Todd said there would be a perk for maces, where they ignore an opponents armor. Would http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omJSE9VLv60&feature=related explain why a mace would, or could, ignore armor?

It's a perk. Nothing more, nothing less.

Dude, it's a perk in a video game. You don't have to take it this seriously.

That would be a fair explanation for the real-world mechanics of it, yes. Bottom line being "It doesn't matter what you're wearing, if the impact is hard enough it's still gonna hurt you."

I'd imagine so. Blades are meant to cause lacerations, making them proficient in causing literal flesh wounds. Maces/hammers deal what I'd call impact damage, which would basically be shock damage that is transfered from the momentum of the mace>the armor>the wearers body. This causes minimal damage to flesh but does critical damage to internal organs, and the like, over a wider impact radius. That covers why each are good at what they do.

Blades are not very good against armor because it normally rebounds/glances off and has a hard time penetrating.
Maces/hammers generally are not as good against flesh because they are normally duller and without the target wearing armor the impact does not spread as far, although it does do decent damage...think off hitting your finger with a hammer. Now if your finger was armored (yeah, I dunno how that'd be but it's just an example ) that pain would be spread out towards the center of your hand more.

This is just based from my basic knowledge of weapons, from fencing and various CQC courses with people I know, and can be wrong. I do think it is right though, but I'm never sure >.>
Hope this helps a bit at least

Yes, and it's pretty damn accurate. That was a distinct advantage of blunt, heavy weapons. Since they don't rely on cutting action to cause injury, they're equally useful against armored and unarmored opponents. They're also very slow and unwieldy.

Despite what some people seem to be saying, there's more to it than just being a completely arbitrary perk in a video game. Bethesda puts a lot of thought into their games and there is a reason for how they are separating the weapon types with perks. I've heard before that when plate mail became more common with soldiers, blunt weapons were more widely used because they were more effective than swords at hurting someone through their plate armor.

Interestingly enough, when you look at how people in full plate actually fought with swords. They rarely attacked with the edge of the blades, because it was liable to break them. Instead, their attacks focused on precision thrusts or blunt attacks using the flat of the blade or the pommel.

This is true, fighting with swords in general (not just when wearing full plate or fighting against it). Likely because when the mid-length bladed side of a blade is used to strike a target the blade loses much more momentum then when striking with the tip. As for the dull side I never found that useful but I'm sure there's a reason, and the pummel is pretty straightforward.

Edit- In hindsight, this was completely unnecessary...my bad

There were very specific techniques for fighting against full plate, specifically half-handing, where you have one hand on the hilt and the other on the blade. That effectively shortens the length of the blade and allows for more precise thrusts against joints or other weak points in the armor. The main purpose of the comment, though, was the reliance on blunt attacks using either the pommel/hilt or the flat of the blade. They'd actually grip the blade with both hands and swing the sword like a club. The reason was to batter not just the person in the armor, but the armor itself, as well. If they could damage the armor, they could possible create additional openings. Blunt attacks were simply the most effective overall. Heck, just look at the estoc.

Ah, so if I get your point...the reason for the pummel/flat ending was to make the blade into a more effective "anti-armor" weapon? I did know that blunt weapons were the prime anti-armors though, just not that certain sword techniques gave the blade similar properties (I'm most familiar with rapiers and broadswords, neither of which have a flat end. I'm not familiar with many others, such as the estoc you mentioned). You do seem to be much more knowledgeable overall though, so I shall yield to your expertise.

Yes, that video more or less covers it. What I want to know is why an armor-piercing weapon like a battleaxe only inflicts "bleeding damage." It would punch through the armor with the same blunt trauma I'm thinking.

That's pretty much it. And by the flat of the blade, I mean instead of hitting them with the edge, you rotate it 90 degrees and smack them with the flat side. Rapiers and broadswords both have a flat side of the blade.

Oooooh, that makes alot more sense....I thought you meant using something like a single edged swords reverse side. I feel stupid =P

@Omegoa- While something like a battle ax, at least heavy two handers, would likely punch through the armor it is still bladed. Meaning it would not cause much in the name of blunt trauma, but maybe go through and cause a sizable cut.

Edit- some spelling

Exactly -- it'd punch through the plate. Isn't that the same as ignoring armor? XD Being bladed doesn't mean it won't inflict blunt trauma -- there's still an enormous amount of force behind one of those.

True, I may have the wrong definition of blunt but I thought it meant something like impact damage, where the damage causes messy wounds to the epidermis and pretty heavy internal damage. A blade causes more precise damage to the epidermis and less so to the insides.

Also, as far as punching through, that would not really be ignoring it it...but just blasting through. Things like maces "ignores" the armor by having the force transfered through the armor and into the wearer.
The "enormous force" is what allows the ax to penetrate the armor.

Though I haven't actually looked into these things, it's more of an educated guess. So I can very well be wrong :confused:

Your definition of blunt trauma is correct -- it's caused by impact damage. A heavy, two-handed battleax undoubtedly has a lot of impact damage behind it, and though I'm not certain I feel that it should transfer blunt trauma as well, though I suppose realistically it was never an issue -- a man is more likely to die by having his skull cloven in half than by whatever trauma that cleaving has caused.

The idea of armor is to protect its wearer -- and if an axe's blade is blasting through it and mincing the man behind it, I think it's safe to say that the armor is being ignored. Perhaps the perks should be switched around! Axes ignore armor and maces cause internal bleeding.

Good point, that or maybe they mix a bit. Sort of like, axes have high penetration on armor and can cause bleeding on un-armored targets. And maces can cause bleeding on armored guys. Could work. Just a matter of replacing some things in the programming

Sounds like a job for some future mod

There are two big things to keep in mind when you're talking about axes: 1). They have a large cutting edge 2). They leave a triangular cut. The latter is very important because such a wound is notoriously difficult to mend - if not impossible. You can't stitch together skin that won't touch and the gap is too much for normal clotting to handle. The result is a very long, deep gash that's going to bleed like crazy.

When you get down to it, it actually takes a -lot- of strength to chop through a human body. There's also sorts of meat and bone before you even think about armor. The keen edge greatly reduces the amount of blunt, large area force and the blade itself isn't deep enough to reach many vital organs (like a sword can). So the notion is basically to hack at your opponent, hopefully punching the cutting edge through their armor, and leaving a mortal wound. The cut is going to be so big that the person will probably bleed out in seconds.

A good anology is to watch someone cut down a tree with an axe. Look at all the big, triangular cuts the axe leaves as it chops into the tree. Now imagine that's somebody's body. The axe won't cut all the way through, and it won't splinter the wood to pieces, but any liquid inside is going to pour out like a waterfall.

Yeah....kinda wish i computer gamed now

And I just found out I can't post twice per minute lol

One of the first things I'm doing after I finish my first playthrough of Skyrim is busting out the construction set and figuring out how it works :celebration:

I think that the low surface area of a sharp axe would cause less blunt trauma and more cutting injury, compared to a mace or hammer with a much higher surface area.

An axe can split a plate and cut the skin underneath, but that is not "ignoring" the armor. I'd imagine the force required to cleave open a piece of plate mail would result in much less energy for the actual flesh cutting. A blunt weapon doesn't need to break the armor to do damage, as the energy is transferred through it.

True, by ignoring I think he more meant it's ability to due damage through the armor, not really ignoring in a literal sense. But axes generally use momentum to pierce heavy armor and inflict flesh wounds with the same blow sort of like how when someone chops wood the ax continues to go through the log and into what it rests on.

As for the maces, you are dead on. The injuries maces cause through armor are done through the sheer force of the impact going though and possibly rebounding in the targets body. Which causes internal injuries and bleeding(bruising). Sort of like getting shot while wearing a vest. The maces causing bleeding we mentioned was due to the internal bleed.