Print

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

[cephalo]

I will begin this suggestion with a quote from Sun Tzu:

It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.
(Thanks to NW_Kohaku for the correct quote)

And another from Napoleon:

Never fight one enemy for too long, or you will teach him all your tricks of war.

 

I was thinking about this the other day in 31.08 as I was preparing my 100% axedwarf army. Back in 40d it was my 100% marksdwarf army, and now I hear the next flavor is hammers. There always seems to be a flavor of the month when it comes to weapons, and there will always be some weapon that edges out the others when people get to testing and measuring stats and so forth.

One thing that could counteract such forces is the idea that you become familiar with what you are most often faced with. The more you go for 'the best' weapon combo, the better your enemies become at fighting against you, making it no longer the best.

So I propose that for every weapon skill, there is a corresponding skill 'against' that weapon, that you gain from fighting or sparring against that weapon type. I want to emphasize though, that this would not simply be a defensive skill, but also create opportunities for offense against weapon users of that type, that could have different types of entries into more varied combat reports.

This would also encourage players to train all weapon types, so that they can spar against each other and be prepared for whatever they face, but also have more diversity in their attacks, should their enemies train themselves against any preferences that you exhibit. I'm thinking that goblins could study you and learn how often they face this or that weapon combo.

The more you mix it up, the better you will be on offense, and also you will be better on defense from more varied sparring opportunities. It might even be a reason to train military dwarves in multiple weapons, choosing the weapon you feel that your enemies have seen less of.

[shoowop]

Seems unnecessary and kind of wonky, I think there should be a more specific "parrying" skill for defending against all weapon types but either way this sounds like something that'd be remedied with more combat balances.

I always vary my military dwarves. it's boring to go all one weapon, unless it's the weakest weapon in the game. then you're onto something fun

[cephalo]

Seems unnecessary and kind of wonky, I think there should be a more specific "parrying" skill for defending against all weapon types but either way this sounds like something that'd be remedied with more combat balances.

I always vary my military dwarves. it's boring to go all one weapon, unless it's the weakest weapon in the game. then you're onto something fun

Wonky? That word seems to imply some sort of chaos or disjunction. I'm thinking that 'Skilled Swordsdwarf' meshes perfectly with 'Skilled Against Swords'. Very streamlined and clean in my opinion.

[USEC_OFFICER]

Seems unnecessary and kind of wonky, I think there should be a more specific "parrying" skill for defending against all weapon types but either way this sounds like something that'd be remedied with more combat balances.

I always vary my military dwarves. it's boring to go all one weapon, unless it's the weakest weapon in the game. then you're onto something fun

Wonky? That word seems to imply some sort of chaos or disjunction. I'm thinking that 'Skilled Swordsdwarf' meshes perfectly with 'Skilled Against Swords'. Very streamlined and clean in my opinion.

But then you can have 'Skilled At Using Axes Against Swords'. Making kinda complex and wordy.

[NW_Kohaku]

But then you can have 'Skilled At Using Axes Against Swords'. Making kinda complex and wordy.

If that's the standard, it's right out, there's no need for sub-geometric growth in combat skills so that every skill has a combo defense skill.

As for the original post...

You know, I'm pretty sure the Sun Tzu quote is actually about knowing your own weaknesses and strengths being more important than trying to undermine your enemy's strengths, especially since the line was (quoting Wikiquotes):

It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.

The emphasis not being on knowing both, but on the greater importance of knowing oneself...

The problem I see with this is that civilized enemies hardly will attack you with only a single set type of weapon, and monsters or HFS attack with natural attacks.  It wouldn't be particularly useful for players, except if they trained in everything that could be thrown at them (which just makes Champions even more ultra-super-invincible-elite than they already are).

ENEMIES, on the other hand, are essentially untrained rabble with only two skill levels in their basic weapons who attack with pure zerg rush mentality, and since quite often, their entire units get wiped out, it would likely be hard to have them reporting back about what weapons to train against, anyway.  Enemies which are only novices in their weapons, regardless, are not going to be any more effective because of one skill rank in a specialized defense, even if they guess right, unless you make these skills give really massive defense bonuses (which would again, just make Champions invincible-er).

[cephalo]

But then you can have 'Skilled At Using Axes Against Swords'. Making kinda complex and wordy.

Nah, you have to separate them.
Skilled Axedwarf. <---(period)
Skilled Against Swords.

So if you were to pick up some skill wielding a spear, you already have your 'Skilled Against Swords'.
So then it's.
Skilled Axedwarf.
Skilled Speardwarf.
PROFICIENT Against Swords! ha HA!

Assuming you've trained up only against swordsmen.

[Neonivek]

If you know yourself, but do not know your enemy, you will win half of your battles.

If you know your enemy, but do not know yourself, you will win half of your battles.

If you know yourself, and you know your enemy, you will win all of your battles.

I will state that this quote is written incorrectly I think.

If you do not know yourself you will lose ALL your battles.

Also I don't think there is a statement after that about knowing your enemy and yourself.

[NW_Kohaku]

I will state that this quote is written incorrectly I think.

If you do not know yourself you will lose ALL your battles.

Also I don't think there is a statement after that about knowing your enemy and yourself.

... I just quoted it correctly, you know... 

[Neonivek]

... I just quoted it correctly, you know... 

Also your awsome Neonivek and I wish I could BE you

I don't know... you never know where a misquote can come from.

[cephalo]

Another reason I was thinking of this is from reading the battle reports. There are occasional dodges and blocks and such, but 90 percent of the messages are someone hitting someone else, and the armor deflecting the blow. So basically two guys are standing there going clang, clong, clang, clong, clang etc.

I think it would be cool to see two legendary masters, who are masters of their preferred weapon but also have a perfect understanding of their foes strengths and weaknesses, to have super epic battles that last for days, without armor coming into play at all, using various blocks and other tricks to avoid damage or avoid even testing the armor. Eventually someone lands a blow, and it's this highly dramatic moment.

[NW_Kohaku]

I think it would be cool to see two legendary masters, who are masters of their preferred weapon but also have a perfect understanding of their foes strengths and weaknesses, to have super epic battles that last for days, without armor coming into play at all, using various blocks and other tricks to avoid damage or avoid even testing the armor. Eventually someone lands a blow, and it's this highly dramatic moment.

Or you can have unarmed, unarmored, untrained units go at each other for days, healing their wounds faster than the opponent can inflict them, until one unit or the other dies from dehydration first.

[cephalo]

Or you can have unarmed, unarmored, untrained units go at each other for days, healing their wounds faster than the opponent can inflict them, until one unit or the other dies from dehydration first.

That would be decidedly less fun. It seems to me that anyone could kill someone else with an axe if the target has no fighting ability, (Think Lizzy Borden) so in that case who ever strikes first wins, and we don't have to watch.

Also, sorry about the fuzzy memories Sun Tzu quote, that was all my fault. I'll change it right now because it still applies.

[NW_Kohaku]

That would be decidedly less fun. It seems to me that anyone could kill someone else with an axe if the target has no fighting ability, (Think Lizzy Borden) so in that case who ever strikes first wins, and we don't have to watch.

Actually, I don't really think so...

I think it would be cool to see two legendary masters, who are masters of their preferred weapon but also have a perfect understanding of their foes strengths and weaknesses, to have super epic battles that last for days, without armor coming into play at all, using various blocks and other tricks to avoid damage or avoid even testing the armor. Eventually someone lands a blow, and it's this highly dramatic moment.

You see, while it sounds "epic" when you talk about "two legendary masters" "fighting for days without striking a blow" in the space of two sentences, it's actually about as boring as it would be to watch two unarmed, unarmored, unskilled warriors fruitlessly flailing their fists at one another (especially given that all we really see of it is two happy faces bumping into each other and blinking a bit) when you are just sitting there watching two guys go back and forth without actually accomplishing anything. 

Plus, ANYTHING that goes on for days without anyone actually accomplishing anything or scoring any points is boring.  (Insert Soccer joke here.)

[Neonivek]

The only way you can make "Not hitting" interesting is if there is some sort of sense of gaining advantage or ground.

which the game currently does not simulate.

[cephalo]

I think it would be cool to see two legendary masters, who are masters of their preferred weapon but also have a perfect understanding of their foes strengths and weaknesses, to have super epic battles that last for days, without armor coming into play at all, using various blocks and other tricks to avoid damage or avoid even testing the armor. Eventually someone lands a blow, and it's this highly dramatic moment.

You see, while it sounds "epic" when you talk about "two legendary masters" "fighting for days without striking a blow" in the space of two sentences, it's actually about as boring as it would be to watch two unarmed, unarmored, unskilled warriors fruitlessly flailing their fists at one another (especially given that all we really see of it is two happy faces bumping into each other and blinking a bit) when you are just sitting there watching two guys go back and forth without actually accomplishing anything. 

Plus, ANYTHING that goes on for days without anyone actually accomplishing anything or scoring any points is boring.  (Insert Soccer joke here.)

It would be awsome if it were a rarity, but it would be annoying if it were the norm. So occasionally you get an extremely skilled enemy entering the map, and then occasionally a pitched battle develops where it so happens that the two champions become isolated and square off in single combat by chance. Days in DF is not really that long remember, that's like a couple of minutes.