Print

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

[SeanTucker]

We need to be able to actually aim our attacks instead of just mashing the relevant keys and hoping we decapitate the other guy.

[NW_Kohaku]

I could back this, especially if we have something like adding on a delay, so that there is an effective speed penalty to the next turn because you took longer to aim carefully. 

I honestly would prefer delays in several actions, like the use of very large weapons, so that it isn't as easy to swing a maul as it is to swing a fist.

[ZebioLizard2]

It might break the system though, what with the enemies not being able to target relevant limbs, they'd have to be only able to target certain parts and having some types of enemies attack your throat each turn might get you murdered quick.

[cameron]

really all the weapon skills should be like wrestling and some sort of miss mechanic should be added where you might hit the shoulder when aiming for the neck or something like that, depending on your/their relevant skill

[TaintedMustard]

It might break the system though, what with the enemies not being able to target relevant limbs, they'd have to be only able to target certain parts and having some types of enemies attack your throat each turn might get you murdered quick.

Repeatedly targeting the same area should start to give the defender a larger chance to parry or void the blow, and then land a perfect counter-attack. It should depend on the combatants' relative skill, but even a lesser opponent should wise up, as long as he has some training.

In the Real World, plate armor is very effective protection for the vitals from nearly any kind of hand weapon, particularly cutting weapons like swords and axes, which tend to glance off and lose even whatever concussive force they may have had. Basically, you either target the less-well-protected articulation points with a thrusting attack; you try to break limbs without piercing the armor with heavy weapons (like a pollaxe or war hammer, or even the cross or pommel of a sword, in some cases); or you pierce it with the spiked end of a war hammer. You probably won't kill the armored man until he's weakened enough that you can wrestle him to the ground and slay him with a precise attack to his vitals, if you bothered to kill him at all. This is what happened at Agincourt, although in that case, the French knights were fatigued by mud, as were their horses (that is, if they, being only sparsely armored, had not already been killed by English arrows).

Anyway, point is, targeting the head or chest repeatedly with a sword or axe shouldn't be a viable tactic in armored combat.

[NW_Kohaku]

It might break the system though, what with the enemies not being able to target relevant limbs, they'd have to be only able to target certain parts and having some types of enemies attack your throat each turn might get you murdered quick.

Repeatedly targeting the same area should start to give the defender a larger chance to parry or void the blow, and then land a perfect counter-attack. It should depend on the combatants' relative skill, but even a lesser opponent should wise up, as long as he has some training.

In the Real World, plate armor is very effective protection for the vitals from nearly any kind of hand weapon, particularly cutting weapons like swords and axes, which tend to glance off and lose even whatever concussive force they may have had. Basically, you either target the less-well-protected articulation points with a thrusting attack; you try to break limbs without piercing the armor with heavy weapons (like a pollaxe or war hammer, or even the cross or pommel of a sword, in some cases); or you pierce it with the spiked end of a war hammer. You probably won't kill the armored man until he's weakened enough that you can wrestle him to the ground and slay him with a precise attack to his vitals, if you bothered to kill him at all. This is what happened at Agincourt, although in that case, the French knights were fatigued by mud, as were their horses (that is, if they, being only sparsely armored, had not already been killed by English arrows).

Anyway, point is, targeting the head or chest repeatedly with a sword or axe shouldn't be a viable tactic in armored combat.

Actually, the easiest way to kill a fully armored knight is to just poke at him a few times, dodge his attacks, and wait for the strain of combat in a 100-pound full metal oven to wear him down so much he can't even move (5 minutes for even the fittest men)... at which point, you shove him over, flip up his visor, and stab him in his unconscious face.

[TaintedMustard]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

It might break the system though, what with the enemies not being able to target relevant limbs, they'd have to be only able to target certain parts and having some types of enemies attack your throat each turn might get you murdered quick.

Repeatedly targeting the same area should start to give the defender a larger chance to parry or void the blow, and then land a perfect counter-attack. It should depend on the combatants' relative skill, but even a lesser opponent should wise up, as long as he has some training.

In the Real World, plate armor is very effective protection for the vitals from nearly any kind of hand weapon, particularly cutting weapons like swords and axes, which tend to glance off and lose even whatever concussive force they may have had. Basically, you either target the less-well-protected articulation points with a thrusting attack; you try to break limbs without piercing the armor with heavy weapons (like a pollaxe or war hammer, or even the cross or pommel of a sword, in some cases); or you pierce it with the spiked end of a war hammer. You probably won't kill the armored man until he's weakened enough that you can wrestle him to the ground and slay him with a precise attack to his vitals, if you bothered to kill him at all. This is what happened at Agincourt, although in that case, the French knights were fatigued by mud, as were their horses (that is, if they, being only sparsely armored, had not already been killed by English arrows).

Anyway, point is, targeting the head or chest repeatedly with a sword or axe shouldn't be a viable tactic in armored combat.

Actually, the easiest way to kill a fully armored knight is to just poke at him a few times, dodge his attacks, and wait for the strain of combat in a 100-pound full metal oven to wear him down so much he can't even move (5 minutes for even the fittest men)... at which point, you shove him over, flip up his visor, and stab him in his unconscious face.

70 pounds or even lighter, actually, if it's very well-made. A full suit of plate doesn't slow a strong man down as much as you might think, either. Armored combat doesn't involve a lot of dodging or even parrying. The armor does most of the work of defense. If he's repeatedly swinging his sword at you and hitting only air, he's doing it wrong. Really, really wrong.

[Deteramot]

As was said, it's closer to seventy pounds, plus.... Well, when you wear something, there is a lot more muscle holding it up than if you're holding it in your arms or in a pack.

Besides that, aimed attacks are planned, from what I've heard.

From the Development Page: http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html
# Combat flow

    * Aimed attacks
    * Random "opportunities" that increase/decrease the efficacy of all aimed/specific moves as combat progresses
    * Reaction moments and controllable counter-strikes/movement chances
    * Clean up wrestling interface
    * Notion of stance/guard, with varying bonuses/penalties
    * Ability to jump up on and ride opponents if they are large enough (can happen to you too of course)
    * Not being able to hit a giant in the head, hitting a dragon in the head as a reaction when it attempts to bite
    * Notion of overall wrestling position (who is on top of or controlling whom, etc.)

[NW_Kohaku]

    * Clean up wrestling interface

What? No more scrolling down 14 pages of trying to use your left eyebrow to grapple with the enemy's upper right premolar before you get to the parts where you can actually use your hands?!  BLASPHEMY!

[TaintedMustard]

Wikipedia and company put it at 50, but the point remains. Those knights were usually on those horses for a reason.

They were on horses because the cavalry charge was the preferred tactic of the day, and it was often effective, provided the terrain was suitable. Knights can and did fight on foot, and judicial duels (which were more likely to result in death for either party than an actual battle) were fought in plate armor on foot. A form of armor that was impractical for use on the field was tournament armor, which was heavily reinforced to prevent accidental deaths, and it's probably where the misconception that plate was ludicrously heavy comes from.

And the usual tactic was "get him off his horse, force him to the ground, and stab him to death", because the usual thing the knight was trying to do was a little thing called "run the infantry over". The thing with charging into masses of men is that, if you don't kill enough of them fast enough, they now surround you and can kill your horse and jump on you from behind.

Infantry can do that whether you're wearing heavy armor or not. It's a problem with cavalry, not armor: it's very easy, especially for undisciplined men, to charge too far, too fast, and find yourself mired within the enemy line with no support. If you're not wearing armor, they don't even need to drag you off your horse. They'll just stab you with a pike or spear, or shoot you to death before you even reach their line.

Plate armor has gotten a bad rap these days for being ineffective or even a liability. That just was not the case.

Oh, and don't try to run through mud and water wearing it. Just don't.

Or, to be more precise, don't run through deep mud or snow on a battlefield, period. It tires men as well as horses.

[NW_Kohaku]

Plate (and the ludicrously heavy weapons soldiers started weilding to pierce it) did, indeed, make soldiers tire quickly, though.  Horses and those charging tactics gave those knights the ability to quickly disengage, flip up their visors, and get a breather in between rounds of combat.  Infantry fighting in formation would actually fight in teams that would specifically let a certain portion of them rest.

The Roman centuries were notable practitioners of this - they would let the front men fall back to the rear, so that the next man in line would take over fighting duties in their heavily disciplined, densely packed heavy infantry formations, and it was part of the secret to their success - the tired adversaries who could not perform such routine shifts in personel would be easy to cut down.

[TaintedMustard]

Plate (and the ludicrously heavy weapons soldiers started weilding to pierce it) did, indeed, make soldiers tire quickly, though.

They did, but it also meant they didn't usually have to do things that an unarmored man had to do in order to protect himself from harm, and either one could be armed with the same equipment, with the armored man able to use a handier weapon. Shields began to disappear almost completely because armor provided such excellent protection against both ranged and hand attacks. The attacks it couldn't protect against (arbalests, heavy firearms), shields couldn't either, at least not without making them much too heavy to be carried by one arm all day.

Pollaxes and the like are, in fact, not all that heavy, but they are less handy than a sword (but still effective in skilled hands), the weight being concentrated toward one end. Swords were lighter (weighing a pound or two, with wooden training versions—"wasters"—actually being heavier), but could also be difficult to wield, depending on the length. Modern assault rifles, like the M16 (almost 9 pounds when loaded), are actually heavier than most of these weapons. Of course, you don't have to swing an M16 around all day, but still: these weapons were not too heavy for the fighting man of the day to be comfortable with.

Horses and those charging tactics gave those knights the ability to quickly disengage, flip up their visors, and get a breather in between rounds of combat.

Yes, but that's assuming those knights were disciplined enough to pull back once it became necessary to do so (and not a moment too late) and to not to carry the fight too far. The worry was blowing their horses, which would have left them extremely vulnerable, especially to a counter-charge by fresh opposing cavalry. This happened to the British heavy cavalry at Waterloo. Neither the riders nor their horses were armored (although the French cuirassiers wore, appropriately enough, thick steel cuirasses and helmets). Whether armored or not, a cavalry charge has to be timed right and it has to have a clear objective, or the men could be left vulnerable.

Infantry fighting in formation would actually fight in teams that would specifically let a certain portion of them rest.

Never said otherwise, and this is an argument for the use of heavily-armored infantry, not one against it. They can pack tightly and enjoy protection from their armor, their fellows and, possibly, their shields, without worrying about dodging, and if their sword arms do become tired, they can retire to the rear and recover.

Well-formed heavy infantry in general are difficult to break. Light troops, not so much, but they have their uses, which, to get back on-topic, are not really well-reflected in DF at the moment.

[NW_Kohaku]

Never said otherwise, and this is an argument for the use of heavily-armored infantry, not one against it. They can pack tightly and enjoy protection from their armor, their fellows and, possibly, their shields, without worrying about dodging, and if their sword arms do become tired, they can retire to the rear and recover.

Yes, it's a very good system... if you actually have well-trained heavy infantry working in a team that will ensure that at least one of them is resting at any given point in time.  Because letting them fight continuously, especially by charging any enemy they see on sight, will tire them, and make them vulnerable. 

Which is exactly what DF does - makes its heavy infantry vulnerable to fatigue.

[TaintedMustard]

But there is no concept of formation fighting, and dwarves in the middle of combat only "cycle out" when they keel over from exhaustion or blood loss, usually the latter. I've never seen dwarves swap in and out during combat. Dwarves (and everyone else) don't form up, they swarm in, axes high, and butcher each other in a mindless death orgy.

Perhaps *that's* why there's no attack-specific-spot command in the game outside of wrestling; the combat is a reasonable simulation of 5th century berserkers going nuts.

We are, after all, the slaves to Armok. God of Blood.

To get dwarves to fight in that style, you'd have to manually cycle out squads from the front to the rear and back again. It's doable, but tiresome, and not altogether effective, since the dwarves are still difficult to keep under control. You don't want them chasing down everyone—you want them to maintain cohesion, save their strength and literally let the enemy break upon their line. Of course, they also need support from a skirmish line of crossbowmen (and wings of cavalry later on) to keep things from becoming a staring contest.

Right now, dwarves fight like crazed light infantry, whether they're equipped in that manner or not.

[truckman1]

i'm no expert on the nuances of armor-induced fatigue or anything, but is it worthy of mention that adamantine is really light in addition to being really strong, thus not fatiguing the wearers so much?


Also, remember that (as far as i know, military history is not my area of expertise) the battles in the game aren't really like those old school battles with thousands of  foot soldiers, cavalry, or battle strategies completely revolving around letting your troops take 5 to hydrate and rest. In Dwarf Fortress, there's aren't really battles so much as their are small skirmishes. At the very worst, "sieges" are just a dozen or so guys who hang out outside your gate, until you finally decide to show yourselves so your forces can bum rush one another. Invaders don't have siege engines and the concept of mounted units is just getting off the ground.


If anything i wrote was historically inaccurate or you disagree with me on anything, I am eager to be corrected.