Print

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

[Bytyan]

As someone who has dabbled in swordplay, I can say that it is almost never practical to change the path of a swing. The fine muscle control is not the source of your force; for the most part, it is the amount of weight that you can commit to the path, which is gained by moving your whole upper body in unison to transfer the force. That why many martial artists bob up and down while they fight- by dropping their center of gravity when they strike, they allow the weight of their bodies to transfer into their strike.

[Splint]

As someone who has dabbled in swordplay, I can say that it is almost never practical to change the path of a swing. The fine muscle control is not the source of your force; for the most part, it is the amount of weight that you can commit to the path, which is gained by moving your whole upper body in unison to transfer the force. That why many martial artists bob up and down while they fight- by dropping their center of gravity when they strike, they allow the weight of their bodies to transfer into their strike.

Then in that case a few animalmen would be able to mop the floor with dwarves, elves, goblins and humans with the right skill/training....

[GreatWyrmGold]

As someone who has dabbled in swordplay, I can say that it is almost never practical to change the path of a swing. The fine muscle control is not the source of your force; for the most part, it is the amount of weight that you can commit to the path, which is gained by moving your whole upper body in unison to transfer the force. That why many martial artists bob up and down while they fight- by dropping their center of gravity when they strike, they allow the weight of their bodies to transfer into their strike.

Ah, well, I was operating on my intuition. And when you assume something...

Then in that case a few animalmen would be able to mop the floor with dwarves, elves, goblins and humans with the right skill/training....

And if they have noninferior gear and aren't smaller and weaker, why not? Why are humanoids without traces of animal inherently superior to those with them?

[Splint]

meant that as getting a lets say 500 pount tigerman punching you in the face would be alot worse than a 230 pound human or something like that. Esspecially if they knew how to put more thier weight into it. Makes me think of tigermen as some kind of badass mixed martial artists for some reason.

But anything I said has little weight regardless. And that isn't a "feel sorry for me" deal either. I know when I lose to a savage logic hammering.

[NW_Kohaku]

Hypothetically, with the way that the game's damage mechanics work, that should be true.  Mass is factored into the amount of energy an attack imparts.  With creature natural weapons, that means that being twice the size will deal twice the damage as the given part attacking will have twice the mass (but things like teeth will be more blunt, as they are twice as dull a weapon). 

I believe there is a flaw with regards to artificial weapons, however.  Weapons only use the weapon's mass, not the mass of the body wielding them.  This, and the fact that smaller weapons are sharper, explain why kobolds are absolutely terrifying assassins that can land a blow right between the ribs that slices through steel plate armor and into the heart so easily - small, sharp weapons are disproportionately advantaged.

Hence, a tigerman wielding a dwarf weapon will be no more advantaged than a dwarf would be.  A tigerman wielding a tigerman-sized weapon would probably do more damage with a warhammer or maul, but their spears are going to be blunter.

[Bytyan]

I was under the impression that damage was calculated in part by strength, which scales up with size.

[NW_Kohaku]

It is calculated by strength, but it only matters as far as weapon swing speed, which is the other factor besides mass.

Realistically, ramming a spear into another person's body is going to be a full-body activity.  You literally throw a good chunk of your weight in with the blow.  That isn't reflected.

Swing speed matters up to a specific point - if you are two weak to swing a weapon effectively, it will make a big difference if you add more strength, but once you hit certain speeds, you just can't throw a faster punch/swing/stab.  Then you can only upgrade to larger weapons. 

[GreatWyrmGold]

Not that this isn't a fascinating discussion that makes me glad I outfitted my ogres with unique weapons, but how is this related to the original subject, which I find far mor interesting?

[NW_Kohaku]

Well, in the OP itself, it is talking about building custom equipment for the creatures, because that's sort of a key ingredient in making them useful in any military sense to the fortress:

Regarding the armor, if an integrated sparrowman would become a smith, and reach an attainable high level, he would eventually become inventive and create an armor template for his race. So it would become possible for the player to create new armor for the new humanoids in the civilization. 

Besides, these minor side-discussions should take place, and it's not like it wouldn't be even more annoying to have a hundred new threads that only go on for a few paragraphs discussing small side-points to a central topic. 

It's not like the topic can't change back or forth on a whim whenever there are more things to add to one of the topics of discussion, and I did three posts in a row a little while back on three separate topics.

Besides, I find it hard to find ANY topic of conversation that nobody is going to complain about.  Talking about how other creatures are different from dwarves?  Talking about how to have meaningful interactions between those creatures and dwarves? Talking about how to equip those other creatures besides dwarves?  All these different topics have been complained about.  The argument seems to be that people want to discuss only a "simple" system with just one or two features, and that any further discussion beyond everyone just agreeing on that one point is somehow derailment.  If we all just agree to a limited and incomplete system, however, there's nothing left to discuss, making the whole thread useless, which is why it seems so largely contrarian to argue that talking about how to make the proposed system actually make sense.  It's like all they're arguing for is that other people shouldn't be able to talk about anything.

If the idea of having multi-racial forts is to make any sense, you need to have an agreement on how these other races will be different, how they will be able to contribute to the fortress in meaningful ways, and what factors you will need to balance, both in keeping relations good, and in simply making your "money's worth" in terms of making the alternative humanoids provide benefits great enough to make up for the disadvantages of having to actually care about their different needs.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Well, in the OP itself, it is talking about building custom equipment for the creatures, because that's sort of a key ingredient in making them useful in any military sense to the fortress:

Regarding the armor, if an integrated sparrowman would become a smith, and reach an attainable high level, he would eventually become inventive and create an armor template for his race. So it would become possible for the player to create new armor for the new humanoids in the civilization. 

...Oh, yeah.

Besides, these minor side-discussions should take place, and it's not like it wouldn't be even more annoying to have a hundred new threads that only go on for a few paragraphs discussing small side-points to a central topic. 

Also a good point.

Besides, I find it hard to find ANY topic of conversation that nobody is going to complain about.  Talking about how other creatures are different from dwarves?  Talking about how to have meaningful interactions between those creatures and dwarves? Talking about how to equip those other creatures besides dwarves?  All these different topics have been complained about.  The argument seems to be that people want to discuss only a "simple" system with just one or two features, and that any further discussion beyond everyone just agreeing on that one point is somehow derailment.  If we all just agree to a limited and incomplete system, however, there's nothing left to discuss, making the whole thread useless, which is why it seems so largely contrarian to argue that talking about how to make the proposed system actually make sense.  It's like all they're arguing for is that other people shouldn't be able to talk about anything.

If the idea of having multi-racial forts is to make any sense, you need to have an agreement on how these other races will be different, how they will be able to contribute to the fortress in meaningful ways, and what factors you will need to balance, both in keeping relations good, and in simply making your "money's worth" in terms of making the alternative humanoids provide benefits great enough to make up for the disadvantages of having to actually care about their different needs.

...D'oh. Just...pretend I didn't say that, please?

[NW_Kohaku]

Err... Sorry, I have a bad habit of getting so into my own line of argument that I wind up sounding more dramatic or emotional about a subject than I really am.  (I mean, how can I just stop at making one or two points, when I have five all lined up and ready to go?!)

... Anyway, it's something that I have an interest in more generally speaking, but something that could be worth including is a notion of "personal loyalty spheres".  (I've talked about it here, under "Cultural Conflict", and here, under "Loyalty Dilemmas".)

The basics of the concept is that, instead of having silly loyalty cascades, we have each individual character individually track their own loyalty to each group they belong to, so that when conflicts arise (ala loyalty cascades), they can pick a side without just making everything immediately descend into a Battle Royale. 

It would include the likes of being loyal to a nation in an abstract sense of "My Country, Right or Wrong", as opposed to how loyal you are to the king or some other leader or official specifically, as opposed to the ethics or abstract ideals that a nation purports to uphold.  Hence, if the king of your kingdom turns out to have started researching necromancy, if you are mostly just personally loyal to the king himself, and not the nation or its ethics, you might go with him as part of his personal cult.  Alternately, if a nation has taken to acts that go against the ethics of your culture, and you have higher loyalty to your ethics than the nation or leader, you are more likely to become either a protester or an outright defector.

More to the point with these cultural conflicts, it may be used in the cultural context of animal people who are becoming integrated into dwarven culture for even more interesting results - what happens if a tigerman has been living almost all his life with the dwarves, and become a great smith, when his people suddenly start developing a rift between themselves and the dwarves (because, say, the dwarves failed to properly protect them, or a new baron has become insulting and hostile), then that tigerman would suddenly be caught between the two worlds of his loyalties to the people he has spent much of his time living and working with, as opposed to his native culture.

If a full rift develops, there will always be those straglers who, for reasons of being considered a "dwarf sympathizer" and fearing reprisals if they return to their native peoples, or having greater loyalties other reasons, cannot or decide not to go back, they may stay with your fortress even after a schism completely cuts off diplomatic relations.

[GreatWyrmGold]

It could get even more interesting. What if the tigerman decides to stay with the dwarves...but the dwarves belittle his work, because it's not "fine dwarven craftsmanship?" I know that a tigerman-forged blade could be every bit as good as a dwarvish blade, and that if he was trained by a dwarf his style would be quite dwarvish, but the other dwarves would "know" that dwarves "obviously" forge better armor than anyone else--especially "primitive" people like elves and animalmen. Therefore, he might come to regret his decision and let the other tigermen in; or, he might choose to stand by his original choice, and perhaps be regarded as a hero when he takes his forge-hammer up against his former people. Good stuff.

[NW_Kohaku]

Yes, to go back to the original "xenophobia" concept, individual dwarves might have differing opinions on the races in general, but also personal relationships...

"Tigermen are lazy and worthless... but not MY friend, Grroawarul."

[Corai]

YOU GET FOOD, WE GET SOLDIERS AND HAULERS, DEAL?


Enough said, seriously. I read until page four of people going on "oh elves can do that but dwarves cant" and "no there culture dictates it" and "Oh they can do what they can, there culture is all thats stopping them" crap. Seriously guys, serious?

[Splint]

YOU GET FOOD, WE GET SOLDIERS AND HAULERS, DEAL?

My sentiments exactly. but alas, the likes of we have been dealt a logichammering. Gonna have to stick to using dfhack and runesmith to accomplish such a thing.