Is it really possible to take down an armoured opponent while being unarmed? I mean, it's possible in games, but in reality, is it really possible?
Also, weapons and combat thread.
>>46111263
The primary method of taking down heavily armored opponents on foot has historically been wrestling followed by coup-de-grace, so it is possible, though probably really hard.
If you meant with kicks and punches though, probably not.
>>46111263
Depends on your definition of "armored" and "unarmed".
If "armored" is chain mail or a leather armor, yes. Mail and other non rigid armors is awful against blunt force and doesn't provide adequate protection to the head.
Also, you did not specify that the armored opponent would be armed, and as such, what you have now is a boxing or kendo match between two people, one with 20 pounds of extra weight on his back, and one without.
Plate mail or a good helmet might protect the head, but it will also most likely either restrict vision, or leave the eyes vulnerable to being gouged (no weapons), while the armored player has an advantage, it is not a complete domination of the fight.
>>46111302
I don't think it's possible to take down an armed and armoured guy with just your hands. He just have more reach than you and will kill you the second you're in range.
>>46111299
Wrestling? The WWE thingy?
>>46111310
>He just have more reach than you and will kill you the second you're in range.
You have to be really,really fast
>>46111310
Armed *and* armored is also not impossible: just more tricky. Suppose he's armed with a bow? Then it's a matter of not getting shot until you are in melee range, at which point it becomes an awkwardly bent fragile lightweight club.
Functionally, arms and armor are a force addition, not a force multiple. It does make the fight become a game of skill vs. equipment, where you can expect someone who is *very* skilled to always defeat someone who is *not as skilled*.
So, to answer your question OP: in grand /tg/ fashion: "it depends."
>>46111310
The Ringen thingy
>>46111349
Looks like 2 faggots being too dumb to remove their armor.
>>46111263
Depends how heavily armored they are and if you catch them by surprise. A simple takedown would make it really difficult for a heavily armored knight caught by surprise to get up and fight before you were able to gouge their eyes or choke them or steal their weapon or something.
>>46111302
>I get all my knowledge from games: the post
>>46111263
If both opponent are unarmed, it's certainly possible though tricky, the unarmored person would have to know some armored wrestling stuff beforehand, otherwise it would be very hard to manipulate someone in armor who'll probably know how to fight in such a suit of armor.
Now naked against someone who is both armed and in armor... in the grand realm of possibilities, it's certainly possible but highly, highly unlikely, mostly because the person in armor would certainly have a dagger, which makes wrestling extremely dangerous for the unarmored person.
Then again it depends on the type of armor, I would argue against >>46111302, mail and padded armor or quite good enough against blunt force, certainly better than nothing and usually, head armor was a solid helmet, not just mail. Having your vision restricted is less a problem when you wrestle because the enemy is so close already, you (almost) don't need to actively see him, especially since you have a massive suit of armor to protect you from all small things that could be thrown at you. The armored guy might have mail mittens or gauntlets, and those can really fuck you up if you're punched with, so not only with wrestling, but talking about striking, being in armor leaves you untouchable by striking (kinda) and you can punch and kick pretty much everywhere you want to do some ''damage''.
Being armed and in armor isn't totally god mode, but it's pretty awesome nonetheless, especially in 1vs1.
>>46111364
That's kinda ridiculous, you don't gouge the eyes of people that easily when you wrestle them on the ground, how do you choke someone who have a throat protection (I mean fastly), to steal their weapon, you would need to be very close, it means getting close enough to be stabbed by a dagger or punched by a gauntlet.
Besides to ''simply takedown'' someone who is wearing 20 to 30 kg of armor isn't... well that simple for starters.
People with big suits of armor would also be the ones with good combat training, and lots of weapons to supplement (it can be up to 4 weapons on themselves), you don't ''simply take them out'' while unarmed and unarmored.
>>46111263
The first rule of fighting is that if you can avoid a fight, do it. Meaning that, against a heavily armored opponent, if you're unarmed, you have no good reason to fight. They can't possibly catch you if they're heavily armored, between the weight of the armor and the time it would take to remove it. The best thing to do is run.
There might be a case where you can't run, though. The second rule of fighting is that if you're at a disadvantage and you can't escape, you've pretty much already lost - so you'd have to find some way to make your disadvantages into an advantage.
The third rule of fighting is, if you're forced to fight, always fight dirty. That's what an unarmed opponent would have to do against an armored foe: try and trip them, throw rocks at them, get dust in their eyes, aim for the genitals, neck, or eyes. If we're considering this a "fair" fight and none of that is allowed, just hand the victory to the armored guy and save us all a few minutes.
But if the unarmed guy can catch his foe off balance, he could possibly pin them on the ground, and either disarm, disable, or finish them... if he has the luck of the devil himself, anyway. More likely, the armored opponent would only be set back a little bit while the unarmored opponent pries at them like a very hungry man who forgot where their can opener went.
But again, in a situation like this, the best thing to do is run. So if for some reason you ever get sent back 1000 years into the past and are forced into a confrontation with an armored warrior... just flail around like a retard till they get tired, trip them or throw sand in their eyes, then run like hell. They won't catch you... probably.
This all goes out the window if said warrior is mounted, though. Then we have a scenario known as the "Swadian Feast", where the main course is your ass, served a la horse dong.
>>46111433
>while the unarmored opponent pries at them like a very hungry man who forgot where their can opener went
I like that expression.
>throw sand in their eyes
Easy there Satan, do you know how much sand itches?
>>46111263
Grapple that fucker.
>>46111433
I always find it ridiculous in the presentation that your picture depicts, that the armored guy is half-swording when his opponent isn't wearing any protective equipment... Why would you halfsword and therefore lose a great deal of reach and cutting potential against someone who is forced to reduce is own reach to attack you effectively ?
Not trying to bark at Clements, but this part is very badly put.
What if you're unarmoured, but have a spike or something like that while the other guy is armoured but only has a dagger?
If you outrange him, you theorically win, right?
I imagine it's possible
>>46111478
>still no game where you can grapple the shit out of things instead of just punching them or stabbing them
I have high hopes for Doom's mods.
>>46111521
>Doom's mods
Which Doom?
>>46111263
In the broadest sense, probably.
>>46111541
The last one. I have high expectation for it.
>>46111544
Pretty sure there will not be mods for that one.
There is a map editor, but I believe there will be no modding capability, based on rumours. I may be wrong.
>>46111507
This looks awesome as fuck.
Is that historical fencing (a broad category I guess)? I did sport fencing for a while bu we all know that bears little resemblance to actual swordfights, at least of the time period concerned.
>>46111553
Dammit. I looked forward to breaking the Cyberdemon's last leg.
>>46111302
You are so full of shit. You don't think that chain mail over padding isn't going to be excellent at distributing the forces of blows?
>>46111364
>choke them
How do you propose to 'choke' someone through a gorget or Armet? Even mail is going to make that less easy to do.
>>46111572
Well there is hope yet, since allegedly there is a tool named IdStudio, which may or may not work for modding.
May or may not be released as well.
There definiely will be a simple map editor, but the modding has not been announced yet.
>>46111578
Maybe a bit of shit. I still hold that chain is less efficient than steel plate at dealing with blunt force, but really boxing isn't the ideal way of dealing with an armored (but unarmed) foe, as many other PSOE in this thread have established, wrestling is the correct means of engagement.
And it boils down to respective levels of skill in the combat scenario, where armored has an advantage, that would require unarmored be more skilled to compensate.
>>46111263
Sure is. I'll show you how.
>Step one: trip the enemy and make him fall on the ground
>Step two:remove enemy helmet
>Step Three: punch in the face
>>46111667
You talk a lot but don't show much.
>>46111568
>This looks awesome as fuck.
Everything looks awesome when it is done in slow motion.
>>46111682
I once recorded myself taking a dump. Even in slow motion, it was boring and uninspiring.
>>46111485
better tip control , useful even against unarmored targets , especially if you are armored. easier to block the force of a mordhau attack like this. idk , maybe he is all honorable n shit and wants to give his opponent a chance
>>46111507
I am making fighter-monk multiclassing character next
>>46111263
Is the armored opponent armed and with what weapon? Are you unarmored in addition to being unarmed? What kind of armor?
It's definitely possible to take down an armored, unarmed opponent while unarmed if you are also armored to an equal or greater level. On the other hand, if you're completely unarmored and unarmed against someone in full plate with a longsword, you're pretty much fucked.
>>46111745
And if he has a shotgun?
>>46111746
then you slice the pellets with you katana , duh
>>46111703
I don't think giving up something like two feet of reach for better tip control is a good compromise anyway, especially when facing someone who is unarmored. Then again, why I don't like in the demo is that it's made to look like a sparring, but obviously, Clements can go much much stronger and faster than the poor guy in armor, not because said poor guy has armor, but because if he went as fast as Clements, he would risk to seriously injure him which is no good (so yeah, honorable and shit). It completely takes intent out of the way, which could be absolutely fine if it's just a technical demo, but for tv, Clements make it looked like sparring which is nonsensical (don't know if it was his idea though).
It's like a sparring with only one guy doing the sparring and the other putting up armor to serve as a reactive punching bag, which is sad because technical prepared demo are just as good, just as informative, but they don't look as cool I guess...
>>46111771
assuming both have similar stats and skills , the armored guy would win of course. but then there is always the element of luck , i guess
>>46111746
Then you're still fucked, though probably slightly less fucked than if he had a pistol.
Wasn't the JiuJitsu designed to allow one to fight unarmed against an armored foe?
>>46111824
Yes, but it was meant to be used against samurai armor.
Which was shit.
>>46111901
I though the Japanese knew a lot about smithing because they only had shitty iron?
>>46111911
Shitty iron is still shitty iron, no matter how much you dress it up.
For Japan, they had the best they could get within reason.
Compared to European armor? It's shit.
>>46111824
Yes but it was usually when you were also in armor, and you had a knife not too far. Then again, it's exactly like european ringen or abrazare, the techniques exist, but that doesn't mean it trumps everything.
>>46111901
Tosei Gusoku armor were perfectly fine, certainly not as complete as 16th century full plate, but adequate nonetheless, even against firearms.
O-Yoroi were probably a little bit too specialized.
>>46111939
Just HOW shitty was Japan's iron? I read that they were a shitload more skilled than European blacksmiths.
Not to mention Japanese armor was basically boiled, lacquered leather plates rather than steel plates or chain.
>>46111982
Well. My inner weeaboo just took a solid kick into the gonads.
>>46111969
>more skilled than european blacksmiths
foruded over 1 mirrion times
>>46111982
The japanese had iron armor and chainmail since the beginning of their Middle-Ages.
Besides, it's like a large part of european armors weren't boiled leather... yet they were.
>>46111263
Yes, joint lock.
>>46112008
they did , but iron was very limited , so they used it for weapons
armor was mostly bamboo and leather , only the extremely rich people could afford the luxury of full chainmail /plate
>>46111263
Yes. It won't be easy but yeah. Its gonna sound like edgemeister territory but you gotta get behind them. Assuming you mean full plate armor they can't bend or turn very well and their vision and hearing are hindered. You being unarmored should make you faster and more able to dodge grabs. Get around behind them kick out their leg from behind and at an angle to which should topple them or at least unbalance them for a nice shove. Once on the ground you can apply any hold you want and choke them out then end them as you see fit once they're unconcious. Might need to take their helmet and unlatching, if possible, their gorget.
>>46111969
When European iron got introduced, they immediately switched from their iron to European iron any time they got the opportunity to just because it was better quality; a whole new type of armor called tosei gusoku was made, which literally means new armour.
Though this also had to do with the introduction of firearms, and European armor by this point was designed to help handle bullets better(bulletproofing and all that). Not all tosei gusoku used European iron mind you, a lot of them just copied the overall shape since it worked.
As >>46111982 points out, most Japanese armor was made of leather with some bits of iron here and there in the more important spots like the chest, stomach and face. Iron was used in small parts because of how scarce and expensive it was. Iron started becoming more abundant in armor around the 16th and 17th century.
Who cares about the Japanese? They don't have halberds or glaives, and therefore are shit.
And their honor is just "I can do whatever I want unless I'm saw doing so".
>>46112065
do naginatas come close to glaives?
>inb4 a woman's weapon
DID SOMEONE SAY NIPPONESE STEEL?
>>46112082
Glaives are straight and can be used to poke.
Naginatas are curved, and can only be used to slash.
>>46111901
The principles are the same as the European systems.
Grapples, throws and disarms to let you disable your opponent or grab a weapon if you lose yours.
Man I really wanna go play some Chivalry now
>>46112109
Too bad Chilvary is only PvP. I would love some PvE.
>/tg/ talking about things they don't know anything about for the millionth time while repeating the shit they heard on /tg/ from people as unimformed as they are
>>46112030
Oh yes, bamboo and leather, and I guess european armor weighted 50kg and knights could get up after falling from their horses.
They used spears, it's not like it would take all their iron, it's ridiculous. And no, not only "extremely rich" people could afford mail, it was an ashigaru type of armor.
>>46112093
well , people managed to stab eachother with sabers which were even more curved
>>46112093
That's completely false and ridiculous, naginata can cut an thrust with both ends, as it's shown and done in the kata.
>>46112115
I don't see why you would, but, doesn't it have bots?
>>46112115
Chivalry does have a shitty bots mode.
>>46112133
>I don't see why you would
Because I crave for jolly cooperation. If I wanted to fight with other people I'd just go to my old school.
>>46112119
plate alone 15-20 kg
+ chain 20 kg
+ clothing around 2 or 3 kg
but still , wearing plate+chain is not really necessary , so the weight is not too much to relatively freely run around
otherwise , yeah. usage of metal armor was by far not as frequent as in europe , because they also commonly used their metal to make spears and shit
>>46112119
Cavalry armor could be 50-60kg, because it was suppose to be used horseback. Even then, its not actually a issue moving around in that, unless the breastplat and should padding is too thick.
Normal armor was 10-30kg range.
Some of the ideal setups is like 10kg of metal, and then 3-5kg of cloth padding.
>>46111263
Maybe?You've got to get around layers of armor, which your fists and legs can through blunt force (through the less armored parts), but that will take too much time. But certainly not impossible, assuming that both of you are unarmed. If armed the answer is still the same, but sadly you're a lot less resilient than your opponent, which is bad.
Given how most armours don't seem to protect the thighs, I'd say go ahead and slash it.
1: knock down armoured guy (not easy task)
2: kick armoured guy in head to concuss him
3: kick armoured guy really hard in the jaw to snap his neck.
It is possible to take them down but hardly easy. But once you have someone down on the floor you can apply a lot of deadly force to them.
>>46112261
John Cena vs Richard Lionheart.
Who wins?
>>46112487
John Cena obviously.
His whole body is armor.
>>46112525
>His whole body is armor.
And his power is maximum.
>>46112119
>and knights could get up after falling from their horses
They could, though sometimes they had difficulty, what with being trapped under said horse - the closest anyone got to the ridiculous "has to be loaded onto his horse by a crane" myth was Henry VIII when he was old, obese, riddled with gout and other injuries, and wearing a massive suit of tournament armour.
>>46112261
>snap his neck
Not very likely depending on what kind of helmet they have.
Single or double leg takedown, then stomp on him until he stops.
>>46113016
>stomp on him until he stops
You make it sound so simple.
>>46111263 You never mentioned how physically strong the unarmed guy is.
If he's borderline superhuman/kenshiro kinda material then yeah he would slaughter Mr tin can knight.
But if your not superhumanly strong then your going to need to actually respect his strenghts and target his weaknesses
>>46113016
how the fuck do you get that close when he has metal fists to hit you with, and can just use his weight to flatten you
>>46114435
Most questions are asked assuming the people are humans and not eldricht abominations.
>>46111263
>is it really possible
Possible, yes. Likely, no.
I don't see anything stopping you from smashing a guy wearing a maille coats head in with a rock.
Don't tell me that means you're armed, a human with a rock counts as unarmed.
Not good enough? Fine. Choke the fucker.
>>46113583
It is simple. Getting him on the ground is the difficult part, but once he's down there he's basically at you mercy. You are far more maneuverable than he is, and have a lot of options if he tries to get back up.
>>46114464
The same way you get close to a regular guy. Don't get punched idiot.
>>46111299
Literally this.
Guy in armour is at a huge disadvantage in a grapple. All it takes is a knife to the armpit or visor.
The issue is closing the killzone between you and him, and not just getting speared in the back by his mate who's standing right net to him.
>>46114561
>Guy in armour is at a huge disadvantage in a grapple. All it takes is a knife to the armpit or visor.
That is why he has a huge advantage over the unarmoured guy. He can stab you anywhere whereas you need to get a significant advantage.
Which will be difficult given he can punch you with his metal fists to weaken/distract you.
>>46111263
ITT: People who don't know anything about fighting. Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? No. Is it advisable? Only as the last resort, otherwise, run away or comply. No matter how well trained you are, you are at a severe disadvantage in this scenario.
Can we start posting sexy polearms now?
>>46111521
Anima has literal Grappling as martial art.
>>46114530
you haven't disarmed him, he can still hit you with a weapon, especially if he knows the fall is coming.
>>46116372
True. He can attack with the handle and hurt you a lot.
>>46111359
I don't think you understand how faggots have sex.
>>46116718
I know it involves barbed wire, a scalpel, a machete and lot of painkiller.
And some lemon-scented lubricant.
>>46116137
Also a "fuck armor" martial art. And a "my body is my armor" martial art.
>>46116137
Cataclysm Dark Days Ahead too has a shitload of martial arts.
I'll never cease to be amazed by the meme "armor isn't perfect so it's practical to defeat it easily."
Not only does armor stop enemies from attacking most spots, it channels the enemy's attacks into predictable zones, making attacking harder for them and defense easier for the wearer. Offense is also easier for the wearer, because all the attacker's moves are telegraphed while the wearer can strike anywhere.
Yes, it's theoretically possible for an unarmored man to defeat an armored man, but the gap is just as large as the gap between a weapon-user and unarmed man.
I.e. the only scenario where it isn't a suicidal hope for a miracle is when the attacker is a master and the defender is completely incompetent...and then it's still more risky than you'd like.
The same arguments seem to be misapplied the same way to tanks in modern era conflict.
In theory it's a plucky band of PCs who sneak up on an isolated, blinded tank blundering along predictable routes.
In practice, it's either a tank doing drive-bys on you with a 120mm cannon, sniping you with gyrostabilized thermally sighted heavy machine guns, or demolishing every suspicious position block-by-block, accompanied by other tanks guarded by lots of infantry.
>>46117467
Aw yeah, Cataclysm, my high-melanin brother. I didn't think may people played it on /tg/.
>>46119860
I tried, but I never played it much. Too much minmaxing is necessary to get unarmed to work, I always got killed before I could have it.
