Why is the sword such a overused weapon in games.
Especially if you fight non humanoid opponents.
It's balanced. Hammers and axes are usually associated with brutes and huge dudes, daggers are usually associated with shady types like thieves and assassins. Swords are great for generic warrior-types.
A sword is mostly blade, so it's easily to animate it and make it look cool. With a spear you have to put more work into animation, also most devs design their games around you always being at a reach disadvantage because they're a bunch of lazy fucks. If they gave you a spear they'd have to either put effort into creating interesting enemies, or make the spear a slow piece of shit/give you shitty short range attacks.
Is there a gun with gun cutlery?
>implying that's a gun
Smacking people with polearms in M&BW is fun as fuck
Nope. A good poleaxe is infinitely more competent against armor than any sword.
I dont think you realise quite how thick a gun barrel is.
I just wish games had more exotic weapons besides 'axe, sword, mace in one handed and two handed flavors!'
I would be very, very pleased if a game introduced a weapon like a bladestaff or Naginata. Even if it isn't much more complex then a 'sword on a longer handle' I'd still love if, my favorite weapon.
Swords are popular in fantasy for the same reasons that dual wielding, jumping attacks, and spinning attacks are popular.
The masses like dumb shit. Disregard that Polearms can do spinning jumping attacks better than swords anyways.
The best feel. I just wish the ACOK mod would let me use halberds from horseback. I can't remember if it was possible in vanilla, but I think it was
Yes. Swords are so incompetent against armor that they would grip the blade and use it like a retarded hammer.
it's called a mordschlag
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xoen1r_medieval-fight-book_creation?start=14 35 minutes in shows a good example.
Note that the Knight to the right is also resorting to using his sword like a retarded spear.
>thinking utility is a bad thing
If you wanted utility you wouldn't be using a sword.
Because you cant wear a poleaxe.
In video games you dont play as a soldiers, you play as an adventurer.
An adventurer does a lot of walking, sneaking, walking, riding, walking, roaming, walking, drinking, walking, cooking, walking, collecting herbs, walking, hunting, walking, talking to people, walking and walking.
Its much more practical to have a short weapon that you can wear on you than a huge ass stick with a heavy end.
Because most people have this idea in their head that anything that's not a sword is a unbalanced super clumsy retard-o weapon which attacks at a snails pace, gets stuck in everything and causes it's wielder to stumble around on a missed swing (excluding the katana, which apparently is not a sword and will be even faster than them)
polearms do not have more utility than a sword.
In a fight they have much more utility.
Outside of a fight a sword can be used to peal potatoes, as a cross to pray to, as jewelry, as something to rattle to seem angry, such things.
So a sword is a better utensil, but a polearm is a better weapon.
>mfw Dark Souls
>Mfw blunt weapons
>Mfw Bastard sword is longer than the longsword
>Not the weapons of heroes
Spears are a peasant's choice, though.
you are acting like a weeaboo would act regarding a katana.
swords are a jack of all trades, they can be used very effectively in the defense, usable in realtively close quarters, for stabbing, hacking, slashing and crushing.
polearms are great, sure. but they are for more specific engagements, mainly armour. Their offbalance design and their nature as pole weapons makes them less useful for defensive fighting or for close quarters combat.
The bottemline is that there is no BEST weapon, only a weapon best suited for a specific situation. The strength of the sword is that it is useful although not the best in a lot more situations than a polearm would be.
That said, I think the best way to go would be a weapon like a polearm and using a sword as a side-arm. But since most games and shit only let you have 1 or the other, I'd go with a sword.
>Can penetrate or smash armor
>Longer shaft == Greater body leverage
>Both shaft and axe head can be used for takedowns... Superior force may knock opponent down on a clean hit regardless.
>Reach advantage, also allows you to target legs with ease.
KEEP HEART YOU SPINELESS WOMEN!
Shit, I'm late to the arms and armor thread and someone already posted the gunmace.
You are acting like a weeaboo would act regarding a katana.
Filler filler filler filler.
The bottom line is that there is a BEST weapon class, and thats the polearm. Spears and poleaxes have dominated warfare for as long as melee weapons have been relevant.
That being said, swords are still a thing you could bring with you, if you want to, since you can wear it on your side and use it when your spear breaks.
>The most prominent weapon in human history
>"Used for specific engagements."
Mankind has been using pole weapons since the hunter gatherer days, and pole weapons have far greater variety as evidence in such weapons as Javelins, Lances, and Pikes.
>bringing no arguments to the table
spear and poleaweapons have dominated wars because of formation fighting, not because of the weapon itself.
the utility of the swords make them stand out. And im not arguing for the best weapon, only that swords have a greater utility and would be a better choice when youre going into a situation you cant prepare for. as in a long journey with a host of varying obstacles.
Spears would be even shittier than swords in this situation, though. Neither is going to pierce the armor, and the spear is trickier to use as a bludgeon. Spear might be a bit better for tripping the other guy up, though.
It's why I've never understood these combat manuals. I realize that they did this back then, but nigger use a fucking mace. At what point do you have to think to yourself "shit, I better use this perfectly fine bladed object as a blunt weapon?"
Gothic armor is best armor.
Milanese can suck a dick.
What you mean is that a sword has more utility and is a generally more overall balanced weapon, capable of being favorable in multiple situations.
Polearms are useful in very few situations, but in those situations, they are the best thing to have.
Thats actually horseshit for most of the medieval period.
It used to be the case very, very early in the dark ages, but swords quickly became commonplace and in some places it was illegal not to own one.
yes specific kinds of engagements, like formation fighting. which dominated warfare for most of humanity's history.
try using a spear outside of a formation fight and you're likely to come at a disadvantage.
Axes can be counted as poleweapons, and those were popular during the early medieval period. moreso than other weapons until Hastings.
Does that make axes better than spears or swords?
Almost nobody used poleaxes except english knights because they're daft cunts who preferred to fight on foot. The rest of the world (read: france) had their knights fighting on horseback, which was a lot more effective.
>spears dominated wars because they win wars, not because they are good weapons
I'd rather use a spear, or a bow.
I'd have a better time making traps and setting snares with a dagger, or an axe.
A sword is not, never has been a hunting weapon.
there was a short period where peasants were forbidden from carrying swords OUTSIDE OF BATTLEFIELDS.
That's where that myth stems from.
I know you're joking, but:
>Can easily kill and skin animals
Having done that with a oversized knife, I can say that it would be almost impossible with a sword, especially a straight/dual-edged one.
>climb tall tall trees with no issues at all
WHY NOT JUST LEAVE YOUR FUCKING WEAPON ON THE GROUND SO YOU DON'T ACCIDENTALLY DROP IT. WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU GOING TO FIND IN THAT TREE THAT YOU NEED A WEAPON FOR?
Are you a video game?
>tfw so few games have proper Gothic plate
In war, peasants would go and fight for the money and honour it would bring so their family didn't have to live in poverty farming.
It would mean they could move to the city, maybe buy a store.
Doesn't change my
opinionthat they're damn nice looking.
because you can use a sword when you're unarmoured fighting someone else unarmoured, when you don't have swords.
if you had a mace, you need to swing it - a sword can just jab you in the stomach and you can't smack someone with your mace in time
If the sword user lacks a shield the spear wielding is still going to rape him.
The best attributes of a sword are probably random duels (as you can easily carry it on you at all times) and how well they compliment shield usage.
>British line infantry
>Never used spears
They supplemented their own forces with various army auxiliaries
Great Britain? Greatest Navy the world had ever seen
Look at that, sword didn't do shit
Katana has always been a dick waving weapon
>not using spears
Pick one, fag.
noun \?jav-l?n, ?ja-v?-\
>a long spear that people throw as far as they can as a sport
>A javelin is a light spear designed primarily to be thrown
Arms and armor threads are great, since they give me an excuse to post these.
>Wah! What are we going to do on the ramparts, m'lord?
>who is alexander
He formed an empire so great that even divided into a few parts each was still big enough to be called a great empire on its own.
The mongols and the greeks had the best empires. Rome is a distant third.
The romans that used pila.
Romans had hundreds of men that would only use spears, short swords as a secondary.
They formed at the front of the battle because they had the best armor and were usually veterans (people also gained this rank by buying expensive equipment) and they are called Triarii.
Yeah I'm always bugged when I'm playing vidya and my character ends up fighting something massive and I can somehow kill it by swinging a piece of metal roughly 1 meter long at it's shins.
Be careful mate, I got banned from /v/ for saying that Alexander's empire is greek and not FYROMian.
Got banned for life for pedophilia for saying it, in fact. That mod might still be around.
You can totally just hold a blade without cutting yourself.
Especially if you have gauntlets on.
As long as there isn't an actual cutting motion it's harmless.
People would even grip their opponents blade from time to time.
Certain large swords had a second guard for just such a thing.
You would grip the blade below the second guard and basically use it to have a shorter sword or spear for better maneuvering.
>You have to do a cutting motion with a sword
I wasn't aware I was on /k/
Awful lot of Darkeyes in this thread. Stay jelly of my sword, plebs.
Can you imagine the balls required to charge into battle in the pre-gunpowder ages? You might get shot by an arrow or bolt and have no way of avoiding it. You might trip and get trampled by your own guys, or run down by a horse. You could come up against a huge motherfucker with a sword longer than you are that would cut you in half. You might find yourself against a guy in full plate armor, swing full power with your weapon and do no damage at all. You would have no idea who's winning until you found yourself surrounded either by friends or enemies.
In Japan, swords were considered the weapons of nobles. Thus, it's considered nobler to wield a sword.
In America, it's because we got a lot of our shit from Europe and they're pretty much the kings of romanticizing swords. I personally blame King Arthur and the half-a-dozen magic swords.
I'm literally watching the Queen's speech right now. Pole weapons are still in use to this day.
>kind of tight space.
That's what battlefields are. You don't just dissolve into pairs and duel each other. You fight in a formation with a weapon designed for formation fighting. Your regular mid medieval swords were usually carried as a sidearm.
Gentleman's jewellery, they look good, they made a good status symbol.
After the rapier (which was actually a rather heavy weapon and slow to wield) the small sword became more fashionable. The small sword was much lighter and still had a deadly point making it an extremely effective self-defense and duelling weapon for civilians. Since you didn't have to worry about your opponent wearing armor, all you had to do was put a few holes in him and the fight would be over.
If caught in a tight space with a spear or other pole weapon you are utterly defenseless and utterly screwed. With a sword you are still capable of defending yourself at most combat ranges (except against arrows obviously). Do you have any idea how easy it is to knock a spear or halberd to the side then move inside it's uselessness range? These weapons were for single charging lunges and killing horses and mounted troops by pointing it at them. They are hugely unbalanced and in a fight are completely worthless because of that.
The most understated aspect of a weapon is what it's like to carry it. In all wars, even modern ones, a large majority of soldiers don't even see combat, so they're just carrying an excessive amount of gear doing day to day activities. Carrying around a sharpened shield with a spike is just inconvenient.
Using a shield with a sharp edge in a formation is also retarded, since you wouldn't be able to swing at all during a shield wall, and since your primary formation weapon is a short spike, your range is shit, and your formation would just be speared to death.
swords are awesome
I picked up swordfighting a month ago and while it's fedora as fuck, I'm having the time of my life when I'm practicing it. Even more fun than I do with video games these days.
Monday is a holiday where I live and the teacher is going to a Renessaince fair to showcase his fencing school, but he said we can still come and train all day if we like. Gonna be fun :3
>Do you have any idea how easy it is to knock a spear or halberd to the side then move inside it's uselessness range?
You can bring your spear back very easily.
And if I am as strong as you are, you aint pushing it aside any time soon.
Why don't more games let your throw iron dicks at people?
Yes, because unlike the spear the sword is a versatile weapon you can use in on the toilet just as well as out in the battlefield. The spear will have its advantage in the formation but anywhere else, nope.
Personally I'd rather suck in a formation but be able to fight anywhere, then be stuck with a weapon that depends so much on others and space.
Ofcourse, normally we should just have both.
Though if we were men on the battlefield in the past we would be the peasants fighting with rakes and whatever shit we got from our barns before heading off to die.
Pole weapons are CQC weapons, you can not only adjust the grip but there are take down techniques.
If you are at a range where the Pole weapon is useless a dagger would be a superior weapon to both a sword and a Spear/Polearm weapon, as you are now in grappling range.
Why would you be in a tight space with a spear? Stabbing weapons excel in close quarters anyway, unless you mean so tight that the spearman has his back to the wall.
You can try to knock someone's spear away but the guy can also move backwards while simultaneously pulling the spear point back. A jab with a long weapon is relatively safe to pull off since you're not putting any of your body in the enemy range.
I always imagined that this was the product of the artist being too much of a faggot to ever actually fight and he just wanted to draw those beautiful knights and this is the result.
If you are holding your spear in both hands then you have no shield. If I have both a shield and a sword, you would be fucked. If you wielded a spear and a shield at the same time, I could push your spear away with both shield and sword arm while closing in, which would also result in you being screwed.
People owned both weapons, sword was mostly a sidearm. You wouldn't carry a fucking spear around while doing shoppnig. Depending of the era and the country you weren't even allowed to carry a sword aroudn
Except you can just adjust your grip for different ranges just as you would with an axe or sword
>Know a halberd aside
Pole weapons are easier to maintain control of because you can have two hands at separate ranges giving you better leverage than holding it by the very base
It's why people half sword, better accuracy and control
>And if I am as strong as you are, you aint pushing it aside any time soon.
Thats not how physics work, I need to push aside a stick with a guy on its other end just enough to step forward, you need to push aside a 100kg person with your stick, or step backwards.
If you don't have 2 guys with their own spears on your left and right you are at a disadvantage on this.
Not true, the difference is in leverage and when you're wielding a spear you have little leverage over it's point because the heavy end is far from where you are holding it (holding it near the end would defeat the purpose of it's range all together). I've held a spear before and I think you are vastly underestimating how fucking heavy they actually are, just keeping them pointed in the direction you want WITHOUT someone trying to knock them aside get's painful on the arms after about 5-10 minutes.
This is a great example who's understanding of history comes from videogames. No, people didn't carry weapons everywhere. You weren't allowed to walk in a town fully equipped.
This is likely a big element. Most melee fighting in video games is just an idiot swinging their arms.
Consider Skyrim: Axe, Sword, and Mace all contain the same swinging animations... To the point that you can behead people with a mace.
It's telling that pole weapons were in use before swords became a big deal and lasted way after.
Pike & Shot #1.
In a 1v1 fight, a moderately skilled fighter with a sword would probably beat an equally matched fighter, but by the time formation fighting came back into fashion (around the mid 15th century), a strong line of pikes would seriously hinder most swordsmen.
If course, medieval warfare is a different matter, given that it basically looks like a better optimised Chivalry battle. Groups of men smash into each other and a huge clusterfuck ensues, then a few minutes later a group of Knights smash into the clusterfuck at the point they assume the most enemy soldiers are, and hopefully crush enough underhoof that they break and fuck off before they realise that their crude spears could unhorse them. All of this was usually done to the sound of archers either firing into the ball of men or taking potshots at Knights (which they were dissuaded from doing because the ransom on a Knight was astounding).
As a two-handed weapon the spear/pole user has better leverage and grip. The bigger danger is not you knocking his weapon but him knocking YOUR weapon away.
Furthermore targeting a person's weapon is easier said than done, especially as the force can easily be dispersed by the wielder's body... Or they can just stab you while you are idiotically trying to hit their weapon, as you will be within the spear/pole user's lethal range.
spears aren't meant to push people back anyway, and if holding a spear forwards gets your arms tired then you really need to start lifting. Phalangites could hold 20 feet sarissas for hours.
The shield was the spear's biggest weakness. Anyone who had a decent shield could defend themselves against a spear fairly easily, while spearmen who had to take up the shield essentially cut their offensive effectiveness in half. In a disciplined formation nobody would be able to circle or push up against one another, but in single combat the shield would have allowed a swordsman to approach a spearman far too easily.
Here's a video.
It looks stupid as fuck, but is apparently quite effective.
You get within a Pole/Spear's range and you are going to get grappled and shanked by a knife.
Three years spent at university studying medieval sources on battles. The development of warfare strategy and tactics from the medieval period through to the early modern period was the basis of my dissertation.
This. Even Feudal armies refused to use peasants, because they where too malnourished and undertrained.
Short spear i guess.
Frontlines where usually filled with conscripts. You know: People who got trained for warfare.
The only fucking army in history to resort to peasants for a professional army is Naponeon era and later armies, and the British Longbowmen.
Even then, a "Longbowman" was basically a conscripted footman and no longer a peasant.
Do you know why the Feudal system worked? Because whoever was knights had to have a bunch of conscript and horses and good weapons. They could have 200-300 peasants, but none of those would be conscripts.
There were no fucking 'swordsmen'. Swords were side arms used as a last resort, they're just glorified in media. If you could afford something better than a sword you would fucking use it, because swords are shit. Using a sword as your main weapon would be like a marine only using his handgun; retarded as fuck.
Roman empire being an exception because they used swords effectively in formation
Purely from the interest of a player of video games, largely ignorant of real life weaponry usage and not highly concerned with realism, I too am quite tired of SWORDS SWORDS SWORDS. I don't know which weapon was the best weapon, what's more practical, etc, but as purely a matter of personal, uninformed taste, I want to see more polearm usage.
Speaking of which, at first I was happy to get them in Dark Souls, then I was disappointed by how they actually worked. Were they used realistically? I do not know, or particularly care. I just didn't much like the attack motions they were generally given. It was a real wasted opportunity, if you ask me. Also, as usual that game seemed to default to swords like most games do, even if they have other weapons. More swords than other stuff, and when it comes to crazy magic weapons made from souls, so many of them were... swords. If it were up to me, games would be full of polearms, they'd have really useful, possibly even OP attack animations, and the absolute bestest crazy magic weapon tier would be especially filled with polearms. They'd be what the main character uses, or if it's total create your own character, they'd be the default weapon characters are holding in promo art and on the cover and whatnot.
>Litterally mass conscripted spears into bayonets
>Fair enough, but Mongols did EVERYTHING when their horse archery did not do it fast enough
Demonstration with sharp sword:
In war, peasants would go and fight because policy at the time was that a Feudal lord could call peasants to fight for up to 40 days a year as part of their duty.
This led to something called the "fighting season", a point where the majority of battles occured because it was the time of the year when peasants weren't needed for other duties.
You did get people going out for money
but rarely honour. Being a mercenary was profitable, but was problematic for lords. There are incidents of wars that were extended way past the point they should have ended because lords couldn't afford the severance pay for terminating their service early.
swords are cooler and thats all that matters in video games
if you're a hero and you don't have a sword you're just half assing it and going for easy mode range
Turns out when you carry them as a civilian, and nobody is wearing anything but normal clothing: You don't need anything else.
Don't remind me of the sad truth.
The other sad truth is that designing superhuman combat, even if its just changing jump ability to 3 meters of height takes tons of effort.
I wouldn't go as far as saying swords are shit, they're a jack of all trades weapon, useful in close quarters against both armoured and unarmoured opponents. Of course there are more effective weapons for these situations, maces are more effective against armoured enemies, pole weapons have longer range, daggers are faster. The sword is a versatile jack of all trades master of none, it's faster to swing/stab than a mace or a pole weapon (due to being lighter than either) and had a half decent range. This is why swords were so commonly used as a side weapon, not because they were cheap to make (they weren't, in fact maces were far cheaper and even pole weapons cost less to make) but because no matter what close quarters situation you found yourself in on the battle field the sword could still be used viably when most other weapons could not.
The basis of the feudal system is that each knight can levy peasants for use in the army.
If said peasants are malnourished and not trained, you will have a fucking bad time once you show up to the frontline.
Yes, but passing the draft and surviving the campaigns usually lead to a large social promotion. You where now a Archer, at the least 2-3 ranks over the serfs. And serfs where rank 0.
But what would he even do in close range with a sword? Either tap the guys helmet with his pommel like he was armed with a stone, play poke the eyeslits against a spearman or drop their weapons and engage wrestlemania with daggers mode
None of these sound particularly advantageous (or disadvantageous for that matter)
>daggers are faster
No they're not. Why do people believe this shit?
Daggers were never used in battle unless it's to deliver a coup de grace to a knight you have wrestled to the floor and stripped off his chest armor or helmet.
>Spears and poleaxes have dominated warfare for as long as melee weapons have been relevant.
they are cheaper to be made, alot cheaper
thats the main reason they are chosen
doesn't mean they are alot more effective than swords
Swords are fucking bad in formations.
By medieval classification, the gladius and similar weapons would not classify as swords, but as long daggers and machetes in most cases.
Because they are fucking short. But still long enough to get around your own tower shield.
>Yes, but passing the draft and surviving the campaigns usually lead to a large social promotion. You where now a Archer, at the least 2-3 ranks over the serfs. And serfs where rank 0.
Nope, medieval armies didn't have a unified ranking structure, those poor peasants were levied and then disbanded once they're done.
Maces do kill basically any opponent, they are ridiculously damaging if you hit someone. The main downside to them however is that swinging that kind of weight takes that precious second more than stabbing someone with a bladed weapon. Maces were the peasant weapon of choice as well because they could be made really easy out of cheap materials, could down a heavily armoured knight and took no training to use effectively.
Because you don't need a combat manual to understand how a mace works. It's not pointy, you can't parry with it, and it only works one way.
And this is a manual about swords, not about "How to win every fight"
Except they fucking did.
And are we talking about the British, or everyone else again? Because nobody else would ever use a peasant army but the British, unless they got invaded.
It worked, didn't it?
>swinging that kind of weight takes that precious second more than stabbing someone with a bladed weapon.
>swinging that kind of weight
Why have people so many misconceptions about medival combat/armament?
A city, no. An official would safeguard your weapon for you until you need to leave. A small town or village? You're practically required by law to own a weapon at least at home.
You had manuals for every single weapon at some point. Even retarded shit.
> it's faster to swing/stab than a mace or a pole weapon (due to being lighter than either)
No they weren't
The weight difference of weapon classes was negligible and even if taken into consideration came down to the individual model
Sad thing is that swords got REKT even without armor.
The thing is, you wouldn't be walking in a woods with a spear unless you were hunting.
Lot of people seem to assume here that you put all your skills in a certain weapon type and carry it everywhere you go.
The thing is, you wouldn't be walking in a woods with a spear unless you were hunting.
Lot of people seem to assume here that you put all your skills in a certain weapon type and carry it everywhere you go.
These people weren't stupid, they designed certain weapons for certain situations. You had battlefield weapons and personal defense weapons.
simple spears and peasant polearms like two-handed flails, morning stars, war scythes and other militarized tools are weapons of a peasant.
Halberds and poleaxes are a weapon of nobility, along with swords and horseman's hammers.
Actually, the english peasants were crying when a italian mercenary force destroyed their ranks with armors like those because the arrows were not effective against them.
Swords could beat armor like that, so could maces, short polearms, and shivs. The thing is you crippled whoever was in the armor by smacking them full force into a limb head or back.
No matter if you didnt pierce the skin, if he got hit by a hefty sword skin in the wrong spot that could still break bones. And then they just got stabbed in the face with a spike like knife that kinda resembled an ice pick.
Fun fact: More recent evidence suggests swords were basically used as levers. You would not slash people with them, you wouldn't club people with them, you wouldn't even stab people with them.
You'd use the sword and a mixture of wrestling to topple people to the floor. While they're on the floor and defenseless then you'd use the sword (or a smaller dagger) to stab them in a weak spot.
No they dont nigger. One shoots bolts the other shoots arrows.
Oooooooooh, wait a moment. You just tried to trick me right? You were just pretending to be retarded arent you? I mean who would be dumb enough to actually think what you said.
Depends if you are aiming at or over something to hit your target.
Crossbows are also incredibly easy to use and can punch through armoured targets at close range.
Bows are better for launching volleys at a distance against lightly armoured targets or cavalry.
How not to kill a knight
>fight him with a sword/stick/fists whatever on plain field
How to kill a knight
>wait till he falls down out of exhaustion and stab him in eyes
This isn't like my chinese cartoons or bioware games at all.
Or, you know, hammer him in the back of the skull with this.
>Effective against armor
Nope. Anything above chainmail renders you almost immune to swords. Unless they manage to stab you in an exposed spot you could get hit by a sword and not even get seriously injured.
no they weren't
thats why only kinghts and nobles can ride them
spear, as dirt cheap weapon could be used by both foot soldiers & knights
Cavalry's effectiveness short lived in history due to easily penetrated by firearms
and spear prevailed as cheap bayonets replaced pike
cheap, cheap, cheap
economy & logistics always determines widespreading of certain weapon
>knight falls down from exhaustion
Sure, the same way you see policemen in their riot gear and firemen falling down from exhaustion right?
And both of those two have a heavyer getup and less mobile than the knights armor who was hand made and fitted to fit like a second skin. You could roll around in full plate armor if you wanted.
Good thing pole weapons excel at getting Knights on their asses.
>Not just smashing the armor with the hammer head.
Well the armor probably costs more than what all the people the knight killed in it would ever make.
You can was the blood out after stabbing them in the face while they act like a turtle on their back.
Its not as black and white as you think.
Pikes to be really effective against cavalry needed to be fortified in a tight and hardened formation. And horses are known to be rather fast and mobile.
And they charged your non fortified positions or the guys who did not wear a lot of pointy sticks from what i heard. After they did that, you had to fight the morale war.
All the Zwiehandler did was arguably make the ass raping less severe. The Landkershect were still second rate to the Swiss.
It's not until firearms became more prominent that the Swiss Pikemen's dominance finally started to die down.
>Pikemen where in actions for hundreds of years longer than the Zweihander was used
This just in.
Swords were cheap as hell by the middle of the middle ages. They were a peasant weapon as much as spears.
People say swords were for nobility due to all the fancy decorative swords, and the fact that only nobles were allowed to carry around weapons all the time (and a sword is much easier to carry than a spear).
But the fact is, during the middle ages it was a legal requirement that everyone owned weapons. Because of this swords were insanely common and you could buy a second hand one for really cheap.
Because supersonic bullets are a bitch.
On the other side you should keep a plate or two in case of zombie apocalypse.
Maybe a plated warhorse as well.
Running through zombie infested metropolis will be awesome.
All this goalpost switching.
>...quantity cannot dominate warfare, just like swords
>...doesn't mean they are alot more effective than swords
It's good that you acknowledge that spears dominate swords. Your retarded logic doesn't mean that Armor and Horses are equally as shitty as swords.
Really? I'll give you 50%
Can't believe this muh polearms meme actually took off here
What are you talking about?
There are plenty of believable armors and weapons in the game. The crazy shit comes later when your character who is a zombie becomes much stronger anyway.