Quote from: DavetheLost;1003430Different area, different situation. You had a high homicide rate. We have an annual number of murders usually zero to less than five for the entire country. for years when our number of homicides were 0 and 2, they had 72 and 67 respectively.

Where do you think people would be safer?

Compared to what population numbers? Because you shouldn't be worried about total numbers, you should be worried about the number of victims per 100 000 population, which is much closer to expressing the likelihood of becoming a target;).

It's pretty crazy. I've never really felt consistently unsafe anywhere I've lived, and I've lived in a whole bunch of major cities, as well as in the third world.
Even places with high crime rates (short of war zones or favelas/slums) have very low chances of anything bad happening to you, as an individual.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1004544It's pretty crazy. I've never really felt consistently unsafe anywhere I've lived, and I've lived in a whole bunch of major cities, as well as in the third world.
Even places with high crime rates (short of war zones or favelas/slums) have very low chances of anything bad happening to you, as an individual.

So true. Common sense will keep you  safe most places. People here are scared to go to Tijuana because of drug cartel violence that has about a 0.0000001% chance of affecting any tourist who uses his brain.

Quote from: Kiero;997750Barring speciality weapons like zweihanders, a sword is a sidearm, not a primary weapon. It's the backup for when your main weapon either fails or is situationally less useful. We see this across cultures and times, the sword was always a secondary weapon. The ancient Chinese, for example, called it the "queen of battles" - the "king" was the spear.

Many RPGs undervalue the spear, not least later editions of D&D introducing silly, arbitrary rules like regular war-spears requiring two hands to use.

In ACKS, the spear is king!

Quote from: Kiero;997750Barring speciality weapons like zweihanders, a sword is a sidearm, not a primary weapon. It's the backup for when your main weapon either fails or is situationally less useful. We see this across cultures and times, the sword was always a secondary weapon.  

There is at least one major exception to this; the Roman Gladius. Granted not many rpgs take place in the Roman Republic/Empire or derivatives of it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1004544It's pretty crazy. I've never really felt consistently unsafe anywhere I've lived, and I've lived in a whole bunch of major cities, as well as in the third world.
Even places with high crime rates (short of war zones or favelas/slums) have very low chances of anything bad happening to you, as an individual.

I'd feel pretty safe where I live now if I didn't have to commute on an elevated parkway with people driving, but using both hands to send text messages.

Quote from: amacris;1004623In ACKS, the spear is king!

Indeed.

Quote from: markmohrfield;1004653There is at least one major exception to this; the Roman Gladius. Granted not many rpgs take place in the Roman Republic/Empire or derivatives of it.

Not really; the pilum was primary, and it could double as a spear in a pinch. Later Republican legionaries often had a sling as well.

Quote from: Kiero;1004663Not really; the pilum was primary...

Primary in the sense of used first. But not primary in respect to which weapon  determined the outcome of battle. That was the traditional role of the gladius.

Quote from: Bren;1004670Primary in the sense of used first. But not primary in respect to which weapon  determined the outcome of battle. That was the traditional role of the gladius.

I would say a weapon which kills before they even close and often ruins enemy shields, along with being able to function as a crude spear against cavalry is much more decisive than the weapon you fall to once you close.

Quote from: Kiero;1004710I would say a weapon which kills before they even close and often ruins enemy shields, along with being able to function as a crude spear against cavalry is much more decisive than the weapon you fall to once you close.

The Roman legions were heavy infantry, that is close order troops meant to engage in melee with the enemy. The pilum was a nice extra, but the gladius was their main weapon.

Quote from: markmohrfield;1004779The Roman legions were heavy infantry, that is close order troops meant to engage in melee with the enemy. The pilum was a nice extra, but the gladius was their main weapon.

What he said.

The gladius is virtually useless against cavalry, which is the perennial problem facing any heavy infantry. Unless they have some other body of spearmen to cover them, they have to carry some anti-cavalry weapon. As demonstrated by Caesar's legionaries at Pharsalus, for example, the pilum would serve as a spear.

The gladius was still the backup once the pilum was thrown or perhaps bent from use as a spear. It certainly isn't the first weapon you'd go to when facing cavalry.

Quote from: Kiero;1005135The gladius is virtually useless against cavalry, which is the perennial problem facing any heavy infantry. Unless they have some other body of spearmen to cover them, they have to carry some anti-cavalry weapon. As demonstrated by Caesar's legionaries at Pharsalus, for example, the pilum would serve as a spear.

The gladius was still the backup once the pilum was thrown or perhaps bent from use as a spear. It certainly isn't the first weapon you'd go to when facing cavalry.

There is a great article in an out of print (unless it has been re-released) book called _The Blade of Conan_ that discusses the vulnerability of the legion (or any other sword and shield foot) against heavy cavalry and the vulnerability of heavy cavalry versus the phalanx (or other spear-armed, disciplined foot) and the vulnerability of the phalanx against the legion. I think it was written by the late Jerry Pournelle but I can't find my copy right now and it may be from one of the other contributors.

Of course, this could be complicated by missile support or terrain but it is basically scissors/paper/stone or the old AK/JTs/22.

Now I have to go find my copy of that book. There's a lot of good stuff in it. And in _The Spell of Conan_

We appear to mean different things by the word "primary." By primary I mean the weapon that likely saw the most use in the most battles. In that context the gladius and scutum were the legionary's primary armament. I find it an odd use of the term primary to refer to the pilum since the ordinary legion tactic required the soldier to, in effect, throw away his "primary" weapon. Similarly I'd find it odd to say that the primary weapon of Frankish infantry was their throwing axe. (It like the pilum was used as a missile weapon to soften up enemy infantry.)

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1005140Of course, this could be complicated by missile support or terrain but it is basically scissors/paper/stone or the old AK/JTs/22.

What is "AK/JTs/22"?

We see a similar rock-paper-scissors in the black powder period with artillery-infantry-cavalry.