As with so many other fantasy settings, it's so easy to get caught up in clichés when designing units, heroes, and their weapons in FfH. I've decided to make a small list of weapons used in FfH, and weapons that haven't been incorperated.

Hopefully, this will lead to more variety in the weapons used by the units that are still being designed. While a Svartalfar Swordsman might be pretty cool in itself, a Svartalfar Flailer just has a more lasting impact. I know that it may be seen as superfluous to add units whose base graphics weren't included in vanilla Civ IV, but with all the progress that has been made in the graphics department already, I think it's not entirely vain to hope for more varied units in the future.

FfH Weapons:
Axe (http://ww2.letrollauxtrousses.com:8081/images/battleaxe.jpg)
Longsword (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Espadon-Morges.jpg)
Club (http://www.mwart.com/images/pl/Maces__Flails_Ancient_Weapon_YK-0413_1595.jpg)
Hatchet (http://www.angelos-supplies.com/asi2/product_pics/Hatchet.jpg)
Shortbow (http://www.play.net/images/weapons/short_bow.jpg)
Staff (http://www.practice-swords.com/images/products/o-staff.jpg)
Dagger (Knife, Kunai, etc.) (http://www.mwart.com/images/pl/Daggers_The_Sorcerer_Dagger_UC1251-S_418.jpg)
Crossbow (http://tbp.smith.dropbear.id.au/tiki/img/wiki_up/arm.crossbow.jpg?nocache=1)
Longbow (http://netesportes.com/arco/longbow.gif)
Mace (though it looks more like a flail in-game) (http://www.mwart.com/images/pl/Maces__Flails_Flanged_Battle_Mace_A_M1739_910.jpg)
Spear (Pike, etc.) (http://www.aginsinn.com/tiles/spear.jpg)
Arquebus (http://www.planetgoofball.com/arquebus.gif)
Warhammer (http://weaponsemporium.com/WE-Saracen%20War%20Hammer.jpg)
Scythe (though it ought to be used more often) (http://im.edirectory.co.uk/products/955/i/scythe.jpg) {Draconian}
Sling (http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/weapons/sling-UC6921.jpg) {Sashaddin}
Javelin (thrown, of course) (http://wings.avkids.com/Book/Sports/Images/javelin.jpg)

Whew, that's a lot of weapons! Just the handheld ones, here, but that's what I'm hoping to brainstorm on. If I missed any, please point it out to me. Now, for the weapons that aren't used. I'll be adding to this list as suggestions come in, so feel free to speak up and add one.

Flail (I know it looks like the maceman uses one of these, but I wouldn't mind seeing maces and flails) (http://tbp.smith.dropbear.id.au/tiki/img/wiki_up/arm.Double_Ball_Flail.jpg?nocache=1)
Tonfa (I know it's not traditionally a weapon of large-scale warfare, but I'm listing it anyway) (http://www.cookselfdefenseproducts.com/images/tonfa.jpg)
Whip (hey, it might be cool for a hero) (http://www.cretin-derhamhall.org/departmental/SocialStudies/Loeblein/Honors%20Hist%20Per%206/Images/whip.jpg)
Nunchaku (you know you want it...) (http://www.saveonshopping.com/martialarts/images/nun11.jpg)
Kama (might be cool) (http://www.shaolin-nrw.de/Okinawa_Kobudo/weapon3_kama.jpg)
Gopher Chucks (cookie to fastest person to say what movie this is from) (http://www.8bitjoystick.com/archives/photos/KungPow_1_GopherChucks.jpg)
Halberd (bardige, boar-spear, etc.) (http://www.mwart.com/images/pl/Halberds_Fantasy_Halberd_56023_2484.jpg) {Keldan}

Exotic blades {Draconian, Samael, puck, QES}:
--Katana (http://www.fudoshin.co.uk/catalog/images/1016-GT%20musashi%20katana.jpg)
--Greatsword (need a good picture, too)
--Shamshir (http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/swords/shamshir.jpg)
--Scimitar (http://www.mwart.com/images/pl/Swords_Scimitar_75-405_2145.jpg)
--Rapier (http://www.art-connection.de/pic.400/S400/k-sword/Rapier.jpg)
--Falchion (yup, it ain't so pretty) (http://www.levantia.com.au/military/pictures/falchion.jpg)
--Gisarme (http://www.aurorahistoryboutique.com/products/R000313.jpg)
--Glaive (http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/swan_argent/glaive.jpg)
Heavy Lance (with banners... can't find a good picture) {Loki}
Two-bladed Staff (http://codex.darkjedibrotherhood.com/images/picture-lightsaber_double_bladed.jpg) ;) {Loki}

I know there has to be more weapons out there. Go ahead and say what you think of these, and add your own.

kung pow, underrated movie

Missing shaft weapons : halberd, bardige, boar-spear, etc.

kung pow, underrated movie

Definitely. Not exactly a masterpiece, but very funny. *gives cookie*

... and yes, I know the name of the movie was in the URL. I just wanted to include that picture.

Missing shaft weapons : halberd, bardige, boar-spear, etc.

Right, added in. Perhaps I should make the javalin a separate class, seeing as how javalins could be thrown, but no one does so. I think it's promising for an Orc archer unit, better than what they have now.

The Wraith uses a scythe.

And the best closecombat weapon ever is missing: the katana!
The Elven Maceman could be changed into an Elven Swordmaster bearing a Katana. A brutal mace is imo a weird weapon choice for those Woodelves. Wouldn't an elegant bladeweapon suit them far better?
A Greatsword would be nice aswell.

I think that bannered lances would be cool on knights.
Katana's are nice.
A staff with blades on the ends?

Some of the listed weapons are not included for a very simple reason. They have flexible parts, so they cannot be attached to existing units but need entirely new meshes and animations (the weapons themself need to have bones).

For this reason adding those is a lot of work.

A scout with a sling? Lightweight, easy to carry, distance weapon. 0-1 first strike :)

Naginata, replaces Pike for oriental-style civs.

Some units could use large tower shields, like Bannor Paladins. They could give a single stoneskin layer when fighting archers for exemple. Which one is the phase with the equipment and when is it supposed to be available?

I understand the facination with the Weapons of the Eastern Hemisphere, Like Katana, Kukuri, Kama (lots of ks), and Nunchuku

But, traditionally and perhaps for good reason, the Fatansy Setting has been one of European Middle ages. Thank JRRT for that. While a Katana may be indeed the greatest bladed weapon in RL history, it is not a fantastic setting in the traditional sense. Now, if you want to incorporate Eastern Fantasy (a sub-genre to its own, through mythos etc) then I am VERY ok with that. But then it should be represented in a specific CIV, not in units that are accessible to all. Keep the western weapons with the west, and the eastern weapons with the east. This does two things, KEEPS flavor consistant, AND adds to the dynamic of travel and "exotic" nature of certain civs.

I wouldnt mind a singular Eastern-styled fantasy civ. With all the monsters, myths, weapons and designs there in. But that'd be a tall order of work.
-Qes

Why? I don't understand why the FfH civs have to be consistent with LotR.
As long as a weapon looks nice, why does it matter where it comes from IRL? The FfH civs are not divided by real world races, sos why should their weapons be?

Also, Katanas are awesome weapons, perhaps for a grigori blademaster, elven swordsman, and hippus berserkers. I mean, why not?

Why? I don't understand why the FfH civs have to be consistent with LotR.
As long as a weapon looks nice, why does it matter where it comes from IRL? The FfH civs are not divided by real world races, sos why should their weapons be?

Also, Katanas are awesome weapons, perhaps for a grigori blademaster, elven swordsman, and hippus berserkers. I mean, why not?

For the same reason you dont see half-elf half-dwarf hybrids. When you say Half-elf you mean half-human half-elf. When you say half-orc, you mean half-human half-orc.

Of course the others are possibilties, but it destroys context. Exotic weapons are often cool BECAUSE they are exotic. I'm totally cool with seeing katana, kukuri, and kamas in games. But i think that then they should belong to a specific civ. THAT will make them special. If exotic and esoteric weapons get use willy-nilly in contexts in which they dont typically belong, they lose their meaning, they lose their coolness, and create questions without direction.

Id love to see those kind of weapons in game, but it destroys flavor if Elves suddenly and inexplicably start weilding katana. What happened to longswords? What was wrong with longswords? WHere did the style change come in?

This is the other thing - style. Styles of weapons developed in different parts of the RL world for a very good reason, exposure to one another. If Medieval Europe was Exposed to Medieval Japan (despite the time differential) then both areas would be influence and a homogenous theme would eventually emerge. Homogenization is key, as it fundamentally describes the purpose of each weapon. Katana are not used like Bastard swords of Europe (the closest equivilant) SHeilds and the like were not used commonly by Samurai. Different fighting styles emerged from different focuses in combat. WHen we mix and match we ignore this fundamental principle, and it ruines both tacit logical explaination, AND flavor.

As i said, I'm very cool with the idea of an Eastern Civ that could have access to any/all of these eastern weapons. It'd make it VERY unique and flavorful. But when we wontonly mix and match weapons in each civ.....it ruins the flavor of all of them.
-Qes

EDIT: It'd be like having Elves in dwarven civs , Orcs in vampire civs, etc. While there may be a religious reason (leaves, runes) for the implemtation of strange raced units in alternate civs, it creates questions that need resolving. Keep them seperate, and you add flavor.

Ok, rant time. The rant is in the spoiler so feel free to skip it *grin*

Ok, here goes. The katana is a fine sword for the types of armour that it was up against, namely laminated wood held together with strings. The katana is USELESS against European style heavy armour. Contrary to what you read on teh intarnets and see in movies, katanas can not slice through steel plate.
The shape of the katana is for draw cuts, the back curve of the sword places the edge of the blade in contact with your foe along the entire sweep of the blow as you draw the sword through. This action decreases the force but increases the shear. Against a lightly armoured or unarmoured foe this is ideal as it will do more damage. Against a foe in maile it makes a screech noise and leaves a little bruise. Against a foe in maile and plate it fails to leave a bruise but will still make the annoying screech. It simply lacks the mass necessary.
The weapon to use against a foe in maile and plate is one that is capable of smashing through light armour and dent and crushing heavy armour. We are talking of maces, flails, and hammers, and to a lesser extent long swords. The impact weapons are designed to focus their energy and force in a small area, so the entire energy of your swing and the mass of the weapon is focused on an impact area the size of a quarter or smaller. With a long sword their are two effective tactics to use against heavy armour. The first is going to half sword and thrusting into the armpits and groin (weak spots in the maile). The second is flipping the sword around and using the quillons as your impact weapon (called a murder stroke).
But but but katannas were folded 6 thousand times..
Yeah, and? The reason for the folding was because the Japanese had very impure ore to start with, the folding would help to homogenize the steel and burn out impurities. Authentic swords were normally folded 10 times, and there are NO historical examples of swords folded more than 20 or so. After you fold the steel more than a dozen times or so you have removed all of the impurities that you are going to and are just burning off the carbon, making the poor quality steel even worse. The pattern welding that they did was ingenious, but this is getting far enough afield as it is.
In short, the katana is a beautiful weapon and a piece of art. In the style of war for which they evolved and were designed they were excellent weapons. They are not, however, the best close quarter combat weapon ever.

Some of the listed weapons are not included for a very simple reason. They have flexible parts, so they cannot be attached to existing units but need entirely new meshes and animations (the weapons themself need to have bones).

For this reason adding those is a lot of work.

I'm fully aware of this, Chalid. I know that a lot of these weapons (nunchaku, I'm looking at you) probably won't be added. I also know that many of these weapons, if added, will only be added later on down the line or when the art team gets ahead of the design team. Still, it's hardly hurting anything to throw some ideas out there, just in case one or two of them strikes someone's fancy.

And nice writeup, puck. It confirmed my suspicions, at least. We'll have to see what other responses it gets. However, I'm still adding the katana, and a few other weapons, to the lists.

Ok, rant time. The rant is in the spoiler so feel free to skip it *grin*

Ok, here goes. The katana is a fine sword for the types of armour that it was up against, namely laminated wood held together with strings. The katana is USELESS against European style heavy armour. Contrary to what you read on teh intarnets and see in movies, katanas can not slice through steel plate.
The shape of the katana is for draw cuts, the back curve of the sword places the edge of the blade in contact with your foe along the entire sweep of the blow as you draw the sword through. This action decreases the force but increases the shear. Against a lightly armoured or unarmoured foe this is ideal as it will do more damage. Against a foe in maile it makes a screech noise and leaves a little bruise. Against a foe in maile and plate it fails to leave a bruise but will still make the annoying screech. It simply lacks the mass necessary.
The weapon to use against a foe in maile and plate is one that is capable of smashing through light armour and dent and crushing heavy armour. We are talking of maces, flails, and hammers, and to a lesser extent long swords. The impact weapons are designed to focus their energy and force in a small area, so the entire energy of your swing and the mass of the weapon is focused on an impact area the size of a quarter or smaller. With a long sword their are two effective tactics to use against heavy armour. The first is going to half sword and thrusting into the armpits and groin (weak spots in the maile). The second is flipping the sword around and using the quillons as your impact weapon (called a murder stroke).
But but but katannas were folded 6 thousand times..
Yeah, and? The reason for the folding was because the Japanese had very impure ore to start with, the folding would help to homogenize the steel and burn out impurities. Authentic swords were normally folded 10 times, and there are NO historical examples of swords folded more than 20 or so. After you fold the steel more than a dozen times or so you have removed all of the impurities that you are going to and are just burning off the carbon, making the poor quality steel even worse. The pattern welding that they did was ingenious, but this is getting far enough afield as it is.
In short, the katana is a beautiful weapon and a piece of art. In the style of war for which they evolved and were designed they were excellent weapons. They are not, however, the best close quarter combat weapon ever.



I agree, weapons are designed to counter armor, which is designed to counter weapons, ad infanitum. Katana's are beautiful and powerful because of their implementation and genius of craft, they are not however a "cure all answer". Medieval weapons may be lacking in a one on one unarmed duel, but on the battle field, plate mail and maces were the best weapons/armor.

Longswords, as mentioned were not the best for attacking Mailed opponents, they were commonly useful as a secondary weapon of a mounted soldier, after his lance broke (which WAS useful against armored opponents). The longswords use allowed a knight to carry on with his task after his lance broke, and became a symbol (like the katana) of social status. That is where the facination comes from. But for a ground to ground melee, a warhammer/mace/flail made a far more effective weapon. Further back in history, the spear was superior, because length and tactics, used legions of phalanx go "mow" (almost literally) the opposition into the ground, the heaviest armor was the shieild which as it was bronze and nearly the size of a man, made back up armor almost needless. Spears then reached out some 8 feet to stab at an enemy group, not an individual soldier. Is this to say that the spear and sheild are inferior to maces? and Mail? If i pit a troop of 5000 Spartaiatoi (Spartans) against a troop of 5000 dismounted Plate mailed knights, my money is STILL going to be on the spartans, as they will simply PUSH the knights over. THey dont Need to stab through plate if the knight cant get up while being stabbed at (they'll hit the face eventually).

-Qes

EDIT: I think i said i agree, but I should say it again here if i didnt.

We don't need to necessarily make a whole eastern Civ to use some of these exotic weapons. Some of the Civs that haven't been fleshed out yet might fill that role. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

I would like an unit with a 2m 2-handed sword, that would be beautiful =D

Or and magical weapons. Flamming swords for Hippus maybe, spiked shields for elves, gem encrusted axes for dwarves, etc.

EDIT: Grammar

A bit about the myth of an armoured knight= turtle thing.
It's a, um, myth. A full kit that is correctly shaped to you and well designed is actually fairly mobile. It weighs in at around 80 pounds (35 kilos) and the weight is spread out fairly evenly. Although you can't swim in it (at least I couldn't) you can do sprints and diving rolls in it. Assuming that you can sprint and do a diving roll normally, of course. If your kit is fitted to you well then you will be amazed how much freedom of movement you have. You just can't turn quickly if you are moving forward. Ok it is hard to turn at all if you are moving forward. It's also hard to stop moving forward. Especially on a hill. In mud.
These are things I do have a little personal experience with : http://paragonjousting.com/profiles/ddowd.shtml

A bit about the myth of an armoured knight= turtle thing.
It's a, um, myth. A full kit that is correctly shaped to you and well designed is actually fairly mobile. It weighs in at around 80 pounds (35 kilos) and the weight is spread out fairly evenly. Although you can't swim in it (at least I couldn't) you can do sprints and diving rolls in it. Assuming that you can sprint and do a diving roll normally, of course. If your kit is fitted to you well then you will be amazed how much freedom of movement you have. You just can't turn quickly if you are moving forward. Ok it is hard to turn at all if you are moving forward. It's also hard to stop moving forward. Especially on a hill. In mud.
These are things I do have a little personal experience with : http://paragonjousting.com/profiles/ddowd.shtml

Oh yeah, this is true. I'm thinking about the late period i guess, during which crossbows made their apperance and the armored knight was on his way out. Armor that yes, while mobile, became so heavy that one could not get up again if one fell. The NEAR-turtle apparition of warfare.

Crossbows and longbows mean death to an armored target.
My theory has always been in the paper-rock-scissoring effect of civ, that Archers should be city-holders and anti-melee, Melee should be city takers and generally stronger (more of em), and Cavalry should be anti-archers and fast.

In game terms this is done fairly well, especially with Crossbowman.

-Qes

Are horsemen in FfH immune to first strikes? They ought to be.

Oh yeah, this is true. I'm thinking about the late period i guess, during which crossbows made their apperance and the armored knight was on his way out. Armor that yes, while mobile, became so heavy that one could not get up again if one fell. The NEAR-turtle apparition of warfare.

Crossbows and longbows mean death to an armored target.
My theory has always been in the paper-rock-scissoring effect of civ, that Archers should be city-holders and anti-melee, Melee should be city takers and generally stronger (more of em), and Cavalry should be anti-archers and fast.

In game terms this is done fairly well, especially with Crossbowman.

-Qes
I am not a historian, but I am not aware of any time period where people wore armour that was so heavy they could not rise. Do you have any more information (links, books, etc.) on this? The armour that we use for ground combat (we use lighter armour for mounted) is about the heaviest that anyone used historicaly that I am aware of. I am very interested in learning more if you have the information available, or can tell me where to get it.

I am just not going to get into the debate about longbows vs. crossbows (*coughlongbowsareclearlyasuperiorweaponcough*)

I am just not going to get into the debate about longbows vs. crossbows (*coughlongbowsareclearlyasuperiorweaponcough*)
crossbows clearly have better accuracy "and" power
so what does that leave longbows with? nothing

crossbows clearly have better accuracy "and" power
so what does that leave longbows with? nothing

Range. And Speed.
-Qes

P.s. Dont laugh off range. Range creates a longer approach, which means more dead. Longbows are masters of non-seige ranged warfare of their time. Crossbows were more accurate and powerful...but shorter in range. Longbows could be fired repeatedly, AT range, and decimate a force before it closed with the crossbows...which would then finish the job.

faster reloading time. that can be a huge advantage.

Of course in Civ that doesnt matter, but in real life it does.

Edit: Damm QES, beat me. I second everything he said.

Range. And Speed.
-Qes

P.s. Dont laugh off range. Range creates a longer approach, which means more dead. Longbows are masters of non-seige ranged warfare of their time. Crossbows were more accurate and powerful...but shorter in range. Longbows could be fired repeatedly, AT range, and decimate a force before it closed with the crossbows...which would then finish the job.
then longbowmen should get 2 first strikes?

then longbowmen should get 2 first strikes?

Ya maybe.

@Puck

I dont have any information sorry. But i was thinking about mounted armor units. I remember reading (a LONG time ago) a book that talked about medieval arms and armor, and how in the late stages, right about the time armor was becoming obsolete (or during, not sure) Armed Knights would be hoiseted onto their warhorses, and if they fell off, they were out of the fight. I'm sorry ive no proof, im just letting my very patchy memory do its dasterly deeds. Done, dirt cheap.
-Qes

I think I also heard (or read) that somewhere too...

crossbows clearly have better accuracy "and" power
so what does that leave longbows with? nothing

well, in the undisputed categories we have range and rate of fire, in the disputed categories we have accuracy and power.
The single biggest advantage to a crossbow, and the reason that they took over, is that it takes a few weeks to turn someone into an effective fighter with a crossbow, it essentially takes a lifetime to become effective with a long bow. You also have to be _healthy_ to make effective use of a longbow, it requires both strength and stamina in high quantities to fire a longbow repeatedly in a battle, a crossbow requires considerably less of both. Longbows have a material advantage, you need wood (of the right sort), gut (string) and quite a few hours to make a longbow. Crossbows require machined (ok, smithed) parts, but I believe that it takes less time to actually make one.
On an individual basis an expert longbowman can shoot farther, hit harder, more rapidly and with better accuracy.
On a group basis you can turn a hundred peasants into crossbowmen in a few weeks, it is not possible to turn the same group into longbowmen at all.
In short both have their advantages, but the longbow is a better weapon

Lets take a look at these claims individually,


For the sake of argument lets call the average longbow 75 lbs pull and the average crossbow 150 lbs pull, please note that these figures are wrong for any given time period, highest pull longbows were around 100-120, highest pull crossbows depend on how big one can get and still call it a crossbow. You might say "See, crossbow, twice as powerful." Well hold on there, sparky. A crossbow is exerting this pull over a shorter distance (draw length) than a long bow. Less than half the distance normally. A bolt is also lighter and shorter than an arrow, so there is less mass in the projectile as well.
It's kind of like the difference between a rifle and a pistol, but only as an analogy.

force=mass x acceleration (f=ma)
acceleration in a longbow is greater (less pull but over a longer period)
mass is greater in a longbow

longbow has more force

Accuracy is based on a number of things, lets make things easy and assume that our crossbowman and longbowman are equally skilled. The next thing we have to look at is air resistance. I really do not wish to get into the math on it, but trust me. Long and skinny moves better through the air than short and wide. Fletching will also make a difference here but I am going to ignore it (feather is better than leather). The flight of an arrow is more aerodynamically stable than the flight of a bolt. So a longbow is more accurate at a distance than a crossbow, although a crossbow is more accurate in short ranges (crossbows have a flatter trajectory)

Rate of fire... yeah. Anyone really want to argue that you can fire 10 shots from a bow faster than 10 shots from a crossbow?

@Puck
I dont have any information sorry. But i was thinking about mounted armor units. I remember reading (a LONG time ago) a book that talked about medieval arms and armor, and how in the late stages, right about the time armor was becoming obsolete (or during, not sure) Armed Knights would be hoiseted onto their warhorses, and if they fell off, they were out of the fight. I'm sorry ive no proof, im just letting my very patchy memory do its dasterly deeds. Done, dirt cheap.
-Qes
I remember hearing this as well, but I really rather doubt it. It's just dumb to wear armor so heavy that it's a death sentance if your horse gets killed or you get dismounted. In the absence of facts lets just leave it lie.

well, in the undisputed categories we have range and rate of fire, in the disputed categories we have accuracy and power.
The single biggest advantage to a crossbow, and the reason that they took over, is that it takes a few weeks to turn someone into an effective fighter with a crossbow, it essentially takes a lifetime to become effective with a long bow. You also have to be _healthy_ to make effective use of a longbow, it requires both strength and stamina in high quantities to fire a longbow repeatedly in a battle, a crossbow requires considerably less of both. Longbows have a material advantage, you need wood (of the right sort), gut (string) and quite a few hours to make a longbow. Crossbows require machined (ok, smithed) parts, but I believe that it takes less time to actually make one.
On an individual basis an expert longbowman can shoot farther, hit harder, more rapidly and with better accuracy.
On a group basis you can turn a hundred peasants into crossbowmen in a few weeks, it is not possible to turn the same group into longbowmen at all.
In short both have their advantages, but the longbow is a better weapon

Lets take a look at these claims individually,


For the sake of argument lets call the average longbow 75 lbs pull and the average crossbow 150 lbs pull, please note that these figures are wrong for any given time period, highest pull longbows were around 100-120, highest pull crossbows depend on how big one can get and still call it a crossbow. You might say "See, crossbow, twice as powerful." Well hold on there, sparky. A crossbow is exerting this pull over a shorter distance (draw length) than a long bow. Less than half the distance normally. A bolt is also lighter and shorter than an arrow, so there is less mass in the projectile as well.
It's kind of like the difference between a rifle and a pistol, but only as an analogy.

force=mass x acceleration (f=ma)
acceleration in a longbow is greater (less pull but over a longer period)
mass is greater in a longbow

longbow has more force

Accuracy is based on a number of things, lets make things easy and assume that our crossbowman and longbowman are equally skilled. The next thing we have to look at is air resistance. I really do not wish to get into the math on it, but trust me. Long and skinny moves better through the air than short and wide. Fletching will also make a difference here but I am going to ignore it (feather is better than leather). The flight of an arrow is more aerodynamically stable than the flight of a bolt. So a longbow is more accurate at a distance than a crossbow, although a crossbow is more accurate in short ranges (crossbows have a flatter trajectory)

Rate of fire... yeah. Anyone really want to argue that you can fire 10 shots from a bow faster than 10 shots from a crossbow?


Very well said. And I too thought it was silly that knights wore armor that made them nigh immoble, but when your up against crossbows, longbows and early cannon/guns as we've just discussed, its easy to see why they at least wanted the illusion of protection.
-Qes

Barding (also spelled bard or barb) is armor for horses. During the late Middle Ages as armor protection for knights became more effective, their mounts became targets. This was an effective tactic for the English at the Battle of Crecy in the fourteenth century where archers shot horses and heavy infantry killed the French knights after they dismounted. Barding developed as a response to such events.
quote from wiki pedia-

i suppose it's possible to fall off a horse, but more likely is that your horse gets killed and you're left only with weapons that are meant for being used from horseback.

only stupid people use a suit of armour they can't move in....

i suppose it's possible to fall off a horse, but more likely is that your horse gets killed ...


Heh, it is more than possibly to fall off of a horse, especially swinging a hammer or sword around. I can tell you that from personal experience. Get a little off balance wearing a breastplate and you can tip right over.
:blush:

Heh, it is more than possibly to fall off of a horse, especially swinging a hammer or sword around. I can tell you that from personal experience. Get a little off balance wearing a breastplate and you can tip right over.
:blush:

Thats why you should wield nerf-weaponry. NOthing humiliates your opponents like getting hit with nerf darts or bonked on the head by a nerf bat. And they're far cheaper than your metal weapon.

You work at the Ren. Fest. Puck? Gonna have me a weddding at one of those.
-Qes

Thats why you should wield nerf-weaponry. NOthing humiliates your opponents like getting hit with nerf darts or bonked on the head by a nerf bat. And they're far cheaper than your metal weapon.
-Qes
maybe if they were poisoned... or caused bleeding?

You work at the Ren. Fest. Puck? Gonna have me a weddding at one of those.
-Qes

I've worked at serveral, and I've even "married" people at one (I was playing Merlin at the time and the couple requested it.) It can be a pretty nice ceremony, and most Ren faires seem to have a minister on staff. Where were you thinking about getting married?

maybe if they were poisoned... or caused bleeding?

You've clearly never been shot by nerf weaponry. It's embarrasing, the death of your pride ensues. And if you ..<cough> modifiy the weapons, they can even hurt a little.

Still if Puck was charging on his horse, and i got a nerf dart stuck to his armor. It'd deflate his glory.
-Qes

On the subject of weapons and flavour, gladius, falchions, scimitars, sabres and cutlass (specifically the last one in the hands of Lanun) would be quite nice.
And part of me says 'boiling oil' may count to some extent as a weapon.

Alright, I put in a notation that other exotic swords should be considered.

I've worked at serveral, and I've even "married" people at one (I was playing Merlin at the time and the couple requested it.) It can be a pretty nice ceremony, and most Ren faires seem to have a minister on staff. Where were you thinking about getting married?

Not for a few years yet, but I live in Minnesota, biggest Ren. Fest. of all, or so I am told. Shakopee has them every august-september. My Finacee loves them, and were currently looking at costumes. But whilst she is out of country, im taking the lazy (i dont wanna work on it at all) approach.

I have a pastor in mind, and hopefully he'd be willing to Ren. Fest. it. The general rule of the wedding thus far, is that if your IN the wedding, you must be in costume, if your simply attending, you can be a Normie.
-Qes

You've clearly never been shot by nerf weaponry. It's embarrasing, the death of your pride ensues. And if you ..<cough> modifiy the weapons, they can even hurt a little.

Still if Puck was charging on his horse, and i got a nerf dart stuck to his armor. It'd deflate his glory.
-Qes
how about a new hero that gets +300% vs hero, but does not actually deal damage to any unit it fights in combat... maybe a balseraph hero

how about a new hero that gets +300% vs hero, but does not actually deal damage to any unit it fights in combat... maybe a balseraph hero

LOL the most annoying unit ever. Awesome.

WHat to call him/her. THe Motley Crusador?

Oh i Got it!

*"Nerfina" Mistress of the Foam.*

-Qes

*nod* right, back on topic.
For bannor I think gladii would fit their organized legionaire feel (that is how I picture them, anyway).
For the Malakim I see Shamshir/Scimitars
I agree 100% with cutlass for Lanun
For the elves rapiers, an elegant weapon for an elegant people.
Dwarves = axes and hammers.
Falchions for Doviello or Clan... they are nasty brutish looking weapons.

Alright, there are so many swords out there, I think I'll make a subheading. Should be up in a few.

Edit: and be sure to throw plenty of sword names my way! I know the difference between a longsword and a scimitar is small enough in Civ IV graphics, but it's all about flavor.

Weapons:

Bill, Multi-ball flail (for big beasties), Gisarme, Glaive, Halbred (already mentioned i think), HolyWater Sprinkler (A type of meshed mace), Langdebeve (Spear), Lochabar Axe (Two handed pole-arm axe), Partisan (Multithread Spear), Pole-Axe (Rounded axe with spear point and reverse point, like a halbred but different).
-Qes

Heh, we might be getting to the point where all the variations of weapons become redundant, but I've still added a couple. Remind me never to ask for a cup of water here... I fully expect I would drown.

Heh, we might be getting to the point where all the variations of weapons become redundant, but I've still added a couple. Remind me never to ask for a cup of water here... I fully expect I would drown.

Arbalast (type of crossbow, bigger and clunkier), Rider's Bow (Short bow used on horseback), Recurve bow (Wicked looking bow), At-Latl (throwing spear/javalin).
-Qes

EDIT: Just look at the Wikipedia for referances on basic weapons, then youll get myriad listings of others.

you forgot the Bohemian Ear Spoon!

Yes it actually existed outside of 1e D&D. It's a type of spear with a couple of triangular flanges at the base of the spear blade.

Arbalest, horsebow, and recurve bow are all fine, but probably more specific than they need to be. By the way, when did recurve bows come into use?

And what would you call an ear spoon wielder? Your Valin Phanuel was defeated by a Illian Bohemian Ear Spooner. Doesn't quite flow.

Hmm, I may draw some ideas from this for my equipment system...

Heh, believe it or not, I was also thinking of you, Maian, when I made this.

Heh, believe it or not, I was also thinking of you, Maian, when I made this.

Kinky. And if were going to have the Ear Spooner ( an admitedly real weapon) I feel that Nerfina Should also weild a Spork for close combat work, after she fires with her nerf weaponry.
-Qes

Bohemian Ear spoon was just the weirdest named weapon I could think of.

Most weapons are going to fail the test if you start thinking about what a wielder of said weapon would be. I mean what do you call someone how uses a rapier? A cutlas? Take the gladius, what would you call them a gladiator... ok bad example (I know, gladiators generally didn't use gladii).
Oh, and for what it's worth, an Atlatl is not the javelin, it's the javelin thrower. Like calling a rifle a bullet.

Most weapons are going to be minor variations on a theme, for instance if someone showed me a shamshir and a scimatar I probably wouldn't be able to tell them apart.

Sword categories I can think of off the top of my head are straight (long sword, rapier, falchion), curved (scimatar, katana, cutlass), straight and curved (khopesh) one edged (all curved that I know of, and some straight) double edged (straight) long and short. Then there are claymores and zhweihander (sp?) which are practically polearms...
Do you just want us to start listing off weaponry?

This post is kind of rambling already so I'll add this here. The link you have to a falchion is not a falchion. This (http://www.levantia.com.au/military/pictures/falchion.jpg) is a falchion. They are essentially long cleavers.

Bohemian Ear spoon was just the weirdest named weapon I could think of.

Most weapons are going to fail the test if you start thinking about what a wielder of said weapon would be. I mean what do you call someone how uses a rapier? A cutlas? Take the gladius, what would you call them a gladiator... ok bad example (I know, gladiators generally didn't use gladii).
Oh, and for what it's worth, an Atlatl is not the javelin, it's the javelin thrower. Like calling a rifle a bullet.
I know, i just didnt bother explaining how it was connected to the javelin, i suppose that would have been useful.


Most weapons are going to be minor variations on a theme, for instance if someone showed me a shamshir and a scimatar I probably wouldn't be able to tell them apart.

Sword categories I can think of off the top of my head are straight (long sword, rapier, falchion), curved (scimatar, katana, cutlass), straight and curved (khopesh) one edged (all curved that I know of, and some straight) double edged (straight) long and short. Then there are claymores and zhweihander (sp?) which are practically polearms...
Do you just want us to start listing off weaponry?

This post is kind of rambling already so I'll add this here. The link you have to a falchion is not a falchion. This (http://www.levantia.com.au/military/pictures/falchion.jpg) is a falchion. They are essentially long cleavers.

Agreed, most things are going to look alike, espcially for small figures like units. But i suppose we can still list them, so that Maian can use them for his weapons names.
-Qes

ok I started looking at some of your other links, there are several which are not really what they are claming to be.
Your longsword (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword)is a Spatha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatha)
Your mace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mace) is a Morning Star (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_star_%28weapon%29)

more to come

Glad to have an expert here to set me straight. I'm hardly a scholar on the subject myself. Let me find some more "correct" pictures...

ok I started looking at some of your other links, there are several which are not really what they are claming to be.
Your longsword (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword)is a Spatha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatha)
Your mace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mace) is a Morning Star (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_star_%28weapon%29)

more to come

I dont like how they equated Hand-and-a-half swords with longswords, they were fundamentally different, werent they?

A short sword, was similar to a roman Gladius, or Xiphos or Spatha, A long sword was an elongation of this general theme but still a single handed weapon, perhaps double the length. A Hand-and-a-halfer or Bastard sword, was inbtween this "longsword" and the full two-handed blade we coloquially call a "greatsword". Granted, classifications of swords is difficult, because each is to their own craftsmen, era, location, and purpose, but in general these are still technically distinct weapons are they not?
-Qes

One thing I'm having trouble with is deciding which weapons each civilization can use. Like who would use axes and who would use longswords. And for those that can use both, what the differences between the two would be. I'm no history buff.

I've already picked up some useful tidbits here. Like the reason maces superceded longswords in armored combat. Though I'm not sure what to make of it.

One thing I'm having trouble with is deciding which weapons each civilization can use. Like who would use axes and who would use longswords. And for those that can use both, what the differences between the two would be. I'm no history buff.

I've already picked up some useful tidbits here. Like the reason maces superceded longswords in armored combat. Though I'm not sure what to make of it.

Puck please correct me if any of this is wrong:

Axe Grouping:
Axes are cheap. The primary use of this weapon has long been by radiers and less organized peoples. They are used for choping wood, and are a necessary tool for tha craft. It therefore was a very simple modification (or simple transfer of use) to warfare. Choping people down, as it were. Better axes and "war axes" kept the same general concept in mind, a Cheap weapon that can be given to a realatively untrained warrior/soldier that will effectively produce an end - the death of the enemy. The benefits for this are that the Axe is generally a very effective weapon in cutting down unarmored melee oponents who've encountered. They are also ideal for camping and on the move, as they are a versitle tool. They can remove limbs easily and therefore are very devestating in close combat. The down side is that they're not easily weilded, and proper martial training in weapons is superior to the axe.

Short Sword Grouping:
These are expensive and require training, as they are thrusting weapons, primarily used for close combat in formations. The Short sword was very effective at getting around armor or sheilds, and their quick thrusts made them deadly effective at wounding enemys in front of you. As you could "Scoop around" a sheild to get at them. Also this was the prefered choice of weapon for street combat, as it was realatively concealable, but longer than a dagger, and also it wouldnt break on you as easily. It was sharp on both sides to allow cutting and wounding, but its kill factor was generated from the thrust.

Long Sword Grouping: Designed as another Pericing weapon, the longsword was developed to puncture armor (not heavy armor) at specific points. Most notably in the arm pit, behind the knees, and in the neck. Tactics were designed to this end, it was also used on horse back to cut down poorly armed/armored defenders, like archers and peasents. It can cut, but is primarily a puncturing weapon.

Bastard and 2-handers Groupings:
The bastard sword or "hand and a halfer" was designed to be a hybrid of the two hand and longsword roles.
THe Two handers (most notably the Zweihander of german fame) were very large anti-cavalry weapons. These weapons were very large so as to reach the tops of horses and dismount the target. Or appropriately, they could function as very hasty pikes, if you stuck the hilt into the ground (this was a very reckless thing to do, as the horse was lible to tople you while dying). The ability to cut down infantry was not without note, but as the weapon was so big, it is not entirely useful in melee, if it gets stuck, someone with a shorter weapon is going to end you.

Mace/Club/Morning Star (Smashy Catagory):
This is probably the most basic weapon catagory that evolved to become more deadly over time. The basic premise is simple, just rent 2001: A space Odessy and youll understand it if you dont already. The improvements upon it over the ages were primarily in responce to armor and breakage problems, Improvements in the Haft lead to less club weapons being broken on sheilds or armor, the adding of flanges (mace) or spikes (morning star) increased its potential to damage armor, as it places the force of the swing on a smaller point, increasing PSI and therefore doing potentially lethal damage to the barer of said armor. Flanges did this more effecively than spikes, but spikes were cheaper. Flanges create a point, like spikes, but the flange doesnt risk getting stuck in the armor or breaking off on contact as much as a spike does. Both create tremendous force on all kinds of armor. Morning stars WERE more effective against Mail, because of the abiltiy to puncture rings easier. Flanges were better against plate, because a dented peice of plate caused as many problems as being wounded, and often ADDED being wounded to the problems.

Spear Catagory:
Spears are perhaps the earliest fashioned weapons apart from clubs (axes came a bit later). Their function is simple. Stabbity death. The short spear was used in hunting, and its applications to warfare were almost instantanious. The spear was eventually made longer and longer to enchance its primary benefit, the length. The Hellen Phalanxes were the first to truly perfect spear warfare. The tactics were simple but incredibly effective, and would only be supplanted by combined arms warfare of the Romans. The trick was that your heavily armed warriors would carry leather armor and perhaps bronze greeves plating and helmets, and then would carry a VERY large bronze sheild. Each warrior would then carry 8-foot spears. The man in front of the row, would bow his head, and push, with all his might against his sheild. He was not even intent on doing damage to the enemy phalanx in front of him, his job was to cover the man to his left with his sheild, and push forward. Each man had to cover the man on their left, and since each man wanted to be covered, most ancient battles slowly list to the right (odd truth). The man in front pushed and pushed, and used the weight of his sheild, the weight of himself, and the 7 to 12 rows BEHIND him, pushing on his back, to simply plow OVER the enemy. While the phalanx is pushing forward, men in the 2nd row are placing their spears along side the man in the first row, creaing a pointy force that rests just above the spear line (in case people try to come over the top). Then everyone from the 2-3rd row back, holds the spear point down and thrusts in front of the sheild wall. This repetition of thrusting adn pushing creates a deadly spikes moving armored objects that seems to "chew" on anything in front of it, like a grinder. The "din" of warfare, and the "grind" of combat origionate from these situations. The spear was the perfect weapon for this because it was A) expendable, and B) long enough to reach over the first and second and even third and fourth rows of men. Creating a multilayerd death machine. If a man died, the next man moved forward, if a spear broke, the man would take from the solder behind him, and each soldier behind him, and slaves would bring new spears to the men in the back.
Spears also were extensively used by cavalry before more adaptive weapons were provided, the spear was the inital charge weapon, then a shortsword would be substitued for short work.
Later the spear would be replaced by more specialized weapons, pikes and other instruments of elongated warfare that would counter cavalry.


Halbreds and Pole Arms: These weapons were developed to counter heavily armed cavalry and infantry. Specifically they were to function as an axe spear, and sword (puncturing) in one. They were meant to be long to function like a spear and ward off cavalry, an axe to remove horses or extremities, and a puncture spike to penetrate heavy armor. Primarily they were designed as a multi-faceted weapon that could suit any purpose, and they did their job very well.

-Qes

EDIT: More when i think of em.

Very informative. Did you type that all up yourself?

Very informative. Did you type that all up yourself?

Ya, and im just procrastinating on starting the cavalry and archery weapons. I'm hoping puck will chime in and save me from doing so.
-Qes

Not for a few years yet, but I live in Minnesota, biggest Ren. Fest. of all, or so I am told. Shakopee has them every august-september. My Finacee loves them, and were currently looking at costumes. But whilst she is out of country, im taking the lazy (i dont wanna work on it at all) approach.

I have a pastor in mind, and hopefully he'd be willing to Ren. Fest. it. The general rule of the wedding thus far, is that if your IN the wedding, you must be in costume, if your simply attending, you can be a Normie.
-Qes
Sounds just like a wedding we're going to November. :goodjob:
Oh, and good idea not planning anything w/o the bride. You'd be wrong, unless you're a mindreader. :lol:

Were there specific counters for each type of weapon? For example, from what I know, Roman legions defeated Greek phalanxes because of the gladius and flanking manuevers.

How does each weapon type differ in 1-on-1 combat compared to army combat?

To my knowledge, weapons usually countered armor rather than other weapons. Obviously fencing weapons, but those were not really used in warfare. Lances perhaps got longer to counter other lances, but on the battlefield Knight were not so much there to counter knights as flank archers or routing foes.

Sounds just like a wedding we're going to November. :goodjob:
Oh, and good idea not planning anything w/o the bride. You'd be wrong, unless you're a mindreader. :lol:

Ironically I'm the one who is big on the marriage thing. She could take it or leave it, but its important to me, so shell take it. This is not to say she doesnt have input on the wedding, to her its still a big party worth doing right. Plus, she's always teased everyone about having a Ren Fest wedding, so there you are.

Plus in what other situation might you be able to use your wedding outfit repeatedly post-wedding? Pretty cool i say.
-Qes

Were there specific counters for each type of weapon? For example, from what I know, Roman legions defeated Greek phalanxes because of the gladius and flanking manuevers.

How does each weapon type differ in 1-on-1 combat compared to army combat?

Whoa there cheif, weapons were not the cause of the defeate, politics were.
Military victories were a matter of money, training, and will. Tactics were designed to keep soliders alive more than they were to "claim victory" because soliders who were well disaplined and tended to live thorugh fights, got better at it, therefore would win more fights.

I wouldnt say ANY ONE of these is superior. Its more like about materials and construction. The short sword is not superior to the spaer, its just different, the romans used spears a plenty, but their real advantage was combined warfare, archers, ballista, catapults, towersheilds, and training. Also the rapid production of weapons was key. A spartan Phalanx at its prime may well have won against a legion at its prime, it would depend on tactics. The romans would have the advantage in combines arms, so the advantage might be theres, but its all very conjecture.

Training in ANY given period of time was the main reason for victory. Rome didnt conquer becuase of better equipment in particular, but because they drilled and trained a professional army, something no other civilization had at the time. Concripts were a majority of armies, as were slaves during the ancient period. Citizen armies didnt work well (greece) because they didnt train enough and were generally viewed as "soft". Most people DO NOT want to be soldiers, they want to make money and plant crops. The romans effected a conquest because they gave their soldiers lands they conquered. Thus expanding the empire, loyalty, and creating causes for new soldiers to join the ranks. WHen the policy of Rome changed to not granting soldiers as much land in the newly conquered territories, AND not fully recognizing newly conquered territories as fully roman, soliders began trickling in from other parts of the empire, all of these led to the eventual collapse. Policies destroyed the empire, not armies. For example, when the Huns invaded, they were a cavalry force and a massive army, but in no way were they superior to Roman legions and tactics, it was simply put that Romans were too busy bickering and squabbeling to organize an effective defence.

It is organization and traininging that create superiority. In THIS, each weapon either fits its role very well, or fails to fit the role needed. Spears were a role A. Axes are role B. Shortswords, C and so on. The question is not "what counters what" but what role does each weapon fill, and what armor is designed to protect what weakness? And what weapon is designed to penetarte that weakness (yet another role).

I can put together a list of potential roles if you like, but there arnt "superior" and "inferior" weapon designs, just qualities of craftsmanship.
-Qes

I see...

But this leads to the question of how heroes operate in the game. Does a hero unit represent just the hero himself? Or is the hero leading an elite squad of soldiers? Furthermore, in the case the hero is leading a squad, what does it mean when a hero gets a new weapon or armor (or any other equipment)? Does just the hero get it, or does everyone in the squad get it? Does it even make sense for the whole squad to get Orthus's Axe?

This is why I ask how each weapon fares in 1v1 combat as opposed to army combat. "Formations", "roles", and "tactics" only matter in the latter.

Here is a breif list of viable situations in which arms and armor would be needed and built and used.


Spear - Lots of available troops. The spear is the weapon of mass attacks. It is designed to be in formations and to create a "head" of a flank or front. The use of spears creates a VERY distinct line of combat. These are often produced in bulk, and realatively cheaply. The later versions, of pike and pole-axe are designed specifically for anti-cavalry use. Big cities that produce many troops would have these.

Short Sword - Used by professional armies only. These weapons are used primiarily by soldiers who are life long. The sword belongs to the army not the soldier, but they are sturdy, durable, and meant as a defensive weapon. This is the choice of weapon when the formation breaks up (out of spears) and goes hand-to-hand out of formation. Big cities that produce many troops would have these.

Longsword - Used only by nobility and armored soldiers. This is a weapon of status more than anything, and its use is to counter other like units. A Armor-killing armored unit. It is very generic, as its designed to be used a-horse as well as a-foot. Very expensive to make, these are made only for people who can afford them, much like MOST armor.

Axe - This is used by anyone/everyone. This is the most common weapon in existance next to the spear. But where as the spear is a weapon that finds itself in the hands of large armies, Axes find themselves in ANY army that is not of Professional Origon. Professional armies neglect the axe outside of its tool functionality. The Axe is not a weapon for professional armies because it does not lend itself well to formation tactics (wide swings scare your neighbor), they are for the individual warrior, or band of warriors whom are badly organized and cannot afford more professional weaponry. However, as they are VERY cheap, it takes no time to grow an army out of them. Where as all "professional" weapons take a long time to train people in the use of. Excellent weapon for raiders.

2-hander: Only used by non-professional armies. These were basically weapons of war designed for that use by the same people who commonly use the axe. These of course take training, but are used by very adept individuals whove shown prowess in combat, and/or the bravery to take on mounted soldiers. Theya re very rare, as their use is very difficult. No professional army uses them because a well trained group of men can do a better job at disrupting cavalry than one man with a big sword. Again, big swings scare your comrades

Club-type weapons- Precuresur and eventual replacement of the shortsword, serving the same roles as the shortsword but proving more effective and defeating armored targets. Maces in particular were more expensive to make than Morninstars, but they lasted longer as well. The Mace was the melee equivilant of the crossbow, easy to use, requires little training, and durable. The shortsword could be equated to the short bow if we want to make analogies. Since the mace was cheaper, professional armies could be trained even faster and more effectively, leading to larger unit sizes. Armor was still a mitigating factor.

Halbreds/Pole Arms: These were truly the final moments of hand to hand combat warfare, designed to be all-in-one purpose armes for an army they were devided still into anti-cavalry and anti-armor divisions. The halbred was prollythe pinacle of armed combat. It functioned as an axe if need be, to remove limbs from opponents when the opportunity showed itself, but primarily it was a spear/pick combination that was used to deadly effect. The spear point was able to be used in normal formation combat, the spike(pick) on the rear was useful for penetrating armored targets that either were already on the ground, or up too high for other combat options. Also, if a knight was a removed from combat, a swift poke with a spike quickly ended the knight. As a mutli-function weapon they easily supplanted most major weapons as the primary weapon (Swords and maces and the like still made excellent back-ups), and therefore only the elongated polearms remained fundamentally different, there purpose was single - deter and kill cavalry.

ARMORS:

Armor was used to counter weapons, the weapon usually comes first.

Most armies are unarmored, most combatants in history have been unarmored (even pre-gunpowder) Armored combatants are either one of three things. Mercenaries, A professional soldier, or a warrior caste member.

Lighter Armors:

Leather/bronze combinations: These were most often used in the ancient bronze and iron ages. A sheild would be the biggest source of protection for a soldier. Bronze sheilds for the greeks, and Wooden Tower sheilds for the romans are examples. But the heavy armor they wore (they were considered heavy infantry) usually was around the shins and upper torso. The helmet was usually bronze and meant to prevent damage from blows deflected (no armor could usually withstand a direct hit from most weapons). The greeves were to protect under the feat. The main torso was either Hard Boiled leather to prevent cuts and scrapes, and the occasional glancing blow, or it was plated/woven bronze, meant to resist damage from slings and lighter weapons.
There were many variations on this, but primarily this armor was to prevent war fatigue, War fatigue being the conditions of warfare that create many opportunities for injury that do not directly stem from someone trying to kill you. Only training and sheilds could do that. Armor also served as a way of holding additional equipment and arms, as well as being a status symbol. Also, Armor was useful against oppoants who had no weapon, making their fists hurt a lot less.

Medium Armor - Chain, Stripped plate, and scales.

Most mail was an attempt to increase the security of an individual soldier. Mail was used mostly by nobility (until much later in the medieval period) and other important persons. Ring male and Scale male are the most notable examples. Each was designed to create a feild around a weak point on the body that would reduce the damage done by a given weapon. Mail in particular was invented to all-together stop slashing problems of swords. WOunds fester, and many soldiers die of disease more than weapons, preventing ANY wound is a way to keep the soldier alive. Mail creates a "second skin" that slashing weapons grate over, but fail to penetrate. Penetration weapons are very seldom stopped by mail, which is why since MOST weapons are percing, the common soldier rarely used it. Only in situations where axes and swords were used were they particularly effective (and not effective against the axe as much because of the crushing "bluedgeoning" power that also comes with the axe). Knights and Noble warrior caste members were the ones to use said armor because they usually targeted each other for a fight, and as the longsword was the weapon of close combat for the nobility, it also became one of the more deadly weapons TO nobility. Armor was prohibitively expensive, and professional armies did not employ their use until later in the period, when plate was common, and mail was cheap(er).

Plate mail - Plate mail was a realatively early invention, but prohibitively expensive and heavy. Bronze in particular is MUCH heavier than iron, and therefore a soldier simply could not operate and move on a feild of battle (much less for duration) if he was wearing so much armor. Plate mail was the first real "defensive" armor instead of "protective" armor we think of today. It was designed to STOP weapons. Including piercing weapons and ranged weapons. This is where truly the first "counter-counter" arms design began. Armor was invented that stopped spear points from penetrating and long distance, one had to use fulcrum, leaverage and the like to perice the armor, all the while the barer attacked you with his own weapon. However, plate had weak points and weapons were designed with these in mind, hence the "spiked" weapons evolution, the mace, and the morningstar and lance etc.

The fundamental problem with plate, is that it was ALWAYS prohibitively expensive, Only knights, and the warrior castes could afford them, and only they in particular wanted them. Knights, mostly mounted, were near impervious to infantry without specific anti-armored calvary weapons. ANd they could move fast enough to avoid arrial arrow assault. The combined nature of their hight advantage, speed advantage and realative imperviousness, gave rise to the highest point of knight warfare. Heavy Cavalry couldnt be stopped, except in general by OTHER heavy cavalry. This became untrue very quickly as elongated pikes and other weapons were designed to kill the horses, dismount the knights, and perice the armor. Archers were the first and also last to truly damage the prowess of the knight on the battle field. Bows became stronger, so armor had to become thicker. Crossbows themselves, with realative ease of produce ended the armored era. IT cost a LOT to arm, armor and mount a knight. It cost virtually nothing in comparison to arm a small LEGION of crossbowmen. When a cheap man can kill an expensive man, the expensive man becomes obsolete. THIS is warfare.

Armor was designed to seperate the expensive men from the inexpensive men, and it was never without understanding the tactics of the day. In MOST pre-gunpowder warfare, the army that lost was the army that ran away. Inciting fear, and forcing the other side to run away from the front is the ONLY way to really win. Therefore, tactics were designed in which to force the enemy to break and run, ARMORED oppoenents were the tanks of their day, in taht they were designed to smash into the enemy and break the line. The knights werent necessarily able to kill on a 10 to 1 basis, but if they smashed the line, and the enemy broke and ran, then they could do that and better. If for example a dismounted knight went up againts an unarmored maceman, both having sheilds...i would put my money on the man who doesnt have a lot of weight on him, and can move more nimbly. The knight of course, more likely has the better training however. And in warfare, training is everything.

I hope ive answered at least A question you had.
-Qes

EDIT: Im putting this in spoilers so it doesnt eat up space.

I see...

But this leads to the question of how heroes operate in the game. Does a hero unit represent just the hero himself? Or is the hero leading an elite squad of soldiers? Furthermore, in the case the hero is leading a squad, what does it mean when a hero gets a new weapon or armor (or any other equipment)? Does just the hero get it, or does everyone in the squad get it? Does it even make sense for the whole squad to get Orthus's Axe?

This is why I ask how each weapon fares in 1v1 combat as opposed to army combat. "Formations", "roles", and "tactics" only matter in the latter.

I know, its an issue that has yet to be resolved or explained in Civ. I see the hero as leading a group of soldiers. Else there is some explaining to be done as to how my bambur killed every unit in a city and then razed it by himself.

In that heros get equipment, you could argue that the whole of his unit is getting reequiped. If something is magical, either they all get magical items (like an elite squad, if mundane) or that the magical properties apply to the hero, and whoever wields those properties is naturally a leader who can preform extra-fantastic feats. Or the magic weapon is only his, and his buddies have non-magical versions, but his magical sword provides him with benefits that affect them all. Its all very easy to explain, if someone takes the time.

But i have to say that heros arnt single units - or there is some explaining to be done.
-Qes

EDIT: VERY GENERIC 1v1 profile

Axes Kill. But break often against plate armor and metal sheilds. They also dont often break skin against Mail armor, but still crush quite a bit.
LongSwords Slash and kill people with no armor very quickly, and they Perice Armor (most all armor, but only in specific places of plate)
Short Swords Perice require VERY close combat and pierce all armor(Only in specific places of plate)
Spears Perice all armor (Have a harder time against mail - throughd deflection, and a very hard time against plate)
Bows and Crossbows Peirce Armor Period. (Short bows may have difficulty against plate, unless they are recurve)
Lances Perice armor Period.
Pole-Arms Defeat all Armor and plate armor at speed (speed of horse running INTO pole-arm/pike)
Two handers defeat all armor BUT plate - which they still crush effectively if not deflected.
Maces/morning stars defeat all armor, but are very close combat oriented. Can break if not well made.

Injury vs. Wounding. Many weapons injure, other weapons wound. If a weapon perices skin and draws blood, its most likely a wounding weapon, pericing weapons are wounding, as are slashing. Injury weapons deal bleudgeoning damage mostly, as having ribs crushed is just as likely to kill as opening someone up. However, Injurys can be mitigated - slashing weapons become injury weapons if the armor is appropriate. Slashing based swords, and axes have a harder time causing wounds to armored opponents, but they can still easily cause injury. Injury CAN lead to death, but not necessarily. Wounding OFTEN leads to death, and only through healing/medicine does it not. Either can cause outright death. Infection kills more than weapons, and unopened injurys are more easily survivable than open wounds. (Crushing ribs is a notable exception.)

Two handers, specifically the zhweihander (sp?) used by the landkenecht were designed with a specific purpose in mind, to break down pike formations. The were used by elite troops called doplesangers (double soldier) who drew the pay of two troops. They would run out ahead of their own army and disrupt the pikes of their opponents by smashing the poles etc. Then the pike line would come in behind and destroy the disrupted lines. Very effective. Of course they also looked like clowns, which I find amusing. The guy on the right (http://www.gbuonline.com/home.shtml) is a Landsknecht with a zhweihander.

Puck please correct me if any of this is wrong:
-Qes
EDIT: More when i think of em.

Well, I've got a couple of nitpicks, but mostly things that will spawn long arguments for no purpose :D . In essence I agree with what you posted. I also want to mention something here, I am not an expert. I know a bit about it but I am not infallable, if I say something that you disagree with by all means argue your point. If you can back it up with something better than "nuh uh"

I dont like how they equated Hand-and-a-half swords with longswords, they were fundamentally different, werent they?
-Qes
Well, it depends. It was only recently (like 19th century) that people started trying to break down swords into neat little categories for museums, before that they were called 'swords'. So longsword and long sword... one is a description (it is a long sword) and includes things like spatha (a long version of a gladius) and claymores (a very long sword), and the other is a specific type of sword, also called a bastard sword and a hand and a half. Why a bastard sword? Because it was between a one handed sword (short sword like a katzbalger (http://www.fabri-armorum.cz/images/jpg%20katalog/katzbalger%20kopie.jpg)or arming sword (http://www.weaponmasters.com/images/products/RM_2003/RMSW03-E2M.jpg)) and a two handed sword (also called a greatsword).
So were they "fundamentally different"? Uh, sort of. You can't even say that a short sword is something that you use in one hand and a long sword is something that you use two hands on because then there are rapiers...
At what point does a short sword become a long sword? At about the same point that near becomes far. At least that is my take on it. I am going to try to get a friend of mine who is an expert to come and take a look at this thread and embarrass me by pointing out my mistakes...

Two handers, specifically the zhweihander (sp?) used by the landkenecht were designed with a specific purpose in mind, to break down pike formations. The were used by elite troops called doplesangers (double soldier) who drew the pay of two troops. They would run out ahead of their own army and disrupt the pikes of their opponents by smashing the poles etc. Then the pike line would come in behind and destroy the disrupted lines. Very effective. Of course they also looked like clowns, which I find amusing. The guy on the right (http://www.gbuonline.com/home.shtml) is a Landsknecht with a zhweihander.

Puck is right, i completely ignored that use, thanks for the catch Puck, i knew youd correct me. :D.
-Qes

EDIT: No two swords are alike, so catagorization really is the catagorization of a particular weaponsmiths style from a specific era in a specific country, etc. But catagorization still serves a purpose, even from our modern eyes. I know that they werent considered "bastard swords" at the time, etc, but looking back we do have the benefit of hindsight. So while naming might change, the important thing is the function. Like the zweihander used to break up pike formations - had COMPLETELY forgotten about that. Good catch.

EDIT2: I too am no expert, I am a histroy buff, and my particular pension is ancient roman and greek histories (I know alot more about the warfare of their ages than the middle ages), so while i can speak ever so slightly with knowledge on the anceints and antiquity - my medieval knowledge is more or less based on documentaries, and books i've read in passing.

Very useful information, thanks :)

I think I'll go with the hero squad interpretation, because not only does it make more sense, 1v1 combat doesn't have to be considered.

I'm not clear on how the range of weapons affects combat. In what cases are shorter weapons better and in what cases are longer weapons better? So far, I'm getting the impression that maces are superior to longswords except in unarmored combat, but that longswords have more reach - how does that translate into game mechanics? I guess what I'm asking for is what the exact advantages and disadvantages of each weapon are with respect with each other (instead of just their effectiveness against different types of armor).

Oh yeah, this is true. I'm thinking about the late period i guess, during which crossbows made their apperance and the armored knight was on his way out. Armor that yes, while mobile, became so heavy that one could not get up again if one fell. The NEAR-turtle apparition of warfare.
There was never a time when knights/men-at-arms/heavy cavalry were ever so encumbered by their armour as to lose their ability to move adequately, let alone get up. Ever. Period.

The closest it came was in the the 17th century when attempts to make armour bullet-proof often led to it being very heavy, so soliders often chose to go without it for reasons of comfort. But they still could function just fine in it even so.

Crossbows and longbows mean death to an armored target.

Again, this is depends on the armour. Mail? Sure, a crossbow bolt and an arrow from a bow will burst the rings on mail almost every time. Plate? Not always the case. There are records of English bowmen during the Hundred Years War gazing in horror as their arrows simply bounced off of approaching lines of Italian mercenary units of heavy cavalry because the Italians had figured out ways of making their armour less resistant. How? 1) Case Hardening. By treating the steel a certain way (not sure how, I'm a historian, not a metalurgist) they were able to greatly increase the strength of the outermost layer of the steel without increasing the weight. 2) Design/Shape. The main reason a projectile could pierce plate is if it managed to get good purchase on the surface, allowing it's force to be concentrated on that one spot. Some designs of armour were made deliberately rounded and bulbous, leaving very few flat surfaces. Also, armour was often given a mirror polish, so there was nothing on the steel to cause friction and catch an arrow or bolt, making it more likely that it would simply glance off.

Sorry for the rant, but I cannot abide big sweeping statements of definiteness being made when there's so much more to it. And if anyone's wondering where I get my sources? I'm just completing my MA focusing on medieval combat and am currently working in the Royal Armouries at Leeds. I'm not flaunting the feathers in my cap, just justifying my evidence is all.

Hope this is useful and insightful.

In general shorter weapons are better in formation, longer weapons are better for individual fighters. Shorter weapons are also easier to control, but given two equally strong people they can put more force behind the swing of a longer weapon because of that whole fulcrum thing.
Short swords, axes, warhammers, spears and pole arms: legions and 'soldiers'
Long swords, flails, anything that you'd need a lot of room to swing around: heros and 'warriors'

In general 1vs1 warriors beat soldiers
10 vs 10 soldiers beat warriors.
20000 warriors vs 2000 veteran soldiers... soldiers beat warriors (c.f Campaigns amoung the Gaul, Julius Ceasar)
In short, it's not about the weapons, it's about the tactics at that point.

In other news, anyone remember where the quote "No organized force is ever outnumbered by a disorganized one"

*edit* Hey Warriorpoet234, good to see you. Now download the mod and play it.

Well, when I said that katanas are the best close combat weapons I rather meant that they are the "coolest" ones. But my opinion may be biased because I lately saw "the last samurai" and because those "exotic" weapons are more interesting than those "common" ones.
However I still feel that the Elves should rather be using light armor and swords than heavy armor and weapons like maces, flails, polearm, etc. An Elf using a katana might be unfitting, but imo an Elf using a mace is even more unfitting.

How about an elf using a scythe?

How about an elf using a scythe?

Well, that would be pretty awesome! :cool:

Oh yeah, this is true. I'm thinking about the late period i guess, during which crossbows made their apperance and the armored knight was on his way out. Armor that yes, while mobile, became so heavy that one could not get up again if one fell. The NEAR-turtle apparition of warfare.
There was never a time when knights/men-at-arms/heavy cavalry were ever so encumbered by their armour as to lose their ability to move adequately, let alone get up. Ever. Period.

The closest it came was in the the 17th century when attempts to make armour bullet-proof often led to it being very heavy, so soliders often chose to go without it for reasons of comfort. But they still could function just fine in it even so.

OH YES! THIS IS WHAT I REMEMBER! Thank you, that is what the book i read said. It was the folly of attempting to make them bullet-proof. I recall now. Yes, i feel foolish, but i remembered it was some attempt for something, and it was just ludicris.


Crossbows and longbows mean death to an armored target.

Again, this is depends on the armour. Mail? Sure, a crossbow bolt and an arrow from a bow will burst the rings on mail almost every time. Plate? Not always the case. There are records of English bowmen during the Hundred Years War gazing in horror as their arrows simply bounced off of approaching lines of Italian mercenary units of heavy cavalry because the Italians had figured out ways of making their armour less resistant. How? 1) Case Hardening. By treating the steel a certain way (not sure how, I'm a historian, not a metalurgist) they were able to greatly increase the strength of the outermost layer of the steel without increasing the weight. 2) Design/Shape. The main reason a projectile could pierce plate is if it managed to get good purchase on the surface, allowing it's force to be concentrated on that one spot. Some designs of armour were made deliberately rounded and bulbous, leaving very few flat surfaces. Also, armour was often given a mirror polish, so there was nothing on the steel to cause friction and catch an arrow or bolt, making it more likely that it would simply glance off.

Sorry for the rant, but I cannot abide big sweeping statements of definiteness being made when there's so much more to it. And if anyone's wondering where I get my sources? I'm just completing my MA focusing on medieval combat and am currently working in the Royal Armouries at Leeds. I'm not flaunting the feathers in my cap, just justifying my evidence is all.

Hope this is useful and insightful.

I agree with all you said, my sweeping generalizations were trying to incompass the concepts of each catagory throughout the whole of history. Depending on which time period and location you poked your nose into, armor either resisted projectiles, or didnt. Since were dealing with macro-civing here, i went for the sweeping generalization that the weapon was oft suprerior to the defence. A mistake perhaps, but I dont know if Maian wants to make every new design modification for armor over the years.

-Qes

@puck11b:

I assume spears are an exception to that short weapon=soldier rule?

Also QES said that axes to lends themselves well to formations due to their wide swings and are "raider" weapons.

You know, all this talk about tactics, armies, and weaponry make me want to do something radical to Civ4's combat system :p

@Draconian:

From what I've read, katanas would suck against European medieval armor. Seems to be weapon geared against wooden armor. Of course, we can all just neglect some realism and go for the cool factor :)

How about an elf using a scythe?

Dark elf maybe.
-Qes

@puck11b:

I assume spears are an exception to that short weapon=soldier rule?

Also QES said that axes to lends themselves well to formations due to their wide swings and are "raider" weapons.

You know, all this talk about tactics, armies, and weaponry make me want to do something radical to Civ4's combat system :p

@Draconian:

From what I've read, katanas would suck against European medieval armor. Seems to be weapon geared against wooden armor. Of course, we can all just neglect some realism and go for the cool factor :)

No, Axes are NOT good for formations. Axes are used by more disorganized less disaplined people. IN battle at least. Axeman (not polearms-mind you) are primarily raiders and folks that dont attack in formations.
-Qes

Sorry that was a typo. That "to" was supposed to be a "don't".

@puck11b:
I assume spears are an exception to that short weapon=soldier rule?

Sorry, the post that you were talking about was even more rambling than normal. At the particular moment where I was talking about short weapon for soldiers, long weapons for heroes I meant in the game, not in reality.

When I was talking about what happens when soldiers fight warriors I was talking about in reality, not in the game.

Bah, I read this post and it doesn't seem to make much sense either.

I'll come back when I am coherent.
~p

Hm, seems that the Doviello get javelin throwers. I didn't notice this before. I'll update the first post.

the svaltfar can get a hero and sin line units weilding nun-chuckas!
perhaps?

the svaltfar can get a hero and sin line units weilding nun-chuckas!
perhaps?

:nono:
-Qes

:glare: at eerr.
-Qes
what? i have glare on me?
but the sun isn't out

@ eerr
Had I a rolled up newspaper, that could be utilzied on the internet, i would e-swat you with it.
-Qes

@ eerr
Had I a rolled up newspaper, that could be utilzied on the internet, i would e-swat you with it.
-Qes
it's not my fault you didn't realize it was your 1k post... what did you think the 999's were for?

it's not my fault you didn't realize it was your 1k post... what did you think the 999's were for?

I meant about the Nunchuck weilding dark elves. But i suppose thats another reason.

I guess your up to two E-swats at this point.
-Qes[pimp]

I meant about the Nunchuck weilding dark elves. But i suppose thats another reason.

I guess your up to two E-swats at this point.
-Qes[pimp]
but i wantz ninja elves that assasinate heros by wacking them in places they don't wish to be wacked

but i wantz ninja elves that assasinate heros by wacking them in places they don't wish to be wacked

LOL, well far be it from me to deny your dream.
-Qes

Has the Gladius been mentioned? I couldn't even see short sword on the list, so I thought I'd mention it..

Dwarves armed with Gladius' would be apt, the gladius apparently favours the shorter warrior

Did the Greek Xiphos or Roman Gladius come in shorter blade lengths of around 30cm (12inches)?:confused:

Instead of the more common blade length between 18"-24" inches in length.

Are horsemen in FfH immune to first strikes? They ought to be.
with enough promotions in flanking
(only assassin type units have immunity intrinsically(naturally))

with enough promotions in flanking
(only assassin type units have immunity intrinsically(naturally))

Hum, well they should get immunity to first strikes. Why bother with cumbersome automatic promotions when you can give a much more subtle way to get a bonus against archers?

Whoa, quite the thread necromancy there...

And by a n00b making his first post, no less...