Are there Spears/Halberds in the game?
Are there Spears/Halberds in the game?
I'm afraid of spoilers to go around the internet and search, so I hope some kind soul here can answer that question.
Thanks in advance!
Thanks in advance!
- Crenshinibon
- Posts: 2665
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:35 pm
- Contact:
- Crenshinibon
- Posts: 2665
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:35 pm
- Contact:
Apparently all weapons use the same attack animation, which would be unsuitable for the polearm type weapons. That's the main reason why they weren't included.
“The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially.”
- Crenshinibon
- Posts: 2665
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:35 pm
- Contact:
Hand weapons in the pre-firearms armies
When the early D&D rose out of "Chainmail", it brought with it a fascination with armaments, and I clearly remember being appalled at the huge number and variety of polearms. Eventually, I found a reference book from the "Paladin" game that was filled with illustrations, and really, after all, a great many of those multiple names involved minor variations among the same basic 8-10 overall designs.
The basic spear was less expensive and the "spearmanship" involved was greatly simpler than using swords. Weapons like the Falchion were an attempt at getting a slashing type weapon into the hands of your part-time summer levy, who would have been so clumsy with a normal sword as to be useless, but the spears always proved more potent in such hands.
Very few, if any, CRPGs have even paid much attention to the common man's plight when called up to serve, but the one type weapon that did prove to be extremely effective in making those levies into dangerous opponents was one or another "axe on a long pole", such as the Halberd. That type appeared late, probably overlapping into the firearms era.
Because it was late to appear, it's difficult to assess it historically, but it had the potential for being a very serious threat on the battlefield (so much so, that if modeled accurately in these PC games, becomes a very desirable weapon for a high-strength warrior who might otherwise wield a two handed axe or a great sword).
I suspect that the potential game-tipping qualities of at least that type polearm may discourage its inclusion (and then, there are various pikes, which are an entirely different and equally "unbalancing" variety of weapon).
When the early D&D rose out of "Chainmail", it brought with it a fascination with armaments, and I clearly remember being appalled at the huge number and variety of polearms. Eventually, I found a reference book from the "Paladin" game that was filled with illustrations, and really, after all, a great many of those multiple names involved minor variations among the same basic 8-10 overall designs.
The basic spear was less expensive and the "spearmanship" involved was greatly simpler than using swords. Weapons like the Falchion were an attempt at getting a slashing type weapon into the hands of your part-time summer levy, who would have been so clumsy with a normal sword as to be useless, but the spears always proved more potent in such hands.
Very few, if any, CRPGs have even paid much attention to the common man's plight when called up to serve, but the one type weapon that did prove to be extremely effective in making those levies into dangerous opponents was one or another "axe on a long pole", such as the Halberd. That type appeared late, probably overlapping into the firearms era.
Because it was late to appear, it's difficult to assess it historically, but it had the potential for being a very serious threat on the battlefield (so much so, that if modeled accurately in these PC games, becomes a very desirable weapon for a high-strength warrior who might otherwise wield a two handed axe or a great sword).
I suspect that the potential game-tipping qualities of at least that type polearm may discourage its inclusion (and then, there are various pikes, which are an entirely different and equally "unbalancing" variety of weapon).
.
Kiwi
* *
Kiwi
* *
That's just a false reason not to include them as the previous one. I don't really care how "correct" each weapon is implemented. How would you even measure that? Just give us some variation. Besides, polearms were one of the most popular weapons ever. Certainly more viable and useful than dualwielding...
A bit late joining in this debate, but there is something that seems to have been overlooked.
Pole-arms, as has been mentioned, were the weapons of the masses, used almost exclusively in large formations, for individual combat they were effectively useless. A simple parry by the incoming swordsman and the pikeman was dead meat.
PS bugger, forgot to say that even with the above, I still resent them not being present in a fantasy game!
Pole-arms, as has been mentioned, were the weapons of the masses, used almost exclusively in large formations, for individual combat they were effectively useless. A simple parry by the incoming swordsman and the pikeman was dead meat.
PS bugger, forgot to say that even with the above, I still resent them not being present in a fantasy game!
[QUOTE=Darth Gavinius;1096098]Distrbution of games, is becoming a little like Democracy (all about money and control) - in the end choice is an illusion and you have to choose your lesser evil.
And everything is hidden in the fine print.[/QUOTE]
And everything is hidden in the fine print.[/QUOTE]
Not true, polearms are some of the most efficient meleeweapons. Historical training sword-training manual generally said something like this: "If you face a guy with a guisarme/halberd/bill/..., you're dead."galraen wrote:A bit late joining in this debate, but there is something that seems to have been overlooked.
Pole-arms, as has been mentioned, were the weapons of the masses, used almost exclusively in large formations, for individual combat they were effectively useless. A simple parry by the incoming swordsman and the pikeman was dead meat.
PS bugger, forgot to say that even with the above, I still resent them not being present in a fantasy game!
Due to their weight, parrying them wasn't that easy. Also, they're versatile weapons, so even if you block one strike, there's the other end, or reverse end of the head that's coming for you. They also had reach going for them, which you may not underestimate.
Of course, in really cramped quarters (small rooms, for example), you couldn't play to the strengths of polearms. All twohanded weapons had that problem. (This is the reason why samurai carried their wakizashi indoors, or why most warriors also carried a dagger.)
Most efficient mass melee weapons true, but not one on one, any warrior trained in sword and shield should be able to take one guy wielding a pole-arm.
Parry the first thrust with your shield, you are then inside the reach of the polearm, and it's as much use as a very clumsy staff. At that point the smart polearm wielder drops his now useless weapon and draws his sword, or he's dead' he simply can't shorten up quickly enough, and even if he can the extension to his rear makes the weapon more a severe hindrance. Try it and see.
Parry the first thrust with your shield, you are then inside the reach of the polearm, and it's as much use as a very clumsy staff. At that point the smart polearm wielder drops his now useless weapon and draws his sword, or he's dead' he simply can't shorten up quickly enough, and even if he can the extension to his rear makes the weapon more a severe hindrance. Try it and see.
[QUOTE=Darth Gavinius;1096098]Distrbution of games, is becoming a little like Democracy (all about money and control) - in the end choice is an illusion and you have to choose your lesser evil.
And everything is hidden in the fine print.[/QUOTE]
And everything is hidden in the fine print.[/QUOTE]
Not true. You're assuming the polewarrior is static: he can step back and recreate the space. Parrying a strike with a shield isn't as straight forward as you think: the shield has to stand up to the blow (and several more) and your arm has to endure it as well. A lot of polearms/axes/hammers were designed (amongst other things) to hook behind a shield to pull it down.galraen wrote:Most efficient mass melee weapons true, but not one on one, any warrior trained in sword and shield should be able to take one guy wielding a pole-arm.
Parry the first thrust with your shield, you are then inside the reach of the polearm, and it's as much use as a very clumsy staff. At that point the smart polearm wielder drops his now useless weapon and draws his sword, or he's dead' he simply can't shorten up quickly enough, and even if he can the extension to his rear makes the weapon more a severe hindrance. Try it and see.
Wipping up the butt end of a polearm is a lot faster then you'd think, and it comes from a point that is hard to block, if you're that close.
Not saying that weapon and shield isn't an efficient style, but it's not the end-all, be-all of individual combat.
[url="http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_spot_poleaxe.html"]Here's[/url] a some evidence of polearms as individual combat weapons.
Judging by the link you provided Gawain, we seem to be talking at cross purposes. I was comparing sword and shield to pikes (spear derivatives) and other long weapons. Not pole-arms of around 6' in length as such; this quote from Wicki
I'd still prefer my chances with a sword and shield against a poleaxe wielder to be honest though, the latter can be a messy thing, and in my observation the former comes out on top more often than the latter. Which could be more of a reflection on the participants, but I don't think so.
sums up where I went wrong.It is a common mistake to refer to a bladed polearm as a pike
I'd still prefer my chances with a sword and shield against a poleaxe wielder to be honest though, the latter can be a messy thing, and in my observation the former comes out on top more often than the latter. Which could be more of a reflection on the participants, but I don't think so.
[QUOTE=Darth Gavinius;1096098]Distrbution of games, is becoming a little like Democracy (all about money and control) - in the end choice is an illusion and you have to choose your lesser evil.
And everything is hidden in the fine print.[/QUOTE]
And everything is hidden in the fine print.[/QUOTE]
The biggest advantage of shield & weapon is that it is so damned easy to be decently proficient with them, as opposed to other styles.galraen wrote:Judging by the link you provided Gawain, we seem to be talking at cross purposes. I was comparing sword and shield to pikes (spear derivatives) and other long weapons. Not pole-arms of around 6' in length as such; this quote from Wicki sums up where I went wrong.
I'd still prefer my chances with a sword and shield against a poleaxe wielder to be honest though, the latter can be a messy thing, and in my observation the former comes out on top more often than the latter. Which could be more of a reflection on the participants, but I don't think so.
I'd go for the versatility & reach a polearm offers anyday.
If I ever get over to Belgium we'll have to try it out:laugh: Mind you as I'm 60 I suspect you might have an unfair advantage!
[QUOTE=Darth Gavinius;1096098]Distrbution of games, is becoming a little like Democracy (all about money and control) - in the end choice is an illusion and you have to choose your lesser evil.
And everything is hidden in the fine print.[/QUOTE]
And everything is hidden in the fine print.[/QUOTE]