ye olde melee /pol/ told me my weaponfu is shit, and now I need

>>33006231
Maces are good vs armour if you also have full body armour on
Maces are terrible if you are less than ideally armoured, as they are poorly balanced for quickly defending yourself such as with a sword.
Use a shield and you should be /k/

>>33006231
it's not as effective as a gun, but if fighting hard targets that also do not have projectile weaponry, it's pretty ok. just hope they don't have a shield. ultimately it's about as useful as a baseball bat, just more lethal potential

>>33006231
Basically only good against armor. It makes sense--armor protects from sharp or slashing attacks far better than from blunt force, or a piercing point with a lot of force behind it.

Any time armor is not involved, it's an inferior weapon. It's slow and doesn't have great reach.

The only reason a swordfaggot fears it is because he's in armor and doesn't fear much else.

>>33006231

nothing wrong with it of you're wearing armor and carrying a shield.

warhammer is better tho

Because if the sword has no weight on it all it has to offer is the edge. Against good armor edge is irrelevant, you either puncture it or you smash it.
Smashing is even better than puncturing, just wail on a helmeted head and the shock will transmit it to the person's skull, no matter how good their armor is.
The whole thing about weapons, specially melee, is that they were made for specific things and they should be used for specific things. They are tools, after all. A hammer has a purpose.

Really good against meille, and still effective against plate armor. But overall inferior to the pike.

For 1vs1 a dagger in one hand is still better.

>>33006689
>For 1vs1 a dagger in one hand is still better.

maybe if you're just shanking a dude you've wrestled to the ground with your pole axe

>>33006689
If you're both in armour, you have a dagger and he has a poleaxe, you're fucked 9 times out of 10.

>>33006361
>sword has no weight on it all

Most single handed Melee weapons weighed from 1lb to 3lb, (European) swords and maces and hammers, tended to be on the higher end. So they all weighed around the same, it's a matter of balance and center of percussion that makes swords handle better and maces/hammers hit harder.

>>33006689
The dagger likely killed many more armored people than the sword yes... However if you just have a dagger and they have a larger weapon, you are probably screwed.

Typically the larger weapons were used to gain range while defending until you could get them on the ground, when you have them pinned, that's when you would reach for your dagger and get them.

>>33007119
This sounds like a lillybeige unsubstantiated supposition presented as fact.