Print

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

[magnum2016]

Now in my current Fortress of Orbsdream i currently have a military of 20 archers and 9 melee dwarves, i have ran into about 4 different ambushes and have also had to fight a titan and never once have i had to use my melee dwarves.

I have been playing Dwarf Fortress for roughly 1 1/2 but i only played the Corrosion mod which was much different than normal Dwarf Fortress,

So what is the true strength of melee dwarves other than to clean up the bleeding out enemies

[Propman]

Bronze colossi, and other fun creatures are mostly immune to bolts, so you need weapondorfs to slay those.

[Button]

So what is the true strength of melee dwarves other than to clean up the bleeding out enemies

Unmodded, melee are pretty much only for dealing with skeletal undead. (Arrow attacks tend to pass right through.)

That's why I use the Broken Arrow minor mod. It significantly reduces the power of bows and crossbows, and changes nothing else.

[Arcvasti]

Main reason is its more fun.

Spoiler: Relevant stuff (click to show/hide)

 I personally really dislike having to manage ammunition. You have to supply them with quivers, ammo[Which has different levels of effectiveness based on the material, adding more complexity], fiddle around with buddy archery ranges. I just have a thing against using things which run out[Ammo for crossbows, adamantine, some other rare metals]. You don't need to reload an axe. Or a weapon trap. Plus it appeals to my sense of accomplishment. Having your dwarves sally forth in a glorious charge and butchering the vile foes seems more cinematic then just gunning them down from archer towers and then coup de gracing them with melee troops. On a more practical note, skilled warriors can block or dodge arrows really consistently[Although weaponmasters are generally rare]. I know I've had one occasion where an invader dodged so many projectiles he became legendary from it and slaughtered my militia. Also, archers require fortifications to avoid being sniped by enemy fire. And for that you need the enemies to be positioned in the right place to be shot at[More of a problem with human sieges, where they just camp out and don't zerg rush your defenses]. Melee squads just need basic equipment and maybe some way of reducing the enemy archer's line of sight.

TL;DR: Melee are simpler, often more satisfying, easier to use and often aren't that much worse statistically then ranged units. Their only real disadvantage is lack of range, which can be overcome with enough equipment to survive the enemies first arrow volley.

[Urist Da Vinci]

...
(Arrow attacks tend to pass right through.)
...

I have not observed this, so I am skeptical. The immense momentum of vanilla crossbows/bows easily causes animated corpses to collapse.

...
TL;DR: Melee are simpler, often more satisfying, easier to use and often aren't that much worse statistically then ranged units. Their only real disadvantage is lack of range, which can be overcome with enough equipment to survive the enemies first arrow volley.

Ranged weapons are statistically superior to melee weapons (Vanilla crossbows == railguns). However melee weapons are much more useful in close quarters underground, which is where you will want to take the fight if the enemy has ranged units.

Please note that DF does allow flanking (attacks from the side or from behind) which greatly impair the ability of the enemy to dodge/block. Creatures tend to face melee attackers, so melee+ranged or melee+melee can give tactical advantage. This won't work in purely ranged combat.

[neblime]

I've never seen a humanoid corpse take a shot from a crossbow and not collapse.

Anyway, my two cents;
an untrained marksdwarf is far FAR superior to an untrained melee dwarf, but a legendary melee dwarf is far superior to a legendary marksdwarf,
generally speaking marksdwarves don't gain defensive skills and so are very vulnerable if they run out of bolts or the enemy closes, melee dwarves just get harder to kill the more their skills increases.

[Loud Whispers]

Main reason is its more fun.

Spoiler: Relevant stuff (click to show/hide)

 I personally really dislike having to manage ammunition. You have to supply them with quivers, ammo[Which has different levels of effectiveness based on the material, adding more complexity], fiddle around with buddy archery ranges. I just have a thing against using things which run out[Ammo for crossbows, adamantine, some other rare metals]. You don't need to reload an axe. Or a weapon trap. Plus it appeals to my sense of accomplishment. Having your dwarves sally forth in a glorious charge and butchering the vile foes seems more cinematic then just gunning them down from archer towers and then coup de gracing them with melee troops. On a more practical note, skilled warriors can block or dodge arrows really consistently[Although weaponmasters are generally rare]. I know I've had one occasion where an invader dodged so many projectiles he became legendary from it and slaughtered my militia. Also, archers require fortifications to avoid being sniped by enemy fire. And for that you need the enemies to be positioned in the right place to be shot at[More of a problem with human sieges, where they just camp out and don't zerg rush your defenses]. Melee squads just need basic equipment and maybe some way of reducing the enemy archer's line of sight.

TL;DR: Melee are simpler, often more satisfying, easier to use and often aren't that much worse statistically then ranged units. Their only real disadvantage is lack of range, which can be overcome with enough equipment to survive the enemies first arrow volley.

You may not have to reload an axe, but have you never had them get damaged or destroyed in battle? Plus, bolts are just too good to pass off. Have an archery range with pits flanking it and you can even recover most of the fired bolts.

[neblime]

You may not have to reload an axe, but have you never had them get damaged or destroyed in battle?

no?  does that occur in some mod i'm not aware of?

[Melting Sky]

Both ranged and melee dwarves have their uses. For pure defense I don't think much tops a squad of crossbow dwarves. You can stash them behind fortifications and they are nigh invulnerable to all but a few enemies and dish out massive damage.

Melee forces need to be both skilled and well equipped but are very good for taking the battle to the enemy. Unless you bring a lot of war animals or melee dwarves to act as a buffer, a squad of crossbow dwarves will not fair well against large numbers of attackers out in the field. A squad of legendary melee dwarves in full steel should never be underestimated. You can take an entire goblin siege with them.

Edit: Plus the combat reports for the melee dwarves are just so much more epic.

[Nikow]

This discussion is similar to Tanks vs inflanty. Both have pluses and minues.

I always use marksmans in "turtle" mode, before enemies will pass by my defenses. But nearly always i am not fully closed, so after some time squads are heading into my fortress. There is no space for rangers, tight corridors with a lot of doors are hell for rangers. This is where close combat forcers arriving, from all sides, swarming enemy soldiers. Trolls and other building destroyers are usualy dead at this point, so i can divide they into smaller groups (using doors), so even untrained, but well equipment dwarfs can kill intruders.

How enemy are passing my defenses? Flying mounts are very good vs my rangers. Rectracting bridge is just too OP, it making game boring.

[NeatHedgehog]

...
(Arrow attacks tend to pass right through.)
...

I have not observed this, so I am skeptical. The immense momentum of vanilla crossbows/bows easily causes animated corpses to collapse.

I've observed this loads of times. If it is a fresh, risen corpse, the bolts will hit and deal damage with no problems.

However, when you're dealing with skeletal undead, bolts mostly (85-95%) pass through dealing no damage and fill my combat logs with pages of just such a report. Of course, my marksdwarves are sub-legendary, so maybe their accuracy gets markedly better later on and it's not such a big deal. Someone else can answer that part better.

[gritstone]

I've never seen a humanoid corpse take a shot from a crossbow and not collapse.

Ranged weapons are statistically superior to melee weapons (Vanilla crossbows == railguns).

If we want them to be remotely realistic then this is how it should be, there's a good reason the Pope banned their use against good Christian knights... they're too effective.  At the sort of distances DF engagements happen, being shot with a medieval crossbow would inflict serious injury even to someone in steel plate. 

[BoredVirulence]

If we want them to be remotely realistic then this is how it should be, there's a good reason the Pope banned their use against good Christian knights... they're too effective.  At the sort of distances DF engagements happen, being shot with a medieval crossbow would inflict serious injury even to someone in steel plate.

If that were true, then warfare wouldn't have "evolved" into walking tanks trying to poke each other with longswords and halberds. A knight in full steel plate was nearly invulnerable unless someone shoved a longsword through a joint. If crossbows caused serious injury while wearing full steel plate then this wouldn't have happened. In fact, guns made steel plate useless. If crossbows were as powerful as they are in DF, the gun revolution would have happened, with crossbows.

Crossbows were dangerous because they were powerful AND easy to use. With a few weeks of training a peasant could be nearly (but not quite) as dangerous as a longbowman who has trained for years. Crossbows were controlled for the same reason guns are today, to insure the civilian population poses little of a threat (to themselves or the government).

[Zac]

I've never seen a humanoid corpse take a shot from a crossbow and not collapse.

Ranged weapons are statistically superior to melee weapons (Vanilla crossbows == railguns).

If we want them to be remotely realistic then this is how it should be, there's a good reason the Pope banned their use against good Christian knights... they're too effective.  At the sort of distances DF engagements happen, being shot with a medieval crossbow would inflict serious injury even to someone in steel plate.

Indeed the real crossbows is a deadly weapon and it should remain deadly in DF. Maybe the rate of fire should be reduced. I once tried to reload a medieval crossbow and it's not easy since it involve bending the steel arc of the weapon. A crossbowman should not be able to shoot as fast as a bowman.

(Also, there was not such thing as steel plate in medieval times, the best armors was made in iron with a pellicule of steel on top of it. Pure steel would have made a terrible protection. Sorry for the nitpicking  )

Edit:

If that were true, then warfare wouldn't have "evolved" into walking tanks trying to poke each other with longswords and halberds. A knight in full steel plate was nearly invulnerable unless someone shoved a longsword through a joint. If crossbows caused serious injury while wearing full steel plate then this wouldn't have happened. In fact, guns made steel plate useless. If crossbows were as powerful as they are in DF, the gun revolution would have happened, with crossbows.

Crossbows were dangerous because they were powerful AND easy to use. With a few weeks of training a peasant could be nearly (but not quite) as dangerous as a longbowman who has trained for years. Crossbows were controlled for the same reason guns are today, to insure the civilian population poses little of a threat (to themselves or the government).

Crossbows were extremely costly and difficult to make, not something a mere peasant could afford to buy or craft. The reason crossbows were anathematized by the pope and the crossbow makers and users threatened of excommunication was  the deadly power of the weapon. There is several reports of crossbow bolts piercing through armors, shields and helms and some of the best crossbows were even repported to be able to kill a charging armoured horse in a single shot.

[MDFification]

...
(Arrow attacks tend to pass right through.)
...

I have not observed this, so I am skeptical. The immense momentum of vanilla crossbows/bows easily causes animated corpses to collapse.

...
TL;DR: Melee are simpler, often more satisfying, easier to use and often aren't that much worse statistically then ranged units. Their only real disadvantage is lack of range, which can be overcome with enough equipment to survive the enemies first arrow volley.

Ranged weapons are statistically superior to melee weapons (Vanilla crossbows == railguns). However melee weapons are much more useful in close quarters underground, which is where you will want to take the fight if the enemy has ranged units.

Please note that DF does allow flanking (attacks from the side or from behind) which greatly impair the ability of the enemy to dodge/block. Creatures tend to face melee attackers, so melee+ranged or melee+melee can give tactical advantage. This won't work in purely ranged combat.

Second the first point. Have never had a problem dispatching undead with crossbows. Actually, it's super easy due to unknown weirdness in the undead's hitpoint system (as opposed to how all other combat works).
Basically, in vanilla with adequate preparation of firing positions, melee is unnecessary. I still use it because the game's really not fun playing it that safe. Building a hardcore militia and fighting goblin sieges on their own terms is still one of my favorite things to do in this game.