Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic: Are marksdwarves a waste of time (macedwarves, too?)  (Read 4318 times)

Roofless

  • Bay Watcher
  • Never had a glass industry
    • View Profile
Re: Are marksdwarves a waste of time (macedwarves, too?)
« Reply #15 on: February 18, 2016, 05:41:53 am »

I find my marksdwarves most usefull when dealing with forgotten beasts that have AoE special attacks.
But, in my opinion, it is quite realistic that they are crap at killing enemies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but historically archers and crossbowmen where supposed to soften up the enemy before melee fighters or cavalry charges in to finish the job.

P.S. in comparison to previous versions, IMO, marksdwarves where somewhat buffed by the fact that goblins no longer have legendary fighters during sieges. I will never forget how two goblin legendaries wiped out two full squads of my marksdwarves firing through the fortifications.

As for macedwarfs - after the zombie nerf arrived, I believe axes are king of the hill in weapons right now. No point in training something else at all.
Logged

Tawa

  • Bay Watcher
  • the first mankind all over the world
    • View Profile
Re: Are marksdwarves a waste of time (macedwarves, too?)
« Reply #16 on: February 18, 2016, 05:55:06 am »

Maces are redundant in the face of hammers, because the hammerdwarf skill has the additional bonus of being used for mêleé crossbow combat. Personally, I keep a half-full squad of crossbowdwarves alongside a squad or two of warriors; I usually just pull the crossbowdwarves out of ranger immigrants who are already trained in their usage.
Logged
I don't use Bay12 much anymore. PM me if you need to get in touch with me and I'll send you my Discord handle.

Saiko Kila

  • Bay Watcher
  • Dwarven alchemist
    • View Profile
Re: Are marksdwarves a waste of time (macedwarves, too?)
« Reply #17 on: February 18, 2016, 05:57:04 am »

Marksdwarves are very useful. You need the numbers though, like a 10-people squad (which is enough in unmodded game in non-evil/savage biome). Shooting down keas or giant keas alone is worth it, but they are also good against both regular enemies and more funny Forgotten Beasts. Of course it's bad if they are allowed to get close enough to melee, though legendary steel crossbows, which I ultimately issue, can kill a troll by bashing his head a couple of times. Also, I do not have the problem with marksdwarves jumping down from fortified tower even in my 0.40.x fort, maybe because I've built it with this issue in mind (if the fort is high enough, the dwarves seem to be able to shoot down with few issues, while stupid goblins have problems with aim, at least that's my experience).

Macedwarves I use only when I get the migrants, preferably king's bodyguards. I have the luck of always getting macedwarves, so I work with what I get.

My preferables are however axedwarves and speardwarves, which are the most universal mix. I add hammers only for colour.
Logged

RocheLimit

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Are marksdwarves a waste of time (macedwarves, too?)
« Reply #18 on: February 18, 2016, 10:13:51 am »

I've got two squads of Mace Lords in my current fort and they seem to do fairly well, especially against creatures that can feel pain.  Most of their fights end in two swings: a hit to an extremity to cause pain and unconsciousness, and then a single hit to the head to crush it even through armor.

They do have trouble facing some enemies, such as the Frogmen in my Fortress-Defense modded world; I guess their squishy bodies are much more resilient than a goblin's.

However, they do have an additional thing going for them.  The Mace skill also governs the use of Morningstars.  Which, in my opinion, are still pretty overpowered.  With the contact area of a warhammer, 2.5 times the penetration, an Edge attack instead of a Blunt, and a higher velocity than any other Edge Weapon, it makes for a very well rounded weapon (though I would say a Pick is a better general-purpose weapon).

As for crossbows, I find they have their uses.  They rarely kill anymore, but they still do an excellent job of distracting enemies and giving your melee dwarves an easier time.  Also, if their dodge skill is high enough, they make great decoys.  And with a properly designed chamber, they make good executioners for Forgotten Beasts and Mega Beasts.


Niddhoger

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Are marksdwarves a waste of time (macedwarves, too?)
« Reply #19 on: February 18, 2016, 01:06:25 pm »

A great use of marksdwarves is when you are settled in an area that see tons of keas visiting your map.
Having your marksdwarves barrack in the exterior will make you appreciate them a lot when the kea problem is no more a problem and instead will help you getting nicely skilled marksdwarves.

Heh, I build a marksmen barracks over my front entrance, then line it with fortifications.  I then dig a moat and cheer every time I see a dead kea splattered at the bottom.  TRY STEALING THIS BOLT YOU BLOODY BASTARD! /cackles madly

Btw, you can also train marksmen by just enabling 10 guys as hunters.  They'll go out and gain marks/archery levels while bringing in meat/bone/leather for you.  Just... make sure elephants and other nasty critters aren't on your map.  Or just never do it in a savage biome if you don't think your cheesmonger recruit can take down a giant cheetah... >.>  Or just draft them into a marks squad and hunt via the "kill" orders. 

I think there is another bug related to storing ammo in bins.  In that even if you have thousands of bolts that are all enabled (with the green check mark) for training, they won't take them out of the bins first.  Yet another reason to hit bins!
Logged

greycat

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Are marksdwarves a waste of time (macedwarves, too?)
« Reply #20 on: February 18, 2016, 04:17:55 pm »

I don't know exactly how ammunition is assigned. Is the total amount split evenly between all dwarves, and they will only pick up that much? Or will they fill their quivers and deny lower-priority squad members access to the ammunition?

The bolts you assign to a squad are for the whole squad.  If you want each dwarf to have a full quiver, then you have to assign at least 250 bolts to the squad, assuming a full 10 members.  Assign 500 to be absolutely sure (see below).

A quiver nominally holds 25 bolts, but this is not really how it works.  In reality, a quiver has no specific capacity; it simply cannot hold any more stacks of bolts once it has 25 or more bolts in it.  A marksdwarf will try to fill up her quiver.  She'll do this by grabbing one stack at a time, until the quiver cannot hold any more stacks.

If a marksdwarf starts with an empty quiver, and the first stack she grabs has 25 bolts in it (the amount produced by a metal forge), then she's done.  The quiver is "full".

However, if her quiver already has some bolts in it, then the stack she grabs may put her over 25.  This is not a problem for the quiver.  The extra weight may be a problem for her, and the bolt shortage may be a problem for the rest of the squad... or not.  Always assign a crapload of bolts to your squads.  Always make twice as many bolts as you think you need.

I don't know if it's still happening in 42.x as i don't use this wall/fortification setup anymore, but in 40.x marksdwarves were stupid enough to jump - through - fortifications that were on top of my walls after a few seconds of shooting at an enemy. I had lost several of those idiots against a serpentine-like titan with their stupid stunt.

One theory I've seen is that the marksdwarves are actually climbing over the fortifications, and that a roof over the fortifications will stop them.  I haven't tested this myself.

I've found them [macedwarves] to be pretty worthless against undead. All they do is cause bruising, which doesn't bother the undead very much. I guess after a few dozen bruises in the same location it will get pulped, but one or two axe hits and it's removed.

Which version are you playing?  There was a major change to the undead in 0.42.05.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2016, 04:24:46 pm by greycat »
Logged
Hell, if nobody's suffocated because of it, it hardly counts as a bug! -- StLeibowitz

Arcvasti

  • Bay Watcher
  • [IS_ALREADY_HERE] [FRIENDSHIPPER:HIGH]
    • View Profile
Re: Are marksdwarves a waste of time (macedwarves, too?)
« Reply #21 on: February 18, 2016, 04:45:12 pm »

Marksdwarves rarely kill outright, but they're fantastic at crippling enemies, even with bone bolts. They also make excellent deterrents for annoying wildlife, like Rhesus Macaques.

Macedwarves... A while ago, they were strictly inferior to hammerdwarves. Since the pulping changes, they're supposed to be better[Since maces have a smaller contact area or something?], but they might not be the best in fort mode. Pulping damage is cumulative: If you repeatedly bop a body part with a blunt weapon, it'll pulp, even if the individual hits do nothing but bruise. That said, I'm not sure that dwarven combat AI is currently smart enough to use this kind of focused attack, except against the heads of helpless enemies.
Logged
If you expect to live forever then you will never be disappointed.
Spooky Signature
To fix the horrid default colour scheme, follow the below steps:
Profile> Modify Profile> Look and Layout> Current Theme> (change)> Darkling

mirrizin

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Are marksdwarves a waste of time (macedwarves, too?)
« Reply #22 on: February 18, 2016, 05:29:38 pm »

I usually keep a few squads of crossbow dwarves handy. In the latest version, they're not incredible but they've definitely softened up the leading edge of several goblin sieges. I've definitely not noticed a particular lack of effectiveness from my mace lord, but I also don't often watch combat that closely.
Logged

Leebears

  • Escaped Lunatic
    • View Profile
Re: Are marksdwarves a waste of time (macedwarves, too?)
« Reply #23 on: February 18, 2016, 05:40:32 pm »

Here's how I do marksdwarves:

Assign any less-than-ideal dwarves to a marksdwarf squad.  Have them only use chainmail armor, no breastplates/greaves.  Make archery ranges for them, no barracks. Leave the squad setting as inactive. Enable the weaving and/or plant gathering labors on them. Have a large fruit gathering zone outside your gate, and have auto-collect webs enabled in your orders menu.  Have a large ammo stockpile that doesn't use bins, and keep churning out wood/bone bolts. Now your marksdwarf squad will be patrolling the areas outside your gate/in the caverns, taking care of random critters. In their downtime they'll shoot at archery targets and irritating buzzards/keas/etc that cause job cancellation spam, all the while bringing in a lot of useful raw materials to your fort.

As for macedwarves, get morningstars from human caravan/dead invaders and enjoy your new mobile meat grinder squad.
Logged

slashnul

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Are marksdwarves a waste of time (macedwarves, too?)
« Reply #24 on: February 18, 2016, 11:07:33 pm »

Great advice, you wont find any better.  Can close the thread.
Logged

Melting Sky

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Are marksdwarves a waste of time (macedwarves, too?)
« Reply #25 on: February 19, 2016, 07:35:49 am »

So long as you have access to traders or goblinite, mace dwarves are VASTLY more powerful than hammer dwarves. Just give them morning stars which will be considerably better than a war hammer regardless of quality. The only time you should consider making hammer dwarves is if you can't seem to find morning stars due to no caravan access and no goblins.

I should also add that against most enemy types you will face, mace dwarves with morning stars will also outperform axe dwarves.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2016, 07:39:24 am by Melting Sky »
Logged

achamalacha

  • Bay Watcher
  • Hi there, you might know me from other tags like..
    • View Profile
Re: Are marksdwarves a waste of time (macedwarves, too?)
« Reply #26 on: February 20, 2016, 08:00:19 am »

It is good to drive those annoying flying birds away.

second this. the only time I care to levy a marksdwarf squad is on embarks where flying critter appear. Pretty much the only anti air available ;)
Logged

Spinning Fly

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Are marksdwarves a waste of time (macedwarves, too?)
« Reply #27 on: February 20, 2016, 08:20:59 am »

A bit off-topic, but how do swords (native and foreign), spears, axes and whips fit into this spectrum?
Logged
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. The competent use magma.

Urist McVoyager

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Are marksdwarves a waste of time (macedwarves, too?)
« Reply #28 on: February 21, 2016, 08:29:56 pm »

Eh, I'd say each weapon has its uses. Hammers and maces to break bones on things like the Undead so you don't have reanimating body parts. Crossbows for weakening things so they have less of a chance to harm your people. Or even just to distract them while your other soldiers come in for the fight. Spears are there to get stuck in and distract the enemy from up close. Whips are there to do deep pinpoint damage (though I'm unsure if they're useless for it now after some of the combat reworking). Axes are for severing limbs when you really just want to end fights quickly. And swords are there for when you just need an all around squad and aren't particularly worried about doing any one thing very well.

But yeah, hammers beat out maces because their skill plays backup for Marksdwarves. Plus, you know, they're the default punishment weapon too. So they have more uses.
Logged

Untelligent

  • Bay Watcher
  • I eat flesh!
    • View Profile
Re: Are marksdwarves a waste of time (macedwarves, too?)
« Reply #29 on: February 21, 2016, 08:58:37 pm »

Marksdwarves are lousy at killing things, but they're great at incapacitating incoming enemies before your melee soldiers hit them, reducing the risk of injury.
Logged
The World Without Knifebear — A much safer world indeed.
regardless, the slime shooter will be completed, come hell or high water, which are both entirely plausible setbacks at this point.
Pages: 1 [2] 3