Print

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

[Footkerchief]

isn't swinging for a weak point the kind of thing that experience is supposed to represent for a character?

Maybe in D&D.  In current DF, it just makes you hit harder, there's no attempt to represent the targeting of weak points.  I personally would rather see a much wider variety of combat skills that emphasize the differences and similarities between weapons, and the physical and mental abilities needed to use them.

So if you're doing manual combat, you might aim for a weak point, but miss just because your body is not accustomed to the motion of swinging things, or because your strength or focus sucks.  There could be a skill like "Duelist" to control the AI's ability to find weak points, but I think it's important that when you're taking manual control, you can make decisions that the game wouldn't ordinarily make for you.  Just like attacking an innocent townsperson or whatever.

Yes, but if you go for a downward chop for every spider then the choice becomes meaningless, at least when fighting spiders. And there are not so many kinds of enemies.. So "this creature has a weak point there" becomes "if creature == <X> then attack <like that>". It's not even a decision. And forget about spiders, what about humanoid armed opponents? How to choose where to attack and defend?

You're forgetting that the spiders move around too.  The spider might throw up its front legs to defend itself, forcing you to stab at its eyes instead.  Of course, you need a way of knowing the spider has raised its front legs, which means the attack grid has to display some basic info about what positions the enemy's body parts and weapons occupy in YOUR grid (and remember the grid is really arcs, angular areas).

[bjlong]

First, some things I let pile up:

When talking about thrusts from the extended position, I imagined a fencer's lunge. I wouldn't be comfortable saying that it takes the fighter into the next tile, because he still has to recover to the original tile, but it definitely extends the range of a thrust by a good couple of feet.

Talking about experience, I was thinking about things like seeing what's open quickly (it gets marked on your selections), defending quickly, having a faster reaction time, and perhaps some other extra goodies that I haven't quite figured out how to put into computer speak.

On to new things!

Dodging "in place" should be a valid technique, but it's a level of sophistication beyond what we can do now. Perhaps it's best to randomize it according to skill and agility, but let it fail 50% of the time, even for legendary military dwarves with godly agility.

As for why a reaction couldn't be an attack, an attack would be fine, but the opponent should carry through their last attack, even if you're splitting their head open. So if you hit them in the weapon arm, then the attack should stop. As a note, I was thinking of the redirect being made with the "flat" of the blade, or whatever the equivalent is. Also! the reaction should depend on how long ago you did your last action, as well as how agile you are.

The crossbow thing was something I was basing off of hearing and a reflex reaction--perhaps it would be better to put this in with the battlefield stat talked about in some other topic.

Now that I think about it, we could keep weapons with two grip points pivoting about the center of those two for normal slashes. If you want to simulate hilt-striking with a quarterstaff, it shouldn't be too much different from a normal slash, either, so that's good. Perhaps you input [ o ]ffhand end <slash start> <slash end>. This wouldn't require any big changes in stance, either. (This actually sounds like a good way to implement pommel bashing). The only problem comes when we start thinking about what happens between the hands. Really, it's a stop-block that becomes a deflection with your next attack, and I'm having trouble figuring out how to tell the computer that.

It's true that armored fighting was a lot more drawn out, but, again, it was no more than a minute or two of intense fighting. Here the wrestling interface will have to come into play a lot more.

So, we need to be able to represent a lot more meaningful information in the interface. I absolutely agree, but this meaningful information needs to be filtered through the character's lens, so an inexperienced character might have no idea what to do and give no extra information, or give false information.

Also, creatures should have a set of AI instructions to cover their weak points, like how the mantis covers its relatively weak skeleton by making circular blocks and evasions, which would make battles more interesting.

Edit: Made more readable

[Tormy]

Dodging "in place" should be a valid technique, but it's a level of sophistication beyond what we can do now. Perhaps it's best to randomize it according to skill and agility, but let it fail 50% of the time, even for legendary military dwarves with godly agility.

What? Let it fail 50% of the time? Why? That is making no sense. If a dwarf or any other creature is super agile and has the appropriate skills, he/she should be able to dodge almost all of the hits of some low skilled, unagile and slow creature.
Just think about real life. Fat, slow and unskilled man whose weight is 300 pounds vs. aikido master. 

[bjlong]

My reasoning: mostly for play balance. If I can dodge your attacks while I throw out another attack, why defend? I'd like to see a way for this to become more prevalent, sure, but for now it shouldn't be too heavily relied upon.

[Tormy]

My reasoning: mostly for play balance. If I can dodge your attacks while I throw out another attack, why defend? I'd like to see a way for this to become more prevalent, sure, but for now it shouldn't be too heavily relied upon.

Well yeah that makes sense indeed, but the 50% rule would be absolutely unrealistic.
As for your question:
If I can dodge your attacks while I throw out another attack, why defend?

We gonna have a new attribute.
ENDURANCE - this'll take some of the weight off of toughness and control your exertion.

So let's say that some creatures dodges most of the incoming attacks of his foe. His oppoment will be quite tired after a period [Each and every attack maneuver should have a a negative effect on the creature's endurance]. That is the right time to attack the tired creature, since basically that creature is almost harmless now, because of his very low endurance. This is the best method to avoid being injured. 

[bjlong]

Interesting... good work around.

Another idea I was tossing around was making dodging an "option" on the defense screen that only shows up if the character thinks s/he can dodge the attack, and make the character unable to use the blade for that point in time.

As a note, dodging attacks that pass through 5 without moving to a different tile might need to be impossible, as I can tell you for certain that trying to dodge a slice to the gut will leave you dead, unless you get really, really lucky.

[Fieari]

As a sometime practitioner of both European AND Japanese fencing styles, allow me to point out a few differences between them, and implications for the proposed combat system, particularly in how to handle speed and binding.

Japanese weapons are often considered superior to European.  This is not technically true.  It is true that against an un-armored opponent, the katana will win almost every time.  Even against a lightly armored opponent.  A katana is sharp, and can cut.  A katana is also lighter and faster.  But the Europeans never made katanas, and for a very good reason.  That sharpness is WORTHLESS against heavy armor, which the Europeans had -and the Japanese lacked-.

European Weapons
A European heavy armor battle is made not to cut an opponent apart, but to bash his armor in and sever things like a woodcutting axe.  There needs to be some good mass there, and the "edge" needs to be able to withstand a beating, so it's kept mostly dull.  The wedge is there to optimize the crushing of armor, and you'll see this even in their maces which were flanged.  Those edges, insufficient to cut, can really make a good dent in metal, and it's enough of a wedge with enough power that it can RIP flesh, if not slice it.

The downside is speed.  Longswords need some hefty windup and a lot of power to get enough energy to go through armor.  Lesser strikes work too, but even these have to be enough so that while the hit won't dent (and kill) the opponent, they'll knock him off balance or shake him about (like softening up a boxer, working towards delivering a concussion).  This takes a lot of energy, and means that theres a considerable amount of windup to perform.  This is true even against the unarmored, because you need to tear, not slice.

Now remember, the Japanese LACKED heavy armor.  The best armor they had was banded or ring mail, not heavy plate.  Many had only leather, or were completely unarmored.  In this situation, an edge will, quite frankly, grant you an edge.

Japanese Weapons
This edge has MAJOR and MASSIVE implications on combat.  Let's go back to europe a moment. To use the numpad system, Europe would find use for all 8 digits, because the windup is needed.  Starting out at 6 or 7 or whichever opens up half your body to attack, but it doesn't matter too much, because your opponent needs to wind up too, and by the time he can take advantage of the opening, your attack can be modified into a defence, or if he doesn't take advantage, your attack can remain an attack.  If he attacked your opening without winding up, it'd hardly matter, because the attack would barely hurt you without the power behind it.*

Japan doesn't have this problem.  With an edge against unarmored or lightly armored flesh, the slightest touch is basically a kill.  As far as Japan is concerned, a katana is a lightsaber.  (As far as Europe is concerned, a Katana is a toothpick-- if heavy armor is available)  If two swordsmen are in range of each other, and either one moves to either side (7, 4, 1 / 9, 6, 3) then the other can rapidly rush in with an 8-5 strike and kill.  The person who started won't have the chance to finish.

This means that while European fighters can always use the whole numpad, Japanese fighters who are within range of each other use NOTHING but 8-5.  They won't even touch 2, because their weapons are single-edged and being so low is thus ineffective. (Kendo Kata #1 teaches that anyone who goes too low in a strike is dead).  Only when outside of each other's range will they place their swords in a 1 or 3 position, and this is mostly to trick the opponent into misjudging their range (does he have a 40 inch blade or a 60 inch blade?  When will he strike? The rear 7 position hides the lenge of the blade very well)

Enter: Wristwork
Yet, with only the 8 and 5 positions available to them, they can strike a HUGE range of targets via two means.  The first is footwork, stepping to the side before making a strike (Kata #2 teaches that a sidestep can both be a defensive move-- getting out of the way-- and an offensive one-- opening up an undefended area in the opponent while keeping yourself safe).  The second is in twisting the sword.

Consider that 8-5 is the most optional move you can make.  Consider that two Samurai approach each other.  Both Samurai want to cut 8-5.  Both Samurai know that the other wants to do exactly the same thing.  So there is no surprise comming, because anything surprising would be death to the one giving the surprise.

So Samurai A comes in to cut 8-5.  Samurai B reacts, but when he comes up to 8, he twists the blade slightly.  This twist, adding maybe an inch, maybe even just half an inch to the area his sword covers, will knock the A's blade completely to the side when they bind together near A's hilt.  Now A's blade is located at 7, and as I established before, being at 7 is death.  Samurai B then twists back to normal, completes the 8-5, and kills.

The stomach, in a horizontal strike, can also be hit with a combination of 8-5, footwork, and wristwork.  What happens is that if you're fast enough, you can run past the opponent while he's still at position 8, come down to 5 to his side, twist the blade, and then as you pass cut his guts open.

Now, European longsword uses similar wrist twists, which is why I really think it's crucial to the combat system, but Katana RELIES on it.  Every move is 8-5, so you may as well not even bother with the selection interface for it.  But every 8-5 move is VASTLY different with wristwork.  Footwork and wristwork are the ONLY things differentiating moves.  Longsword has the full numpad AND footwork AND wristwork, and being better at each means improvements.





*Footnote: I don't want you to think European fencing is a VERY slow, cumbersom thing.  When I say slow, I mean relatively so, where the relation is the ratio of your speed to your opponent's speed.  The actual fighting will be VERY fast, especially to an observer.

[bjlong]

Fieari:

While I don't mean to make all your observations invalid, a lot of what you're saying about European swordsmanship doesn't live up to what the source texts say. Please note, these are common errors made over and over again, which many historical fencing organizations try to correct.

First, your explanation of a very dull edge is false, as artifacts from the high middle ages point out. In cutting tests against a tatami performed by the History Channel, European antiques and Japanese katana performed similarly. Furthermore, many techniques described in fencing manuals of the time require slices to an unarmored man's arms. This is not to say that the katana and the European swords are of the same sharpness (far from it! Japanese draw cuts could not be done nearly as effectively with a similar double-edged sword!), but that the differences are much slighter than most people think.

Second, swords were never intended to go through armor, or dent or bash it with the edge. There is little to no evidence to show that a sword ever made it through platemaille, save by exploiting chinks in the armor. This is also reflected in the fighting manuals, which advocated using a shortened bind (also known as a bind at the half-sword) to gain more control over the tip, so as to put it through a small chink at a vital spot.

(Note: Yes, this involved gripping a cutting blade, but this does not mean the blade could not slice, merely that the blade had to be straight and without dents. Here's a quick test--find a serrated knife and an unserrated knife. Grip the blade of one lightly, until you feel slightly uncomfortable. Pull the blade with slowly increasing force until you feel slight pain. Do so for the other knife. The straight knife should be much more secure without feeling much, or any, pain.)

Third, the kendo opening attacks seem to me to pass through the Vom Tag (or Vom Dach) position, and no further backwards. Several manuals from Europe warn explicitly against pulling back from the Vom Tag position, and give counters to people who do. It seems that both European and Japanese "wind-ups" work with the same postures. (Note: John Clements is a horrible practitioner in this right--he pulls all the way back in his test-cutting, which enables him to make some of those impressive cuts, but leaves him wide open for stabs to the face, or a counter to the arms.)

That was all I've got leave to talk about, so I'll be asking questions from here, trying to get a feeling for what techniques are valid in Kendo. (On a side note--have you ever had any experience with a Kenjutsu school, and if so, did it seem different at all?)

I was looking for some plays in Kendo, to remind myself of some things I had seen before, and I came across this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0KI6-Lf21Y

Are the techniques in the first section valid? If not, which ones and why not?

You've said that wrist control is vital to Kendo. How would you incorporate this into the current system?

[Footkerchief]

As for why a reaction couldn't be an attack, an attack would be fine, but the opponent should carry through their last attack, even if you're splitting their head open. So if you hit them in the weapon arm, then the attack should stop. As a note, I was thinking of the redirect being made with the "flat" of the blade, or whatever the equivalent is. Also! the reaction should depend on how long ago you did your last action, as well as how agile you are.

Oh, so you just mean situations where you finish your last turn (i.e., you complete your last action) and your opponent currently has an attack in progress?  Yes, I agree.  I had thought you meant a timeline like 1) you start an attack, 2) enemy starts attack, 3) you block his attack even though your own attack is in progress, which doesn't make much sense.

Now that I think about it, we could keep weapons with two grip points pivoting about the center of those two for normal slashes. If you want to simulate hilt-striking with a quarterstaff, it shouldn't be too much different from a normal slash, either, so that's good. Perhaps you input [ o ]ffhand end <slash start> <slash end>. This wouldn't require any big changes in stance, either. (This actually sounds like a good way to implement pommel bashing). The only problem comes when we start thinking about what happens between the hands. Really, it's a stop-block that becomes a deflection with your next attack, and I'm having trouble figuring out how to tell the computer that.

Central pivot points for multigrasped weapons... that doesn't work for a lot of situations, like choking up an a two-handed axe.  I suppose you could let the user do something like select any pivot point between the grasps, but... eegh.  I think pivoting at one hand (with the option of thrusting both hands for a crossblock) works well as a general solution for multigrasped weapons, even though it doesn't do staffs justice.

Okay, here's an idea for reconciling one-handed hilt bashes, two-handed hilt bashes, and quarterstaff blows.  The game tracks which end of the weapon is the "active" end, and you can toggle it in the attack dialog (which makes your turn take slightly more in-game time, and also updates your attack grid to reflect changes in reach).  If your weapon is one-handed, you attack like usual.  If your weapon is multigrasp, the game assumes that the grasp closer to the active end is the active grasp, and the other hand is the pivot.  If you then input a slash, the game slashes with your active hand, using your off hand as a pivot (although it won't do much pivoting for a broadsword).  If you input a thrust instead, you get a second attack dialog for your off hand that lets you either thrust to another area (for a crossblock) or remain stationary (for a jab).

You can avoid a lot of complications by assuming that the active end is always in front (hence a small time penalty for toggling the active end) -- a horizontal "ready" position for a staff presents additional problems, like penalties for getting the right end into position for a left-right slash.

By the way, I hope you don't feel like I'm shouting you down with the "always pivot on the off hand" thing -- I just can't see any other way of doing it without even more massive complications.

[Mel_Vixen]

@Fieari
1: An "Katana" had some other disadvantages. For example there are much less Blocks, Binding and/or Winding situations then with an "Long"sword cause of the lack of an cross guard and an unsharpened edge. The katana has some advantages too cause its indeed sharp as hell so its the better weapon for an good number of slicing attacks cause the entire Blade was sharp not only the upper third. The curving of the blade made an swing more precise etc.

2: The europeans hadnt so much Heavy armor either. Heck with an chainmail you could by out an half village at most times.

3: Its true that the true to that the edge of an Sword was mostly dull but the upper third (up to3/4) was sharpened, at least at many of the "earlyer" swords. The most part of the blade was dull cause an edge could splitter and cause the blade to break at an very hard block.

The downside is speed.  Longswords need some hefty windup and a lot of power to get enough energy to go through armor.  Lesser strikes work too, but even these have to be enough so that while the hit won't dent (and kill) the opponent, they'll knock him off balance or shake him about (like softening up a boxer, working towards delivering a concussion).  This takes a lot of energy, and means that theres a considerable amount of windup to perform.  This is true even against the unarmored, because you need to tear, not slice.

You forget that European weapons and armor have evolved over time. Around the end many Knights etc. had heavy armor but there were enough weapons optimized against them. This weapons were then triangular in cross-section so that you could pierce through the armor without braking the "Sword" or getting stuck.

In the begin (around 1400) to the midle of the period( of the European Fence schools) the most swordfighters had weapons that in weight and handling were comparable too Katanas and such cause to everybody couldn't pay chain mail. In the later times you have often Rapiers etc. that are single-handed with an blocking dagger as side weapon but the Classical "one and a half"-hander was still around.

For my experience i can say there are no mayor speed differences. (mind you i did Aikido and Aiki-ken for years and do "German-fence-shool" till today).

This edge has MAJOR and MASSIVE implications on combat.  Let's go back to europe a moment. To use the numpad system, Europe would find use for all 8 digits, because the windup is needed.  Starting out at 6 or 7 or whichever opens up half your body to attack, but it doesn't matter too much, because your opponent needs to wind up too, and by the time he can take advantage of the opening, your attack can be modified into a defence, or if he doesn't take advantage, your attack can remain an attack.  If he attacked your opening without winding up, it'd hardly matter, because the attack would barely hurt you without the power behind it.*

You forget completely stings or that i can go from an basic position in to defensive maneuver very quickly without opening my line(from Alber into Ochs for example). Secondly if an opponent opens his defence nothing prevents me from setting an sting or going in using the sharp part of the edge to cut him (or my cross guard to bash his head aso.). As i said European sword fighting has evolved over time and fights between Heavy armored Knights is completely different from an fight between unarmored fighters/freefencers.

[bjlong]

...hokay, I think we're getting derailed here. Fieari, if you've got something to add to or reply to in the discussion, go ahead, but that should be it on the nuances of European swordplay.

[bjlong]

Double-post!

The reason I'd want to pivot around the center of the two grip points, Footkercheif, is because that has a lot of parallels in fighting with staffs. I haven't seen many techniques with the staff, or any multigrasped weapon, that involve one hand holding still. Yes, it'll probably be harder to code in, but it's definitely easier on the user to be able to specify a slash with the tip of the weapon than with where the hand is. I'm sure we can let power users have specific control over hands rather than the weapon tip, if that's how they want it.

I'm not seeing how choking up on an axe couldn't be modeled by this, save that the central pivot point might have too small of a change for some people's liking. That could be solved by finer gradations for pivot points, perhaps.

When you're talking about massive complications, do you mean on the coding end? Couldn't you just say that the center would be .5(grasp point 1 + grasp point 2)-> nearest gradation, rounding down?

I suppose the game needs to track both grasp points. That should be easy enough, if you give me a little time to work on the geometry.

I like your idea of tracking active ends, as it's what I was trying to suggest in my previous post.

I also like your interface idea for jabs versus stop-blocks.

I suppose we could allow reactions for fast creatures that already have an attack in progress, but it should stop your attack, at least for now. Long weapons do have a limited capability to block with or close to the hilt while attacking with the tip or close to the tip, but that requires a lot more logic on the game's part.

[Neonivek]

For the most part the major advantage Katana had over European weaponry, which was the purity of the blade, was removed upon the invention of the Blast Furnace (which my sources tell me was in 1491 for Europe)

The Reason why Katana especially must seem deadly is because the Japanese for the most part could not afford metalic armors for the most part (due to a crippling iron shortage)

Though one common misconception is the imagining of the Europeans as fleets of metal clad units. It isn't true either. Most units in fact did not wear armor. It was so expencive that only the rich could afford and was sometimes given out as prizes in competitions.

Actually European Warfare is possible the largest bastion of common misconceptions often outdoing even that of Samurai and Ninjas. Here are a few more.

1) The Popularisation of Guns in Europe (Colonial ages) did not actually outdate both armor or melee combat. (It was post-WW1 where Melee finally stopped being absolutely vital. Armor probably dropped out of popularity at the same time)
-Some sources even state that the amount of armor circulating did not actually decrease... though I doubt this compared that the Crusades Bankrupted England.

2) Arrows and to some extent Crossbows were consistantly deflected or stopped by metalic armors: The explanation of this is simple, arrows and crossbows were rarely shot dirrectly into units and thus usually didn't get angles and sometimes momentum (due to arcs) needed to peirce though. This is why Calvalry units weren't always simply countered by using Archers which is why they were nearly unstoppable early during the crusades.

3) The Middle-east was very much supperior to the Europeans... In fact embarassingly so.
-The extent this is true is beyond me... I mean depictions of the middle-east at this time basically being nomadic fighters has to be true on some level... but other sources paints them as being almost one stage in tecnological advancement further and often as being humanely supperior as well.

4) The mass killing, pillaging, and burning of towns during the crusades was a cultural act unrelated to Religious affiliation (apperantly... this suprised me... it actually long outdates the Crusades). This is not to say however that it wasn't often done during the crusades in "The name of Christianity" it is only to say that even without the religious influence it would have happened anyway.
-This is probably one of the reasons why the Middle-East despised Europe so much at this point... Though Europe probably despised the Middle-East for destroying the People's Army (Which was the largest army in the Crusades but consisted over 90% of peasants who didn't engage in combat).
--Incase your wondering... The People's Army was an over-reaction from the Middle-east but it was in no way unprovoked... the People's Army was in effect a army of thieves, vandals, and bandits and were released into the middle-east early because they were ransacking the city they originally were kept at (And they were on the same side!!!). They were harassing EVERYONE!!!

5) The major weapon in combat was fear. an overwhelming majority of people who fell in combat were people who were retreating. This was recognised to the point where having an army who did not retreat could effectively be considered 10 times more powerful. This is why Guns were such an effective weapon even though they couldn't hit squat! Many war generals wrote essays on how difficult it is to maintain lines when under gunfire!

6) Balistae breaking down city walls is laughable... If they were made to last it isn't going to happen. On this subject Catapults were highly accurate with trained opperators.

That is all I can think of right now.

[TettyNullus]

1) The Popularisation of Guns in Europe (Colonial ages) did not actually outdate both armor or melee combat. (It was post-WW1 where Melee finally stopped being absolutely vital. Armor probably dropped out of popularity at the same time)
-Some sources even state that the amount of armor circulating did not actually decrease... though I doubt this compared that the Crusades Bankrupted England.

I seem to recall the USA Civil War as being the cut-off point for large-scale melee, due to avaliablity of repeating rifle and industrial scale of munition production, as well as larger scale of firearm usage, WW1 rarely had much in way of real melee combats unless one gets into the trenchs and goes literally toe to toe with the other guy. Generally melee training's still important in case you runs out of ammo, or don't have time to reload and the other guy's in your face but generally I see most people name Civil War as when modern warfare began and the dominance of mass armies and firearm usage.

[Neonivek]

Ill conceed to that, the point is that the major conception of both of those is that they disapear the second Guns were invented or at least popularised.

Let me think of another one... hmmm

7) Guns were not only highly innacurate but also at certain distances they could even be deflected by simple thick clothing!
-This one downright surprised me... and even now I am starting to doubt it is true.. I Barely think Leather could really deflect anything but I havn't seen Wargrade leather anyhow.

Dang I wanted to do an 8 about Merchant warfare... ohh well... but I didn't think it was a misconception. (The Knight Templar for example was an elite merchant defense unit)