|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:22 am
Aftermath is an Survival Horror RP taking place after the Chernobyl disaster. It's 1989 (3 years after Chernobyl goes rampant) and after the Berlin wall came down, your character takes a flight (For what ever reason) to Russia. After a plane crash over Ukraine you wake up in a run down, yet high-tech hospital with a Box of random supplies infront of you. A hand-gun included, your adventure begins in...
Aftermath: The Chernobyl Disaster
Things to expect:
- Simple and Fun Combat System
- Survival, rather then Shoot'em up, style of play.
- A twisting plot is a Horror atmosphere.
- Zombies
- A Map for those who have no idea where Chernobyl is.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:26 pm
In some cases? Try most cases. Sorry, but when my life is in danger, and I have to pick between Gun and Sword: Gun wins.Let me rephrase: Lighter Arms > Heavier Swords.Quote: Yeah, WALLHANGER swords might be. Even my which is barely decent weighs just 3 pounds and it's pretty damn fast alright, nothing Conan about it. And even though blunt, it can still crush zombie skulls. If I had an Albion, however, it'd weigh a little over 2 pounds and would cleave two zombies in half- a friend of mine's Albion was so sharp, its tip burst through the plastic container and got bent. Quote: In 1986, yes, but I was talking 2007. And I'm having such training smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:30 pm
Heh, is this kind of based off STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:51 pm
Ashark Heh, is this kind of based off STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl?
Only, you know, more zombies and less bad sound in the CGI.
Actually, No CGI.
Yes, STALKER was a big influence for this, so was Bioshock/Systemshock 2 and Half Life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:37 am
Quote: In some cases? Try most cases. Sorry, but when my life is in danger, and I have to pick between Gun and Sword: Gun wins. I meant swords are more effective in SOME cases wink Quote: Let me rephrase: Lighter Arms > Heavier Swords. Oh really? A pistol's like what, 1 kg? As heavy as a sword. SMGs and shotguns are 2 or 3 times than that. Nope, they ain't lighter, they're just faster to fire. Quote: Videos or it didn't happen. Apparently your 3 lbs (not pounds, lawl) sword can cut through 20 lbs of skull. Executioneers of Medieval times could not sever a head in one swing of a great axe. I'm not sure what chance your sword has, but I'm not guessing it's alot. Yes, because its 3 lbs of thin steel. Here's a video of another blunt b*****d sword cutting bamboo, which requires a sharp katana, supposedly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFQ4aanmupUAnd vs a straw mat... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuEGzOizJ-oQuote: So in 20 years we found and mastered hidden sword arts? ::ACHEWWW!:: Sorry, allergic to bullshit. Mastered, no. But reconstructed to the best of our ability so far, yes. And what we've done so far is pretty impressive. Try searching for ARMA, AEMMA, and other historical WMA organizations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 7:42 am
Quote: I meant swords are more effective in SOME cases wink
If by some cases you mean out of combat, where I'm in the amazon and need to cut through dense bush, then a machete would be nice. As a weapon? Functionally well. But Guns still win.Quote: Oh really? A pistol's like what, 1 kg? As heavy as a sword. SMGs and shotguns are 2 or 3 times than that. Nope, they ain't lighter, they're just faster to fire. Quote: Mastered, no. But reconstructed to the best of our ability so far, yes. And what we've done so far is pretty impressive. Try searching for ARMA, AEMMA, and other historical WMA organizations.
Secondly, my old friend did that stuff for awhile. He challenged me to a sparring match with these weird viking wooden swords. The fight starts, I flip my sword around and hit him with the pommel. It was a hard enough blow to wind him and keep him down for a good 10 minutes. I wasn't impressed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:17 am
Quote: Since Guns can serve a second roll as a melee weapon via pistol whiping, rifle butting or bayonets, they can also server as a viable replacement for melee weapons such as swords in combat situations. Why use a weapon that requires more effort, more training and lacks a ranged component. An M1 Carbine or AK-47 can kill someone use used as a club. You take the Carbine without ammo and I take a sword. Anytime razz So instead of using a sophisticated weapon in a sophisticated manner, use an improvised weapon in a primitive manner. Sorry, my bet's on the sword being more efficient in melee. Quote: You mistook the premise. Lighter Arms (9mm, .45cal) are more effective in killing then heavier swords. Even lighter swords can keep up. A bullet hits you, your done. A skilled user could empty a 15 round clip in 7 seconds. It takes 1 bullet to kill you, or even if it doesn't; slow you down long enough so shoot you again. Guns. Win. You seem to be repeating yourself x.x Quote: If I shoot Bamboo, it has the same effect. Secondly, all this proves is that if you hit something hard enough, it breaks. If I throw a brick a stick of bamboo It'd break (or fall over). Thanks for proving if I hit stuff, it'll break. It didn't break, it was cut off. Quote: Alot of points I could put here. The main arguement is that according to you, in the 80's there was no sword play, didn't exist. No, it did but you were too busy enjoying good old breast milk and shiting yourself to notice, don't worry about it; so was I. Ah, the good ol'days... Seriously, it was in a much less advanced form. Unless you consider sport fencing as sword play. Or bashing each other like medieval reenactment groups did, or kendo. Quote: Secondly, my old friend did that stuff for awhile. He challenged me to a sparring match with these weird viking wooden swords. The fight starts, I flip my sword around and hit him with the pommel. It was a hard enough blow to wind him and keep him down for a good 10 minutes. I wasn't impressed. How long and what stuff? Training by yourself is like 5% of what you can do in a fight compared to actual training. Believe me. I was doing stuff even from books for a year and I was like "OOh I'm so cool" and then I went to ARMA and was shown the basics and I was like "********, these things are totally workin'".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:58 am
Quote: You take the Carbine without ammo and I take a sword. Anytime razz So instead of using a sophisticated weapon in a sophisticated manner, use an improvised weapon in a primitive manner. Sorry, my bet's on the sword being more efficient in melee.
Another point is that in the second world war; German soldiers ditched their Bayonets in favor of a Trench Spade. Why? Because it was more effective. The Germans also feared the back of the M1 Rifle/Carbine because it was basically the same concept at the spade.Quote: You seem to be repeating yourself x.x Quote: It didn't break, it was cut off. Quote: Ah, the good ol'days... Seriously, it was in a much less advanced form. Unless you consider sport fencing as sword play. Or bashing each other like medieval reenactment groups did, or kendo. Quote: How long and what stuff? Training by yourself is like 5% of what you can do in a fight compared to actual training. Believe me. I was doing stuff even from books for a year and I was like "OOh I'm so cool" and then I went to ARMA and was shown the basics and I was like "********, these things are totally workin'".
But I've been to alot of Rifle Ranges/Hunting Clubs, I've seen people throw a quater into the air, and shoot it in mid-toss. I've seen people load a bolt action rifle faster then I can work a shotgun. I've seen alot of guns, I've seen alot of swords. Off the two, guns win in near every respect. They are more effective, don't require as much energy to use and can be ether very specialized or very general.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:33 am
Quote: No, improvised would mean the weapon was not intended to function as such. Which is incorrect; I'de be attacking you with a weapons dual purpose, and if clubing is primitive, why do Warhammers exist? It's effective. Hitting someone with a lug-wrench will knock them out (or worse), using a heavy object like a rifle as a weapon is an effective melee choice for close range combat. In this topic, what could you do? Any swing could be shruged off with equal force with the rifle. Secondly, it's assumed my gun is not armed, because the second you break out of a grapple I can't use the weapons primary purpose. More so, if the gun is armed and for some reason I don't go for a close-body CQC shot to then gut or temple then I'll simply push you off with a counter blow from my gun (or if it's a pistol, I'll just whip you) once you're sundered for a second, I'll bring in a close range shot. Warhammers were specially designed to bash people, unlike rifles. What could I do? If I'm trained to fight against a razor-sharp three foot piece of steel, do you think a flimsy plastic or even a wooden weapon that weighs three times as much and was not designed for melee is going to even be on equal terms? But we're just talking about empty weapons, not full weapons- all you need for that is a second to point it at me. Quote: Another point is that in the second world war; German soldiers ditched their Bayonets in favor of a Trench Spade. Why? Because it was more effective. The Germans also feared the back of the M1 Rifle/Carbine because it was basically the same concept at the spade. WWII is not modern combat with effective martial arts. Rifle butts were a weapon of last resort, you'd rather shoot the guy. The only melee weapons really used in non-ambush scenarios were the spetsnaz shovel, which was more often used for digging than fighting, and the obscure British Smatched, a shortsword-like knife that also had other uses. Quote: And you're cought in some fantasy that swords are still effective for modern combat. Never said that. Quote: Cutting is a form of breaking an object. Yeah, breaking it off cleanly unlike most bashing implements who are meant to break. Quote: No, archiology hasn't been active since the late 70's and in the 80's was when historians really started to peice together alot of stuff. So, their most likely was sword-play of this kinda back then. I highly doubt it. Swordplay back then was nowhere near the standards of today, where we have decades of experience. Just because you have a nice manual doesn't mean you know how to do the stuff- even more difficult considering most manuals didn't teach the basics, since back then it was assumed you knew them. They had to painstakingly reconstruct it piece by piece, deciphering the writings, translating them to action, practicing stuff that wasn't done in centuries, and having to look at pictures that sometimes were of unbelievable quality and often were not at that level, especially with older manuscripts. Quote: I have no idea, he stopped talking to me after that. But I've been to alot of Rifle Ranges/Hunting Clubs, I've seen people throw a quater into the air, and shoot it in mid-toss. I've seen people load a bolt action rifle faster then I can work a shotgun. I've seen alot of guns, I've seen alot of swords. Off the two, guns win in near every respect. They are more effective, don't require as much energy to use and can be ether very specialized or very general. Which is why we have guns and not swords today. But swords are cooler cool But seriously, if people can do that with guns, whose options are limited- you just aim and shoot, imagine a sword that can stab, cut, slice, pummel, hit with the crossguard, you can use with one or two hands, with either edge, with hands either on the hilt or one on the hilt and another on the blade or even both on the blade and smash or trap with the crossguard... Yeah, it takes more skill to do that than shoot a gun, no doubt, but in melee combat, I'd rather have a sword anyday. Farther than a meter, I'd take the best gun available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 6:09 pm
Quote: Warhammers were specially designed to bash people, unlike rifles. What could I do? If I'm trained to fight against a razor-sharp three foot piece of steel, do you think a flimsy plastic or even a wooden weapon that weighs three times as much and was not designed for melee is going to even be on equal terms? But we're just talking about empty weapons, not full weapons- all you need for that is a second to point it at me.
This said, I'm dominating ranged and holding my own in melee. There is no case in which a sword could prove more viable then a gun in combat.Quote: WWII is not modern combat with effective martial arts. Rifle butts were a weapon of last resort, you'd rather shoot the guy. The only melee weapons really used in non-ambush scenarios were the spetsnaz shovel, which was more often used for digging than fighting, and the obscure British Smatched, a shortsword-like knife that also had other uses. Quote: Yeah, breaking it off cleanly unlike most bashing implements who are meant to break. Quote: I highly doubt it. Swordplay back then was nowhere near the standards of today, where we have decades of experience. Just because you have a nice manual doesn't mean you know how to do the stuff- even more difficult considering most manuals didn't teach the basics, since back then it was assumed you knew them. They had to painstakingly reconstruct it piece by piece, deciphering the writings, translating them to action, practicing stuff that wasn't done in centuries, and having to look at pictures that sometimes were of unbelievable quality and often were not at that level, especially with older manuscripts. Quote: Which is why we have guns and not swords today. But swords are cooler cool But seriously, if people can do that with guns, whose options are limited- you just aim and shoot, imagine a sword that can stab, cut, slice, pummel, hit with the crossguard, you can use with one or two hands, with either edge, with hands either on the hilt or one on the hilt and another on the blade or even both on the blade and smash or trap with the crossguard... Yeah, it takes more skill to do that than shoot a gun, no doubt, but in melee combat, I'd rather have a sword anyday. Farther than a meter, I'd take the best gun available.
BUT, I will say one situation I know where a sword beat a gun. My friend has a Katana on his wall, it's rusty as hell. But the rust comes in unnatural blotchs. So I ask him about it, and got an amazing story. It was on the beachs of china in good ol' WW2 (remember? The last melee war?) where a Japanese man was trying to fix his jammed rifle. An America soldier ran from the trenchs without his rifle. The Japanese man fixed his rifle and the American in a panic pulled the Japanese man's katana and impaled him with it. He then took the Japanese mans rifle and sword and continued the fight.
Turns out this Soldier was my friends grand-father. Who is by far one of the nicist guys I've ever met. But this is a blue-moon event, and quite humorous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:25 pm
Well let's put it like this. You run at me and try to bite me. Give me a gun and let's see how close you get.
On the other hand, I'll give you a sword and then try to bite you. Let's see how close I can get to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:41 am
Quote: This weapons are made out of wood AND the same metal your sword is. High-carbon spring steel versus stainless or low-carbon? Hah. Quote: Secondly, most guns are designed to fire bullets at high speed and survive battle field situations. First thing you forgot, which I find weird for a swordsmen is that wood is a love/hate material for cutting, because if you don't make it through: Your weapon is stuck. Do you think I'm stupid enough to just swing at this guy and hope his rifle breaks? Swords are not used to cut your opponent's weapon in half, but your opponent, so HE is my primary target. Quote: Now, there is a chance in hell you make it through any gun, they're layered, composite and made to take hard hits. Moving on; being clubbed could kill, and once your clubbed once, your clubbed again. Rifle butts require little energy, and less strength the a sword for a simular effect.Even weapons like the M16 could produce this effect. Primitive; yes, but it still supplies the weapon with a diverse ability to hold up in melee combat. Sure, a sword cut or thrust requires more range than that, but what about pummelling up close? You're hiting me with wood, I hit you with a several hundred gram metal pommel. Quote: This said, I'm dominating ranged and holding my own in melee. There is no case in which a sword could prove more viable then a gun in combat. Nope, you ******** me up in ranged and unless you're much more skilled than I am, I own you in melee. But, like everybody and me say, I have to close the range, which is the tricky part. Quote: Last resort? Are you kidding me? With bliztkrieg combat would take place between 1~200 yards: If you get close enough you're getting a smack in the head. WW2 was the last war where Melee was viable, so wave good bye. That's only against riflemen, don't forget SMGs. And yeah, it's faster when carrying a gun to club with it than drop it and draw a melee weapon, no doubt, which is why they did just that. Quote: Never said you could un-bold my posts, but you keep doing it anyways. Blame Lazy Gaia! Quote: All that means is the wielder was strong enough to put that much force into it. If I throw enough force at a metal wall, I'll get through. Try throwing as much force as you want with a pillow, see if you get through razz Quote: It's the 80's! Other the digital technology and Black people we haven't changed much. First, can you stop the whole "****** crap"? Secondly, yeah, in that particular field, tons have changed. Quote: Cut, Slice, Stab are all the same words for the same effect of swinging a sword. Pummeling can be done with a gun and I can hit with the butt. In you preception; A gun can Impale, Wound and Kill it's target, much like a sword can Cut, Slice and Stab. Guns take skill to use, to reload quickly, to know how each model works just by looking at it, to clean and service them and Aiming isn't as easy as people say. Thats the reason the military trains you for that. No doubt. But fighting with a sword, up close, is far less easier. Why do you think they train you for 6 months in the military when it takes at least 3 years to learn about using a longsword? More parameters than aiming are involved. Quote: BUT, I will say one situation I know where a sword beat a gun. My friend has a Katana on his wall, it's rusty as hell. But the rust comes in unnatural blotchs. So I ask him about it, and got an amazing story. It was on the beachs of china in good ol' WW2 (remember? The last melee war?) where a Japanese man was trying to fix his jammed rifle. An America soldier ran from the trenchs without his rifle. The Japanese man fixed his rifle and the American in a panic pulled the Japanese man's katana and impaled him with it. He then took the Japanese mans rifle and sword and continued the fight. Turns out this Soldier was my friends grand-father. Who is by far one of the nicist guys I've ever met. But this is a blue-moon event, and quite humorous. Lucky b*****d, all I have to say! Quote: Well let's put it like this. You run at me and try to bite me. Give me a gun and let's see how close you get. On the other hand, I'll give you a sword and then try to bite you. Let's see how close I can get to you. You still don't have any chance, mate. Unarmed vs a melee weapon? Yeah right wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:05 am
Quote: High-carbon spring steel versus stainless or low-carbon? Hah.
More so, they weren't always made of High-Carbon spring steel.Quote: Do you think I'm stupid enough to just swing at this guy and hope his rifle breaks? Swords are not used to cut your opponent's weapon in half, but your opponent, so HE is my primary target. Quote: Sure, a sword cut or thrust requires more range than that, but what about pummelling up close? You're hiting me with wood, I hit you with a several hundred gram metal pommel. Quote: Nope, you ******** me up in ranged and unless you're much more skilled than I am, I own you in melee. But, like everybody and me say, I have to close the range, which is the tricky part. Quote: That's only against riflemen, don't forget SMGs. And yeah, it's faster when carrying a gun to club with it than drop it and draw a melee weapon, no doubt, which is why they did just that. Quote: Try throwing as much force as you want with a pillow, see if you get through razz Quote: First, can you stop the whole "****** crap"? Secondly, yeah, in that particular field, tons have changed. Quote: No doubt. But fighting with a sword, up close, is far less easier. Why do you think they train you for 6 months in the military when it takes at least 3 years to learn about using a longsword? More parameters than aiming are involved.
Also, in a situation where both our weapons are damaged, Guns win by a longshot. An AK-47 can be repaired with a Rock and a Stick and I s**t you not. Swords require a forge to repair them, or in some cases can't be fixed at all. Quote: You still don't have any chance, mate. Unarmed vs a melee weapon? Yeah right wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:19 am
Quote: The effect woul still stop your weapon with very little damage to mine. More so, they weren't always made of High-Carbon spring steel. Decent ones, at least, were. But the point is not going through your weapon wink Quote: No, but do you thik the opponent is stupid enough to let that happen? First reaction (and the best) is to throw the weapon in the way. Gun won't break, guns can damn near take OTHER bullets. Good. I feint high, he reacts with a high defense (the most obvious would be putting the gun horizontally above his head, I cut low with a false-edge crooked strike. Problem solved. Quote: The damage is still there. Baseball bats hurt, metal or wood. This is not baseball bats we're talking about x.x But yeah, everything hurts, but that's not the point. Quote: Skill in melee died awhile ago pal. Swords are slower then my All-Purpose-Killing-Machine even in close range. You seem to continually discount they're hits, but they're effective. You can come in for any attack, and expect to be batted away or clubbed. In the small chance you DO hit me, stabbing woulds still leave me with 2 seconds before my pain receptors kick in. I'de still throw a club and take you down. Thats the nice part about clubbing; a shot to the head takes them down instantly, chest shots break rips. Lmfao. Dude, skill in melee is being regained. Secondly, swords are slower? Have you ever held an actual sword except cheap-a** flea market kats? A sword is blurringly fast, much faster than a gun weighing three times as much. See the previous comment about feinting and cutting high-low. If I slice your abdomen open, let's see how your pain receptors make up for that. Quote: WW2 SMGs where made of metal and wood just like rifles. They where still powerful clubs. Not to mention part of the point is to get an opening to shoot them, since that basically means you win. Yeah, SMGs are great in close quarters, no doubt. Quote: It'd still be possible with enough force, more then any human could produce, but still possible. Dude? You still wouldn't cut through the wall. Don't pervert physics to justify yourself, you ain't Cthulhu razz Quote: The second you stop this whole "Swords are viable" crap. Secondly, I highly doubt that. Firstly, swords are not a match against guns in ranged, but they own guns in melee, IF you can close in, which I highly doubt. Secondly, I've given you proof- Organizations like the ARMA where every year they revise what they've done so far and come up with BETTER interpretations. Every ******** year- so how come they were just as good (or bad, according to you) a decade ago? Thirdly, even if it was crap, it's not racist crap. Quote: Shows what you know; aiming isn't the only thing you need. Moving, running, jumping and NOT aiming are just as important. Unlike swords, you don't sheath a gun, so how you carry it is important. Wow. Moving, running and jumping. So difficult skills to acquire, compared to feeling, timing, distance, correct body mechanics, speed and technique, to name a few. Quote: Also, in a situation where both our weapons are damaged, Guns win by a longshot. An AK-47 can be repaired with a Rock and a Stick and I s**t you not. Swords require a forge to repair them, or in some cases can't be fixed at all. I have to be stupid to damage my blade. Quote: You've never seen a Buddist Monk, have you? And you've never seen an actual swordsman, have you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:44 am
Quote: Decent ones, at least, were. But the point is not going through your weapon wink Quote: Good. I feint high, he reacts with a high defense (the most obvious would be putting the gun horizontally above his head, I cut low with a false-edge crooked strike. Problem solved. Quote: This is not baseball bats we're talking about x.x But yeah, everything hurts, but that's not the point. Quote: Lmfao. Dude, skill in melee is being regained. Secondly, swords are slower? Have you ever held an actual sword except cheap-a** flea market kats? A sword is blurringly fast, much faster than a gun weighing three times as much. See the previous comment about feinting and cutting high-low. If I slice your abdomen open, let's see how your pain receptors make up for that.
Yea, I'm sure Elvis is on the way too.
Have you ever held a gun. Other then reckoning of force and power that surges through your mind and undying urge to kill every being you me-moving on! They're heavy, yes, but the weight is spread out. They're also blurringly fast, and the weight moves with you. When you throw a gun foward, the weight goes with you like a good friend.Quote: Dude? You still wouldn't cut through the wall. Don't pervert physics to justify yourself, you ain't Cthulhu razz Quote: Firstly, swords are not a match against guns in ranged, but they own guns in melee, IF you can close in, which I highly doubt. Secondly, I've given you proof- Organizations like the ARMA where every year they revise what they've done so far and come up with BETTER interpretations. Every ******** year- so how come they were just as good (or bad, according to you) a decade ago? Thirdly, even if it was crap, it's not racist crap. Quote: Wow. Moving, running and jumping. So difficult skills to acquire, compared to feeling, timing, distance, correct body mechanics, speed and technique, to name a few. Quote: I have to be stupid to damage my blade. Quote: And you've never seen an actual swordsman, have you?
Swords Vs. Guns Is a Classic Fight
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
