Print

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

[FaultyLogic]

Now, one important thing I think is better storage for all types of weapons. You shouldn't be able to store five greatswords in you'r rope reed backpack. You should need a sheath. And bows could be worn over the shoulder as well as shields. Of course I guess you could carry a few extra large weapons if you somehow affix them to you'r backpack. Also, you could carry multiple sheaths. One by the waist and one over you'r back for example. And smaller weapons like dagger's could be stuck in you'r boot, or in a ankle or wrist-sheath.

Anyway, my idea is: sheath's!

[Abyssal Squid]

This thread got me to thinking, and I think it would add a lot of flavor if there was a basic raw for a weapon class, and members of that class would be generated for a civilization  by randomly taking a size, and potentially modifiers.

As a weapon grows in size, various of its properties change, including the skill it uses.  For example, "blades" would scale from daggers, to swords, and up to pole-arms.  A smaller creature could use a larger creature's smaller weapons and vice versa, so a dwarf might use a human short sword as a long sword, and vice versa, although neither as effectively as a racially-appropriate weapon.

Although blacksmiths could make any sort of weapon, most civilizations would only have one or two common variants of each type of weapon, so Human civ A would have greatswords and longswords, Dwarven civ B has shortswords and broadswords, and Goblin civ C has wiggly short swords and serrated glaives.

[mickel]

That's an interesting idea. Sort of an organic growth of weapons technology, similar to what we actually had in the real world. I wonder how to implement that though.

It'd get really interesting when cultures meet and start interchanging ideas, too.

[AlanL]

Dwarf fortress takes place on a multitude of different planets (worlds), none of which happen to be Earth. I'm thinking that weapons could be generated from templates, with a random name for the type of weapon that you would see after identifying it or having it identified, before which youd see the template name. This could also be compatible with modifiers relating to the local culture. For example...

Before youve talked with people of a certain civ, a weapon could be described as Heavy Iron Hammer, but afterwards you could get a description like

This is an iron Ugogtob ("Banesmash") of the Dwarven civilization The Steel Spidery Confederations. This hammer weapon has been designed with agressive tactics in mind. This weapon is weighted at the very top, increasing its damage. This weapon has a small mid-crossection and is slowed by its weight, reducing the chance of successful parry.

Or, you could find an item described as a Serrated Iron Short Sword, to find it's really described as

This is an iron Arspunomur ("Slaughterpain") of the Goblin civilization The Sick Hag of Sluts. This short sword weapon has been designed with sadistic tactics in mind. This weapon is serraded and spiked, causing goring and slashing damage simultaneously. This weapon has barbs, causing extreme pain and heavy bleeding on a successful hit. This weapons barbs, and this weapons spikes, make this weapon very difficult to remove if stuck in a target. This weapons barbs cause extreme pain and bleeding on removal from being stuck in.

Also, this system would allow a new event in fortress mode...

(insert name here), Expert Weaponsmith, has invented a new type of halberd!

[ August 18, 2007: Message edited by: AlanL ]

[PTTG]

I like the way this is going- Ive allways thought than weapons don't have enough personality- after all, blacksmiths are not machines, and every weapon will be different.

*the more you know...*

Anyway- I have to say it just screams Dwarf Fortress for the RNG to create new weapons on the fly. Especially if Moods and Masterpieces now have special effects. On reflection, it almost seem as if this is the first step towards magic, if special artifacts have unique powers.

[Zaratustra]

I approve of AlanL's idea. That way each civilization could naturally build weapons more suited to its way of living. I have no idea how to implement it such that a given group of weapon characteristics would correspond to a specific weapon shape, though. Make a collection of 'weapon parts' that can be attached to each other to make a weapon?

[ August 19, 2007: Message edited by: Zaratustra ]

[mickel]

I love the idea too. I know if I was a goblin blacksmith, I'd spend all my days inventing newer and nastier swords...  

[Tamren]

quote:Originally posted by Zaratustra:
[QB]I approve of AlanL's idea. That way each civilization could naturally build weapons more suited to its way of living. - Make a collection of 'weapon parts' that can be attached to each other to make a weapon?[QB]

One thing I suggested a long time ago was modular bolt parts. The shaft, fletches and arrowpoint are all seperate parts and can be made of different materials. Instead of "bone bolts" and "steel bolts" the name would instead be something like "steel tipped wood shaft bolts", since that is quite long it gets shortened to "____bolts" where ___ is the material of the arrowhead.

This opens up a lot of possibilities. Instead of using "cheapy chuck" wood bolts for practice, you could instead use real ammo and have a soft target that captures arrows without damaging them. On the other hand, you could use cheap disposable bolts and fire them at a stone wall like we do now, but you would also be able to salvage all the unbroken parts and use them to make new bolts.

It would allow you to customize and modify your ammo stores depending on the situation. Say, you had a gigantic pile of bone bolts for hunting a suddenly a siege was upon you. You could take off the crappy bone arrowheads and put proper steel ones on to make the bolts more deadly. Once the siege is over you could swap out the more expensive steel arrowheads.

Anyway, that belongs in another thread, but i believe that it can be applied here. Weapons can be divided primarily into blade/head and handle/grip. There are also uncounted accessories like crossguards, tassels and what have you.

Now the question is, how detailed do we want this to be? For example, every single part on your average longsword plays a part. Having a strong crossguard would let you deflect stronger blows without it breaking. How well the handle is attached to the blade affects how likely the two are to seperate. Each of these components could be replaced, repaired or upgraded based on user preference. Customization is great, but we need to make it convenient. 1 metal bar = 1 sword makes little sense. And neither does having to put a sword together from 10 different parts of various materials that must be made seperatly.

On top of that, more complex parts means more things that can break. Typically most prototype guns are rejected by the military because they are too prone to damage. For a soldier on the front line, you would want the most durable and deadly weapon you can give him.

Ceremonial weapons on the other hand are just that. They can have impractical decorations or be made of weaker materials such as solid gold. Dwarves being a practical people of course would see a gold sword as a piece of art, not a weapons (afaik ).

To manage this, we need finer control over the weapons in the fortress overall. The customizing options are there for when they are needed, but you would NOT have to assemble each and every weapon!

[mrshirt]

You could add names and blah blah blah, but they're all the same.  What difference does it make if you have a Greatsword or a two-handed long sword, in fortress mode one will be better and you'll make it.  Honestly, this is the major problem I have with D&D, the weapons don't really do anything different.  Just different damage, different number of hands.

Discussing weapons, we should look at how they were used, why they were made, and then apply those lessons so that it becomes a real decision when you post spearmen blocking the bridge over the cave river, or having an ambush with axemen, whatev.

[irmo]

quote:Originally posted by mrshirt:
<STRONG>Discussing weapons, we should look at how they were used, why they were made, and then apply those lessons so that it becomes a real decision when you post spearmen blocking the bridge over the cave river, or having an ambush with axemen, whatev.</STRONG>

Thank you for being the voice of sanity.

[TakiJap]

Even at the current version weapons have different uses, pros and cons as in the real world. Not so complex yet, but there are. In example spears are very useful against things like giants since they can easily pierce through and damage some major organ where as axes can barely cut the giant a bit and if lucky, lob off an arm or leg. Then again it's quite useless to send a speardwarf against a tentacle demon since most strikes hit at the tentacles and piercing a tentacle doesen't even stop it from functioning. Axes on the other hand cut away tentacles as easily as butter and make the demon less dangerous.

Naming weapons with cultural names create unity and intresting details to the world. Also, there are exotic weapons (Exotic for western people), which names aren't translated to english or given any english names. So we can't use their original names since those languages don't exist in DF. And english only represents some common language in DF worlds, or the translation to player, don't really which one.

That's, at least, what I think of the world in DF or how it should be.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

Actually, I was reluctant to join this thread since I am not that much of a weapon geek and because of the thoughts that follow. But the recent posts have encouraged me to share my fews.

From the point of view of fortress mode, melee weapon differences in combat are effectively limited to damage number, with melee being inferior to ranged (as long as range has ammo ).

The thought of using weapons with certain tactics (like the phalanx) certainly has its appeal, but in dwarven reality, it simply doesn't work. Because half your phalanx will be off for a drink, or sleeping, so no proper formations can be built. Unless we get a more disciplined military new tactics don't do anything for the fortress military.

The only aspect where new weapons might be interesting is if they are made from specific materials, as productions of certain materials is one of the more intriguing aspects of the game. But I am not sure whether there are any real weapons that would be that interesting only on that merit.

Deathworks

[Tamren]

quote:Originally posted by mrshirt:
[QB]You could add names and blah blah blah, but they're all the same.  What difference does it make if you have a Greatsword or a two-handed long sword, in fortress mode one will be better and you'll make it.  Honestly, this is the major problem I have with D&D, the weapons don't really do anything different.  Just different damage, different number of hands.[QB]

Who said you knew how to make every weapon in the game? If the only culture on the planet who knows how to make a claymore is on the other side of the world your race as a whole would have absolutly NO CLUE just wtf a claymore is. The whole point of this idea is to make each weapon unique using a give and take system. Its not a question of "is it better" anymore, its "what is it better AT".

Instead of following the same identical stats, weapons would vary depending on who made them and what the intended use is for. A soldiers spear would be big and durable, yet cumbersome and heavy. A hunters spear would be lighter and smaller, sacrificing damage for speed. In melee they would both be used the same way, but the soldiers spear will do more damage.

Why then wouldnt you simply arm your hunters with soldier spears? Well a hunter spear is built smaller and lighter, which is important because running full tilt through a forest carrying a heavy stick is a good way to trip yourself. Also, the hunter spear is designed to be thrown, a major difference.

[ August 22, 2007: Message edited by: Tamren ]

[I3erent]

And a bit of discussion similarly here for your perusal.
http://www.bay12games.com/cgi-local/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=5&t=001101

[Tamren]

Nice stuff. Of course it should be a bit more fluffy than simply "your civilization has reached weaponsmithing level 7!"

Nowadays the US spends large amounts of money on ridiculous weapons that it does not need. The comanche helicopter took 6.9 billion to develop and was scrapped (mostly) in favour of UAVs. Star wars missile defence? lawl, your tax dollars at work!

In comparison, medieval weaponry evolved in response to the armour and tactics of the nearby enemy. This is how DF should work as well. Some weapons are ubiquitous like the spear and club. Others only evolved out of specific needs, like the pike to counter cavarly.

But then, how would dwarves invent stuff out of the blue? Then again... Felsite thongs? Artifact floodgates? all we need is a crazy weaponsmith.