Should a melee spear really do less damage than a thrown spear?

[DeanF]

I really don't think so.  Or at least not so much less.  It's very counter-intuitive.

But on the other hand I saw a javelin suggested as a lower-tier spear, and that might be more justifiable.  Specifically, I saw fire-hardened wood-only javelins suggested.  These might have better range than a spear, while doing less damage.  The only problem with them that I see is that without any sort of weight mechanic in the game, what would be the advantage to a javelin?  There would be no point in progressing them to stone, copper, bronze heads, etc.  You would just want a spear.

So maybe as a very early niche stone-age alternative?

Edited 11 hours ago by DeanF

[Teh Pizza Lady]

Javelins aren't a thing in the game.

There’s no reason to invent a separate “weaker thrown spear” tier just to justify a balance point. You're solving a problem that doesn’t exist.

But in short, yes, spears should do more damage when thrown. They have higher kinetic energy than thrusting with a spear. Physics says that faster objects hit harder than slower objects. If you don't believe me, pay better attention in class.

[LadyWYT]

From a game balance standpoint, yes. The advantage of a spear in melee is the longer reach, while the advantage of using it as a ranged weapon is that it does more damage than a bow in return for having a shorter range, slower fire rate, and less efficient use of inventory space. By making the damage the same for melee and ranged use, the spear either ends up outclassing falxs/swords with ease, or being too underwhelming as a ranged weapon to be worth using.

[DeanF]

1 hour ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

Javelins aren't a thing in the game.

There’s no reason to invent a separate “weaker thrown spear” tier just to justify a balance point. You're solving a problem that doesn’t exist.

But in short, yes, spears should do more damage when thrown. They have higher kinetic energy than thrusting with a spear. Physics says that faster objects hit harder than slower objects. If you don't believe me, pay better attention in class.

Well, one of us needs to pay better attention in class. 

Ultimately, it's the same sort of muscles that are imparting the force.  A spear does not magically accelerate after it leaves your hand (unless you're throwing it off a cliff).  You can thrust it with at least the same force that you can throw it with.  And unlike when thrown, if you jab someone with it you can keep shoving with it momentarily to drive it deeper.  You can put your body weight behind the strike- not just the weight of the spear.  Heck, just ask ChatGPT- "Would a thrown spear have more force than one used in the hand?"  (I already checked it, so that I could cite it, so I know how it answered.)  You can make thrown spears more powerful with things like an atlatl, since it is a lever, but that isn't what we are talking about.

And I never said that javelins are a thing in the game, did I?  I said that I had seen them suggested.

But, wow, now that you bring it up, javelins with an atlatl would be pretty awesome for the game.  Then you could easily justify more thrown damage than thrust damage, and maybe reduce the thrown spear's damage to be closer to it's thrust damage.  That sounds like something a Hunter might like to use.  You still shouldn't be able to stack javelins like you can arrows, though, or the bow loses it's niche.  You should need each in an individual inventory space, like the spears.

 

57 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

From a game balance standpoint, yes. The advantage of a spear in melee is the longer reach, while the advantage of using it as a ranged weapon is that it does more damage than a bow in return for having a shorter range, slower fire rate, and less efficient use of inventory space. By making the damage the same for melee and ranged use, the spear either ends up outclassing falxs/swords with ease, or being too underwhelming as a ranged weapon to be worth using.

This is a more lucid argument.  But note that I did say "so much less".  Two damage versus five seems excessive.

Also, I typically argue that reality is already balanced.  So games should model it when able and appropriate.  VS might be too "simple" of a game to get into weeds like that, though.  Heck it doesn't even model inventory weight, let alone how awkward it is to carry a spear through brush.

But the reach doesn't strike me as much of a practical advantage in the game.  For example I cannot seem to hold off a shiver at a distance with it.  I hit them with it, then they move up and hit me before I can attack with it again.  If the spear actually held them off, I'd accept this all it easily.  Does it need more knockback, then?  I suppose that I might just need to git gud, if I'm missing something.

Edited 4 hours ago by DeanF

[Teh Pizza Lady]

12 minutes ago, DeanF said:

Well, perhaps you should pay better attention in physiology class.  A thrown knife sure as hell does not have more force than a thrusted one.

Ultimately, it's the same muscle group that is imparting the force.  A spear does not magically accelerate after it leaves your hand (unless you're throwing it off a cliff).  You can thrust it with at least the same force that you can throw it with.  And unlike when thrown, if you jab someone with it you can keep shoving with it momentarily to drive it deeper.

 

I thought we were talking about spears...

Anyway, you’re also mixing up sustained force with impact energy. A thrust lets you keep pushing, but a thrown weapon delivers its energy in a single impact, and that impact scales strongly with velocity. I know this because I did pay attention in physics class.

Here are the formulas for kinetic energy (KE), momentum (p), and force (F).

KE = 1/2 * m * v^2
p = m * v
F = m * a

Impact energy scales with velocity squared (v^2), so higher speed = much harder hit than a slower hit with more mass behind it.

15 minutes ago, DeanF said:

I typically argue that reality is already balanced.  So games should model it when able.

In gameplay terms, that distinction matters. A thrown spear is a one-use, high-risk action where you lose the weapon, so it should hit harder on impact. A thrust is repeatable, controlled, and reliable, so it makes sense for it to have lower per-hit damage but higher consistency.

For rough comparison:
A ~4 kg spear thrust at ~10 m/s is ~200 J of energy. If the spear is thrusted much slower (because 10m/s is a generous speed!) then the number goes even lower.

KE = 1/2 * 4 * 10^2 = 200 J

A thrown spear in realistic human ranges (~25–35 m/s) is:
KE = 1/2 * 4 * 30^2 ≈ 1800 J

That’s an order of magnitude higher energy on impact, even before considering penetration dynamics.

If they hit the same, or thrusting is stronger than throwing, then, there's no point in throwing spears or even using them. Just use a falx for melee since it hits way harder and a bow/arrow for projectiles since those are more accurate and can fire much faster.

[LadyWYT]

20 minutes ago, DeanF said:

Also, I typically argue that reality is already balanced.  So games should model it when able. 

Games aren't reality though, and real life "balance" doesn't necessarily translate well to fun, balanced gameplay. The stakes between the two are also drastically different.

 

26 minutes ago, DeanF said:

But the reach doesn't strike me as much of a practical advantage in the game.  For example I cannot seem to hold off a shiver at a distance with it.  I hit them with it, then they move up and hit me before I can attack with it again.  If the spear actually held them off, I'd accept this all it easily.  Does it need more knockback, then?  I suppose that I might just need to git gud, if I'm missing something.

Reach is a pretty big advantage, since that extra reach can allow the player to poke at things from a safe vantage point(like from a ledge in a cave), or more easily kite enemies who have a short attack range(like drifters and some aggressive wildlife). Fast enemies like shivers though make reach a little less useful, since fast enemies are difficult to kite. Shivers specifically can also climb up to two block heights, so they aren't easily trapped in holes. 

To go into more detail on my earlier point: if spears are given the same melee attack value as their ranged value, they're going to easily outclass the falx, since they have more reach and the ranged damage value tends to be at least a point or two higher than the falx. Spears can't be sharpened, sure, but critical hits are a bit hit-or-miss, and why take the risk of getting punched in the gut by a rust monster if you can just keep them at arm's length with a spear and safely poke them to death?

As for lowering the ranged damage of the spear to match the melee damage, that's a bad idea since then the spear is going to feel too weak and clunky to be of real use as a ranged weapon. Spears already don't stack, and they don't have the range that arrows do, nor can they be fired as fast. As it currently stands, unquenched steel spears do slightly more damage than the recurve bow with steel arrows, but can be quenched to output more damage at the risk of breaking the spearpoint and wasting the material in the process. Many players probably won't be keen on needing to quench a spear a handful of times to bring it to the same damage level of the bow, and it's also worth noting that the initial spear rebalance had lower values for spear ranged damage and received a lot of criticism as a result since many players felt they were too weak.

3 minutes ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

If they hit the same, or thrusting is stronger than throwing, then, there's no point in throwing spears or even using them. Just use a falx for melee since it hits way harder and a bow/arrow for projectiles since those are more accurate and can fire much faster.

Nah, if spears are hitting for the same damage as throwing them, I'm not using a falx at that point, I'm gonna use a spear so the bad guys don't get close enough to hit me. Of course, if the throwing damage is nerfed to match their melee damage, I'm just not going to bother with spears at all unless I have no other option.

[DeanF]

1 hour ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

 

I thought we were talking about spears...

Anyway, you’re also mixing up sustained force with impact energy. A thrust lets you keep pushing, but a thrown weapon delivers its energy in a single impact, and that impact scales strongly with velocity. I know this because I did pay attention in physics class.

Here are the formulas for kinetic energy (KE), momentum (p), and force (F).

KE = 1/2 * m * v^2
p = m * v
F = m * a

Impact energy scales with velocity squared (v^2), so higher speed = much harder hit than a slower hit with more mass behind it.

In gameplay terms, that distinction matters. A thrown spear is a one-use, high-risk action where you lose the weapon, so it should hit harder on impact. A thrust is repeatable, controlled, and reliable, so it makes sense for it to have lower per-hit damage but higher consistency.

For rough comparison:
A ~4 kg spear thrust at ~10 m/s is ~200 J of energy. If the spear is thrusted much slower (because 10m/s is a generous speed!) then the number goes even lower.

KE = 1/2 * 4 * 10^2 = 200 J

A thrown spear in realistic human ranges (~25–35 m/s) is:
KE = 1/2 * 4 * 30^2 ≈ 1800 J

That’s an order of magnitude higher energy on impact, even before considering penetration dynamics.

If they hit the same, or thrusting is stronger than throwing, then, there's no point in throwing spears or even using them. Just use a falx for melee since it hits way harder and a bow/arrow for projectiles since those are more accurate and can fire much faster.

We are talking about spears.  You just go the physics wrong.  Or the physiology, if you want to look at it that way.

Yes, throwing around equations from your Physics 101 class always looks convincing.  And throwing around terms like "order of magnitude" is icing on the cake.  But you need to brush up on concepts like power, impulse, and work as well.  And you missed an important point about force, specifically that it is a one-time short-term force application when throwing a spear but more of a prolonged ongoing process with a thrust spear.  Terminal ballistics is sort of my thing, and it is a lot more complicated than merely measuring kinetic energy.  But using the simple KE=mv^2 kinetic energy equation as a stand in for lethality is a mistake that many others have made, including professionals who should know better, so it is forgivable.

A thrown spear is a projectile.  Once it leaves the hand it is no longer getting force inputs, and it's impact depends solely upon it's momentum.  As you quoted:

p = mv  Momentum is mass times velocity.

When it hits, the spear decelerates over a short time, producing an average force:

F = dp/dt  Force equals change in momentum over change in time.

So the total force is affected by how quickly the spear stops upon impact, and it is going to stop fast, because it has a very limited amount of energy stored in it and no more gets added as it is in flight.  In fact air resistance and tumbling are going to reduce it.

but a thrusting spear is different- it is still connected to your body, getting constant force inputs.  This is where you made your mistake- you computed the energy of a thrust spear as merely it's mass and velocity... and that's wrong, because it is getting ongoing force inputs.  It is not just delivering momentum- you are continuously applying force, so it is not limited to the little bit that you gave to the spear when throwing it.  A thrust spear does not rely only upon it's own mass and velocity!  It gets more.

Force is related to impulse:

J = Fdt = dp  Joules equals force applied over time, which equals change in momentum.

That's the whole refutation of what you said, but I can come at the problem in other ways if you like:

A thrown spear has a fixed impulse determined before impact, because it had a single short application of force.  But a thrust spear can increase impulse during impact because it is still connected to you and you are pushing it.  The thrust spear delivers more Joules, not less as you assert!

So, for a thrown spear force peaks briefly then drops as it slows, over milliseconds.  But with a thrust spear the force is maintained over time.

Then, penetration depends upon work done against the target, not just initial energy:

W = Fd  Work is force times distance.

So with a thrust you apply more force over time, unlike a thrown spear.

 

Or think of it this way.  F=ma, right?

So, would a target get pushed back (accelerated) more by a hit from a blunt spear you threw, or by shoving it hard with your hands with your body weight behind it (shoving being a proxy for how much force over time you could put into a spear thrust)?  That is the difference in force application that we are talking about.

So:

Thrown spear, high velocity, high momentum, but brief impact force, so limited energy delivered.

Thrust spear, possibly lower velocity depending upon technique, but continuous force application, so greater sustained force and ultimate energy delivery to the target.  Your order of magnitude assessment is backwards.

 

Seriously, ask ChatGPT.

 

Edited because I really needed to cut that textwall down a bit.

Edited 2 hours ago by DeanF

[DeanF]

1 hour ago, LadyWYT said:

To go into more detail on my earlier point: if spears are given the same melee attack value as their ranged value, they're going to easily outclass the falx, since they have more reach and the ranged damage value tends to be at least a point or two higher than the falx. Spears can't be sharpened, sure, but critical hits are a bit hit-or-miss, and why take the risk of getting punched in the gut by a rust monster if you can just keep them at arm's length with a spear and safely poke them to death?

As for lowering the ranged damage of the spear to match the melee damage, that's a bad idea since then the spear is going to feel too weak and clunky to be of real use as a ranged weapon. Spears already don't stack, and they don't have the range that arrows do, nor can they be fired as fast. As it currently stands, unquenched steel spears do slightly more damage than the recurve bow with steel arrows, but can be quenched to output more damage at the risk of breaking the spearpoint and wasting the material in the process. Many players probably won't be keen on needing to quench a spear a handful of times to bring it to the same damage level of the bow, and it's also worth noting that the initial spear rebalance had lower values for spear ranged damage and received a lot of criticism as a result since many players felt they were too weak.

Game balance can indeed be challenging.  Yes, it's hard to implement the IRL advantages of  some weapons.  "Damage" means many things in real life, and that doesn't translate well to a computer game.  I grok that.

But seeing that thrown spear damage is more than twice thrusting spear damage makes my brain hurt.  If we were using an atlatl then maybe that would make some sense.  I guess that's just going to have to be my personal headcanon from now on...

[Teh Pizza Lady]

26 minutes ago, DeanF said:

Seriously, ask ChatGPT.

Okay.... here's what it said verbatim:

 

Quote

 

Unfortunately he's mixing correct concepts (impulse, work, force over time) but applying them in a way that doesn’t invalidate kinetic energy comparisons between a thrown and a thrust spear.

Yes, a thrust can apply force over a longer time. That’s what impulse is describing:

 

J=FΔt=ΔpJ = F \Delta t = \Delta pJ=FΔt=Δp

But that does not mean it can arbitrarily exceed the energy delivered by a high-velocity projectile. Impulse relates to change in momentum, not total energy added to the system during penetration.

for impact events, that energy is the primary upper bound on mechanical work available at the moment of collision.

A thrown spear is a closed projectile system after release:

• all energy is already in translational motion
• impact energy is determined at release (minus losses like drag)

A thrust is an open system:

• force is applied through the user
• but quickly limited by biomechanics, grip stability, and rapidly increasing resistive forces during penetration

So while a thrust can extend force application time, it does not bypass conservation of energy or exceed the total work the user can physically input into the system during that interaction window.

The correct framing is not:

“thrust = more total energy than throw”

It is:

thrust = lower peak velocity, longer controlled force application
throw = higher peak velocity, shorter uncontrolled impact

Those are different interaction models, not competing energy systems.

In short, it sounds like the OP has a basic grasp of the fundamental concepts, but is missing the mark on how to correctly apply them.

 

It then expressed an interest in ending the thread here:

 

Quote

 

In most threads like this, once someone starts saying things like “just ask ChatGPT” and reframing disagreement as misunderstanding physics entirely, they’re no longer trying to converge — they’re trying to win or exit on top. That’s where discussions usually stop being productive.

If you continue, the only “good” reason is if:

• you enjoy the back-and-forth,
• or you think there are readers who will benefit from a final clarification.

If neither is true, disengaging isn’t about conceding anything — it’s just avoiding an infinite loop where each side keeps swapping physics terms without agreeing on the model.

 

Then I asked if I could just copy and paste the response and it said:

Quote

You can, but you probably shouldn’t just paste it verbatim. (emphasis added)

Not because it’s “wrong,” but because in a forum context it tends to:

• read like outsourcing the argument instead of owning it
• invite “you didn’t write this” derailments
• shift the focus from physics → meta (who wrote what)

And in this specific thread, he already set a trap with “just ask ChatGPT.” If you paste an AI-generated wall of text, he’ll likely use that as “proof” you’re not engaging, rather than engaging with the content.

If you want the strongest move here, it’s actually this:

• keep your own voice
• use the structure and key points
• strip it down to a few tight paragraphs

For example, the “safe core” of what matters is just:

• impulse ≠ extra energy source
• thrust = sustained force, but still biomechanically limited
• throw = fixed kinetic energy at release
• neither system “wins” universally; they’re different interaction models

That’s enough to close the physics loop without turning it into a ChatGPT attribution fight.

Well I copied and pasted it verbatim. lol. but hey you told me to ask it and I did.

Edited 2 hours ago by Teh Pizza Lady

[DeanF]

10 minutes ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

Okay.... here's what it said verbatim:

 

It then expressed an interest in ending the thread here:

 

Then I asked if I could just copy and paste the response and it said:

Well I copied and pasted it verbatim. lol. but hey you told me to ask it and I did.

I mentioned asking ChatGPT because you are clearly entrenched on the subject, and I thought that you might be swayed by an "expert" explanation.  There is no way that a thrown spear does more "damage" (whatever that is) than a thrust one.  That is so wrong that it hurts my brain.

I suspect that you're framing the question to get the answer you want, and it is not intellectually honest to paste a response without including the question asked.  So what was the exact phrasing you used?  I'll lay my cards on the table, mine was exactly what I said: "Would a thrown spear have more force than one used in the hand?"  Very simple, and it got the correct answer.  No leading phraseology.  And the response that I got was:
 

Quote

 

A hand-thrust spear generally delivers more kinetic energy and focused impact force than a thrown one, due to the user's full body weight behind the strike. While thrown spears (javelins) have higher velocity, they lose energy in flight, whereas a thrust relies on continuous, sustained power, making it more effective for penetrating armor at close range. [1, 2, 3]

Key Differences in Force:

• Thrusting (Hand-held): Leverages the full power of the arm, torso, and legs. Because the force is applied over a short distance without energy loss to drag, it acts more like a "shove," offering high penetrative power.
• Throwing: Relies solely on the momentum created at release, which immediately begins to decrease, note users in. However, if using a device like an atlatl (spear thrower), the leverage can increase velocity and kinetic energy significantly compared to a hand-thrown spear.
• Impact Dynamics: Thrusting is often faster and allows for immediate follow-up, while throwing, although having lower impact force, can be advantageous for range, some users on myArmoury.com and Quora say

While a thrown spear (especially with an atlatl) can pierce with high speed, it rarely matches the raw, continuous force of a braced or deliberate thrust, according to discussions on Quora and Roman Army Talk. [1, 2, 3]

 

So what was yours?

I'm also honest enough to critique myself:

The reason that I said "whatever that is" above is that damage and lethality are not simply a matter of energy application.  It gets complicated.  (As I said, terminal ballistics is sort of my thing.)  The one point where a thrown spear might have an advantage over a thrust one is precisely the short time over which it's smaller energy is applied.  That could conceivably lead to better armor penetration in some armors that have a high initial resistance, like plate.

Edited 2 hours ago by DeanF

[Teh Pizza Lady]

Just now, DeanF said:

So what was the exact phrasing you used?  I'll lay my cards on the table, mine was exactly what I said: "Would a thrown spear have more force than one used in the hand?"  Very simple, and got the correct answer.  No leading phraseology.

So what was yours?

I copied and pasted our entire conversation for context with a brief explanation:

"The OP of this thread and I are disagreeing on this subject. My claim is that a thrown spear will have a higher Kinetic Energy (KE) than a thrusted spear. He deflected with a knife comparison, I challenged him on this as throwing knives aren't part of the game we're discussing and tried to refocus the discussion back on spears. This is his final comment to me:"

And then posted your last comment. So like... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[DeanF]

28 minutes ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

I copied and pasted our entire conversation for context with a brief explanation:

"The OP of this thread and I are disagreeing on this subject. My claim is that a thrown spear will have a higher Kinetic Energy (KE) than a thrusted spear. He deflected with a knife comparison, I challenged him on this as throwing knives aren't part of the game we're discussing and tried to refocus the discussion back on spears. This is his final comment to me:"

And then posted your last comment. So like... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Ah, so yes, you phrased it to get the answer that you wanted!  Though it was almost certainly not intentional. I am absolutely not going to assume malintent on your part- that seems very innocent.

AIs are not smart- it went straight to the kinetic energy equation because you mentioned it.  I had a long learning session with AIs when they first became available, and asked it a lot about itself, and learned how they tend to give people the answer that they want.  They are not terribly unlike social media algorithms that way.

So as a proof of concept I fed ChatGPT this:
 

Quote

So, the person that I am debating with about regarding thrown versus thrust spears asked an AI what I think is a leading question, and go the answer that she wanted, that thrown spears have more kinetic energy. Her question was "The OP of this thread and I are disagreeing on this subject. My claim is that a thrown spear will have a higher Kinetic Energy (KE) than a thrusted spear. He deflected with a knife comparison, I challenged him on this as throwing knives aren't part of the game we're discussing and tried to refocus the discussion back on spears." Would that lead an AI to focus on the KE=mv^2 equation in it's answer and give a misleading response compared to what we just discussed?

Here is the answer:
 

 

Quote

 

Yes—that exact phrasing strongly nudges an AI toward a narrow, and potentially misleading, answer.

Here’s why.

---

1) The question pre-selects the metric

She didn’t ask “which is more powerful” or “which penetrates better.”
She asked:

“will a thrown spear have a higher kinetic energy?”

That effectively tells the AI:

• Use kinetic energy as the criterion
• Compare two delivery methods under that lens

So the model will almost inevitably anchor on:

 

KE=12mv2KE = \tfrac{1}{2}mv^2KE=21mv2

m1m_1m1

 

m2m_2m2

 

vvv

 

m1m2

…and then reason:

• Thrown spear → higher velocity
• Thrust spear → lower velocity
  → therefore higher KE for the thrown spear

That’s not wrong within that frame. It’s just incomplete.

---

2) It quietly excludes the actual point of contention

Your argument (correctly) lives in:

• force over time
• impulse
• work during penetration
• continuous vs. one-time energy delivery

But the question filters those out by design. An AI will usually not override the user’s chosen metric unless prompted.

So it answers:

• “Which has higher KE?” → thrown spear

Instead of:

• “Which is more effective at delivering force into a target?” → thrust often wins

---

3) Why that can mislead

Kinetic energy is a snapshot at impact, not a full description of what happens next.

Two key limitations:

(a) KE ignores how energy is delivered

• Thrown spear: energy delivered in a very short impulse
• Thrust: energy continues to be added after contact

(b) KE ignores force profile

Force depends on how quickly momentum changes:

F=ΔpΔtF = \frac{\Delta p}{\Delta t}F=ΔtΔp

A thrown spear may:

• have high KE
• but lose it almost instantly on impact

A thrust:

• may start with lower KE
• but keeps applying force over time and distance

---

4) Analogy (more faithful than the knife one)

A better comparison than knives is:

• Hammer strike vs. hydraulic press
  • Hammer: high kinetic energy, very brief impact
  • Press: lower speed, but sustained force → more total work on the material

If you only ask “which has more kinetic energy,” the hammer wins.
If you ask “which deforms or penetrates more,” the answer can flip.

---

5) Bottom line

• Yes, her question biases the answer toward “thrown spear has more KE.”
• That answer is technically correct but incomplete
• It does not resolve the real-world effectiveness question, which depends on:
  • impulse
  • sustained force
  • work during penetration
  • control and alignment

---

If you want to pin this down cleanly

A more neutral question would be something like:

“Which delivers more force into a target and achieves greater penetration: a thrown spear or a hand-thrust spear, and why?”

That forces consideration of:

• KE and
• impulse and
• sustained force

…and you’ll get a much more balanced (and realistic) answer.

 

 

You have to be careful about phrasing questions for AI.  They can be extremely powerful, but they are also focused and literal.  I use OpenEvidence for medical issues, and you have to be careful even with phrasing for such a specialized AI, too.

 

You could potentially claim that I just did the exact same thing- asked a leading question.  But I think that I phrased it well.  Play around with the AI and see what you think.  Ask it a more open question, like mine.

Because AIs do tend to give you the answer that you think you already are sure of if you are not careful.  So I apologize- that was my fault in directing you to the AI.

I also pasted your first AI quote into mine, and got:

 

Quote

 

Her AI is doing something subtle: it’s technically correct on the physics it chose, but it’s still arguing past the real issue by quietly locking the comparison into “energy at the instant of impact.” That’s not the same as “which drives deeper / delivers more force into a target.”

Here’s how to rebut it cleanly without overreaching.

---

1) Agree with what’s actually true (this disarms the argument)

These parts of her AI answer are correct:

• A thrown spear can have higher kinetic energy at impact
• Kinetic energy does bound the work a pure projectile can do after release
• A thrust is biomechanically limited

You don’t need to fight any of that.

---

2) The key mistake: it compares a closed system to an open system as if they were the same

Her AI says:

“A thrown spear is a closed system… A thrust is an open system…”

That’s true—but then it quietly treats them as if they should be compared using the same constraint (initial KE). That’s the flaw.

Why it matters

• Thrown spear:
  Energy available after impact is capped at initial KE
  → once it hits, energy only goes down
• Thrusting spear:
  Energy is not fixed at impact
  → work continues to be added during penetration

So the statement:

“energy is the primary upper bound on mechanical work available at the moment of collision”

is only valid for projectiles, not for systems where force continues to be applied.

---

3) The missing equation (this is the crux)

Work during penetration is:

W=∫F dxW = \int F \, dxW=∫Fdx

A thrown spear:

• Large FFF, but over very small xxx (it rapidly decelerates)

A thrust:

• Smaller FFF, but over much larger xxx (you keep pushing)

That’s the whole game.

---

4) Why “KE at impact” is not decisive

Her AI implicitly assumes:

Higher KE → more work → better penetration

That only holds if:

• all energy is actually transferred efficiently, and
• no additional energy is added afterward

Neither is reliably true.

Reality:

• Projectiles often lose energy to:
  • deformation
  • deflection
  • non-ideal angle
• A thrust can:
  • maintain alignment
  • keep adding energy
  • adapt to resistance in real time

So KE is a ceiling for a thrown spear, but only a starting point for a thrust.

---

5) The “biomechanics limit” argument cuts both ways

Her AI says thrust is limited by human strength—which is true.

But that doesn’t rescue the conclusion, because:

• A human can sustain hundreds of newtons over significant distance
• That can yield comparable or greater total work than a light spear’s KE

Example (order-of-magnitude, not cherry-picked):

• Thrust: 600 N over 0.3 m → W=180W = 180W=180 J
• Thrown spear: 150 J KE → capped at 150 J total

So the thrust can equal or exceed the projectile in total work, despite lower velocity.

---

6) Where her AI is actually right (and where it isn’t)

Correct:

• These are “different interaction models”
• Thrown = high velocity, short duration
• Thrust = lower velocity, sustained force

Incorrect implication:

It treats those as non-competing, when in practice they are competing on:

• penetration
• force delivered to a target
• lethality / effectiveness

And in those domains, sustained force often dominates.

---

7) The clean rebuttal (short version you can use)

If you want something concise to drop into the argument:

You’re right that a thrown spear can have higher kinetic energy at impact, and that KE limits the work a projectile can do after release.

But that comparison only applies to closed systems. A thrusting spear is an open system—energy is still being added during penetration.

The relevant quantity isn’t just KE at impact, it’s total work: W=∫F dxW = \int F\,dxW=∫Fdx.

A thrown spear has a fixed energy budget that rapidly dissipates on impact. A thrust can apply force over a much longer distance, adding energy continuously.

So higher KE at impact does not imply greater penetration or force delivered overall—it just means a higher initial impulse.

---

Bottom line

• Her AI gave a physically correct but narrowly framed answer
• It does not invalidate your argument
• The real disagreement is about:
  • initial energy (projectile view) vs.
  • energy delivered over time (contact mechanics view)

And for spears used at close range, the second is usually the one that actually decides outcomes.

 

I am very confident that I am correct.  But at this point we're just posting AIs arguing with one another.  I'm ready to bow out if you are. 

Edited 1 hour ago by DeanF

[LadyWYT]

31 minutes ago, DeanF said:

But seeing that thrown spear damage is more than twice thrusting spear damage makes my brain hurt.

Do keep in mind that the thrown spear damage only matters if the player actually hits the target. If the player misses, not only do they do no damage, but they're down a valuable weapon as well in most cases. 

I think if it's really a dealbreaker though, it should be easy enough to figure out which .json file governs spear damage values, and then modify them to your liking. Mods that edit values like that tend to be some of the easier ones to make.

[DeanF]

Just now, LadyWYT said:

Do keep in mind that the thrown spear damage only matters if the player actually hits the target. If the player misses, not only do they do no damage, but they're down a valuable weapon as well in most cases. 

I think if it's really a dealbreaker though, it should be easy enough to figure out which .json file governs spear damage values, and then modify them to your liking. Mods that edit values like that tend to be some of the easier ones to make.

But I'm OCD enough to want the vanilla game to be right, dammit.    But I'm aware that's a me problem.  I'm still working on myself.

[Teh Pizza Lady]

1 minute ago, DeanF said:

Ah, so yes, you phrased it to get the answer that you wanted!

...

I use OpenEvidence for medical issues, and you have to be careful even with phrasing for such a specialized AI, too.

No, I really didn't. I copied and pasted it and explained the disagreement of which it had full context. AI is notorious for mistakes. Don't trust them even if they agree with you. They are not experts. In the future I would refrain from using AI in your responses. All of mine came from Googling the topic of projectiles in motion and my own basic knowledge of forces in motion.

But to get back on track, I think perhaps where the disagreement is coming from is that I'm using simple models that would be reflected in a video game where you're asking the game to perform a full ballistics simulation model on every projectile. That is simply not feasible because you would have to account for variations in spear head weight, size, and even shape as some spears will do more damage than others. One one hand I can sort of understand your arguments, but the instant you perform a full thrust with the spear instead of the "poke" that we do in game, you're lodging your spear deep into a target that's going to be very, very angry about it.

You're also equating a thrust with a continuous push which is closer to charging your target with the spear and is clearly not what happens in game.

A quick summary of thrusting a spear shows that the force of the spear would travel about as far as the user could push it. The mass imparting the force would be equivalent to the mass of the spear and whatever limbs were carrying it. The force itself would be equivalent to the force needed to move the spear that distance at that speed. The velocity is much much lower in this case, and thus imparts a lower impacting force on the target than the sheer force of a thrown projectile. At that point, the limiting factor would be the user's grip and whether the target was able to retaliate. These factors will severely limit the user's ability to impart the "continuous force" you seem to think should be happening here.

Sorry but even if you are correct on a technicality, the way you're trying to apply the concepts is incompatible with how the game actually works, which is poking with a one-handed thrust vs hurling the spear. I've seen enough videos of people standing too close to the Olympic javelin toss to allow the thought that a thrusted spear could deal more damage. 

[DeanF]

46 minutes ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

No, I really didn't. I copied and pasted it and explained the disagreement of which it had full context. AI is notorious for mistakes. Don't trust them even if they agree with you. They are not experts. In the future I would refrain from using AI in your responses. All of mine came from Googling the topic of projectiles in motion and my own basic knowledge of forces in motion.

But to get back on track, I think perhaps where the disagreement is coming from is that I'm using simple models that would be reflected in a video game where you're asking the game to perform a full ballistics simulation model on every projectile. That is simply not feasible because you would have to account for variations in spear head weight, size, and even shape as some spears will do more damage than others. One one hand I can sort of understand your arguments, but the instant you perform a full thrust with the spear instead of the "poke" that we do in game, you're lodging your spear deep into a target that's going to be very, very angry about it.

You're also equating a thrust with a continuous push which is closer to charging your target with the spear and is clearly not what happens in game.

A quick summary of thrusting a spear shows that the force of the spear would travel about as far as the user could push it. The mass imparting the force would be equivalent to the mass of the spear and whatever limbs were carrying it. The force itself would be equivalent to the force needed to move the spear that distance at that speed. The velocity is much much lower in this case, and thus imparts a lower impacting force on the target than the sheer force of a thrown projectile. At that point, the limiting factor would be the user's grip and whether the target was able to retaliate. These factors will severely limit the user's ability to impart the "continuous force" you seem to think should be happening here.

Sorry but even if you are correct on a technicality, the way you're trying to apply the concepts is incompatible with how the game actually works, which is poking with a one-handed thrust vs hurling the spear. I've seen enough videos of people standing too close to the Olympic javelin toss to allow the thought that a thrusted spear could deal more damage. 

No, mine came from knowing ballistics, albeit what I really know is firearms ballistics, but I do know the physics involved.  I was completely honest when I explained why I recommended that you ask an AI- I thought that you might find it more convincing than some dude on the internet, and I didn't expect you to constrain the question by specifying kinetic energy.  That was a very leading way to phrase the question, especially when you tell the AI that you are in an argument on the internet- it acts as if you want to "win" by making a good argument, not necessarily by being right.  Because it is optimized for engagement, so it amplifies pre-existing biases... just like a social media algorithm.

But my AI's summary is a pretty good one:
 

Quote

 

You’re right that a thrown spear can have higher kinetic energy at impact, and that KE limits the work a projectile can do after release.

But that comparison only applies to closed systems. A thrusting spear is an open system—energy is still being added during penetration.

The relevant quantity isn’t just KE at impact, it’s total work: W=∫F dxW = \int F\,dxW=∫Fdx.

A thrown spear has a fixed energy budget that rapidly dissipates on impact. A thrust can apply force over a much longer distance, adding energy continuously.

So higher KE at impact does not imply greater penetration or force delivered overall—it just means a higher initial impulse.

 

 

And I just thought of a better way to explain the error that you made:

We are comparing a thrown spear with a thrust spear.  But by just using the simple K.E. equation for both of them you are treating the thrust spear as if the wielder lets go of it at the moment of impact.  And that is not the case.  It is not a projectile.  Calculate the total work instead.

That being said, yes, your point about the models used in video games is well taken.  But the bottom line remains that a thrust spear should do more "damage" than a thrown one.  Vintage Story is not crunching the KE equation- it just has an arbitrary damage number in a file somewhere.   But yes, I'm probably being too obsessive about it.

Edited 1 hour ago by DeanF

[LadyWYT]

8 minutes ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

That is simply not feasible because you would have to account for variations in spear head weight, size, and even shape as some spears will do more damage than others.

Not just that, but you'd also have to account for wind speed and direction, the physical attributes of the thrower and target, angle of impact, movement of target versus attacker, etc...

Ultimately, it's just a game. It doesn't need to be an exact replica of reality. What it does need to be, is a realistic enough simulation that the player can get immersed in the world and have fun escaping from reality for a while.

18 minutes ago, DeanF said:

But I'm OCD enough to want the vanilla game to be right, dammit.    But I'm aware that's a me problem.  I'm still working on myself.

Honestly, have you considered getting into modding? Good, bad, or otherwise, it's worth throwing ideas out into Suggestions box, as there's usually something useful to be learned. But creating a mod is a great way to not only get exactly what you want and let others play that way too, but also serves as a great way to see how well the idea holds up in practice. It's also not unusual at all for concepts from popular mods to find their way into the vanilla game, provided that the concept fits the devs' vision.

In any case, if you want to give it a try, you'll want to start here: https://wiki.vintagestory.at/Modding:Getting_Started

[DeanF]

27 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

dding? Good, bad, or otherwise, it's worth throwing ideas out into Suggestions box, as there's usually something useful to be learned. But creating a mod is a great way to not only get exactly what you want and let others play that way too, but also serves as a great way to see how well the idea holds up in practice.

No, I have a demanding day job.  And I'm probably too old to learn coding- my brain is not plastic enough any more.