Print

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

[DWARFFRAWD]

I've always known that the spear doesn't work well with undead, but when I tested it in Object Arena ,
it doesn't seem to make much difference
in its ability to kill, whether it's undead or not.

Rather, I think the spear kills the undead soldier better than the sword, thanks to the armor penetration.

What is the disadvantage that only the spear has?

[Wolfkey]

Spears are a lot more likely to get stuck in enemies.

(And armor penetration is less useful if the weapon is made out a material that is much stronger than the armor)

[anewaname]

Against armored undead, in a straight up comparison to the sword, I would consider a spear and sword to be about the same usefulness; and that both are less useful than an axe or mace.

Swords are good for delivering cuts that cut nerves or cause bleeding, but against undead it only matters if they sever tendons, muscle or bone (the structural stuff that allows the undead to stand and attack). Spears are good for hitting organs, less good at everything else, and most organ hits are unimportant against undead.

Finally, the spear has a Velocity multiplier of 1 and a weight of 400, so it can (and will) deliver less momentum to the target. With undead, unless you cripple it by cutting tendon, muscle, or bone, you need to pulp the head or body to take it down, and pulping requires delivering momentum past the armor. This is why I prefer the axe and mace, they can hit harder and either sever or break bones past the armor. But fighting armored undead is so risky that I prefer to avoid the fight unless the dwarfs are armored and somewhat-trained (training greatly improves strength, endurance, accuracy, and discipline, and all of those are important to crippling/killing the undead before the inevitable exhaustion or panic kicks in).

[FourierSeries]

Regarding adventure mode, if you like chucking stuff in combat consider carrying around a spear. Throw that at the start of a fight. A spear is like an arrow or bolt, only better. So, what about disadvantages?

With companions, or in regular Dwarf Fortress, the primary problem is the higher relative probability it gets stuck. This can slow down the unit's "killspeed." That's complicated though, and may not be much of a disadvantage at all against certain enemies.

My major complaint about the combat mechanics of spears as a disadvantage is I've never seen anyone throw a spear in combat other than a player controlled unit in adventure mode.

[mikekchar]

I think it's illustrative to go into adventure mode and to check out what the different attack types do.  It's been years for me, so I can't remember what the different attacks are between spear and sword for instance.  But, for example, being able to slash can be huge against foes that can bleed out.  Against undead, of course, it doesn't help at all.

One of the many "hidden features" of DF (hidden because it's difficult to see the effect) is that in fort mode, the dwarfs *do* actually fight using the same features as in adventure mode.  They aren't always too bright about it, but (IIRC) the thrust of a dagger to lower torso almost *always* debuffs an enemy and can often make daggers OP (especially if you have mixed troups where the dagger wielder's buddy can finish off the debuffed enemy).  Things like dual wielding is viable because parrying (if you have high weapon skill) is just as useful as blocking, but is actually faster.  But people never set up their troops this way -- mostly because I think they never really invest time learning how adventure mode combat works.  Things like dual wield pick (for penetration) and short sword (for slicing and getting blood to flow) is absolutely deadly.

The main advantage of spear (again, IIRC) is that it can penetrate into large enemies: dragons, giants, ogres, etc.  IIRC, it doesn't have too many juicy attacks, but you always want at least one group with spears for that situational advantage.

[Salmeuk]

The getting stuck thing is HUGE. enough to make spears, in my mind, a 'utility' weapon that should only be employed against large creatures. In that situation, however, they can be exceptional tools.

In fact, only recently a forgotten beast (a firebreathing tanager) was felled by a single cut to the heart via a steel spear.  Of course, it can take some time to bleed out after this, but for some forgotten beasts it can be very important to kill or mortally wound them in the first hit or two, before they cast more webs or throw more fireballs.

Think of the spear as an ambush weapon - a full spearsquad will have 10 deadly spearstrikes line up for any foe to walk within distance, each with the potential to kill even the largest of foes. Yet once those strikes are applied, spears will become lodged in wounds, dwarves will be thrown to the ground, and suddenly your dwarves are much less able to apply the strengths of the weapon.

 This is true for any encounter of course but I feel that spears are much more delicate in this regard.

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that spears have one fewer combat strike option (no ability to slash), and because of the RNG nature of combat simulation this means there is less of a chance for "high quality" or easy to hit weapon attacks to appear, simply because there is one fewer slot available to roll meaningful attacks.

[callisto8413]

Can a Dwarf carry a extra weapon?   A spear AND a sword plus the shield?

[Tomsod]

In adventure mode it's possible to exceed the two-hand limit, but fortress dwarves will refuse to equip more than two one-handed weapons/shields or one two-handed weapon.  But if you recruit a spider man, then just maybe...

[Urist Mchateselves]

In my experience, spears are less effective against undead and non-organic creatures (gabbro men and stuff like that), and slightly less effective against unarmored humanoids.

Creatures that are "non living" need to be killed via destruction of the head, lowerbody or upperbody, something that spears aren't the best at thanks to their low contact area. They still will eventually succeed,  just not as quickly as slashing weapons.

The increased penetration of spears isn't really better at reaching the internal organs and nerves of small, unarmored creatures (like goblins) than swords or battleaxes, and those are much better at severing or destroying body parts, which can quickly cripple and kill an enemy, or make them bleed out. Spears will still get the job done, but just not as quickly.

There's not really much uses for spears. Swords are far more flexible, being effective against undead, inorganics, unarmored humanoids, armored humanoids and large, inorganic creatures. Meanwhile spears are only more effective against very large, fleshy creatures (megabeasts and some giant animals). And even then, you'll find that a megabeast will on average, die just as quickly to a squad of 10 dwarves hacking at it with swords as it will to 10 dwarves poking at it with spears. What I'm saying is that on an individual level, spears are more effective against big creatures, but when numbers are taken into account, the odds even themselves out. The only thing short swords aren't effective against is heavily armored humanoids (creatures wearing armor that is equal or stronger than your own weapons' material), something that spears aren't any more effective against and can only be fought with war hammers. But as long as you have steel (and aren't at war with other dwarves, which is very rare), you're not really going to run into that problem. If something spews webs, fire or other fun things, then hoping that a speardwarf will score a natural 20 and instantly kill it is a risky gamble. Never engage those in melee combat.

Oh, and stuck ins are also a big disadvantage, but people here have already explained why.