Print

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

[Sver]

If talking real-life physics, sure, both of you are correct, but we're talking about DF abstractions here. And yes, the formula on the wiki might be incorrect - I could never find the source for it.

Regarding the weight question specifically, I was talking about how there is little difference in performance of two absolutely equivalent weapons of the same material, but of different SIZE values.

On the second note, it is possible that density doesn't matter either, as is originally implied by the formula. There were some tests earlier, which suggested a much lower deviation between silver and steel hammers, and with the sheer amount of factors to take into account (random individual creature size that impacts charges and wrestling, semi-random target bodyparts from a huge selection, skill gain during the fight, effective and ineffective usage of wrestling moves, punches, kicks and bites, successful and unsuccessful stuns, snowball effect etc.), on such a small sample size the difference might be well within the margin of error.

And then it is possible that the formula is correct, but actually deals down the zeroes on some of the values from the raws (be it density, or weapon size, or creature size) behind the scenes, so they can have a greater or lesser impact than what is seen.

Edit 1:
To clarify further on the weapon SIZE question, what I meant is that it doesn't have much impact within the values used for vanilla-ish weapons, as most of them are beyond a threshold, so to speak, where weight is already too big to matter. Assuming the wiki formula is correct, if you mod in two weapons with extremely low SIZE values (say, 10 and 20), it should amplify the difference in momentum between them.
So, for vanilla silver mace and hammer comparision it goes like this:

2 * (10490[silver density] * 400[vanilla war hammer size] + 60000[average dwarf size])  / (10490 * 800[vanilla mace size] + 60000) = 2 * 4256000 / 8452000 = 2 * 0,503~ = 1,007~

Now compare the same, but assume the hammer has [SIZE:10] and mace has [SIZE:20].

2 * (10490 * 10 + 60000)  / (10490 * 20  + 60000) = 2 * 164900  / 269800 = 2 * 0,611~ = 1,222~

This is basically going from a 1% mometum gain from 200 volume-points to a 22% gain from just 10 volume-points.

...Now that it is layed out like that, one thing surely seems odd - for the weapon, the formula takes both volume and density into account, but for the user creature it only counts the volume 

Edit 2:

Assuming the momentum table on the wiki is correct, the numbers suggest that raw density value is divided roughly by 10^5 when used in the formula. If so, then the same calculation would go like this:

2 * (10490 * 400 / 10^5 + 60000)  / (10490 * 800 / 10^5 + 60000) = 2 * 60041,96/60083,92 = 2 * 0,999~ = 2~

In that case anewaname is right.

Edit 3:

Out of interest, I've run a test with maces and hammers both modded to have the same contact area of 12. Their velocity (2k for both) and size value (800 for maces, 400 for hammers) remained the same.

1v1 fights, x14 per test (individual cells)
Skilled Mace/Hammer, Proficient Armor User
full steel armor (helm, mail shirt, breastplace, greaves, 2 gauntlets, 2 low boots), 2x steel mace/war hammer (for each hand to reduce the frequency of wrestling)

Results over 10 tests:
50 mace victories
85 hammer victories
For a total of 62-63% hammer advantage

This would lead to assume that having a lighter weapon is somehow actually beneficial in armored blunt combat, until you look at the creature descriptions to highlight the problem with this method:

7 Hammerdwarves are larger than average
2 Macedwarves are larger than average
4 Macedwarves are smaller than average

To conclude, in lab conditions where combatants and weapon properties are exactly the same, higher weapon weight may or may not give an edge to one weapon, but, regardless, the difference is rendered inconsequential by the "heavier" factors.