Realistic Sub-Types of Weapons (kind of)

Kyne · February 9, 2017

****WARNING!! YOU'VE FOUND THE GREAT TEXT WALL OF PORTUGAL! TURN AWAY NOW IF YOU DISLIKE READING!****

So I've been checking out some topics about weapon weight and a lot of people seem to want it back (me included. Build system plz.) but a lot of others seem to not want it.

I understand their concern especially on the Constitution system of the GBA era, but I think that the problem isn't so much the system's design, but the amount of realism GBAFE has.

See, it has enough realism to tell you that women are weaker and smaller than men, which, for the large majority of the world, is true.

But it doesn't have enough realism to tell you that there's a shit-load of different types of axes, a shit-load of types of spears, a shit-load of bows and a mega-fuck-ton of types of swords. I mean there's a LOT of swords.

I was giving this some thought as I was working on adding these "sub-types" to a GBA game as a bit of a "rebalance hack" and was going to base it on the classes in question.

Think about it. Let's use infantry sword classes in GBAFE as an example.

Thieves are the lightest and weakest ones. Least suitable for combat. They appear to use daggers in combat.

Myrmidons and Lyn appear to be the average build for an actual human being. They strike a neat balance of speed and strength. Not too much strength and a lot of speed, but a nice strength cap as Swordmasters nonetheless. They appear to use saber-like swords in battle. (though the Myrmidons have straight and apparently double-edged swords)

Eliwood/Roy/Eirika appear to be average sized as well but they focus more of finesse than raw strength and cutting motions. They use Rapiers, and it's a fact that you need less force to stab something that to cut through it.

Finally, the heaviest kind of infantry sword class is the Mercenary. They have balanced stats all around but you'll notice that when it comes to swordsmen, they are the strongest of the bunch. Gerik and Deke sit at a really good 13 con which makes them HUGE when you take 8 Con as the average person (judging by artwork) Raven and Ogier seem a little small in comparison and Harken does too to some extent at 11 con promoted but he's still larger than average. Echidna only has 9 con promoted but she's a woman so she's still larger than average. They are also the hardest hitting ones (barring crits) with strength bases, caps and growths larger than the others. They appear to use Greatswords/Longswords (art style makes it seem like a weapon as large as yourself isn't even all that) and promoted heroes kinda just use the same sword but in one hand.

Keeping this in mind, what if the different classes straight up just used different types of swords (Daggers, Sabers, Rapiers, Greatswords, etc...) and each were catered to each class's needs and strengths.

The spoilers contain my older ideas. This is my rather small-scale research based on youtube channels like Skallagrim, Scholagladiatoria, Metatron, Lindybeige and others, as well as my own search through HEMA websites such as wiktenauer and some thorough googling. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE CORRECT ME ON ANYTHING THAT YOU SEE WRONG. Also, please provide sources if you'd please.

**Greatswords**

Pros:

-Ridiculous power due to the mass in the blade.

-Versatile. They are faster than they would seem, are good at both thrusting and cutting and are good primary weapons, unlike virtually any sword that is shorter than it.

-Half-swording makes them surprisingly good short-range weapons. As if they were a shorter spear.

-Massive crossguard and the second set of quillons makes them REALLY good at parrying.

-The Japanese Nodachi in particular was used to counter horsemen by sweeping at the horse's legs AFAIK, so it seems appropriate that the other Greatswords would be good for it as well (unless they are thrusting oriented swords).

-The range, agility, power and good defense of the Greatsword makes them the best sword for countering spears. The way they were (suposedly) used against pikes suggests that they might be well used to counter spears. Not as good as other Polearms, but then, Greatswords are sort-of sword-shaped polearms anyway.

-Range. HOLY SHIT RANGE.

-Much like two-handed Cutting Polearms (like the Dane Axe), they can defend narrow passages by simply blocking an entrance.

-Can use longsword techniques which makes them good dueling weapons (as the longswords were).

-They look badass.

-Pretty good 1 on 1 weapons.

-The Mordhau (In english: "Murder Stroke") makes them decent at combating armored opponents. (In essence, you grab the BLADE of the sword with both hands and slam the crossguard/pommel onto your opponent, effectively turning the sword into an improvised warhammer. Not as good as an actual warhammer, but decent enough. Perfectly safe as well if you know what you're doing. Not exclusive to greatswords (longswords dit it as well and you COULD do it with the others, but Greatswords/Longswords/Arming swords did it better in general.)

-As long as all opponents are in front of you, the greatsword is great at holding multiple foes at bay, since no one wants to get in its range, and they kind of HAVE to in order to attack the swordsman. (unless they have polearms, bows, or greatswords themselves)

Cons:

-While lighter than thought by the general public, still pretty hefty for a sword, and as such is pretty hard to stop a swing. As such, followthrough cuts should be mostly used instead.

-Actually require a lot of training. More than longswords I would argue. Maybe I'm wrong though. Still, a lot of training.

-Not exactly the easiest things to carry around. Then again, most primary weapons weren't easy to carry and would have to be discarded (even if temporarily) if a secondary weapon became more appropriate.

-Require a LOT of room, and as such can't be used in tight formation too effectively or in tight spaces (corridors, etc).

-Expensive to make. A lot of steel in there.

-Still not as good at hacking as a pollaxe or dane axe, not as good at thrusting as a spear and not as good at blunt force trauma with the mordhau as a warhammer or even as an axe.

-Exclusively two-handed so no shields allowed.

-While half-swording makes it better than most polearms at close-quarter fighting, it's still worse than a one-hander if the foe is within arm's reach.

**Thursters**(Rapiers, Estocs, Smallswords, etc...)

Pros:

-While just as heavy as any other one hander, the point of balance is REALLY far down the blade.(like almost on top of the crossguard)

-Relies more on stamina(slow twitch muscles) than strength(fast twitch muscles).

-Thrusting takes a lot less effort to pierce soft armors like gambeson than cutting does, which means, again, less strength required.

-While it's unusual to see rapiers paired with shields due to the dueling nature of the weapon, it's a one-handed weapon so it CAN be paired with a shield if need be. (Excluding the Estoc, which I'd group with the rapiers for the purposes of this hack.)

-Thrusts are harder to block with a weapon than cuts and in my (inexperienced and probably somewhat uninformed) opinion, just as hard to block with shields as cuts are.

-The hand is VERY well protected.

-Blade as long as a longsword's, weight of a one-hander, magnificent point of balance, profiecient in the hardest maneuver to block and amazing hand protection means it's basically the perfect melee weapon for an (unarmored) duel. (When not against a spear. Those are OP as shit.)

-Stupidly easy to wear. Like most swords were.

-The blade being so light makes it easy to redirect for feints.

-The Estoc actually was an anti-armor weapon. It was basically a really long spike with a longsword hilt/crossguard.

Cons:

-Just as likely to lose to spears as any other sword shorter that a greatsword.

-Reliance on the thrust rather than being a "cut-and-thrust" weapon (though it can still slice. It just can't hack) makes it predictable at times.

-Built around dueling and self-defense, which means it's not well suited for war or skirmishes, in which people are likely to be wearing at the very least gambeson (which for the rapier might not be THAT bad) and varying levels of hard armors. (which basically counters it as well as most swords). (Again, exclude the Estoc.)

-Built for taking on one opponent at a time (DUEL) so fighting multiple people with it is hard. (Though, fighting multiple people is hard in general)

-Light blade makes it hard to block/parry/deflect heavier weapons or particularly strong swings with unless done basically flawlessly and with the "strong" (lower half) of the blade rather than with the "weak". (upper half)

-Despite what Fire Emblem tells you, actually REALLY WEAK against both armored units AND cavalry. (Dat Estoc Tho.)

-The Estoc in particular, was a sort of "two-handed rapier" which, while useful if covered in steel, is two-handed and therefore does not allow a shield.

-The Estoc also has the weakness of not having an actual edge. Again, it was a really long and slender spike with a longsword-like handle and cross-guard.

-The rapier is really light so you can "beat" the blade to the side pretty hard (unless you miss,lol), which lets you move in without getting skewered.

**Backswords and Sabres**
(I previously referred to this category as just sabres)

I'm considering backswords to be any single edged, one handed,
cutting-oriented straight sword. (Falchions; the ACTUAL
Claymores, which were one handed basket-hilt swords; some
viking swords; some Dao; etc...)

Also, I'm considering Sabres to be any CURVED single-edged
sword.
(Messers, Cavalry Sabres, Katana, some Cutlasses, some Dao,
etc...)

Pros:

-The Sabres slice like a motherfucker. (slice, not cleave.)

-The Backswords cleave like a motherfucker. (but don't slice as well as a sabre.)

-Since the Backswords cleave well, they also apply really good blunt force trauma to things they can't cleave through, like some Gambesons and basically any mail. Kinda just skid-off plate, though, as do most if not all swords.

-The sabres are better for cramped spaces such as alleys since the sword's curve makes it take up a smaller "length" of space. I think I might need a drawing to illustrate this.

-The Sabres can work around stuff like shields using thrusting techniques, due to the curve.

(Short note: according to my research sabres should have a
little less might but higher hit rate and vice versa for
the backswords.)

Cons:

-BAD against armor, as it counters basically any cutting sword.

-More often than not, a heck of a lot shorter than thrusting swords like the Rapier.

-The Sabres HAVE to use the finnicky thrusting techniques on enemies that don't have a shield as well because the curve means that you have to curve your stabbing as well.

**Daggers**
(They are not good for combat. Only used historically as
finishers, after another weapon did the brunt of the fighting.
Thieves are still gonna be a utility class rather than combat.)

Pros:

-There's a shit-load of types of daggers. Thursters like the Rondell Dagger and Slicers like the Baselard, and even throwing knives. This means variety.

Cons:

-Yes most of the kills against armored units came from daggers but that's because there was another big armored dude subduing the first one to the point where he could pull up his visor and jam a dagger in his gullet, or they were wrestling.

-Yes Rondells are the best Daggers to use on armor, but again, the victim would basically already have to be subdued or you'd have to be wrestling.

-Yes throwing knives hurt... but they can't pierce even soft armors like Gambesons, aren't always guaranteed to hit with the blade unless you are a god at throwing from all ranges, and, finally, even if you do hit your opponent in an unprotected area, IT WON'T GO DEEP ENOUGH. It won't cause a severe enough injury to even immobilize a limb let alone actually kill someone. It CAN kill someone, if you are incredibly lucky, but it can't kill someone reliably.

-Range. I mean really, don't bring a knife to a swordfight. Or rather, do, but have it around JUST IN CASE.

**Broadswords""

Pros:

-Average at everything. There doesn't appear to be any real weakness to them. Better range than shortswords an daggers, effective strikes, alices AND thrusts, allow for a shield...

Cons:

-Average at everything. There doesn't seem to be any specific advantages to them.
-They can cut, but, unlike Backswords and Sabres, generally isn't gonna lop off limbs. (unless you REALLY power your cuts and/or your edge alignment is godly.)
-They can thrust well enough, but don't have as much range or point control, both of which give AMAZING advantages to thrusts, as the "rapierish" weapons do.

Rapiers could have low might but be mostly good against armored units due to stabbing the gaps in armor. Alternatively, they could just straight up ignore some of the defense of the target (like a mini Luna). (EDIT: Rapiers don't actually ignore armor. This would be referencing the skill of the user more so that the weapon's ability itself. I'd only do this because historically, the Rapier is a dueling/self defense weapon with no real business in a battlefield most of the time, but game balance and Eliwood/Roy/Eirika using them dictates that I make them useful in a battlefield. Perhaps a buff against unarmored infantry?)

Daggers could have utility (debuffs a la Fates, poison,etc...) and some would even be throwable.

Sabers could have a larger weight stat than the rapiers but also deal quite a bit of damage and have some inherent crit (like all of them have at least 10 crit)

Greatswords would hit REALLY HARD and, due to their range (and some speculation of how they were used historically) might even be good against spears. Greatswords like the Japanese Nodachi were also really good against cavalry because they allowed you to sweep the horse's legs and cut them off from a safe distance.

See what I mean? It could also mean that certain weapons would be specific to a sub-class.

The Wo Dao is already locked to swordmasters so it could be a saber.

Greatswords are the only ones with the capability to kill horses so easily so they could keep the Zanbato/Longsword and they are the only ones to counter spears so they could get the Lancereaver.

Daggers could keep the Armorslayer in the form of a Rondell Dagger with much reduced weight.

Rapiers would get... the Rapier. and the slim sword could be reworked into the historical Smallsword which is basically a mini rapier with less weight and damage.

I was also wondering whether it would be best to also have a "generic" type of swords or axes or whatever that all classes would share (for an example, all axemen should be able to use throwing axes) and have those be the generic easily purchasable weapons (iron, steel, etc...) but have only the special ones (armorslayer, longsword, lancereaver, killing edge) become the "specialized ones"; or if I should do away with the "generic" type (which would basically make it impossible for two swordsmen of different classes to share a weapon) and give all weapon subtypes an "iron, steel, silver" equivalent.

It also raises the question: should ALL greatswords reverse weapon triangle be good against cavalry (in essence, keep your cavaliers away from mercs they way you do with fliers and archers) or just one or two, only emphasizing the extra weight and might of a greatsword with the Iron, Steel and Silver variants, making one or two special ones for each class.

I've been thinking of the few different types at the moment and this is what I've come up with so far:

Thieves and Assassins (Daggers)
(Low might and weight but Utility)

Mercenaries/Heroes/Hector Great Lord (Greatswords)
(High might and weight)

Roy/Eliwood/Eirika (Thrusting Swords)
(Low Weight, might and Negate enemy defenses)

Myrmidons/Swordmasters/Lyn/Trooper (Sabers)
(Average-high weight, average might, high crit)

All sword classes (Broadswords)
Average everything with some utility like the Light Brand. Used by all.

Cavaliers/Paladins/Knight Lord/Great Knights
/Ephraim Great Lord and Fliers (Lances)
(High Power but also really high weight) (Unthrowable)

ArmorKnights and Soldiers (Polearms)
(Good stats all around. Unthrowable)

All Spear classes (Spears)
(All throwable but all weak. Low weight.)

Hector and Heroes (Two-Handers)
(Unthrowable but more power. High Weight)

Fighters/Warriors/Pirates/Brigands/Berserkers (One-Handers)
(Less power and weight. Unthrowable.)

All Axe Classes (Throwing Axes)
(Really low power and weight)

Nomad Troopers/Rangers/Snipers/Warriors (Warbows)
(REALLY high Might and Weight)

All bow Classes (Hunting Bows)
(Lower power and weight)

If I ever add Crossbowmen (Crossbows)
(AMAZING hit rate and can attack from melee but really heavy)

Keep in mind that this is coming from a realistic point of view because I'm into HEMA and shit.

I'd expect the average archer in FE not to be able to use a Warbow because of how weak they are (in fact I'd argue that only the Warrior/FE8 Horse-axe-dude would be able to) but since I'm not gonna be making a muscular archer and sniper animation any-time soon, I decided to simply make them promote before hand (since then they appear to use Longbows)

Crossbows aren't too heavy (well they are but they have drawing assistants like the Goat's Foot) but they take super long to reload so high weight means unable to double.

I know Heroes don't use two-handed axes but I'm making an animation for them. It was originally a merc animation but it's a hero now, deal with it.

Lances have really high weight because again: realistic point of view. You'd never double with a Lance. Consider yourselves lucky I didn't decide to make them 1 Durability, lol.

I couldn't think of anything neat for the Cavalier's swords since they would historically also use sabers but I don't think you' want to see Paladins maining Killing Edges and shit. Plus, their swords in the animations look nothing like Sabers.

Edited: ** Rapiers don't actually ignore armor but game balance says they have to be useful as it wouldn't be fun otherwise. If you guys have any other ideas for me to make rapiers useful that does actually make historical sense (I was thinking some sort of buff to unarmored infantry that doesn't use spears), then please suggest so.

Also Edited: ** People have also mentioned that Daggers were historically the best weapon to FINISH an armored target but not to fight them so perhaps I could give the ignoring armor thing to the unthrowable daggers instead?

I'm gonna take a while to work out the kinks, decide whether to have a generic subtype at all or to have freaking iron/steel/silver of each type, decide whether all weapons of the same subtype share the same abilities with just a change in stats, and all that. I'm also going to take a while to even balance all of this before I start weapon-locking shit.

The way I was gonna do this would be to simply use the weapon locks in FE7 (of which there are 7) but the problem with that is that it would essentially remove the personal weapons lock. Anyone that can use sabers can use the Mani Katti and all that. Again, I'm still working out the kinks and I am aware that I can make these overlap with each other but I have to be careful not to let a class wield a weapon type they aren't meant to (like locking Lances and Greatswords to the same thing, effectively allowing ALL lance users to use greatswords because they all get swords as well.)

I was also thinking of adding a way to repair weapons which would make buying them a little less of a hassle but I'm not sure if that's possible for fe7. If anyone's already done that please inform me.

Anyway, should i even bother? Would anyone be interested in a more "realistic" FE game? It would really just change a heck of a lot of items to be locked to specific classes, change stats around, probably change a lot of enemies to have the weapons they are supposed to have, I'd probably have to draw Icons as well, and, of course, it'd have to include my little Hero animation (which is like 25% complete in the sword department) to the mix in order for greatswords to make sense for the Hero.

Let me know if you guys would like to see this/have any tips for me. Cheers!

Edited February 12, 2017 by Kyne
Forgot to mention rapiers don't ACTUALLY ignore armor.

Zane Avernathy · February 9, 2017

11 hours ago, Kyne said:

Rapiers could have low might but be mostly good against armored units due to stabbing the gaps in armor. Alternatively, they could just straight up ignore some of the defense of the target (like a mini Luna).

This is not, and has never been, how rapiers work.

Elieson · February 9, 2017

16 minutes ago, Zane Avernathy said:

This is not, and has never been, how rapiers work.

11 hours ago, Kyne said:

Rapiers could have low might but be mostly good against armored units due to stabbing the gaps in armor. Alternatively, they could just straight up ignore some of the defense of the target (like a mini Luna).

IIRC rapiers served more of a purpose as an in-street use weapon, allowing people to make longer-reached stabs at open vital areas that were difficult to block/parry, or were implied as effective ranged weapons that could be used in more narrow locales (tight alleys), as well as allowing one to use power without taking their weapon out and occupy a large area of space in a crowded civilian zone.

Rapiers could stab in between narrow armor gaps but that was more of an ad-hoc practice.

Koumal8 · February 9, 2017

13 hours ago, Kyne said:

They use Rapiers, and it's a fact that you need less force to stab something that to cut through it.

This is just... wrong. As is right what the two users above posted. It's also funny how one of the most effective weapons against full plate armor was the dagger, since it was the easiest weapon to stick into the unprotected areas (groin, armpits, neck, behind the knees etc...).

Overall, I'd be willing to test such a system in a hack, but for now it just seems needlessly complicated. The difficult part will be to balance the cast around this new system, and I don't see this being easy: it seems to me what you're doing is specializing units too much by giving the already strong and bulky units the strong and bulky weapons and so on.

Kyne · February 10, 2017

I understand that's not how rapiers work, (durr) however, game balance dictates that I have to do something to make them good. If I just made them about as useful as a normal rapier would be (not very in the battlefield, as it was mostly a dueling/self-defense weapon) I'd basically have to remove it due to how weak it would be.

The dagger is, obviously, the best weapon to FINISH an armored target, but not to fight them, as that would be the warhammer, the mace, the spear or the almighty Pollaxe. (one of my favorite weapons btw.)

I figured that, by simply saying "Eliwood is so skilled that he can aim in between gaps in armor every time" I could make rapiers useful. Truth is, in a battlefield they are not.

Now, since I can't/am not skilled enough to just make him a sword swing animation (Although I think there's one already, but it's still with the rapier, which is inherently dumb. While the Rapier can cut you wouldn't want to do so, since it's not what it was built for) I can't really just give him another weapon (short of just giving him one of the fan-made spear animations).

EDIT: While editing the main post I though of giving the Rapiers a buff against unarmored infantry a la swordslayer (which, btw, wouldn't work on spears because they are spears), since that would be a little more accurate, but that might be a little busted. What do you guys think?

Thank you folks for pointing it out though, I don't know why I didn't point it out in my little "realistic point of view" thingy-ma-bobber but I will edit it to point it out as well. Again, it's a question of "how much realism do you want, and how willing are you to make certain things imbalanced in the name of realism?".

4 hours ago, Koumal8 said:

This is just... wrong. As is right what the two users above posted. It's also funny how one of the most effective weapons against full plate armor was the dagger, since it was the easiest weapon to stick into the unprotected areas (groin, armpits, neck, behind the knees etc...).

Overall, I'd be willing to test such a system in a hack, but for now it just seems needlessly complicated. The difficult part will be to balance the cast around this new system, and I don't see this being easy: it seems to me what you're doing is specializing units too much by giving the already strong and bulky units the strong and bulky weapons and so on.

It's a fact that you need less force to pierce rather than cut because you focus the force onto a MUCH smaller area (aka, a fine point) which is why thrusting was the best method of attack to get past chainmail and soft armors like the Gambeson (which really doesn't get the representation it deserves. Those things could sometimes stop arrows.)

As for the balance issue, I'd basically have to come up with some good gimmicks to make all weapons useful (which, you are right, will be difficult) but I think it can be done. For an example, low might weapons that ignore armor are really useful because while they don't hit that hard, they deal reliable damage (see: Luna) and high might weapons hit really hard but they might not have that utility that sometimes comes in clutch(short of countering spears and horses). It's gonna be a huge effort but I think I can do it with enough dedication (and, hopefully, once I have a playable version of this out and about, constructive input from you good folks).

The specialization is exactly my point, though. I've seen people complain about how the faster and bulkier units are often the best ones since they get the best of both worlds while the strictly bulky ones are slow as sin and the fast ones can't properly use the more powerful/heavy weapons. This way, I'd like to work the army into having plenty of units at its disposal that each are good at doing specific things that they will be built to do, the same way real weapons would have been, instead of always using the same units/classes because they have a ridiculous advantage in bulk and speed over the others. I'd also hopefully balance the girls into being more useful since people complain about con rendering some female characters into being worse than the men. (although that IS accurate. Again, game balance.)

As an aside, I'd also like to mention that I was thinking of giving the Lance users the Heavy spear (since cavalry charges were known to be able to pierce chainmail with a cavalry lance, although it would shatter on impact) while also giving the polearm users something like a war-scythe, which was used to counter cavalry. (to the extent of my knowledge, that is. If you guys find any more historical inaccuracies, please point them out, as historical accuracy is the entire point of this hack)

It could create an interesting situation where you could risk your cavalier to deal with an armorknight, but I'm not too sure how willing to use that people would be.

Also, if you guys have any suggestions for weapons used historically that you might want to see added, or any more categories that you think I should add/categories I should remove, then please say so. I'd like to see how realistic I can make the game while also making it fun to play rather than just realistic but boring/frustrating.

Cheers for the criticism guys! Keep it up.

Edited February 10, 2017 by Kyne

Kyne · February 12, 2017

I've been conducting some research for a few months now on weaponry because I'm a freaking nerd.

So far I'm only including swords because this topic is FUCKING HUGE. PLEASE CORRECT ANYTHING YOU SEE IS WRONG BECAUSE I'M SUPPOSED TO BE SPEWING TRUTH AND I ALREADY MESSED UP WITH THE RAPIER (though that was because I was trying to balance game design and realism and failed to convey that. Now I'm trying to think up of all the advantages/disadvantages of a weapon to work it into game design.)

BTW: This is going up eventually. I'm not too concerned with how popular/unpopular this thread is or how popular the idea of HEMA and how medieval and renaissance weapons were actually used is because this is being made for 2 reasons:

A- Fun.

B- Me getting comfortable with Nightmare.

Anyway: SWORDS.

**Greatswords**

Pros:

-Ridiculous power due to the mass in the blade.

-Versatile. They are faster than they would seem, are good at both thrusting and cutting and are good primary weapons, unlike virtually any sword that is shorter than it.

-Half-swording makes them surprisingly good short-range weapons. As if they were a shorter spear.

-Massive crossguard and the second set of quillons makes them REALLY good at parrying.

-The Japanese Nodachi in particular was used to counter horsemen by sweeping at the horse's legs AFAIK, so it seems appropriate that the other Greatswords would be good for it as well (unless they are thrusting oriented swords).

-The range, agility, power and good defense of the Greatsword makes them the best sword for countering spears. The way they were (suposedly) used against pikes suggests that they might be well used to counter spears. Not as good as other Polearms, but then, Greatswords are sort-of sword-shaped polearms anyway.

-Range. HOLY SHIT RANGE.

-Much like two-handed Cutting Polearms (like the Dane Axe), they can defend narrow passages by simply blocking an entrance.

-Can use longsword techniques which makes them good dueling weapons (as the longswords were).

-They look badass.

-Pretty good 1 on 1 weapons.

-The Mordhau (In english: "Murder Stroke") makes them decent at combating armored opponents. (In essence, you grab the BLADE of the sword with both hands and slam the crossguard/pommel onto your opponent, effectively turning the sword into an improvised warhammer. Not as good as an actual warhammer, but decent enough. Perfectly safe as well if you know what you're doing. Not exclusive to greatswords (longswords dit it as well and you COULD do it with the others, but Greatswords/Longswords/Arming swords did it better in general.)

-As long as all opponents are in front of you, the greatsword is great at holding multiple foes at bay, since no one wants to get in its range, and they kind of HAVE to in order to attack the swordsman. (unless they have polearms, bows, or greatswords themselves)

Cons:

-While lighter than thought by the general public, still pretty hefty for a sword, and as such is pretty hard to stop a swing. As such, followthrough cuts should be mostly used instead.

-Actually require a lot of training. More than longswords I would argue. Maybe I'm wrong though. Still, a lot of training.

-Not exactly the easiest things to carry around. Then again, most primary weapons weren't easy to carry and would have to be discarded (even if temporarily) if a secondary weapon became more appropriate.

-Require a LOT of room, and as such can't be used in tight formation too effectively or in tight spaces (corridors, etc).

-Expensive to make. A lot of steel in there.

-Still not as good at hacking as a pollaxe or dane axe, not as good at thrusting as a spear and not as good at blunt force trauma with the mordhau as a warhammer or even as an axe.

-Exclusively two-handed so no shields allowed.

-While half-swording makes it better than most polearms at close-quarter fighting, it's still worse than a one-hander if the foe is within arm's reach.

**Thursters**(Rapiers, Estocs, Smallswords, etc...)

Pros:

-While just as heavy as any other one hander, the point of balance is REALLY far down the blade.(like almost on top of the crossguard)

-Relies more on stamina(slow twitch muscles) than strength(fast twitch muscles).

-Thrusting takes a lot less effort to pierce soft armors like gambeson than cutting does, which means, again, less strength required.

-While it's unusual to see rapiers paired with shields due to the dueling nature of the weapon, it's a one-handed weapon so it CAN be paired with a shield if need be. (Excluding the Estoc, which I'd group with the rapiers for the purposes of this hack.)

-Thrusts are harder to block with a weapon than cuts and in my (inexperienced and probably somewhat uninformed) opinion, just as hard to block with shields as cuts are.

-The hand is VERY well protected.

-Blade as long as a longsword's, weight of a one-hander, magnificent point of balance, profiecient in the hardest maneuver to block and amazing hand protection means it's basically the perfect melee weapon for an (unarmored) duel. (When not against a spear. Those are OP as shit.)

-Stupidly easy to wear. Like most swords were.

-The blade being so light makes it easy to redirect for feints.

-The Estoc actually was an anti-armor weapon. It was basically a really long spike with a longsword hilt/crossguard.

Cons:
-Just as likely to lose to spears as any other sword shorter that a greatsword.