Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Slims · 10-23-2008, 11:15 AM

It seems to me that you are probably looking at a zero sum game. Assuming your assailant is skilled in the use of his weapon of choice, he will likely kill you even if you manage to mortally wound him. The choice becomes one of whether you want to seek a long shot victory (i.e. instant incapacitation before he can get you), or ensure that he dies regardless of what happens to you.

If he has a sword and knows how to use it, the odds are he is going to kill you if he is able to close the distance, especially if you have a firearm. However, while a firearm gives you a decent chance of instant incapacitaion (provided you know what you are doing) it is not at all guaranteed, and you will have less time than most people think to employ it. If you choose a sword, even if you are very good with one, you will probably both die in the melee since you are presumably fighting until one is dead. Most mortal wounds don't kill instantly. European duels were not typically deadly since combat stopped after honor was upheld (after the first scratch), but the japanese believed in a rule of thirds: A third of the time your opponent would win, a third of the time you would, and a third of the time you would both die. That gives you a 1/3 chance of survival, assuming you are an expert swordsman.

If he has a firearm and is competent, he will shoot you several times before you close the distance to him (if you have a sword) but will be unable to prevent you from hacking him to pieces before you die. Of course, if he hits you in the head, pelvis, or spine you will be unable to close and will lose. Even if you get him you will probably die from your wounds. If you both choose firearms, you have a chance.

10-23-2008, 11:15 AM	#18 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	It seems to me that you are probably looking at a zero sum game. Assuming your assailant is skilled in the use of his weapon of choice, he will likely kill you even if you manage to mortally wound him. The choice becomes one of whether you want to seek a long shot victory (i.e. instant incapacitation before he can get you), or ensure that he dies regardless of what happens to you. If he has a sword and knows how to use it, the odds are he is going to kill you if he is able to close the distance, especially if you have a firearm. However, while a firearm gives you a decent chance of instant incapacitaion (provided you know what you are doing) it is not at all guaranteed, and you will have less time than most people think to employ it. If you choose a sword, even if you are very good with one, you will probably both die in the melee since you are presumably fighting until one is dead. Most mortal wounds don't kill instantly. European duels were not typically deadly since combat stopped after honor was upheld (after the first scratch), but the japanese believed in a rule of thirds: A third of the time your opponent would win, a third of the time you would, and a third of the time you would both die. That gives you a 1/3 chance of survival, assuming you are an expert swordsman. If he has a firearm and is competent, he will shoot you several times before you close the distance to him (if you have a sword) but will be unable to prevent you from hacking him to pieces before you die. Of course, if he hits you in the head, pelvis, or spine you will be unable to close and will lose. Even if you get him you will probably die from your wounds. If you both choose firearms, you have a chance. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence