately misguided. In determining the outcome of a fight the kind of weapon used is not as important as the person who's using it. I guess I forgot that. It would also seem that the question whether a sword or a gun is a more effective weapon is also highly subjective as each have inherent advantages and disadvantages. Which brings me to my second reason.

You seem to have already throughly and firmly made up your mind on the subject and I think that nothing anyone says is going to change it. Therefore there's really no point in continuing.

 

[Starke]

OT: Because it signifies the strength and destructive power of the user. It's impressive and intimidating. It's the same with giant guns. That's why you see Super Mutants with miniguns and not 10mm pistols--it's far more imposing. One of the best ways to portray a character you don't want to screw with is to give him a weapon most people wouldn't even be able to lift.

Fallout Physics and the real world have about as much in common with each other as a tap dancing iguana and Steve Buschimi. That is to say, I like using both as absurd analogies.

EDIT: Sorry, I misread that post. Still the 10mm pistol in Fallout 3 is about 12" long.

 

[SlowShootinPete]

That the test is meant to show? That sounds a bit presumptuous. I think that this discussion is becoming pointless for two reasons.

First, I think that it's ultimately misguided. In determining the outcome of a fight the kind of weapon used is not as important as the person who's using it. I guess I forgot that. It would also seem that the question whether a sword or a gun is a more effective weapon is also highly subjective as each have inherent advantages and disadvantages.

... What the hell even started this. Hang on.

Spoiler

There is also the issue of ammo, which sword wielders generally don't have to worry about. And in general with guns there are more factors to consider that can greatly effect the results of using a gun. In this sense a sword would be at least somewhat more reliable. It's probably also worth noting that Obi Wan Kenobi dismissed blasters as clumsy and random.

Swords aren't very reliable when you're shot before getting close enough to use it on someone.

As I already said, the amount of damage a gun can do varies depending on the kind of foe it's used against. It's true that a gun would have an advantage in terms of range. But this advantage can be nullified easily enough through the use of strong enough armor or clothing or if the sword wielder is fast and agile enough to avoid being it. And this is of course assuming that the one using the gun is even a decent shot. This would be an especially significant issue in the case of handguns. Contrary to what you may have seen in movies, on television, in books, or in video games, hitting a target with a handgun is nowhere near as easy as it looks. Among the factors to consider are the the way you hold the gun, the way you grip the gun, the way you pull the trigger, and your stance. Many guns also have to deal with the issue of jamming. On top of that, guns are often rendered useless if they get wet, which is yet another issue that sword wielders don't have to worry about.

Guns have the advantage of range. But one could plausibly argue that that is a gun's only advantage, and one which there are numerous ways to counteract.

This began purely as a discussion of the advantages of guns and swords.

You seem to have already throughly and firmly made up your mind on the subject and I think that nothing anyone says is going to change it. Therefore there's really no point in continuing.

I have made my mind up, yes, but I come into discussions willing to be persuaded. Your arguments aren't very convincing.

 

[Starke]

That the test is meant to show? That sounds a bit presumptuous.

Actually Pete, you're freakin' me out right now, you're writing things I'd say if I was more annoyed, only you're being polite about it...

I think that this discussion is becoming pointless for two reasons.

First, I think that it's ultimately misguided. In determining the outcome of a fight the kind of weapon used is not as important as the person who's using it.

Unfortunately, history does not agree with you. That's why we invented heroic fiction.

I guess I forgot that.

It happens to everyone eventually.

It would also seem that the question whether a sword or a gun is a more effective weapon is also highly subjective as each have inherent advantages and disadvantages.

Guns kill people. Swords kill people who jump on them? [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/94731-College-Student-Kills-Intruder-With-a-Sword]

Which brings me to my second reason.

You seem to have already throughly and firmly made up your mind on the subject and I think that nothing anyone says is going to change it.

If you would make convincing arguments that didn't predicate existing in the same universe as Elijah Snow, he might be more persuaded. I know I would.

Therefore there's really no point in continuing.

Aw. But, the drones need you, they look up to you.

 

[SlowShootinPete]

That the test is meant to show? That sounds a bit presumptuous.

Actually Pete, you're freakin' me out right now, you're writing things I'd say if I was more annoyed, only you're being polite about it...

I make an effort to be civil and reasonable as much as I can. It makes my avatar very funny, I think. :3

 

[Starke]

... What the hell even started this. Hang on.

Spoiler

There is also the issue of ammo, which sword wielders generally don't have to worry about. And in general with guns there are more factors to consider that can greatly effect the results of using a gun. In this sense a sword would be at least somewhat more reliable. It's probably also worth noting that Obi Wan Kenobi dismissed blasters as clumsy and random.

Swords aren't very reliable when you're shot before getting close enough to use it on someone.

As I already said, the amount of damage a gun can do varies depending on the kind of foe it's used against. It's true that a gun would have an advantage in terms of range. But this advantage can be nullified easily enough through the use of strong enough armor or clothing or if the sword wielder is fast and agile enough to avoid being it. And this is of course assuming that the one using the gun is even a decent shot. This would be an especially significant issue in the case of handguns. Contrary to what you may have seen in movies, on television, in books, or in video games, hitting a target with a handgun is nowhere near as easy as it looks. Among the factors to consider are the the way you hold the gun, the way you grip the gun, the way you pull the trigger, and your stance. Many guns also have to deal with the issue of jamming. On top of that, guns are often rendered useless if they get wet, which is yet another issue that sword wielders don't have to worry about.

Guns have the advantage of range. But one could plausibly argue that that is a gun's only advantage, and one which there are numerous ways to counteract.

This began purely as a discussion of the advantages of guns and swords.

Wow... holy fuck... my brain... what the hell? A1 actually wrote that!?

 

[A1]

Of course, then again, if someone can run around swinging a huge sword, he or she can probably tackle and submit whoever even without any knowledge of hand to hand martial arts.

Unarmed fighting and armed fighting are very different things, though.

I never said anything about a sword fighter being inherently more agile than a gunfighter. But by that same token why would a gunfighter be inherently more agile than a sword fighter? That wouldn't be true either.

Yeah... he was talking to someone else. Like me, a third party who wandered into this, grabbed a big stick and started thumping on people.

And who ever said there had to be reason? That kind of thing is perfectly realistic. And no matter what the situation there is always the factor of human ingenuity and creativity, which would always provide an X-factor that could determine the outcome of a fight regardless of what weapons are in play.

As someone who is actually quite guilty of this in his own writing. You're using an indefinite term, what is "this kind of thing" you speak of? I could guess, but its a writing flaw you should probably try to correct. Again, not a snipe, this is a genuine editorial critique.

He was talking to someone else? I've double checked this and I think that you are mistaken on that point. And even if he was it was a genuine mistake on my part, as opposed to it being intentional. Which brings me to my next point.

Now you're being rude. I wasn't talking to you with that "that kind of thing" remark. Could you please stick to your own conversations instead of butting into those of others?

 

[A1]

That the test is meant to show? That sounds a bit presumptuous.

Actually Pete, you're freakin' me out right now, you're writing things I'd say if I was more annoyed, only you're being polite about it...

I think that this discussion is becoming pointless for two reasons.

First, I think that it's ultimately misguided. In determining the outcome of a fight the kind of weapon used is not as important as the person who's using it.

Unfortunately, history does not agree with you. That's why we invented heroic fiction.

I guess I forgot that.

It happens to everyone eventually.

It would also seem that the question whether a sword or a gun is a more effective weapon is also highly subjective as each have inherent advantages and disadvantages.

Guns kill people. Swords kill people who jump on them? [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/94731-College-Student-Kills-Intruder-With-a-Sword]

Which brings me to my second reason.

You seem to have already throughly and firmly made up your mind on the subject and I think that nothing anyone says is going to change it.

If you would make convincing arguments that didn't predicate existing in the same universe as Elijah Snow, he might be more persuaded. I know I would.

Therefore there's really no point in continuing.

Aw. But, the drones need you, they look up to you.

I guess I can assume that to mean that you've essentially given up on being taken seriously.

 

[SlowShootinPete]

Now you're being rude. I wasn't talking to you with that "that kind of thing" remark. Could you please stick to your own conversations instead of butting into those of others?

He wasn't being rude, he was saying that you didn't define your terms to his satisfaction.

And who ever said there had to be reason? That kind of thing is perfectly realistic...

 

[A1]

Now you're being rude. I wasn't talking to you with that "that kind of thing" remark. Could you please stick to your own conversations instead of butting into those of others?

He wasn't being rude, he was saying that you didn't define your terms to his satisfaction.

And who ever said there had to be reason? That kind of thing is perfectly realistic...

It's not polite to butt in to other peoples discussions, which he did. It doesn't matter what his reason for doing it was. It still doesn't excuse him.

 

[SlowShootinPete]

Now you're being rude. I wasn't talking to you with that "that kind of thing" remark. Could you please stick to your own conversations instead of butting into those of others?

He wasn't being rude, he was saying that you didn't define your terms to his satisfaction.

And who ever said there had to be reason? That kind of thing is perfectly realistic...

It's not polite to butt in to other peoples discussions, which he did. It doesn't matter what his reason for doing it was. It still doesn't excuse him.

Why isn't he allowed to get involved? Debate is an open process.

 

[Lexodus]

To my knowledge, giant swords like that were once used to potentially break down the cavalry of enemy troops. The sheer force it took to swing those things could allegedly take down a horse. Would a small sword have a similar effect? That's not likely. Granted, in reality, it would be very hard to swing a giant sword like that, and would most likely require two hands. Either way, this is only to my current knowledge. If it helps explain things, then you're welcome.

I doubt this. War horses weigh in excess of 1200-1400 pounds. Chance you can knock one over with a sword, no matter how large: doubtful.

Big swords like this are useless. A Claymore is about as large as a fully bladed weapon can get without being utterly useless, and even those have massive draw backs with makes their use... questionable.

I know. Hence "to my knowledge". I have absolutely no way to confirm this, but if it's something you are interested in, I'm sure you have more ways than me.

I love your avatar. What's it from?

OT: I also heard this, but it's still only a theory by the weapons experts. But really, the big swords look awesome, and I'm sure you'd freak the fuck out if you were on the battlefield with a regular-sized sword and, suddenly, this monster of a man jumps out of nowhere, swinging around a sword the size of a small person as efficiently as they do in the animes etc.

 

[nightwolf667]

He was talking to someone else? I've double checked this and I think that you are mistaken on that point. And even if he was it was a genuine mistake on my part, as opposed to it being intentional. Which brings me to my next point.

Now you're being rude. I wasn't talking to you with that "that kind of thing" remark. Could you please stick to your own conversations instead of butting into those of others?

Okay, now I feel like butting in.

A1 you realize you're on a forum board right? You're putting out your conversation in front of the whole world to see and to judge... I'm pretty sure that when you want a private conversation you go to the messages, otherwise you have no reason to complain.

Also, I know from first hand experience how easy it is to use a gun. My boyfriend took me to a shooting range a few months ago, first time really working with one and I hit the bulls eye, more than once. Swords are big, they are shiny and metal and in some cases very heavy, from a practical standpoint it's a lot harder to launch a sneak attack with one, which ends up being what you need against someone with a fire arm. You're right that's it's not just a point and click but the learning curve is incredibly fast. Would I be good using a gun in a combat situation? Probably not, but I only practiced for an hour.

Now, I'm a third degree black belt in a mixed martial art and have been practicing since I was five and am fairly (but not completely confident) in my hand to hand combat skills. I can tell you with certainty that I would MUCH rather have a gun in hand when facing an opponent than any other weapon. Why? Because it's versatile and it's easy to use. That's why it wins.

 

[Lexodus]

Now you're being rude. I wasn't talking to you with that "that kind of thing" remark. Could you please stick to your own conversations instead of butting into those of others?

He wasn't being rude, he was saying that you didn't define your terms to his satisfaction.

And who ever said there had to be reason? That kind of thing is perfectly realistic...

It's not polite to butt in to other peoples discussions, which he did. It doesn't matter what his reason for doing it was. It still doesn't excuse him.

Alright, you might as well leave. This is a forum, where any number of people will be involved in any conversation that isn't conducted in Private Messages. Unless, of course, you want to rethink your position on this issue?

 

[Megas Rules]

the enjoyment of swinging a big hunk of sharp metal around with ease is because Well its with ease and i think every one of us would love to be that strong and skilled where we can just swing a huge sword (Buster Blade etc.) with such skill