Sword stuff. And other tech/martial arts related discussions.

[Sardukhar]

Metal is made up of "crystals" too. So, you cannot say it is not metal. Everything about the description for those field swords says "metal". Metal is not, and never will be "obsolete".

I think that's what they said about swords. Try bringing a sword to your next war. Yeah. And probably steam. Possibly rocks as weapons. Obsolete is the future of metal.

Tech is tech. The whole idea is to move ahead and leave old tech behind. Metal is very old tech - it's okay if we move onto something better. Like the Arasaka Daisho! The Future Of Swords.

Although really, it will be the Mono-3, which won't break on a parry and will do more damage and better pen.

 

[Tramp-Graphics]

Sword stuff. And other tech/martial arts related discussions.

I think that's what they said about swords. Try bringing a sword to your next war. Yeah. And probably steam. Possibly rocks as weapons. Obsolete is the future of metal.

Tech is tech. The whole idea is to move ahead and leave old tech behind. Metal is very old tech - it's okay if we move onto something better. Like the Arasaka Daisho! The Future Of Swords.

Although really, it will be the Mono-3, which won't break on a parry and will do more damage and better pen.

If swords were completely obsolete, the game wouldn't include even Mono-swords, so that argument doesn't work. Metals will never be obsolete because they are so versatile in their uses. The Arasaka Daisho is metal. the specific type of metal is irrelevant, though, probably a some high-tech steel alloy. The very properties that the swords are stated to have is what specifically establishes it as metal, and not a "gem", "snowflake", nor "salt" type single, large crystalline solid . We're talking microscopic polycrystalline solids. Those are found in ice, rocks, ceramics, and metals. It's not glass, because glass is an amorphous solid, not crystalline. The combination of flexibility and a hard edge eliminates ice, rock and ceramics too. That leaves metals. That means Iron, Aluminum, Titanium, Tungsten, etc. and alloys thereof.—Crystal The Arasaka Field swords exhibit the exact same properties as a traditionally made, high quality tamahagene steel sword: strength, ductility, (luster, opacity, etc.) combined with a hard, sharp edge. Those are the distinctive characteristics of metals, not rock, not ice, not gems not salts. Therefore, whatever the Arasaka swords are made of, it is a metal.

 

[Suhiira]

A while back there was some discussion about "rail" or "gauss" guns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hqm-9Cdkk0
Please note the power supply units shown in some of the scenes.

Exactly. The Katana's combination of both toughness and extremely hard edge is created by the use of a hard outer skin steel and softer inner core steel, as well as a differentially hardened blade creating a martensite edge which stays razor sharp, and a Pearlite body, which remains flexible and strong.

ANY decent sword has a "soft" core and "hard" edge.
The katana, unlike European swords, isn't designed/intended to batter thru heavy European style armor.

And while I'm not a materials expert myself a good friend is a mechanical engineer and once explained it all to me (using very small words).

It's not. It's a crystal.

Even worse, crystals are VERY "hard".
Consider glass, a small bead (like might be used in jewelery) is difficult to break because of shape and size. Now take a piece of glass 1m long and maybe 1cm thick, thus shaped like a sword blade, how long do you think it will last?

If swords were completely obsolete, the game wouldn't include even Mono-swords, so that argument doesn't work. Metals will never be obsolete because they are so versatile in their uses.

I disagree, swords are included in the game because to many people watch techo-ninja movies NOT because swords are practical weapons in the age of firearms.
Rambo made good use of his bow in the second movie, but bows are still obsolete.

 

[Sardukhar]

Even worse, crystals are VERY "hard".
Consider glass, a small bead (like might be used in jewelery) is difficult to break because of shape and size. Now take a piece of glass 1m long and maybe 1cm thick, thus shaped like a sword blade, how long do you think it will last?

Oh, I know that. Orbital Crystal - the same stuff used in Orbital Crystal cyberware, is not the crystal we have today.

I mean, I presume. I haven't seen the stats or anything. I presume because it is tougher and more flexible than Terrestrial materials - the SP and SDP are higher, it flexes and in every way, it's better than the metal and composites used to make cyberware on earth.

Thus, some kind of advanced crystal or crystal-like material we haven't invented in our world. Seems logical. Maybe it's not crystal at all, just a brand-name kind of thing, but that would be pure speculation. Based on book stats, Orbital Crystal material is an advanced crystal material that has replaced metals and plastic and composites - or been combined with them - to make a material that surpasses those down here.

Weapons tech, like anything, advances. We eventually will have something better than chemical slugthrowers. We eventually will have something better than eyeglasses to improve our failing visio...oh, wait, we have that already.

The trick, to return to the Topic At Hand, is to keep the Cyberpunk weapons tech just a bit ahead of our own. Swords made of some kind of crystal or super-plastic or Space Metal: cool. Swords made of energy or Alien Fibers - too far ahead.

And, yeah, lots of weapons and gear in Cyberpunk are obsolete - it's there for style and player fetish.

 

[Tramp-Graphics]

Oh, I know that. Orbital Crystal - the same stuff used in Orbital Crystal cyberware, is not the crystal we have today.

I mean, I presume. I haven't seen the stats or anything. I presume because it is tougher and more flexible than Terrestrial materials - the SP and SDP are higher, it flexes and in every way, it's better than the metal and composites used to make cyberware on earth.

Thus, some kind of advanced crystal or crystal-like material we haven't invented in our world. Seems logical. Maybe it's not crystal at all, just a brand-name kind of thing, but that would be pure speculation. Based on book stats, Orbital Crystal material is an advanced crystal material that has replaced metals and plastic and composites - or been combined with them - to make a material that surpasses those down here.

Weapons tech, like anything, advances. We eventually will have something better than chemical slugthrowers. We eventually will have something better than eyeglasses to improve our failing visio...oh, wait, we have that already.

The trick, to return to the Topic At Hand, is to keep the Cyberpunk weapons tech just a bit ahead of our own. Swords made of some kind of crystal or super-plastic or Space Metal: cool. Swords made of energy or Alien Fibers - too far ahead.

And, yeah, lots of weapons and gear in Cyberpunk are obsolete - it's there for style and player fetish.

We;re still talking about the same basic chemical elements here though, and no matter how "advanced" the technology, it's not going to suddenly change the laws of physics in how certain elements interact. A non-metallic crystalline solid is not going to exhibit the properties of a metallic crystalline solid. The stats of the Arasaka katana are those of a metal katana: WA: +1, 3D6 armor piecing damage (soft SP/2 w/ Hard SP/2 thrusting). And, once again, Arasaka's swords are not stated to be made from "Orbital Crystal". whatever that is. All it says is that they're forged in orbit as a means to "somehow" make them stronger than metals forged on earth. Therefore, you'll never "replace" metals, all you can hope to do is make better metal alloys.

As for Swords and bows being completely "obsolete", not true. They still have their place in combat, and in the military. US Marines wear fully functional sabers as part of their dress uniform, for instance, and the Japanese soldiers of WWII also carried swords into battle. Are the Marine's swords primarily ceremonial? Most definitely. However, if needed, they're still quite deadly. Also, a bow is a great weapon if you need to be silent. that.s because of one little fact mentioned in Solo of Fortune 2[/i— you can't really silence a bullet without reducing it to subsonic speeds, and even then, it's not completely silent. So they still have their uses in combat.

 

[Suhiira]

"Forged in orbit" implies better alignment of the particles (as I said before MUCH easier to do in zero-G), thus a somewhat denser and (usually) significantly more durable material.
http://www.esa.int/spaceinvideos/Videos/2012/07/Zero-g_metal_X-ray
So your sword would be harder to break so you would be able to put more force behind a blow. I'm not entirely sure if it could take a finer edge but that's pretty irrelevant because "chef knife sharp" vs "fine razor sharp" isn't going to significantly increase the damage done and certainly it's going to let you cut gun barrels in half.

---------- Updated at 07:35 PM ----------

As for Swords and bows being completely "obsolete", not true. They still have their place in combat, and in the military. US Marines wear fully functional sabers as part of their dress uniform, for instance, and the Japanese soldiers of WWII also carried swords into battle. Are the Marine's swords primarily ceremonial? Most definitely. However, if needed, they're still quite deadly.

Afraid not, retired US Marine here, and I've taught "Sword Drill" classes. Those things are chrome plated, etched, ceremonial blades that not only can't take and edge it's against regulations to try to sharpen one.
Now the Japanese swords in WW II were fully functional, but were carried mostly as a symbol of rank and "Bushido" tradition and ethics (not that the WW II version of Bushido had much to do with the tradational values).

 

[Tramp-Graphics]

"Forged in orbit" implies better alignment of the particles (as I said before MUCH easier to do in zero-G), thus a somewhat denser and (usually) significantly more durable material.
http://www.esa.int/spaceinvideos/Videos/2012/07/Zero-g_metal_X-ray
So your sword would be harder to break so you would be able to put more force behind a blow. I'm not entirely sure if it could take a finer edge but that's pretty irrelevant because "chef knife sharp" vs "fine razor sharp" isn't going to significantly increase the damage done and certainly it's going to let you cut gun barrels in half.

Makes some sense, though we're still talking metal, not some other esoteric elements.
---------- Updated at 07:35 PM ----------

Afraid not, retired US Marine here, and I've taught "Sword Drill" classes. Those things are chrome plated, etched, ceremonial blades that not only can't take and edge it's against regulations to try to sharpen one.
Now the Japanese swords in WW II were fully functional, but were carried mostly as a symbol of rank and "Bushido" tradition and ethics (not that the WW II version of Bushido had much to do with the tradational values).

I was Army so...

 

[Suhiira]

Esoteric elements are where things get FUN tho!
With them you're talking about a whole range of properties involving structural strength, weight, conductivity, etc. However NONE of them would allow for a "magic" katana doing significantly more damage or allowing you to slice off gun barrels.

Now if you theorize a mono-katana (molecule think cutting edge) or some sort of laser "light sabre" then yeah such things would be possible. Trouble is neither of those is a realistic weapon (from a physics perspective), both belong firmly in the "fantasy" category.

 

[Sardukhar]

Now if you theorize a mono-katana (molecule think cutting edge) or some sort of laser "light sabre" then yeah such things would be possible. Trouble is neither of those is a realistic weapon (from a physics perspective), both belong firmly in the "fantasy" category.

Well, technology and science are funny things. If we were always right about what is and isn't possible, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/floperry/invisibility-cloak#.rrwP9erW6

We don't really know what is possible. We don't. We have some idea what was possible yesterday, but we don't know what will be possible tomorrow. We can make educated guesses - we can also be wrong.

I am no physics expert and I think few here are. What I have observed is that throughout the history of man, people have been telling other people, "that just doesn't work and never will!" and then we find the Higgs Boson, Black Holes, Tachyon particles, quarks, and a planet that orbits its star rather than the other way round.

What was that line from Men In Black. Ah, yes, Google, so handy.

" Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/physicists-one-step-closer-to-creating-real-life-lightsabers/

"It's not an in-apt analogy to compare this to lightsabers," Harvard physics professor Mikhail Lukin said in a statement. "When these photons interact with each other, they're pushing against and deflect each other. The physics of what's happening in these molecules is similar to what we see in the movies."

 

[Tramp-Graphics]

Esoteric elements are where things get FUN tho!
With them you're talking about a whole range of properties involving structural strength, weight, conductivity, etc. However NONE of them would allow for a "magic" katana doing significantly more damage or allowing you to slice off gun barrels.

Now if you theorize a mono-katana (molecule think cutting edge) or some sort of laser "light sabre" then yeah such things would be possible. Trouble is neither of those is a realistic weapon (from a physics perspective), both belong firmly in the "fantasy" category.

Well, technology and science are funny things. If we were always right about what is and isn't possible, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/floperry/invisibility-cloak#.rrwP9erW6

We don't really know what is possible. We don't. We have some idea what was possible yesterday, but we don't know what will be possible tomorrow. We can make educated guesses - we can also be wrong.

I am no physics expert and I think few here are. What I have observed is that throughout the history of man, people have been telling other people, "that just doesn't work and never will!" and then we find the Higgs Boson, Black Holes, Tachyon particles, quarks, and a planet that orbits its star rather than the other way round.

What was that line from Men In Black. Ah, yes, Google, so handy.

" Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/physicists-one-step-closer-to-creating-real-life-lightsabers/

"It's not an in-apt analogy to compare this to lightsabers," Harvard physics professor Mikhail Lukin said in a statement. "When these photons interact with each other, they're pushing against and deflect each other. The physics of what's happening in these molecules is similar to what we see in the movies."

I'd say Suhiira nailed it pretty much dead on. It's a matter of chemistry. there are only a limited number of elements, and each has specific properties, particularly when combined with various other elements. Only certain elements form crystalline structures, and some only form them under certain circumstances. Secondly, only metals form crystalline structures that are not only relatively hard, but also strong, ductile, fusible, malleable, opaque, lustrous, and conductive, all at once.

Simply put, what you call "Orbital Crystal" is not one specific compound. It's a description of many different possible compounds and alloys, including metals, depending upon exactly what properties you want to achieve. You can produce an Orbital Crystal Quartz, An orbital Crystal Ceramic, and an Orbital Crystal steel. All would "technically" be a form of "Orbital Crystal" if they were produced in orbit to produce specific crystalline matrices. The Arasaka field swords fall into the category of an "orbital crystal" steel. It is steel whose crystalline matrix is formed in orbit to produce a stronger metal. It's still steel.

 

[Sardukhar]

Simply put, what you call "Orbital Crystal" is not one specific compound..

And you know this how? Did Mike tell you? He did, didn't he. That BASTARD. Always with the secrets.

You don't know this - you're just guessing. Mostly, I would say, because you really, really, really want steel swords to still be relevant in Cyberpunk. A certain amount of selection bias, there.

We have no idea what Orbital Crystal tech is. Or monosword tech. Or monowhip tech. Or the laser cannon. Or reflex boosting. Or skinweave. Or the Sporthearts. Displaced hearts. Cybersnakes. The BigRipp. How SovWear works differently than other cyber. How the Swiss clinics do what they do. How the stealth cloaks work. The Flechette pistol that fires from a spinning wheel. The HEP rounds fired from pistols. The DP rounds NCPD uses. Etc. etc.

Iharu-Grubb transformations. Virtual Reality. Reliable cloned organs. I could really go on. There's soooo much...ACPA. Flying ACPA. AIs. Laser eyes. Nanohealing.

The tech isn't explained, or explained only vaguely. The trick is to make it seem possible, but in reality, easily 90% of it could never see the light of day. And other bits will - like Google and the modern Internet, no Dataterm needed.

Cyberpunk weapons should give you a feel of what-could-be or what-really-is and just occasionally, a sense of how-would-that-even-work. Like the plasma cannon, say, or mobile eyeball.

 

[Tramp-Graphics]

Sword stuff. And other tech/martial arts related discussions.

And you know this how? Did Mike tell you? He did, didn't he. That BASTARD. Always with the secrets.

You don't know this - you're just guessing. Mostly, I would say, because you really, really, really want steel swords to still be relevant in Cyberpunk. A certain amount of selection bias, there.

We have no idea what Orbital Crystal tech is. Or monosword tech. Or monowhip tech. Or the laser cannon. Or reflex boosting. Or skinweave. Or the Sporthearts. Displaced hearts. Cybersnakes. The BigRipp. How SovWear works differently than other cyber. How the Swiss clinics do what they do. How the stealth cloaks work. The Flechette pistol that fires from a spinning wheel. The HEP rounds fired from pistols. The DP rounds NCPD uses. Etc. etc.

Iharu-Grubb transformations. Virtual Reality. Reliable cloned organs. I could really go on. There's soooo much...ACPA. Flying ACPA. AIs. Laser eyes. Nanohealing.

The tech isn't explained, or explained only vaguely. The trick is to make it seem possible, but in reality, easily 90% of it could never see the light of day. And other bits will - like Google and the modern Internet, no Dataterm needed.

Cyberpunk weapons should give you a feel of what-could-be or what-really-is and just occasionally, a sense of how-would-that-even-work. Like the plasma cannon, say, or mobile eyeball.

It's not that hard to deduce just from the description of their physical and structural properties. The monoknife and Monokatana from the core rules and the "improved" Mono-Two versions of them from the Chrome book 1 are described as being very hard and sharp, as well as having a "milky, nearly transparent" appearance. From that, we can deduce that they are a rock or ceramic crystalline structure. By contrast, the Arasaka field swords, are described as being very strong, flexible, as well as sharp, and are compared with other metals, It's not described as a hard, brittle, ceramic or clear rocky crystal. The properties exhibited by the Arasaka swords are that of a metal, one produced in orbit. They do not exhibit the properties of a mono-crystalline blade. They exhibit the properties of a steel blade, albeit one stronger than most terrestrial steel due to a denser crystalline structure. Not only that, but the nearly unlimited uses and types of alloys that can be produced from different metals, more of which are produced every year, also means metals are not going to "go away". In fact, most of your "orbital crystal" tech will involve a metal of some type. Not only that, but the "myomar fibers" used in cybernetics is a metal; namely a shape memory alloy. Therefore, "Orbital Crystal" does not mean non-metal. Mono-crystal is a non-mettalic crystal. "orbital crystal" is not necessarily non-metallic. It all depends upon the specific properties they're trying to produce for what specific applications. For a sword that won't easily break, but will still hold an edge, that means a combination of metal alloys, not a stone, not a ceramic.

 

[Suhiira]

I'd say @Tramp-Graphics is basing his/her deductions on the same thing I am. Chemistry and Physics.
If Mike/CDPR choose to ignore these for the sake of "gameplay" then this whole discussion is totally moot.
However, if they want to base the future world of CP2077 on realistic science then they have to have a scientifically valid justification for things.
Check any Periodic Table of Elements : http://science.widener.edu/~svanbram/ptable_6.pdf and you'll see it has categories, "metals" being one of them. These categories are based on the elements having similar properties.

Mono-Sword
If the cutting edge is one molecule thick it would cut thru any scabbard you tried to put it in. But if you somehow avoid this the first time you hit anything both the object you hit AND the blade of your sword will be split by that one molecule cutting edge. Finally assuming you avoid all of the above I guess we have to assume that single molecule edge must somehow self-repair because short of re-manufacturing there no way anyone going to sharpen the thing.

Light sabre
I've yet to see light (i.e. a laser beam) reach some predetermined length then just stop or cease to exist. Light fades with distance as it interacts with the atoms of dust, air, whatever it makes contact with and attenuates. Also unless the laser is EXTREMELY high energy (requiring a power supply that would be far from man portable) it's not going to vaporize anything on mere contact, you'd have to maintain contact with the object for at least a significant fraction of a second (and up to several seconds) to do any significant damage.

 

[Calistarius]

No matter what the material these said melee weapons are in... I would still choice a normal straight and double eded sword, over a curved single edged sword, every single time.

I mean, I like Katanas and other such weapons as much as anyone... but I have always liked the style and look of swords that where more common here in Europe a lot more. And I have also never belived the hype that a lot of people tend to throw towards the Katana etc.

They are good weapons sure. But not at everything, they are good at certain things... but not to such a level that they would by any means be the "be all and end all sword" when it comes to swords in general.

For one, Katanas are not as versatile of a weapon as a regular longsword would be.

 

[Tramp-Graphics]

No matter what the material these said melee weapons are in... I would still choice a normal straight and double eded sword, over a curved single edged sword, every single time.

I mean, I like Katanas and other such weapons as much as anyone... but I have always liked the style and look of swords that where more common here in Europe a lot more. And I have also never belived the hype that a lot of people tend to throw towards the Katana etc.

They are good weapons sure. But not at everything, they are good at certain things... but not to such a level that they would by any means be the "be all and end all sword" when it comes to swords in general.

For one, Katanas are not as versatile of a weapon as a regular longsword would be.

As someone who owns a celtic broad sword and a skramasax (a type of single-eged Germanic short sword, also known as a seax, scramaseax, or scramasax), I've gotta disagree. The only real "advantage" I see a double-edged sword having is cutting on the back swing. Other than that, Katana all the way. Aside from the metallurgical construction of the weapon, The fact that it is a single edge with a nice, thick spine means you can parry with the back of the blade and not risk damaging the edge. That is beauty of single edged swords. And the fact that the blade is curved means that the force of the cut is delivered with a much smaller surface area, which equates to a deeper cut with less effort.

 

[Calistarius]

As someone who owns a celtic broad sword and a skramasax (a type of single-eged Germanic short sword, also known as a seax[/URL], scramaseax, or scramasax), I've gotta disagree. The only real "advantage" I see a double-edged sword having is cutting on the back swing. Other than that, Katana all the way. Aside from the metallurgical construction of the weapon, The fact that it is a single edge with a nice, thick spine means you can parry with the back of the blade and not risk damaging the edge. That is beauty of single edged swords. And the fact that the blade is curved means that the force of the cut is delivered with a much smaller surface area, which equates to a deeper cut with less effort.

As far as I know you have never really heard of warriors who hold their Katana on the blade and then smash the opponent with the crossguard/hilt/pummel... where as that is known to happen with straight double edged weapons here in Europe. You basicly have a club doing that... was quite effective against other people with plate armour on. I mean if you compare the hilt of many swords, with a warhammer... it's not all that different. Half swording is a thing, and it makes the use of the weapon very versatile, not only as a kind of club, but also for precision stabbing with the blade, AND as a cutting weapon against people with soft armor, or no armor.

With the Katana you don't really have that. I mean it is possible to do it... but the "club" type of strike I mentioned above would probably be nowhere near as effective with a Katana, since I do not think that they have the same kind of weight in their hilt as most european swords had.

As for parrying... it is not to uncommon to parry with the flat of a sword either, and most european swords are more flexible in the lateral direction, more so then what most Katanas are... which makes a difference, since a Katana would be more likally to break due to that. Also, due to Katanas much harder edge, they where more prone to cracking and pieces of the edge compleatly breaking of, much more so then most edges used in europe. And it did not matter to much if the european swords edge lost it's sharpness a bit, or gashes and such... they can still cut pretty well. I have seen blunted european swords (where you could drag your hand along the edge without cutting your self) cut through those rolled mats that they often use to show how sharp the Katana is. Yes, they had to use a bit more force, and the cuts where definatly not as clean... but cut the mats they did anyway.

And yes... the Katana is very good at cutting... but that only really applies to "soft targets"... so either no armor, cloth/fabric armor, and soft leather and such. I don't know how well it would do against properly hardened leather (I have read that it can be harder then wood apperantly)... but against anything metal, be it chainmail or plate armor... it is going to struggle. Stabbing works against chainmail of course... but the same can be said for regular european swords vs chainmail. The Katana is going to struggle against plate armor no matter what (as much as they try to show a katana cut/stab through plate online, I highly doubt it would really do much against properly made plate armor).

So really... the Katana has basicly the same kind of problem that for examle a longsword would have against armor. Yes a longsword is not as good at cutting cloth and leather and such, as the katana is, but at the same time that longsword is going to give a concusive strike instead. Since all of the power in the swing will go straight into the target, rather then most of it disapearing. In either cases the fight might be over with one good strike... be it by a cutting katana, or a concusive strike from a longsword.

I am not saying that one is better then the other. What I am saying is that the Katana is not superior to other swords. I am also saying that in general there has always been a huge amount of exaggerations been thrown around when it comes to the Katana, and at the same time a huge amount of underating and general claiming of being inferior when it comes to what the european swords are capable of.

And when it comes right down to it... if a sword can make nice clean perfect cuts, or not, matters little on the battlefield. It matters little if the opponent died from a perfect cut, or a bonecrunching strike that more ripped apart the flesh then cut it apart. Dead is dead no matter how it happend. I doubt anyone goes around after a fight and says "oh, look at that strike, look at how clean that cut is... amazing!".

 

[Tramp-Graphics]

As far as I know you have never really heard of warriors who hold their Katana on the blade and then smash the opponent with the crossguard/hilt/pummel... where as that is known to happen with straight double edged weapons here in Europe. You basicly have a club doing that... was quite effective against other people with plate armour on. I mean if you compare the hilt of many swords, with a warhammer... it's not all that different. Half swording is a thing, and it makes the use of the weapon very versatile, not only as a kind of club, but also for precision stabbing with the blade, AND as a cutting weapon against people with soft armor, or no armor.

With the Katana you don't really have that. I mean it is possible to do it... but the "club" type of strike I mentioned above would probably be nowhere near as effective with a Katana, since I do not think that they have the same kind of weight in their hilt as most european swords had.

As for parrying... it is not to uncommon to parry with the flat of a sword either, and most european swords are more flexible in the lateral direction, more so then what most Katanas are... which makes a difference, since a Katana would be more likally to break due to that. Also, due to Katanas much harder edge, they where more prone to cracking and pieces of the edge compleatly breaking of, much more so then most edges used in europe. And it did not matter to much if the european swords edge lost it's sharpness a bit, or gashes and such... they can still cut pretty well. I have seen blunted european swords (where you could drag your hand along the edge without cutting your self) cut through those rolled mats that they often use to show how sharp the Katana is. Yes, they had to use a bit more force, and the cuts where definatly not as clean... but cut the mats they did anyway.

And yes... the Katana is very good at cutting... but that only really applies to "soft targets"... so either no armor, cloth/fabric armor, and soft leather and such. I don't know how well it would do against properly hardened leather (I have read that it can be harder then wood apperantly)... but against anything metal, be it chainmail or plate armor... it is going to struggle. Stabbing works against chainmail of course... but the same can be said for regular european swords vs chainmail. The Katana is going to struggle against plate armor no matter what (as much as they try to show a katana cut/stab through plate online, I highly doubt it would really do much against properly made plate armor).

So really... the Katana has basicly the same kind of problem that for examle a longsword would have against armor. Yes a longsword is not as good at cutting cloth and leather and such, as the katana is, but at the same time that longsword is going to give a concusive strike instead. Since all of the power in the swing will go straight into the target, rather then most of it disapearing. In either cases the fight might be over with one good strike... be it by a cutting katana, or a concusive strike from a longsword.

I am not saying that one is better then the other. What I am saying is that the Katana is not superior to other swords. I am also saying that in general there has always been a huge amount of exaggerations been thrown around when it comes to the Katana, and at the same time a huge amount of underating and general claiming of being inferior when it comes to what the european swords are capable of.

And when it comes right down to it... if a sword can make nice clean perfect cuts, or not, matters little on the battlefield. It matters little if the opponent died from a perfect cut, or a bonecrunching strike that more ripped apart the flesh then cut it apart. Dead is dead no matter how it happend. I doubt anyone goes around after a fight and says "oh, look at that strike, look at how clean that cut is... amazing!".

Actually, I've seen a katana beat out a European sword against plate armor. When slashing into plate, it actually put a deep crevasse into the steel, whereas the longsword just bounced off, and when thrusting, the katana penetrated much deeper than the long sword. The katana penetrated nearly an inch through the plate, whereas the longsword only made a tiny hole, not even penetrating 1/8 of an inch. Against leather armor, the longsword didn't even cut the leather, while the katana slashed right through it and deep into the mannequin wearing it. If it had been a real person, they'd have lost their shoulder, their heart, and several other vital organs. The key reason for it is that while both deliver the same amount of force to a target, With a katana, all of that force is concentrated into a much smaller surface area because of the curve of the blade. With a straight sword, the force is spread out, and thus diffused over a wider area. As a result, it can't cut as deeply without more brute strength poured into the blow. Therefore, the katana does more damage with less effort.

As for parrying, they don't use the flat of the blade. They use the back of the blade—The blunt edge along the spine, where the blade is strongest and most resilient. with a double-edged sword, you either have to parry with the flat of the blade (which is really dangerous because the opponent's blade can easily slide down your blade and hit your hands), or use the edge, which can damage it. With a single-edged sword, you can parry with the back of the blade, and thus get the same benefits as parrying with the edge, but without the risk of damaging the cutting surface. And, yes, with a katana, you could "half-hand" it, by gripping the blade by its spine, but without wrapping your hand around the edge.

 

[Sardukhar]

Sword stuff. And other tech/martial arts related discussions.

For all your swordy needs.

 

[Suhiira]

Try these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnkVlK3BFLw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YZDb98Mqnk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4plBF80UBo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsYbRom3h7U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gN7gNVU48M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEm7A7Zhkvc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppG4y59l5QY

 

[Tramp-Graphics]

Yeah, I've seen those videos and I have some issues with his "treatises" on the Katana. First off, he admits that he is not an expert on the katana, and, in fact, has very little experience with them. He is a HEMA enthusiast (European sword arts), and, therefore, has a bias towards European blades. Granted, he is a little less biased than one or two other "HEMA" fans on Youtube i've seen videos by, but still. Given that, I have to take his opinions on the Katana with a grain of salt. It is one thing of note about his last video which is important to our little discussion, and which supports what I've been saying about how much better a Katana can cut vs a European straight bladed sword. Even, scholagladiatoria says that a curved blade cuts better than a straight blade. His choices for the best cutters have extremely curved blades. A curved blade concentrates the cutting power of the swing in a smaller area creating more force per square inch. The other factor for a Katana's better cutting and thrusting power, is the stiffness of the blade (not to be confused with hardness), while by no means"rigid", the katana does have a stiffer blade than a European long sword, much like a heavy-duty leave spring is stiffer than a light duty leave spring. This is because the katana typically has a thicker cross section at its thickest point, the shinogi. This means, it will drive into its target with more force before bending.

---------- Updated at 08:24 PM ----------

Oh, I was just going through my Chrome book 1, while working on some new characters, and noticed something very relevant to this "discussion". It's been Sardukhar's stance that "orbital Crystal" isn't or can't be metal. Well, the picture on page 57 of CHB2 proves that wrong. The picture of of an "Orbital Crystal" cyber-arm by Psiberstuff. Here's the kicker: it's chromed metallic, not glassy. Thus, "Orbital Crystal" is a form of metal (be it steel, some other alloy, pure elemental metal, etc.). This supports my view that the Arasaka blades are metal as well. It isn't a ceramic or "glassy" crystal.