Ok, so building on the touch attack topic, I'd like to talk a bit more about combat between weapons with unequal reach.

What do you think of these two situations -- and again, what do you think would *really* happen rather than how it's handled in any specific game system.

Knife vs Sword
A man with a knife is trying to stab a man with a sword.  Can he do it without opening himself up to being hit?  Does he have to fight defensively and wait for his opponent to overextend himself before he can make an attack?

The only visual (eg. movie) example of knife vs sword I can think of is Peter Pan vs Captain Hook.  Not really a great example, but Peter Pan would certainly be fighting defensively.  Any other Knife vs Sword examples?

Sword vs Spear
A man with a spear is fighting a man with a sword.  The man with the sword initially can't reach the man with the spear.  Does he have to oppen himself up to being hit to close with the spear man?  Could he try knocking the spear aside as he closes?  Once he is close enough to hit the man with the spear, could the spear still be used effectively as a weapon?  Would the spear man have to try to fall back so that he could fight effectively?

I can't think of any examples of spear vs sword combat.  Any suggestions?

Edit:

For some added background on the importance of reach in hand to hand combat, take a look at this article:  The Duel that could have changed a nation aka "Abraham Lincoln: Pit Fighter!"

Quote from: StuartKnife vs Sword
...
Does he have to fight defensively and wait for his opponent to overextend himself before he can make an attack?

Pretty much.  He'd have to be really good.  An Aikido, Ju-jitsu or Arnis master could probably pull it off, otherwise he'd be a shish kebab

Quote from: StuartSword vs SpearCould he try knocking the spear aside as he closes?

Yeah, that's his best bet

Quote from: StuartOnce he is close enough to hit the man with the spear, could the spear still be used effectively as a weapon?  Would the spear man have to try to fall back so that he could fight effectively?

Yes, or switch to using it as a quarterstaff

Here's some info on the Assegai a throwing spear, which was used as a stabbing weapon by the Zulu.



That Assegai looks to be at least 6 feet in length.

The Zulu also used a shorter style Assegai, called the Iklwa, for close-quarter combat.   This is the only image I could find of it...



The blade is longer (just under 2 feet) and the overall length is shorter.  It could definitely be used in close combat with a sword.

I'm just not sure about the longer spear... I think we have some history buffs here with an interest in the Roman era... perhaps they have some thoughts?

I would posit that the sword is the best all around weapon.  Given equally skilled competitors I'd expect the sword weilder to skewer the knife weilder.  The spear may be a closer fight, but still I'd expect the sword to win out more often than not.  The other weapons advantages come in specific circumstances.  The knife is small and concealable, easy to use for an ambush.  The spear becomes much more effective when used in formation, making a thicket of death for any that would approach.

This is just my feeling as a gaming nerd whose total melee weapon experience involves getting my ass kicked by Obryn at GenCon with padded weapons.

Well ... is the combat supposed to end with the first contact?

Because, honestly?  Unarmored opponents, one on one?  I'd bet on the knife over the sword for the kill.  The reason is simply that if the knife person is willing to take one hit then he gets dozens of little stabbies to the mid-section, while the sword guy sits there and thinks "Ouch!  Ouch!  How the hell do I get this ... Ouch! ... guy back out to the range where I can use my sword again?"

Yeah, sometimes (maybe even a lot of the time) that one sword-hit is going to kill the guy.  But the stabby-stabby business is almost always going to be fatal.

I've been trying to get at the right parts of the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting database to run the numbers myself, but have (so far) failed ... but anyway, here's a study I heard:  When you look at all fatalities where one person has a knife and one person has a gun, and you sort that by the distance at which the confrontation began, obviously the knife-guy dies more often when the confrontation starts further away.  A knife-guy trying to close 50 feet on a hand-gun is gonna die.  A gun-guy trying to fight off a knife attacker at a range of one foot is going to die.  But what I found really interesting was that (again, back when I heard the study) the break-even point, where the knife guy had equal odds with the gun, was twenty one feet.

That's a long way to close, but apparently it's doable as often as not.  Makes ya think, huh?

QuoteWell ... is the combat supposed to end with the first contact?

No, it's just some general discussion that I'll use to see if my abstracted system makes sense.  I found the advice of folks about armour helpful, and touch attacks and weapon reach were 2 of the 3 combat "thingies" I was still working out the details on.

QuoteBecause, honestly? Unarmored opponents, one on one? I'd bet on the knife over the sword for the kill. The reason is simply that if the knife person is willing to take one hit then he gets dozens of little stabbies to the mid-section, while the sword guy sits there and thinks "Ouch! Ouch! How the hell do I get this ... Ouch! ... guy back out to the range where I can use my sword again?

That's interesting.  Your example of the knife guy getting close is basically what I was thinking about the sword guy getting close to the spear guy.

In Kendo (Sword fighting) they practice the one-strike kill / maim.  I wouldn't want to take the one hit fighting someone trained in Kendo with a real sword.

Still -- this is a good observation about stabby-stabby.

Quote from: StuartIn Kendo (Sword fighting) they practice the one-strike kill / maim.  I wouldn't want to take the one hit fighting someone trained in Kendo with a real sword.

Yeah, true 'dat.

You gotta remember just how fragile people are - we don't chop people on a regular basis so we only have telly and computer games as a reference, but look at

http://www.thearma.org/Videos/NTCvids/greatswordonmeat.mpv

http://www.thearma.org/Videos/NTCvids/testingbladesandmaterials.htm

and consider that we ain't no tougher than those hunks of meat.

The wiki on the assegai seems off.  From what I've read, at least for zulus 200 years ago, it was not a throwing spear, it was close to a sword - 2 ft of handle, 2 ft of blade.  This gave a close in advantage over tribes that had longer spears (assuming both had shields).

The presence of shields would change things quite a bit.  Sword arm troops were generally able to do well against even large formations of spears because if they used their shields to get beyond the points.  A shield would also give the dagger person a much better chance of closing - Roman troops preferred a short sword for situations that became crowded and close.

For sword vs. spear, both the actual length of the spear and the room to maneuver matter.  Even close in though, the spear guy isn't lost since he still has a decent staff.

Zulu spears were designed for stabby stabby work, while their opponents would generally throw spears (ineffectually) then close in and continue the fight with their long throwing spears. Shaka Zulu, who possibly apocryphally, instituited the shorter spear, would win do to greater discipline among his troops as much as anything else. The fact that they had enough reach with their weapons (almost) as their enemies AND had less awkward spears for close in work was the technological advantage.


As for 'swords' being the premier weapon of all time, I will dispute that.

The humble club, be it a baseball bat, a length of pipe or even a flanged mace was the superior and often preferred weapon. Its not as romantic by a long shot, but maces (scepters) were the symbols of kings. They require far less training for the same lethality, and are harder to protect against as they don't require penetration to do damage.   Blunt force trauma is a bitch...

Also, what about just backing away and throwing the knife? And I'm sure a sword could break a wooden spear with a little effort.

Quote from: beejazzAlso, what about just backing away and throwing the knife? And I'm sure a sword could break a wooden spear with a little effort.

Good quality spears had hardwood shafts, and were reinforced with iron strips that made them hard to cut through. A powerful swing that was capable of cutting through them would be telegraphed, and a thrust is much faster than a swing;)

As for throwing the knife, that is not accepted as a valid lethal tactic by any source other than action movies. It is difficult to do, and of limited range and value, especially in the face of a gun. If you are close enough to throw a knife to lethal effect, you are better off closing in and stabbing the guy in the junk. :eek:

This is great input.

Would spearmen fight with their spear as a staff once the enemy is in closer range, or would they go for their backup weapon?  Any historical information on that?

I think once heavy armour was used, there were a lot more knights using maces, hammers, and axes to do the blunt trauma thing.

Good observation about the shield -- shields are handled very poorly in a lot of games.  They affect combat so much more than just adding a bit more armour to a warrior.  In addition to blocking, the shield helps you get your opponents weapon out of the way so you can attack them more easily.

Actually, if you were attacking that guy with the sword, and you can a knife AND a shield -- you'd be able to attack him without waiting for him to attack first, and you wouldn't be guaranteed of being hit.  You'd get a fighting chance.

Quote from: StuartActually, if you were attacking that guy with the sword, and you can a knife AND a shield -- you'd be able to attack him without waiting for him to attack first, and you wouldn't be guaranteed of being hit.  You'd get a fighting chance.

Or ... y'know ... knife and a big heavy stick.  You don't need anything fancy, just something that the swordsman can't ignore, and has to engage with his blade, instead of "engaging" your tender flesh.

Yes -- that's true!  And makes me think of this link: Self-defence with a Walking-stick -- which is really worth checking out if you're interested in this stuff.