Print

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

[Dyret]

Yeah, blunt is really awesome now. Except the maul for whatever reason, you'd think it would impart a lot of force on whatever it hits, but it still doesn't seem on the level of anything else, even on a limb or head strike.

[Neonivek]

Now, however, that isn't the case. Although point taken, they were generally considered the garbage weapons of the dwarf arsenal pre-pulping and such.

They still critically lack from being able to do critical damage outside pulping and lucky hits.

While slashing and piecing weapons can deal deathblows to an opponent just by striking their arm.

Pulping is also something that isn't easy to achieve generally as well and can take many times the required effort. Making swords and spears outright better weapons.

So I am going to contradict what people are saying here and say: No Maces aren't good yet.

[Dyret]

So I am going to contradict what people are saying here and say: No Maces aren't good yet.

Smacking people across the head with them tends to tear apart their spine now. If that's not a critical I don't know what is. Limb blows tend to be crippling as well since they tend to shred joints. Probably still shit against large creatures, though, but that's to be expected of anything that isn't a spear or a sword.

[Splint]

Now, however, that isn't the case. Although point taken, they were generally considered the garbage weapons of the dwarf arsenal pre-pulping and such.

They still critically lack from being able to do critical damage outside pulping and lucky hits.

While slashing and piercing weapons can deal deathblows to an opponent just by striking their arm.

I'd consider debilitating injuries such as broken legs to be critical injuries/damage. The target needn't be gushing blood or limbs removed entirely to have its combat ability severely hampered. In the same vein, hammers suffer from the same.

As to death blows, it depends largely on the size of the target and if the limb is severed or not. A "simple" arm or leg injury in DF almost never kills anything dwarf-sized or larger (and severing a single limb isn't guaranteed to kill either; multiple ones however, will almost universally be fatal,) while something like a kobold will generally be lucky to survive such injuries, as they generally bleed out very, very quickly.

Pulping is also something that isn't easy to achieve generally as well and can take many times the required effort.

It happens regardless of weapon type though, and seems to be the most common way for blunt weapons fighters to kill anything now (since they can crush the target's torso now,) while edged fighters tend to rely on it now for exceedingly large foes or when using shitty materials like silver or copper. It just depends on if they bleed out or have thier nervous system damaged first or not.

Strength of the attacker also probably has a significant impact as well, possibly making it more worthwhile to equip strong units with blunt weapons if they're fresh recruits, while less physically imposing fellows use the spears and such.

Making swords and spears outright better weapons. So I am going to contradict what people are saying here and say: No Maces aren't good yet.

It's not that they're better than other weapons, but more that they're way better than they used to be. Obviously swords, axes, or spears will be better than any mace could hope to be, but that wasn't what was being talked about.

[Neonivek]

Yes Splint but in order for something to be "Good" it needs to be comparative.

And Swords and Spears are leagues apart from Maces. You are deliberately debilitating yourself by using one. It is a challenge run.

That is why it isn't "good". It just doesn't approach being a reasonable option.

Pulping can be called by another name "Overkilling" as in "You should have already killed the enemy" anytime you pulp an enemy, remember that it is a kill any other weapon would have landed longer ago.

Edit: Though the Spine shots are certainly a MUCH needed improvement.

[Splint]

Not everyone prizes efficiency above all things, even military pursuits. If that were the case, nobody would use marksdwarves ever aside from very specific situations, because it's highly wasteful in materials and take forever to train up.

Another thing would be that I'm sure many would consider it more trouble than it's worth to retrain a macedwarf to use a hammer or sword. Or at least I do. I can't really speak for others.

Additionally, I will agree in 34.11 and back, using a mace was basically pointless. Like... Truly, utterly pointless. They worked great in support roles, snapping limbs and such along with hammers, but tended to fall flat of edged weaponry. As an example, I had a macedwarf beat a forgotten beast practically into submission, but without pulping, she couldn't kill it. Too damn big.

However, with torsion and pulping damage, they're actually viable weapons in thier own right now, should one want to field them en masse or a dwarf happens to come with some skills in it.

Save most likely against larger foes. I'd definitely recommend anyone send in the spear or swordsdwarves for those.

EDIT: No, pulping not overkilling. Edged weapons can't always kill with a few hits or severed limbs. A weak dwarf with a copper or even bronze sword may very well need to "pulp" the son of bitch he's wailing on. However, in that same vein, an exceptionally strong wrestler may well crush a human's chest with a single punch, as was the case in a recent fort of mine. Bastard never let anyone else actually get a kill shot in.

But now, the problem we hit is what we're suddenly comparing.

No matter what, no blunt weapon will ever outperform an edged one in terms of being able to kill efficiently. Blunt weapons can't cause extreme blood loss, severe limbs, or cut a man in half. They have to hit with enough force to smash that man's limbs into jelly and then cave in his ribcage or skull.

However, in recent versions, they can no do much of the things they needed to be properly deadly and truly debilitating. And that was the main point. Maces aren't "good" compared to edged weapons; no blunt force weapon ever will be. But they can be called "good" compared to how they used to be, which was at best vendor trash or trap filler.

[Neonivek]

I personally think they need to have more compound fractures as well as conditions that occur due to blunt force trauma (such as losing too many ribs).

I think Maces can't even cut Chitin yet either.

[Splint]

I personally think they need to have more compound fractures as well as conditions that occur due to blunt force trauma (such as losing too many ribs).

I think Maces can't even cut Chitin yet either.

I haven't tried it, but I think maces and possibly hammers seem to have this odd problem of bouncing off chitin. At least as of 34.11 I know they had trouble doing so. Literally the one thing they couldn't deal with ever.

[Fleeting Frames]

I'll have to side with Neonivek, here.

Yeah, blunt is really awesome now. Except the maul for whatever reason, you'd think it would impart a lot of force on whatever it hits, but it still doesn't seem on the level of anything else, even on a limb or head strike.

"Really awesome" gives the impression more along the lines of "can stand up to best possible native weapon" or at least "best pick against more than just undead now" rather than "Use if you don't want to use a pick, a spear, an axe or a sword".

Last page discussed maximally hobbled morningstars absolutely destroying things, though they're edged to some extent.

Even more bluntly, I've also seen whips described as strong weapons capable of one-shotting on things with bones or easily devastating bronze colossi, before this buff - not getting the impression of "blunt weapon is always worse than edged", there

I just did some tests with a bunch of grand master armour and proficient mace/hammer users in the arena, with copper weapons and full steel armour.

It seems as though hammers are better at damaging through superior armour than maces overall, but maces have a much higher damage potential and a drastically greater chance to twist limbs back for massive damage and drive ribs through organs. I found I had much less glancing blows with the hammer, causing plenty of muscle damage, but when the mace actually hit, it hit like a goddamn truck.

How do you set up this, btw? I'd be curious about the results of blunt VS standard edged weaponry.

[George_Chickens]

I just did some tests with a bunch of grand master armour and proficient mace/hammer users in the arena, with copper weapons and full steel armour. I also posessed

It seems as though hammers are better at damaging through superior armour than maces overall, but maces have a much higher damage potential and a drastically greater chance to twist limbs back for massive damage and drive ribs through organs. I found I had much less glancing blows with the hammer, causing plenty of muscle damage, but when the mace actually hit, it hit like a goddamn truck.

How do you set up this, btw? I'd be curious about the results of blunt VS standard edged weaponry.

I spawned in two humans with full steel armor, and gave a copper weapon to (first a mace, then a hammer and finally a spear) who I possessed. Both had proficient skills in all weapons and were grand master armour users. I took note of how many blows it took before they collapsed (from injury or pain) or died, as well as how many glanced off. The spear never even pierced through. I've also repeated this test with a few other materials, like bronze and steel, but blunt weapons seem to totally wreck armour almost regardless of what they are made out of.

I have a really hard time agreeing that blunt weapons are inferior to edged ones when a mace of almost any hard material can get a man in full armor made of superior materials, on the ground, disabled and ready for a coup de grace in several blows in scenarios where even a spear would not suffice. Though, I wonder how they stack up against megabeasts and animals.

I also did some tests on chitin, with a few ant men and giant mantises, and it seems as though they still suck with chitin, but nowhere near as much since I got a bit of bleeding and ripping of fat.

[Splint]

As far as "efficiency," I was saying they're terrible vs edged weapons, since they generally can't cause bleedouts and take off head/limbs/bisect people. But at least now they're actually viable compared to how they used to be.

Which is good.

_{Splint likes maces for thier flanges.}

[Fleeting Frames]

Hm, figured out equipping things in arena...Running in 42.06 (alas, not really appropriate for thread, but personal motivation :p) with grand master everything and steel suit + shield + axe or mace, the macedwarf managed to kill the axedwarf with only a bruise on right arm (punch) and neck (axe) in return.

....Trying that out again, with 7 v 7. Martial trance on axedwarf side, but the macedwarves kill all axedwarves anyway with only bruises to show for it. Tossing in a bronze colossus with steel suit/axe/shield and grand master everything does end the dwarves, but the first kill blow comes from the steel shield. Though axe does manage to cut things, this time.

Surprising. On the flip side, 3 such axedwarves manage to kill an unskilled hydra handily, while macedwarves tire themselves out (giving hydra like dozen red wounds, though) and die.

There's also the fact that edged weapons are more hurt by having lowest quality than blunt weapons are, though. On the flip side, would expect maces to do better in 43.05.

E: 42, 9 giant saltwater crocs versus 1 dwarf of steel, mace kills 2 and axe 1 before they both overexert them to death ( vs 1 and 3 they both did perfectly well, though ).

[eerr]

Low quality maces are better than low quality axes vs armor? I'll buy it!

Maces were made in the iron era, mass produced to arm the unskilled masses.

Simple to use and deadly even to armored folk.

Swords are a refined art and required finer workmanship than a blunt object.

[DeCervantes]

Iwould say that maces are now viable weapons in general. Of courseif the weapon can cut through the armor edge weapons will be better but thanks to the new mechanics blunt weapons will outperform swords against armor that cannot be penetrated.

Funny because that is why maces were used in thnlate middle ages, to bash through armor.

[Melting Sky]

As I mentioned earlier I did some pretty extensive weapon and armor efficacy testing back in 34.11 so my data is old, but the one thing I learned from all that testing is that as a general rule there is no "best" weapon for every situation. Differing classes of weapons excelled and failed depending on context and usage. Here is what I found to be true back in that version.

As a general rule edged weapons need to be made of good materials and of good workmanship to really shine. Aside for daggers and morning stars you should NEVER use an edged weapon made of a worse material than the thing you are trying to hit. If you attack a guy in full iron armor with a copper battle axe there isn't a snowball chance in hell of winning the fight.

Blunt weapons have always excelled against small to medium sized foes that have bones and are capable of feeling pain. They are very good against armored foes where as low quality edged weapons will just bounce off. Case and point when I put a bunch of dwarves in full iron armor and give one group silver hammers and the other steel battle axes, the hammer dwarves would win quite consistently, at least in the old version.

Make your edged weapons out of good metal, steel or better is best. Edged weapons are a must for enemies that need to be bisected or beheaded to kill them. This includes things like husks and Colossi. They are absolutely useless trash when used against anything made of a better material than the blade.

Blunt weapons can be made of crappy material and by an incompetent craftsman and they will still be decent in combat. They excel against medium or smaller organic creatures with bones that are capable of feeling pain. They excel against opponents in good armor. Against inorganic opponents incapable of feeling pain they are terrible. The bigger the opponent the worse they get.

For specialize applications where you need to bisect a large enemy, battle axes are the best thing dwarves can wield followed by the pick axe.

Outside of a couple of fringe cases, the best all around weapon a dwarf can natively make and wield is the pick axe.

For blunt weapons the hammers were better than normal maces (not morning stars) for all the applications I tested.

Spears are pretty decent edged weapons that excel vs large organic opponents with nice juicy organs that can be pierced thanks to their great penetration depth. In more general applications battle axes and picks are better.

Short Swords excel at nothing and are the worst native edged weapon you can make. Low quality long swords made of semi decent material like iron are generally slightly better than masterwork steel short swords.

Morning stars will perform better than any blunt weapon a dwarf can wield for those tasks that blunt weapons are normally good at such as killing humanoids capable of feeling pain, particularly ones in good armor. Nothing a dwarf can wield rips apart normal humanoid foes better than a morning star. They are the king of one hit incapacitation.

As I said, this information is dated concerning blunt weapon, but the point behind writing this was just to illustrate how generally there is no "best" weapon for every possible situation. Of the weapons dwarves can wield the ones that stood out as best in class or overall great weapons were the pick, morning star and battle axe with the spear getting an honorably mention if you live in a biome with lots of giant animals or semi-mega beasts. Weapons that stood out as worst in class were the regular mace and short sword.