Axes distribute a force over a wide area (how I'm defining "blunt" in this case) and are driven directly into a wound and are returned out the same way they entered (how I'm defining "stab" in this case). It's like a spear point that has been extended horizontally to make a chopping blade instead of a penetrating blade.

Axes can penetrate hard things easily -- in medieval times they were used to injure armoured warriors -- but chopping someone's arm off with an axe won't be easy unless you have a solid object to crush it against. A sword, on the other hand, can slice through soft things easily whether they are braced or not (though it'll have trouble with the bone unless it's very sharp or swung very hard).

No, I still think my definition is accurate in this case; it's probably the fact that it's a tapered metal edge that's throwing you off. Axes don't operate the same way as swords do.

If a sword is being hacked into flesh, the person on the swinging end is using it wrong. ;-) It should be drawn through flesh while it is being swung, in order to slice flesh. (If the blade stops at any point during a swing, the attacker subjects himself to allowing the sword to become stuck, which is essentially death knell.)

An axe, on the other hand, is not used to cut but rather to chop, and is not sharp in the sense that running your fingers along the blade will result in those fingers being sliced open (in most cases).


Other corollary: A throwing axe (a modern one, not a francisca) resembles a knife more than an axe, and is a Sharp Stab weapon. E.g., this (the desired impact point is at the very top of the image, at the sharp point).


"Blunt" in any case refers more to the method of force than the actual blade (as in, "a terrorist is a blunt instrument of the militant fundamentalist movement"). An axe causes penetration into flesh, where a blunted weapon like a staff doesn't. The system doesn't break down in that regard: just because the axe penetrates into soft flesh as well as hard armour doesn't mean it's not "blunt". English is at a shortcoming here because there's no word that adequately fits all of the situations that also fits with the Golden Rule, which is accurate in all cases of physical damage that I'm aware of.

When you bring things like neutron radiation bolts and other sci-fi stuff into the equation, the system breaks down a bit, but for classical forms of physical damage, even flames/heat, the system works (heat can get through a solid object much faster than through a soft object).

One thing that always bothered me, I've never seen a game that lets you turn around the axe and use it as a hammer.

The UnReal World allows you to choose a weapon aspect to use. Your choices are limited to Edge, Blunt, and Point. An axe has both Edge and Blunt.

Hmm, the difference in the function of an axe and sword is related to relative mass and force applied, but maylargely operate on similar principles. Well, that is not entirely accurate- swords function based on a few different designs: thrusting blades such as broadswords and fencing weapons (which use a principle similar to spears, but, especially in the case of fencing blades, with uniques advantages due to blade flexibility), chopping blades such as the medieval longsword (which actually combined this with a thrusting point....), claymore, or Egyptian khopesh, and slicing blades such as the shamshir. Chopping blades are probably and evolution of the axe and intermediate designs such as the khopesh illustrate this. Gradually, especially in eastern weaponry, they became to utilize the cutting/slicing action more, relying less on the force of the swing. Such blades were devastating against softer materials and left larger wounds more prone to infection and healing difficulty (not to mention greater odds of severing muscle or nerve tissue) but often lacked the mass to counteract a deflective surface. Bone wasn't always a tremendous obstacle, though, as high quality shamshirs and katana could sever bone on a strike. In the west, blades tended to become longer and moved towards stabbing functions. Early stabbing blades such as the Roman gladius were short bladed. As time went on, the blades grew in length. Some became two handed (such as the German zweihander) and are popular misdepicted in fantasy as being chopping weapons when in fact the length was used to keep opponents at bay until an opening occurred, rather like polearm fighting. The other strain grew lighter and longer and is represented by the line of blades running from rapiers to foils. These blades were optimized to pierce vitals with accurate strikes but had very little usefulness against the deflective surfaces of armor.

In terms of game application, I like where you are going. It provides useful roles for different weapon types and encourages variety in weapon selection. I have applied a similar concept to my weapon design. It helps to make choices in combat more meaningful. I also give longer weapons a defensive bonus to reflect the distance that the wielder can keep on his opponent. Of course, this is in a somewhat abstract system.... Realistically, a long weapon is great until the enemy closes, at which time you need to switch to a shorter weapon or be in for a rough time. On the flips side, a skilled combatant might be able to keep his opponent at bay and make closing *very* difficult.

Danial: The axes you refer to seem to be tool axes. While they could be used as a weapon, they would be sub-optimal to a war axe or warhammer. Most game depicted axes are war axes which generally lack a bludgeoning head (technically, the backside could be used, but this would be clumsy and largely ineffective see http://www.armae.com/Photos/axes/127PDAX153A.jpg for a good visual of a typical Danish style war axehead). Late poleaxes and warhammers were a bit different as they often coupled a claw or spike opposite the striking surface to optimize against armor, but this would have likely been used either for hooking and pulling or after the target was stunned or grounded (though, certainly not always!). In a game, this would require some fairly sophisticated combat options and would only really be appropriate to a technology setting where high armor has developed. In a setting where chain or even plated mail (or perhaps lamellar or bronze armor) is the heaviest armor employed, such tools are unlikely to be necessary.

Keep it simple, it is great for games. Look at Pokemon. Super simple battle system, but super effective.

This simple system you are working on would attract everyone because it would be very simple to pick up any play, but there would be enough to keep even the best at the game working. I rather dislike games where high armor equals winning (See: Every MMORPG for the past 10 years).

And I now understand what you meant by impale. Yes, it does impale the armor

Hrmmm... I am unaware of any sword technique used as you describe. If a claymore like sword lacked cutting edge, it was probably designed for thrusting, though (zweihanders commonly show a flattened portion of blade used as a foregrip so that the weapon may be handled like a polearm). A sword would be a poor design for bludgeoning anyhow- the weight distribution would be off and the flattened design would be inefficient. Better to use a stave or pole design. Even better, a weighted head.

In terms of mechanics, the primary factor is the cutting edge- a sharper cutting edge requires less mass. However, mass may compensate, to some degree, for a deflective surface. Whereas the lighter edge is wholly deflected, a heavier instrument may have enough inertia to cause a destructive collision and transfer force. To tissue, the difference is between tissue discconnect from blunt wounds v. piercing is often cutting v. tearing. Blunt trauma tends to result in shattered bones (force transfer) and tissue damage from extreme pressure, but far less severing of tissue. Severing tends to be irregular and marked by more distortion. Whether the wound is open generally doesn't affect blood loss (a ruptured artery/vein/capillary can bleed internally) but does affect infection rate as open wounds are more vulnerable to contamination (even from the damaging agent!). And this isn't even taking into account cavitation injury caused by high velocity penetration injuries!

For game design, this all may matter little, though.

As I said, I like the system. A lot! I just like babbling about the technical side to give people ideas and show how smart I are ;-).

I assume armor will offer different relative protections?

Yeah, that is partially why I tend to leave cavitation out- it is a somewhat disputed, and often misunderstood, topic. I generally refer only to permanent cavitation, as that is what is clearly linked with injury. However, Fackler didn't completely disavow cavitation, rather he pointed out that it's effects are often overstated or mistated. Instead, he points out the "crush" and "stretch" generated by the projectile with the "crush" referring to permanent cavitation and "stretch" referring to temporary. He addresses conceptions such as cavitation only being caused by high velocity projectiles, cavitation requiring tissue removal, failure to account for fragmentation in wounding, etc. He also argues why many tissue disassociation demonstration models (especially concerning the M-16) were misleading. However, as he points out, some tissues are more susceptible to stretch than others. Bowel walls, for example should show minimal damage while the same stretch might devastate nerve of neural tissues. Newer testing models have been developed to account for this (see Characterization of a New Rat Model of Penetrating Ballistic Brain Injury, Journal of Neurotrauma, Feb 2005, Vol. 22, No. 2 : 313 -331).

Getting back to games, a rifle being unable to penetrate cloth at 5-50 meters is absurd. Even a primitive flintlock would easily penetrate at that range (though accuracy would be an issue). In regard to bladed melee weapons, cloth is only a solid protection against some of the flexible fencing blades, and then only of of sufficient strength and proper fiber alignments (usually two or more layers in alternating layers). Any more rigid blade should easily cut the cloth fibers, though well padded armor may cause enough energy loss or deflection to reduce the injury (or redirect from a vital). Your MT example with Kevlar is also strange. Kevlar is great for quickly dispersing kinetic energy on a light projectile, but not so hot at resisting sustained force (as in muscle force). So it stops propelled missiles, but is pretty poor at stopping stab wounds, baseball bats, and the like. Plus, ballistic vests tend to only cover vital areas and leave many areas that could be effectively targeted in close combat situations (or even by canny shooters). They also do not fair well against points in general, as they cut the protective fibers (this is one of the ways you design armor penetrating rounds- sharpen the tip and add a substance less likely to deform) Hell, a kevlar vest won't even stop a high powered handgun or most rifle rounds- you need a plate insert for that. There are ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) fiber protective garments that help alot against knife attacks and the like. Such armor is commonly employed by prison guards.

Interestingly in the 1920's and 30's US criminals employed padded clothing stuffed with cloth and cotton that were fairly effective at reducing, or preventing, injuries from smaller caliber handguns. This lead law enforcement to develop a more powerful round- the .357 magnum.