Print

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

[Urist Tilaturist]

While a strong man could cut through bone with a very strong sword if it was laid down on the ground, doing so against a moving enemy while keeping the strikes short to increase speed and decrease fatigue and strike recovery time is a different story. Real swordsmen did not swing their swords like baseball bats or wood axes, instead making quick stabs and cuts. Swords were also susceptible to breaking or jamming in wounds if they dug in too deeply. A poorly executed, strong cut against bone where the flat hit the bone would often break the sword. Even good warriors often broke swords in battle - Richard I of England broke one just pushing someone aside with the flat.

Stories of creatures being bisected by swords should be taken with some scepticism. It is likely that the horse cut by the macuahuitl was sawn in half rather than being sliced with a single blow. A great sword was NOT sharper than a macuahuitl - obsidian edges are usually better at cutting that metal ones - but it was stronger and less likely to chip and break.

[Button]

One feature of DF2014 which is reducing my Fun is forgotten beasts fighting in the caverns - with the wildlife and with each other. It used to be that if you ignored FBs they'd pile up, so you had an incentive to try to take them out quickly. Now they just kill each other - and with all their syndromes, it's too often fatal to both beasts. Occasionally even normal wildlife will take them out - my dining room has a bunch of engravings of the (wild) jabberer Tattooedwealthy laughing as Esnust the Abyssal Urn makes a plaintive gesture. While I agree that that's pretty awesome, rushing to get your military trained and your cavern defenses up because if you don't hurry, all the Forgotten Beasts will be dead is like... the opposite of Dwarf Fortress.

What fun reduction ? You are not simply thinking dwarven enough.

Wall off the caverns, use cagetraps+cave-in traps to catch FB's and everything in the caverns.

Then build an arena and MAKE THEM FIGHT EACH OTHER for your dwarves's viewing pleasure. And yours as well, of course.

Cavern Wars!

Also yes, jabberers are bad-ass and definitely can kill some FB's.

That's what I was hoping to do, but they're dying before I get around to them. I shouldn't be thinking, "I need to hurry up and catch that FB before something kills it!".

[Bigheaded]

I think the semi-megabeasts are just giant babies. Here, a giant rattlesnake was tip-toeing around my main entrance and I send a squad:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

She lasted longer than the megabeasts. And that strike to the teeth was brutal, teeth flying everywhere:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Tearing apart the muscle and the spleen! Jeez, getting a pickaxe jammed into your spleen, I guess that's really a good reason to give in to pain. 

PS. I agree with the forgotten beasts, Button.

I've an idea which i'm considering. What if... everything in the caverns was absolutely crazy freaking dangerous?
Imagine giant cave spiders... where 4 of them spawn... at 10 times the size!

Also, Crundles regularly will charge directly into your fort (i find most cavern beasts like to hang out ouside your meeting hall, which is interesting). Also had a forgotten beast wandering the hospital, which makes me wonder where they attack.

Not entirely sure how graphics work, it may be simple enough to add some extra graphics and add in some extra animals also. Or just reuse some.

Changing the amount of GCS and their size is fairly easy, not entirely sure how to make them grow faster, which would be quite key, Although if using a 200 year old world, these animals should be near to fully grown (although it takes 1000 years for a cave dragon to fully grow).

Worth a thought anyway and would be funny just catching a few in traps then unleashing them on goblins and such just to see the results.
Now if a siege came along with goblins riding a cave dragon which is 10 times its current size... well. I'll leave that thought.

[BoredVirulence]

While a strong man could cut through bone with a very strong sword if it was laid down on the ground, doing so against a moving enemy while keeping the strikes short to increase speed and decrease fatigue and strike recovery time is a different story...

An average man with a decent steel sword can cut someone's arm off without it being secured to a target (Nearly free floating, inertia is the only thing providing resistance), if the arm is unarmored, and the swing is decent. It doesn't need all of the power he can muster, a full swing will generate enough momentum. It wouldn't fatigue him more than any other full swing. Bone isn't that strong, at least most aren't.
It is worth noting that since the target is nearly free floating, and inertia is what is providing resistance to the swords movement, the sword would require a good deal of momentum. Hence, a full swing is certainly needed.

... Swords were also susceptible to breaking or jamming in wounds if they dug in too deeply. A poorly executed, strong cut against bone where the flat hit the bone would often break the sword. Even good warriors often broke swords in battle - Richard I of England broke one just pushing someone aside with the flat...

Most were iron swords too. Steel swords had a remarkable ability to not break. Reconstructed Ulfberht blades (rare steel sword) have shown the ability to stab directly into wooden shields, and bend rather than break. However, you do bring up a point, because most swords were crappy iron, they were likely instructed to be more careful, and that tradition would have continued even with steel swords occasionally present. Its also worth noting that while those blades are believed to be reconstructed in an authentic manner, its still possible they don't reflect the nature of the sword. Either way, right now we are talking about steel swords (Or, I thought we were).

... It is likely that the horse cut by the macuahuitl was sawn in half rather than being sliced with a single blow. A great sword was NOT sharper than a macuahuitl - obsidian edges are usually better at cutting that metal ones - but it was stronger and less likely to chip and break.

Yeah, those accounts are certainly somewhat false, and they were definitely partially sawed through. While obsidian is sharper than a steel sword, it won't hold its edge. The moment it touches bone, it will snap, and it will be just the wooden club breaking the bone. A great sword has an advantage, if its steel, it won't break. The macuahuitl probably needed to saw through the horse because it lost much of its cutting power half way through. I do believe that this scenario would be very dependent on a high quality steel great sword, wielded by a very strong man, some luck, and maybe an elephant with a bone condition. It may not even be plausible, but to consider it ridiculous is an overstatement.

[smjjames]

Just wanted to note that this has been derailed for the last page and a half or so.

[Aslandus]

Just wanted to note that this has been derailed for the last page and a half or so.

And it will continue to do so unless the OP locks the thread

[BoredVirulence]

Just wanted to note that this has been derailed for the last page and a half or so.

And it will continue to do so unless the OP locks the thread

Or we can get back on topic. Which I would do, but I have nothing to add to that conversation. Although, I admit, I think this topic has largely been exhausted.

[Urist Tilaturist]

An average man with a decent steel sword can cut someone's arm off without it being secured to a target (Nearly free floating, inertia is the only thing providing resistance), if the arm is unarmored, and the swing is decent. It doesn't need all of the power he can muster, a full swing will generate enough momentum. It wouldn't fatigue him more than any other full swing. Bone isn't that strong, at least most aren't.
It is worth noting that since the target is nearly free floating, and inertia is what is providing resistance to the swords movement, the sword would require a good deal of momentum. Hence, a full swing is certainly needed.

Most were iron swords too. Steel swords had a remarkable ability to not break. Reconstructed Ulfberht blades (rare steel sword) have shown the ability to stab directly into wooden shields, and bend rather than break. However, you do bring up a point, because most swords were crappy iron, they were likely instructed to be more careful, and that tradition would have continued even with steel swords occasionally present. Its also worth noting that while those blades are believed to be reconstructed in an authentic manner, its still possible they don't reflect the nature of the sword. Either way, right now we are talking about steel swords (Or, I thought we were).

Yeah, those accounts are certainly somewhat false, and they were definitely partially sawed through. While obsidian is sharper than a steel sword, it won't hold its edge. The moment it touches bone, it will snap, and it will be just the wooden club breaking the bone. A great sword has an advantage, if its steel, it won't break. The macuahuitl probably needed to saw through the horse because it lost much of its cutting power half way through. I do believe that this scenario would be very dependent on a high quality steel great sword, wielded by a very strong man, some luck, and maybe an elephant with a bone condition. It may not even be plausible, but to consider it ridiculous is an overstatement.

I would consider a good steel sword (made with the right amount of carbon) to be the "very strong" sword I mentioned, compared to weaker swords made of iron, poor steel or bronze. One of the great weaknesses of the samurai sword against the European sword is that is was made from poor iron and was very sharp, but weak against hard objects. A great sword, when used properly, would not have snapped.

My point about laying the bone on the ground is, as you have said, that in a fight that bone will not be held rigidly in place as it is hit. My further point is that a "full swing" would be a stupid thing to do in a fight, because it requires lots of energy, is slower, and if it misses, which it likely will because of its slower and "telegraphed" nature, the enemy can quickly strike before the swinger has recovered to defend himself. Historical longsword fighting mostly involved short stabs and cuts for this reason. Big, lumbering swings were stupid things to do because the foe would just dodge, then strike in as the swinger recovered to swing again. The only time a "full swing" would be used is to finish a defeated opponent, or, in the DF case, if the enemy was a beast so slow that it could not dodge. Even then, the swordsdwarf would have to be careful not to get his blade stuck and be hit while trying to pull it from the foe.

European knights had their own system of martial arts which trained skilled swordsmanship and discouraged swinging the sword like a felling axe at a tree. It is likely that, given their fondness for single combat, dwarves would have something similar - Historical Dwarven Martial Arts, maybe.

[BoredVirulence]

The weapons stats are based on what it can do. A steel sword can do all of those things I described (well, maybe). Its stats have nothing to do with what is smart in a fight. So just because to competent warriors fighting each other wouldn't normally do a full swing (which they would do occasionally), doesn't mean that a steel sword should only ever produce cuts and not break bones. Even a small stab, or a short swing, would fracture bones occasionally, if you're penetrating to the flesh, then your bones are going to see some damage (unless its a purposeful shallow slice).

Counter point. What of an armed assailant attacking unarmed, and unarmored, civilians? There is little reason to be cautious, so full swings will be used more often. A steel sword can most certainly cut a mans arms off, as he raises them to defend himself. The stats of the sword reflect this. If there is a bug anywhere, it should be to make short swings used more often, and full swings less often, but I think that's already modeled in game? The numbers are probably a little off, and it would be nice to see a community overhaul of the raws, adjusting things, but I would not say the numbers are far off.

If powerful strikes are used to aggressively in combat, I would support a tweak to that. Ideally, somehow influenceable by the raws so that individuals could tweak their dwarves to have the appropriate amount of restraint in combat they deem necessary. We can argue about the frequency at which bones will break with shorter swings, or the frequency that full swings would be used, maybe swords do break bones too often, but its not because the sword is modeled incorrectly, maybe combat needs a tweak?

(And here I think we've finally agreed. You're arguing breaking occurs too often, I argued a sword is very, very capable at break bones often, and the argument has since veered towards how combat is handled.)

I think the only way to solve it now is for someone to create Historical Dwarven Martial Arts, get many practitioners, stage mock-up battles, and once skill converges on a true fighting style, we take the frequency of different attacks used by those practitioners, and try and model that in game. Or we could use a historical analog, but that seems less dwarfy to me...

[Max™]

I've never thought of a dorf as being physically much like a human, more like a cross between a bear, a beard, a beer, and I guess some badger tossed in there, in a vaguely humanoid form. The tales of dorfs punching charging warhorses out from under their riders were in older versions, true, but I've got a modern fort where a dorf tossed a troll 9 or 10 urists by the ear, with his teeth... so when I ponder what a weapon could do in the hands of a dorf, I would lean more towards "what would it do in the hands of a chimpanzee or gorilla with relevant training" than "what would a european knight be able to do", maybe that's just me.

[Col_Jessep]

I've never thought of a dorf as being physically much like a human...

Yup, they are definitely not shorter humans. =D

[Ancalagon_TB]

As someone with over 2 years of medieval sword fighting training (alas, I had to stop due to injury), I can tell you that you do *not* swing a sword like a baseball bat.  This doesn't mean that you are swinging weakly.... When executed properly, the tip of your sword will be moving *very* fast.   Part of the reason why is because the centre of gravity of a sword is not that far from the hilt.  So in a way, you can "tumble" the sword around its own centre of gravity, which requires a lot less energy.

A sword strike chipping or even breaking bone is very believable to me.

And yes, material does matter a lot.  Modern swords* are made of high quality steel and can be much more resilient than some of the not so great (metallurgy wise) swords of the past.  I would expect dwarven swords to have reached that level of metallurgic skill.

*do not confuse a modern sword re-creation with a "sword like object", an sword-shaped wall decoration.  An improperly constructed sword is a menace, and should not be swung around.   Two main faults are using stainless steel (most stainless steels are too brittle, the sword will break) and improper tang construction (a thin steel rod welded to the blade, the weld being a weak point in a location of high stress).

This leads to stuff like this:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2EQWCpnIR8

[Aslandus]

People are really getting into nitpicking the fighting system of this pre-alpha game that already has a more in depth combat system than 90% of games...

[Urist Tilaturist]

People are really getting into nitpicking the fighting system of this pre-alpha game that already has a more in depth combat system than 90% of games...

And because it is so much better, we think we can get it even further.

Ancalagon_TB is right about good sword technique. A good sword strike is quick and direct, not a swing. This is true regardless of strength, so a dwarf who is many times stronger than a man would still do this. The reasons for this are that a quick strike leaves less time for the opponent to react, is less exhausting and does not get stuck in the enemy. Impact energy increases much more quickly with speed than mass, since kinetic energy=half mass*velocity^2 - hence why bullets do so much damage.

These are basic facts of physics and physiology true of super strong dwarves just as much as humans.

As dwarves gain weapon skills to legendary, they should also use their weapons more sensibly. A new recruit may make huge, easily dogdeable slashes, but a legendary swordsdwarf should be much quicker and more restrained in his strikes.

A *steel short sword* should be able to cut and break bone. A copper short sword, not so much. Even a steel sword's ability to do this should be based on item quality - many historical swords were somewhat poorly made, as Ancalagon_TB said.

[Sergarr]

Nitpick: DF doesn't actually use kinetic energy. It uses momentum, contact areas and various yields and fractures to determine the damage. But it doesn't use energy.