swords effectiveness in close combat too low?

[forgedude]

Does anyone else think the damage done by the Tal'mahe'Ra Blade is too low? I mean, in the Golden Temple sequence, even if your character is a top-level martial artist, these dudes take several hard strikes to take out, and they're only human, fergawdsake! This sword is supposed to be top quality and wielded by someone who is several times stronger than a normal human. And before anyone calls this "pro-katana hype" we have many records of single-handed swords from the Viking ages down to the English-Scottish wars of the late 17th and early 18th century where under combat conditions, admittedly with some adrenaline thrown into it, swords were regularly lopping off unprotected limbs, cleaving skulls to the chin, cleaving downwards from the shoulder blade clear through to the breastbone, etc, all fight-stopping injuries. Notice I said "single-handed"- these were fairly light (2-3 lb) swords intended for use with a shield in the other hand.
It seems to me the damage should be jacked up enough to the point that a strong Vampire who is skilled in melee weapons would be able to dispose of mere humans with one or two strikes, not requiring half a dozen.

[Jhereg]

Does anyone else think the damage done by the Tal'mahe'Ra Blade is too low? I mean, in the Golden Temple sequence, even if your character is a top-level martial artist, these dudes take several hard strikes to take out, and they're only human, fergawdsake! This sword is supposed to be top quality and wielded by someone who is several times stronger than a normal human. And before anyone calls this "pro-katana hype" we have many records of single-handed swords from the Viking ages down to the English-Scottish wars of the late 17th and early 18th century where under combat conditions, admittedly with some adrenaline thrown into it, swords were regularly lopping off unprotected limbs, cleaving skulls to the chin, cleaving downwards from the shoulder blade clear through to the breastbone, etc, all fight-stopping injuries. Notice I said "single-handed"- these were fairly light (2-3 lb) swords intended for use with a shield in the other hand.
It seems to me the damage should be jacked up enough to the point that a strong Vampire who is skilled in melee weapons would be able to dispose of mere humans with one or two strikes, not requiring half a dozen.

Alas, the degeneracy of an RPG. In an RPG, you surrender close control of your weapon in favor of greater control of your environment. In an FPS, your control is not at all precise, but it is greatly refined. I have learned, for example, in JA to deliberately cut through a half-dozen foes. By design. In an RPG, though, you simply have attack, and attack mode. The game decides what your PC will do. You keep hitting the fire button until you're done. The Tal'mahe'Ra blade is very light-weight, magical, and designed specifically to kill vampires, but you still don't have the kind of control you want. That's just the nature of the game.

If you ever manage to get a real sword in your hands, though, you will find that cleaving a person from collar-bone to sternum is not nearly as easy as it looks in the movies. Even Katanas have weight and momentum, and all swords are brutally hard on the wrist. Bones are hard, and don't like to be cut. Yeah, it would be nice to do the scene from 'Highlander' where McLeod whacks off the yoink's head and the yoink doesn't know it for about 20 seconds, but in real life, it's not that easy. In real life, you whack that sword into the side of a tree, and the next 10 minutes of your life are trying to get it back out - and all that for a cut about 1" deep. While you're trying to get the sword out, somebody killed you. Sword-play is a lot more than simply cutting the opponent in twain. That's B-grade Japanese Samurai flick.

[Tricky]

If you ever manage to get a real sword in your hands, though, you will find that cleaving a person from collar-bone to sternum is not nearly as easy as it looks in the movies.

I assume you have done that hundreds of times already.

[forgedude]

I actually not only own real swords, I forge them. Living bone is a fair bit softer than dead, dried out bone- and you'd be surprised how quickly bone becomes hard after dead, just ask any butcher- it can actually bend. Admittedly, it's not an easy thing to cut, but there are worse. The hardest treatment you can give a sword is to chop into a hard, fixed object, like a tree- there's a reason axes are preferred for this!
In the 19th century, a British officer in India noted in battle the native troops were doing tremedous feats of cutting- arms lopped off, heads split, etc. and found they were using recycled British cavalry swords, hilted in the native style, and had discarded the metal sheaths which tended to dull the edge preferring sheaths of soft wood or cloth/leather, and honed the blades to a high degree of sharpness (which the regulation steel scabbards would have removed quickly). He asked an old trooper how it was they inflicted such terrible wounds and the reply was "Strike hard, sir!" and on being asked if there was a particular way they trained the young men to cut, said "We do not teach them any way, sir- a sharp sword will cut in anyone's hand."
You can check out some cutting videos on Youtube, but trust me that a properly sharpened sword designed for cutting will do a really nasty job on unprotected flesh. (I've tested some out on an animal carcass- let's just say mobility be damned, if I were going into a sword fight in the old days I'd want the best armour I could afford!) The relative ineffectiveness of sabres in combat in the US Civil War, even when in close fighting, can be at least partially attributed to the fact that between lack of maintenance and steel scabbards, most cavalry swords were little better than metal clubs.

[forgedude]

Btw, the horrific wounds I'm talking about are not from "Kingdom of Heaven", "Highlander", "Beowulf" or "Rob Roy"- they're actual after-battle reports from places like Prestonpans or Killecrankie.

[Coruel]

Does anyone else think the damage done by the Tal'mahe'Ra Blade is too low? I mean, in the Golden Temple sequence, even if your character is a top-level martial artist, these dudes take several hard strikes to take out, and they're only human, fergawdsake!

They're not - they're Kuei-Jin. Check out with auspex they definitely have other auras than humans and vampires.

[Jhereg]

I assume you have done that hundreds of times already.

Oh, yeah. You could print a library with the wood chips. I only have two short and two long blades anymore, one of which is a Katana. If practicing with swords has taught me one thing, it's this - if you want to chop down a tree, bring an axe. A Katana isn't a chopping weapon - it's a slicing weapon. The bad news is that an axe is all but useless against a sword - too heavy. A decent fencer would cut it out of your hand on the first pass.

I notice that the PC in VTMB seems to have learned sword-play right out of the movies - always going for the collar to sternum death-strike. Of course, I don't expect that being embraced suddenly gives you the knowledge of a sword-master, but most people get the idea of a reversal pretty fast. You hardly ever take them on the first pass - it's the recovery stroke that gets 'em.

Taking them in the armpit might not be sexy, but it works.

I can sympathise. I wish the swordplay in VTMB (and the knife - fighting) was more sophisticated, but hey. It's an RPG. I knew that when I bought it. I'm just grateful I can get different attacks instead of the old 'chopping wood' animation that used to be de riguere in this genre, or even worse, the cut-scene (no pun intended).

[Jhereg]

"We do not teach them any way, sir- a sharp sword will cut in anyone's hand."

Aye, but that's the rub, isn't it? You don't normally win a sword-fight with a single killing stroke. Dismemberment and disembowelment is more the order of the day, and even the masters do not pre-select the finishing stroke unless they have incapacitated the opponent first. Just keep cutting stuff up until the guy falls down.

You can check out some cutting videos on Youtube, but trust me that a properly sharpened sword designed for cutting will do a really nasty job on unprotected flesh. (I've tested some out on an animal carcass- let's just say mobility be damned, if I were going into a sword fight in the old days I'd want the best armour I could afford!)

Precisely, but not hacking away like the PC does (or everybody else, for that matter). Swords can be swung in a lot of different ways, and a figure-eight is pretty natural to most people. For a right-hander, high left to low right, backhand reverse, cut back on approximately the same path, over the head, top right to bottom left, forehand reverse, and across the midsection, forehand reverse, and you're set up for the horizontal version - a death-spiral. It's quick, simple, effective, and by that time somebody is usually bleeding - badly. Two seconds flat - even for a novice, even with a heavy blade - as long as they have strong wrists. Every strike is a block - indeed the technique depends on that. It's assumed the first three passes will block or be blocked, but the last block will open the midsection for a backhand.

In the battle with the Sherrif, one pass like that and huge sword or not, he'd be picking his guts up off the floor while you were graciously carving those huge pectorals off in pieces.

Or maybe shadow dancing off to someplace else where he could pick up his guts in peace.

[actuality]

I doubled my melee feat by editing one of the text files. Now, with celerity, I can kill one of those flesh-crafted mutated open stomach multibody monsters. It takes about 4-6 hits with a katana, but I can keep a nice continuity if I jump attack first, and if done right I don't even get hit back.

[Celacena]

I don't own any swords, although I was offered a couple of old Sudanese blades by a friend who was moving - but I have swung a few different types (without embedding them in trees). balance is really important for a sword, but well-balanced or not, the aspect that people who have never wielded a blade will not appreciate is the momentum: it is difficult to stop the swing and bring the blade back - broadswords are obviously the worst, but even a katana (for all its elegance) is not easy to stop and change direction. as the poster said above, it is hard on the wrists to control a blade other than in a straight swing.
I enjoy chopping wood/tree roots, but I wouldn't want to be using an axe against a sword (except perhaps in a Saxon shield-wall!) the momentum of an axe is concentrated in the head - the mass is describing an arc at a long radius - trying to control that is much worse than a sword - with a sword - most of the time the mass is fairly evenly distributed along the blade. scimitars have some mass concentrated in the primary impact area 2/3 along (even though they are stabbing weapons too) and some broadswords have a bit extra before the tip, but mostly long-swords have straight blades. a katana probably counts within the family of long-swords, but instead of being a batterer, it is a slicer - a katana can take a very sharp edge (I believe) because the metal is folded so many times and katanas are slimmer than many blades, to aid their manoeverability. against unarmoured or lightly armoured opponents, the slicing would be very effective - I don't know if it would be good at puncturing plate-I think that would take accuracy, but for the armour it was designed to be used against - slicing - of ties, etc or through weak spots, it is ideal.

In VTM, nobody is wearing plate armour, so the katana - especially the T-blade - should be very effective - the T blade being 'supernatural' is lighter and thus more flexible - I would suggest that should be factored in the 'to hit' element - i.e. feat required - rather than in exceptional damage.

[Jhereg]

a katana probably counts within the family of long-swords, but instead of being a batterer, it is a slicer - a katana can take a very sharp edge (I believe) because the metal is folded so many times and katanas are slimmer than many blades, to aid their manoeverability. against unarmoured or lightly armoured opponents, the slicing would be very effective - I don't know if it would be good at puncturing plate-I think that would take accuracy, but for the armour it was designed to be used against - slicing - of ties, etc or through weak spots, it is ideal.

In VTM, nobody is wearing plate armour, so the katana - especially the T-blade - should be very effective - the T blade being 'supernatural' is lighter and thus more flexible - I would suggest that should be factored in the 'to hit' element - i.e. feat required - rather than in exceptional damage.

Excellent observations, Celecena. A Katana is sharper, though, because it is slimmer. Much like a razor is sharper than a knife. What the folding does is make a Katana stronger along the cutting axis, rather like laminating wood.

One of the peculiarities of a classically make Katana is that, straight on the edge, it can cut through a bamboo tree like butter. I've heard stories of Katanas actually cutting through European swords. Hit the same tree with the side of the blade, and the Katana will fold into a 90 degree angle. It's very easy for an inexperienced swords-person to destroy even the most expensive Katana by bending it. That's why you never see a Samurai 'spanking' their opponent with their blade - it would ruin it.

This, of course, is not typically a problem with modern Katanas, because they are forged whole. The folding process is time-consuming and expensive - even with machinery. Hence, the blades the PC in VTMB are using are likely forged, not folded. It makes them stronger along the side, but weaker along the cutting axis. Good thing, too, or your PC would wreck every blade they got their hands on.

As for the T-Blade, I couldn't even speculate how it was made, so I just don't know. Being supernatural in nature, I suspect it was not forged nor folded, but made in some other way.

[forgedude]

There's a fair bit of hype about katanas. The reason for all the folding was the starting material was very uneven in quality with a fair number of voids, and folding the material about 10-15 times refined this into useable material. Kats are also no lighter for their length than Western swords- a typical Viking sword ran about 30" in the blade and was around 2-2.5 lbs with a wide fuller, comparable to a katana of the same length. Katana are also quite thick especially for their width. This makes them less likely to get bent and thus warped as much of the katana's blade is quite soft except for the cutting edge, and otherwise this would be a problem. A typical Katana might start at 5/16" thick and taper down to 3/16 near the tip, while a typical single-handed Western sword might taper in thickness from 5/16" down to 1/8th or 1/10th" thickness at the same point- the blade was thinner and more spring-tempered in the centre of percussion as often things like shields and bucklers were struck, and the blade would flex instead of warping.

[Celacena]

the common demonstrations for a katana are watermelons - because they are vaguely head-sized and make a mess - and reed poles - they bind straw around a pole and soak it to tighten it up - apparently it has a reasonable comparability to a human limb. in less civilised times, I would not be surprised if they used the real thing. (a bit like Alan Rickman in "Robin Hood-Prince of Thieves")

in the film "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" - the Green sword at the centre of the story looks fairly fragile - as Forgedude knows about smithying etc and swords - is it likely that such style of sword existed and if so - were they a thin type of katana? the katana I have seen have had one straight edge with an angled part near the tip, but I suppose that the definition may be wider. Katana is Japanese, I know - but European swords would be classified by type, not by country.

there is a very good Oriental museum in Venice which has an excellent collection of Japanese and other oriental blades - I had never seen such sword-cases (not sheaths BTW) and many of the other exhibits before. they had dai-katana and many kinds of halberds/spears. some not far removed from the old Bush Hook... if I was in need of a blade, that would be a good place to start.

[forgedude]

I think that sword was a variant on the gim- a double -edged sword used both to cut and thrust. Gim were originally bronze, then steel as technology changed. AFAIK, there was a variant of the gim carried by the Japanese in the early period, about 600-800 AD, but by 1000 AD or a little later due to the prevalence of cavalry use they adopted a style of blade more suited to use by light cavalry on horseback, the single-edged tachi which was basically a curved sabre. Interestingly, most areas that had mounted archers, like the Japanese, seemed to favour similiar style swords.
Older Chinese gim are not the extremely thin and light weapons that you see being used in Chinese Martial Arts demos, though. I think any sort of movie swordplay and swords you see need to be taken with a fair degree of scepticism.

[Celacena]

that's always the difference between RL and films - a single shot kills immediately, and a stab the same - my understanding is that most warriors died from dehydration through being unable to get to water, from shock or from wounds becoming septic - lingering painful ends. same with gunshots - bullet to the gut leading to terrible infections and toxic shock. 'clean' deaths on the battlefield being the exception rather than the norm - a few immediately dead, lots of injured and lots of wounded dying afterwards. fancy sword play would be unusual - who could take the most bludgeoning was more important.
I said about shield walls - having to hit over them or poke a short-sword or dagger into gaps - horrific close combat with no room to move - Bernard Cornwell gets it over well in his latest series set in post-Roman, pre-Norman Britain.
a katana-type blade could only be the weapon of a hero - to challenge an opponent in single combat - against metal-reinforced and studded shields, it would be less use than an axe. I've always liked the longbow though - flexible artillery.

in VTM, I find the cross-bow deeply uinsatsifying - it oculd have been refined I think and had some unfeatured benefits - magnesium tip, anybody?

[forgedude]

a katana-type blade could only be the weapon of a hero - to challenge an opponent in single combat - against metal-reinforced and studded shields, it would be less use than an axe. I've always liked the longbow though - flexible artillery.

In most cultures, including the Japanese, the sword was a back-up weapon and sometimes a status indicator, not the primary battlefield weapon. Going against a shield wall set up by spearmen with a sword would be suicide regardless of whether your sword was a katana, Viking sword, or claymore. Primary battlefield weapons tended to be polearms and missile weapons.

[Celacena]

all about range/reach - can I beat my opponent before he can hurt me?
Spears/lances are good for horsemen and the sabre was a support weapon, as you say. the samurai seemed partial to archery as a discipline, but the spear was also a regular accoutrement, so yes - a sword hasn't often been the primary battlefield weapon - but once lines have broken and a general melee ensues, then a spear may be unwieldy compared to a katana - same with Europeans - line against line - the pole-axe, halberd or spear would give reach, but close in, a short-sword, sax or dagger would be better for stabbing into the gaps caused by proximity. a foil or an epee only have a point - a sabre, katana or gladius have edges too. fencing is a poor second to swordsmanship!

[Jhereg]

in VTM, I find the cross-bow deeply uinsatsifying - it oculd have been refined I think and had some unfeatured benefits - magnesium tip, anybody?

Common misconception about crossbows. Extremely powerful, trivially easy to use, but sloooooowwww. I'm talking bolt velocity here. From short range, you can put a bolt through a tree, but from long range, you won't even reach the tree. Their primary benefit was that you could put a cross-bow in a peasant's hands, spend 20 minutes teaching him how to use it, and have a grunt recruit that could put a bolt through a knight's armor. Archers were much more effective, but also much harder to train.

Crossbows were a weapon of convenience, not efficiency. I used to have a 140 lb crossbow. I also had a 25 pound target bow. I could easily shoot 3-4 times farther with the target bow, but firing point blank at a bale of hay? It would stick in maybe 3 inches. The crossbow? Nowhere near the range, but point-blank at a bale of hay? The bolt would go straight through, come out the other side, fly for another ten feet, and strip the fletching off as it went. God, that was an expensive weapon.

The problem lies in the length of the bow versus the length of the prod (the 'bow' part of the cross-bow). For power, the prod is short. For velocity, the bow is long. Velocity gives you range. Power gives you penetration - but only at close range. This is even true of ordinary bows. The longer the bow, the faster the arrow. Hence the classic English Long-Bow that was so feared in the middle ages. Almost as tall as a man, and those cloth-yards flew a lonng way. Enemies were dying on the ground before they could even make themselves heard. Similarly, the Japanese bows had a very tall upper shaft - more length, more speed, more range.

Now, of course, they have compound crossbows. I shudder to think what they can do. I had a 60/40 compound, and that bugger was unbelievable. Standard range shoot, flat trajectory. It took getting used to.

Which, of course, begs the question: Why are the Kuei-Jin using those poncy old wooden crossbows? Ming doesn't have a decent budget?

[Celacena]

I've seen crossbows fired compared to long-bows and there is no comparison at range - a hail of arrows raining down on men trying to move positions on a battlefield is going to seriously disrupt formation - the Roman 'turtle' of shields takes some discipline and the armies were not well drilled in the era that the long-bow dominated (in Europe) - although men might be in armed service some years, there was not a standing army as such and individual lords were unlikely to concentrate on drilling the men-at-arms. so giving them a powerful short-medium range weapon was an answer. I recall that the Genoese were the experts at that time - often hired by the French.

with the long-bow - it was the law in England that the men in communities had to train and indeed football was banned so that men would spend more time with the bow. if a man spent a few hours a week, he would get reasonably adept and that gave his lords a good supply of flexible 'artillery' - comparable with rocket batteries or long-range machine-guns.

cannons of that era were all very well, but much more suited more to attacking structures (or massed ranks of relatively immobile infantry, if they could be installed somewhere inaccessible to counter-attack). you could inflict some casualties attacking castles with bows, but from height, and behind crenellations, the defensive crossbows might well win the attrition. that principle didn't really change even into Napoleonic era with muskets/rifles replacing crossbows/bows - if it didn't succumb to starvation, a fortress would be overcome by breaching the walls or undermining it. small-arms fire would just keep up an attrition, which if fairly even favours the attacker.

to keep on topic :

it goes back to the question of range - cross-bows are a defensive weapon, needing less room and packing an armour-piercing punch - in VTM they are all used at close range in a place with short corridors. in answer, if I am using ranged weapons, I choose the desert-eagle - big clip plus good damage per round. I like the magnum, but the 6-shot speed-loader doesn't hold enough for the number of enemies you face at Mings.
I would have liked the crossbows to have been better in the game though.