Talk:Equipment/Proposed/Quarterstaff

Hate to be a spoil-sport, but I question the usefulness of such a weapon. Best to remember that generally, the only military issued melee weapons are clubs for police action, ceremonial swords, bayonettes, knives and the occasional Axe/Tomahawk/Combat-Shovel. KingMob 07:26, 16 September 2006 (CEST)

How often do modern soldiers battle small squads of extremely heavily armored infantry in urban terrain with one of the objectives to capture them alive? --Bandobras 21:17, 16 September 2006 (CEST)

Again, something that would be better served by tranquilization weapons, stun batons and so on. KingMob 08:08, 17 September 2006 (CEST)

True, but these are not effective with some armor types, some physiologies of the targets, especially if we don't know the physiologies, etc. Stunning by blunt weapon always works. --Bandobras 12:32, 17 September 2006 (CEST)

That's also not exactly true, stunning by blunt trauma depends a lot on physiology, which the enemy in this case will have significantly different psysiology than earth creatures. Additionally, with most armor types, you'd be hard pressed to damage someone with a quarter staff wearing the armor we have in 2006, let alone 2084. Then combine the fact that the enemy will have even more advanced technology than Earth at 2084. KingMob 19:45, 17 September 2006 (CEST)

OK, so not necessarily stun, but at least throw off balance, disarm, perhaps tumble, peraps break a wrist or a knee. I think all of this is quite likely even with the best current armor, even such that will hardly let any bullet in. And only the biggest bullets at right angles can have similar effects, I imagine. --Bandobras 22:56, 17 September 2006 (CEST)

Bandobras, I don't want to be rude, and I'm not trying to be insulting, but you really don't know anything about weapons or armour. Please, PLEASE, I'm begging you -- just stop discussing them! It would save us all a lot of time that would otherwise be spent refuting your uneducated opinions with facts. Over, and over, and over . . .

Winter, I believe in your good intentions in this issue and, fair enough, I have no clue about weapons or armour. But:

* nobody's forced to discuss this with me, there is even no real threat of including non-ad-hoc blunt weapons to UFO:AI in any forseeable future

* this is the only discussion about blunt weapons inside UFO:AI, AFAIK, and concluding this discussion properly would save us from repeating inconclusive quarells about the subject in the future

* I am smart enough to be explained in semi-scientific terms why such weapons are absurd or unlikely, without just saying "everybody knows that" or "the idea is stupid" or "I know all about this topic and I have a hunch this must be so, but I'm not learned enough to explain it in scientific terms and I don't want to admit it". The additional advantage of such explanation in layman terms, however simplified it would be, is that it will be understandable to many other nonprofessional readers, and we want and will have contributions from non-professionals (mods for UFO:AI, game-play feedback, etc.), even if we will be lucky enough to not need radom contributions for the main content.

* however, to show my respect for your work and your official responsibility in UFO:AI team I will stop discussing this issue for now. If somebody else picks it up, let's hope some of this discussion can be reused, instead of repeating it all over... --Bandobras 19:43, 18 September 2006 (CEST)

Back on topic, any armour that stops bullets has more than enough padding to render any blunt weapon completely ineffective, especially something as silly as a three-piece quarterstaff. There's a reason why medieval weapons haven't been used since the middle ages. Several reasons, actually. If those reasons are not self-evident to you, you need to do a LOT more reading on the subject. -- Winter

I perfectly agree. I'd believe that if you wanted a non-eletrical, non-drug based immobilization, you would have to resort to using some sort of Non-Lethal-Rigid-Foam weapon, or the like. A futuristic expansion on military non-lethal programs. KingMob 21:30, 18 September 2006 (CEST)

Some kind of weapon that shoots immobilising foam, you mean? I could totally go for that, because it would be cool AND realistic. -- Winter