Print

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

[Lord Shonus]

Not a typo. "Bring to bear" is a phrase meaning "bring into position to use"

[Neonivek]

Actually a Talent system could easily make a more varied number of weapons without altering how he made those weapons.

[cephalo]

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.

I totally agree with that sentiment, I think the game already has a few extra skills. Just how hard is it to make lye? Can you really be a legendary lye maker?

I think in this case though, it leads to some extra drama. I like the idea that a 'skilled' speardwarf who is 'competent' against axes could be the likely winner against an 'adept' axeweilder who has never fought against spears.

It also could be used as a fun way to punch up the combat reports. The reports are great and I'm glad to have them in fortress mode now, but there is alot of simple back and forth hitting. For every level of anti-weapon skill, you could have some new advantagious trick to use that has a descriptor for use in reports. By forcing these skills to come from opponents, the higher level abilities would be relatively rare and special. Some combat reports would be ones that you wouldn't want to miss!

You could use a similar reporting scheme for the main weapon skills, but it wouldn't have the same impact. Currently most of my axedwarves are legendary, as they tend to like to swing their axes all day long. Any combat reports coming from the main skill would be seen commonly, and in short order the only reason to look at the reports is to find out how someones head ended up on top of your pump stack.

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.

I think it would be ok to just leave natural attacks alone. You don't have to, I'm sure that can be embellished in the same ways, but if you don't I think that just make animals and beasts a bit more dangerous. I think that's ok.

[NW_Kohaku]

I think it would be ok to just leave natural attacks alone. You don't have to, I'm sure that can be embellished in the same ways, but if you don't I think that just make animals and beasts a bit more dangerous. I think that's ok.

Then what about dwarves who use eugenics-improved war elephants or trained giant lions as their war beasts?  If the point of this is to make enemies train against the particular weapons that your dwarves use, and then you go and make war animals (and modded creatures) exempt, you are just weakening weapon users in general while doing nothing to weaken war creatures.

[cephalo]

Then what about dwarves who use eugenics-improved war elephants or trained giant lions as their war beasts?  If the point of this is to make enemies train against the particular weapons that your dwarves use, and then you go and make war animals (and modded creatures) exempt, you are just weakening weapon users in general while doing nothing to weaken war creatures.

Well, as things are currently, any time a wardog discovers a kobold thief, the wardog usually dies. If the tables were turned at some point, I think it would be a minor issue. There's always room for improvement in DF, but I wouldn't see this as a game stopper like some other things we see all the time.

[Funk]

in RL there are "Anti-weapon skills" dogeing, camouflage and a better plan.
the rest is skill with your weapon and armor.

[cephalo]

I went ahead and altered the OP to emphasize that these skills would not merely be defensive skills, but skills that also create offensive opportunities against a certain type of weapon fighter.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

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

Seems realistic. In Jiu Jitsu, they train to consider all weapons in the same way- as lines of force and balance, independant of where the cutting edges actually are. The reasoning I heard was that, in ancient Japan, there were just too many damn weapons- the blacksmiths had gone a bit crazy with putting extra shafts, blades and spikes on any surface that would hold them, so trying to learn specific responses to specific weapons was doomed to failure.

Oh, as for "Know thy Enemy and Know Thyself", the fuller context of what Sun Tzu said was about your enemies weakness being inherent in his nature/situation, and it was your job to see it; for yourself, it was to render yourself invulnerable. "Your invulnerability is up to you; your enemies weakness is up to him"

[marcusbjol]

The way to change this is to encourage the use of combined arms. 

Yes, you can use spears to counter calvary, bows to counter spears, and swords/axes to counter... but that is not how battle is done.  Yes, they pulled up pikes/spears to face a charge, but that was not the only unit used.

Anti weapon skills will be OP because the USERS will adapt to it and train their military to be immune to all the weapons.  That is the thing to remember, the USERS will get the benifits as well.

IRL, successful combat requires combined arms.  The way unit control is now, this is very difficult.  There is no real hold the line type command (they always engage when they see the enemy, not the way armies work IRL).  The only way I have come close to simulating a shield wall type of defense was to put my ground forces behind archer towers so the ground units would not engage until the enemy was close the archery towers.  The towers are on either side of the entrance to the fort.  There is no way to make an effective kill pocket (imagine an entrance only 3 squares wide and the next spot behind the entrance had 5 spots open with dwarfs standing on that line.  So when 3 enemies engages the 5 dorfs, they would loose, harshly).

[Nil Eyeglazed]

I'm not into ren fairs or anything.  I don't particularly know what I'm talking about.

But if there are any significant differences between weapons such that you need to learn weapon skills differently, then there are different defenses against weapons.  You need to know about edge control for a sword, but not for a mace.  When you use a mace, you don't need to worry too much about edge control, but because of the difference in the center of gravity between a mace and a sword, you're going to be out of position when somebody wielding a sword isn't going to be.

Somebody who trains against maces all day long will not recognize all of the times that a sword-user is out of position.  Somebody who trains against sword users all day long will not recognize all of the times that a mace-user is out of position.

It's true that some current and historical teachers of martial arts dismissed this.  I have a friend studying stick fighting.  His teacher says that all a gun is is a very long spear.  That strikes me as completely absurd.  The rise of MMA has shown the absurdity of the untested teachings of a lot of dedicated martial artists.

At the same time, this proposal has the potential to run completely out of control.  Fighting a wrestler is a different proposition than fighting armed cavalry, it's true.  But fighting a human wrestler is very different than fighting a gorilla.  And fighting a person who practices capoiera (sp?) is very different than fighting a person who studies Western boxing.

[marcusbjol]

I have experience with:
Sword and Shield (used to be my favorite form, but I am getting old for it now)
1 handed sword (how you fight when you loose an arm)
Spears
Glaves (spear with a long knife on the end)
2 H-Sword
Rapier (thrusting)
Dagger

"Edge Control" is something that is VERY basic.  The hilt is made such that it is difficult to swing and not have the edge in the right direction.  I knew every time I struck flat, and called it accordingly, but this did not happen more than once every 3 months.

Positioning is more about range and angle of aspect to the target.  Aslong as both are useful to the weapon, there is no real differnce between an axe and a sword for defencive purposes.  A parry with a one handed weapon is done the same wiht all one handed weapons... Imagine holding a sword with your hand near your waist and the tip infront of your head.  The block (parry) is done with the bottom half of the blade moving into the incoming swing, the tip does not move as moving it leaves it out of position to attack.  The slick thing to do after the block is to swing your weapon following theirs as their attack leaves an opening usually.  This is the basic A-Frame defence wihtout a sheild, and it works with all one handed weapons, and 2 handed come to think of it.

MMA is great... for unarmored combat.  A wrestler, no matter how good, has to make sure to not get a hit and be able to grab his opponent.  A person with a 36" blade has an effective range of 7ft.  The big trick to beat lighter armored opponents is to not overcommit on the swing and leave yourself out of position.  All one needs to do is connect if they are unarmored.

But if there are any significant differences between weapons such that you need to learn weapon skills differently, then there are different defenses against weapons. 

Not enough to make it worthwhile to calculate.  Defense is all about being able to block the incoming shot, not being where the shot is, or being in the right position so the shot does not have power.  That last one is true skill, but power is generated by the swing and if one is too close before the weapon is swung, it doesn't matter the weapon.

His teacher says that all a gun is is a very long spear.  That strikes me as completely absurd. 

The teacher is not far off actually.  Long thrusters are very similar to guns.  I hold rapiers with my index finger going up the tang before the cup so I can point where I want the tip.  My hand looks I am "shooting", thumb pointed up, index finger extended, and the rest curled to the palm (around the quillion).  Even in a refused stance (where the swords hilts are behind the body and the points at the opponent), I am shooting them.  Now think about a spear thrust when fully extended.  The leading hand holds the spear so the spear is parallel to the forearm.  One could extend his index finger and it would be very similar to a gun.

Shows like the deadlyist warrior are entertaining, but not accurate. In the Viking vs Samurai episode, the shield was classified as weapon.  The viking word for shield was "spear catcher".

[FreakyCheeseMan]

I'm not into ren fairs or anything.  I don't particularly know what I'm talking about.

But if there are any significant differences between weapons such that you need to learn weapon skills differently, then there are different defenses against weapons.  You need to know about edge control for a sword, but not for a mace.  When you use a mace, you don't need to worry too much about edge control, but because of the difference in the center of gravity between a mace and a sword, you're going to be out of position when somebody wielding a sword isn't going to be.

Somebody who trains against maces all day long will not recognize all of the times that a sword-user is out of position.  Somebody who trains against sword users all day long will not recognize all of the times that a mace-user is out of position.

It's true that some current and historical teachers of martial arts dismissed this.  I have a friend studying stick fighting.  His teacher says that all a gun is is a very long spear.  That strikes me as completely absurd.  The rise of MMA has shown the absurdity of the untested teachings of a lot of dedicated martial artists.

Well, clearly things can be taken too far, and there are specific weapons (guns) weird enough to be treated differently. Jiu Jitsu is also far from an untested art; it was developed by the Samurai in feudal japan, which was one of the more martial cultures that has ever existed.

And the basic philosophy isn't saying "A sword is the same as a mace is the same as a spear"; it's saying "I won't spend an hour training against swords, an hour training against maces and an hour training against spears, I'll spend three hours training against *attacks*". Because I've been trained the same techniques to respond to a knife as a fist, my muscle memory and instinct are twice as trained as someone who spent the same amount of time trying to address each separately.

Oh, and MMA isn't perfect- on the one hand, I have a lot of respect for it for revitalizing martial arts, but it's also done some damage. "Knowing how to fight" is not the same as "Knowing how to fight other people who know how to fight". F'rinstance, wrist manipulation. Wrist manipulation techniques can be terribly effective in the first few seconds of a real fight, where the drunk guy at the bar is pissed off and swinging wild; they can be used to bring an unprepared, unready attacker to the ground in seconds, with minimal effort on your part, and without necessarily having to injure them, either. They're also one of the grappling techniques that can remain effective when faced with multiple attackers. However, once your opponent is tight, squared up, focused and recognizes you as a threat, you'll almost never get those techniques, so despite being useful, they've fallen out of MMA.

[Nil Eyeglazed]

"Edge Control" is something that is VERY basic.  The hilt is made such that it is difficult to swing and not have the edge in the right direction.  I knew every time I struck flat, and called it accordingly, but this did not happen more than once every 3 months.

I have a feeling that that's an artifact of how the specific kinds of competitions you engage in.  If you find a tameshigiri practitioner and ask them about edge control, they're unlikely to call it basic.  We're not talking about striking with your blade rotated 90 degrees from ideal; we're talking about striking with your blade rotated a couple of degrees from ideal.

Not enough to make it worthwhile to calculate.  Defense is all about being able to block the incoming shot, not being where the shot is, or being in the right position so the shot does not have power.  That last one is true skill, but power is generated by the swing and if one is too close before the weapon is swung, it doesn't matter the weapon.

Let's suppose you've been practicing kendo your whole life.  You're an expert.  Then, you have to fight somebody who has a spear instead of a sword.

What sort of techniques have you carefully honed over the years?  You've dedicated yourself to the art of predicting strikes.  You know the ideal place for a sword point to be, and how to deny that position to your opponent.

How much time have you, as our imaginary kendo master, spent practicing the art of getting inside the reach of an opponent with a much longer weapon?  Not a lot.

The teacher is not far off actually.

What should you do if somebody is shooting at you?  My recommendation is to get prone.  What's the last thing you should do if somebody is trying to poke you with a sharp stick?

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Not enough to make it worthwhile to calculate.  Defense is all about being able to block the incoming shot, not being where the shot is, or being in the right position so the shot does not have power.  That last one is true skill, but power is generated by the swing and if one is too close before the weapon is swung, it doesn't matter the weapon.

Let's suppose you've been practicing kendo your whole life.  You're an expert.  Then, you have to fight somebody who has a spear instead of a sword.

What sort of techniques have you carefully honed over the years?  You've dedicated yourself to the art of predicting strikes.  You know the ideal place for a sword point to be, and how to deny that position to your opponent.

How much time have you, as our imaginary kendo master, spent practicing the art of getting inside the reach of an opponent with a much longer weapon?  Not a lot.

Well, if you're actually a master with *any* martial art, you won't be sitting there thinking "Holy shit, that's not a sword, I don't know what do you", you'll just see the lines of force and balance, and manipulate yourself to take advantage of them.

The teacher is not far off actually.

What should you do if somebody is shooting at you?  My recommendation is to get prone.  What's the last thing you should do if somebody is trying to poke you with a sharp stick?

Well, we're assuming we're talking about melee fights, even if it's hand-on-firearm... so getting prone is stupid. Your enemy walks up and shoots you. However, the response to a sharp stick or spear- i.e., get inside it's effective range, move to control it, close as tight as you can while keeping it's line of force away from you- is very good advice. I mean, the best advice is "don't go bare-handed against a gun", but once you are, treating it like any other weapon is about the best you can do.[/quote]

The big point is this; if you train against a single type of weapon only, you're only going to be good at fighting that weapon. If you divide your attention to study a bunch of different weapons specifically, you're not going to be very good at fighting any of them, or any of the weapons you didn't have time to consider. If you actually want to survive on the chaos of a battlefield, with different and unpredictable weapons and attacks, your *only* realistic option is to learn to fight in the abstract, and apply the same theories and techniques to anything. Yes, this may mean you're not as good at countering swords as a man who studied nothing else; yes, you will miss out on occasional weapon-specific techniques or knowledge; yes, now and then you will learn techniques with and against specific weapons, albeit not often. What you will *not* do is stand there with a silly look on your face when you come around a corner and meet a guy with the sixteen-bladed, seven-spiked equivalent of a Strange Mood.

[Neonivek]

Here are all the methods of preventing a blow that I can think of without making too many variations.

1) Blocking an attack: Stopping the path of an attack from reaching its destination
2) Dodging an attack: Moving the subject of an attack out of the path
3) Striking the Opponent first: Injuring or killing the origin so it cannot follow through
4) Make Attacking disadvantagous: Possitioning yourself so that hitting is unlikely or counter attack is very likely
5) Make Striking disadvantagous: possitioning yourself so a blow could be a bad idea.
6) Create a Double Bind: Create a situation where both practitioners would die from an attack.
7) Destroying/damaging the weapon: Attacking the method used to kill can also work
Cool) Removing the weapon: Removing the means of attack from the opponent

Also despite there being many weapons they all seem to have very similar patterns of attack. It is more in the techniques of the fighters themselves where most of the varience is born.