I'd like someone who designs things to pay attention to the fact that hafted weapons (being end heavy) have considerably greater striking power, landing with more force. However the awkard weight requires a slower rate of swing when compared to lighter items (rapiers, katana, wakizashi, rope), and is awkard for the long of limb (unless they've mastered the martial artists "hand swapping trick" in wich the hands glide past each other in order to swap places thus allowing for a varied and alternate angle of attack as demonstrated by Samurai and vikings). Also a curved blade makes a deeper cut (curve on curve, rather than straight on curve) and is more devastating. However the concentration of danger at one end means that strikes with the haft are less limited in effectiveness.
In short I wasn't very happy in the balance of effective weapons in Wizards and Warriors. I'd like to see each weapon (in a good role playing system) do three kinds of damage, cuting, crushing and stun damage. Cutting damage would effect tendons, skin surface, veins and arteries, extreme amounts would result in severed locations by means of crushing minor criticals (breaking the bones that hold the joints). Crushing damage would beat people down, bruising and fatigueing the more heavily armoured, exhausting the foe until he drops, extreme ammounts would include cuting and stun damage( cutting if a blow is actually powerfull enough to break the skin as well as the bone beneath). Stunning damage would be a side product of both of the other two (if not only from the obvious stunning effect of heavy percusive blows but from the excruciating pain of edged wounds) and extreme ammounts could easily incapacitate the person on the recieving end.
It's a nice idea but it's not going to happen for a while yet.
Although I'd like to be around when it does
------------------
Balgin, the Dwarf