Weapon Triangle

Does this really makes any sense, realistically?
which one do you pick?

Attached: weap-triangle.jpg (226x200, 11K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=-N2VibnjB6g
youtube.com/watch?v=afqhBODc_8U
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M9_bayonet
youtu.be/Icdm7-df64k?t=117
youtu.be/FFW-OhRcMXs?t=579
youtu.be/bR7VDPUj5AE?t=402
youtu.be/MroGPObEZzk?t=184
youtu.be/SjxYJBWcS08?t=177
youtube.com/watch?v=MroGPObEZzk&feature=youtu.be&t=184
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Lance always has the best aesthetic

Attached: fft lancer.jpg (370x600, 62K)

The sword obviously. The other two are not weapons. They're dead weight.

Lance is most practical in battle.

No.
They are all good in different situations, armour etc.

no

It's also the most cowardly.
Only cowards hide behind a long poking stick

Also what sword? Longsword? arming sword? Falchion? Rapier? etc

why the fuck would a weapon be beaten out by another weapon apart from range?
as long as the enemy has an unfortunate lack of armor, any weapon would do the trick, though a polearm would poke them much faster and further away than any other weapon
if armored, heavier weapons like hammers, maces, or even just a fuck-off big blade (axe, sword) can smash armor to pieces
depends on what you're fighting and what advantage you want

t. Dead