"We have interplanetary travel but we fight with swords"

[Lokathor]

If you wear the armor that's only good against swords and knives and then use a sword or knife, you'll get shot before you can get into range.

If you wear the armor that's good against guns you can shoot them as they approach you (possibly killing anyone from the previous category) and then you can still drop the gun and fight out the melee.

Also, more people can potentially try to shoot you at once than can try to stab you at once.

The equilibrium seems to point to wearing the armor that's good against bullets.

[darkmaster]

The setting uses electromagnetic shielding that can deflect bullets plasma bolts (which would be held in shape by similar fields) but isn't strong enough to deflect something with as much weight as a sword or dagger, and cross bow bolts are not made of much metal in the setting.

[Saxony]

The mechanics of how any wearable armour can stop a bullet but not a sword is difficult to envisage. I mean, it exists. It's easy. It's called "two metres of water." A sword can go through that but pretty much every bullet will be stopped by it. However, wearing that around everywhere is going to be difficult.

You may be best off just accepting that since your primary motivation is the rule of cool and not any desire to accommodate suspension of disbelief, your best course of action is to take the player squarely by the lapels and say "it works because we say it does; buy into the premise or go elsewhere."

I guess you've never heard of a bullet proof vest? Deaddmwalking has more or less explained the concept. Many bullet proof vests can only block very fast small projectiles (specific kinds of bullets shot at specific velocity ranges and (kinetic) energy ranges ) and only work once or twice because they catch the bullets like a net. Once the net has caught something, it gets bunched up around the bullet and no longer protects against other bullets. Shooting someone multiple times in the same place can get through a bullet proof vest.

I'm pretty sure you can stab through kevlar or other types of bullet armor. Not easily, mind you. I think some kevlar is about as tough as leather. But it is possible.

There are plenty of real-life materials that resist gunshots but not melee weapon strikes. And an infinite variety of fictional materials which do the same thing.

Even more importantly, bullet proof armor will probably have holes because all armor has sections for flexibility (only rigid materials work as simple armor, so the full set can't be one piece while cloth armor could) and there will be holes in between the sections. Most famously, the currently ubiquitous bullet proof vests cover only a part of a person's chest(!). There are many police and military forces today that use only vests. So it's quite plausible that the most common form of bullet proof armor in whatever setting will have huge, enormous gaping holes (every limb, the head and neck, and parts of the torso) to use a melee weapon on.

Melee weapons won't be affected very much by someone wearing only a vest for armor. So anti bullet armor which is "good" or at least "actually being used today" can be pretty much useless against melee weapons.

But that's a bit of an easy example. How about someone completely covered in kevlar? Hitting a hole in someone's armor is a lot easier with a stabbing melee weapon than a contemporary gun, if the hole is just an inch in diameter or perhaps a slit half and inch wide and 6 inches across. Especially if that slit is in the arm pit where their arm armor connects to their chest armor. Stabbing a small gap in armor is not exactly an easy affair with a melee weapon either, but it is possible. Some forms of armor don't really work well against blunt weapons, so someone covered in bullet proof armor (that only works against bullets by some complicated mechanism and not simply a material's modulus of toughness or hardness just resisting a blow, just like real life bullet proof vests do) might do not that much against blunt impacts so the person would be vulnerable pretty much any where. Again, I would like to be covered in leather than nothing and I not saying kevlar or whatever is basically worthless but it could potentially not do much.

Then again, why not just use a gun in melee combat? Put gun on armor hole and shoot with the gun in contact with the hole. That takes care of the accuracy problem a ranged weapon might have.

Then there's armor with no gaps. Certainly possible. I could definitely see bullet proof armor with no gaps (maybe a forcefield or just overlapping layers that slide over each other for flexibility) and melee weapon armor also with no gaps. Why gapless bullet armor and no gapless melee armor? I'm not sure I see a good reason. There have been plenty of good hand-wavey reasons given in this thread why bullet armor might be way better than melee armor but a lot of them do just seem hand-wavey.

[RadiantPhoenix]

"Anti-momentum field"

Bullets stop like you're Neo, but people with long pointy sticks can just keep pushing those into you.

[Laertes]

Melee weapons won't be affected very much by someone wearing only a vest for armor. So anti bullet armor which is "good" or at least "actually being used today" can be pretty much useless against melee weapons.

In real life a bullet proof vest or helmet doesn't make you immune to bullets. It simply turns a deadly wound into a survivable one that still puts you on the ground. That's why people wear them on their heads and torsos: it's not about making you immune to small arms fire, it's about making you survive the experience of being taken out of action.

In a wargame, "down but not dead" and "dead" are more or less synonyms, so that ceases being a useful distinction.

I'm pretty sure you can stab through kevlar or other types of bullet armor. Not easily, mind you. I think some kevlar is about as tough as leather. But it is possible.

Um... you know that kevlar is the same thing that they make knife proof vests out of, right? It's physically the same material.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Then again, why not just use a gun in melee combat? Put gun on armor hole and shoot with the gun in contact with the hole. That takes care of the accuracy problem a ranged weapon might have.

It's too easy to have control of your weapon taken away from you. A blade is a lot harder to grab.

[Username17]

Then again, why not just use a gun in melee combat? Put gun on armor hole and shoot with the gun in contact with the hole. That takes care of the accuracy problem a ranged weapon might have.

It's too easy to have control of your weapon taken away from you. A blade is a lot harder to grab.

A majority of knife wounds are caused by the victim's own knife. People who carry knives are a lot more likely to get stabbed than people who don't. And it's not just because only jackasses who think that it's a good idea to get into a knife fight actually carry the fucking things.

-Username17

[Laertes]

A majority of knife wounds are caused by the victim's own knife. People who carry knives are a lot more likely to get stabbed than people who don't. And it's not just because only jackasses who think that it's a good idea to get into a knife fight actually carry the fucking things.

Most people who carry knives carry them for intimidation reasons, though, rather than because they're stupid enough to think that knife fights are a good idea. Which means that actually starting a fight with such a person basically consists of calling their bluff.

[angelfromanotherpin]

A majority of knife wounds are caused by the victim's own knife. People who carry knives are a lot more likely to get stabbed than people who don't. And it's not just because only jackasses who think that it's a good idea to get into a knife fight actually carry the fucking things.

-Username17

I suspect that statistic doesn't distinguish between 'people who have any idea what they're doing' and 'random yahoo with no training.' And that the people who are wounded with their own knives skew heavily towards the latter.

[Ferret]

kevlar without trauma plates is like cutting through heavy, tough cloth. You can stab through it easily.

[Whipstitch]

I suspect that statistic doesn't distinguish between 'people who have any idea what they're doing' and 'random yahoo with no training.' And that the people who are wounded with their own knives skew heavily towards the latter.

The thing is, random yahoo is a pretty typical case. Also, there's a pithy saying in the martial arts community about how people drop down at least one belt level for each punch to the face. Basically, the existence of varying competence levels cuts both ways, because sometimes the other guy keeps their head. It's just really hard to get around the fact that knife fighting is a brutish affair and that shit happens when you get within arms reach of someone who justifiably believes their life is in danger.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Yes, random yahoo is a typical case, but it's not a typical case in the military in a science-fiction setting where military doctrine skews towards melee combat.

[Scrivener]

A majority of knife wounds are caused by the victim's own knife. People who carry knives are a lot more likely to get stabbed than people who don't. And it's not just because only jackasses who think that it's a good idea to get into a knife fight actually carry the fucking things.

-Username17

I suspect that statistic doesn't distinguish between 'people who have any idea what they're doing' and 'random yahoo with no training.' And that the people who are wounded with their own knives skew heavily towards the latter.

I imagine it wouldn't matter.

Weapons tend to be bad things to have around in fights. If you are in a fight and draw a knife now you're in a knife fight! No one in the history if ever has been stabbed without something to stab them.

No matter how much training and expertise you have, the chance of getting a knife wound in a fight is 0% before a knife is pulled, the act of having a knife makes that 0% a non trivial number.

[Username17]

Yes, random yahoo is a typical case, but it's not a typical case in the military in a science-fiction setting where military doctrine skews towards melee combat.

Unless the fiction part of the science fiction is that everyone in the world is badass who never mistakes, you are talking out of your ass. In the actual history of the world, melee weapons was the norm of combat for almost all of history. And the vast majority of the people in those wars were indeed "random yahoos." That what "levies" are, and those formed the bulk of combatants in almost the entirety of human history and probably almost the entirety of pre-history as well.

-Username17

[deaddmwalking]

I like the image that pikes were developed from spears because military commanders kept trying to get the pointy bits further and further from their own soldiers so they'd stop accidentally massacring themselves.

[Stahlseele]

*snickers*
it certainly fits ^^

[Morat]

kevlar without trauma plates is like cutting through heavy, tough cloth. You can stab through it easily.

Yeah, but people who wear kevlar vests are more concerned about the danger from bullets than knives.

In, say, the UK, where beat cops are more likely to get stabbed than shot, they wear stab vests instead (which still work against bullets, just not as well). That is, in a setting where melee is an important threat, people will wear armor than works against melee weapons. As we can see from riot gear everywhere, which is usually not designed to stop bullets.

[DSMatticus]

I like the image that pikes were developed from spears because military commanders kept trying to get the pointy bits further and further from their own soldiers so they'd stop accidentally massacring themselves.

It seems like it would be difficult to stab yourself with a spear. The bigger danger would be standing behind someone with a spear, because occasionally a big piece of wood is going to come startingly close to your face and/or dick. Where startingly close will sometimes mean "you broke my fucking nose!" or "oh god I think it popped."

[angelfromanotherpin]

Unless the fiction part of the science fiction is that everyone in the world is badass who never mistakes, you are talking out of your ass. In the actual history of the world, melee weapons was the norm of combat for almost all of history. And the vast majority of the people in those wars were indeed "random yahoos." That what "levies" are, and those formed the bulk of combatants in almost the entirety of human history and probably almost the entirety of pre-history as well.

-Username17

Look, I'm getting my info from a friend who actually was trained in knife fighting by the U.S. Army; and they told him that the 'control of weapon' thing was an important reason (one of several) to prefer a knife over a pistol at close range. This isn't my ass, it's actual modern special forces doctrine.

And the U.S. Army is a non-fictional volunteer army with an enormous amount invested in training each man. Once you go science fiction, the assumption is that the future military is going to look more like the modern military than the past's. And the source material for melee in space leans much more elite than even that: Ginaz Swordmasters, Sardaukar, Valerian Marines, and Jedi.

[OgreBattle]

"Anti-momentum field"

Bullets stop like you're Neo, but people with long pointy sticks can just keep pushing those into you.

How do you think that'd affect flamethrowers?

[RadiantPhoenix]

How do you think that'd affect flamethrowers?

Probably not as well as bullets, but better than spears.

My first thought is "you get a wall of flame at the edge of the field"

[momothefiddler]

Look, I'm getting my info from a friend who actually was trained in knife fighting by the U.S. Army; and they told him that the 'control of weapon' thing was an important reason (one of several) to prefer a knife over a pistol at close range. This isn't my ass, it's actual modern special forces doctrine.

I learned something kinda like that from a Marine friend a while back. He also pointed out that pistols could be taken at close range, but his take on it wasn't "so use a knife at close range", it was "so only close if all you have is a knife"*. I think the way he phrased it was something like "if the range on your weapon is longer than the range on their disarm and you don't use that, you're a fucking idiot."

*this was in a conversation about knives in general, so it's not literally "if all you possess is a knife", more like "if your only option is a knife" so don't make this about noise or whatever.

[Laertes]

In cramped close-quarters fighting on a spacecraft, engagement ranges might be low enough that melee or CQC (FISH if you're British) is the normal form of fighting.

If this is what your Marines are trained to do, then they may well attempt to use the same doctrine when on the surface of a planet, because that's what they're trained and equipped for and that's what works.

[angelfromanotherpin]

In cramped close-quarters fighting on a spacecraft, engagement ranges might be low enough that melee or CQC (FISH if you're British) is the normal form of fighting.

If this is what your Marines are trained to do, then they may well attempt to use the same doctrine when on the surface of a planet, because that's what they're trained and equipped for and that's what works.

I can see a setting where control of ships and space stations is all that matters, because if you control the local orbital bombardment platforms then the planet basically has to submit.

[Laertes]

I can see a setting where control of ships and space stations is all that matters, because if you control the local orbital bombardment platforms then the planet basically has to submit.

Soft sci-fi? I can too. Once the sci-fi starts getting harder, though, it gets more and more problematic. (In very hard sci-fi, space battles basically aren't possible.)