Swords

[knirirr]

I have just signed up, and was wondering how many people here have much use of swordplay in their Traveller games. Although I happen to like swords (running a martial arts school where I teach their use, &c.) I find that I avoid them in games. Perhaps it's because it's difficult to treat them in a realistic manner. Lace & Steel came very close, and the rules can be bolted on to CT/MT if a duel must be fought, but it can get time-consuming otherwise.

What brought this on was looking at the 2320 playtest file containing information on melee weapons. It set off one other train of thought as well: I noticed that Japanese swords were singled out for special attention, the katana being shown as deadlier than other swords. From what I know of using it, and other swords, I think it a rather over-rated weapon, no better than weapons of any other nation. Nor is the fighting system that accompanies it anything special. It is, however, very fashionable at the moment. It's always been the case that swords have been influenced by fashion - the rapier became very popular amongst the upper classes in the late 16th/early 17th century mainly for reasons of fashion, and fashionable swords and their associated art tend to be considered deadlier than unfashionable ones.

I therefore wonder for how long the Japanese swords will stay in fashion. In the West there have been two rediscoveries of our own martial arts heritage - one about a century ago that was killed off by WW1, and there's one underway now. Presumably the current one would be killed off by the twilight war, but if enough records survived then there could always be another.

 

[Golan2072]

I see swords as used for both physical excersize in cramped shipboard conditions (sure, you need SOME space for swordplay, but less than for most other team sports), due to Imperial Marines traditions, and as ceremonial weapons. As you've pointed out, some Nobles will also find them to their liking and see dueling (though rarely to death) as a traditional way to defend their honor.

On the other hand, I tend to prefer a knife (or dagger or blade) over a sword - concealable, multi-functional, discrete (sp?) and probably the most acceptable weapon in most circumstances. No Scout, Merchant, or, more importantly, Rogue, would be caught without one.

In the medieval times, Oriental (and, to a lesser degree, middle-eastern) bladesmiths were far more sphisticated than their European counterparts. European swords were quite blunt and used their weight and the weilder's physical strength to wound the opponent; katanas were SHARP, especially the more expensive ones. And far more difficult to make. I don't think this difference is relevant ever since the industrial revolution, and especially not with modern alloys and techniques.

 

[leadhead]

Swords, believe it or not, are excellent Zero-G weapons. There is no recoil and swords that can be used with very limited motion (like a rapier) would be ver useful, particularly in no atmosphere or harmful atmosphere zero-g conditions (all you have to do is pierce the other guy's vacc suit).

I know it sounds weird, with all the possibilities for laser and gauss weapons on the horizon but the Renaissance era pointy steel rod will probably have military value again in the future if we ever do expand into space.

 

[knirirr]

Your other points seem reasonable, but this...

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:

In the medieval times, Oriental (and, to a lesser degree, middle-eastern) bladesmiths were far more sphisticated than their European counterparts. European swords were quite blunt and used their weight and the weilder's physical strength to wound the opponent; katanas were SHARP, especially the more expensive ones. And far more difficult to make.

...turns out not to be the case.
Again, I suspect the fasionable nature of the weapon leads to such myths being sustained. There was not really any significant difference in quality then than there is now, and even if we assume that the construction quality of the weapons is the same, then the design/art does not give any advantage.

 

[knirirr]

Originally posted by leadhead:
Swords, believe it or not, are excellent Zero-G weapons. There is no recoil and swords that can be used with very limited motion (like a rapier) would be ver useful, particularly in no atmosphere or harmful atmosphere zero-g conditions (all you have to do is pierce the other guy's vacc suit).

Zero-G sword combat is something I'd be very interested to try out. I'm not entirely convinced that it would work, though, as the reaction against moving one's weapon could cause one's body to move in the opposite direction, unless grounded (magentic boots, perhaps?).
Some sort of piercing weapon would, as you say, seem to be the ideal choice. Perhaps spring-loaded bayonets, as are sometimes seen affixed to 18th century blunderbusses will make a comeback. a 12" spike that does not get in the way until you need it might be very useful.
The main problem when fighting with thrusting weapons is what is called the "exchanged thrust", where both parties thrust simultaneously and hit each other. Modern sport fencing awards the hit to he who had the straightest arm first, but with sharps it can result in both being killed. Even with a lot of training this can still happen, particularly if both parties are very aggressive and keen to press forward - as marines would be trained to be. This was the one thing that Lace & Steel handled poorly, but perhaps the MT rules with a separate "see the opportunity" and then "deliver the thrust" roll might be able to simulate. If both see the opportunity they may both attack at the same time, and it would therefore be necessary to stop one's opponent from seeing an opening. Some 18th century texts discuss this in relation to the small-sword, essentially what MT rules called a "foil".

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by knirirr:
Your other points seem reasonable, but this...

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:

In the medieval times, Oriental (and, to a lesser degree, middle-eastern) bladesmiths were far more sphisticated than their European counterparts. European swords were quite blunt and used their weight and the weilder's physical strength to wound the opponent; katanas were SHARP, especially the more expensive ones. And far more difficult to make.

...turns out not to be the case.
Again, I suspect the fasionable nature of the weapon leads to such myths being sustained. There was not really any significant difference in quality then than there is now, and even if we assume that the construction quality of the weapons is the same, then the design/art does not give any advantage. </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, my knowledge of pre-industrial metallurgy isn't THAT good. This was just the impression I had from a few amature blacksmiths I know.

I see shipboard melee combat as involving small thrusting blades, from knives to small swords and probably rapiers, with the cramped surroundings ruling out the use of heavy, swung weapons such as the larger swords, claymores (sp?) and polearms.

A bayonet is also a desirable weapon, as, while it it quite long when attached to a rifle, is mostly used in thrusting, and allows the Marine's gauss rifle into a thrusting weapon immidiately if needed. If detached from the rifle, it serves as a knife with all advantages listed above. The saying "do not bring a knife to a gunfight" is correct in most cases except for those in which the "knife" (bayonet) is attached below the barrel of your gun...

IMTU only Solar Triumvirate Marines (and Lydia Consortium ones too) train with cutlasses as a form of ceremonial combat and ohysical excersize; bayonets are used in real melee. Alliance marines carry both a blade (as in LBB1) and a bayonet; Matriarchate boarding parties have cyber-implanted handblades and claws.

 

[knirirr]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
Sorry, my knowledge of pre-industrial metallurgy isn't THAT good. This was just the impression I had from a few amature blacksmiths I know.

No problem - I don't know much metallurgy myself (just how to use swords . What I hear comes from metallurgists. There are often interesting lectures organised by the curator of the Wallace Collection in London where sword/armour construction is discussed.

 

[Scarecrow]

I thought katanas had been superceded now by "Daiklaves" - Final Fantasy swords the size of surfboards but light as a feather!

I always had a problem with swords in sci-fi especially that bizarre sci-fi trope, the 'vibro-blade' (sudder!) but then Lightsabres are certainly cool and as a few people have suggested, swords make excellent space weapons. I think it depends on how they look. If they're 19th century weapons as they are often depicted then it looks wrong. if, however, they look like the kind of weapon that might be produced with 3I technology then it works a lot better for me.

Crow

 

[stofsk]

Originally posted by knirirr:
Your other points seem reasonable, but this...

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:

In the medieval times, Oriental (and, to a lesser degree, middle-eastern) bladesmiths were far more sphisticated than their European counterparts. European swords were quite blunt and used their weight and the weilder's physical strength to wound the opponent; katanas were SHARP, especially the more expensive ones. And far more difficult to make.

...turns out not to be the case.</font>[/QUOTE]Right. Katanas are sharp but brittle, and thus they easily break.

If European swords require more strength to use then so be it, who cares? Different culture, different style. But just because a sword is sharp doesn't make it fantastic in other areas. Usually if you emphasise one area you have to de-emphasise another (if you want a BB to be fast, you have to cut back on armour or big guns, and vice versa; same analogy with a sword, if you want it to be sharp chances are it's going to be brittle).

Personally I'm sick of the fad. It's particularly outrageous down here, where practically every sword related incident starts and ends with the sentence "Deranged maniac causes trouble with a 'Samurai Sword'." Australia has no culture and really just seizes on a shiny thing because the bogans think it's neat. Whereas in Europe or Japan, a sword is a sign of many things (heritage, wealth in the case of a well-made, well-smithed sword, Nobility in the sense 'this sword has been in the family since way back when' etc) down here it's a sign that the bogans have found a cheap $50 flea market sword and want to play.

 

[stofsk]

Originally posted by knirirr:
Your other points seem reasonable, but this...

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:

In the medieval times, Oriental (and, to a lesser degree, middle-eastern) bladesmiths were far more sphisticated than their European counterparts. European swords were quite blunt and used their weight and the weilder's physical strength to wound the opponent; katanas were SHARP, especially the more expensive ones. And far more difficult to make.

...turns out not to be the case.</font>[/QUOTE]Right. Katanas are sharp but brittle, and thus they easily break.

If European swords require more strength to use then so be it, who cares? Different culture, different style. But just because a sword is sharp doesn't make it fantastic in other areas. Usually if you emphasise one area you have to de-emphasise another (if you want a BB to be fast, you have to cut back on armour or big guns, and vice versa; same analogy with a sword, if you want it to be sharp chances are it's going to be brittle).

Personally I'm sick of the fad. It's particularly outrageous down here, where practically every sword related incident starts and ends with the sentence "Deranged maniac causes trouble with a 'Samurai Sword'." Australia has no culture and really just seizes on a shiny thing because the bogans think it's neat. Whereas in Europe or Japan, a sword is a sign of many things (heritage, wealth in the case of a well-made, well-smithed sword, Nobility in the sense 'this sword has been in the family since way back when' etc) down here it's a sign that the bogans have found a cheap $50 flea market sword and want to play.

 

[stofsk]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
In the medieval times, Oriental (and, to a lesser degree, middle-eastern)

Oriental doesn't refer to Asian. Orientalism is a bygone term from the era of Colonialism, and it basically meant "Places that aren't Europe". The Middle-East, India, and Asia, and everything in between, were all part of the 'Orient'.

 

[knirirr]

Originally posted by stofsk:

If European swords require more strength to use then so be it, who cares? Different culture, different style.

They're actually not "blunt" as commonly imagined. Something as sharp as a katana is alleged to be would indeed be rather brittle. Brittleness was also a problem with small-swords, which were sometimes made that way to give a good point, but were more likely to break if roughly handled.
A western back-sword or broad-sword is sharp in the same way as an axe is sharp - it has a good edge but you certainly wouldn't shave with it. What makes the cut is the speed of the blow, the faster the better as force is proportional to the square of the velocity. This does not require great strength, although it always helps, nor does it require great swings. In fact, swinging one's sword through an enormous arc is not only unnecessary to deliver a good blow, it is counter productive due to the time it takes. I have seen small women able to deliver serious cuts with a back-sword once they are taught the necessary technique.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

"Zero-G sword combat is something I'd be very interested to try out. I'm not entirely convinced that it would work, though, as the reaction against moving one's weapon could cause one's body to move in the opposite direction, unless grounded (magentic boots, perhaps?)."

Yup, that's how I see it. They also take a lot of training to use well. Just use a laser.

 

[parmasson]

Grav plates off, a darkened corridor with exposed pipes carrying loads of good stuff, an enemy at the other end and one slightly too brave ex-marine with his saber. He coils himself like a spring against the wall, pushes off with his saber out and catches the enemy right in the chest. Of course I make situations like that just so they can use their swords but the effect was cool to imagine.

 

[knirirr]

Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:

Yup, that's how I see it. They also take a lot of training to use well. Just use a laser.

Sounds good to me - I rather like lasers.

 

[stofsk]

Make something up to the effect of lasers are rare and/or expensive, thus a sword is 'good enough' to work in a pinch. Though you could also go down the route of "Well gee, this is the Long Night so it's not like we've got shops throwing lasers at us on the cheap."

Sometimes it's good to have a weapon that doesn't need to be reloaded. If it were my campaign there would be a spot for lasers, guns, and swords/knives.

 

[parmasson]

By stofsk…
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">If it were my campaign there would be a spot for lasers, guns, and swords/knives.</pre>[/QUOTE]I like the idea that a character needs different weapons for different settings. In the field you might need a gauss rifle, in a zero-g environment a laser would be better. If you are surrounded by huge pressurized hydrogen storage tanks swords or belters’ axes might most useful.

 

[deadlock]

Greetings and salutations,

Right. Katanas are sharp but brittle, and thus they easily break.

Are you sure? I have used katanas as well as own two and they seem very sturdy if made correctly and/or by a master.

I've hacked a practice dummy that was made to the consistency of a human body. Of course, the katanas were well-made and well-maintained. The really old katana I saw from the mid-16th century looked very strong (touching it meant death; stayed on other side of room).

 

[Uncle Bob]

I almost missed a sword post...
Katana's vary a great deal in quality. Recent katanas (like most WWII trophies) are made of Western-style steel, and are just as good (or not) as a western saber. Antique katanas can be mediocre to superb, the best are a wonderful blend of toughness and sharpness marginally better than western steel.

But a lot of mediocre to good antique blades tend to be brittle, which is why they are often a little thick. European swords also were sometimes brittle when they were made of layered steel (latter Roman to Viking swords). After A.D 850 Europeans used the Catalan forge to produce large quantities of steel so they no longer needed to layer and fold small pieces of steel. Crucible steel (pulad or "damascus" steel) from central and south Asia was even better, at least until Europeans developed the blast furnace in the 14th Century.

Rapiers are kind of heavy, I really don't see them in zero-G. Daggers, blades and smallswords ("foils"), yeah. Especially if the fascist ships crew locks up your PGMPs. IMTU the Marines use blades rather than cutlasses because swinging a cutlass tends to pull you off balance.

Oh yeah, Angelo in his book The School of Fencing (1787? English translation of the 1750s French text) recommends only buying a smallsword if it can be bent into a circle and then springs back straight. Not what I call brittle.

And, really, a 9mm autopistol recoils from an 8 g bullet at 350 m/s so a 80 Kg shooter in zero G moves backward at under 0.03 m/s. OK, torque and rotation might be tricky but an inch per second doesn't seem uncontrollable.

 

[knirirr]

Originally posted by Uncle Bob:

Oh yeah, Angelo in his book The School of Fencing (1787? English translation of the 1750s French text) recommends only buying a smallsword if it can be bent into a circle and then springs back straight. Not what I call brittle.

Similarly, Sir William Hope (1707) said:

"A blade of that mettal, which will endure the greatest stress, is to be accounted by far the most fit for service. Therefore 'tis better to have a poor man's blade (as we commonly call it) that stands in the bend, that one of a harder mettal, but brittle as glass."

Evidently, if these masters saw fit to offer such advice, then there must have been some rather brittle swords about for them to warn their scholars against.

Since you bring up the term "foil", what do you think to my chances of getting the terminology within these games adjusted, e.g. replaicing "foil" with "smallsword", "shortsword" with "messer", "longsword" with "shortsword" and "greatsword" with "longsword"? Probably quite low, I'd imagine.