pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Mar 8, 2019 12:49:23 GMT
Unscrew your pommel and end him rightly. Yep!
|
|
|
Post by Sir Thorfinn on Mar 8, 2019 13:28:40 GMT
LOL! (Jordan) I was thinking a lasso or Goucho Bola. Heck a net even...or a blanket. Or...your shirt. Anything to blind and bind. But my first instinct is to see if theres anything I can get him to trip over or fall in, like a lake. Then big rocks, brick sized at the least. If theres trees, lots to play with there. Environment...heck, even dirt can be tossed to effect.
|
|
|
Post by joeybones on Mar 9, 2019 14:19:33 GMT
The first rule of fighting is - Don't fight in any shoes you can't run in .
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Mar 9, 2019 14:39:57 GMT
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned taking advantage of the limited peripheral vision of the armored opponent. Obviously the best advantage of an unarmored opponent would be their quicker movement and of course full peripheral vision.
If it was me unarmored against an armored opponent my strategy would be to keep out of their main view of sight and do my best to trip the opponent down for a kill strike. Getting them from the back or side seems the most effective while trapping their ankles for a trip.
Obviously the most effective way to handle armored opponents is numbers as two or even three unarmored soldiers should be able to grapple a single armored opponent and bring them down add a few more and now you're pulling them off horses too.
So in my opinion the best way to fight an armored opponent would be to bring a friend or two. But of course in fairness of single combat (then again how fair is it to be unarmored?) I'd say the most advantageous attack would be to trip or immobilize the armored opponent.
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Mar 10, 2019 0:47:48 GMT
Some thoughts on the subject:
1. heating up in armor... ok.... but... what if it's winter time? 2. Grappling....sure...but be careful! Ever get punched in the face with an armored fist? What if he puts you in a steel headlock? Are you going to bit him or something? What makes you think he hasn't practiced grappling in addition to learning the sword like you have? 3. Can't cut through armor with a sword...Hollywood lies to you...that's why people wear armor. Maybe you can get lucky and stab through the eye slit. 4. He could charge you and bull you down betting on you thinking he can't move quickly while wearing armor so he dupes you into false confidence. Man weight + armor + he won't feel a thing + you got slammed with steel and not skin = ouchie...
There are other concerns...but as for me? In this scenario where I fight unarmored against and armored opponent, my strategy is to disengage and run away. I'll come back later when I've got some armor myself. If it's a Roman arena death match where there are two going in and one coming out then I'll do my best and pray Odin gives him a heart attack before he dices me to little bits.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2019 1:18:07 GMT
If you were both fighting in armor, what would you do? Would your approach to armored fighting just be to take every swing that comes your way and hope that it doesn't knock you on your back?
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Mar 14, 2019 10:39:17 GMT
I think in a case of armor vs. armor it would be best to go in hot, go in violent, and don't let up until he's on the ground not moving. Armor protects against cuts and stabs, but it's not so good for being thrown on the ground and bashed with heavy blunt objects to the head- then stab him (or her, I make no gender distinctions here) through the eye-slit with a dagger. Just like they did in olden times.
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,632
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Mar 14, 2019 18:21:27 GMT
Clearly, armor allows one to expend less effort on active defenses (blocks, parries, voids, etc.), and expend more effort on offense. In a match between one armored combatant and one unarmored combatant, the armored is able to be more aggressive, while the unarmored must primarily focus on defense, while only taking offensive action when opportunity presents itself and simultaneously maintaining some degree of defensive posture. Thus, the armored opponent is almost always at a significant advantage when fighting an unarmored opponent.
In a "white room" fight between two otherwise equal combatants, the armored one will almost always defeat the unarmored one, and any outlying results will be due to random chance (or blind luck if you prefer).
|
|
|
Post by elbrittania39 on Mar 14, 2019 19:09:02 GMT
Clearly, armor allows one to expend less effort on active defenses (blocks, parries, voids, etc.), and expend more effort on offense. In a match between one armored combatant and one unarmored combatant, the armored is able to be more aggressive, while the unarmored must primarily focus on defense, while only taking offensive action when opportunity presents itself and simultaneously maintaining some degree of defensive posture. Thus, the armored opponent is almost always at a significant advantage when fighting an unarmored opponent. In a "white room" fight between two otherwise equal combatants, the armored one will almost always defeat the unarmored one, and any outlying results will be due to random chance (or blind luck if you prefer). I strongly agree with your point about armor enabling greater offense. One thing I always think about when it comes to armor is football players. A football player can just hurl their weight around with relativley little concern about getting injured because of their equipment which is basically a typer of armor. If those same players tried to tackle, dive, and check that way without equipment, their chance of injury would go way up and they would probably way more hesitant to truly commit their weight and strength to those movements.
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Mar 14, 2019 21:50:04 GMT
Yes, I think that was the point I was trying to make is that armor is not just defensive. You can hit with it, you can ram people with it, and because you are wearing it, you won't get hurt in doing so. In a real fight in which both opponents are actively trying to kill each other for real, it only stands to reason that one would use every available asset to it's fullest use, and that includes jamming an armored forearm into an opponent's face with the intention of caving in the skull- you don't need a warhammer because YOU ARE the hammer.
Just because you are wearing armor doesn't mean you have to stand around and wait to be hit. I've always viewed armor as an offensive asset: you can attack more viciously without concern of getting yourself hurt in the process
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2019 21:54:01 GMT
The same applies to being without armor too, I can knock into the other guy, and if he thinks wearing some steel or whatever means he can disregard me, so much the better. Running to class soon but will try to write a bit more either tonight or after work. Cheers fellows.
|
|
|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Mar 14, 2019 21:59:32 GMT
Don't grapple with an armored opponent unless you REALLY know what you're doing. Armored sword fighting is all about grappling and being encased in steel with steel fists, it gets nasty real quick for the un-armored guy. What you want to do is keep distance, circle, attack from the sides where he can't see well (we'll assume a full helmet here, if he doesn't have one, well, go for the face with a thrust) and hopefully either get a thrust into a weak spot or get him to the ground by damaging the legs or blunt force trauma. Particularly the legs are a viable target because very often, the armored guy can't see his own legs nor an incoming low attack and the legs often are still more vulnerable than the torso.
All in all, chances are you're screwed anyway if all you have is a sword. Good armor rocks. Polearms are what you really need to deal with armored opponents, especially if you yourself are unarmored.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Mar 14, 2019 23:34:21 GMT
I've played around with this concept after armored demos. Running around a lot isn't a realistic option since the fight is either going to be in a dueling ring or on a battlefield (if we're being authentic). Running = he just gets on his HORSE and uses a LANCE to kill you.
Sparring with equal weapons is a real problem, since he can hit you anywhere and do damage but you have to get a leveraged thrust or very powerful murder stroke to connect.
The best I've come up with is what others have suggested--get in close and grapple. The armor actually makes it easier once the weapons are gone, since he has limited sensation and is off balance. Also armor isn't *that* heavy unless it's just crap. He can punch you of course, but it's difficult for him to do once in the bind. So you need to get INSIDE--not just at boxing range. Grapple him. I've tipped an armored fighter over my knee onto his head before. That learned him! Sadly most of the time I get killed before I get close to doing that. So it's a pretty remote chance of success no matter what strategy you use. Other than, you know, bullets.
|
|
|
Post by leviathansteak on Mar 14, 2019 23:48:20 GMT
See while his armour can function as a weapon, id much rather be at kissing range with him swinging his steel fists at me, rather than be at long range with him swinging a sword at me..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2019 2:02:51 GMT
Armor is pretty great at protecting you from slashing, and to a good extent cutting and stabbing. It does nothing whatsoever to help against being pushed or pulled and it doesn't project a force field that dampens inertia.
I might not cut through a helmet, but you will not want to be taking one to the side of the head. How scratched up the helmet looks afterwards will be the least of your concerns. If you think you get to laugh off an incoming strike just because of a fancy suit, then I think you'll be in for a bad day.
|
|
|
Post by zabazagobo on Mar 15, 2019 20:50:20 GMT
Armor is pretty great at protecting you from slashing, and to a good extent cutting and stabbing. It does nothing whatsoever to help against being pushed or pulled and it doesn't project a force field that dampens inertia. I might not cut through a helmet, but you will not want to be taking one to the side of the head. How scratched up the helmet looks afterwards will be the least of your concerns. If you think you get to laugh off an incoming strike just because of a fancy suit, then I think you'll be in for a bad day. This is a really good point; concussions are a very real thing, and the right kind of percussive strike to the helm could injure or disorient the armored opponent to the extent they are disabled for the combat.
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,632
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Mar 15, 2019 22:26:37 GMT
Armor is pretty great at protecting you from slashing, and to a good extent cutting and stabbing. It does nothing whatsoever to help against being pushed or pulled and it doesn't project a force field that dampens inertia. I might not cut through a helmet, but you will not want to be taking one to the side of the head. How scratched up the helmet looks afterwards will be the least of your concerns. If you think you get to laugh off an incoming strike just because of a fancy suit, then I think you'll be in for a bad day. You seem to be missing the key distinction that if you are in measure to bonk his helmet he is also in measure to splat your unprotected head. I'd take a concussion over a cranial skylight any day of the week.
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,632
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Mar 15, 2019 22:29:16 GMT
Armor is pretty great at protecting you from slashing, and to a good extent cutting and stabbing. It does nothing whatsoever to help against being pushed or pulled and it doesn't project a force field that dampens inertia. I might not cut through a helmet, but you will not want to be taking one to the side of the head. How scratched up the helmet looks afterwards will be the least of your concerns. If you think you get to laugh off an incoming strike just because of a fancy suit, then I think you'll be in for a bad day. This is a really good point; concussions are a very real thing, and the right kind of percussive strike to the helm could injure or disorient the armored opponent to the extent they are disabled for the combat.
Sure. The armored guy's helmeted head is still more protected than the unarmored guy's. If the unarmored guy is in bludgeon range, the unarmored guy is likewise in measure to get ended (and much more easily ended at that). A mace or a warhammer doesn't magically even the playing field.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Mar 15, 2019 23:23:35 GMT
If you were both fighting in armor, what would you do? Would your approach to armored fighting just be to take every swing that comes your way and hope that it doesn't knock you on your back? It isn't a good strategy to just sit that and take everything. Not because of being knocked on your back, but because armour has gaps, because armour protects but doesn't protect perfectly, because things like (historical) plate arms and legs are usually thin enough to dent severely. Armor is pretty great at protecting you from slashing, and to a good extent cutting and stabbing. It does nothing whatsoever to help against being pushed or pulled and it doesn't project a force field that dampens inertia. I might not cut through a helmet, but you will not want to be taking one to the side of the head. How scratched up the helmet looks afterwards will be the least of your concerns. If you think you get to laugh off an incoming strike just because of a fancy suit, then I think you'll be in for a bad day. This is a really good point; concussions are a very real thing, and the right kind of percussive strike to the helm could injure or disorient the armored opponent to the extent they are disabled for the combat. Concussions happen today with sword-to-helmet. Modern padding is often better than traditional padding. The swords or sword-simulators used are often heavier than the average real thing, but there have been heavier-than-average swords in the past. So it's likely that concussions, stunning, etc. were a thing in the past. Moreso with polearms, heavy maces, etc. Given that a skilled and experienced fighter would know this, they'd be unlikely to just ignore incoming strikes. There are many options for the armoured fighter: cut/thrust at the unarmoured opponent's head/body, parry/block with edge against their arms, One can begin the thought exercise in the OP assuming an incompetent armoured opponent, but why? A competent armoured opponent will just defend against the strike as one would normally (or even as one would if unarmoured) rather than just depend on laughing it off. While laughter might be the best medicine, it certainly isn't the best defence against a sword blow. Concussion and stunning are risks to be considered. Getting knocked down by a sword blow is much less likely. Consider the lack of knockdowns in: Even with a significant size/weight difference, sword blows don't tend to knock people down: Where the HMB people go down, it's usually tripping, takedowns, kicks, and pushes: Even scaling up to polearms doesn't produce significant knockdowns: Note 1: They do try to not get hit in the head. Note 2: Spear fighting with HMB rules (no thrusts) looks pretty funny.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Mar 15, 2019 23:28:59 GMT
This: Sparring with equal weapons is a real problem, since he can hit you anywhere and do damage but you have to get a leveraged thrust or very powerful murder stroke to connect. While the OP specifies swords, it doesn't specify identical swords. As unarmoured, bring something longer. Bring a big two-hander, even - they have real potential as foot-amputators, and could be effective against armoured legs (gaps, thin armour that will dent).
|
|