• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Cutlass vs Sword

While I was debating between using CT combat and Striker combat for the next game, I noticed something somewhat interesting. In CT (Traveller Book), a cutlass is almost in every way better than a sword, more damage, better to hit, mostly. The cutlass is slightly heavier, but the extra die of damage is more than worth it. But, on the Striker chart, a sword is almost in every way better than a cutlass, and is lighter to boot.

I wonder why the back and forth. Not that swords and cutlasses end up being the linchpin of the game or anything.
 
Because a lot of people haven't got a clue what a cutlass really was/is.

It is a short slightly curved single edged sword usually employed in a cutting motion but with a point sharp enough to stab with.

It was popular for hand to hand combat on board ships because of its small size and easy of use.

Obviously the writers of Striker used this historical model while the writers of CT had a completely different - and wrong - idea of what a cutlass was.
 
Because a lot of people haven't got a clue what a cutlass really was/is.

It is a short slightly curved single edged sword usually employed in a cutting motion but with a point sharp enough to stab with.

It was popular for hand to hand combat on board ships because of its small size and easy of use.

Obviously the writers of Striker used this historical model while the writers of CT had a completely different - and wrong - idea of what a cutlass was.

Actually, Mike, striker is wrong, not CT. The marines don't carry cutlasses (despite calling them that), but shamsheers, and the mamluke shamsheer has gained popularity in the USMC since the early 19th C, but was called a cutlass none-the-less.

Naval cutlasses are broad bladed, heavy, usually short, slightly to heavily curved 1 –or– 1.5 edged, partial basket hilted, usually quillon-less chopping sword, tho' often a triangular thrusting/slashing tip is present for added utility, but more curved examples incapable of in-line thrust are plentiful. The term also covers machetes with basket hilts.

The Shamsheer, by comparison, is a narrow to medium (1"-2" wide) even or tapering slightly to severely curved blade, usually with quillons along the direction of swing, with a thrusting point, and often no basket; when present, a knucklebow in the line of swing is normal. The best modern examples are the Marine NCO's blades. Which, for regulation purposes are called cutlasses, but don't match the term's actual meaning.
 
Last edited:
While you are at it, change foil to rapier, as a foil isn't live steel by name in general.
 
While I was debating between using CT combat and Striker combat for the next game, I noticed something somewhat interesting. In CT (Traveller Book), a cutlass is almost in every way better than a sword, more damage, better to hit, mostly. The cutlass is slightly heavier, but the extra die of damage is more than worth it. But, on the Striker chart, a sword is almost in every way better than a cutlass, and is lighter to boot.

I wonder why the back and forth. Not that swords and cutlasses end up being the linchpin of the game or anything.

My simple solution is to use MGT for bladed weapons - a blade is a shortsword doing 2d6, a cutlass is a curved shortsword doing 2d6+4 and a sword is a longsword doing 3d6 damage (as something between a cutlass and a broadsword, i.e. a greatsword. I think this is more reasonable than a cutlass doing more damage than a sword - just switch 'em!
 
While you are at it, change foil to rapier, as a foil isn't live steel by name in general.

True, but foils have been known to be sharpened for certain forms of dueling... just the tip, mind you.
 
I was thinking of certain German dueling clubs practices... but, yeah, them, too.

When I was accepted to Heidelberg University thirty some years ago my mother drug her feet on her part of the paperwork until I lost my opening. A couple of years ago she finally confessed that she did it because she was convinced I'd come back with a dueling scar...
 
When I was accepted to Heidelberg University thirty some years ago my mother drug her feet on her part of the paperwork until I lost my opening. A couple of years ago she finally confessed that she did it because she was convinced I'd come back with a dueling scar...

Well, at least she meant well...
 
Back
Top