Popular weapons *PWN* better ones in RPGs

[laclongquan]

AND THAT is proving my point. They were committing strategic overreach, on the sea as well as on the lands. They should have left damn well enough alone, dealing with what's already on their plate already, not to get another prey. A distant prey at that, considering the whole Pacific Ocean between.

 

[Mystary!]

Every conquerer face the same problem with occupations, and most suffer the same fate. Unless they have vastly superior weapons, which Japan didn't

 

[Norfleet]

Grenade effective radius is actually really small - but their effect inside inside that radius is pretty laughable in most RPGs, I agree. Even JA2 screws it up there - a frag grenade 1-3 tiles from your merc should be instant death. Which is why I always up the explosive damage by 300%.

To be fair, stock JA2 is often both too generous and not generous enough. Someone being shot in the head with a 5.56 can lose their head in a shower of gore. This never happens in real life. Meanwhile, a man shot in the squarely in the head with a .50 cal is merely spun around, not even knocked down, and more importantly, is still fighting and still has a head. I recall a damage increase of about 150-200% for guns and about 300% for explosives tends to correct the unrealism there. Does make the game hella-hard for you, though!

Venom tends to be laughably underpowered as well. Instead of crippling the victim within a matter of seconds, it causes generalized status penalties or insignificant damage over a long period of time.

As far as I know, there's no poison in existence which will kill or incapacitate in merely "seconds". Even the deadliest neurotoxins available will take a minute or more to take effect. Deadly substances just can't suffuse through the target organism's body fast enough to kill in "seconds". The notion of instantly toxic substances is purely a Hollywood creation. In a "realistic" scenario, if you poison-dart a charging barbarian, it will have absolutely no effect on him in the immediate term. He will skewer and dismember you...and then well after the battle has been resolved, he will drop dead. This makes poisoning purely a tactic for hunting or assassination, in which you do not expect to engage your target in direct combat, as anything you can use will not stop him from killing you, while if you expect to win, you'll still have to take him down by normal means, after which he will die of poisoning if he lived, well after he has ceased to be a threat. Very few are going to thus intentionally bother to poison their weapons, and none that do are going to engage the character in a stand-up fight. Most use of poisoning will be combatants taking advantage of naturally occurring noxiousness, smearing their weapons in dirt and shit, hoping you get a nasty infection, rather than purposefully relying on toxic effects. "Poison damage" in games is thus unnaturally fast-acting, and simultaneously more annoying than lethal.

 

[Fowyr]

As far as I know, there's no poison in existence which will kill or incapacitate in merely "seconds". Even the deadliest neurotoxins available will take a minute or more to take effect. Deadly substances just can't suffuse through the target organism's body fast enough to kill in "seconds". The notion of instantly toxic substances is purely a Hollywood creation.

There is some veracity to your words, at least if you take most alkaloids, glycosides, saponins (they are mostly irritants, though) and other substances and think about peroral administration. Common causes of death is renal and liver failure and it takes some time.
There are substances that could cause instant death. Fumes of HCN or getting some potassium cyanide directly into bloodstream (via poisoned dart, e.g.) Even peroral application of KCN could lead to loss of consciousness in minute or two and fast death.

At least that I remember from several half-forgotten toxicology books.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Thick sword isn't very good at cutting - more flesh to displace = worse cutting power. Yes katana is curved but not vey curved. Sabres were curved a lot more AND were less thick than katanas

Katanas were slicing weapons, they were not meant to cut using a slashing motion. Look at the section of the blabe:

https://www.google.com/search?q=spring-tampered&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=9dojVNTkCMnB7Aab3IDICg&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1680&bih=935#tbm=isch&q=katana section

It is only the tapered part that is meant to do the cutting, and that in a slicing motion. If you've ever seen a butcher slice his meat you can get a mental picture of what a katana was able to do to the human body. I'm all for cutting the katana myth up to size (pun intended), but this doesn't mean the sword wasn't well designed for what it was meant to do. European long swords were more versatile since they were tapered on both sides and could be used for stabbing (they were also better at cutting since that is what they were meant to do, cut through armor, usually mail, which was the most common type of armor for much of medieval history), but katanas would seem more practical when used while riding a horse, which i think is how samurai often thought.

At any rate, i think those type of arguments benefit from a bit of historical perspective. If swords were common in times when those weapons were actually used in combat than it means swords were effective. Arguing that a warhammer was a better weapon is kinda pointless if the people actually using this stuff didn't agree.

 

[drae]

they were also better at cutting since that is what they were meant to do, cut through armor, usually mail, which was the most common type of armor for much of medieval history), but katanas would seem more practical when used while riding a horse, which i think is how samurai often thought.

You don't cut through armour, not even mail. There has been a suggestion that the tapered points of a sword could be thrust through the links of mail, gradually widening the link from the inside till they broke, but you don't slice through it unless the armour is faulty.

There's 3 ways to bypass armour - thrust through the joints, break the bones under the armour with bludgeoning weapons, or knocking the opponent to the ground and dealing with them there.

 

[SymbolicFrank]

Who cares about ancient nobodies and political situation. I'm checking this thread every day to see if differential quenching was worth anything or not.

Nowadays? None.
At that time, when you only have very little steel of mostly crappy quality? Everything that can improve it, even if it's just a little bit, is worth it. Every little bit helps to give you an edge.

Edit: I think there is a large chance that the whole blade wouldn't handle quenching all that well and become malformed. That with it being a sandwich of many layers.

 

[GarfunkeL]

AND THAT is proving my point. They were committing strategic overreach, on the sea as well as on the lands. They should have left damn well enough alone, dealing with what's already on their plate already, not to get another prey. A distant prey at that, considering the whole Pacific Ocean between.

True, I agree 100% but since they insisted on taking on China, they really had no options once USA announced the oil embargo. Well, they could have withdrawn from China and apologized to Roosevelt and hope the sanctions are lifted. Yeah, like that could have ever happened.

 

[laclongquan]

There is leaving a sleeping dragon alone, and there is poking it on the snout.

 

[Johannes]

Thick sword isn't very good at cutting - more flesh to displace = worse cutting power. Yes katana is curved but not vey curved. Sabres were curved a lot more AND were less thick than katanas

Katanas were slicing weapons, they were not meant to cut using a slashing motion. Look at the section of the blabe:

If you mean that you always either push, or draw, the sword in/out when you hit someone like when cutting meat/bread/whatever, then that's true for any cutting sword. Again, katana isn't intrinsically different from other swords in how it's used.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Stuff about poison.

Note that I didn't say kill or knock unconscious, but 'cripple'. Which is pretty accurate for what a strong poison should be able to do in less than 2 minutes (which is what I would consider 'seconds', dozens of seconds is still seconds, not minutes) It should make it impossible to use your leg/arm, extremely difficult to breath, etc. Especially considering the things doing the poisoning in these games are either giant mythical creatures or humans with access to their venoms. But even in the real world, a decent dose of curare should stop you from using an afflicted limb within a few combat rounds.

 

[GarfunkeL]

I only just noticed the :monocle: Furry Weeaboo Nazi Nihilist title! :D Now that's a rare combination of words.

 

[SymbolicFrank]

To put it into context:

- A 5.56 round is a boosted varmint round. It's only saving grace is that the shoddy workmanship fragments the bullets on impact. According to the Geneva convention, it is illegal to use them. But tell that to the USA. And in an M4 you should use pistol rounds because the barrel is far too short.
- A 7.62x51 bullet outperforms the 5.56 one in every power scale by at least a factor of two. But they are, of course bigger and heavier.
- If your steel is abundant and of very high quality, the sword you make in hours will outperform the sword that takes years to make because the available steel is shoddy.
- The difference in hardness between iron, pig iron, low-grade steel, stainless steel and high-carbon steel is about that between chalk and granite.
- An average quality, recent steel sword would eventually cut the very best ancient katana in half, mostly because of the vast superiority of the steel.


Then again, the average distance the bullet can travel in any RPG is... 25 meter...

So, that FN FAL has about equal performance to that .22 revolver anyway.

 

[Fowyr]

To put it into context:
- A 5.56 round is a boosted varmint round. It's only saving grace is that the shoddy workmanship fragments the bullets on impact.

Nope, it have many pluses. More carried ammo, more control in the full auto and so on.

- A 7.62x51 bullet outperforms the 5.56 one in every power scale by at least a factor of two. But they are, of course bigger and heavier.

Tactics changed after WWI. Less aiming, more shoota.

According to the Geneva convention, it is illegal to use them.

Hague conventions. And they only talk about hollow point.
Basically, Germany and Russia wanted to take England down a peg because it already massively used HP bullets for .303 British round (Mk V bullet, I think.)
Just look at St.Petersburg 1868 convention about explosive projectiles that weight less than 400g. Have it stopped explosive bullets? Nope. They are just called "anti-materiel" now.

And in an M4 you should use pistol rounds because the barrel is far too short.

They think that it's suffice for city combat. Dunno, probably they right. I'm just a civvy, after all.

 

[SymbolicFrank]

To put it into context:
- A 5.56 round is a boosted varmint round. It's only saving grace is that the shoddy workmanship fragments the bullets on impact.

Nope, it have many pluses. More carried ammo, more control in the full auto and so on.

More control on full-auto. I agree.

- A 7.62x51 bullet outperforms the 5.56 one in every power scale by at least a factor of two. But they are, of course bigger and heavier.

Tactics changed after WWI. Less aiming, more shoota.

Yes. So much shoota, that most assault rifles got the full-auto setting removed, only leaving the burst one. Because the ammo carried, while lighter, lasted less time in the field.

That's also why armies nowadays incorporated the "marksman" designation, and either add one to each squad, or add special squads.

A Marksman is basically a good shooter, using a 7.62 gun in single-shot mode. He is supposed to make the kills, while the rest of the squad does the suppression.

According to the Geneva convention, it is illegal to use them.

Hague conventions. And they only talk about hollow point.
Basically, Germany and Russia wanted to take England down a peg because it already massively used HP bullets for .303 British round (Mk V bullet, I think.)
Just look at St.Petersburg 1868 convention about explosive projectiles that weight less than 400g. Have it stopped explosive bullets? Nope. They are just called "anti-materiel" now.

Yes, you are right. The Hague convention. Stupid me. But they do outlaw ammunition that fragments.

And in an M4 you should use pistol rounds because the barrel is far too short.

They think that it's suffice for city combat. Dunno, probably they right. I'm just a civvy, after all.

True. But the performance of an M4 is in league with a high-power pistol.

 

[Raghar]

Because we don't have anything better to do.

I also tried to find that anime image where one girl aims gun at head and thinks it's fun, the gun looks loaded and safety unlocked, and the other girl is her teammate. I failed because Google image search sucks.

 

[Nikaido]

Katanas were slicing weapons, they were not meant to cut using a slashing motion. Look at the section of the blabe:

https://www.google.com/search?q=spring-tampered&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=9dojVNTkCMnB7Aab3IDICg&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1680&bih=935#tbm=isch&q=katana section

It is only the tapered part that is meant to do the cutting, and that in a slicing motion. If you've ever seen a butcher slice his meat you can get a mental picture of what a katana was able to do to the human body. I'm all for cutting the katana myth up to size (pun intended), but this doesn't mean the sword wasn't well designed for what it was meant to do. European long swords were more versatile since they were tapered on both sides and could be used for stabbing (they were also better at cutting since that is what they were meant to do, cut through armor, usually mail, which was the most common type of armor for much of medieval history), but katanas would seem more practical when used while riding a horse, which i think is how samurai often thought.

At any rate, i think those type of arguments benefit from a bit of historical perspective. If swords were common in times when those weapons were actually used in combat than it means swords were effective. Arguing that a warhammer was a better weapon is kinda pointless if the people actually using this stuff didn't agree.

Sigh.
You don't need a katana to cleanly cut through human flesh.
Here's not a mental picture, but actual footage of sword to the neck action :
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=22c_1409647754
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fcd_1409622659
A single cut from a regular scimitar will behead you.
There's nothing special about katanas. They're not the only type of swords that were made for slicing flesh. And they suck against armor, which civilized people used, you know, unlike the backwaters of nipponjin.

 

[GarfunkeL]

6.5 Grendel is the ultimate assault rifle round anyway. Accept no substitutes.

 

[Lyric Suite]

I have no idea what you are trying to say. A single cut from any sharp weapon will cut your head off, as long as its big enough. How does this relate to how those weapons were actually used during combat, and what type of function their design reflected?

Katanas were designed for slicing motions. This is even how its portrayed in movies, with the samurai swiping with up and down or down and up motions left and right. European swords were designed for slashing attacks because they were used to cut through the rings of mail armor. This is why they were made longer than previous weapons and their material was more flexible to withstand the impact, where as katanas could afford to have a more rigid structure. Different use, different design philosophy.

 

[Raghar]

Well Japanese used teppo against armor, when europeans used maces.
I'm not sure who is backward country.

 

[SymbolicFrank]

European swords were designed for slashing attacks because they were used to cut through the rings of mail armor.

It isn't becoming true if you say it more often, you know. Swords didn't cut through ring mail. Definitely not the riveted European ring mail, anyway. Nothing cuts though ring mail. That's what it is designed to prevent.

 

[Utgard-Loki]

Well Japanese used teppo against armor, when europeans used maces.
I'm not sure who is backward country.

clearly the one that didn't bother to modernize their firearms until the portuguese and spanish came a knockin.

also, there isn't even a 100 year difference between the first appearance of cannons in japan and europe.

 

[Johannes]

I have no idea what you are trying to say. A single cut from any sharp weapon will cut your head off, as long as its big enough. How does this relate to how those weapons were actually used during combat, and what type of function their design reflected?

Katanas were designed for slicing motions. This is even how its portrayed in movies, with the samurai swiping with up and down or down and up motions left and right. European swords were designed for slashing attacks because they were used to cut through the rings of mail armor. This is why they were made longer than previous weapons and their material was more flexible to withstand the impact, where as katanas could afford to have a more rigid structure. Different use, different design philosophy.

Any slash with a sword is made in a slicing manner (either push-cut or draw-cut) if you want to inflict proper damage. There's next to no difference in how you cut with a katana or a longsword. You don't cut through mail, if that was a common occurence why would people keep wasting their time making and carrying the mail around? Think about it for a moment, get a grip.

 

[GarfunkeL]

You realize you're talking to Lyric Suite, right? :D :D :D

also, there isn't even a 100 year difference between the first appearance of cannons in japan and europe.

The first confirmed use of cannon in Europe was in southern Iberia, by the Moors, in the Siege of Cordoba in 1280.[40] By this time, hand guns were probably in use, as scopettieri—"gun bearers"—were mentioned in conjunction with crossbowmen, in 1281. In Iberia, the "first artillery-masters on the Peninsula" were enlisted, at around the same time.[41] The first metal cannon was the pot-de-fer. Loaded with an arrow-like bolt that was probably wrapped in leather to allow greater thrusting power, it was set off through a touch hole with a heated wire. This weapon, and others similar, were used by both the French and English during the Hundred Years' War, when cannon saw their first real use on the European battlefield.[40]

That was in 1345 and during the Hundred Years' War, both English and French switched from bolts to cannon balls.

How about Japan?

Due to its proximity with China, Japan had long been familiar with gunpowder. Primitive cannons seem to have appeared in Japan around 1270, as simple metal tubes invented in China and called Tetsuhō (鉄砲 Lit. "Iron cannon"). They don't seem to have been used extensively however, and cannon usage would only become major after the arrival of the Portuguese in 1543.[1]

A few light cannon pieces were used at the Battle of Nagashino in 1575, but the first cannons entirely made by the Japanese were cast a few months after the battle. They were bronze two-pounders, about 9 feet long, and were delivered to the warlord Oda Nobunaga.[2]

Well, if you count the Tetsuho as cannons, then they were pretty equal to Europeans. If you don't count them, then 1575 which is over 200 years after the first major European use.

 

[laclongquan]

The only thing I have against katana/wakizashi in Fallout series, is that there's no mention of maintaining. They are a complicated mix of different parts, and need regular maintaining to ensure function. They prolly could last longer in the interior desert, but the nearer the coast, the harder it is.

In the hand of amateurs, there should only be the blade remaining. Evry other parts has been rusted/lost away.