Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Urist Tilaturist]

I would like to see dwarven shield/pike walls personally. No players have to use them, it should just be an option, along with the current individual gang wars combat. Increased ability for many creatures to dogpile and overwhelm an individual enemy with numbers would make formations much more viable. Players still have the option of fighting the current way if they want to.

[StagnantSoul]

Unless combat gets 100% rewritten, it'd just make your dwarves easier targets for fire and arrows.

[Ngosp Umbabok]

Before going further into dual-wielding it might be better to first implement dominant hands like being right-handed and so forth. After this was done then there could perhaps be a system where those who were not ambidextrous could increase there dexterity with there non-dominant hand after practicing.

For those who are ambidextrous it could also improve shield usage as there would be no lesser capability for dexterous maneuvers with that hand as there would be for someone who wasn't ambidextrous who used the shield in the non-dominant hand

Another thing to consider is that skills with weapons could partially dependent on using the correct hand  i.e. a right handed person was skilled with a sword but only in there right hand, with shields being easier then weapons to use in a non dominant hand

[Putnam]

Nope, there's a number in the unit body structure that represents a given unit's dominant hand. I don't think it actually has any effect, though.

Yes, but it doesn't make any (visible) effect so, "technically" everyone is ambidextrous.

Left-handed dwarves will visibly always right-hand their shields and left-hand their weapons and vice-versa for right-handed dwarves.

[Urist Tilaturist]

Unless combat gets 100% rewritten, it'd just make your dwarves easier targets for fire and arrows.

Which is fairly accurate, really. Often when dual wielding one of the blades was mainly used to parry, as in rapier and dagger fencing. It was rare for both to be used attacking, since fighting consists of defence and attack, and the enemy will be trying to do the same - just attacking will result in both parties killing each other at once! Dual wielding is just not as good as a shield in situations with many arrows or fire flying around. Remembering that since a powerful strike needs the whole body behind the blow, it would not be much quicker than striking with 1 weapon, either.

[StagnantSoul]

I was saying, with current combat mechanics, a formation is asking to die. A rather common Korean tactic was giving soldiers two swords, where they'd strike with a shorter sword, then attack with the longer one. It worked well.

Edit: One reason I believe this would work quite well is how far into a goblin army my dual wielding hammer and spear adventurer got. Goblins do shoot often, but with range combat being so nerfed, arrows don't make it past the breastplate. Which is accurate.

[Putnam]

I was saying, with current combat mechanics, a formation is asking to die.

How so? Formations should actually be rather effective...

[StagnantSoul]

Instead of having a wide open gap between each dwarf, where one could dodge and no one else will get hurt, but in a formation, all arrows will be aimed in a small area, and no matter how much they dodge or block, they'll be getting hit for sure.

And against a dragon, dragonfire gets blocked by their shields, the ground under every dwarf goes alight, every single dwarf dies in one blast.

With the current mechanics, a formation is a death sentence.

[MDFification]

I was saying, with current combat mechanics, a formation is asking to die.

How so? Formations should actually be rather effective...

Most of the benefits of a formation (being able to support the man to your left and right, either in a shield wall, mixed specialized weapons or just distributing veterans evenly throughout the force) aren't currently feasible by current combat mechanics. For them to work, combat mechanics have to allow a soldier to consider adjacent soldiers when selecting targets - blocking attacks aimed at their friends and striking at menacing enemies.
Of course, formations aren't currently possible in DF so there's no point at poking fun at an obviously unfinished feature.

[Urist Tilaturist]

I was saying, with current combat mechanics, a formation is asking to die.

How so? Formations should actually be rather effective...

Most of the benefits of a formation (being able to support the man to your left and right, either in a shield wall, mixed specialized weapons or just distributing veterans evenly throughout the force) aren't currently feasible by current combat mechanics. For them to work, combat mechanics have to allow a soldier to consider adjacent soldiers when selecting targets - blocking attacks aimed at their friends and striking at menacing enemies.
Of course, formations aren't currently possible in DF so there's no point at poking fun at an obviously unfinished feature.

I would quite like to see cooperative combat of this kind. It could be linked to the discipline skill, since though dwarves are naturally individual they can learn the value of teamwork to reduce casualties.

[StagnantSoul]

You'd like to see your dwarves being slaughtered by arrows before they got to the enemy? K den

[Urist Tilaturist]

Arrows would just get blocked by shields and armour. Shield walls would have to be implemented properly. Arrow lethality has already been reduced to sensible levels.

Formations make little sense at the moment, but if dwarves could contribute to each other's defence they could be very useful.

[StagnantSoul]

That's why I say most of the stuff with formations would only work with a 100% rewrite.

[Urist Tilaturist]

I doubt it would have to be 100%. Cooperative combat mechanics would be a welcome addition to DF2016.