Print

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

[Facekillz058]

I was thinking, and I came up with a possible way to determine how weapon sharpness/durability/wear/dulling could be handled.
It would be decided by both the weapon AND the material.
Basically, each weapon's attack in the raws would have a MAX_SHARPNESS value, instead of EDGE or BLUNT. 0 would be a blunt attack, with 100000 allowing one to hone the weapons edge to something fit to cleave through stone. Each MAX_SHARPNESS would be unique to each attack on a weapon, to help realism. It would give double edged swords meaning, stabbing wouldn't suffer where your slashes grow weak.
In adventure mode, interacting with your blade would present you with something like:
The tip grows dull, the forward edge is as a razor, the head of the axe is pretty sharp, etc.
This could add another challenge to weapon smithing, requiring blades to be sharpened before being useful in combat.
How quickly the weapon falls from it's sharpened state would depend on it's material. A bone blade should be able to cut flesh just as well as steel, but it should dull/break quickly, even more so when used against harder materials such as stone or metal, where as an adamantine blade should never grow dull.
Perhaps rust would add a less-than-100% type deal to weapon sharpness.I.E. As rust begins, your sharpness is lowered to 99%, then 98%, down to as low as 50%.
Rust can be removed with sand, or sandpaper, if this is accurate to the time period.
This would also add another level to being careful in both DF modes. You would have to have your troops or your adventurer dry with cloth or protect with oil or fat their blades.
Also, individual attacks or materials as a whole could have a [NO_RUST] tag thrown in to make it.... not rust.
Of course, blunt weapons are entirely safe from most everything in this post, as you do not need sharpness for them.
Anyway, that's my suggestion.




EDIT: Facekillz has limitless ideas.
ALSO,
Possibly a sort of, SPEED_MULTIPLIER on each individual weapon's attack.
This is only when combat speed is added in, as this could get quite overpowered with the current systems.
Let's say a dagger had a multiplier of 3000 on it's stab and slash attacks, you would be able to attack three times faster than a longsword with 1000.
I'm looking at this being represented similar to velocity multiplier, with it being in the thousands, but it being technically X3.000.
This could help make formerly overlooked weapons be used more, as well as the most powerful ones, such as great axes and two-handed swords, requiring more timing to use to the best effect.

I think i'll revive and much improve one of my more criticized ideas next.
Weapon Multi-grasping being based off Strength and Size.

I said once, that a weapon's one-handedness should be based off a value, with this value being the weapon user's strength stat,
I.E. Superdwarven, Superior, Above-average, average, below average.
This needs to account for your creatures size as well as his strength, so let us go into that.

First, let's give each strength level it's value.
Superdwarven = 5
Superior = 4
Above average = 3
Average = 2
Below average = 1

Now, the weapon would retain it's [MINIMUM_SIZE] and [TWO_HANDED] tags, it would just be done differently.
Your size would be multiplied by your strength value.
So let's say a long swords [MINIMUM_SIZE] and [TWO_HANDED] values are 70000 and 140000 respectively.
This would allow a Below average human to use it multi-grasped, an average one with one hand, and an average dwarf using it multi-grasped, and an above average dwarf one-handing it.
Also, multi-grasping should be optional, simply toggled by using the 'I' menu on the weapon of your choice.
That being said, one-handing a weapon you are too weak to wield would reduce your penetration depth, attack speed, accuracy, and velocity multiplier. Multi-grasping a weapon you can use in one hand, within reason, should boost your penetration depth, attack speed OR accuracy, and velocity multiplier. The attack speed OR accuracy would be based on your race. I see a dwarf hacking away at things as fast as possible while elves would try to get the most deadly hit in. With accuracy, not strength, or spray and pray. Because elves are pansies. Humans would get a choice when they select multi-grasp such as 'focus' and 'speed'.

So with all these suggestions, let's compare a Facekillzian^TM weapon raw with a current one.

CURRENT

Code: [Select]

[ITEM_WEAPON:ITEM_WEAPON_SWORD_LONG]
[NAME:long sword:long swords]
[SIZE:700]
[SKILL:SWORD]
[TWO_HANDED:57500]
[MINIMUM_SIZE:52500]
[MATERIAL_SIZE:4]
[ATTACK:EDGE:60000:6000:slash:slashes:NO_SUB:1250]
[ATTACK:EDGE:50:3000:stab:stabs:NO_SUB:1000]
[ATTACK:BLUNT:60000:6000:slap:slaps:flat:1250]
[ATTACK:BLUNT:100:1000:strike:strikes:pommel:1000]

Facekillzian^TM

Code: [Select]

[ITEM_WEAPON:ITEM_WEAPON_SWORD_LONG]
[NAME:long sword:long swords]
[SIZE:700]
[SKILL:SWORD]
[TWO_HANDED:140000]
[MINIMUM_SIZE:70000]
[MATERIAL_SIZE:4]
[ATTACK:70000:60000:6000:slash:slashes:NO_SUB:1250:1000]
[ATTACK:80000:50:3000:stab:stabs:NO_SUB:1000:1000]
[ATTACK:0:60000:6000:slap:slaps:flat:1250:1200]
[ATTACK:0:100:1000:strike:strikes:pommel:1000:2000]

[ATTACK:SHARPNESS:CONTACT_AREA:PENETRATION_DEPTH:VERB:VERBS:NOUN:VELOCITY_MULTIPLIER:SPEED_MULTIPLIER]

I love knowing my weapon raws because I can communicate these ideas in a form I deem efficient.

[GreatWyrmGold]

It's too late to comeu up with good criticisn, but I certainly think this is a goodidea.

[Bloax]

Definitely an interesting idea, what one could also add to it is that the maximum sharpness you could bring a weapon to would depend on what you sharpen the weapon with and how good you are at it.

So a dabbling weaponhandler(?) with a normal sharpening tool would be able to sharpen a blade up to say, 50% of it's normal edge value. (He sucks alright.)
With each level adding 5% to that (So 150% at Legendary+5, that's gonna take a while..), in addition to making the process to an itsy bit faster.

While a Legendary+5 guy with a masterwork sharpening tool would be able to bring it to 200%, because I apparently thought up that (Fine/Exceptional/Masterwork) should give a (15/30/50%) bonus to the sharpening potential.

The weapon quality would then be changed to defining how fast the weapon degrades in sharpness.
Removing weapon corrosion would also degrade the actual "normal edge value" a little bit (as in reducing it's potential), also depending on the weapon quality and how good the caretaker was.

Of course that makes it easier to just make a new weapon that would be better, but the exact purpose of reusing a weapon like this is that you don't use materials on making a new weapon;
But simply keep an old one in a usable state. Thus actually making weapons eventually require replacements, instead of having them completely ignore wear and tear.

And yes, this would also be a nerf to the master-stare-at-the-metal-until-it-takes-shape smithies, in that now you actually need two dwarves to make a grand weapon.
Because while one can pull out masterwork weapons like there's no tomorrow, they won't be put to their best unless you have an equally good weaponhandler to sharpen them!
(Though this last one turns out to be more of an explanation of one point in the OP.)

If one would like to go further with the whole "weapons will eventually require replacements" thing, then you could also say that prolonged resharpening would eventually wear the blade out.
Which would obviously depend on weapon quality, material, perhaps even a magic value in the weapon defining how fast this part wears out, the caretaker's skill and tools and their quality, no less.


tl;dr - More realism in my Dwarf Fortress weapon physics? Why not!

[Facekillz058]

I might just make this my generalized weapons ideas thread, as I have had so much time alone in my thoughts the last couple weeks some of the results have been terrifying.
Think i'll throw more on my OP over the next half hour.

[Bloax]

Might want to split it away from the block of text about sharpness somehow then, because that one is definitely interesting and kind of stands on it's own.

[Facekillz058]

Alright, OP is now much larger.

Thanks for liking the idea guys, I wrote this original shortly before going to bed at 1 A.M, so if it lacks anything you want to know, let me know.

[Bloax]

Further I should probably add in that weapon quality also defines the sharpness capabilities of the material, perhaps defined within the material itself. (Undefined defaulting to 1.1/1.2/1.3x)

But yes, I also like the strength proposal.

[Zoolimar]

First suggestion is good in my opinion.

The second one is a big NO. Like "NO-O-O-O!!!".

There is no such speed difference between dagger and sword. Simply because difference in weight is not as big as some may think.
Dagger weights 0.5-0.7 kg and one handed sword 1.2-1.6 kg. Difference is too small to justify 3 attacks with dagger in same time as one attack with the sword. Especially since most time of attack is movement of body and arm with the weapon.

Basically you have the following moves in attack:

Body: turn from 30 to 45 degrees
Arm: thrusting (arm length) or swinging attack(1/8 to 1/6 of circle with the radius equal to arm length+weapon length) 

No matter how light your weapon you can't make attack in less time than you make unarmed attack.

If you want you can make some calculations using E = FS = mVV/2, P = mV, t = S/V to see the difference in % between attack with a dagger and a sword.

About size and strength:

It doesn't matter what your strength if you can't close your grip over the weapons handle. If it's too thick for you there is nothing that can be done without changing handle to a less thick one. Additionally many two handed weapons are balanced in such a way that you must use them in two hands or get severe penalties even if you are strong enough to use weapon of such weight in one hand. No matter how strong you are using poleaxe in one hand won't be practical.

[Facekillz058]

My opinion on weapon speed is this:
A. Daggers are much easier to maneuver, because of smaller size, greater balance. Long swords have more weight in the blade, which can result in a greater wind up before the swing. A dagger has a shorter swing than a sword, and is used primarily for stabbing anyway.
B. It would take much less time to insert and retrieve a 10 Inch long blade from someone, compared to a 48 Inch long one. In the raws a long sword has a penetration depth 3 times greater than a dagger. Result, pushing blade in takes more time, pulling out.
While I agree a 3 to 1 attack ratio may be a bit large, but still, it should be at least a little faster.
Also, you seem to be implying that unarmed attacks are on a x1 speed multiplier. I'm sure in the time it takes you to pull back your long sword and swing it I can have you punched in the face twice.


I agree the strength x size thing isn't perfect, but it is better than 'humans get to use long swords one handed because they're humans.'

The equation thing there looks interesting, what do the variables stand for?

[Zoolimar]

A. Daggers are much easier to maneuver, because of smaller size, greater balance. Long swords have more weight in the blade, which can result in a greater wind up before the swing. A dagger has a shorter swing than a sword, and is used primarily for stabbing anyway.

There is also such thing as balance. Swords have a pommel not only to bash heads but too remove what you call "more weight in the blade". The only blades that have much more weight in the blade are falchions and the like which are closer to axes in their balance.

Stabbing with a sword and a dagger will take almost the same time - you can easily see this by comparing weight that needs movement to complete attack:

Dagger: 0.5 kg (dagger) + 28.64 kg (body) + 8.34 kg (arm) = 37.48 kg
Sword: 1.6 kg (sword) + 28.64 kg (body) + 8.34 kg (arm) = 38.58 kg

Total difference around 3%.

In swinging attacks due to longer blade of the sword it will really be more in favor of the dagger. But again difference won't be so large. At maximum you will multiply sword mass by 2-3 to determine the difference.

Swing sword: 4.8 "kg" (sword) + 28.64 kg (body) + 8.34 kg (arm) = 41.78 "kg"

Total difference around 11%

B. It would take much less time to insert and retrieve a 10 Inch long blade from someone, compared to a 48 Inch long one. In the raws a long sword has a penetration depth 3 times greater than a dagger. Result, pushing blade in takes more time, pulling out.

There is no such big difference. No matter how long your blade your arm still has the same length. The difference will be in force of friction applied to the blade by opponents inner organs. And even dagger length is enough to pierce human sized body from one side to the other. So the friction too won't be really that different.

Also, you seem to be implying that unarmed attacks are on a x1 speed multiplier. I'm sure in the time it takes you to pull back your long sword and swing it I can have you punched in the face twice.

First you will need to close the distance without losing your hands to the blade. Don't forget that your opponent can cut you with both sides of the sword and he doesn't need to raise his hand every time before attack. He can as easily attack from leg to shoulder.

The equation thing there looks interesting, what do the variables stand for?

E = FS = mVV/2 - total energy in the attack
F - attackers arm/body strength
m - attackers arm/body/weapon mass
V - weapon tip speed
S - path length for the weapon before connection with the target

P = mV - total attack momentum

t = S/V - time needed to execute attack

Thats a very basic formula which doesn't account for any biomechanical variables.

[Facekillz058]

I guess I can see what you're saying, but again, it seems to me that driving a 10 inch dagger into a gut would be quicker than a much longer sword, as the combat in DF is bloody, hand-to-hand, up in your grill combat. Stabbing with a long sword would be quite quick, I suppose, if you we're doing it from the relative safety of 5 feet away. But in DF, combat is pretty much inches away from your opponent. A dagger would be much easier to even get to a position where you can begin to swing it. When stabbing with a sword while that close to a person, would would need to pull back the sword considerably before being deliver a straight thrust.

Also, with slashing, you have the maneuverability issue, as well as the greater friction of your long sword creating a longer, deeper cut.

I respect your logic and math behind the matter, but all you seem to be looking at is the math.

[Zoolimar]

But in DF, combat is pretty much inches away from your opponent.

Nope. As Toady said than created minecarts tiles are around 2x2x3 meters. So i will agree that attacks made by opponents which are in the same square must penalize longer weapons/give bonus to shorter weapons/maybe both depending on weapons used. And while opponents in different squares longer weapons must get a bonus.

A dagger would be much easier to even get to a position where you can begin to swing it.

Only if there is a tunnel which is around 1 meter wide. While tunnels in DF at least 2 meters wide.

When stabbing with a sword while that close to a person, would would need to pull back the sword considerably before being deliver a straight thrust.

Thats true. And thats why special techniques were made for such situations. Like half-sword - placing your second hand on the blade.
 

I respect your logic and math behind the matter, but all you seem to be looking at is the math.

Thats mostly my own experience in unarmed combat and reading too much about people who participate in armed fighting. Math is simply to show this in numbers.

[Facekillz058]

Damn it, no matter what I say you keep being right.
Admitting defeat at this point.

[Zoolimar]

Well i still agree with your general point - weapon and as a result armor systems need more depth.

[Manveru Taurënér]

It's kind of silly though to place too much weight into how the visuals of the game work though, being how heavily abstracted everything is. 2 units being in adjacent tiles can mean anything from them being almost 4 meters apart to right next to eachother. Assuming units are always at the center of a tile doesn't make much sense at all.