Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32

Thread: No Guns, No Swords, No Briefcases

  1. #21
    Join Date
    30th Dec 2007
    Location
    Japanicus Minimus
    Posts
    7,674

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FatalityPitt View Post
    I like Autobot leaders with swords - Star Saber, Laser Prime, Fort Max, etc.

    When I was a kid I thought it was really cool seeing Fort Max in the Headmasters cartoon transforming into his full-size and posing with the Master Sword. Somehow it reminded me of King Arthur and Excalibur.
    I like Fort Max's sword, but always thought is kind of silly as a weapon. Considering how big max is, it's unlikely he'd ever find another adversary with a similar sized sword. I mean scale wise the thing must be bigger than a sky scraper.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    27th Dec 2007
    Location
    Sydney NSW
    Posts
    37,637

    Default

    A sword is absolutely a far more personal and romantic weapon than a ranged weapon like a gun. Combatants have to get up and personal with a melee weapon. The romantic theory^idealistic fantasy is that you can see your opponent's face as you fight them and that killing another person from a distance is cowardice. This was meant to be the rationale behind why the Samurai favoured swords over guns (reality: Samurai loved guns!) and also why in Wonder Woman we see Diana accuse that sniper of "fighting without honour"... even though the Amazonians in that movie certainly have archers who can also do the same thing. And we also see Diana practising archery, so... yeah.

    But yeah, up close melee combat means that the combatants can directly interact and speak with each other as they fight. From a story-telling POV it allows for a lot of emotion to be poured into a fight scene; e.g. Luke Skywalker vs Darth Vader in The Return of the Jedi. As physically intense as the fight was, it was even more intense at an emotional level. You just don't get that same level of interpersonal intensity with ranged weaponry where ultimately you're just attempting to eliminate another hostile target rather than viewing them as a human being.

    This is also why in Europe the Church initially protested against the use of bows and arrows as they felt that it didn't allow Knights the opportunity to show mercy to opponents if they just shot them like numbers instead fighting them like human beings. But of course the sheer tactical advantage of range fighting meant that the Church's protests fell on deaf ears... and rightly so, because bringing an army armed with swords to a fight where the enemy army has ballistic arrow capability would be suicide. Even the Church conceded to this by the time firearms came along. Still... clergy were forbidden from using either blades or guns, they were only allowed to use blunt weapons like maces and clubs. Because somehow slowly bludgeoning an opponent to death was considered more merciful than a quick stab/slice or shot. <shrugs>

    I suppose we like to see more major characters with swords for that romantic reason, but... it really doesn't make sense. As I said before, even Star Wars had to create the Force as a reason why lightsabre wielders could still use a melee weapon in a universe where people have range weapons like blasters. And even then their ability was limited, as shown during Order 66 when Clone Troopers were able to overwhelm the Jedi.

    The Jedi were armed with lightsabres because they were peacekeepers, not soldiers.
    "I can only protect you. I cannot fight a war for you." - Qui-Gon Jinn

  3. #23
    FatalityPitt Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tetsuwan Convoy View Post
    I like Fort Max's sword, but always thought is kind of silly as a weapon... I mean scale wise the thing must be bigger than a sky scraper.
    Cool-looking but too over-the-top and impractical for real-world applications... Sort of reminds me of Red Sonja's chainmail bikini... (I'm gonna get barred from this site one day.. I can feel it..)

    Quote Originally Posted by GoktimusPrime View Post
    ... The romantic theory^idealistic fantasy is that you can see your opponent's face as you fight them and that killing another person from a distance is cowardice. This was meant to be the rationale behind why the Samurai favoured swords over guns (reality: Samurai loved guns!) and also why in Wonder Woman we see Diana accuse that sniper of "fighting without honour"... even though the Amazonians in that movie certainly have archers who can also do the same thing. And we also see Diana practising archery, so... yeah.

    .... You just don't get that same level of interpersonal intensity with ranged weaponry where ultimately you're just attempting to eliminate another hostile target rather than viewing them as a human being.

    This is also why in Europe the Church initially protested against the use of bows and arrows as they felt that it didn't allow Knights the opportunity to show mercy to opponents if they just shot them like numbers instead fighting them like human beings.
    I think this is why it sometimes feels appropriate (to me anyway) to see characters like Optimus Prime (or Laser Prime) brandishing a sword. There's something about it that seems to go with their personality, i.e. bravely confronting the enemy face-to-face, going against tough odds, never taking the easy way out, offering the other side mercy, etc. .

    Quote Originally Posted by GoktimusPrime View Post
    But of course the sheer tactical advantage of range fighting meant that the Church's protests fell on deaf ears... and rightly so, because bringing an army armed with swords to a fight where the enemy army has ballistic arrow capability would be suicide. Even the Church conceded to this by the time firearms came along. Still... clergy were forbidden from using either blades or guns, they were only allowed to use blunt weapons like maces and clubs. Because somehow slowly bludgeoning an opponent to death was considered more merciful than a quick stab/slice or shot. <shrugs>

    I suppose we like to see more major characters with swords for that romantic reason, but... it really doesn't make sense. As I said before, even Star Wars had to create the Force as a reason why lightsabre wielders could still use a melee weapon in a universe where people have range weapons like blasters. And even then their ability was limited, as shown during Order 66 when Clone Troopers were able to overwhelm the Jedi.
    Besides needing to get near to the enemy and face them, I think another thing that makes the sword-wielder seem more admirable is the amount of skill it would take to fight with a sword and win. With a gun, it's literally just point and shoot.

    I definitely agree that having a gun is tactically superior than wielding close quarter melee weapons. So much so that it's almost no contest. It's also arguably more merciful because it can kill instantly.

    I think what makes the sword look impressive in a lot of fantasy/sci-fi fiction is the symbolism, and how it reminds the audience of characters from classic literature like King Arthur, Beowulf and Yoshitsune. There's just something about the sword that's heroic (even though it can just as easily be used for villainy, i.e. murder).

  4. #24
    Join Date
    27th Dec 2007
    Location
    Sydney NSW
    Posts
    37,637

    Default

    The Samurai did still use swords for personal duels, but when it came to open combat or warfare, it was predominantly ranged weapons (arrows and guns). But many of the romantic examples we see are from an age either pre-dating firearms, or pre-dating modern assault rifles. After all, swords and bayonets were still in use as recently as WWI. But WWII saw the advent of the semi-automatic machine gun which became a complete game changer on the battlefield and has since rendered melee combat practically useless. Try carrying a sword into a combat zone in Syria or Afghanistan and I wouldn't rate your chances of survival.

    In actuality a sword vs gun fight would end up looking something like this...


    Using inferior weaponry or even inferior fighting techniques only works if both parties agree to it. But in actual combat both sides are going to try to achieve and maintain superiority over the enemy. Only an idiot would knowingly and deliberately forfeit an obvious tactical advantage like superior weaponry. And indeed armies have always kept secrets from each other to prevent tactical advantages from falling into enemy hands. To this day we still have no idea how to make Greek fire. The Ancient Greeks took that secret with them to their graves, and the closest that we've come is with the advent of napalm. But we've yet to exactly replicate the deadly properties of Greek fire.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    16th Sep 2014
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    714

    Default

    It kinda bothers me how over wanked swords are in fiction. There are superior melee weapons out their but it's almost always swords as the ULTIMATE WEHPON

  6. #26
    Join Date
    27th Dec 2007
    Location
    Sydney NSW
    Posts
    37,637

    Default

    It all boils down to the romance and fantasy over practical reality. You can have drawn out fights with swords where characters can banter between each other. I remember the first time I played Counterstrike and I was shocked at how quickly I died after taking just one shot. I felt robbed until my mates reminded me that this is closer to actual combat, and yeah, taking a bullet will kill you. And yes, yes, I know that there are other FPS games which are far more realistic than Counterstrike, but CS sticks in my mind because it was the first game that I played that showed a more realistic portrayal of gun combat. Actually, Contra and Super C on the Famicom/NES was similarly realistic in that it only took one hit to kill you, but that was a side scroller plus everything else in the game was sheer fantasy (like being able to do flip jumps over incoming shots etc.)

    But yeah, you can see in that picture that I put in my last post that people still wore personal suits of armour before the advent of modern firearms, but since then that level of personal armour has drastically changed. Soldiers today don't wear suits of armour designed to absorb direct hits. Combat helmets and most body armours aren't designed to stop bullets but rather to protect the wearer from fragmentation and impact injuries like concussion. There are types of armour that are tougher, such as those worn by explosive ordnance disposal operatives, but they sacrifice mobility and comfort for added protection. Most ground troops wear lighter armour that offers them greater comfort and mobility at the expense of protection. There are obviously different grades of post-modern armour, so I am generalising here. But it's certainly not like during Ancient or earlier Modern times where armour was able to take direct blows.

    This is why chest thrusts are an impractical technique because the breastplate would absorb it and all you'd do is push the opponent back, but you won't pierce his chest. Actual sword techniques aim at openings in armour, typically the flanks between the neck and shoulder, and are designed to cut and slice rather than stab. This is one (of several) differences between Kenjutsu and Kendo. If you look at the image link for Kendo, you'll see that these opponents are poking at each other's chest, which can score a point in Kendo matches. But they are ultimately useless techniques in a real fight. Compare this with the image link I've provided for Kenjutsu, and you can see that the bloke in the blue top is swinging his sword down at a slightly diagonal angle and he's aimed for the neck. This is an inherent weak spot in all types of armour because obviously you need some space for neck/head mobility in a fight.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    27th Dec 2007
    Location
    Sydney NSW
    Posts
    37,637

    Default

    Ya know... guys like Blast Off could potentially have one of the most underrated weapons -- orbital strikes. Blast Off's G1 bio does state that Blast Off can burn a hole through a rocketing ICBM at a range of 19,312km. That's pretty intense. It also states that he can hit targets on the ground from orbit. Now his bio also states that the potency of his laser is reduced by up to 80% in atmosphere. I'm assuming that its potency in hitting a cruising ICBM is greater than hitting an on the ground target, so maybe it's only reduced by say 20% in the upper atmosphere or stratosphere, I don't know. And one would assume that it's reduced by 0% in a vacuum. Either way, it seems like Blast Off could do some considerable damage from orbit. Just imagine if they gave him a better gun.


    Combining to form Bruticus seems kinda redundant now

  8. #28
    Join Date
    9th Aug 2018
    Location
    Allendale North, SA
    Posts
    635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GoktimusPrime View Post
    Combining to form Bruticus seems kinda redundant now
    Maybe this is why he was demoted in Combiner Wars for a Jetformer instead

    I can imagine the group meeting beforehand....

    ONSLAUGHT: Okay guys we're finally getting an upgrade. We're gonna have better articulation, some snazzy new vehicle modes, and tighter combining joints. So before we proceed, anyone have any questions?

    *Brawl raises his hand*

    ONSLAUGHT: *sigh* Brawl, if you're gonna ask me for a double barrel turret again, I swear to Primus...
    BRAWL: No it aint that, boss. I was reading Ozformers the other day and-
    ONSLAUGHT: WHATformers?
    BRAWL: Ozformers. It's a human website in Oztraylia where people discuss us.
    *murmuring around the group*
    ONSLAUGHT: Ok so we target this "Oztraylia" in with Bruticus first, but do go on...
    BRAWL: Well, one of their members said that Blast Off has this CRAZY powerful orbital cannon.
    *all members turn to face Blast off*
    BLAST OFF *looking bewildered*: What?
    BRAWL: Yeah apparently he can disintegrate targets from orbit with a single shot.
    ONSLAUGHT: You been holding out on us, BO?
    BLAST OFF *turns to a very nervous looking Swindle*: I TOLD you they wouldn't understand!
    BRAWL: Thing is, the effectiveness in atmosphere is REALLY weak.
    VORTEX: No, no, no, no. This won't work. We're all PLANET based vehicles! Whats the slagging point of it?! Get rid of it and get something PRACTICAL for Unicron's sake!
    BLAST OFF: Oh, I see, so AS USUSAL, I have to be the one who caters for EVERYONE ELSE! Well, not THIS TIME! SCREW you guys I'm OUTTA HERE. *storms out*
    Silence lingers in the air....
    SWINDLE *trying to take some heat off*: So, uh, all in favour of a new partner? I know a guy, jet, same brown colour, would fit with the group....
    ONSLAUGHT:..... does he mind a name change? Coz, y'know, Bruticus can't really cope with remembering a new one.
    SWINDLE: If I arm him with some upgrades, a name change would be the LEAST he would do!
    ONSLAUGHT: Well all right then. All in favour?

  9. #29
    Join Date
    27th Dec 2007
    Location
    Sydney NSW
    Posts
    37,637

    Default

    The Combaticons attacked Canberra in 1987... faulty memory circuits, I suppose.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    5th Feb 2010
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    3,270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GoktimusPrime View Post
    Ya know... guys like Blast Off could potentially have one of the most underrated weapons -- orbital strikes. Blast Off's G1 bio does state that Blast Off can burn a hole through a rocketing ICBM at a range of 19,312km. That's pretty intense. It also states that he can hit targets on the ground from orbit. Now his bio also states that the potency of his laser is reduced by up to 80% in atmosphere. I'm assuming that its potency in hitting a cruising ICBM is greater than hitting an on the ground target, so maybe it's only reduced by say 20% in the upper atmosphere or stratosphere, I don't know. And one would assume that it's reduced by 0% in a vacuum. Either way, it seems like Blast Off could do some considerable damage from orbit. Just imagine if they gave him a better gun.


    Combining to form Bruticus seems kinda redundant now

    Oh, it's beautiful
    I'm really just here for the free food and open bar.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •