Deadliest Warrior (In a more sensical fashion)

[sperki]

Is this a one vs. one fight? If it is, I'd take the guy without armor, but with a long bow, 6 arrows, and 2 acres of space. We can watch the dude with armor hustle across the field and turn into a pin cushion.

[Liver Punch]

Is this a one vs. one fight? If it is, I'd take the guy without armor, but with a long bow, 6 arrows, and 2 acres of space. We can watch the dude with armor hustle across the field and turn into a pin cushion.

No bows! (where's your honor, lol) Anyhow, the shield of the armored guy certainly hurts a bow's abilities.

As to MP's point, the pilum would do bad things to someone in armor...that is, assuming that it didn't miss. I do like a spiked war hammer though. Perhaps it could take place of the thrusting shield, as it would have little effect against heavy armor. However, against someone who was lightly armored and quick....it all gets a little complicated.

The halbred might also be a good addition, because you retain a thrusting tip. It's only downside is being slower due to additional weight....this is tricky.

[MasterPain]

The specific purposes of many weapons creates a paper-rock-scissors effect that makes it hard to determine one set as the "best." Much like how aikijutsu is of limited use against a boxer, but is great against someone swinging a crowbar.

[Liver Punch]

The specific purposes of many weapons creates a paper-rock-scissors effect that makes it hard to determine one set as the "best." Much like how aikijutsu is of limited use against a boxer, but is great against someone swinging a crowbar.

So it would seem - although, if you cover my rock with your paper, and I hit you with my rock... I think the best way to test all of this out is going to require that we build these weapons to test them. Yes...that'll do just nicely.

[Groinstrike]

The specific purposes of many weapons creates a paper-rock-scissors effect that makes it hard to determine one set as the "best." Much like how aikijutsu is of limited use against a boxer, but is great against someone swinging a crowbar.

So it would seem - although, if you cover my rock with your paper, and I hit you with my rock... I think the best way to test all of this out is going to require that we build these weapons to test them. Yes...that'll do just nicely.

How did i somehow know that metallurgy would be involved before this discussion was over.

[sperki]

Liver Punch, apparently I didn't read all the rules. Alright, no bows. This is why successful armies consist of a variety of types of troops. Ideally your army has a few rocks, some paper, and multiple scissors. And more of them than the enemy

[Liver Punch]

Liver Punch, apparently I didn't read all the rules. Alright, no bows. This is why successful armies consist of a variety of types of troops. Ideally your army has a few rocks, some paper, and multiple scissors. And more of them than the enemy

And don't forget sand in the eye in case things don't go well. The idea behind this is threefold.

1) It's the combative equivalent to "bench racing" in auto sports. It's fun to do, inexpensive, and there usually isn't a right answer (we'll all try to prove we've got the right answer regardless)

2) Gladiatorial style games seem to have - historically anyhow - been a much more popular thing to watch than a full-out war. The most popular type of combat to watch has proven to be a one-on-one altercation if for no other reason because men enjoy a good "urination-contest" (censors).

3) In the worlds of chivalry and honor, there has typically been a tendency for individual and specialized infantrymen to seek each other out on the battlefield for a one-on-one fight. This was the case with Mycenaean Greece, the Samurai, and Medeival Knights - it also holds true in many tribal societies.

And, this is a very simple argument - which is always a good place to start. Eventually it will lead to building and testing weapons and armor....which is both fun and dangerous. I, for one, am still not sold on the Halberd.

[sperki]

Alright, load a guy up with a steel suit, a shield, and a heavy weapon, say an axe, and my money's on him. Well protected from nearly anything you can swing at him, but with a weapon with some serious weight behind it so he can eventually crush through the other guys tin can.

[Liver Punch]

That's not a bad idea at all - eventually that's where things went. The end of lots of armor and a heavy weapon ended up being high-quality arrows and gun-powder...but those aren't allowed in this particular "exercise".

The question becomes, can someone with north of more than 50 lbs of armor and weapons - and no horse - offer the speed and maneuverability necessary to chase around and eventually land a killing blow on someone with much less weight and more range.

The other question is whether or not someone armored lightly and carrying a shield tough enough to withstand a couple of heavy blows can get close enough to the knight to land one or two shots with an armor piercing dagger or war hammer.

I tend to lean toward no on the first question and yes on the second. If our lightly armored guy can absorb one shot with his shield in route to planting one shot through the armor...he's going to win. I think if we then compound this with the idea that our lightly armored guy might even have a throwing weapon (such as a javelin), his chances of success go up even more.

As to whether or not a small, circular shield can handle that sort of abuse could certainly be a game changer.