| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Night[Mare
Mexico4793 Posts
On July 27 2008 10:45 FragKrag wrote: Actually, I think protection from Black would be more useful. Edit: But this is coming from a black player. haha i actually think that the MTG knight is better, but its situational  . INFEST and GG both | ||
|
Artanis[Xp]
Netherlands12968 Posts
On July 27 2008 10:45 FragKrag wrote: Actually, I think protection from Black would be more useful. Edit: But this is coming from a black player. I'm assuming they're going at it face to face. Samurai would get+1+1 and own the knight. | ||
|
YPang
United States4024 Posts
| ||
|
REDBLUEGREEN
Germany1903 Posts
| ||
|
Jyvblamo
Canada13788 Posts
On July 27 2008 10:56 REDBLUEGREEN wrote: i think you're wrong, because you forgot that the samurai does not have good armor or shield and would get owned within the first 3 strikes How could we have been so blind...? | ||
|
opsayo
591 Posts
![[image loading]](http://bjorn.foxtail.nu/images/jt_katana.jpg) | ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
edit: ...especially katanas. | ||
|
lxginverse
Monaco1506 Posts
cause its cooler  Suo... Hyoso-hojin lol | ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
"Hey Bubba! Put this beer can on your head, I'ma shoot it!" | ||
|
shinigami
Canada423 Posts
Generally, knights are THE elite soldiers. They're strong as hell (able to cut charging enemies in half, even mounted), and they are wearing PLATE armor, making them invincible save for weak points in the armor (neck, joints). However, for the sake of the argument, we'll say the knight is using a sword and shield. This also means that the knight possesses high mobility even in full plate due to high strength. Samurais are also elite soldiers, seeking death in battle. This makes them to be extremely zealous soldiers who don't fear death. They naturally have high mobility, as well as the all powerful katana augmented with their highly skilled techniques. Katanas are traditionally able to cut most other swords due to the meticulous and precise crafting process, but it will not be able to cut through a slab of plate. If anything, the samurai has to stab the knight, which leaves the samurai open to be countered with a shield block and a nice stab in the gut. Therefore, the fight is simple... If the samurai charges first, the knight will block and cut him down by turtling... He'll shield his weak points and be able to dish out amazing damage with his strength. Trying to get behind the knight is useless, since the knight we're talking about has high mobility in the first place due to being able to wear the plate with ease... If the knight charges, the samurai can avoid his attack and swiftly counterattack in an hopefully vulnerable spot. If there is no such opening (and most likely there won't be due to the shield), the knight is back in control of the fight. TL;DR version: (Too long didn't read version) White people are too strong for us chinks. In any martial art, it's proven that no amount of technique beats pure raw manly strength. Combine the two (i.e. knights) and you've got an unstoppable melee killing machine. (Knights have extensive training too! (squires)) However, samurai usually are expert marksmen as well. They carry bows in addition to their swords. Therefore, the samurai will win if we are talking about real samurai who use bows. The knight may be able to last a long time by defending with his shield, but inevitably the knight will not be able to block 100% of the arrows shot. | ||
|
opsayo
591 Posts
| ||
|
Phyre
United States1288 Posts
On July 27 2008 10:03 Terranator wrote: Go knights! In all seriousness, most knights were mounted and cavalry > any melee foot soldier. How many times do I need to state that samurai also used horses? Seriously. | ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
Everything about it was optimized for the quick draw and draw cut against a non-metallic target. They were tough enough to survive hitting steel armor without breaking (at least a couple of times), but they couldn't cut through unless it was weak. It had a good stabbing point, but it was balanced and curved for slashing, so stabbing with strength and precision against armor was difficult. The technology was basically the same as the spatha, which was in use in Europe in the 3rd century BC. European swordsmithing technology only improved from there, while Japan discovered it a millenium later and failed to progress beyond that level until contact was made with the West. Japan was basically limited to this one all-purpose long sword (although they also had the shorter wakizashi, and in earlier times they had a longer sword of similar design), while in Europe there were many specialized swords optimized for different purposes. Aside from special purpose optimizations and clever features, European swordsmithing was superior in three major aspects: a) Better understanding of cross-sectional structure. Japanese swords were all thick rectangular bars with a triangular edge. European swords used more sophisticated design features such as fullers, which allowed their swords to be lighter while having the same strength, as well as a choice between octagonal, diamond, hexagonal, lenticular, and hollow ground cross-sections for better suitability for specific purposes. b) Better understanding of temper. Katanas were tempered for one purpose alone: cutting power. That means a hard, sharp edge and a stiff yet durable, non-brittle back. There was no place on them that was suitable for forceful blocking: side, back, or edge, the blade was likely to be damaged when absorbing a hard hit directly. European blades might be tempered at the edges for a katana-like keen edge against non-armored opponents, or for a duller edge that would take less damage on armor, and the flats routinely had a temper like armor, so forceful blows could be blocked with the flat, avoiding damage to the blade. Some European swords were so springy they were almost impossible to break, and under the most extreme force (which would break a katana) would simply bend, so they could later be straightened, yet still had a stiff body and a sharp edge. c) Lower cost and more consistent quality. Superior European metallurgy and abundance of ores made swords much more affordable, and swordsmithing a much more viable business. There were more swordsmiths with more experience and more competition. A successful Japanese swordsmith might only have been involved in the manufacture of a hundred swords in his life, while his European equivalent might have made a thousand. Is it any wonder that the Japanese were mired in strict adherence to tradition while the Europeans experimented and made progress? The katana: just another heavy saber, optimized for fast killing of lightly armored opponents, no bells or whistles, expensive as hell. | ||
|
MCMcEmcee
United States1609 Posts
| ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On July 27 2008 12:29 Phyre wrote: How many times do I need to state that samurai also used horses? Seriously. They weren't very good at fighting from horses, though. Normally they used horses as transporation to the battlefields, then got off of them and fought on foot, like dragoons. They didn't take the care in breeding large and fierce warhorses and training and equipping for the cavalry charge that the European knights did. For instance, they did not joust. Under certain circumstances, samurai would fight from horseback, with spear, sword, or even bow, but it wasn't their primary battlefield role the way it was with the knight. | ||
|
larra
Germany44 Posts
But since Japanese people likes to make an art of everything, a Kensai will own an elite Knight so bad with his micro and apm, the Knight will be cut into pieces from behind before he even realizes his opponent is 5 time faster than him, especially in sword-drawing technique. | ||
|
Jyvblamo
Canada13788 Posts
On July 27 2008 13:21 larra wrote: Normal Knight vs normal Samurai, Knight would win. But since Japanese people likes to make an art of everything, a Kensai will own an elite Knight so bad with his micro and apm, the Knight will be cut into pieces from behind before he even realizes his opponent is 5 time faster than him, especially in sword-drawing technique. The Kensai would lose because God would grant the Christian super-strength and he would kick the heathen's ass. | ||
|
Kaesi
United States82 Posts
In a straight up, on foot, sword vs sword fight, the knight has a significant edge I'd say. But the Samurai are not swordsmen... They're elite horse archers... Why are we even doing this comparison when it's been proven again and again horse archers >>>> Knights? | ||
|
LuckyOne
266 Posts
On July 27 2008 13:21 larra wrote: Normal Knight vs normal Samurai, Knight would win. But since Japanese people likes to make an art of everything, a Kensai will own an elite Knight so bad with his micro and apm, the Knight will be cut into pieces from behind before he even realizes his opponent is 5 time faster than him, especially in sword-drawing technique. no he will just take a potato chip ... and.... eat it!!! | ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On July 27 2008 13:46 Jyvblamo wrote: The Kensai would lose because God would grant the Christian super-strength and he would kick the heathen's ass. yup hell if where gonna make shit up like knights can move faster then a turtle and swing swords as fast as a 2 year old with a base ball bat or samurais can do like front flips and run 19283102 miles an hour and can cut though cars might as well do spiritual power GOD>all lol holy wars ftw | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Online Event
herO vs Lemon
Solar vs GuMiho
Code For Giants Cup
The PondCast
WardiTV Spring Champion…
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
Online Event
Clem vs Nice
SHIN vs Classic
Replay Cast
Clem vs Dark
ByuN vs herO
OSC
Online Event
Creator vs GuMiho
Percival vs Dark
Zoun vs ByuN
Lemon vs Ryung
WardiTV Spring Champion…
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
