Print

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

[atomicthumbs]

Internal bleeding. If they could bleed to death internally, and blunt weapons caused this, then they would be balanced with sharp weapons (especially if, say, warhammers can cause this both by striking the enemy and throwing them into a wall).

[Fetus4188]

I recall having a leg bone break and it caused bleeding, I don't know if this was because the break caused further damage or the damage the caused the break also damaged muscle and skin, though.  Internal bleeding certainly needs to be in if it isn't already.

[Arrkhal]

Bones themselves are vascular enough for a break to cause lethal bleeding, particularly if there's enough room for the blood to go.

[Rowanas]

Once the body is properly modelled, blunt weapons will be as good or a bad as they are in real life.

[opsneakie]

Blunt weapons are already extremely powerful. I had a macedwarf take out seven trolls single-handed without a wound on him. Shatter bones, internal bleeding, it all already happens as far as I know. Blunt weapons don't need balancing.

[ZeroGravitas]

Once the body is properly modelled, blunt weapons will be as good or a bad as they are in real life.

Except that there are some magical creatures that could never exist "in real life" that sort of throws off your argument. Like animated bags of flesh with no bones. If there are classes of monsters that totally throw off the balance of "real life" weapons, then those "real life weapons" need to be re-balanced accordingly.

[Phoebus]

Once the body is properly modelled, blunt weapons will be as good or a bad as they are in real life.

Except that there are some magical creatures that could never exist "in real life" that sort of throws off your argument. Like animated bags of flesh with no bones. If there are classes of monsters that totally throw off the balance of "real life" weapons, then those "real life weapons" need to be re-balanced accordingly.

Weapons are tools used to kill/destroy living creatures. Like other tools, weapons are designed for the task at hand; if you face an enemy shelled in steel, you make a tool able to pierce/remove/circumvent the shell; if you face an enemy that's a animated bag of flesh with no bones, you create the best tool you can to deal with animated bags of flesh with no bones, you don't expect a mace to magically work well just because that's the only thing you have.

Edit: That means we can and and probably should design new weapons to deal with those abominations (if they don't already exist), and add them to DF.
Otherwise we're just better off replacing all weapons with 'Generic Melee Weapon' and 'Generic Ranged Weapon'.

[Pilsu]

War hammers should already have a sharper end that could probably cause puncture wounds. It's just a matter of making dwarves use them intelligently. Maces are shit out of luck though and it looks like they might as well be removed from the game. Hammers do everything they do and better.

[ZeroGravitas]

Once the body is properly modelled, blunt weapons will be as good or a bad as they are in real life.

Except that there are some magical creatures that could never exist "in real life" that sort of throws off your argument. Like animated bags of flesh with no bones. If there are classes of monsters that totally throw off the balance of "real life" weapons, then those "real life weapons" need to be re-balanced accordingly.

Weapons are tools used to kill/destroy living creatures. Like other tools, weapons are designed for the task at hand; if you face an enemy shelled in steel, you make a tool able to pierce/remove/circumvent the shell; if you face an enemy that's a animated bag of flesh with no bones, you create the best tool you can to deal with animated bags of flesh with no bones, you don't expect a mace to magically work well just because that's the only thing you have.

Edit: That means we can and and probably should design new weapons to deal with those abominations (if they don't already exist), and add them to DF.
Otherwise we're just better off replacing all weapons with 'Generic Melee Weapon' and 'Generic Ranged Weapon'.

The real conclusion, which you somehow missed, is that given the existence of these creatures, there shouldn't be any maces at all. So you might as well remove maces from the game, because they wouldn't be a superior tool for any task.

[Pilsu]

Almost all surface creatures you encounter have bones. Your primary enemies wear armor. Blunt weapons would still have their uses. Just not maces, unless the new combat mechanics actually make them more useful in some situations.

If you want to talk useless, obsidian swords rank pretty high.

[atomfullerene]

Yeah, there's a reason that IRL they were replaced with metal weapons asap.  Personally, I'd like to see a weapon specifically tuned to attacking gaseous critters.  Some sort of fan?  But if we have to deal with weapons being effective against  certain types of creatures, it might be nice to have the option for dwarves to carry a couple of weapons and use the best one in combat.  But that can wait for the future.  Anyway, if maces stink most of the time, let them stink.  It's nice having ineffective options in the game.  provides depth.

[JohnieRWilkins]

Turning useless weapons into useful weapons provides more depth, since that adds choice.

[G-Flex]

"There are some creatures against which maces would be useless, therefore maces shouldn't exist" is a tad silly. A very large percentage of dwarven weaponry will be intended for use against mundane living creatures, including other sentient ones during war, so the existence of some creatures against which they don't work well is in no way an argument against their existence. I mean, in real life, that's exactly why a variety of weapons existed/exists. You don't use the same thing for every situation.

The issue with blunt weapons in DF right now, that I can see, is that broken bones aren't harmful/debilitating enough (a creature with a broken leg, a broken shoulder, a broken rib, and a severely fractured skull should probably be out of the fight!), they often don't cause much damage at all in certain circumstances even when they should, and internal bleeding (from massive bruising and breaking of tissues/bone) either isn't modeled or doesn't do much. This is in addition to the other problems with the combat system affecting them.

[Phoebus]

The real conclusion, which you somehow missed, is that given the existence of these creatures, there shouldn't be any maces at all. So you might as well remove maces from the game, because they wouldn't be a superior tool for any task.

Maces should be really great at slaughtering skeletons. I mean, really really great.

War hammers should already have a sharper end that could probably cause puncture wounds. It's just a matter of making dwarves use them intelligently. Maces are shit out of luck though and it looks like they might as well be removed from the game. Hammers do everything they do and better.

War hammers should, but do not currently have, a piercing attack. That's easy to mod in.
With the mass and striking velocity of the hammer, that is going to put some serious hurt on armored enemies.

[Pilsu]

The spike should glance on plate. There's a reason they didn't just make it a pick.

The question remains, how do we make the mace less useless in comparison? Surely there's some advantages to it over a hammer.