Lo-Fi Games

Was considering putting this is off-topic--but I think the reality of combat will be a useful topic for getting ideas for the game, and putting some things in perspective.

There have been a number of discussions about history and historical combat, popping up in random threads. To stop that from happening further, I would like to open up this thread to discuss all things relating to historical combat and real combat.


If it helps, I have been learning from a historian, who I can speak to if a difficult subject comes up. So, posing questions is a valid option for the thread as well as general discussion.

A 17th century Caribbean Pirate, a 15th century European knight, a 16th century samurai, and a 4th century BC Spartan warrior walk into a bar. They all get into an argument, and decide the only way to solve it is by fighting to the death!

Who walks out of the bar a victor!

Things to keep in mind..

-They are all equipped with the equipment that is typically associated with that type of warrior. The knight did not take his horse into the bar.

-They are all of average ability, in respect to other warriors of their same type. (Ex. The pirate isn't Jack Sparrow, the samurai isn't a ridiculous anime character)

-The Pirate does have the era advantage, and would possibly have a flintlock pistol. No, he doesn't have 4 of them. Being the average pirate though, he is also more of a common criminal then a trained fighter as the rest of the contestants.

-Each are bound by the moral ethics typically associated with the fighters.

If the pirate has a pistol, doesn't that mean he can kill anyone of the others first? He could potentially kill the one who would otherwise come out as the winner if there was no pistol involved.
Just a thought that came to my mind...

If they 'decide' to solve the argument by fighting to the death then I can hardly imagine they all then count to 3 and then charge in. There must have been some sort of set-up 1v1 winner take all match that they decided upon. Who fights each other first?

1337 wrote:If the pirate has a pistol, doesn't that mean he can kill anyone of the others first? He could potentially kill the one who would otherwise come out as the winner if there was no pistol involved.
Just a thought that came to my mind...

Indeed the pistol is a powerful weapon, but it is still a weapon that takes skill to use.

Will the pirate be able to aim the weapon accurately enough and fire, before the spartan spears him in the face? Will the lead ball simply strike the knights armor at an angle and glance off it? Will the samurai stare calmly at the pirate, tempting the pirate to fire, only to have the bullet sliced in half, and the two halves taking out the spartan and knight?!

Well, that last one wouldn't happen, but the flintlock weapons of that era were as unreliable as they were devastating. The pirate is a bit of wildcard since he is arguably the worst fighter of everyone, with a technological advantage that may or may not be effective. Surely the pirate wouldn't win or lose based solely on his pistol though, now would he?

If this bar fight took place 10,000 times, I'm sure that we would not have the same winner each time. I'm just curious as to who everyone would thinks would be most likely to win.

Blxz wrote:If they 'decide' to solve the argument by fighting to the death then I can hardly imagine they all then count to 3 and then charge in. There must have been some sort of set-up 1v1 winner take all match that they decided upon. Who fights each other first?

Uuhh.. okay.. here's what happened!

The pirate said something about the samurai's mother. The samurai stood up and declared that the pirate has insulted his honor! The pirate then said "Aarrgg, what be ye goin' do 'bout it!" The pirate then pushes the samurai into the knight's beer, which then spills all over his nice plate armor. The knight stands up and say's "Thou hast tainted my coat of arms!".

The Spartan, who is working part-time as a bouncer for some extra cash on the side, gets the signal from the bartender that a fight is brewing. All four of them look at each other, and see each is armed and ready to fight.

Meanwhile, a dashing rogue who is counting how many gold coins are in his pouch in the backround says "1.. 2... 3...". The fighters, thinking that was a count to start fighting, suddenly charge in!

Old Man Liver wrote: Uuhh.. okay.. here's what happened!

The pirate said something about the samurai's mother. The samurai stood up and declared that the pirate has insulted his honor! The pirate then said "Aarrgg, what be ye goin' do 'bout it!" The pirate then pushes the samurai into the knight's beer, which then spills all over his nice plate armor. The knight stands up and say's "Thou hast tainted my coat of arms!".

The Spartan, who is working part-time as a bouncer for some extra cash on the side, gets the signal from the bartender that a fight is brewing. All four of them look at each other, and see each is armed and ready to fight.

Meanwhile, a dashing rogue who is counting how many gold coins are in his pouch in the backround says "1.. 2... 3...". The fighters, thinking that was a count to start fighting, suddenly charge in!

And suddenly, the samurai and knight succumb to the poison the pirate laced in their food not five minutes before. With a grin, the pirate flourishes his hat, slices off the cords to the knight's coin purse, before disappearing out the side door. The Spartan, wary of magic, hesitates a moment before pursuing the pirate out the side door.

Old Man Liver wrote:-Each are bound by the moral ethics typically associated with the fighters

Considering in your story that the knight is wearing full armour but generally you don't wear armour in a bar I must say that the knight would win. The pirate would have a first priority in regards to the samurai since he was the one insulting the mother so the single shot would likely be used on that. This weakens the only other person able to counter the heavy armour of the knight therefore we have a winner.

The spartan would be outmatched most of the time I believe, although fighting prowess is important these are all warrior caste members of society and spartans trained to fight as a group. Knights tended to do a lot of 1v1 practice and even on the battlefield would be more inclined to fight in their own space vs a target opponent.

Old Man Liver wrote:A 17th century Caribbean Pirate, a 15th century European knight, a 16th century samurai, and a 4th century BC Spartan warrior walk into a bar. They all get into an argument, and decide the only way to solve it is by fighting to the death!

Who walks out of the bar a victor!

Things to keep in mind..

-They are all equipped with the equipment that is typically associated with that type of warrior. The knight did not take his horse into the bar.

-They are all of average ability, in respect to other warriors of their same type. (Ex. The pirate isn't Jack Sparrow, the samurai isn't a ridiculous anime character)

-The Pirate does have the era advantage, and would possibly have a flintlock pistol. No, he doesn't have 4 of them. Being the average pirate though, he is also more of a common criminal then a trained fighter as the rest of the contestants.

-Each are bound by the moral ethics typically associated with the fighters.

Ooh, ooh, this is a really fun question .

Meynolt wrote:And suddenly, the samurai and knight succumb to the poison the pirate laced in their food not five minutes before. With a grin, the pirate flourishes his hat, slices off the cords to the knight's coin purse, before disappearing out the side door. The Spartan, wary of magic, hesitates a moment before pursuing the pirate out the side door.

Old Man Liver wrote:-Each are bound by the moral ethics typically associated with the fighters

Pirates aren't likely to carry poisons with them or put them to use. They're also a very superstitious lot, the sort to be more afraid of magic and signs than the Spartans. While the Spartans believes in magic and signs about as much as everyone of the time, their policy was to solve problems by killing things.

1337 wrote:If the pirate has a pistol, doesn't that mean he can kill anyone of the others first? He could potentially kill the one who would otherwise come out as the winner if there was no pistol involved.
Just a thought that came to my mind...

Old Man Liver wrote:Indeed the pistol is a powerful weapon, but it is still a weapon that takes skill to use.

Will the pirate be able to aim the weapon accurately enough and fire

flintlock weapons of that era were as unreliable as they were devastating. The pirate is a bit of wildcard since he is arguably the worst fighter of everyone, with a technological advantage that may or may not be effective. Surely the pirate wouldn't win or lose based solely on his pistol though, now would he?

I've actually been helping with a game called Hearts of Oak, about simulating the age of sail, so I can field this one.

Pistols are, regardless of the era, pistols. Since it's a small gun, it also has very little chance of penetrating good quality armour, of most kinds. If we assume the Spartan, Knight and Samurai all have their respective war gear rather than peace gear, then the pirate is pretty much done for. Most deaths caused by flintlocks were from the infection after a battle, immediate disablement being rare. The police can also attest to this fact... the rule is to put about four shots in an assailant. Even automatic weapons of larger caliber use three shot burst modes for this reason, since one shot rarely does it if your opponent is violent and willing to die fighting (especially if they're on drugs).

Will elaborate a bit more onto the skill of pirates. People are used to the idea of bandits and criminals being stupid, unskilled, and fodder. The reason for this is all the stupid criminals we have around these days. But, criminals who have to fight and murder for a living, who are known for killing each other for little reason... they are deadly fellows. While trained and experienced warriors of the castes you mentioned are still above them, they are still dangerous opponents.

The 17th century (1600s) was still using armour throughout part of it, in naval battles, so you could give the pirate some armour to make things fairer. But then, he wouldn't be so much of the swashbuckler we're thinking of, so maybe it's better to point out the Pirate is the least likely to win.

Blxz wrote:spartans trained to fight as a group. Knights tended to do a lot of 1v1 practice and even on the battlefield would be more inclined to fight in their own space vs a target opponent.

Not quite. Spartans did practice against one and other in single man fights. They also spent much of their youth surviving on their own. While knights are associated more strongly with duels, I doubt they'd have much of an advantage in this area.

As for group battles, knights kept close together for those and didn't split up--sometimes keeping rather tight formations. This is especially true of cavalry knights.


For a final sort of breakdown...

The Knight has the most obvious advantage. The best armour, and possibly the best weapon. Being indoors, he's likely to use a longsword--which he'll be trained with for dealing with armoured foes, more than likely. While a poleaxe or the like would be better, he isn't likely to have brought one inside, and it isn't necessarily the best weapon for wielding indoors.
They also are likely to be well-trained, since he is from a later period which had been developing fighting techniques for centuries.

The Samurai will have the second best armour. How close to the knight's it would be is questionable, depending on which period you pick. The best armour tends to have a proper steel cuirass and some metal throughout.
Against the knight, the Samura's weapon (a katana, since you can't really bring a larger weapon inside with you) won't be so useful. There are still some techniques he can use, but ones such as cutting the unarmoured wrists aren't applicable here (since the knight's wrists are armoured). He could still win by out-wrestling the knight--especially if from the periods where samurai were more armoured.

The Spartan could easily be considered the most skilled fighter of the bunch--the Spartans didn't have the social structure to maintain a sewer, because everything was focused on the military, and raising the best warriors. The gigantic spears of the Spartans are no use indoors whatsoever, so he's restricted to his comparably short sword. I guess you could say he brought in his shield as well, just to make things more interesting.
His armour is the best of the time, but not that great compared to the others'. Thrusting or slashing through his armour is still not easy for the others, but it also has a number of very clear gaps which can be exploited--giving the samurai in particular a much easier time.

Already gave a description of the pirate. Some pirates could kill the average knight or samurai easily enough, simply from experience and talent for murder. The average pirate is likely to not be educated, trained, nor have the mentality of a proper warrior (a willingness to die). Without armour, with only a pistol and a sword (since pikes would be, again, unusable indoors), his chances are the lowest on equipment alone. The only way he could win, would be out-wrestling the others--but that is not likely.


So, the winner is: Probably the knight.

The Spartan is a likely contender, if you restrict the four to being average for their caste--since he could win out in the wrestling by skill and knife his opponents to death. The shield may also be useful for confusing the Knight, since shields were uncommon in his period. Would have to do some research to work out how applicable disabling the shield with a longsword would be.

At the same skill level as the knight, the Samurai's at too much of an equipment disadvantage to be a likely winner, and possibly a training disadvantage since the way he is used to his enemies being armoured is different with the Knight.
He does have a decent chance against the Spartan in one sense, because as I say his armour is more similar to what the Samurai would be used to dealing with. However, the shield could throw things off a bit, just as with the knight.

Unless the pirate was a skilled example, his chances are very slim. Though, he could always run away.


Of course, if this was a free-for-all, anyone could win. The Knight and Samurai would be the most likely to, since their armour becomes particularly useful in group encounters. The Pirate could kill the Spartan by clever use of his pistol, since there are several exposed areas where a shot is more immediately fatal.

Oooo, that was a fun answer! And a good one too, I really cant even disagree or argue with much of anything in there. It seems like you know your stuff. The pistol bit was especially interesting, and I do have a bit to ask.

I was just imagining that even if I was in the Knights nice shiny armor, getting hit by a fairly close range shot from a flintlock pistol would be somewhat risky. I was thinking it would punch through it as long as the bullet hit relatively straight on. Certainly not immediately deadly in most cases as you said unless you're hit in a vital area, but surely it would be disabling from the pain.

I've never been shot, but did you ever pull a muscle in your back and then try to lift anything, or get off the couch? Its impossible! The couch becomes a prison! And I would be a fool to compare the pain of a pulled muscle to a bullet wound, but if something as common as a pulled muscle can be disabling, then a good metal chunk in my abdomen while I'm covered in heavy armor, on top of the fact I'm fighting 3 other warriors in this crazy time traveling bar that my friend recommended, would be quite difficult to deal with I assume.

In fights, adrenaline suppresses your pain (or drugs, but lets say they all left their opium at home), along with mental discipline I suppose, but I cant imagine you could completely ignore a gunshot. Thats of course if it even pierces the armor, which I have no idea whether it does or not. I sorta assumed it would in most cases. I thought the accuracy of it, or misfiring would have been the issue.

Uh, anyways, The TL;DR version of that would be "Is the flintlock pistol really that ineffective against these 3 other warriors". Maybe I was overestimating its power. Poor Pirate, I should have gave him something else.

It depends on the quality of the knight's armour, somewhat. You had German Fluted Plate, Milanese Harness, Proofed Armour (as in, there's a dent from a gun, to show that it is, "bullet proof"), and etc..

But, generally, plate armours had trouble with miniature cannons--guns which could still be considered ferocious by today's standards. I don't think penetration has much chance of happening at close range, but even if it does occur a lot of the force will be taken out of the bullet, so it wouldn't be likely to do much damage (since it isn't a guaranteed incapacitation to begin with).

Pain is a funny thing. Someone got their arm caught in a rock-slide while mountain climbing. Since no one was coming to help them, they cut their own arm off, stopped the bleeding, then wandered to a hospital a couple of miles out. But getting a nail in your foot can be extremely incapacitating.

Injuries in combat and out of combat are similar. The adrenaline and other things of that nature tend to postpone injuries. Soldiers and police use more lead than most people consider necessary, because of this. The only way to stop someone for sure is to shoot them in the spine/nerve centre, shatter their pelvis (hard to fight if your legs don't support you), or destroy their brain (I use the term destroy because some people have continued to function after taking a bullet to the head).

Guns misfiring was actually pretty rare, even with the types known for it. In bad conditions, with certain kinds of guns, there have been problems where water gets into the wrong place and it won't fire--but indoors is pretty good conditions. While old guns are certainly inaccurate compared to now, they aren't too bad--the main problem with firing at close range would be your moving targets (and their armour).

Mostly, the pirate wouldn't seem very piratey if you gave him more than you did. I guess you could've given him a grenade--that would've changed things a bit (everyone in the room being injured or dying might be the likely outcome).

Ah, all very fascinating. I had to look up a couple of pictures of proofed armor, just because it sounded interesting. I would feel pretty safe wearing a breastplate that had evidence of laughing in the face of a bullet. Thank you for your time in answering my silly question!

It wasn't a silly question. Would've been during the period if you were a warrior. But nowadays, there's so much misinformation in popular media (like Game of Thrones saying straight blades are good because they can "stab right through plate armour"), it's very hard to have a picture of what the reality is like.

Just to clarify on Proofed Plate, while the stuff was proven to be able to survive a bullet, it couldn't really laugh in the face of them still. The powerful hand-carried guns of the time could even penetrate the best armour, if fired at close ranges. The Proofing was a sign that armour could take a shot, at a reasonable range. Of course, the problem of firing at close range, is that a knight on horseback gives you little time to reload, aim, or live, when you let them get close.

Allow me to fix my sentence then. I would feel somewhat safe wearing a breastplate that had evidence of chuckling nervously in the face of a bullet.

Kind of like sitting in a tank. It's all well in good till someone brings out a javelin missile.

Old Man Liver wrote:A 17th century Caribbean Pirate, a 15th century European knight, a 16th century samurai, and a 4th century BC Spartan warrior walk into a bar. They all get into an argument, and decide the only way to solve it is by fighting to the death!

Who walks out of the bar a victor!

The average pirate is likely to not be educated, trained, nor have the mentality of a proper warrior (a willingness to die). Without armour, with only a pistol and a sword (since pikes would be, again, unusable indoors), his chances are the lowest on equipment alone. The only way he could win, would be out-wrestling the others--but that is not likely.

So the pirate will probably run away, thus walking out of the bar alive (victor).
For the other 3, it could go many ways, anyone could come out winner (and then get killed by the pirate and his gang in a back alley) or they could all get a deadly wound from the fight, in which case the pirate is again the victor walking out of the bar, in the long run anyway.

A lot of things could happen. An average pirate isn't likely to have friends loyal or dumb enough to risk taking on a fully armoured warrior (they're pirates, not primates). If it's the right kind of pirate town, they might kill anyone who comes through with as much as boots to steal.

It is unlikely for all of them to be wounded, especially deadly injuries, simply due to their armour and the location. Armour does make it harder for you to sutain serious injuries. And, while bars aren't necessarily clean (they're a lot cleaner than they are in movies), it's TONS better that most battlefield conditions where you get infections (that's what makes most injuries fatal).

Wow, a full plate Knight is really the apex of martial examples. With full plate and a warhammer, he pretty much outclasses everything. They were likely the best martialy trained warriors in all history, they were exposed to almost every weapon and weapon combination, and mastered dozens. They were also huge (heights of surviving armor examples over 6 feet tall are common). These guys were like the professional athletes of the day. Recruited from the best and granted lands and title for a life time of violence. Short, skinny soldiers need not apply.

The pirate is really dependent on how well equipped he is. Give him a deck gun? A few were highly trained, but most attacked merchant ships for a reason (and that is: they were not soldiers, they were thieves).

The Samurai is out of his league here. The isolationistic nature of Japan, and the rejection of advances deemed 'not japanese' really put them at a disadvantage. They were completely unfamiliar with foreign tactics and technology, and were actually quite 'respectively' poor warriors, ie: the mongol invasions. Ironical, they are also likely the most overconfident.

The spartan is a little different. That shield of his is a game changer. Not only is it defensive, it can be swung with enough force to hurt a man in full plate. Now his gear is primarily for formation fighting, but i really could imagine them sparring pretty well against the knight. Their armor would be useless against a warhammer though.

Still you have to give the spartan major props! We are comparing him to a 15th century knight, a 17th century pirate and an 19th century samurai!*

*The height of Sparta was around 650BC

While the spartan has much lower quality gear, (majority of their armor is bronze, compared to iron or even steel) the shield he possesses is a valuable asset in this fight.

Spartan shields when readied in their fighting stance cover from the lower base of the helm all the way down to slightly above the knees. That's pretty much full body protection when we consider the reach of the weapons each person has at their disposal and the indoor limitations. The only exposure is their right side(locking shields in formation usually) but that can be adjusted in stance.

Traditional sword fighting styles do not aim for the shins and below, that's more of a staff/polearm class tactics, so for the sake of argument that's almost as good as full body plating. The only issue is shield durability since the shield is made from a wooden frame and cast in bronze: if it had to up against something like a warhammer or mace.

At a hefty 30 pounds and being so big, the shield can be used in a variety of ways apart from just defense; bashing, side or overhead swings. It's a deep hurdle to overcome for the samurai and the knight. He might not be able to kill the knight since he's clad in full body armour but the Spartan's damn hard to kill too.

Scotterius wrote:Wow, a full plate Knight is really the apex of martial examples. With full plate and a warhammer, he pretty much outclasses everything. They were likely the best martialy trained warriors in all history, they were exposed to almost every weapon and weapon combination, and mastered dozens. They were also huge (heights of surviving armor examples over 6 feet tall are common). These guys were like the professional athletes of the day. Recruited from the best and granted lands and title for a life time of violence. Short, skinny soldiers need not apply.


The pirate is really dependent on how well equipped he is. Give him a deck gun? A few were highly trained, but most attacked merchant ships for a reason (and that is: they were not soldiers, they were thieves).


The Samurai is out of his league here. The isolationistic nature of Japan, and the rejection of advances deemed 'not japanese' really put them at a disadvantage. They were completely unfamiliar with foreign tactics and technology, and were actually quite 'respectively' poor warriors, ie: the mongol invasions. Ironical, they are also likely the most overconfident.


The spartan is a little different. That shield of his is a game changer. Not only is it defensive, it can be swung with enough force to hurt a man in full plate. Now his gear is primarily for formation fighting, but i really could imagine them sparring pretty well against the knight. Their armor would be useless against a warhammer though.

Well, it's mostly his equipment in comparison to the later and former ages. Knights were still in use for quite a while after gunpowder weapons got popular, and could've still been in use for longer if they weren't considered economically unwise. It is true that the age of knights is when fighting schools with hand weapons were probably at their most developed in Europe, with all the past centuries' of experience. Like many warrior elites, they were picked for being suitable for the job, so tall fellows would be common enough.


Some experienced pirates would be very impressive fighters--enough to worry knights. The best way to get good at killing, after all, is to go out and murder people as an occupation. If you gave the pirate a suitable gun, his ability to kill any given warrior would become more reasonable--but they aren't really weapons you want to use at indoor ranges.


The Samurai aren't given enough credit (except when they're given way too much). While disinterested in outside nations a while before the Americans came, Japan had been taking note of European advances throughout the past. Breastplates were used in the later periods as plate armour got popular in Europe. Guns were of course taken over, and were key to Nobunaga's success. I have even seen comments that the Japanese didn't both to develop the katana or other weapons further, considering them perfect--when of course all weapons were in constant development and improvement, just as they were in Europe and the rest of the world (many of the changes, of course, are too small to notice without careful study).

The Samurai are equivalent to knights, being very similar in many ways. They also were trained in a variety of weapons, with fighting schools across the country which had the benefit of centuries of improvement (the later "sportification" of these schools was something the Samurai families strongly opposed). Nobunaga invented many amazing tactics related to firearms, which became a standard for the rest of the world.


If you mean aggravate him, yes. As for hurt as in seriously injure... a couple of historians decided to try having a go at each other with maces, while wearing plate armour. At first they were gentle and careful, but as they weren't hurting each other or the armour, they eventually got excited and were fighting with all the force they could muster. The fight went on for several minutes with them bashing each other. It ended when a strike caused one of them to take a knee, and the other struck him atop the head with his face, full-force. And... they were both totally OK, afterwards. That's with a mace, designed for dealing with armour. A shield heavy enough to hurt in any serious way would be too heavy to use.

It's very hard to make armour which is good against a warhammer, depending on the size involved, of course. If it's a poleaxe... you'd need to be wearing a panzer.

KuroHyou wrote:While the spartan has much lower quality gear, (majority of their armor is bronze, compared to iron or even steel) the shield he possesses is a valuable asset in this fight.

Spartan shields when readied in their fighting stance cover from the lower base of the helm all the way down to slightly above the knees. That's pretty much full body protection when we consider the reach of the weapons each person has at their disposal and the indoor limitations. The only exposure is their right side(locking shields in formation usually) but that can be adjusted in stance.

Traditional sword fighting styles do not aim for the shins and below, that's more of a staff/polearm class tactics, so for the sake of argument that's almost as good as full body plating. The only issue is shield durability since the shield is made from a wooden frame and cast in bronze: if it had to up against something like a warhammer or mace.

At a hefty 30 pounds and being so big, the shield can be used in a variety of ways apart from just defense; bashing, side or overhead swings. It's a deep hurdle to overcome for the samurai and the knight. He might not be able to kill the knight since he's clad in full body armour but the Spartan's damn hard to kill too.

The gaps in their armour are less significant for this reason. However, since the knight and samurai are both thoroughly armoured, and their swords are longer than the Spartan's, attacks to the shins would suddenly become an option, unless they're too orthodox. The Spartan would, of course, take not of this fact, and try to take advantage of them making such an awkward strike--but he's still at a notable disadvantage, since even striking them atop the head isn't a great pay off under the circumstances.

Shields do have a lot of utility, as you point out. I made an earlier point that you can't hurt a knight in plate with a shield, which is true--but you can use it to set him up for a move that will hurt him. Of course, without a warhammer of his own, the Spartan has to get the fight to a form of wrestling, so he'll need to abandon that shield when it has served that purpose.