Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7

Author Topic: 'Deadliest Fighter: Vikings vs. Samurai' rant  (Read 10497 times)

Rilder

  • Bay Watcher
  • Rye Elder
    • View Profile
Re: 'Deadliest Fighter: Vikings vs. Samurai' rant
« Reply #15 on: September 05, 2009, 09:05:57 am »

And fucking PIRATES vs. KNIGHTS.

What the??? How does that even work? It would all depend on the pirates aim and how many preloaded pistols he's packing. There's no way what was effectively a sea thug could stand up to a fully armoured knight who has been training and fighting all his life in mellee. Put the knight on his horse and the pirate is doubly screwed. He would just get ridden over.

What Era of Pirates are we even talking about here?  Roman Era? 13th Century BC Pirates? 17th Century Stereotypical? Modern Day Somalians? Software Pirates?  :D
« Last Edit: September 05, 2009, 09:09:04 am by Rilder »
Logged
Steam Profile
Youtube(Let's Plays), Occasional Streaming
It felt a bit like a movie in which two stoners try to steal a military helicopter

smokingwreckage

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: 'Deadliest Fighter: Vikings vs. Samurai' rant
« Reply #16 on: September 05, 2009, 09:08:40 am »

I have no idea of viking vs samurai (does the samurai get a bow?) but knight vs pirate, even with a brace of pistols, the pirate is screwed. Even versus later firearms, given later armour, the knight wins: firearms weren't very good at penetrating armour, it's just that armour is bloody heavy and firearms are bloody cheap.

Actually I'd back the Samurai against the Viking, too.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2009, 09:10:59 am by smokingwreckage »
Logged

Jreengus

  • Bay Watcher
  • Si Hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes
    • View Profile
Re: 'Deadliest Fighter: Vikings vs. Samurai' rant
« Reply #17 on: September 05, 2009, 09:10:29 am »

Well I was thinking of the steroetypical pirate, any era of pirate would lose though because it is still a case of low life thug versus someone who lives for combat. once pirates start getting firearms they get a chance but that's only if they severely wound the knight as he closes in.
Logged
Oh yeah baby, you know you like it.  Now stop crying and get in my lungs.
Boil your penis. I'm convinced that's how it happened.
My HoM.

Muz

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: 'Deadliest Fighter: Vikings vs. Samurai' rant
« Reply #18 on: September 05, 2009, 09:23:20 am »

Vikings vs Pirates are such a better comparison.. both fight on the seas. Samurais can also go against Knights, though katanas would be pretty harmless against plate armor.
Logged
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.

sonerohi

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: 'Deadliest Fighter: Vikings vs. Samurai' rant
« Reply #19 on: September 05, 2009, 09:43:27 am »

I could see it being a draw in samurai versus knight. Knights had a shitload of heavy armor, that would make the katana virtually worthless. But it's heavy, meaning the knight would inch around the battlefield while the samurai in his lighter armor could dance around him. It would probably turn into a test of endurance. If the knight gets too exhausted he might trip, and the samurai could take his time to hit the weakspots on the armor. If the samurai gets too exhausted, he might not dodge all the way out of a cut, and the wound would slow him up.
Logged
I picked up the stone and carved my name into the wind.

Armok

  • Bay Watcher
  • God of Blood
    • View Profile
Re: 'Deadliest Fighter: Vikings vs. Samurai' rant
« Reply #20 on: September 05, 2009, 09:45:12 am »


And fucking PIRATES vs. KNIGHTS.

What Era of Pirates are we even talking about here?
  ...
Software Pirates?  :D
That would be awesome!

---

"Were art thou, little demon? By the beard of saint Patrick I shall find you!"
*Googles: "Excalibur rule 34", safe search of*
"I'm right h3r3, h3y take a look at dis' u n00b?"
"[A scream of unvocalised horror and disbelief]"
*Knight has received post traumatic stress disorder, knight has gone catatonic*
*Googles: "top 10 most deadly fungi of western Europe"*
"Pwnd, lol"
Logged
So says Armok, God of blood.
Sszsszssoo...
Sszsszssaaayysss...
III...

Vester

  • Bay Watcher
  • [T_WORD:AWE-INSPIRING:bloonk]
    • View Profile
Re: 'Deadliest Fighter: Vikings vs. Samurai' rant
« Reply #21 on: September 05, 2009, 10:01:01 am »

I could see it being a draw in samurai versus knight. Knights had a shitload of heavy armor, that would make the katana virtually worthless. But it's heavy, meaning the knight would inch around the battlefield while the samurai in his lighter armor could dance around him. It would probably turn into a test of endurance. If the knight gets too exhausted he might trip, and the samurai could take his time to hit the weakspots on the armor. If the samurai gets too exhausted, he might not dodge all the way out of a cut, and the wound would slow him up.

I rememebr reading something about how plate mail was basically so hardened against slashing weapons that knights fighting other armored knights would have to switch to using the heavy pommel of the sword to do some decent damage.

EDIT: I think the fighting style is called mordhau.
Logged
Quote
"Land of song," said the warrior bard, "though all the world betray thee - one sword at least thy rights shall guard; one faithful harp shall praise thee."

Dwarf

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Light shall take us
    • View Profile
Re: 'Deadliest Fighter: Vikings vs. Samurai' rant
« Reply #22 on: September 05, 2009, 10:16:45 am »

I could see it being a draw in samurai versus knight. Knights had a shitload of heavy armor, that would make the katana virtually worthless. But it's heavy, meaning the knight would inch around the battlefield while the samurai in his lighter armor could dance around him. It would probably turn into a test of endurance. If the knight gets too exhausted he might trip, and the samurai could take his time to hit the weakspots on the armor. If the samurai gets too exhausted, he might not dodge all the way out of a cut, and the wound would slow him up.

I rememebr reading something about how plate mail was basically so hardened against slashing weapons that knights fighting other armored knights would have to switch to using the heavy pommel of the sword to do some decent damage.

EDIT: I think the fighting style is called mordhau.

exactly.
Logged
Quote from: Akura
Now, if we could only mod Giant War Eagles to carry crossbows, we could do strafing runs on the elves who sold the eagles to us in the first place.

Vester

  • Bay Watcher
  • [T_WORD:AWE-INSPIRING:bloonk]
    • View Profile
Re: 'Deadliest Fighter: Vikings vs. Samurai' rant
« Reply #23 on: September 05, 2009, 10:26:11 am »

Anyway, isn't the "katanas vs. longswords" debate a bit misplaced? I always thought the bow was the main weapon of the samurai.
Logged
Quote
"Land of song," said the warrior bard, "though all the world betray thee - one sword at least thy rights shall guard; one faithful harp shall praise thee."

Muz

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: 'Deadliest Fighter: Vikings vs. Samurai' rant
« Reply #24 on: September 05, 2009, 10:42:27 am »

In that case, the samurai could just grab an English longbow and shoot knights and vikings to pieces. Though I think the ability of longbows in armor piercing is overrated.

Wait, do they have to use traditional weapons or do we assume they can use any weapon and only training counts?
Logged
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.

Vester

  • Bay Watcher
  • [T_WORD:AWE-INSPIRING:bloonk]
    • View Profile
Re: 'Deadliest Fighter: Vikings vs. Samurai' rant
« Reply #25 on: September 05, 2009, 10:46:12 am »

I think the killing power of the english longbow (especially against the french mounted knights) wasn't just in its armor piercing capabilities, which may or may not have been questionable, but in the sheer numbers in which they could be employed.
Logged
Quote
"Land of song," said the warrior bard, "though all the world betray thee - one sword at least thy rights shall guard; one faithful harp shall praise thee."

chaoticag

  • Bay Watcher
  • All Natural Pengbean
    • View Profile
Re: 'Deadliest Fighter: Vikings vs. Samurai' rant
« Reply #26 on: September 05, 2009, 10:53:01 am »

I think the killing power of the english longbow (especially against the french mounted knights) wasn't just in its armor piercing capabilities, which may or may not have been questionable, but in the sheer numbers in which they could be employed.
Actually, the French and English didn't wear full plate maille at the time of the hundred year war, and the French were throwing armoured men into the mud against untrained peasents who out numbered and out ranged them by a long shot, not to mention the times when the French would have to crawl over the dead bodies of their comrades in order to get to archers on the other end of a bottleneck. The French had their asses kicked untill Joan de Arc came along.
Logged

Duke 2.0

  • Bay Watcher
  • [CONQUISTADOR:BIRD]
    • View Profile
Re: 'Deadliest Fighter: Vikings vs. Samurai' rant
« Reply #27 on: September 05, 2009, 10:59:47 am »

 Heck, most bows were used as mass artillery because in order to get the armor-piercing ability, you need to arch it. And when your window of accuracy is within a twenty-foot circle at best, you want to either employ a lot of archers or fire at a horde.

 Then there are the composite bows of North Asia, which were longbows that were capable of being fired from horseback.
Logged
Buck up friendo, we're all on the level here.
I would bet money Andrew has edited things retroactively, except I can't prove anything because it was edited retroactively.
MIERDO MILLAS DE VIBORAS FURIOSAS PARA ESTRANGULARTE MUERTO

Vester

  • Bay Watcher
  • [T_WORD:AWE-INSPIRING:bloonk]
    • View Profile
Re: 'Deadliest Fighter: Vikings vs. Samurai' rant
« Reply #28 on: September 05, 2009, 11:24:49 am »

Ahhhh the mongols. Asskickers of the plains.

EDIT: Or was that the huns?
« Last Edit: September 05, 2009, 11:26:33 am by Vester »
Logged
Quote
"Land of song," said the warrior bard, "though all the world betray thee - one sword at least thy rights shall guard; one faithful harp shall praise thee."

Cthulhu

  • Bay Watcher
  • A squid
    • View Profile
Re: 'Deadliest Fighter: Vikings vs. Samurai' rant
« Reply #29 on: September 05, 2009, 11:35:11 am »

Plus, you can't just pick up a (real) English longbow and use it.  It takes years to get your arm ready to pull one of those things back.

Anyway...

Gandalf vs. Elminster.
Logged
Shoes...
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7