|
Post by William Swiger on Oct 12, 2011 17:18:09 GMT
Are those Japanese worms or European worms?
|
|
SanMarc
Senior Forumite
Posts: 3,193
|
Post by SanMarc on Oct 12, 2011 17:27:37 GMT
Ohoooooo, Amarican Worms......
|
|
Sean (Shadowhowler)
VIP Reviewer
Retired Moderator
No matter where you go, there you are.
Posts: 8,828
|
Post by Sean (Shadowhowler) on Oct 12, 2011 17:53:27 GMT
Exactly. Everyone knows American Worms are the best. They are bigger and can eat more then worms from other countries... plus the souls of the bodies they eat rest within them.
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Oct 12, 2011 18:01:27 GMT
I dunno... I recognize that there is no such thing as a best sword, but I've always wondered if there isn't a most lagom sword.
That is to say, is there a "jack of all trades" sword that can do any job well enough, and counter the strenghts of any other sword at least decently?
|
|
Sébastien
Senior Forumite
Retired Moderator
Posts: 2,967
|
Post by Sébastien on Oct 12, 2011 18:03:25 GMT
They are still earthworms eating earthworms thought ...
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Oct 12, 2011 18:14:04 GMT
Most swords would fit that description, actually.
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Oct 12, 2011 18:21:45 GMT
Shyeah right.
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Oct 12, 2011 18:26:20 GMT
How do you figure?
Obviously, a rapier is better at thrusting then a katana, and a katana is better at cutting. A longsword has superior range to a cutlass, but that range becomes a problem in a cramped enviroment.
So, obviously we can pick certain features in a sword and optimize them. What I'm talking about would be a sword where the optimized feature is over-all versatility. A sword that isn't so much best at everything as it is not bad at anything. (Relative to other swords, of course.)
|
|
|
Post by Lonely Wolf Forge on Oct 12, 2011 18:38:21 GMT
a viking sword or a single handed arming sword is an amazing thrust or cut sword, ad isnt too big for close quarters either. at he same time, a Kodachi is a good thruster,cutter, and isnt cramped either.
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Oct 12, 2011 18:42:05 GMT
Every sword type is necessarily a compromise designed for a specific purpose in a specific context. In some circumstances length is an asset, in others a liability; a basket hilt can be either a help or a hindrance depending on the situation; different targets call for different edge geometry; and so on - it all depends. Now, yeah, you could probably design a sword to not be particularly bad at any given thing in any given circumstances... maybe some sort of military saber or cutlass, I should think... but it would not be particularly good for anything, either. It would just be a universal underachiever, equally mediocre across the board. Who would want that when there's a world full of actually good swords out there?
|
|
SanMarc
Senior Forumite
Posts: 3,193
|
Post by SanMarc on Oct 12, 2011 18:45:08 GMT
Yeah We have the Prairie Worm that is Longer and Bigger than that Russian one in the pic...
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Oct 12, 2011 18:50:28 GMT
What, the "giant" Palouse earthworm? The biggest captured specimen of those so far is like 8 inches unstretched... and they aren't radioactive, either!
|
|
|
Post by Vincent Dolan on Oct 12, 2011 18:51:44 GMT
I agree wholeheartedly. A Type XIV is a very good cut-n-thrust sword with a medium reach (though it's classified as a short sword by European standards), but it's not that great for taking on mail or plate... Which is why the XV was developed. The tachi's curve made it an excellent cavalry sword, but it wasn't that great for fighting on foot, so the katana, with its less curvature more towards the middle of the blade, was developed. The rapier and saber were too long for fighting amidship during the Golden Age of Sail, so the cutlass was developed. I'm generalizing, of course, but it gets the point across.
That said, a perfect all-rounder that is good at everything and bad at next to nothing has been designed... It's called a lightsaber. :lol:
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Oct 12, 2011 19:24:44 GMT
How can a sword that is sufficient for everything at the same time be insufficient for everything? Seems like a contradiction to me.
Sure, this proposed sword might lose out somewhat to another sword in one or two fields that the opposing sword excells in, but make up for that by being better at whatever the opponent is bad at, while also not being too bad at anything in particular. That's not mediocricy; that's being well-balanced and adaptive.
I'm talking about minimizing weaknesses by avoiding too much specialization. If you look at nature, it's the very specialized life-forms that get whiped out first whenever a vital factor changes, because specialization can easily become a weakness.
So, if we go by the Oakeshotte types for easy illustration: The Type XIII are great cutting swords, sacrificing thrusting ability. The Type XV are great thrusting swords, sacrificing cutting ability.
The types XVI and XVIII, on the other hand, were attempts at finding a compromize between cutting and thrusting, since the armor technology at the time often required either or both.
So, if I'm understanding you and MOK right, you are saying that the XVI and XVIII are both worse in general then the XIII and XV alike, because they are not specialized at either cutting or thrusting, making them mediocre swords?
No, no. That's the perfect sword: which is to say being the best at everything and bad at nothing. You need to stop thinking about this in terms of "the most" and try to think of it in terms of "enough" instead.
|
|
SanMarc
Senior Forumite
Posts: 3,193
|
Post by SanMarc on Oct 12, 2011 19:36:01 GMT
Ok ya got me there!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Vincent Dolan on Oct 12, 2011 19:50:48 GMT
I think you're understanding MOK right, but misunderstanding me a bit. I was mainly saying that different swords were designed for different purposes; a rapier may be an excellent thruster and a saber an excellent cutter, but considering their length, neither of those mean jack in the cramped quarters of an 18th century warship, so you get something that's good at cutting and good at thrusting, but has the maneuverability you need.
What I believe MOK is saying is a nod to the old saying "a jack of all trades is a master of none". However, I wouldn't call the XVI or XVIII jacks of all trades; they excel in cutting and thrusting, but lengthwise, they're still a little long to be used in cramped quarters where a short sword or long dagger would be better; they're slower than a small sword, but faster than a great sword. They've got a few weaknesses, but are very, very good in what they were meant for: cutting and thrusting. A jack of all trades is, by definition (when it comes to swords, that is), something that can be used in absolutely every situation, be you on the battlefield facing plate, in an alley facing a mugger, below deck on a ship, excel in cutting, thrusting, hacking, slashing, slicing, have a guard capable of defending all attacks from any angle, have the maneuverability you need to get your attack past your opponent's guard, easy to wield in one hand for speed and versatility, capable of being wielded in both hands for power and leverage, etc.
Designing a sword like that sounds nearly impossible because making something that's good at one would require making it bad at something else; a curved blade, by virtue of its curve, is good at slashing and can be good at cutting and thrusting, especially from odd angles, but is it good at a straight hack? Unless I miss my guess, no. A straight blade, on the other hand, can cut, hack, thrust, and slice, but it can't really slash, at least, that's if I'm not getting my terminology mixed up (we've got so many words to describe the act of cutting that it gets a bit confusing at times). Could you have a two-handed sword that's capable of being wielded freely indoors without fear of hitting the ceiling? And yet still have the reach advantage over a one-hander?
|
|
ghost
Member
Posts: 1,323
|
Post by ghost on Oct 12, 2011 19:57:19 GMT
Mmm tasty. Reminds me of those gummies Bear Grylls would love munching that thing down. Japanese kitchen knives > USA kitchen knives hands down. Actually I think USA made kitchen knives aren't even on the map... but we always have our lawn mowers w/ the cupholder, for various refreshments
|
|
Lunaman
Senior Forumite
Posts: 3,974
|
Post by Lunaman on Oct 12, 2011 19:58:20 GMT
I'm on board with this. All (good) swords are solutions to a particular problem of optimization, and aren't objectively 'better' than one another, but it seems perfectly reasonable to look for one that optimizes versatility. True, such a sword could be bested at any one task or attribute by other sword types, but there is real value in doing everything pretty well. Such swords do exist. Once again, though, I'm not saying such swords are THE BEST or BETTER than other sword types. Just that it IS indeed possible for a sword type to be more versatile than many other sword types, and that this doesn't exclude it from being GOOD at all the things it does. Not being the 'best' in any department doesn't mean it ain't a darn nice sword. Like Anders, I thought of the type XVIII and XVI variants as good examples of this type of sword that optimizes versatility (the so-called 'cut and thrusters'). One that springs to mind is Mike Harris's Angus Trim Makers Mark XVI. There's nothing mediocre about this sword. viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2949It has a decent reach, but is not too large as to be cumbersome in smaller spaces. It is an exceptional cutter, but also has great point control and a reinforced, narrow tip. It is a straight sword, but with a curved edge. It is robust, but not heavy. It's agile, but powerful. It it double-edged, which not only extends how long it'll go between needing sharpening, but also makes possible more angles of attack. It's a fantastic "all-rounder." Not to mention that the lightsaber has its own drawbacks. Cutting through anything from any angle means you have some issues with defensive maneuvers against anything that's not another lightsaber. If you have a weapon with a longer reach than the saber and heave into a committed strike than would necessitate a hard block, the jedi might ruin the end of your weapon but he will provide no resistance to your stroke as you continue into his flesh. :lol:
|
|
|
Post by Vincent Dolan on Oct 12, 2011 20:04:14 GMT
I gotta disagree with you there, Luna. If a lightsaber can easily cut steel bodied robots in half, I don't think it'd be any trouble to ruin the entire weapon; plus, with that whole no resistance thing, a Jedi can easily cut up through your weapon and then back down to you and do it faster than you on account of his weapon being weightless (or he could just raise the weapon and twist his wrist downward to cut off your hands).
|
|
ghost
Member
Posts: 1,323
|
Post by ghost on Oct 12, 2011 20:07:31 GMT
lightsaber and shield combo yeah?
|
|