Print

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

[WillowLuman]

You'd concentrate for necromancy in combat, of course, but also for blocking a blow in one hand and striking for the other.

Thing about concentration and melee attacks, it doesn't take any concentration to actually do the physical movements once you're practiced in them, but it does take concentration to look for openings to strike.

[SuicideJunkie]

The problem is, and what my joke was, is that there's nothing stopping everyone from being legendary in any skill they use frequently.  If every step gives you experience, every single dwarf would be "legendary" in a few months.  And the joke is, if everyone's a "legend", then nobody is.

I think part of the problem is that you get skill for every time you use it, even if there is no challenge.

It doesn't make too much sense to become a legendary axeman by dicing ever finer slices off of harmless fuzzy wamblers, but currently you still get the full credit for every swing.
There's a bonus for attacking really tough things, but no penalty when there is no challenge.

Every step does give you experience, but it *shouldn't*.
The dwarves that spend all day free-running along precarious trails that would make the mountain goats think twice should be the ones that get legendary, while the dwarves whos most dangerous terrain is the steel stairs to the dining room should top out at Adequate.

You shouldn't become a legendary kicker even if you boot all the puppies in a civilization.  But if you work your way up to stomping the faces of bandits, move on to punting dragons, and then try hammering on a bronze colossus with your feet... and survive to become successful at it?   That's worthy of legendary skill.

PS:
Everything in regards to "walking skill" should also apply equally to the existing crutch-walking skill.

[WillowLuman]

Unless those use movements of the foot that are different and harder to coordinate, a person gets the same amount of practice with making a kicking motion, no matter what they're kicking at. It's doing harder and harder kinds of kicks, not kicking harder and harder things. It's not that a more skilled kicker can physically kick a dragon, it's that a more skilled kicker could do a flying scissor kick, or kick a football across the field right between the goalie's legs. Dicing off ever finer slices of fluffy wamblers actually makes someone more skilled at precision chopping, using a hatchet to get scalpel results. Constantly chopping off the same thickness of wambler sliver is what doesn't improve your skill.

Walking as a skill is incredibly stupid, frankly. Freerunning/acrobatics/climbing maybe but not walking. Sustained running or sprinting could be a skill. That's a bit off topic though. We're talking about skill progression only as it relates to reaction moments and move/action speed split.

An interesting idea here is dual wielding with weapons that use different skills, like sword and dirk fighting.

[NW_Kohaku]

Dual-wielding as a general topic needs to have serious consideration put into not making it... stupid and unrealistic.  (At least, against similarly-equipped humanoids.)

That's partly why I want to see balance play an important role - throwing your weight behind one attack means you can't throw it behind another attack at the same time.

As for why dual-wielding is self-defeating against well-equipped humanoids, Mount and Blade has a never-dying topic specifically dedicated to having martial arts experts explain why (may need to skip to a few dozen pages in). 

Swinging both weapons at the same time makes both attacks much weaker and less accurate.    At best, you can go into a full aggression attack and do one-two-punch types of attacks, where you set up your balance to make one attack put you into position to launch the next attack a little quicker, but doing so makes you extremely vulnerable.

There may be viable strategies that can be based off of multi-weapon fighting, usually when one faces multiple opponents that are significantly inferior to the multi-weapon fighter.  I'm thinking pretty specifically of megabeasts, where a hydra doesn't so much need to worry about a single skilled fighter as much as being bum-rushed by a dozen fighters.

All the same, attrition tends to be everything in this game, currently, so attacks like tail sweeps that knock over many assailants would be useful even for things like crocodiles being killed by a ravenous pack of bunnies.

In general, though, shields are a much better idea unless you are so well-armored that you won't take damage unless knocked down, anyway.  (That is actually preserved in the game as-is: Shields are ridiculously useful at nullifying damage, although it needs to be better modeled by having shields actually capable of breaking, and making shield skill involve how you deflect the blow so as to maintain shield integrity.  In Mount and Blade, in fact, the shield skill does nothing but make your shield break less easily - but then, you have to manually block with the shield as it is a 3d third-person combat game.) 

If you don't have a shield, taking along a two-handed weapon (or bastard sword or the like), like a great axe or a pick is actually the best idea against armored opponents, since you can do full-body cleaves to puncture the armor of the opponents.  When field plate became well-made enough that one-handed weapons no longer punctured them, knights dropped shields except during lance charges, and went for all two-handers because that's the only way to get through the enemy's armor.

I'd actually prefer seeing that in DF, as well - shield-bearers in the front to distract the enemy, and then you have two-hander dwarves behind them that pick off the distracted enemies with powerful arm-breaking cleaves. 

I hope that the speed split means we actually get the option for attack stance and picking if your attack will be slow-but-powerful or a quick jab or something meant to push someone off-balance, which sets up those slow-but-powerful swings.  Armored targets, rather than just standing there as attacks bounce off passively, would instead be a challenge of getting dwarves to topple them so that they are defenseless against powerful cleaving attacks.

Complete pie-in-the-sky ideal would be if we get dwarven combat teams working where dwarves actually can be ordered to work together in a squad like Roman Legionaries or other organized military units: Putting some shield-bearing and two-hander dwarves up as teams that support one another, with "reserves" that will wait to relieve the front lines once they get tired, but hold back from combat until then.


On the topic of not letting skills increase in level at the same rate all the time, I made this topic on potential a while ago, but not very many people actually noticed it. (Or didn't feel anything to add if they did.)

I intend to tie it in with the Class Warfare thread on the topic of guilds and training, however.

[WillowLuman]

Again for dual wielding, I bring up sword and dirk fighting. In real life, people have dual wielded effectively; not by attacking with both at once, but by using one to parry and the other to strike. Essentially, if you consider the shield a weapon, just replacing the shield with a different weapon. In particular, a dagger is good at catching slashes and swipes, able to hold the offending weapon with the crossguard, while the sword is brought around against the entangled enemy. If you should make the enemy vulnerable with a sword strike, your dagger is in a position to strike before they recover when a shield might not be. Fighting with two swords, however, is more impractical.

An axe and a dagger can work well too, especially if the axe has a beard. The axe can hook over the top of a shield and pull down, opening for a dagger strike.

If two people are in front of you, next to each other, and you have an opening on both, it's plausible that you could stab both of them with the same forward motion, though this is more unlikely.

[NW_Kohaku]

Well, again, the Mount and Blade forums have heavily pounded that subject into the ground (that thread has something like 6,400 posts) and basically, the dual-wielding school of an off-hand dagger and rapier existed only in an age when people had stopped wearing armor, and was for basically Three Musketeers-style combat in colorful robes in duels of honor between unarmored noblemen. 

On a realistic battlefield, daggers are pointless against most real armor, and you're trading a stout shield that can block real attacks for something you have to parry with.

In a magical game, it might have a place when trying to shish-kebob a flock of aggressive keas or fire imps or something. (Although you'd want a shield to block fireballs against fire imps.)

[WillowLuman]

Where do these people get their information? But this is dwarf fortress, just because a rare few people wear full plate armor doesn't mean the game should be coded to give massive penalties to a fighting style that works in real life (depending on context) and just assuming you'll only be fighting with an armor-piercing mace.

Fighting offhand with a dagger wasn't an open field combat style, but rather an urban or skirmishing one. The rapier actually marked the beginning of the end for sword-and-dagger fighting, as it evolved into the epee and made the dagger superfluous. The era of dirk and main gauch was late medieval to early renaissance. Using just swords and broadswords, a dagger offers advantage over a buckler in that after catching a blow, the crossguard can catch and hold the blade (which parrying daggers were designed for), while being less effective at blocking stabs (and thus more useful against broadswords than foils). A buckler provides much more area for deflection but at the cost of not immobilizing the enemy weapon.

The principal of dual wielding is thus that the offhand weapon is used primarily for defensive purposes. A shield or buckler can be considered just another kind of offhand weapon, using similar skills to a dirk or main gauche, mainly used for defense but can still opportunistically be used for offense (shield-bashing, especially with bucklers and targes). And oddly enough, the equipment of your average medieval footpad (only the elite could afford plate armor) was likely a pike or spear, supported by the offhand which both had a buckler strapped to it and clenched a dagger or knife. At the belt, an axe (or sword if lucky) for when it was time to drop the pike.

And though dwarf fortress seems largely European flavored, there are many eastern (medieval Korea) techniques involving a shorter sword and a longer sword (dual wielding with equally sized large weapons is ineffective) which could be used with european-inspired weapons, as the weapons used in these other techniques were not that exotic in shape. For gobbos and humans, you might even see gladiatorial weapons, such as a net/whip and spear combo.

Point is, no matter what you're holding, you use your main hand mainly for offense and your offhand mainly for defense.

As for context, right now, there is almost no open field large scale combat in Dwarf Fortress, certainly nothing with formations that require fighting styles limited to low elbow room. All the combat right now is in skirmishes or one-on-one styles, and Toady won't be removing small-scaled combat with plenty of elbow room.

[Helari]

Actually a low and wide stance with good balance slows you down, you can spring into movement faster with a less steadfast stance but you might be toppled easier by sweeps or whatever.

edit: this only concerns movement tho because your upper body will obviously move freely

edit2: so infact an unbalanced dude can move faster but is more easily pushed about

On a realistic battlefield, daggers are pointless against most real armor, and you're trading a stout shield that can block real attacks for something you have to parry with.

even with a huge ass sword you will have a hard time actually piercing plate armor so battles between knights rely more on toppling the opponent, striking into gaps with small blades and brute blunt force trauma

edit: some medieval zweihander techniques even feature holding the sword "upside down" to use the hilt as a club and to trip the enemy over while grappling with him and then breaking out a dagger or such to strike through the visor or similar gaps, the actual blade is best suited for soft peasant targets.

[NW_Kohaku]

Where do these people get their information?

Many of them study the combat technique manuals of the day, are reenactors, and are students/teachers of classical martial arts techniques.  I bring up the Mount and Blade forums every time these arguments about what people can do with a sword comes up because it's sort of a meeting ground of the closest thing to experts the Internet can offer shy of a time machine.

The principal of dual wielding is thus that the offhand weapon is used primarily for defensive purposes. A shield or buckler can be considered just another kind of offhand weapon, using similar skills to a dirk or main gauche, mainly used for defense

And the argument these people have is that, even within the narrow realm of fighting a single opponent with a rapier, that main gauche is going to be a far less effective defense than a shield or buckler.  Against multiple opponents or anything involving arrows, far, far, less useful.

As for context, right now, there is almost no open field large scale combat in Dwarf Fortress, certainly nothing with formations that require fighting styles limited to low elbow room. All the combat right now is in skirmishes or one-on-one styles, and Toady won't be removing small-scaled combat with plenty of elbow room.

Only because tiles are huge - you can easily get combat that takes place in 1-tile-wide passages rather commonly right now.  You can block goblins in doorways.  Most of my fights take place in 3-tile-wide passages made just wide enough for wagons, and I shove the 16-24 dwarves I can scramble from a militia into that hallway at that point, in which only 3 can stand and fight.

We're talking about changes that could take place - and having cooperative squad fighting techniques is something I hope that Toady will eventually put in to make combat less a matter of just throwing attrition at the enemy.

even with a huge ass sword you will have a hard time actually piercing plate armor so battles between knights rely more on toppling the opponent, striking into gaps with small blades and brute blunt force trauma

edit: some medieval zweihander techniques even feature holding the sword "upside down" to use the hilt as a club and to trip the enemy over while grappling with him and then breaking out a dagger or such to strike through the visor or similar gaps, the actual blade is best suited for soft peasant targets.

Which is why you don't use swords, you use two-handed hammers that have pick-like heads, or polearms of various sorts. 

But yes, even then, you knock them down, first, just to get a clear shot on them.

[SirHoneyBadger]

Where do these people get their information?

I always try to get my sources directly from Wikipedia whenever possible, because I know everyone has free access to that, but I also use various other free internet sources. If all else fails, I'll source from books, but it's as a last resort, since I'd rather not make people pay money, or take a lot of time, to verify things.

Other than that, my dad actually made his living, for several years, as an antique sword appraiser for auction houses in Pennsylvania. Any time someone would bring in a sword for sale, he was consulted, as the expert advisor for the area we lived in.
So, from an extremely early age, I knew how a sword was put together, what the different kinds were, where they came from, and the manufacturing differences between a "parade sword" and a killing weapon (I knew that many years before I had any concept of death, itself, actually), how one actually felt in my hand and how they were used and cared for, and some of the most famous makers of swords.

Public school really couldn't compare to any of that, so it also taught me that I would always be my best teacher.

He also studied martial arts extensively, and collected rare books and other artifacts (and I would always go with him), so I grew up, in some real sense, in a museum, although it wasn't a cold or stifling environment--it was really a boy's paradise.

My grandparents also helped raise me, because both of my parents always worked, and they lived on an old farmhouse on a wooded estate, filled with antique tools that I was free to play with, so in my embarassment-of-riches second boy's paradise, I learned about tools and using my hands, and about being out in nature, and spent a lot of time making my own fun, since I honestly didn't have many friends close to my age. 

Once I could read, my favorite book growing up was D'Aulaire's Norse Mythology (although my dad is also a Tolkien fan), and when I was 6 years old, my mother arranged a play-date with an older boy from her work, and he introduced me to Dungeons & Dragons. From that I became a fantasy otaku, and the rest was pretty much history.

So 36 years now, spent just being around and studying history--particularly the history of pre-industrial warfare and martial arts, 30 years studying fantasy and mythology, too many thousands of hours spent playing games, and atleast a dozen years with access to the practically unlimited sources of the Internet.

None of that automatically makes me right about anything, but I'm usually pretty good at tracking down information, comparing it to what I do know, and then "translating" it into something that fits the framework of a game.

[WillowLuman]

I myself was a reenactor from age 6-12 (both parents were doing it, had to come along), so not exactly a lifetime of experience but I have some training.

I'm not arguing specifically for dirk-and-sword fighting, rather using it as an example that 2-weapon fighting did have practical styles in real life and thus should not be universally punished in dwarf fortress. It should be noted that there were also effective two full-sized sword techniques, but these were only teachable to those who had already honed their talents and were ambidextrous, and were thus less practical.

I'm also arguing that, whether you're defending with a shield or a dagger, it requires similar coordination of both hands. In the end, two weapons with equally offensive roles usually doesn't work so well, so whatever is in the offhand, be it blade or shield, winds up being used mainly for defense. Main point: whether dual wielding or using a shield, you're splitting your coordination between hands.

Another thing, more overpowered but also more realistic, is that bucklers were often strapped to the arm, instead of held, to enable holding a weapon in that hand, enabling pikemen and greatsword wielders to benefit from shield defense. This brings up move/speed split and concentration in open field tactics.

[SirHoneyBadger]

There's also the idea that a two-handed weapon (a staff, a spear, a greatsword, etc.), was in some ways used as a dual-weapon as well (they definitely require independent, coordinated action from both hands, anyway), and a free hand was, itself, a weapon, so if the game could track the actions of both hands in combat (and the feet, knees, hips, shoulders, elbows, and head, as well), it would be more realistic and more interesting, in all circumstances of combat, so I'm definitely for it.

[WillowLuman]

Ah yes, don't forget the good old 2 fisted brawling, something which will be happening a lot in most forts.

[NW_Kohaku]

Yes, having to split concentration/balance between shield work and the stabbity bits make a good deal of sense.

Also, aside from having shields that can break, having the force of the blow still push you at least partly off-balance when you block with a shield (mitigated partially by how much you deflect the blow, which would also be part of the skill roll) would be a decent way to slightly nerf weapon-and-shield setups. 

I'm certainly not trying to say dual-wielding is impossible, either, just that it's impractical in warfare against armored opponents - and not all opponents in DF are armored - and that simply having two weapons shouldn't correlate to "double the DPS". 

I do wish two-handed weapons weren't relegated to solely humans and goblins, though. 

[SirHoneyBadger]

I'm working on that in my mod. For one thing, your average pick axe is a two-handed tool. Same thing with a wood axe, a spear, crossbow, what have you.

Using two-handed tools/weapons can be used to recover balance, too, though. Like someone using a pole to balance themselves while they walk across a rope. 

This would also be something to consider, as a possible factor in the attributes of weapons and armour. Better quality often means better balance for weapons, and well-made armour is going to "sit" or "hang" (depending on the type of armour), better on the body.

Sheer body size, and center of gravity, are other factors to consider. Having a bigger body means that, objectively, the body is easier to tilt off balance, because of the weight involved, but subjectively, the one with the big body means they have had a lot of practice balancing, and may actually be more coordinated.

NW_Kohaku: It would be nice if the game tracked PROPRIOCEPTION

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

not procioception

(sorry, I was in a rush, and I misread/misspelled!):

From Wikipedia: The sense of the relative position of neighbouring parts of the body and strength of effort being employed in movement.

Basically, it's a measure of your ability to be self-aware of exactly what your body is doing, exactly what position each part of it is in, how tense and how relaxed all the different muscles of your body are, exactly how much force you're applying, moment by moment, and how those factors relate to your balance, center of gravity, and then in direct relation to your surroundings, and potential combatants.

It's specifically mentioned as being something that is highly developed by Zato Ichi (from the excellent 'Zatoichi, the blind swordsman' series), allowing him to fight very effectively with a sword, while blind, so it reminded me of dwarfs learning to use canes, as a skill, after they lose a leg. 

Ofcourse, anyone involved in any physical activity could benefit from it, but the idea that there are semi-hidden skills that aren't always developed at all, but that the game still tracks and still considers important, and that special training can bring to prominence, is an interesting one.

Especially since I believe Toady One has mentioned being interested in adding martial arts (including magical versions), sometime in the future.