In a real life fight | Forums

[iHunny]

Technique is factored in with Skill. More they are of the same makeup.

I am compelled to disagree with you that Weapons and Armor irreversibly change the tide of battle assuming Skill Level is equal. While I understand there is a bias in favor of factoring in Technology, etc.; this is not the end all factor when considering opponents of equal skill.

I'm sorry, but the reality is that technology does not play near the role we're giving it here. Technology doesn't actually become a factor until there are monumental differences between the two levels of technology.

And my Bias is because I identify with Samurai more then the others, but not because I genuinely believe they would come out on top. If I HAD to pick: Viking all day every day.

Is this ingame or outgame toughts? Cos in real history a Knight would win cos of its training and armorment. And this is not my personal bias, becos if I would take that into account, Viking every time. But, they are however underarmed vs a Knight. And sword and board would do quick work out of a Samurai who is not trained against it.

[Echo_Magnus]

Is this ingame or outgame toughts? Cos in real history a Knight would win cos of its training and armorment. And this is not my personal bias, becos if I would take that into account, Viking every time. But, they are however underarmed vs a Knight. And sword and board would do quick work out of a Samurai who is not trained against it.

I'm speaking for both in and out of game. But if I am being honest with myself, Technology in game can and does often make the difference between victory and defeat -- but this is do to programming.

Out of game, Technology does play a role, but it is not such a benefactor until there is an obvious overwhelming difference between the technological levels of the combating parties.In the case of Knights vs Samurai vs Vikings, there is not such a leap in technological advances that, even on an equal skill level, is the sole reason for victory.

On the Sword and Board case you made, Samurai were known to also use Dual Weilding, which does help to compensate for the shield.

Now I am not trying to suggest that technology is not a factor worth noting; but in the event that all three are equally skilled, it doesn't play as much of a role as it would against the same Warriors of lesser or unequal skill. What I am suggesting is that a highly skilled version of the KvSvV scenario wouldn't be as ruled by the technological difference between them as is being suggested. If the Casual Knight came against the Casual Samurai/Viking -- Knight all day every day. If we took the Apex example of each KvSvV, then I don't think technology alone is the deciding factor in who ends up victorious.

This is why I don't believe a victor can be clearly decided.

But I do hear you iHunny.

[MisterWillow]

Technology doesn't actually become a factor until there are monumental differences between the two levels of technology.

There are monumental technological differences between historical Knights and the other factions, though.

The European armour of the 1500s was thick enough that the only way you could harm someone was with blunt force trauma (via maces and warhammers) or finding gaps in armour for something pointy to go through. A sword's edge would do next to nothing---cause some dents, probably, but not cut through it---so a katana would be near useless unless used as a thrusting weapon (which isn't its primary purpose), and neither would a naginata. A kanabo would probably be a Samurai's best friend, or a spear, since the former could pulverise whatever's underneath the armour and the latter provides adequate range (unless, of course, the Knight has a polearm as well) and could find necessary gaps.

The Samurai, on the other hand, had weapons that would be inadequate to deal with plate-maille (as alluded to), unless the entire regiment were armed with kanabo, and while their armour would probably provide adequate protection if hit by a sword, the way it's fitted provides for many more gaps than European armour, and the Knights would have more ways of dealing with it, between maces, warhammers, half-swording/mordhau, halberds, and whatever else. All this is working under a presumption that a knight is without a shield, which would add another layer of protection, which the Samurai would be unprepared to deal with, since they didn't develop it within their own culture to the extent of pretty much everyone else.

Vikings---judging what we know of them---would also struggle to match Knights in the armour department, because even though they did have steel armour, they never developed plate-maille. Aside from their helmets, if they did use steel, aside from chainmaille, it was mainly lamellar construction, and would be about as vulnerable gap-wise as the Samurai. I also believe that Knights had advanced their metallurgy a bit by the 1500s, so their steel would have been of a better quality than their 1100s counterparts, which would include the Vikings. Vikings would have a bit of an easier time with the Knights, I feel---maybe not much, but still---given that they had shields, they had well developed battle tactics (again, from what we know), and axes would factor in more prominently, which could not only do more blunt damage (obviously not to the extent of a mace), but could be used to hook weapons, hook shields, hook legs or arms, and throw someone in plate armour off their game (possibly off their feet), making for easy dispatches.

If everyone were using exactly the same tech---or if all war tech had developed at the same rate, and focused on the same things---it would be a bit of a toss-up, but I'd still give a slight edge to Vikings, and not just from bias. They fought and defeated people with at least the same war tech as them (maybe a little more advanced, since technically plate armour had existed in Europe since the ancient Greeks) for long enough---and on their home turf, no less---that I feel their battlefield prowess is beyond question. They only really 'disappeared' because of the aforementioned circumstances of integration, religious conversion, some in-fighting, etc. And like I said earlier, Samurai would be a wild-card, since, if their tech had developed the same way, they would probably be unrecognisable, so there's no telling what they would bring to the table.

[Echo_Magnus]

There are monumental technological differences between historical Knights and the other factions, though.
"Snip"

Thank you for taking the time to lay out this information; it was very well presented. With this I'm now going to take the time to reconsider my opinion.

[iHunny]

The problem with this question is, Vikings weapons, armor and techniqus did not devolope to muh since they excisted in such a short period of time compared to Knights and Samurais. Samurais were isolated and did not need to adapt to surrounding countries weapons, armor and tactics. When guns were introduesed they banned it cos it demishided the Samurai warrior cast and made the pesant cast as good in battlefield cos of the guns easy to use and killing power. Knights in Europe constantly "evolved" to suite the ever changing warfare and disapeared when the gunpowdered weapons got more reiable and advance. Samurais was isolated and did not change with the times, Vikings had a short history, Knights had to change cos of better weapons and arms. 1868 was the last of the Samurai, by that time the West was way superior in warfare.

In short, the Samurai would lose cos of there isolation diminishing there armor and weapons.

[Mlacis]

Samurai armour weights nearly the same like a European plate armour...
You can probably move better in a European plate armour than a samurai armour because the armour is much closer to the body.
I really hate it that most of humanity believes samurais were some super warriors....

You are wrong, here was dry facts - samurai armor was very effective https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9OvaL2W6BA and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B_6BU7SYf8 . Ah yes, you say, knight armor is easy use? Look this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eStDPtR1vc . Is it? By the way knights armor optimized for horse riding not for foot fight. My opinion - we need forth fraction - Chinese. They can be very dangerous enemy - armor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlS46LBznLA and nice weapons https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR4a7uwc5QU .

[Mlacis]

I'm sure in a real fight samurai vs knight the samurai would have a really hard time because he can't penetrate the armour or block the attack from the knight, because the Katana would just break by a block. So he has to evade and parry which is much harder.

Question to you - Witch black belt master win - kung-fu, hapkido, aikido, karate, Jiu-Jitsu, judo, MMA, boxing, kraw maga, muay thai, capoeira or systema korean? What marshal art is the best? Who win?

[Mlacis]

I really hate it that most of humanity believes samurais were some super warriors....

For education purpose https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmXghaxTfTo

[Willaguy2010]

You are wrong, here was dry facts - samurai armor was very effective https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9OvaL2W6BA and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B_6BU7SYf8 . Ah yes, you say, knight armor is easy use? Look this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eStDPtR1vc . Is it? By the way knights armor optimized for horse riding not for foot fight. My opinion - we need forth fraction - Chinese. They can be very dangerous enemy - armor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlS46LBznLA and nice weapons https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR4a7uwc5QU .

A knight was trained from the age of six, as a squire. During this training they would of course exercise and practice swordsmanship and marshal arts. This made the knight very fit when he came of age. Also, back then if you were rich enough to afford full plate then you were rich enough to have it fitted to your body, further decreasing the encumberence. As stated previously, special forces have about 70kg of equipment with most of it on their back and chest, whereas a knight has about 25kg of armor distributed throughout their body. I don't believe plate armor when equipped by a knight is as cumbersome as you or other make it out to be.

Would not this comparison be a bit unfair? The samurai were isolated and restricted by their own government to evolve technology-wise and the Vikings weren't around nearly as long as the other two factions.

[NephthysIV]

Question to you - Witch black belt master win - kung-fu, hapkido, aikido, karate, Jiu-Jitsu, judo, MMA, boxing, kraw maga, muay thai, capoeira or systema korean? What marshal art is the best? Who win?

I still think that you can say that some are better than others. I practiced many material arts like Kung Fu Kempo, Karate, Jui Jutsu, Judo, Kickboxing, Boxing, Thaiboxing and MMA over 11 years.
Kung Fu and Karate have so many useless and stupid moves. They only look fancy and you need much training to do it. I still think simple things are the best, like Boxing, Thaiboxing with a bit of practining in Grabbling.
You can make some of the fancy material arts like Tiger Kung Fu work but you need to invest so much more time into it than in material arts that I considered to be good. If you would invest this time in useful material arts you would have been a mucher better fighter. Most modern material arts are good, because they mostly use easy and effectiv moves.