Print

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

[zagibu]

Why would you intentionally aim for the weak spots if your weapon had no problem penetrating armor anyway?

[ZeroGravitas]

Why would you intentionally aim for the weak spots if your weapon had no problem penetrating armor anyway?

Because it'd be easier to penetrate and you'd exert less energy than hacking through the strong spots?

It's like you people have never even been in a fight in your life.

[EagleV]

Why would you intentionally aim for the weak spots if your weapon had no problem penetrating armor anyway?

Because it'd be easier to penetrate and you'd exert less energy than hacking through the strong spots?

It's like you people have never even been in a fight in your life.

Plus, the weaker spots on armor are at the joints - where the body is weaker as well. It makes no sense to try to cut through a steel plate, a ribcage and a bunch of muscle mass to get at the lungs when your opponent has a badly protected throat.

[zagibu]

Why would you intentionally aim for the weak spots if your weapon had no problem penetrating armor anyway?

Because it'd be easier to penetrate and you'd exert less energy than hacking through the strong spots?

It's like you people have never even been in a fight in your life.

But those weak spots are much more difficult to hit. If you REALLY had a weapon that could easily penetrate plate, why would you aim for those hard to hit spots and not just hack away? I'm trying to hint at my opinion that swords could not actually penetrate steel plate armor. And no, I have never been in a swordfight against an opponent in steel plate armor.

Plus, the weaker spots on armor are at the joints - where the body is weaker as well. It makes no sense to try to cut through a steel plate, a ribcage and a bunch of muscle mass to get at the lungs when your opponent has a badly protected throat.

Why get at the lungs? Just lop his arms or legs off, which should be no problem with a weapon that easily penetrates steel plate. Heck, you could even to a full overhead strike and cut his head in half, since his steel helm won't be a problem for your lightsaber, will it?

[Kazang]

Why would you intentionally aim for the weak spots if your weapon had no problem penetrating armor anyway?

That's like saying; "Why walk through the door when you have no problem breaking in through the window?"

It just makes sense to aim for the weak spots.


Edit: In real history maces were the best heavy weapon to use against plate, and the most common weapon other than the pike/polearm used during the middle ages.  90% of armoured soldiers, particularly cavalry (as it's next to impossible to stab accurately with a sword while mounted) used maces due there constant and simple effectiveness against all types of armour.  They took less skill wield than a sword and were cheaper to make as well.

Only knights and nobles would have had swords, they were a status symbol not a footsoldiers weapon.   

[zagibu]

Why would you intentionally aim for the weak spots if your weapon had no problem penetrating armor anyway?

That's like saying; "Why walk through the door when you have no problem breaking in through the window?"

It just makes sense to aim for the weak spots.

Yeah, it does, which contradicts the argument that swords could penetrate plate armor easily. Also, your analogy is wrong, because it is easier to just strike at whatever bodypart is available than to try to hit the weak spots. You kind of picked my line out of context anyway, but whatever. Some people in this thread seem to love swords so much that they imbue them with mystical properties in their fantasy. I had a hard time arguing that plate armor was quite effective protection against swords. When SirHoneyBadger mentioned Lichtenauer, I just couldn't contain myself any longer, I apologize for having fed the fire again.
I am generally sick of this thread, though, people here don't seem to realize that a) history != fantasy and b) realism != gameplay. The real world performance of swords and armor is actually quite irrelevant, because this is a game, and swords and armor are gameplay elements, which have to be balanced properly to provide fun. Why should you be able to produce specialized weapons for armor penetration/damage when all-round weapons like swords were equally good at it? Why should you be able to produce plate armor when mail armor offered just as much protection? Redundant elements have no value. Maybe in a history simulation (if those were actual historic facts, and not fanboy delusions), but not in a GAME.

[Kazang]

Quite right about the balance and fun.
However I think that some semblance towards realism is good, as it's both intuitive and adds a layer of depth than mere fantasy cannot get.

For example, plate should be the best protection no matter what, but be vulnerable to blunt damage similar to lighter armour, which is realistic. But as a downside take vastly more material to make than chain mail and be heavy and cumbersome, lowering movement and attack speed of the wearer.
Likewise spears should be 10x better than short swords against large creatures, due to the difficulty getting close to target with the latter.  This is logical and makes combat more intuitive, tactical and fun.
So you are right really, having swords or axes as the defacto best weapon is bad gameplay and is not accurate realism.  Some element of rock,paper, scissors should apply.

No weapon should the be all and end all, even admantine has a drawback in that it is very hard to get hold of safely. 

[Leesin]

While you have a point zagibu, it would make it alot more fun and interesting if you had to train a mixed force to have a strong military. As it stands it seems the only thing worth training in DF are axe and crossbow dwarfs, which is quite dissapointing, well it is for me personally as I find axes and xbows/bows the most uninteresting weapons ever . I think it definately would be extremely fun and a worthy addition if different styles of weapons were better against certain armours. It doesn't have to be a 'realism' factor, it's just fun and interesting, adds further depth to the combat.

 Unreal World ( an iron age survival roguelike ) uses a system similiar, which is very fun, after you put all your different kinds of armour and clothings on you can look at a chart/model of yourself, which has things like your eyes, face, neck, shoulders etc all sectioned apart, with colours in each section which indicates how well protected that area is against say "Edge" attacks, then you click through tabs like "bludgeon attacks", "point attacks", "bite attacks" and so on, the colours change on the model of yourself and show you how protected you are. Of course this doesn't have much to do with DF, but the similiar idea of this thread, which I find adds an interesting depth to combat and it would do so too in DF ( of course on a less personal scale, you wouldnt be seeing all the protection areas on some kind of chart, but different weapons v different armours mechanics would be awesome ).

Of course, at the end of the day it's personal preference, there is not a chance in hell everyone who plays DF is going to agree.

[Zangi]

Why would you intentionally aim for the strong spots?

"Hurr hurr, I'm Super Dwarvenly Strong!  My sword will cut through that plate armor at the chest! Easy to hit! No problem!"

Thats the vibe I'm getting...
Albeit, I probably know jack about swords and plate armor...   

Are some plate armor (or plate armor in general) designed to deflect head-on attacks from edged weapons?  You know, so a sword hitting the plate's chest area would for example, slide elsewhere, minimizing damage?

[Leesin]

Well crafted breastplates were pretty much uber against everything a man wielded on the battlefield, the only way you would really cause damage by hitting the breasplate would be with something like a warhammer + a big swing or something similiar. Even then you would probably be aiming for the head, shoulders or knees with such a weapon. The most a sword would do is dent it a little.

[SirHoneyBadger]

But those weak spots are much more difficult to hit. If you REALLY had a weapon that could easily penetrate plate, why would you aim for those hard to hit spots and not just hack away? I'm trying to hint at my opinion that swords could not actually penetrate steel plate armor. And no, I have never been in a swordfight against an opponent in steel plate armor.

I haven't either, but I've been in a lot of fights (and I've got the scars to prove it--including one from an actual sword.). In a fight, especially a longer one against multiple opponents, it's pretty important to conserve energy.

You're confusing the word "actually" with the word "easily". Nobody ever suggested that cutting through steel plate was easier than cutting through naked flesh.

And accusing someone of being a "sword fanboy" (if that even makes any sense) seems a fairly childish way to continue a debate.

[Greep]

so, just wanting to make sure I'm reading this right, the best for maces and hammers is silver or bronze, and everything else is adamantine.  The best armor (assuming no adamantine weapons) is either steel for consistent less damaging wounds, or adamantine armor for extremely rare but life threatening wounds?

[SirHoneyBadger]

Seems like, from the chart. Copper seems to perform decently, as well.

It's suspected that the best available metal for hammers would be platinum, though.

[SirHoneyBadger]

I was thinking of a possible solution to the "armour vs swords" debate that everyone more than half of the people here might hopefully agree on: What if the resistance of armour plate was directly determined by quality levels?

For example: To pierce superior quality armour plate, you'd need to use a masterwork sword (2 quality levels above the armour), or an exceptional spear (1 level above), while to cut through it, you'd need an axe of equal or greater quality.

Maces would work at one quality level below the armour, and above, so superior quality maces would work fine against exceptional plate. Picks would work at 2 quality levels below, or finely-crafted, while hammers could work at 3 levels below = well-crafted.

Other weapons would have their own armour-penetrating qualities.
Halberds for instance might work at 5 levels below, making only artifact armour effective against them, while whips would probably never work against even no-quality plate.

Any lesser weapons impacting on greater armour might simply cause bruising/scratches and "fatigue damage". Ofcourse, if the weapon is being wielded by a titan, the crushing bruising could still be quite fatal, but this would be determined more by the attacker's strength than anything.

Considering the new way that weapons are handled under .31, this might be one of the better ways to differentiate between weapon quality levels, in terms of game mechanics.

The attack could still slide or glance off, ofcourse, but this would be determined more by the weapon skill of the attacker vs the armour-use skill of the defender, than the quality of the armour.

Materials would come into play by allowing the armour to become "damaged". Better weapon materials could cause more damage to the armour--even if the attack didn't damage the dwarf inside--which would reduce the armour's effectiveness over time, allowing even a dwarf in artifact HFS plate to be swarmed and eventually slaughtered, if you don't manage to defeat the attackers first. This "damage" could be very temporary, only requiring the dwarf wearing it to either hang it on an armour stand, or visit a metalsmith (to reduce micromanagement), while still representing the rigors of drawn-out battles.

Other qualities of weapons would remain the same, and other types of armour could have their own set of "steps" per weapon type.

Critical hits might simply ignore any armour worn--you "found a gap".

[Narmio]

I was thinking of a possible solution to the "armour vs swords" debate that everyone more than half of the people here might hopefully agree on: What if the resistance of armour plate was directly determined by quality levels?

For example: To pierce superior quality armour plate, you'd need to use a masterwork sword (2 quality levels above the armour), or an exceptional spear (1 level above), while to cut through it, you'd need an axe of equal or greater quality.

Maces would work at one quality level below the armour, and above, so superior quality maces would work fine against exceptional plate. Picks would work at 2 quality levels below, or finely-crafted, while hammers could work at 3 levels below = well-crafted.

Other weapons would have their own armour-penetrating qualities.
Halberds for instance might work at 5 levels below, making only artifact armour effective against them, while whips would probably never work against even no-quality plate.

Any lesser weapons impacting on greater armour might simply cause bruising/scratches and "fatigue damage". Ofcourse, if the weapon is being wielded by a titan, the crushing bruising could still be quite fatal, but this would be determined more by the attacker's strength than anything.

Considering the new way that weapons are handled under .31, this might be one of the better ways to differentiate between weapon quality levels, in terms of game mechanics.

The attack could still slide or glance off, ofcourse, but this would be determined more by the weapon skill of the attacker vs the armour-use skill of the defender, than the quality of the armour.

Materials would come into play by allowing the armour to become "damaged". Better weapon materials could cause more damage to the armour--even if the attack didn't damage the dwarf inside--which would reduce the armour's effectiveness over time, allowing even a dwarf in artifact HFS plate to be swarmed and eventually slaughtered, if you don't manage to defeat the attackers first. This "damage" could be very temporary, only requiring the dwarf wearing it to either hang it on an armour stand, or visit a metalsmith (to reduce micromanagement), while still representing the rigors of drawn-out battles.

Other qualities of weapons would remain the same, and other types of armour could have their own set of "steps" per weapon type.

Critical hits might simply ignore any armour worn--you "found a gap".

Those things should certainly be factors, but I don't believe a simple, binary "you fit the criteria to bypass this armour/you bounce off" system is good, from neither a realism nor gameplay standpoint.  So I agree with you, those effects should be modelled to a greater degree than they are currently.  But nothing should exclusively determine penetrative success.