Print

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

[Sergius]

We should be able to make stone hammers...

Historically, entire civilizations have been built around the lack of metals always developed a military with really nasty stone blunt weapons (what little "sharp" metals they had, they used for scalpels and such).

[Alastar]

@ Sergius: Stone wouldn't make good blunt weapons in this game - too light and too fragile. Also, are you sure about your second claim? Because an experienced knapper can make flint or obsidian blades far sharper than anything you can make out of metal. Also, people used to be able to make bronze blades fairly sharp, although the technology is lost afaik (not needed for steel - you can sharpen that any time you want).

@ Mudcrab: Oh yes. Possibly overkill against goblins, but be nice to whoever wields it... because that thing should be better than any regular weapon through steel or adamantine armour.

[slothen]

I have an Artifact Gold Warhammer...

Would that be effective?

pick a dwarf to be a badass.  Put him in adamantine armor studded with various gorgeous things, preferably pictures of the hammer.  It will be *extremely* effective because gold is *very* dense.

[puke]

Alistar, Sergius is very much correct.  Stone hammers, axes, and even plows (well, more like hoe and adz type tools) dominated the ancient world.  Egypt and Babylon had massive stoneage civilizations.  so did the Pueblo and lots of other American Indian tribes.  Cambodia... China... basically every "cradle of civilization" type region on the globe. (edit: also, rare metal instruments were used in stone-age cultures for surgery, especially for things like trepaning which the north american indians had some success at.  so Sergius is correct there too.  Obsidian can be sharper, and is used for fancy scalpels even today.  But I dont think it got much use outside central america.)

also, bronze edgemaking was never "lost".  the bronze age didnt end because iron was better.  Bronze is an alloy, and its components we're relatively rare.  it was harder to make than Iron, was HARDER when made, and kept a better edge.  it was pretty much superior in all ways, and weapon tests in DF bear that out.  The Iron Age in the medeteranian region came about because of resource shortages, bronze could not continue to be produced in the quantaties needed.  There was a piracy boom as people raided bronze artifacts to smelt down to make weapons out of.  Iron was plentiful, so it was used as an alternative.

Steel was developed to counter the numerous shortcomings of Iron, and it took quite a while to figure out.  doubtless, this was one of the reasons alchemy was such a big deal.

There are detailed armor vs weapon testing threads elsewhere on these boards, if you give them a quick search.  the new model of things makes density very important for blunt weapons.  platinum group elements are the highest density things on the periodic chart, and the metalurgy numbers are pretty spot-on.  Bronze should be better than Iron.  Steel should still probably be a trump card, but if we're going into this much detail then maybe there should be different grades of steel.  hard to say what plays better as a game mechanic.

edit: one of the things that DF fails to account for is velocity.  the length of your lever when swinging a hammer is important.  many of the best medevial maces were HOLLOW so they could be swung faster.  in reality, mass isnt everything.  in the game, it is the end-all-be-all of blunt weapons.

[Icarosaurvus]

Hammers are weight based.
Thus, an adamant hammer, even if it were an artifact, with its low weight, would be a piece of crap, despite its strength.
A comparable platinum hammer artifact, on the other hand, would be very destructive, because if its great weight.

[Dearnen]

Something else about hammers and maces that I doubt the game models is that the size of the weapon's impact area makes a difference.  A smaller impact area will transfer more force into the target than a larger impact area from a weapon of the same mass, etc.  This can be particularly useful against plate armor.  Of course, the game treats all hammers as the same shape, so it may be a moot point.  On the other hand, it may play a role in the difference between hammers and maces.

[puke]

i think that is supposed to be reflected in the base damage difference between different blunt weapons.  that number is then multiplied by material modifiers.

[Alastar]

@ puke: I'm aware that new materials were used out of necessity rather than choice (in Europe, bronze was recycled but tin became ever more scarce). I was merely questioning that the rare metal in a mostly stone-dependent civilization would be used for 'scalpels and such' given that the advantages of stone would be more relevant than its disadvantages (while modern studies say the keener edge doesn't affect long-term healing under modern conditions, things may have been different then. Also, it probably made surgery more pleasant - people unused to handling flint/obsidian blades routinely cut themselves severely without noticing).

Regarding 'lost technology': I read from several sources that we'd be unable to recreate bronze age weaponry in the same quality using period-accurate technology. The techniques would have been lost AFTER scarcity forced a switch to iron.

*

Regarding the mechanics behind blunt weapons: Many historic weapons were lighter than one may expect, but there were also some extremely heavy ones. Neither 1kg nor 20kg is wholly unrealistic. Maybe the game will eventually be refined enough to have the latter as a specialised weapon that you wouldn't want to haul around all day.

Larger contact area is generally beneficial agaisnt unarmoured foes and detrimental against armour, so that is modeled. There is currently no 'base damage' or 'material multiplier' as far as I know - there's contact area, maximum penetration depth (not used for blunt weapons) and a velocity multiplier. Multiple material properties affect effectiveness, like impact yield, impact fracture, and bulk modulus... and the relative importance depends on the nature of the target. It's all quite interesting.

[MonkeyHead]

lets side track this interesting debate.

I have developed a habit of using "second rate" metals as ammo. copper bolts are fine and easy to come by in pretty large quantites, but have appeared to lack a little punch.

silver bolts on the other hand have been pretty kickass, and the gobbos show up with plenty to repurpose.

can i put down the pleasing level of lethality of silver bolts to thier mass (when compared to lower density metals? (increased K.E and so on... dont need the physics explaining to me - i has degree...)

[blue emu]

can i put down the pleasing level of lethality of silver bolts to thier mass (when compared to lower density metals? (increased K.E and so on... dont need the physics explaining to me - i has degree...)

That's my understanding, yes... in-game, blunt weapons and projectile weapons benefit from high density, edged weapons and pointed weapons benefit from hardness.

[Alastar]

I haven't done much research about ranged weapons yet, but there is a hard velocity cap to prevent anything from moving faster than the string. I don't know which bolts if any reach that, but this would explain why density may be more important than toughness.

I enjoy the subtleties that makes matters deviate from it, but blue emu's guideline is all you need in practice.

[slothen]

silver bolts on the other hand have been pretty kickass

now this i haven't heard of people doing before, but it makes sense.

[sinister agent]

silver bolts on the other hand have been pretty kickass

now this i haven't heard of people doing before, but it makes sense.

I've not tested systematically, but as I had tonnes of silver lying around, I made a pile of silver bolts, expecting them to be merely okay.  They actually seem to be pretty effective - a moderatlely skilled pair of shooters were taking goblins' limbs off more often than they were glancing off their armour.