Shields And Their Underuse

[PixelBuck]

Now, when it comes to medieval armaments, a sword and shield are pretty much what you think of first. Whether it be a buckler or a pot lid, shields have nearly infinite uses. Then why is it I see so little of them on Massive?

Sure the Violets use shields and there are weapons meant to be used with two hands, but why is it there are so many people who play as mercenary or simply warrior-like characters without a shield? Being without a shield may be more aesthetically pleasing, but when it comes to the basics of battle, you might as well stab yourself with that sword if you intend on using a one-handed weapon without something to defend yourself from opposing strikes. Yes, parrying is a thing, but such techniques can 't be executed against blunt weapons and it can be hard to do so in a clash of multiple people.

Basically, why is it characters skilled in combat so commonly go without shields in RP when they would aid the player in so many ways?

 

[Gabauchi]

I thought shields and major weapons were illegal in regalia

 

[Phon_Senajan]

My characters have different physiology. One out of the two combatting chars is an all out offensive style so defense is not a concern. The other however, is geared towards defensive tank thus a shield is used by him.

But like @Gabauchi says, most "big" weapons (anything bigger than a knife or in some cases a shortsword) including shields are illegal to carry, and I doubt sewer dwellers would reasonably be able to afford a very well made defensive equipment.

 

[Parz1vol]

Many combat RPERS don't realize the use of shields, and I have a shelved character that focused on them. People thought they could smash through shields.

 

[Parz1vol]

Many combat RPERS don't realize the use of shields, and I have a shelved character that focused on them. People thought they could smash through shields.

Click to shrink...

After thinking for another 30 seconds, I realized that most Sewer RP characters would, logically, carry at least a buckler of some kind.

 

[Beetletoes]

I guess I don't because my characters are mostly magically or speed oriented. My mages don't know how to use shields, and my fighters are just focused on agility and speed. Not defense.

 

[FireFan96]

I'm going to assume shields require a weapon permit to carry around.
They aren't military grade, but the average commoner wouldn't need to carry around a shield.

There's a city guard to protect you. If you carry around a shield expecting it to one day come in handy, you either have a lack of faith in the guard force, or are looking for trouble. Either way, it explains why so few shields are in RP.

Now if this was PvP, I couldn't give a solid response (since everyone knows I don't PvP)
But I'd argue a bow in the offhand it better than a shield.

Note:
I consider a buckler to be a shield, despite it being tiny.

 

[Lizmun]

As most have said, shields are illegal.

Not only are they illegal, but they're not exactly easy to conceal when you're moving them about, either. At least, not as easy as a sword. It'd be difficult to get your hands on a quality shield, seeing as they'd be difficult to snatch and carry on the surface, and I'd assume they'd be expensive if bought from a smuggler.

 

[Last_Link]

Well the main reason that nobody has really mentioned yet is because they could have got their hands on some quality armor. Why carry a shield if a set of good armor does the job just as well and allows you to use both arms? If you want proof of this logic then go search around and you will see how often fully armored knights didnt carry shields. In general someone carries a shield if they have less armor on, which is why they were favorited by the vikings, who were poor farmers that usually couldnt afford full body armor.

 

[Last_Link]

Well the main reason that nobody has really mentioned yet is because they could have got their hands on some quality armor. Why carry a shield if a set of good armor does the job just as well and allows you to use both arms? If you want proof of this logic then go search around and you will see how often fully armored knights didnt carry shields. In general someone carries a shield if they have less armor on, which is why they were favorited by the vikings, who were poor farmers that usually couldnt afford full body armor.

Click to shrink...

Also while getting a shield would actually be quite easy (all you really need is to be able cut a piece of wood in a circle and bolt a metal handle on) they are rarely carried around by a person on foot because they tend to weigh alot, they have to be able to stop a swing from an axe or hammer and provide protection to the entire chest. This makes it not very practical for someone who only fights on occasion and is just interested in having a weapon to protect themselves with.

 

[GoodDreamer]

I only have one character that is combat ready, and being a Dakkar, he is already well defended.

Although, my next character will certainly use a shield.

I think the reason we often forget shields is becuase it is only recently that we have been able to properly implement them into roleplay, and most focus before that was simply on either swords or hammers and axes.


Another notable thing is the large amounts of blade users on the server.
Swords are usually not a fantastic solo weapon, they have poor range compared to spears and they have low power compared to heavy weapons. They just look cool.

Sure, they are great when paired up with a shield, but if you don't use a shield, then you effectively have no defence. Swords can parry, but that is not the best option tbh.

 

[fuithlug]

Sure, they are great when paired up with a shield, but if you don't use a shield, then you effectively have no defence. Swords can parry, but that is not the best option tbh.

Click to shrink...

Sword and dagger or more commonly rapier and dagger can be used to the same effect as sword and buckler -if not better effect, this is obviously more common in duelling circumstances rather than battlefield fighting in which case you should have a spear, shield and sword no exceptions (Other than missile weapons)

Fun fact xo

 

[Pugsly10]

Now, when it comes to medieval armaments, a sword and shield are pretty much what you think of first. Whether it be a buckler or a pot lid, shields have nearly infinite uses. Then why is it I see so little of them on Massive?

Sure the Violets use shields and there are weapons meant to be used with two hands, but why is it there are so many people who play as mercenary or simply warrior-like characters without a shield? Being without a shield may be more aesthetically pleasing, but when it comes to the basics of battle, you might as well stab yourself with that sword if you intend on using a one-handed weapon without something to defend yourself from opposing strikes. Yes, parrying is a thing, but such techniques can 't be executed against blunt weapons and it can be hard to do so in a clash of multiple people.

Basically, why is it characters skilled in combat so commonly go without shields in RP when they would aid the player in so many ways?

Click to shrink...

I use aspis and the dory, but no 1 phalanx wit mei so p useless ;-;

 

[PixelBuck]

you should have a spear, shield and sword no exceptions (Other than missile weapons)

Fun fact xo

Click to shrink...

I'd have to disagree with you there, Belgrade. Really, it's circumstantial. What if you're up against enemies wearing heavy plate armor? Gonna want a war hammer or mace for that.

 

[fuithlug]

On a battlefield? large scale medieval battlefield tactics and any large scale battlefield tactics have never relied on mace or warhammer heroes that would be taken out with a volley of arrows or a phalanx of spears

EDIT: Besides a warhammer is definitely too heavy to wield on a battlefield where you need to be manoeuvrable, a shield and mace could work but a mace is still much more cumbersome than a sword.

 

[ElderShrub]

The main reason shields are underused is simple. We are not soldiers. They are cheap, and extremely effective, however they are large, heavy and difficult to carry around. So unless you are a guard or planning on a pitched battle, there is no reason for anyone to carry a shield. If you have a weapon permit however I would strongly advise a buckler. However just to keep the conversation going if I was to go into a medieval battle, I would want a poleaxe of some kind.

 

[ElderShrub]

Another note. Not being rude to Belgrade here but the warhammer is one of my personal favorite medieval weapons.

a warhammer is definitely too heavy to wield on a battlefield

Click to shrink...

Spoiler: Images

A warhammer:

A sledgehammer:

As you can see. A warhammer is not a large weapon. It is about the length of a long axe or a sword, and is used to pierce light armor. It was basically a dedicated anti-armor weapon and was certainly used on the battlefield.

 

[GoodDreamer]

Another note. Not being rude to Belgrade here but the warhammer is one of my personal favorite medieval weapons.

Spoiler: Images

A warhammer:

A sledgehammer:

As you can see. A warhammer is not a large weapon. It is about the length of a long axe or a sword, and is used to pierce light armor. It was basically a dedicated anti-armor weapon and was certainly used on the battlefield.

Click to shrink...

I think that @Belgrade was referring to mauls, which are basically 5 foot sledge hammers.

volley of arrows or a phalanx of spears

Click to shrink...

You are comparing a Single solder to a volley of arrows, and to multiple enemies with Extended range. In both scenarios he is outnumbered.

A sword and shield is great against un armored opponents, but come across someone in heavy armor, or another shield, and you have a longer fight ahead of you, and in the case of the armor, you are practically screwed.
That's when warhammers and mauls come in, they are used to combat those people.

 

[InktoberGlow]

So many mentioning how it's illegal, but there's sewer dwellers, where just about everyone has a weapon...

Heck, I don't even combat roleplay and my two best admired characters (loved for being smol) carry knives. PERIWINKLE HAS AN EXCUSE THOUGH, IT'S FOR CRAZY SURGICAL SHIT

 

[BulbousDevourer]

On a battlefield? large scale medieval battlefield tactics and any large scale battlefield tactics have never relied on mace or warhammer heroes that would be taken out with a volley of arrows or a phalanx of spears

EDIT: Besides a warhammer is definitely too heavy to wield on a battlefield where you need to be manoeuvrable, a shield and mace could work but a mace is still much more cumbersome than a sword.

Click to shrink...

Not necessarily. A typical warhammer from back then was about 2 or 2 and a half feet long, and only weighed around 3 pounds. The weight of your average sword ranges from 2.5 to 3.5 pounds, and even the heaviest swords rarely weighed more than 4.5 pounds. Your average mace also only weighed about 3 pounds. Warhammers and maces were far from the 100 pound monstrosities that video games depict them as. The warhammer we're all used to seeing in games would be completely useless in a real combat scenario. As for whether warhammers and maces were used in combat, I can't say, but against someone with plate armor, you'd definitely want some sort of blunt weapon. Even if they weren't armored, they could still be used very effectively.

 

[fuithlug]

Not necessarily. A typical warhammer from back then was about 2 or 2 and a half feet long, and only weighed around 3 pounds. The weight of your average sword ranges from 2.5 to 3.5 pounds, and even the heaviest swords rarely weighed more than 4.5 pounds. Your average mace also only weighed about 3 pounds. War hammers and maces were far from the 100 pound monstrosities that video games depict them as. The war hammer we're all used to seeing in games would be completely useless in a real combat scenario. As for whether war hammers and maces were used in combat, I can't say, but against someone with plate armour, you'd definitely want some sort of blunt weapon. Even if they weren't armored, they could still be used very effectively.

Click to shrink...

The only people wearing plate-mail or any armour similar on the battlefield would be knights and in comparison to the amount of other foot soldiers there were very few -in fact only about 1-5% of the male population were knights.

That means out of an army of 500 men (not including archers) there would be at most about 25 people wearing plate armour, the chances of a normal foot soldier coming into contact with one of these men is relatively slim given the chaotic nature of a medieval/renaissance battle. So it would be more logical to arm all your men with spears, swords and shields rather than a war hammer or mace because if you come across another guy who isn't in plate armour and they have a spear and shield and you have a mace or hammer and shield, they will more than likely win because your weapon is going to be need to be swung rather than thrusted, revealing a lot of room for someone with a lot of range to stab you in the side (Spear or sword). Not to mention a hammers spike would get stuck in something in a situation where you need to be continuously moving (The spike being the part that is used to penetrate armour) allowing any enemy around you to target you and incapacitating you before leaving.

Lets not forget that wearing plate-mail armour does not make you invincible and they can be killed by someone wielding a spear, and it is not the job of an infantryman to go and fight a knight one on one, so why would you give them a tool to do that?
If anything a war hammer or mace would be wielded by another knight, horseman or heavily armoured opponent and not by the majority of the battlefield.

You would also find that almost every renaissance or medieval military (and older) that had large scale battles armed their soldiers with swords, spears and shields because they are the most effective in that scenario. See, Romans, Greeks, Mainland Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, Persians and British.

I'm not saying that war hammers and maces aren't good weapons, because of course they're great for fighting someone in plate armour and heavy armour, although they aren't practical in a battlefield situation.

I'd suggest people go check out scholagladiatoria on youtube xoxo
pls know I'm not angry or salty xoxoxo

 

[Nudibronch]

Just gonna add some of my thoughts here for funsies.

Regarding why shields are underused, I believe that's essentially been solved. Shields may be incredibly useful, but they are bulky and heavy and not worth much if put in incapable hands. Furthermore, they're essentially illegal in Regalia, so you shouldn't be found having one in any case (unless you're a violet, of course).

Regarding the whole warhammer argument, as stated before, it really depends on who you're fighting and who you're fighting with. In my opinion, warhammers can be extremely devastating, but it's too circumstantial and you're really better off with a sword.

Warhammers are incredibly effective against unarmored to lightly armed foes. I'd imagine it relatively easy to crack bones and cause concussions- even without proper training, you can deal hefty amounts of damage. However, such a weapon is only really effective at a specific time. No matter how powerful an axeman is, all the advantages can cancel out too quickly for my tastes. Run into a shield wall? Even if you hammer one soldier down, there are two others on either side who can incapacitate you with rapid thrusts to your lower limbs. Run into a more heavily armed foe? Sure, you may be able to deal blunt damage, but it still won't be an easy battle (and you won't be able to thrust into the gaps of your assailant's armor). Furthermore, in tight formations, swinging hammers (no matter the size) is going to be hampered by the fact that a comrade is standing inches away from you.

In single combat, I believe that blunt trauma based weaponry can be extremely effective (when used properly, mind you), but in a large scale battle, you can get tied up in a knot real quick. Too quickly, in my opinion.

I personally believe that while warhammers can deal a hefty amount of damage, the times when they are at their best is just a bit too heavily weighted on circumstance, and you're better off wielding a more versatile weapon.

 

[GoodDreamer]

Run into a more heavily armed foe? Sure, you may be able to deal blunt damage, but it still won't be an easy battle (and you won't be able to thrust into the gaps of your assailant's armor).

Click to shrink...

"War hammers, especially when mounted on a pole, could damage without penetrating the armour. In particular, they transmitted the impact through even the thickest helmet and caused concussions"
Wiki

They are literally built to mess knights up.

 

[Nudibronch]

"War hammers, especially when mounted on a pole, could damage without penetrating the armour. In particular, they transmitted the impact through even the thickest helmet and caused concussions"
Wiki

They are literally built to mess knights up.

Click to shrink...

I am aware of that. Nonetheless, just because you have a warhammer does not mean you're going to instantly grab a win. It also depends on your skill and the skill of your opponent. It's not going to matter how good a weapon is at doing damage to a particular type of enemy if that enemy guts you before you can land a solid hit.

 

[GoodDreamer]

I am aware of that. Nonetheless, just because you have a warhammer does not mean you're going to instantly grab a win. It also depends on your skill and the skill of your opponent. It's not going to matter how good a weapon is at doing damage to a particular type of enemy if that enemy guts you before you can land a solid hit.

Click to shrink...

True enough