Von:R Dan Henry (rdanhenry@earthlink.net) Betrifft:Re: Defence in combat Newsgroups:rec.games.roguelike.development View this article only Datum:2001-11-08 11:39:18 PST On Thu, 08 Nov 2001 13:38:27 +0100, the disembodied brain of Hansjörg Malthaner transmitted thus: >'Steel' is a wide range of alloys. Some are flexible others are very hard. >The harder sorts are likeley to break, even if they are 'steel'. Yes, steel is alloyed iron. It's properties depend on the other ingredients in the alloy and even sometimes on the alloying process. >Today the properties of a certain type of steel can be adjusted very >precisely by adding (or removing) certrain elements from the melted raw >iron. >In former times this knowledge was not generally available, and often it was >just not possible to treat the melt accordingly to remove certain elements. They did not know the "why", but experimentation led to some useful techniques. >I.e. carbon makes steel harder but more likely to break. Today, oxygen is >blown through the melted iron to reduce the amount of carbon it contains (as >well as to burn phosphoric, sulfidic and some other 'bad' elements) to get a >more tenacious steel. This was surely not possible in former times. Carbon content is one of the main factors in producing the desired steel and most "primitive" techniques I have heard of are based on controlling the carbon content. >To make a good sharp sword, which doesn't break, you need a core of >tenacious steel and a surface which is very hard. Usually it is made from >steel which is tenacious and then after carfting the sword, the surface is >hardented by adding carbon and nitrogen to the surface. In addition warming >a rapidly cooling can harden the surface, but keep the core soft and >tenacious. And typically, the best sword-makers would have a method which created a flexible low-carbon inner blade and a high-carbon outer blade. Or some which ended up with a sort of two-steel blend. In any case, there were empirically derived techniques for producing the needed blend of flexibility and strength. However, such techniques were limited to knowledgeable weaponsmiths and a given region might not have such an individual available. Which is why sword-making centers of great renown like Damascus and Toledo arose. >It's not just 'steel', 'iron' or 'bronze' but the blacksmith knowledge and >skill to craft a good sword. He cannot make a good sowerd if he has no good >resources, but a bad smith will still make bad swords with good metal. Agreed. A well-made weapon will not match an ordinary weapon from the next metallic age, but it will be a distinct advantage against lesser weapons of its own type. Technology and craftsmanship are two different quality vectors, although major technology shifts generally trump craftsmanship. A cheap rifle will usually beat the finest katana ever made. But it's still worth bringing a quality firearm to the gunfight if you have the option. >So 'artifact' weapons were just good combinations of best material and best >blackscmith's skills ... i.e. made from meteoric iron which is very pure but >very rare. I like to use "starmetal" as a label for meteoric iron. It just sounds cooler and is reasonably accurate. In a bronze age setting, any such weapon would be seen as magic, even if it isn't. -- R. Dan Henry, Emperor of the Universe rdanhenry@earthlink.net