Bodytypes and how it affects fighting

[Snickerdoodles]

In further defense of the blade, it takes little strength or even skill to be deadly with one. A small angry woman with a knife is a very respectable threat even to a much larger man.

[IdiotWithPencil]

That's not how that's ever going to go down though. The trained heavyweight isn't gonna chase and is gonna dish out massive damage inside their standing range and in the ground game. Peak level Demetrious Johnson isn't gonna wear out Stipe Miocic even if they do roadwork first!

well, of course, like I said, the heavy is slower but is stronger one hit and the fly goes down but if the fly can dodge and tire them out it's just almost impossible like having 100% dodge with only one hp

the reason why only one ancient greek exist who was crazy enough and skilled enough to even do it XD

In further defense of the blade, it takes little strength or even skill to be deadly with one. A small angry woman with a knife is a very respectable threat even to a much larger man.

true the blade excels in the flesh to flesh combat hell swords where invented long before plate or shields and was the sole cause for their creation. But, don't be mistaken blades are effective as long as it's against the flesh, put some armor in the way and they will chip, bend and break way before your able to do anything.

[Snickerdoodles]

Well, depends on the blade and the armor.

[DiegoPalacios]

true the blade excels in the flesh to flesh combat hell swords where invented long before plate or shields and was the sole cause for their creation. But, don't be mistaken blades are effective as long as it's against the flesh, put some armor in the way and they will chip, bend and break way before your able to do anything.

That is why blades were considered more complex weapons in armored combat. They needed to hit the holes of the opponent`s armor to inflict lethal damage, but as soon as they reach the flesh with a clean cut, it is a gamechanger.

[DiegoPalacios]

Definitely depends on the Era. Once smithed blades could hold an edge reliably it became more efficient but there's a reason bludgeoning weapons lasted through so many eras. You were less at the mercy of weapon maintenance.

Exactly. A reason swords were rare in the hands of the common folk but more popular with the nobility is because they could afford the maintenance (and afford a blade in the first place)

Bludgeoning weapons are way cheaper and in the hands of a strong person they can crush some bones.

Maybe that is why they are popular with ogres?

[IdiotWithPencil]

That is why blades were considered more complex weapons in armored combat

not really blades where more used as duels and ritualistic types of battles if I remember correctly, more of a symbol than actual function.

plate armor was basically the death knell for swords in warfare and the only use for swords in actual combat was half swording and pummeling with the pummel I.E a hammer XD

Bludgeoning weapons are way cheaper and in the hands of a strong person they can crush some bones.

not even a strong person, most maces weight the same as a normal sword, it's just that the mass was concentrated at the tip and all that with a light swing would cave if not rattle the head and bodies of most armored opponents (metal conducts kinetic energy like a mother)

orc usually are depicted using it cause it was mostly used by the unwashed masses I.E peasants so it was a "brutish" weapon =/ when in reality it was the most effective and best weapon to use in actual combat against plate

[Snickerdoodles]

Decent swords were rare up to a point. (Heh.) Toward the late-medieval era the metallurgy had gotten good enough that basically anyone who wanted one could have one.

[DiegoPalacios]

plate armor was basically the death knell for swords in warfare and the only use for swords in actual combat was half swording and pummeling with the pummel I.E a hammer XD

Is truth that plate armor has an insane advantage against swords, but in warfare there are other factors like the terrain. For example, plate armor can be your undoing in a swamp. That is why light and heavy infantry exists.

[amortelito]

Please keep hating things, you are the best. 🤣

[nathanKmcwilliams]

I always call BS on 'realistic' medieval movies and games where people just one hit cut down armored enemies with swords. I mean... it's more cinematic, but...come on.

I give fantasy stuff a little bit of a break in that aspect, not too much though.

[Snickerdoodles]

Most swords were sidearms, the equivalent of an officer's pistol. Main battle weapons like pikes and halberds were on a different level of lethality.

[IdiotWithPencil]

For example, plate armor can be your undoing in a swamp. That is why light and heavy infantry exists.

true but even light armor was very effective against swords, chain mail (Almost a requirement in all battles) was super effective in stopping all slashing and blades (Axes got through more by the power than by the edge) so swords were almost completely useless against it (except swords specifically for thrusting like rapiers)

all in all the moment shield and other types of armor existed (like thick and harden leather) swords were more for status and ritual than actual combat. Though again very good for self-defense and unarmored opponents since the blade could cut even bone if sharpened enough.

Also just a fun little note serraded blades like a saw are even worst than useless since the teeth will get caught on cloth immediately and not be able to cut it X'D

this cool blade is stopped by a simple cotton shirt in real life

[DiegoPalacios]

Also just a fun little note serraded blades like a saw are even worst than useless since the teeth will get caught on cloth immediately and not be able to cut it X'D

Lol, yeah. I gave Kisame`s blade a pass just because it was sort of a supernatural living chakra sucking thing XD

[Snickerdoodles]

War-axes did not have the same blades as the kind you'd use for chopping wood. They tended to be lighter and more cleaver-like. If they were effective against mail it was because they tended to be two-handed main battle weapons.

And swords were weapons of war for much of their history. As sidearms. Very important niche, sidearms. If a knight lost or broke his lance he would naturally fall back on his sword or other handy weapon.

[IdiotWithPencil]

And swords were weapons of war for much of their history. As sidearms. Very important niche, sidearms. If a knight lost or broke his lance he would naturally fall back on his sword or other handy weapon.

yeah but it's the same as if in war I lost my Ak 47 and now I'm using a 5mm, it's better than nothing but not by much.

They tended to be lighter and more cleaver-like.

from what I see they had a less pronounce edge wich makes them less comparable to swords and more comparable to very sharp maces, the flatter the edge de less cutting and more bash, it was basically like a in between of sword and mace but more mace than sword if you catch my drift, also depending on the type you also had a pike wich is way extra effective against mail and chain mail than a normal sword or axes since the puncture could pass through steal and hit directly at the body.

all in all axes have more stuff going for it in armored combat than swords at the time of plate and chain-mail.

[Snickerdoodles]

I'm not sure why you're trying to oversimplify things. You do realize that the edge on a medieval arming sword could be just a little sharper than a butter knife and still cut through clothing, skin, flesh, and even bone?

There are good reasons for why the axe was a niche weapon. It lacked the reach of the spear, the simplicity of the mace, and the convenience of the easy-to-wear sword.

[IdiotWithPencil]

You do realize that the edge on a medieval arming sword could be just a little sharper than a butter knife and still cut through clothing, skin, flesh, and even bone?

what does this have to do with what I said? I already said that swords excel against unarmored (as in plain clothes) opponents and can cut flesh and bone like butter. Why are you repeating what I said?

[Snickerdoodles]

Edge control is an important concept when it comes to blades. If you've done much weapon practice you'll notice that the body refuses to swing things in perfect arcs. The various joints all want to go their own way and the result is that a weapon in motion tends tends to twist in different directions. This is fine with a bludgeoning weapon, where it doesn't really matter which side lands on target, so long as it hits squarely, but a blade has to be parallel to the direction of its movement.

Axes therefore have all the disadvantages of bludgeoning weapons (shorter length and heavier weight) while also having all the disadvantages of swords (edge control.)

[AVXP]

Why are you repeating what I said?

Because you guys are trying very hard to argue about...I will admit I have no idea WHAT you are arguing about.
Every point sounds fine to me.
Big weapons do this...
small weapons do this....
sharp weapons do this...
armor does this...

What's the problem?
Every response is a "Yes" and then a counter-point disagreeing.
Why are we doing this in a thread that was supposed to be about making characters fight like how their body shape should suggest they would.

Which is also a strange exercise in the world of COMICS.
The best I see are head nods to attention-to-detail, not realism.
And that makes sense and gets everyone to showcase their work or least consider some of the overall ideas put forth going forward.

This went WAYYYYY off topic.

[DiegoPalacios]

This went WAYYYYY off topic.

OP here. I appreciate your concerns, but this tangent towards weapons is interesting too . To keep it closer to the original topic we can talk about what kind of weapons may favor people depending of their body, either because they help fighters to exploit their strenghts or to mitigate their body weaknesses.