I saw this game in the finals of IGotY and really loved the concept/implementation.
So I registered just to counter this ridiculous statement. It seems quite educated on the first glance, but obviously for a person that studies the subjects covered it is complete nonsense. The educated tone only adds to the damage because it makes the impact greater.
I do not claim to understand a great deal about all of the weapons/principles touched in this post. However I feel obliged to share my knowledge. I am a student of HEMA(Historical European Martial Arts) for more than a year now, specializing in the study of the longsword(in the Liechtenauer tradition). Thus I have a firm connection with the subject.
I do not have the time nor the knowledge needed to discuss all of the inaccuracies, however I will touch the most obvious issues.
First the most striking example - the statement that fighting techniques of 1 weapon are superior to another.
A weapon of war was an instrument that the life of the man wielding it depended on. Furthermore, if he was a professional he studied it for many years. Now, if that weapon was known as being inferior to others, why would he use it?
Every weapon serves its very specific purpose, and can only be judged in its historical context. A sword wielding man will win in an encounter with a similarly skilled in the use of his own weapon knife fighter. But his sword will be useless versus a man with a polearm.
Furthermore - even the same weapons can provide an advantage or a disadvantage in different situations.
Consider the following example. Our swordsman has now to dispatch an archer equipped with a short bow and a considerable amount of arrows. If the action takes place in the open field and they stand a couple hundred feet apart the swordsman is doomed. But if they are right next to each other, or are placed in an enclosed space the swordsman will probably top his opponent.
That brings me back to my original point - without context, there is absolutely no way to measure a weapons strength/weakness.
Next - the author of the topic makes assumptions about the way different arms operate in a manner that seems a little strange to me. For example:
Verticle swipes do more damage but are slower. Horizontal swipes do less damage, but are faster and have more of a chance to get around a shield.
Now I cannot possibly see a way someone can say such a thing without holding a sharp axe in his hand, and "swiping" it with full force and intent at a shield wielding person.
I also cannot possibly see that happening. So this statement is completely useless in terms of creditability unless it's backed up by historical evidence.
The same goes for about 50% of the statements here.
It makes me quite sad that people say all these things about double handed axes that
like it's a well established fact. It is plain wrong. You cannot cut through plate armor. Much like you simply cannotcut through heavy armour and shields like butter
! At their best, axes could hack trough plate armor, or penetrate it with different kinds of spikes,though that too demanded a very specific angle for the hit.cut right through the sword
Last but not least - there is no such thing as
!plate mail armour
No such thing!
Plate==Plate. Armor that consisted of curved(to make cutting hits slide on it) sheets of metal. Its use started in the High Middle Ages. It made all cutting weapons pretty much useless against itself, and simulated the change in warrior armament. For example the longsword became much more thrust oriented, so you could thrust between the plates. However this type of armor was very,very hard to make, and only wealthy warriors(mostly knight and royalty) could afford it. But before it another type of armor was used - chainmail.
Mail==Chainmail. This type of armor was made out of metal rings connected together by various techniques. It was used as early as the Dark Ages by the Vikings, and protected to a cetain degree against arrows and cutting weapons. It could be penetrated by a well landed hit of a sword axe. Chainmail was worn under plate mail when the latter was used.
For real education about the methods and tools of Medieval warfare I recommend the Knight series by the gentleman Ewart Oakeshott(deceased), a very known researcher of the arms and armor of that period.
http://www.amazon.com/s/search-alias=bo ... 0Oakeshott