Print

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

[Neonivek]

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. Plus it hardly matters because Neonivek is the best anyhow.

Ok ok, enough flattery please. (no one notices  )

The problem Cephalo is that it makes competitions between masters increasingly boring. As I said there needs to be a sense of gaining ground. Possibly with attacks that give you certain advantages over your opponent with the enemy master doing the same.

[cephalo]

You guys don't watch enough Anime. That's the problem here. I got two words for you. Samurai Champloo.

[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

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 training with a weapon doesn't make you better at defending against it specifically, not on a scale where one gets continually better at it and eventually becomes "legendary against axes" a person just gets better at defending with his own weapon. thats the most relevant factor at least.

past that though, it is wonky. experience against one individual weapon would realistically carry over for others.  learning to block a 2h war hammer would probably teach you a few things about learning to block against a 2h axe too, and likewise using tactics against someone with a sword is similar to anyone with a 1 handed weapon. realistically the person getting training would be getting experience in several anti-weapon skills; and before you know it you've got a legendary dwarf who can legendarily defend against ANYTHING

not too mention theres already shield-user and dodger compensating for the same thing these skills would

I think it'd just cause more balance problems. far simpler too just include a "parrying" skill thats hard to level

I do agree some sort of rock paper scissors weapon vs weapon formula could be implemented. maybe making spears much more capable of parrying one handed weapons (it's essentially a staff that doesn't break, in the right hands they can do quite alot) but obviously the weight of a 2hander would be too much.  swords are great for parrying too, whereas something like an axe should have more power

I dunno about that last part I'm just typing what comes to mind now

[NW_Kohaku]

You guys don't watch enough Anime. That's the problem here. I got two words for you. Samurai Champloo.

I actually watched a couple episodes of that because I heard some hype about it.  I can't remember much about it, other than rampant anachronisms and that I wasn't really interested, and stopped watching fairly soon.

[cephalo]

You guys don't watch enough Anime. That's the problem here. I got two words for you. Samurai Champloo.

I actually watched a couple episodes of that because I heard some hype about it.  I can't remember much about it, other than rampant anachronisms and that I wasn't really interested, and stopped watching fairly soon.

You must be talking about the guy with glasses. It actually gets worse, with americans on a wooden sailing ship coming over and teaching basball to the Japanese. Anime often makes sense on a different level, a nonsensical one.

Sheesh, look at me derailing my own thread.

[marcusbjol]

Combat IRL is not paper, rock, scissors.

If one were to be able to train up a defense skill vs weapon types, then the users will adapt and train their armies accordingly.  So once again, we run into the legendary wrestlers armed with only a shield and weapon and able to defeat sieges. 

The correct way to balance this would be to require all weapon types in combat.  A typical army formation involveds a shield wall, 2 handers behind them, and ranged behind them.  Our control of combat makes that impossible.

[cephalo]

If one were to be able to train up a defense skill vs weapon types, then the users will adapt and train their armies accordingly.  So once again, we run into the legendary wrestlers armed with only a shield and weapon and able to defeat sieges. 

Part of the idea would be to steadily increase the 'against' skill of goblin invaders when the player relies on few weapon types. So if a goblin escapes and reports "They use mostly axes" or "They use only wrestlers" then the goblins train up with that in mind, meaning that they spawn next time with a little more skill in that regard.

[shoowop]

If one were to be able to train up a defense skill vs weapon types, then the users will adapt and train their armies accordingly.  So once again, we run into the legendary wrestlers armed with only a shield and weapon and able to defeat sieges. 

Part of the idea would be to steadily increase the 'against' skill of goblin invaders when the player relies on few weapon types. So if a goblin escapes and reports "They use mostly axes" or "They use only wrestlers" then the goblins train up with that in mind, meaning that they spawn next time with a little more skill in that regard.

I suppose that makes sense in theory but it would cause too many problems in an independent way. Maybe something like "they're all well-armored axeman - let's send in lots of crossbows?"

[Neonivek]

Personally I think as your skill approaches the supernaturally good Legendary the differences between weaponry and equipment setup should diminish.

Not become useless mind you... but the differences between a Legendary Axemen and a Legendary Fistman should be a LOT less then the differences between a Novice Axeman and a Novice Fistman

[NW_Kohaku]

I suppose that makes sense in theory but it would cause too many problems in an independent way. Maybe something like "they're all well-armored axeman - let's send in lots of crossbows?"

The problem with that is:

The answer to having well-trained axedwarves?  Send in crossbowmen! 
The answer to having well-trained hammerdwarves? Send in crossbowmen!
The answer to having well-trained wrestlers? Send in crossbowmen!
The answer to having well-trained marksdwarves? Send in crossbowmen!

If the answer to melee is ranged combat, then it's the answer to ALL combat.

Crossbows are still getting tweaked around, but if crossbows wind up nearly as powerful as they were in 40d, there's basically no reason to use anything but crossbows, provided you have the ammo, and know that you will be fighting humanoid targets.

[Murphy]

Why not just make the axemen parry axes better? And you could get axeman skill by fighting axegoblins too. Its a system favored by many MUDs afaik (at least those based on ROM codebase). Thus variety is encouraged.

[Lord Shonus]

Combat IRL is not paper, rock, scissors.

Actually, it kinda is.

(Very simplistic overview here)
Spears beat mounted units because they can strike the mount before it can bring it's formidable natural weaponry (in the case of horse cavalry, for example, as many casualties were trampled as were killed by lance or sword) to bear, as well as the ability to use the massive kinetic energy against the target. Sword and buckler dominate over spears because a trained soldier can bat the spear point aside with the buckler and close to a range where the spearman can't use his weapon effectively. Blunt weapons and polearms (the bec-de-corbin and halberd being prominent examples) were used to dismember heavily armoured troops. Every weapon on the battlefield has a specific use.

[cephalo]

Why not just make the axemen parry axes better? And you could get axeman skill by fighting axegoblins too. Its a system favored by many MUDs afaik (at least those based on ROM codebase). Thus variety is encouraged.

I was thinking about that because it's much simpler. I was actually going to change my proposal to that but when I thought about it, I didn't like it for the following reasons.

If you can use the skill you train for against the same weapon, and also gain skill by fighting against that weapon, you're gaining skill twice as fast and getting twice the benefit in a way. It kinda makes everything too easy. It's not a big deal at all to gain legendary everything as it is. A dwarf can do that all by himself with individual combat training.

By keeping it separate, you are requiring experience against an actual opponent to benefit from that knowledge, and I think that makes it more valueable. To learn all the skills efficiently, you need each kind of dwarf soldier working together on that, (Although in theory it could be done over time with two dwarves instead of one... but that's ok I guess.) plus combat experience.

[Kilo24]

OP: No.  I hold the same complaint that I have with most added skills: the game doesn't need a skill for absolutely everything that can be learned, especially not with how the current skill system works. 

It's cramming in another bundle of skills that only are significantly beneficial in a few potential stories (creatures fighting with bizarre weapons) and would need to be stumbled over when you need to figure out how good a given dwarf is in battle.

Making a weapon skill give a mild boost to fighting against that weapon cuts down on the glut of skills this suggestion would otherwise add, as was mentioned before.

If you can use the skill you train for against the same weapon, and also gain skill by fighting against that weapon, you're gaining skill twice as fast and getting twice the benefit in a way. It kinda makes everything too easy. It's not a big deal at all to gain legendary everything as it is. A dwarf can do that all by himself with individual combat training.

It doesn't need to be doubling the benefit.  It could be weighted to say, let a legendary swordsdwarf defending against a sword be 25% more effective than an untrained defender would be.

What I'm worried about with that system of using the same skill for attack/defence is about natural attacks.  Since dwarves won't be able to have them, they'll be disproportionately effective as compared to weapons.

[CapnMikey]

Combat IRL is not paper, rock, scissors.

Actually, it kinda is.

(Very simplistic overview here)
Spears beat mounted units because they can strike the mount before it can bring it's formidable natural weaponry (in the case of horse cavalry, for example, as many casualties were trampled as were killed by lance or sword) to bear, as well as the ability to use the massive kinetic energy against the target. Sword and buckler dominate over spears because a trained soldier can bat the spear point aside with the buckler and close to a range where the spearman can't use his weapon effectively. Blunt weapons and polearms (the bec-de-corbin and halberd being prominent examples) were used to dismember heavily armoured troops. Every weapon on the battlefield has a specific use.

I realize it was a typo, but seeing "bear" and "cavalry" in the same sentence makes my blood run cold D:

Most games use the rock-paper-scissors abstraction as a simple way to give all units strengths and weaknesses, giving the player incentive to have a balanced army rather than building only one unit type.  Because Tarn has elected to attempt an ultra-realistic materials/damage system from the bottom-up, the only way that balance will occur is if it naturally emerges from the system (such as in real life).  Designing for emergence is a notoriously difficult problem.  In all likelihood, we will end up with one "best" weapon, unless he adds a layer of gamey hacks atop the ultra-realistic simulation.