Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: Foreign Weapon Proposal: A Model for Future Reference  (Read 2419 times)

Owlbread

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Foreign Weapon Proposal: A Model for Future Reference
« on: December 23, 2012, 08:50:22 am »

Foreign weapons, and weapons in general, are a bit odd currently. I'm not sure if the current model is just a placeholder for something much more complicated in the future, but I'd like to give you people my view on this so that maybe people using the search bar in the future could get ideas from it. This proposal is far less important than other things that Toady is and will be working on such as retiring fortresses, bugfixing, creating armies that can move outside your fortress and attack other settlements and so on, but I think it would expand a feature that's not particularly interesting at the moment. This could even be a fun mod, but I think this could be interesting for vanilla when the game is in its final stages of development many years from now. I think this would be classed as a "bloat" in the old terminology of features.

I suggest that foreign weapons be procedurally generated from a list like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_premodern_combat_weapons, albeit without the weapons from 1400s+. Each civilisation in your world would have a number of exotic weapons in their possession adjustable through worldgen parameters. You could also create brand new weapons through artifacts, allowing the artifact maker to create the weapon repeatedly or even write it down in a book so his successors can learn the same. Perhaps books could be purchased from merchants containing various plans for fanciful new weapons. However, the total number of fanciful weapons in your world would be adjustable in worldgen, so if you want to keep things bare-bones (whips, daggers, short swords, long swords, war hammers, mauls, morningstars, bows, crossbows, blowguns, maces, battle axes, great axes etc) and simple as many of you probably would then you can still have that. It would be an optional thing, just like the number of types of titan/forgotten beast in your game.

It's up to Toady or you guys what weapons would actually be used in a list like that, because although there's a lot to be said for kataras and a wakizashi sword some of you may object somewhat to meeting a goblin carrying something like that. That said, maybe you could do away with some of the exotic names and make them more western european by calling things like the katara a "push dagger". There's also numerous types of sword that are almost exactly the same that you wouldn't really include, although you would make include something like a boomerang. I think there's more than enough perfectly unique weapons in there that you can use if you ignore the stuff that's almost exactly the same. Or, as an alternative, we have an overhaul that actually allows for things like the differences between a falchion and an arming sword to be taken into account. There was a sword in china called the dadao that was used from medieval times right up until WW2; it looked like a big, scary butcher's-knife-thing. It was popular because it could be used to great effect by people who weren't very skilled swordsmen, although a skilled swordsman with a more specialised blade would always be the better fighter. It would be nice if we could have that kind of thing in DF.

As things stand with the current version, there's not much difference between a falchion and a double-edged sword. I think though that could change when combat moves become better developed, so for example one could perhaps kill someone on the upstroke and downstroke. I hear in medieval times most people just used a single edged sword out of practicality but that's not to say that Dwarven legendary swordsmen couldn't find some crazy-ass use out of a sword like that.

There you have it, that's my proposal. I know other weapons have been suggested before but I think this may be a useful suggestion. I'd also like to finish by saying that Dwarven boomerang squads and Dwarven boomerang hunters would be the best thing in the universe. Concerned at the ammo consumption of your rangers when hunting various animals? No problem. Unfortunately though they'd probably have to use their own skill because if they used thrown then our adventurers would just power level with them.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2012, 09:05:49 am by Owlbread »
Logged

GreatWyrmGold

  • Bay Watcher
  • Sane, by the local standards.
    • View Profile
Re: Foreign Weapon Proposal: A Model for Future Reference
« Reply #1 on: December 23, 2012, 09:47:54 am »

Currently, "exotic" weapons are just weapons your civ can't make.
Can you give weapons those tags that make armor and clothes not available to all cjvs?
Logged
Sig
Are you a GM with players who haven't posted? TheDelinquent Players Help will have Bay12 give you an action!
[GreatWyrmGold] gets a little crown. May it forever be his mark of Cain; let no one argue pointless subjects with him lest they receive the same.

Owlbread

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Foreign Weapon Proposal: A Model for Future Reference
« Reply #2 on: December 23, 2012, 10:08:22 am »

I was not aware that the mechanic currently worked like that. I'd be interested to find out if you could do that.
Logged

GreatWyrmGold

  • Bay Watcher
  • Sane, by the local standards.
    • View Profile
Re: Foreign Weapon Proposal: A Model for Future Reference
« Reply #3 on: December 23, 2012, 10:15:16 am »

Again, I'm not sure if it works for weapons.
Logged
Sig
Are you a GM with players who haven't posted? TheDelinquent Players Help will have Bay12 give you an action!
[GreatWyrmGold] gets a little crown. May it forever be his mark of Cain; let no one argue pointless subjects with him lest they receive the same.

Zoolimar

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Foreign Weapon Proposal: A Model for Future Reference
« Reply #4 on: December 23, 2012, 02:43:47 pm »

Quote
Can you give weapons those tags that make armor and clothes not available to all cjvs?
You can do it in entity_default.txt in the RAWs.

Quote
As things stand with the current version, there's not much difference between a falchion and a double-edged sword.
There is difference but it is too small. (Speed modifier and inability to make piercing attacks with falchion)
Logged

GreatWyrmGold

  • Bay Watcher
  • Sane, by the local standards.
    • View Profile
Re: Foreign Weapon Proposal: A Model for Future Reference
« Reply #5 on: December 23, 2012, 02:53:58 pm »

I'd call that "not much."

What kinds of differences are there, practically, between a scimitar, a katana, and a gladius (for instance) IRL?
Logged
Sig
Are you a GM with players who haven't posted? TheDelinquent Players Help will have Bay12 give you an action!
[GreatWyrmGold] gets a little crown. May it forever be his mark of Cain; let no one argue pointless subjects with him lest they receive the same.

Zoolimar

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Foreign Weapon Proposal: A Model for Future Reference
« Reply #6 on: December 24, 2012, 11:09:58 am »

Quote
What kinds of differences are there, practically, between a scimitar, a katana, and a gladius (for instance) IRL?
1. Scimitar is a primary slashing weapon. It has the largest curve and was designed for fight against lightly armored or not fully armored opponents. It is good for cavalry fight due to curve which will allow to slash opponents not worrying too much about stress on your hand so you won't lose after delivering strike on the move.

On foot its a fast weapon that is good for parrying and slashing attacks especially if balance point is closer to the grip. It is hard to deliver strong piercing attack with it but curve of the blade may allow for some unexpected angles of attack.

Also scimitar is a somewhat generic term - better search for tulwar (broad blade, big round pommel), shamshir (long, thin blade with big curve), sabre and other types of curved blades.

Here is the video of sabre training http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oo0z_R59P8M

2. Katana has very stiff blade and is made too cut through multiple layers of lacquered leather. And katana will be really destructive against opponents without metal armor. Also due to blade stiffness it can deliver good enough piercing attacks but against plate armor they again will be not really enough. Mail armor still can have some trouble with katana if not of high quality.

Normally katana was used in two hands to have more power and end a fight in one strike. Early katanas also were much longer and were almost as long swords.

Here you can see how katana cuts layered cloth.
http://www.swordforum.com/forums/showthread.php?83020-Riveted-Maille-and-Padded-Jack-Tests-%28very-photo-intensive%29

3. Gladius is a primary piercing weapon designed to be used in formation. It's short, broad and can pierce through leather or even mail with some luck. It can be used as a single weapon without shield but than you need too get close to your opponent.

In formation you have shield and can use your gladius while pushing enemies with shield wall. you won't be able to do it with katana or scimitar at least not good enough. 
Logged

Owlbread

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Foreign Weapon Proposal: A Model for Future Reference
« Reply #7 on: December 24, 2012, 12:09:47 pm »

Quote
What kinds of differences are there, practically, between a scimitar, a katana, and a gladius (for instance) IRL?
1. Scimitar is a primary slashing weapon. It has the largest curve and was designed for fight against lightly armored or not fully armored opponents. It is good for cavalry fight due to curve which will allow to slash opponents not worrying too much about stress on your hand so you won't lose after delivering strike on the move.

On foot its a fast weapon that is good for parrying and slashing attacks especially if balance point is closer to the grip. It is hard to deliver strong piercing attack with it but curve of the blade may allow for some unexpected angles of attack.

Also scimitar is a somewhat generic term - better search for tulwar (broad blade, big round pommel), shamshir (long, thin blade with big curve), sabre and other types of curved blades.

Here is the video of sabre training http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oo0z_R59P8M

2. Katana has very stiff blade and is made too cut through multiple layers of lacquered leather. And katana will be really destructive against opponents without metal armor. Also due to blade stiffness it can deliver good enough piercing attacks but against plate armor they again will be not really enough. Mail armor still can have some trouble with katana if not of high quality.

Normally katana was used in two hands to have more power and end a fight in one strike. Early katanas also were much longer and were almost as long swords.

Here you can see how katana cuts layered cloth.
http://www.swordforum.com/forums/showthread.php?83020-Riveted-Maille-and-Padded-Jack-Tests-%28very-photo-intensive%29

3. Gladius is a primary piercing weapon designed to be used in formation. It's short, broad and can pierce through leather or even mail with some luck. It can be used as a single weapon without shield but than you need too get close to your opponent.

In formation you have shield and can use your gladius while pushing enemies with shield wall. you won't be able to do it with katana or scimitar at least not good enough.

Who's to say we couldn't have our dwarves fight like Romans with shield walls and such? If we choose, of course.
Logged

Zoolimar

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Foreign Weapon Proposal: A Model for Future Reference
« Reply #8 on: December 24, 2012, 12:21:49 pm »

Quote
Who's to say we couldn't have our dwarves fight like Romans with shield walls and such? If we choose, of course.
If i remember correctly Toady said he is going to add formations eventually.

But i think dwarves are better in more loose formation. Heavy armored dwarves armed with daggers, toothaxes and metal covered shields.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2012, 12:24:01 pm by Zoolimar »
Logged

Owlbread

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Foreign Weapon Proposal: A Model for Future Reference
« Reply #9 on: December 24, 2012, 12:44:06 pm »

Quote
Who's to say we couldn't have our dwarves fight like Romans with shield walls and such? If we choose, of course.
If i remember correctly Toady said he is going to add formations eventually.

But i think dwarves are better in more loose formation. Heavy armored dwarves armed with daggers, toothaxes and metal covered shields.

Indeed, I just think it would be fun if we could have things like our loose marauder Dwarves equipped as you say, but also have pseudo-Roman legionary Dwarves advancing on the enemy in a "testudo" formation when they go up against Elvish archers, as you can see in this unnecessarily huge yet illustrative image:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

As an aside, at least with this kind of a plan there would be at least some meaning to "tooth axes".
Logged

Zoolimar

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Foreign Weapon Proposal: A Model for Future Reference
« Reply #10 on: December 24, 2012, 01:03:43 pm »

Quote
Indeed, I just think it would be fun if we could have things like our loose marauder Dwarves equipped as you say, but also have pseudo-Roman legionary Dwarves advancing on the enemy in a "testudo" formation when they go up against Elvish archers
Yes that would be good.

Heavy armored dwarves that fight in small groups is just a preference of mine. Cause fighting someone on open ground is just not dwarfy enough for me. Digging tunnels under the enemy army and then collapsing half of them while other half is used to deliver dwarven troops is much more satisfying.

Anyway weapons need much more characteristics. (Like actual length, width, etc.)
Logged

GreatWyrmGold

  • Bay Watcher
  • Sane, by the local standards.
    • View Profile
Re: Foreign Weapon Proposal: A Model for Future Reference
« Reply #11 on: December 24, 2012, 01:05:09 pm »

What is a tooth axe, and what advantages are there to a spread-out "formation?"
Logged
Sig
Are you a GM with players who haven't posted? TheDelinquent Players Help will have Bay12 give you an action!
[GreatWyrmGold] gets a little crown. May it forever be his mark of Cain; let no one argue pointless subjects with him lest they receive the same.

Zoolimar

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Foreign Weapon Proposal: A Model for Future Reference
« Reply #12 on: December 24, 2012, 01:40:34 pm »

Quote
What is a tooth axe, and what advantages are there to a spread-out "formation?"
Hmm seems like i failed to chose the right word. Don't know why i thought that was the right term.

I mean this weapon:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

About formation:
Tight formations drastically drop maneuverability. They are good if you have many soldiers to get a long front and bad if your formation is small and can be easily flanked and ripped apart. With numbers that we have in DF it will be better to fight in groups of 3-5 combatants. This will also allow for better diversity in weapons and tactics.

Formations can be saved for civilians then you absolutely need every dwarf in the military and can make a long enough line.

Also formations are really bad against BIG creatures.
Logged

Ribs

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Foreign Weapon Proposal: A Model for Future Reference
« Reply #13 on: December 24, 2012, 02:41:22 pm »

Formations aren't really that important if you're sending your squads outside, but it could be useful to form lines when defending narrow corridors. But more important than "formations" would be the ability to keep dwarves in squads close to each other when moving them around or attacking. Just being able to have your dwarves stand ground instead of charging individually as soon as they detect an enemy would make the whole thing much more tactical.
Logged

Neonivek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Foreign Weapon Proposal: A Model for Future Reference
« Reply #14 on: December 24, 2012, 06:18:39 pm »

Honestly the weapons I want to see in the game more often are Pedestrian weaponry

Fencing Knives and farming impliments.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2