Weapons Database

[Nikis-Knight]

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.
Oh, and good idea not planning anything w/o the bride. You'd be wrong, unless you're a mindreader.

 

[Maian]

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?

 

[Nikis-Knight]

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.

 

[QES]

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

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

 

[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

 

[Maian]

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.

 

[QES]

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

Spoiler :

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.

 

[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.

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.)

 

[puck11b]

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 is a Landsknecht with a zhweihander.

 

[puck11b]

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 . 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"

 

[puck11b]

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 or arming sword) 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...

 

[QES]

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 is a Landsknecht with a zhweihander.

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

 

[Maian]

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).

 

[Warriorpoet234]

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.

 

[puck11b]

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.

 

[Draconian]

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.

 

[loki1232]

How about an elf using a scythe?

 

[Chandrasekhar]

How about an elf using a scythe?

Well, that would be pretty awesome!

 

[QES]

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

 

[Maian]

@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

@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