Print

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

[Tamren]

Well that was a good run, seems we are tapped out in terms of new ideas. When i get some spare time ill summarize what we got done here and make a new topic.

[Pantothenate]

The fact of the matter is that there have been countless cultures throughout human history, each of which had its own unique words for its own unique weapons, all of which fall under the same general umbrella of "Slash, stab, smash, burn, gore".  If you want a weapon set that is feasible, look at it this way:

Dwarves have 6 attack types (swords, spears, axes, maces, wrestling, crossbows).  There are only a few damage types (bludgeon, slash, pierce, gore, burn).  The only reason to add a weapon is to allow different damage types (or make 2-handed variations, but this seems a bit bugged at the moment)--otherwise, you're just cluttering up the game.  So, for example, short swords do Slash dmg.  Adding a katana, which also does slash-dmg, but more, because it's owned by a Samurai, and samurai are Japanese, and everything Japanese that a while kid sees is automatically better than European stuff, then the introduction of this weapon would render the short sword obsolete.  Having it do the same dmg is completely pointless.  Having a rapier-type weapon, however, would make sense, because it would give swordsmen an opportunity to do piercing damage, which is more precise, less messy, and doles out more criticals.

Main-Gauches are currently absolutely impossible: They would require a complete overhaul of the combat system to allow a dwarf to parry with weapons, as well as programming in disarming attacks, as well as programming in special skill sets for dagger-type weapons.  Impossible?  No.  But it would be reinventing the wheel--the combat system works fine as it is.  There are better things to work on.

That said, having race-specific weapons is already quasi-implemented--with scimitars, longswords, etc.  If someone wants to make a new race of Eastern-themed humans (Think invasion force stampeding in on war elephants like the East-Indians), then having a completely new weapon set would work fine--the weapons could be weighted evenly with their dwarven equivalents, but your weaponsmithing menus wouldn't be clogged up with 18 different kinds of spear.  Just as long as you didn't get carried away with the more obscure items (or fictional weapons), and so long as you didn't jump themes too much (crossing Chinese and Japanese weapon-cultures, for example).

Oh, and a sword-tipped spear was mentioned earlier--there's a Japanese cavalry weapon which is pretty much this.  I think it's called "Naginata" or something like that.

And, as far as weapons/claws/etc are concerned, I'm surprised nobody ahs mentioned weighted knuckles (which, ironically enough, you wouldn't be able to make out of brass).

[Grek]

I like AlanL's idea for how different weapons would differ and be identified is the best but I think designing weapons it shouldn't be a random event.

Instead you would have a new option at weapon/armour making shops: Design weapon. That brings up a list of weapons, spear, sword, mace, hammer, crossbow ect. You pick one and your dwarf then gets to work and makes a new design for that weapon type. You would start with one or two for each weapon type you have that everyone in you civ gets and could also buy and sell these designs to merchants or have your dwarfs study captured weapons. When you order a weapon built, you select the type the dwarf will from a list like you do at the jewrly workshop.

[mickel]

You could give the control to your "men" (we won't just be playing dwarves before long, I hope) and have them design weapons based on demand. That is, if you're hunting much, there is lots of suitable wood available, and there is a lot of game that makes sense to hunt with spears, then obviously they'd spend time improving the hunting spears.

[Felix the Cat]

Going further, the process of weapon invention and improvement could be entirely in the hands of the dwarves, requiring no input from the user, on the assumption that the dwarves are intelligent and will design useful things.

If you are on an elephant map and have had problems with the elephants, a weapon maker (or anyone with a relevant skill) might have a Mood (Creative Mood? Industrious Mood? Secretive Mood?), claim a workshop, demand materials, and invent a new weapon that is more useful than the standard at fighting elephants in particular.

I can see it now: after several dwarves are killed by the bloodthirsty mammoths, you get a message - "Ingish Sweatyballs has been taken by a secretive mood!" - "Ingish Sweatyballs has claimed a Carpenter's Workshop!" - "Ingish Sweatyballs has invented Blahblahblah "Elephant Maimer", a new long spear!" Upon viewing its description you see something like "Blahblahblah "Elephant Maimer", a kapok long spear. This weapon is the first of its type. This weapon was designed by Ingish Sweatyballs following the death of his friend Unib Meatyhands of wounds received from an elephant. This weapon is very long, and requires two hands to wield. This weapon has a shaft made of kapok, a handle made of kapok and Pig tail cloth, and a sharpened point made of bronze. This weapon has a crossbar near the end to prevent its target from getting within striking distance. This weapon has a long shaft to mortally wound large opponents."

You can then build Blahblahblahs as you would build any other weapon. Dwarves who believe they are in danger from elephants would seek to arm themselves with Blahblahblahs, would receive a happy thought from doing so ("He was pleased to have the best weapon to defend himself lately"), and would receive an unhappy thought if one is unavailable ("He was forced to use an inferior weapon lately").

I'd imagine that the original would be treated as either a masterpiece or an artifact. Not sure which effect would be better suited.

If a new type of weapon is invented at your fortress, it is only produced at your fortress until you sell one to a caravan, it is stolen by a kobold thief, or leaves the map by some other means. Once it leaves the map it would propagate based on who took it, its usefulness to the various other cultures, and the availability of the necessary materials. Thus, if you sell a Blahblahblah to the human caravan, you might see it used by the guards in the next year's human caravan, and by the dwarven caravan guards in a few years. You'd probably see other cultures in elephant-infested areas start producing the Blahblahblah, and possibly other cultures who have to deal with very tall, large enemies (i.e. giants, dragons, etc). On the other hand, you would probably not see many Blahblahblahs in treeless climates, or in places with no threats that the Blahblahblah is adapted to deal with.

NB. If someone could tell me how to figure out the dwarven language equivalent to "Elephant Maimer" I'll use it instead of Blahblahblah!   :cool:

[Mechanoid]

et„g em„r tharnas

"Big Animal Slayer"

oddly, "Elephant" and "Maimer" weren't in the language raws.

[Lightning4]

quote:Originally posted by Mechanoid:
<STRONG>et„g em„r tharnas

"Big Animal Slayer"

oddly, "Elephant" and "Maimer" weren't in the language raws.</STRONG>

Demon Animal Slayer should work.

Anyway, I like the ideas in this thread, and mentioned a few posts ago, if parrying was implemented, it would make unique weapon types even more feasible.

If you want to specify defense-oriented weapons, with enough work and tries, a blacksmith might make a broad, long sword with high potential to parry almost anything. It would do more damage in combat, but it would be a longer swing time, and if it is really big, it may end up two handed.
Or, if you have swift, speedy attacks in mind to make your swordsdwarves into ninjas or something, a blacksmith might make a smaller, thinner blade capable of slicing through the air at a high speed.

The creation process could be either specified (Takes many tries. Based on skill. Even a legendary dwarf will have some trouble thinking up something that will work how you specified in combat. The rejects will be of varying stages of production, some that get really far but are found to be pretty useless in combat could still be used anyway, but at a penalty, based on where the screwup is. Others might just be screwed up beyond recognition and just be a hunk of scrap.
Or, as mentioned, a moody dwarf makes it. This is 100% success rate should it be a unique weapon.

So there should be general terms. Maybe even some extra terms unlocked based on things your dwarves have discovered in combat.
Initial ones would be pretty basic:
Weight Modification: Lighter or Heavier. Lighter weapons are faster but have less attack power, Heavier weapons are slower but have higher attack power.
Attack Power Modification: Stronger or Weaker. Making it stronger may affect weight, but may also make different modifications to the weapon to make it stronger in combat in some way. Making it weaker makes it quicker in combat.
Defense Modification: Increases the defensive power of the weapon, whether it be keeping enemies out of striking distance or parrying blows. Usually makes the weapon heavier but makes the attack stronger, going negative is much like the above, makes it quicker in combat.

And over time, you'll be able to make things more specific, like making a sword for pure piercing power, or an axe with a broad head for parrying blows and leaving nasty wounds, or something creative, like a thin, dual blade sword designed for constant fast blows... or a spear capable of beheading a goblin at a distance... all kinds of creative goodies

Like say, you create a fort. You start with the basic weapons. Swords, axes, hammers, mauls, spears.
Then after discovering the combat style of goblins is mostly a brutal melee clash, your dwarves tell you they have an idea for a weapon style that may make them more effective in combat. You find it is the ability to hit multiple targets in combat. So you order a smith to make a hammer variant of it, and sure enough, he makes a breakthrough, making a large, heavy-headed two-handed hammer (to a dwarf of course) capable of smashing goblin skulls in. You send your hammerdwarves into battle and it works for a time, multiple goblins fly every which way, flying into their comrades or splattering against walls. But then the flaws show... your hammerdwarves lost many of their ranks because the weapons are very slow in combat and they are pretty big targets.
So you go on to improve the speed, at the cost of the attacking power. Eventually a sleeker design of the warhammer comes out, and it is tried out. It works better, though the cleaving power is a little less spectacular. The hammerdwarves perform better in combat though, as they are able to take out more of the goblin ranks before they get hit.

BUT...
The dwarves are not the only ones molding to combat style. The goblins will soon  recive reports of your warhammers (or may even have taken them in the middle of combat and sprinted away!) and start formulating a defense against it.
So it'd be an interesting cycle of various things. No weapon would be king for long, the goblins would eventually develop a counter to the weapon, unless you make it so absurdly good it has no counter (but this would likely only come from the very rare moody dwarves that make a weapon)

[ August 28, 2007: Message edited by: Lightning4 ]

[Tamren]

Hey evidently its not dead yet   well keep going.

 

quote:Originally posted by Mechanoid:
<STRONG>oddly, "Elephant" and "Maimer" weren't in the language raws.</STRONG>

Thats odd, elephants are engraved often, if they are willing to draw them killing dwarves why would they forgo making the words?

 

quote:Originally posted by Pantothenate:
<STRONG>Dwarves have 6 attack types (swords, spears, axes, maces, wrestling, crossbows).  There are only a few damage types (bludgeon, slash, pierce, gore, burn).  The only reason to add a weapon is to allow different damage types (or make 2-handed variations, but this seems a bit bugged at the moment)--otherwise, you're just cluttering up the game.</STRONG>

Adding more to the combat system might seem like clutter, but you have to realise that the system is already oversimplified. There are so many things not yet implemented that would add a lot of depth and flavour. Plate armour for example simply adds more "damage reduction" successful hits simply do a little less damage, in reality the vast majority of weapon blows would be deflected but the game does not account for this. Such things can also lead to problems, bows and crossbows as they are now are WAY too deadly because of the current armour mechanics.

 

quote:Originally posted by Pantothenate:
<STRONG>Adding a katana, which also does slash-dmg, but more, because it's owned by a Samurai, and samurai are Japanese, and everything Japanese that a while kid sees is automatically better than European stuff, then the introduction of this weapon would render the short sword obsolete. Having it do the same dmg is completely pointless. Having a rapier-type weapon, however, would make sense, because it would give swordsmen an opportunity to do piercing damage, which is more precise, less messy, and doles out more criticals.</STRONG>

It would, if damage was simply just a set of numbers! That is exactly why we are trying to upgrade the system. If the combat mechanics worked out that way, i would grow a beard just so it could eat it! A katana and a shortsword are vastly different weapons that are built for a different purpose. A katana is NOT simply a more "slashier" sword.

Rapiers are vastly romanticized and overrated. Rapiers are only built for piercing light armour, simple fact. They were a step towards developing plate armour piercing weapons but were rendered obselete in that regard by other weapons such as the estoc and rondel. They are also not the thin and swishy blades people think of, proper rapiers are thick and bend very little.

If you poke someone in the heart with a rapier, good for you! But the rapier will do nothing to prevent said someone from beheading you with his ax. The damage may be critical, but the actual trauma is limited and people can live for suprising periods even when mortally wounded. This is especially true when drugs are involved.

 

quote:Originally posted by Pantothenate:
<STRONG>Main-Gauches are currently absolutely impossible: They would require a complete overhaul of the combat system to allow a dwarf to parry with weapons, as well as programming in disarming attacks, as well as programming in special skill sets for dagger-type weapons. Impossible? No. But it would be reinventing the wheel--the combat system works fine as it is. There are better things to work on.</STRONG>

Such as? Toady is already reinventing the wheel with the addition of Z-levels. A combat overhaul is just as viable as any other change to the game.

 

quote:Originally posted by Pantothenate:
<STRONG>but your weaponsmithing menus wouldn't be clogged up with 18 different kinds of spear.</STRONG>

That is assuming that all 18 spears are displayed on the same screen, it does not have to be. A dwarves smith would only produce weapons he knows well. If you asked him to make you a katana, he would refuse, why? Well for one, he probably would have no idea what a katana is, and how to make one.

A weapon would only be added to your build menu if someone comes along and shows you the weapon, teaches you how to use it and how to make it. You would not be able to simply say "hey i saw a katana today, lets make 500 of them!"

 

quote:Originally posted by Felix the Cat:
<STRONG>Going further, the process of weapon invention and improvement could be entirely in the hands of the dwarves, requiring no input from the user, on the assumption that the dwarves are intelligent and will design useful things.</STRONG>

YES! Precisely! Every other race would also do the same. There would be a constant arms race going on. Each side would retain thier "traditional" and "classic" weapons like the mace and sword, but specialized variants would pop up whenever there is a need for them.

You should also be able to design a weapon from the ground up. Instead of reacting to your current weapon needs. You could skip ahead and dream up a weapon to fill an imagined gap which may later exist. If you designed your fortress with corridor battles in mind, you would want good spears to work with the terrain you have.

[ August 28, 2007: Message edited by: Tamren ]

[Eagleon]

Going further, when adventure-mode skill use is put in, all of this stuff could potentially be made available for your character to use. You could introduce your own weapon designs in-game, and civilizations could pick a design up if you're successful with one, and start selling it. A weapon that you designed which you used to kill a demon could become a sort of artifact, albeit maybe not the same kind that dwarves currently produce - just a really famous weapon. People would then want to copy it once they heard of your deeds.

[Tamren]

Aye, and of course a culture might adopt a weapon because it seems "manly" or "cool". Dueling with rapiers was considered part of high scociety in historical times. I would imagine dwarves would develop a similar system of "honour duels".

[mickel]

The rapiers were part of a large trend to look like soldiers. Beside the smaller and lighter versions of soldiers' rapiers, people also started wearing clothes that were elaborately designed to give an impression of battle worn uniforms, with artificial tears at the sleeves, among other things.

...in case someone thought stupid stuff like artificially worn out jeans were a recent vanity.  

[Iden]

This is the best place I could find to post what I was thinking.
I also admit, I skimmed majority of the posts in the thread.
I fancy myself sort of a medieval weapons buff. I've participated in the SCA and done Heavy-Armored Combat. I am also learning to fence with the foil and soon the rapier.


Weapons, as they are in DF aren't completely lacking. Weapon-training itself is learning stances, strikes, defensive positions. Combat training is learning fundamental movements, tactics, stances, strikes, defensive positions, situational awareness, and thinking rationally in a tight spot.

Right now we have a Legendary Sworddwarf, let's say. To be considered a legendary swordsman(or dwarf) you would obviously need to have well-pronounced training and understanding of combat with a sword. In fact, i'd daresay to be considered legendary with a sword, you'd be well-trained with any form of sword.

But I don't think the system for DF needs to be changed. I don't see a need for adding specific types of weapon skills. If you're a master with a sword, while different sword styles may perhaps be somewhat different, you already have a masterful understanding of how swords work and could pick up another sword and with great efficiency quickly piece together how to properly use this different-sized and weighted weapon of the same class. The fundamentals are still pretty similar.

Though this is not to say that I wouldn't like to see different kinds of swords floating around my base. I'd love to see a dwarf with a steel dwarven hand-and-a-half sword running around cleaving goblins apart and running them through. You know, as opposed to the plain steel sword we see everyday.

My biggest issue is that weapons in DF are singular entities. Swords are slashing. Spears are piercing. In reality, the fact remains that weapons are never singular entities, but [lacking the proper word] actually a triad. The triangles are most often lopsided, and each weapon is designed specifically towards one means, but any weapons-master who uses a sword only for slashing is no weapons-master at all.

A sword is for slashing. But, it also has a pointy end, and is thus also for stabbing. How do you expect to get through heavy armor? You shove the pointy end into someone. Focusing all that power onto one point will shove through armor, as opposed to the force being spread across a large part of the blade. You need a really sharp blade, a really strong wielder (while yes, dwarfs are on the buff side), and a really big blade to slash/hack through a well-made piece of armor. Especially dwarfen-made armor. It is difficult to cut through pure metal with metal. You are, in fact, more likely to do more bludgeoning damage to a medium or heavy-armored foe if you are attempting to slash than anything else.

Thus, to use a sword only as slashing is folly. Any swordsmaster would use a sword to stab when he has the opportunity. It changes up his tactics, ite makes him less predictable. And while he may be slashing at an armored foe, taking a 2lbs. blade to the forearm is going to hurt, but likely it won't shear through metal. The impact however will leave bruises and will cause pain. Not as effectively as a mace or a hammer would, but it would translate into impact/bludgeoning damage.

Now i'm not saying "let's change this and that," necessarily. I think there should be a chance for each weapon to be used differently. Occassionally a sword should be used to pierce. A spear could be used to slash, or bludgeon. Slashing doing bludgeoning damage to well-armored foes in the proper body parts may be difficult for Toady, I don't know. But it's more realistic.

Going back to the triad. The sword is High slashing, Low bludgeon/pierce. Some swords are High piercing, Low slashing/(low-to-no)bludgeoning. A spear is High pierce, Low slash/bludgeon. An axe is more complicated: It is High Slash/bludgeon and Low Pierce -- if the axe has a spike at the end of it, then it can be High Slash/Blud/Pierce. Etc.

All weapons can be used in a versatility of ways. And anyone of legendary status would know enough that he could sweep the spearhead for a slashing attack, that they can use the back of their axe to knock someone unconscious, that they should stab with their sword when their opponent expects a slashing attack.

Whats the best way to kill an armored opponent you've knocked to the ground when wielding a sword? Quick stab.

I just feel the opportunity (% chance, perhaps) to use weapons in a multitude of ways is more true to the way the weapons are designed and should be incorporated. A small chance to have variation in weapons would be nice. Spears 80% pierce/20% slash (vs. unarmored/lightly armored). Swords 70% slash/30% perce. Etc.


History Lesson:
Not necessary for my post, just some interesting info for those interested.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Rapiers have been mentioned. Heavy blades were developed in response to heavy armor. The only way you're getting through heavy armor is with a lot of force. More mass, more speed (strength of wielder) generates more force. Heavy blades were necessary to help combat heavier armor. Would you want to fight a knight in full plate with a large sword and shield while only wielding a rapier? Sure, you might think you know weak points in the armor, but you try to get to those weak points when the knight is focused on you and is trying to kill you. It's not as easy as you might think.

Longswords -- bastard swords/hand-and-a-half swords, and especially greatswords/two-handed swords -- became more prevalent towards the late medieval ages.. Not to say they weren't ever used earlier, but to say they were much more common later on. These were longer blades with greater mass for hacking, but also long blades that could help to keep an enemy at bay and could be used to pierce from bigger (safer) distances.

The advent of reliable (*cough*) firearms spelled disaster for the "knight". Heavy armor became a hindrance in fights where early rifles took reign, and was inevitably lost to antiquity as guns became even more pronounced. Alas, a gun was slow to reload and not always reliable; you needed to keep alternative weapons on you. Lighter, more mobile blades, were employed such as small swords, rapiers, epee, etc. (Heavy blades were used to combat heavier armor, but a very lightly armored (or unarmored) target requires less force, and therefore a small blade was more appropriate). 

Lighter blades were thinner, but in fact fairly long. A rapier perhaps had a narrower blade, but was weighted and sized similar to a light-to-medium size bastard sword; they were just balanced differently.

The term broadsword comes from this period of lighter blades. A broadsword was a sword with a broader blade than typically used for lighter blades such as the rapier, small sword, etc. A prime example of this is the Scottish basket-hilt broadsword. A wider blade for better slashing and for additional force/impact. The term "broadsword" is a misnomer, and used otherwise is improper.

Inevitably military sabers and cutlasses (and perhaps other blades i am unaware of) were in fact used primarily for show and symbolism.

[Neonivek]

any weapons-master who uses a sword only for slashing is no weapons-master at all

On the contrary there were weapons that actually did have almost only one purpose. So there were swords that could only be used to slash as they had no point.

Though Longswords and Shortswords weren't those swords.

Though at the same time there were weapons that were invented specifically to give you the ability to do Blunt, Peircing, and Hammer Peircing types of damage all in the same weapon. (Plus some axes do have a spear end as well)

One change to combat I think should be made AI wise is the use of alternative weapons.

While I realise many crossbowmen did actually attack enemies with the crossbow themselves. Wouldn't it be better if they had a sword as well? AI should take advantage of and use alternate weaponry as well as making it easier for the player to as well.

[Iden]

any weapons-master who uses a sword only for slashing is no weapons-master at all

On the contrary there were weapons that actually did have almost only one purpose. So there were swords that could only be used to slash as they had no point.

You are most certainly correct. I can't really argue that, that is true. Weapons typically were invented for singular purposes. But that does not change the fact that they can and should be use situationally and in a versatile manner. Swords were slashing, but also piercing. Axes were primarily hacking. Add a butt-spike (which i think is the term you were looking for) and you can stab with it. Though you don't go out of your way to use a butt-spike, situations arise where you can strike with one, and a weapons-master should be well-trained enough to instinctively take advantage of such situations whenever they arise.

The swords you speak of, the ones with a rounded tip, are not completely unfamiliar to me. I know of them, I have seen them, and I have actually held a few. I am not completely knowledgeable of them, but let me take a crack at what I do know. As far as I know such swords were earlier swords. The ones I've actually held were of Norse/viking design. As far as I know, earlier norse/viking equipment was developed during the Iron Ages, before Iron was very commonplace, and before the production of Steel was in place.

Iron is more malleable than steel is, hence why steel was eventually used (and why our dwarfs seek to use steel). Not only did a rounded tip on a sword give it more mass and weight (increasing its slashing capabilities), but also made the top of the blade more resistant to impact, and less likely to become misshapen, damaged, or broken in combat. A narrow, finer tip would have more easily broken.

During this period iron was a gem. It really was. Iron chain maile and swords were only affordable by the nobility; the elite and the very wealthy. Iron swords and armor were passed down within a families for generations (or looted as spoils of war) because they were that rare and expensive. Normal soldiers had light armor and typically wielded spears and clubs. Spears were very useful tools, and a good spear required very little iron for the spearhead, as opposed to a sword, and was therefore a lot more affordable. Axes similarly used very little metal, and were more common for this reason. Normal infantry were outfitted with spears, and even throwing spears/javelins.

I believe this is the type of sword you speak of, and that is, I believe, the proper reason for why it was rounded. If there are other swords with rounded tips which you speak of, please do let me know that i'm wrong, i'll gladly accept corrections. But if these are, then the reason is certainly insurmountable for Dwarfen technology, and swords most certainly should have thrusting points.

Can I also ask you a question now? As master of a Dwarf Fort, would you have your dwarfs forging masterful swords with rounded tips, or stabbing tips? Personally, I would want thrusting tips. I also feel a lot of people would want this, and I feel the most commonly known swords are ones with thrusting tips, as well. For the above reasons.


What I was trying to get at, however, is that the sword is not it's slashing capability. The sword is a tool. The swordmaster is the weapon.

Even with such a blade, you can still jam the rounded tip into somebody for impact damage. You could crush a windpipe like that fairly easily with a precise hit.

One change to combat I think should be made AI wise is the use of alternative weapons.

While I realise many crossbowmen did actually attack enemies with the crossbow themselves. Wouldn't it be better if they had a sword as well? AI should take advantage of and use alternate weaponry as well as making it easier for the player to as well.

I agree completely. I, personally, don't think a crossbowman should ever use a crossbow as a bludgeoning weapon unless he has no other choice. Fact of the matter is that an archer/crossbowman should never have "no other choice". In fact, all soldiers should have a backup weapon at all times. Even if it's a dagger.

[profit]

 I would just like to point out this thread was from 2007 and weapons and their uses may have changed dramatically in the past years.

BTW I am not saying it was wrong to necro the thread, just be real careful to make sure the information is still relevant.