History Analysis / BFS

28th Mar '18 6:34:57 PM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Giant swords are impractical in the real world because of the SquareCubeLaw, which guarantees that a sword that gets too heavy will be slow and cumbersome no matter how strong its wielder is. The sword has to be a relatively small percentage of its wielder's body weight--and indeed a pretty small weight in absolute terms--in order for human muscle power to accelerate and control it at high speed. Even a world-class powerlifter would struggle and fail to use a 15 pound sword for fencing at normal speed, simply because it is exponentially harder to swing a substantial weight around your body at more than arm's length than it is to curl or bench press the same weight close to the body in a straight trajectory, and whatever you can do with it will be much slower in comparison because a heavier object has more inertia. Eight pounds is about the absolute limit for what even a six-foot long greatsword can weigh before it becomes too unwieldly for fencing at speed. What's more, wielding a ''truly'' giant sword such as [[VideoGame/FinalFantasyVII Cloud's Buster Sword]] would require not only SuperStrength, but also a whole set of RequiredSecondaryPowers. An object that large has tremendous inertia, meaning that it is extremely difficult to get it moving from a resting position, and just as hard to stop it or change direction after it gets going. In order to actually exert upon the weapon the minimum force needed to accelerate it to the speed of a normal sword swing, you would have to be able to push off of the ground without your feet slipping out from under you as you step forward, and then the sword would try to yank you forward along with it as soon as it gathered some speed. In order to do this with control you would either have to weigh several times as much as a normal human, or artificially increase your personal gravity, stability, and traction using sci-fi technology or magic. Once you were able to swing it and keep your footing, you would also need SuperToughness in order for your bones, muscles, and joints to withstand forces that would rip a person's arms off.

to:

Giant swords are impractical in the real world because of the SquareCubeLaw, which guarantees that a sword that gets too heavy will be slow and cumbersome no matter how strong its wielder is. The sword has to be a relatively small percentage of its wielder's body weight--and indeed a pretty small weight in absolute terms--in order for human muscle power to accelerate and control it at high speed. Even a world-class powerlifter who can bench press over 700 pounds would struggle and fail to use a 15 pound sword for fencing at normal speed, simply because it is exponentially harder to swing a substantial weight around your body at more than arm's length than it is to curl or bench press the same weight close to the body in a straight trajectory, and whatever you can do with it will be much slower in comparison because a heavier object has more inertia.inertia than a light one. Eight pounds is about the absolute limit for what even a six-foot long greatsword can weigh before it becomes too unwieldly for fencing at speed. What's more, wielding a ''truly'' giant sword such as [[VideoGame/FinalFantasyVII Cloud's Buster Sword]] would require not only SuperStrength, but also a whole set of RequiredSecondaryPowers. An object that large has tremendous inertia, meaning that it is extremely difficult to get it moving from a resting position, and just as hard to stop it or change direction after it gets going. In order to actually exert upon the weapon the minimum force needed to accelerate it to the speed of a normal sword swing, you would have to be able to push off of the ground without your feet slipping out from under you as you step forward, and then the sword would try to yank you forward along with it as soon as it gathered some speed. In order to do this with control you would either have to weigh several times as much as a normal human, or artificially increase your personal gravity, stability, and traction using sci-fi technology or magic. Once you were able to swing it and keep your footing, you would also need SuperToughness in order for your bones, muscles, and joints to withstand forces that would rip a person's arms off.
28th Mar '18 6:28:29 PM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Sheer weight or mass is not by itself a good thing; you need to make the sword just heavy enough in the right places to do the job intended, without getting to the point where the mass is just slowing you down and robbing your strike of energy. Generally you can make a blade big in one or two dimensions, but not in all three dimensions at once. Some swords such as the Chinese ''dadao'' or Philippine ''panabas'' have very short, very broad blades (which allow for a gradual cross-section taper to an acute edge), are more forward-balanced, and have long two-handed grips; this gives them a lot of cutting and chopping power at the cost of short reach and points that aren't ideally shaped for thrusting. Medieval cutting-focused greatswords would often have a long blade that was broad along its entire length (in other words, little profile taper) so it would have reach, cutting power, and broad point that would do pretty well against unarmored or mailed opponents; such greatswords would also have an aggressive distal taper, meaning that the blade was thick near the guard but got progressively thinner towards the tip, keeping it from getting too heavy towards the point and making the tip area more acute-edged, but also making it not narrow or stiff enough to easily penetrate mail armor or slip through the gaps of plate armor with a thrust. And then there's the rapier, which sacrifices the ability to make powerful cuts for point control, reach, and penetration: The blade is very long (for reach), has little distal taper and a rigid temper (for stiffness), an accute point (for penetration), and a narrow profile (also to help penetration, and to prevent the length or thickness from making it too heavy). There is also more mass in the guard relative to the blade, pushing the center of balance closr to the hand, which makes it easy to manipulate the tip. However, this makes for a center of percussion that's further back from the point, which reduces the range at which you can make effective cuts, and the thick edge section combined with the light blade reduces cutting power. The estoc is even thicker and stiffer than the rapier, making it suited for anti-armor use in a way that the more delicate dueling rapier isn't, but since the cross section is so thick it has practically no cutting ability at all (though you could still break bones or fracture someone's skull with a good whack). Each of these swords, despite their differences in handling, are basically agile and maneuverable weapons because they make compromises. When it comes to length, breadth, and thickness, you can pick any two but have to sacrifice the third if you want it to be a handy weapon. What the BFS does is expand in all three dimensions at once, to the point where the overall weight and balance would become unmanageable.

to:

Sheer weight or mass is not by itself a good thing; you need to make the sword just heavy enough in the right places to do the job intended, without getting to the point where the mass is just slowing you down and robbing your strike of energy. Generally you can make a blade big in one or two dimensions, but not in all three dimensions at once. Some swords such as the Chinese ''dadao'' or Philippine ''panabas'' have very short, very broad blades (which allow for a gradual cross-section taper to an acute edge), are more forward-balanced, and have long two-handed grips; this gives them a lot of cutting and chopping power at the cost of short reach and points that aren't ideally shaped for thrusting. Medieval cutting-focused greatswords would often have a long blade that was broad along its entire length (in other words, little profile taper) so it would have reach, cutting power, and broad point that would do pretty well against unarmored or mailed opponents; such greatswords would also have an aggressive distal taper, meaning that the blade was thick near the guard but got progressively thinner towards the tip, keeping it from getting too heavy towards the point and making the tip area more acute-edged, but also making it not narrow or stiff enough to easily penetrate mail armor or slip through the gaps of plate armor with a thrust. And then there's the rapier, which sacrifices the ability to make powerful cuts for point control, reach, and penetration: The blade is very long (for reach), has little distal taper and a rigid temper (for stiffness), an accute point (for penetration), and a narrow profile (also to help penetration, and to prevent the length or thickness from making it too heavy). There is also more mass in the guard relative to the blade, pushing the center of balance closr to the hand, which makes it easy to manipulate the tip. However, this makes for a center of percussion that's further back from the point, which reduces the range at which you can make effective cuts, and the thick edge section combined with the light blade reduces cutting power. The estoc is even thicker and stiffer than the rapier, making it suited for anti-armor use in a way that the more delicate dueling rapier isn't, but since the cross section is so thick it has practically no cutting ability at all (though you could still break bones or fracture someone's skull with a good whack). Each of these swords, despite their differences in handling, are basically agile and maneuverable weapons because they make compromises. When it comes to length, breadth, and thickness, you can pick any two but have to sacrifice the third if you want it to be a handy weapon.weapon, while keeping in mind what kind of edge or point geometry that combination will create. What the BFS does is expand in all three dimensions at once, to the point where the overall weight and balance would become unmanageable.
28th Mar '18 6:27:03 PM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Sheer weight or mass is not by itself a good thing; you need to make the sword just heavy enough in the right places to do the job intended, without getting to the point where the mass is just slowing you down and robbing your strike of energy. Generally you can make a blade big in one or two dimensions, but not in all three dimensions at once. Some swords such as the Chinese ''dadao'' or Philippine ''panabas'' have very short, very broad blades (which allow for a gradual cross-section taper to an acute edge), are more forward-balanced, and have long two-handed grips; this gives them a lot of cutting and chopping power at the cost of short reach and points that aren't ideally shaped for thrusting. Medieval cutting-focused greatswords would often have a long blade that was broad along its entire length (in other words, little profile taper) so it would have reach, cutting power, and broad point that would do pretty well against unarmored or mailed opponents; such greatswords would also have an aggressive distal taper, meaning that the blade was thick near the guard but got progressively thinner towards the tip, keeping it from getting too heavy towards the point and making the tip area more acute-edged, but also making it not narrow or stiff enough to easily penetrate mail armor or slip through the gaps of plate armor with a thrust. And then there's the rapier, which sacrifices the ability to make powerful cuts for point control, reach, and penetration: The blade is very long (for reach), has little distal taper and a rigid temper (for stiffness), an accute point (for penetration), and a narrow profile (also to help penetration, and to prevent the length or thickness from making it too heavy). There is also more mass in the guard relative to the blade, pushing the center of balance closr to the hand, which makes it easy to manipulate the tip. However, this makes for a center of percussion that's further back from the point, which reduces the range at which you can make effective cuts, and the thick edge section combined with the light blade reduces cutting power. The estoc is even thicker and stiffer than the rapier, making it suited for anti-armor use in a way that the more delicate dueling rapier isn't, but since the cross section is so thick it has practically no cutting ability at all. Each of these swords, despite their differences in handling, are basically agile and maneuverable weapons because they make compromises. When it comes to length, breadth, and thickness, you can pick any two but have to sacrifice the third if you want it to be a handy weapon. What the BFS does is expand in all three dimensions at once, to the point where the overall weight and balance would become unmanageable.

to:

Sheer weight or mass is not by itself a good thing; you need to make the sword just heavy enough in the right places to do the job intended, without getting to the point where the mass is just slowing you down and robbing your strike of energy. Generally you can make a blade big in one or two dimensions, but not in all three dimensions at once. Some swords such as the Chinese ''dadao'' or Philippine ''panabas'' have very short, very broad blades (which allow for a gradual cross-section taper to an acute edge), are more forward-balanced, and have long two-handed grips; this gives them a lot of cutting and chopping power at the cost of short reach and points that aren't ideally shaped for thrusting. Medieval cutting-focused greatswords would often have a long blade that was broad along its entire length (in other words, little profile taper) so it would have reach, cutting power, and broad point that would do pretty well against unarmored or mailed opponents; such greatswords would also have an aggressive distal taper, meaning that the blade was thick near the guard but got progressively thinner towards the tip, keeping it from getting too heavy towards the point and making the tip area more acute-edged, but also making it not narrow or stiff enough to easily penetrate mail armor or slip through the gaps of plate armor with a thrust. And then there's the rapier, which sacrifices the ability to make powerful cuts for point control, reach, and penetration: The blade is very long (for reach), has little distal taper and a rigid temper (for stiffness), an accute point (for penetration), and a narrow profile (also to help penetration, and to prevent the length or thickness from making it too heavy). There is also more mass in the guard relative to the blade, pushing the center of balance closr to the hand, which makes it easy to manipulate the tip. However, this makes for a center of percussion that's further back from the point, which reduces the range at which you can make effective cuts, and the thick edge section combined with the light blade reduces cutting power. The estoc is even thicker and stiffer than the rapier, making it suited for anti-armor use in a way that the more delicate dueling rapier isn't, but since the cross section is so thick it has practically no cutting ability at all.all (though you could still break bones or fracture someone's skull with a good whack). Each of these swords, despite their differences in handling, are basically agile and maneuverable weapons because they make compromises. When it comes to length, breadth, and thickness, you can pick any two but have to sacrifice the third if you want it to be a handy weapon. What the BFS does is expand in all three dimensions at once, to the point where the overall weight and balance would become unmanageable.
28th Mar '18 6:23:16 PM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Sheer weight or mass is not by itself a good thing; you need to make the sword just heavy enough in the right places to do the job intended, without getting to the point where the mass is just slowing you down and robbing your strike of energy. Generally you can make a blade big in one or two dimensions, but not in all three dimensions at once. Some swords such as the Chinese ''dadao'' or Philippine ''panabas'' have very short, very broad blades (which allow for a gradual cross-section taper to an acute edge), are more forward-balanced, and have long two-handed grips; this gives them a lot of cutting and chopping power at the cost of short reach and points that aren't ideally shaped for thrusting. Medieval cutting-focused greatswords would often have a long blade that was broad along its entire length (in other words, little profile taper) so it would have reach, cutting power, and broad point that would do pretty well against unarmored or mailed opponents; such greatswords would also have an aggressive distal taper, meaning that the blade was thick near the guard but got progressively thinner towards the tip, keeping it from getting too heavy towards the point but making it not narrow or stiff enough to easily penetrate mail armor or slip through the gaps of plate armor with a thrust. And then there's the rapier, which sacrifices the ability to make powerful cuts for point control, reach, and penetration: The blade is very long (for reach), has little distal taper and a rigid temper (for stiffness), an accute point (for penetration), and a narrow profile (also to help penetration, and to prevent the length or thickness from making it too heavy). There is also more mass in the guard relative to the blade, pushing the center of balance closr to the hand, which makes it easy to manipulate the tip. However, this makes for a center of percussion that's further back from the point, which reduces the range at which you can make effective cuts, and the thick edge section combined with the light blade reduces cutting power. The estoc is even thicker and stiffer than the rapier, making it suited for anti-armor use in a way that the more delicate dueling rapier isn't, but since the cross section is so thick it has practically no cutting ability at all. Each of these swords, despite their differences in handling, are basically agile and maneuverable weapons because they make compromises. When it comes to length, breadth, and thickness, you can pick any two but have to sacrifice the third if you want it to be a handy weapon. What the BFS does is expand in all three dimensions at once, to the point where the overall weight and balance would become unmanageable.

to:

Sheer weight or mass is not by itself a good thing; you need to make the sword just heavy enough in the right places to do the job intended, without getting to the point where the mass is just slowing you down and robbing your strike of energy. Generally you can make a blade big in one or two dimensions, but not in all three dimensions at once. Some swords such as the Chinese ''dadao'' or Philippine ''panabas'' have very short, very broad blades (which allow for a gradual cross-section taper to an acute edge), are more forward-balanced, and have long two-handed grips; this gives them a lot of cutting and chopping power at the cost of short reach and points that aren't ideally shaped for thrusting. Medieval cutting-focused greatswords would often have a long blade that was broad along its entire length (in other words, little profile taper) so it would have reach, cutting power, and broad point that would do pretty well against unarmored or mailed opponents; such greatswords would also have an aggressive distal taper, meaning that the blade was thick near the guard but got progressively thinner towards the tip, keeping it from getting too heavy towards the point and making the tip area more acute-edged, but also making it not narrow or stiff enough to easily penetrate mail armor or slip through the gaps of plate armor with a thrust. And then there's the rapier, which sacrifices the ability to make powerful cuts for point control, reach, and penetration: The blade is very long (for reach), has little distal taper and a rigid temper (for stiffness), an accute point (for penetration), and a narrow profile (also to help penetration, and to prevent the length or thickness from making it too heavy). There is also more mass in the guard relative to the blade, pushing the center of balance closr to the hand, which makes it easy to manipulate the tip. However, this makes for a center of percussion that's further back from the point, which reduces the range at which you can make effective cuts, and the thick edge section combined with the light blade reduces cutting power. The estoc is even thicker and stiffer than the rapier, making it suited for anti-armor use in a way that the more delicate dueling rapier isn't, but since the cross section is so thick it has practically no cutting ability at all. Each of these swords, despite their differences in handling, are basically agile and maneuverable weapons because they make compromises. When it comes to length, breadth, and thickness, you can pick any two but have to sacrifice the third if you want it to be a handy weapon. What the BFS does is expand in all three dimensions at once, to the point where the overall weight and balance would become unmanageable.
28th Mar '18 6:22:15 PM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Sheer weight or mass is not by itself a good thing; you need to make the sword just heavy enough in the right places to do the job intended, without getting to the point where the mass is just slowing you down and robbing your strike of energy. Generally you can make a blade big in one or two dimensions, but not in all three dimensions at once. Some swords such as the Chinese ''dadao'' or Philippine ''panabas'' have very short, very broad blades (which allow for a gradual cross-section taper to an acute edge), are more forward-balanced, and have long two-handed grips; this gives them a lot of cutting and chopping power at the cost of short reach and points not well-shaped for thrusting. Medieval cutting-focused greatswords would often have a long blade that was broad along its entire length (in other words, little profile taper) so it would have reach, cutting power, and broad point that would do pretty well against unarmored or mailed opponents; such greatswords would also have an aggressive distal taper, meaning that the blade was thick near the guard but got progressively thinner towards the tip, keeping it from getting too heavy towards the point but making it not narrow or stiff enough to easily penetrate mail armor or slip through the gaps of plate armor with a thrust. And then there's the rapier, which sacrifices the ability to make powerful cuts for point control, reach, and penetration: The blade is very long (for reach), has little distal taper and a rigid temper (for stiffness), an accute point (for penetration), and a narrow profile (also to help penetration, and to prevent the length or thickness from making it too heavy). There is also more mass in the guard relative to the blade, pushing the center of balance closr to the hand, which makes it easy to manipulate the tip. However, this makes for a center of percussion that's further back from the point, which reduces the range at which you can make effective cuts, and the thick edge section combined with the light blade reduces cutting power. The estoc is even thicker and stiffer than the rapier, making it suited for anti-armor use in a way that the more delicate dueling rapier isn't, but since the cross section is so thick it has practically no cutting ability at all. Each of these swords, despite their differences in handling, are basically agile and maneuverable weapons because they make compromises. When it comes to length, breadth, and thickness, you can pick any two but have to sacrifice the third if you want it to be a handy weapon. What the BFS does is expand in all three dimensions at once, to the point where the overall weight and balance would become unmanageable.

to:

Sheer weight or mass is not by itself a good thing; you need to make the sword just heavy enough in the right places to do the job intended, without getting to the point where the mass is just slowing you down and robbing your strike of energy. Generally you can make a blade big in one or two dimensions, but not in all three dimensions at once. Some swords such as the Chinese ''dadao'' or Philippine ''panabas'' have very short, very broad blades (which allow for a gradual cross-section taper to an acute edge), are more forward-balanced, and have long two-handed grips; this gives them a lot of cutting and chopping power at the cost of short reach and points not well-shaped that aren't ideally shaped for thrusting. Medieval cutting-focused greatswords would often have a long blade that was broad along its entire length (in other words, little profile taper) so it would have reach, cutting power, and broad point that would do pretty well against unarmored or mailed opponents; such greatswords would also have an aggressive distal taper, meaning that the blade was thick near the guard but got progressively thinner towards the tip, keeping it from getting too heavy towards the point but making it not narrow or stiff enough to easily penetrate mail armor or slip through the gaps of plate armor with a thrust. And then there's the rapier, which sacrifices the ability to make powerful cuts for point control, reach, and penetration: The blade is very long (for reach), has little distal taper and a rigid temper (for stiffness), an accute point (for penetration), and a narrow profile (also to help penetration, and to prevent the length or thickness from making it too heavy). There is also more mass in the guard relative to the blade, pushing the center of balance closr to the hand, which makes it easy to manipulate the tip. However, this makes for a center of percussion that's further back from the point, which reduces the range at which you can make effective cuts, and the thick edge section combined with the light blade reduces cutting power. The estoc is even thicker and stiffer than the rapier, making it suited for anti-armor use in a way that the more delicate dueling rapier isn't, but since the cross section is so thick it has practically no cutting ability at all. Each of these swords, despite their differences in handling, are basically agile and maneuverable weapons because they make compromises. When it comes to length, breadth, and thickness, you can pick any two but have to sacrifice the third if you want it to be a handy weapon. What the BFS does is expand in all three dimensions at once, to the point where the overall weight and balance would become unmanageable.
28th Mar '18 6:21:42 PM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Sheer weight or mass is not by itself a good thing; you need to make the sword just heavy enough in the right places to do the job intended, without getting to the point where the mass is just slowing you down and robbing your strike of energy. Generally you can make a blade big in one or two dimensions, but not in all three dimensions at once. Some swords such as the Chinese ''dadao'' or Philippine ''panabas'' have very short, very broad blades which allow for a gradual cross-section taper to an acute edge, forward balance, and long two-handed grips; this gives them a lot of cutting and chopping power at the cost of short reach and points not well-shaped for thrusting. Medieval cutting-focused greatswords would often have a long blade that was broad along its entire length (in other words, little profile taper) so it would have reach, cutting power, and broad point that would do pretty well against unarmored or mailed opponents; such greatswords would also have an aggressive distal taper, meaning that the blade was thick near the guard but got progressively thinner towards the tip, keeping it from getting too heavy towards the point but making it not narrow or stiff enough to easily penetrate mail armor or slip through the gaps of plate armor with a thrust. And then there's the rapier, which sacrifices the ability to make powerful cuts for point control, reach, and penetration: The blade is very long (for reach), has little distal taper and a rigid temper (for stiffness), an accute point (for penetration), and a narrow profile (also to help penetration, and to prevent the length or thickness from making it too heavy). There is also more mass in the guard relative to the blade, pushing the center of balance closr to the hand, which makes it easy to manipulate the tip. However, this makes for a center of percussion that's further back from the point, which reduces the range at which you can make effective cuts, and the thick edge section combined with the light blade reduces cutting power. The estoc is even thicker and stiffer than the rapier, making it suited for anti-armor use in a way that the more delicate dueling rapier isn't, but since the cross section is so thick it has practically no cutting ability at all. Each of these swords, despite their differences in handling, are basically agile and maneuverable weapons because they make compromises. When it comes to length, breadth, and thickness, you can pick any two but have to sacrifice the third if you want it to be a handy weapon. What the BFS does is expand in all three dimensions at once, to the point where the overall weight and balance would become unmanageable.

to:

Sheer weight or mass is not by itself a good thing; you need to make the sword just heavy enough in the right places to do the job intended, without getting to the point where the mass is just slowing you down and robbing your strike of energy. Generally you can make a blade big in one or two dimensions, but not in all three dimensions at once. Some swords such as the Chinese ''dadao'' or Philippine ''panabas'' have very short, very broad blades which (which allow for a gradual cross-section taper to an acute edge, forward balance, edge), are more forward-balanced, and have long two-handed grips; this gives them a lot of cutting and chopping power at the cost of short reach and points not well-shaped for thrusting. Medieval cutting-focused greatswords would often have a long blade that was broad along its entire length (in other words, little profile taper) so it would have reach, cutting power, and broad point that would do pretty well against unarmored or mailed opponents; such greatswords would also have an aggressive distal taper, meaning that the blade was thick near the guard but got progressively thinner towards the tip, keeping it from getting too heavy towards the point but making it not narrow or stiff enough to easily penetrate mail armor or slip through the gaps of plate armor with a thrust. And then there's the rapier, which sacrifices the ability to make powerful cuts for point control, reach, and penetration: The blade is very long (for reach), has little distal taper and a rigid temper (for stiffness), an accute point (for penetration), and a narrow profile (also to help penetration, and to prevent the length or thickness from making it too heavy). There is also more mass in the guard relative to the blade, pushing the center of balance closr to the hand, which makes it easy to manipulate the tip. However, this makes for a center of percussion that's further back from the point, which reduces the range at which you can make effective cuts, and the thick edge section combined with the light blade reduces cutting power. The estoc is even thicker and stiffer than the rapier, making it suited for anti-armor use in a way that the more delicate dueling rapier isn't, but since the cross section is so thick it has practically no cutting ability at all. Each of these swords, despite their differences in handling, are basically agile and maneuverable weapons because they make compromises. When it comes to length, breadth, and thickness, you can pick any two but have to sacrifice the third if you want it to be a handy weapon. What the BFS does is expand in all three dimensions at once, to the point where the overall weight and balance would become unmanageable.
28th Mar '18 6:19:41 PM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


This trope basically comes from a combination of RuleOfCool and BiggerIsBetter. An oversized sword is a unique weapon that will stand out from the crowd, and marks its wielder as a person of above-average or even superhuman strength. Many writers like for their protagonist or villain to be as cool and unique as possible. As for its usefulness as a weapon, most people assume that a bigger, heavier weapon will inflict more damage on whatever it hits, provided that you can find a person strong enough to wield it. Force equals mass times accelleration, so if take two swords of different masses and swing them at a target at the same speed, then the more massive sword will hit with more force. However, people might fail to consider that oftentimes it is more efficient to increase the acceleration of the weapon than to increase its size. Modern rifles using more efficient and powerful smokeless propellants shoot less massive but more aerodynamic bullets at higher velocities than their black powder ancestors, which with the help of rifled gun barrels lets them achieve more accuracy, range, and penetrating power despite not increasing the weight of the actual projectile. To continue this comparison, when you're talking about a gun, the propellant in the cartridge case and the firearm in which the explosion takes place are what propell the projectile, while when you're talking about a sword, it is the human and his or her muscle power which accelerate the edge or point of the sword. Unlike designing a gun cartridge, where if you create a more powerful cartridge then you can design and manufacture a new firearm whose breech and barrel can handle the increased pressure of a stronger cartridge, you cannot create a bigger sword and then design from scratch a human who is big and strong enough to wield it. Unless maybe you're talking about an ArtificialHuman or {{robot}}, but if you can make one of those, then [[FridgeLogic is a sword really the most hi-tech weapon you can equip them with]]? And also unlike with guns, where a gun or cannon too big to be fired from the shoulder can still be used as a crew-served weapon mounted on a tripod, gun carriage, or vehicle, a sword too big to be wielded by a single warrior is of no use to anyone. Therefore, sword design has to take into account what the average physically fit human warrior is capable of.

to:

This trope basically comes from a combination of RuleOfCool and BiggerIsBetter. An oversized sword is a unique weapon that will stand out from the crowd, and marks its wielder as a person of above-average or even superhuman strength. Many writers like for their protagonist or villain to be as cool and unique as possible. As for its usefulness as a weapon, most people assume that a bigger, heavier weapon will inflict more damage on whatever it hits, provided that you can find a person strong enough to wield it. Force equals mass times accelleration, so if take two swords of different masses and swing them at a target at the same speed, then the more massive sword will hit with more force. However, people might fail to consider that oftentimes it is more efficient to increase the acceleration of the weapon than to increase its size. Modern rifles using more efficient and powerful smokeless propellants shoot less massive but more aerodynamic bullets at higher velocities than their black powder ancestors, which with the help of rifled gun barrels lets them achieve more accuracy, range, and penetrating power despite not increasing the weight of the actual projectile. To continue this comparison, when you're talking about a gun, the propellant in the cartridge case and the firearm in which the explosion takes place are what propell the projectile, while when you're talking about a sword, it is the human and his or her muscle power which accelerate the edge or point blade of the sword. Unlike designing a gun cartridge, where if you create a more powerful cartridge then you can design and manufacture a new firearm whose breech and barrel can handle the increased pressure of a stronger cartridge, you cannot create a bigger sword and then design from scratch a human who is big and strong enough to wield it. Unless maybe you're talking about an ArtificialHuman or {{robot}}, but if you can make one of those, then [[FridgeLogic is a sword really the most hi-tech weapon you can equip them with]]? And also unlike with guns, where a gun or cannon too big to be fired from the shoulder can still be used as a crew-served weapon mounted on a tripod, gun carriage, or vehicle, a sword too big to be wielded by a single warrior is of no use to anyone. Therefore, sword design has to take into account what the average physically fit human warrior is capable of.
28th Mar '18 6:19:26 PM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


This trope basically comes from a combination of RuleOfCool and BiggerIsBetter. An oversized sword is a unique weapon that will stand out from the crowd, and marks its wielder as a person of above-average or even superhuman strength. Many writers like for their protagonist or villain to be as cool and unique as possible. As for its usefulness as a weapon, most people assume that a bigger, heavier weapon will inflict more damage on whatever it hits, provided that you can find a person strong enough to wield it. Force equals mass times accelleration, so if take two swords of different masses and swing them at a target at the same speed, then the more massive sword will hit with more force. However, people might fail to consider that oftentimes it is more efficient to increase the acceleration of the weapon than to increase its size. Modern rifles using more efficient and powerful smokeless propellants shoot less massive but more aerodynamic bullets at higher velocities than their black powder ancestors, which with the help of rifled gun barrels lets them achieve more accuracy, range, and penetrating power despite not increasing the weight of the actual projectile. To continue this comparison, when you're talking about a gun, the propellant in the cartridge case and the firearm in which the explosion takes place are what propell the projectile, while when you're talking about a sword, it is the human and his or her muscle power which accelerate the projectile. Unlike designing a gun cartridge, where if you create a more powerful cartridge then you can design and manufacture a new firearm whose breech and barrel can handle the increased pressure of a stronger cartridge, you cannot create a bigger sword and then design from scratch a human who is big and strong enough to wield it. Unless maybe you're talking about an ArtificialHuman or {{robot}}, but if you can make one of those, then [[FridgeLogic is a sword really the most hi-tech weapon you can equip them with]]? And also unlike with guns, where a gun or cannon too big to be fired from the shoulder can still be used as a crew-served weapon mounted on a tripod, gun carriage, or vehicle, a sword too big to be wielded by a single warrior is of no use to anyone. Therefore, sword design has to take into account what the average physically fit human warrior is capable of.

to:

This trope basically comes from a combination of RuleOfCool and BiggerIsBetter. An oversized sword is a unique weapon that will stand out from the crowd, and marks its wielder as a person of above-average or even superhuman strength. Many writers like for their protagonist or villain to be as cool and unique as possible. As for its usefulness as a weapon, most people assume that a bigger, heavier weapon will inflict more damage on whatever it hits, provided that you can find a person strong enough to wield it. Force equals mass times accelleration, so if take two swords of different masses and swing them at a target at the same speed, then the more massive sword will hit with more force. However, people might fail to consider that oftentimes it is more efficient to increase the acceleration of the weapon than to increase its size. Modern rifles using more efficient and powerful smokeless propellants shoot less massive but more aerodynamic bullets at higher velocities than their black powder ancestors, which with the help of rifled gun barrels lets them achieve more accuracy, range, and penetrating power despite not increasing the weight of the actual projectile. To continue this comparison, when you're talking about a gun, the propellant in the cartridge case and the firearm in which the explosion takes place are what propell the projectile, while when you're talking about a sword, it is the human and his or her muscle power which accelerate the projectile.edge or point of the sword. Unlike designing a gun cartridge, where if you create a more powerful cartridge then you can design and manufacture a new firearm whose breech and barrel can handle the increased pressure of a stronger cartridge, you cannot create a bigger sword and then design from scratch a human who is big and strong enough to wield it. Unless maybe you're talking about an ArtificialHuman or {{robot}}, but if you can make one of those, then [[FridgeLogic is a sword really the most hi-tech weapon you can equip them with]]? And also unlike with guns, where a gun or cannon too big to be fired from the shoulder can still be used as a crew-served weapon mounted on a tripod, gun carriage, or vehicle, a sword too big to be wielded by a single warrior is of no use to anyone. Therefore, sword design has to take into account what the average physically fit human warrior is capable of.
28th Mar '18 6:17:40 PM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Giant swords are impractical in the real world because of the SquareCubeLaw, which guarantees that a sword that gets too heavy will be slow and cumbersome no matter how strong its wielder is. The sword has to be a relatively small percentage of its wielder's body weight--and indeed a pretty small weight in absolute terms--in order for human muscle power to accelerate and control it at high speed. Even a world-class powerlifter would struggle to use a 15 pound sword for fencing at normal speed, simply because it is exponentially harder to swing a substantial weight around your body at more than arm's length than it is to curl or bench press the same weight close to the body in a straight trajectory, and whatever you can do with it will be much slower in comparison. Eight pounds is about the upper limit for what even a six-foot long greatsword can weigh before it becomes too unwieldly for fencing at speed. What's more, wielding a ''truly'' giant sword such as [[VideoGame/FinalFantasyVII Cloud's Buster Sword]] would require not only SuperStrength, but also a whole set of RequiredSecondaryPowers. An object that large has tremendous inertia, meaning that it is extremely difficult to get it moving from a resting position, and just as hard to stop it or change direction after it gets going. In order to actually exert on the weapon the minimum force needed to accelerate it to the speed of a sword swing, you would have to be able to push off of the ground without your feet slipping out from under you as you step forward, and then the sword would try to yank you forward along with it as soon as it gathers some speed. In order to do this with control you would either have to weigh several times as much as a normal human, or artificially increase your personal gravity, stability, and traction using sci-fi technology or magic. Once you were able to swing it and keep your footing, you would also need SuperToughness in order for your bones, muscles, and joints to withstand forces that would rip a person's arms off. Even if you had all these powers for controlling a BFS through a proper swing, a swordfight is not won--much less survived--by relying on one great swing to fell your opponent. You have to consider how long it takes to recover from a missed swing, transition between different guards or stances, and defend against relentless attacks coming from various directions. At best a superman using a giant sword would be rather sluggish and vulnerable to anything nimble enough to avoid his blows, and unless his super strength also came with unlimited stamina, he would quickly become exhausted and lose the ability to either attack or defend himself effectively. It is far more efficient to give a strong person a weapon only slightly heavier than average, so that they can handle it more effortlessly and nimbly.

to:

Giant swords are impractical in the real world because of the SquareCubeLaw, which guarantees that a sword that gets too heavy will be slow and cumbersome no matter how strong its wielder is. The sword has to be a relatively small percentage of its wielder's body weight--and indeed a pretty small weight in absolute terms--in order for human muscle power to accelerate and control it at high speed. Even a world-class powerlifter would struggle and fail to use a 15 pound sword for fencing at normal speed, simply because it is exponentially harder to swing a substantial weight around your body at more than arm's length than it is to curl or bench press the same weight close to the body in a straight trajectory, and whatever you can do with it will be much slower in comparison. comparison because a heavier object has more inertia. Eight pounds is about the upper absolute limit for what even a six-foot long greatsword can weigh before it becomes too unwieldly for fencing at speed. What's more, wielding a ''truly'' giant sword such as [[VideoGame/FinalFantasyVII Cloud's Buster Sword]] would require not only SuperStrength, but also a whole set of RequiredSecondaryPowers. An object that large has tremendous inertia, meaning that it is extremely difficult to get it moving from a resting position, and just as hard to stop it or change direction after it gets going. In order to actually exert on upon the weapon the minimum force needed to accelerate it to the speed of a normal sword swing, you would have to be able to push off of the ground without your feet slipping out from under you as you step forward, and then the sword would try to yank you forward along with it as soon as it gathers gathered some speed. In order to do this with control you would either have to weigh several times as much as a normal human, or artificially increase your personal gravity, stability, and traction using sci-fi technology or magic. Once you were able to swing it and keep your footing, you would also need SuperToughness in order for your bones, muscles, and joints to withstand forces that would rip a person's arms off.

Even if you had all these powers for controlling a BFS through a proper swing, a swordfight is not won--much less survived--by relying on one great swing to fell your opponent. You have to consider how long it takes to recover from a missed swing, transition between different guards or stances, and defend against relentless attacks coming from various directions. At best a superman using a giant sword would be rather sluggish and vulnerable to anything nimble enough to avoid his blows, and unless his super strength also came with unlimited stamina, he would quickly become exhausted and lose the ability to either attack or defend himself effectively. It is far more efficient to give a strong person a weapon sword only slightly heavier than average, the average weapon of its class, so that they can handle it more effortlessly and nimbly.
nimbly while still getting some extra "oomph". There's also the fact that many fictional BFS examples would be quite the opposite of an AbsurdlySharpBlade, being so chunky and having such thick and chisel-like edge geometry that they would not cut through whatever they'd hit so much as crush the material with blunt force. A sword-like object that lacks either the nimbleness or cutting ability of a sword might as well be a club, mace, or ax instead.
28th Mar '18 5:58:22 PM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Sheer weight or mass is not by itself a good thing; you need to make the sword just heavy enough in the right places to do the job intended, without getting to the point where the mass is just slowing you down and robbing your strike of energy. Generally you can make a blade big in one or two dimensions, but not in all three dimensions at once. Some swords such as the Chinese ''dadao'' or Philippine ''panabas'' have very short, very broad blades which allow for a gradual cross-section taper to an acute edge, forward point of balance, and long two-handed grips; this gives them a lot of cutting and chopping power at the cost of short reach and points not well-shaped for thrusting. Medieval cutting-focused greatswords would often have a long blade that was broad along its entire length (in other words, little profile taper) so it would have reach, cutting power, and broad point that would do pretty well against unarmored or mailed opponents; such greatswords would also have an aggressive distal taper, meaning that the blade was thick near the guard but got progressively thinner towards the tip, keeping it from getting too heavy towards the point but making it not narrow or stiff enough to easily penetrate mail armor or slip through the gaps of plate armor with a thrust. And then there's the rapier, which sacrifices the ability to make powerful cuts for point control, reach, and penetration: The blade is very long (for reach), has little distal taper and a rigid temper (for stiffness), an accute point (for penetration), and a narrow profile (also to help penetration, and to prevent the length or thickness from making it too heavy). There is also more mass in the guard relative to the blade, pushing the center of balance closr to the hand, which makes it easy to manipulate the tip. However, this makes for a center of percussion that's further back from the point, which reduces the range at which you can make effective cuts, and the thick edge section combined with the light blade reduces cutting power. The estoc is even thicker and stiffer than the rapier, making it suited for anti-armor use in a way that the more delicate dueling rapier isn't, but since the cross section is so thick it has practically no cutting ability at all. Each of these swords, despite their differences in handling, are basically agile and maneuverable weapons because they make compromises. When it comes to length, breadth, and thickness, you can pick any two but have to sacrifice the third if you want it to be a handy weapon. What the BFS does is expand in all three dimensions at once, to the point where the overall weight and balance would become unmanageable.

to:

Sheer weight or mass is not by itself a good thing; you need to make the sword just heavy enough in the right places to do the job intended, without getting to the point where the mass is just slowing you down and robbing your strike of energy. Generally you can make a blade big in one or two dimensions, but not in all three dimensions at once. Some swords such as the Chinese ''dadao'' or Philippine ''panabas'' have very short, very broad blades which allow for a gradual cross-section taper to an acute edge, forward point of balance, and long two-handed grips; this gives them a lot of cutting and chopping power at the cost of short reach and points not well-shaped for thrusting. Medieval cutting-focused greatswords would often have a long blade that was broad along its entire length (in other words, little profile taper) so it would have reach, cutting power, and broad point that would do pretty well against unarmored or mailed opponents; such greatswords would also have an aggressive distal taper, meaning that the blade was thick near the guard but got progressively thinner towards the tip, keeping it from getting too heavy towards the point but making it not narrow or stiff enough to easily penetrate mail armor or slip through the gaps of plate armor with a thrust. And then there's the rapier, which sacrifices the ability to make powerful cuts for point control, reach, and penetration: The blade is very long (for reach), has little distal taper and a rigid temper (for stiffness), an accute point (for penetration), and a narrow profile (also to help penetration, and to prevent the length or thickness from making it too heavy). There is also more mass in the guard relative to the blade, pushing the center of balance closr to the hand, which makes it easy to manipulate the tip. However, this makes for a center of percussion that's further back from the point, which reduces the range at which you can make effective cuts, and the thick edge section combined with the light blade reduces cutting power. The estoc is even thicker and stiffer than the rapier, making it suited for anti-armor use in a way that the more delicate dueling rapier isn't, but since the cross section is so thick it has practically no cutting ability at all. Each of these swords, despite their differences in handling, are basically agile and maneuverable weapons because they make compromises. When it comes to length, breadth, and thickness, you can pick any two but have to sacrifice the third if you want it to be a handy weapon. What the BFS does is expand in all three dimensions at once, to the point where the overall weight and balance would become unmanageable.
This list shows the last 10 events of 43. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Analysis.BFS