Print

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

[Max White]

You can make stuff you physically can't use in order to export it. (Dwarves making greatswords for export)
You can pick up something you don't know how to make and still use it. (Handgun, Greek fire)
You can lack any idea of how to begin to use one to the extent that even trial and error won't help (Whips, Nun-chucks, helicopter, and magic wands)
You can have weapons you could use if you had one,  know how to make but your culture doesn't tend to use (Katana, Pike)

You're correct about the tags being for the weapons but in the entity raws.  You're also right about the first tag being already there, although why you think that it already being there means it doesn't need to be there is beyond me.

Ok, I can "make stuff you physically can't use in order to export it" by adding greatswords to the dwarf entity.
I can "can pick up something you don't know how to make and still use it" because as a dabbling marksmen, I can still figure out how to use it. I never picked up a crossbow before, and therefor had no idea how it functions, but I can figure it out.
The only real time that I would never be able to use a weapon was if it was too big for me, so I can "lack any idea of how to begin to use one to the extent that even trial and error won't help" for the only real example. If you don't know how to fly a helicopter, you can learn, thus we have people who fly helicopters.
And if I throw in a custom reaction then I "can have weapons you could use if you had one,  know how to make but your culture doesn't tend to use" because the culture will not realy se them and the dwarfs will see them as exotic, but I can still make them.

No realy, we have this one covered.

[Granite26]

Wouldn't adding Greatswords to the dwarf entity mean dwarves started carrying them?
We'll agree to disagree about the helicopter example,  I'm still pretty confident that if you stick a medieval guy in a cockpit, he'll either kill himself or fail to do anything.  Chuck Yeager's still a ballsy mf'er for taking up a MIG cold, and he knew how to fly every American plane there was.

Modding is still hacking something in.

[Max White]

Wouldn't adding Greatswords to the dwarf entity mean dwarves started carrying them?
We'll agree to disagree about the helicopter example,  I'm still pretty confident that if you stick a medieval guy in a cockpit, he'll either kill himself or fail to do anything.  Chuck Yeager's still a ballsy mf'er for taking up a MIG cold, and he knew how to fly every American plane there was.

Modding is still hacking something in.

It would make that haul them, but not use them as weapons. The dwarf is not big enough to use it, so they just can't, even if you put it into the entity.
How does a medieval guy differ from the kid out of high school that wants to fly helicopters for a living? Neither have flown one before?
"Hacking something in" you say? It's not like were making swords that shoot shurikens the size of dinner plates (Although that would be fun) for the most part... Ok, so some people mod the game to be easyer, some so that it is harder. Modding is just an adjustment tool so that we can tailor fit the game for what we want. You want more weapons? I can do that! If toady didn't want us to be able to mod the raws, he wouldn't have given us raws.

[Grimlocke]

Im fairly certain that worldgen characters use weapons that are too large for them. 40d goblins did, and I dont recall much changing there.

Knowledge of how to make a weapon, and the want to actualy equip a military with them would probabaly be best of being generated during worldgen. Entities could still start out with 'innate' knowledge of how to creature their own set of equipement, and through contact with foreighners they could learn how to make their weapons and eventualy adopt it for own use.

Expanding the current raw token system seems a bit pointless.

As for 'too complex to figure out' weapons, DF doesnt realy feature anything that complex. Basics are usualy just 'apply sharp or heavy side to enemy face', from there a character could learn from sparring or field experience. Even for whips I doubt it would take more than one lasher goblin for them to figure out that one.

[Granite26]

I don't mean to denigrate modding, there's some cool stuff ya'll do.  But there's a difference between modeling a behavior and saying 'I could find a way to make it do this'

The kid that wants to fly the helicopter A: Has seen helicopters before, B: understands the basics of flight C: has used similar electronic devices, and most importantly, D: has a teacher who has done it.

The lacking cultural knowledge I'm referring to is mostly D, with healthy doses of B and C.  In the paradigm of a fortress, if the goblins bring a helicopter and leave it on the field after they are all dead, the dwarfs couldn't pick it up and start using it, because they just don't know where to start, and the chances of them figuring it out through trial and error are effectively nil.  If someone showed them how to do it otoh... sure. 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the greatsword.  (The doubt lasting till the next human caravan )

____
That said, I could care less about having 'more weapons'.  I just liked the thought of being able to make high quality dwarven weapons for export that my dwarves couldn't use, and started thinking about what the paradigm was like for making and using stuff.  In short, it's Likes to Use, Can use, Can be taught to use, Can make.

Not sayin' it's got to be done or needs to be done, just... I think that adding those tags would cover a much broader set of circumstances than 'can make and use and NPCs use' or 'Can pick up off of a corpse and use'

[Neonivek]

I have to agree that Vanilla has far too few weapons.

When Night Creatures manage to double the amount of weapons in the game... something is wrong.

Though some of the weapon mechanics need to be fixed. For example Blunt weapons have no peircing power.

Plus the fact that you have essentially over five different cultures and very few weapon types between them...

[Jake]

I have to agree that Vanilla has far too few weapons.

...

Plus the fact that you have essentially over five different cultures and very few weapon types between them...

The trouble with that is that there might be a large number of different kinds of weapon in existence across various human cultures, but barring the occasional oddity like a tonfa they're rarely all that distinctive in appearance or function. I wouldn't mind seeing a bit more variety like separate leading and reverse edges for some bladed weapons to make combat mechanics a little more detailed, and it wouldn't hurt if swords that are designed to only be used for stabbing or slashing attacks appeared in vanilla, but any greater level of detail than that would be purely cosmetic.

[Neonivek]

WARNING: I am making up terms in this post.

but barring the occasional oddity like a tonfa they're rarely all that distinctive in appearance or function

Well of Swords alone I can put them into several categories. A few of them are:

1) Chopping Swords: Swords made to have a large chopping power often sacrificing the point. Often these are tools.
2) Peirce Unarmored: Usually light swords meant to have great peircing power.
3) Peirce Armored: Usually very heavy blunt swords mean to knock armored people down and then peirce them with their front.
4) Balance Swords: A balanced sword with both slashing and peircing meant to be held in one hand.
5) Defensive Swords: Usually a sword meant to assist another sword. It is meant to block or deflect other weapons
6) Bashing Swords: Swords meant to have great blunt cleaving potential.

Let me see Dwarf Fortress currently has: Longsword, Shortsword, and Scimitar.

Your fortress doesn't NEED to have every weapon under the sun available for you to build but even Countries within Europe had a wider variety then Long, Short, and Curved.

[Granite26]

WARNING: I am making up terms in this post.

but barring the occasional oddity like a tonfa they're rarely all that distinctive in appearance or function

Well of Swords alone I can put them into several categories. A few of them are:

1) Chopping Swords: Swords made to have a large chopping power often sacrificing the point. Often these are tools.
2) Peirce Unarmored: Usually light swords meant to have great peircing power.
3) Peirce Armored: Usually very heavy blunt swords mean to knock armored people down and then peirce them with their front.
4) Balance Swords: A balanced sword with both slashing and peircing meant to be held in one hand.
5) Defensive Swords: Usually a sword meant to assist another sword. It is meant to block or deflect other weapons
6) Bashing Swords: Swords meant to have great blunt cleaving potential.

Let me see Dwarf Fortress currently has: Longsword, Shortsword, and Scimitar.

Your fortress doesn't NEED to have every weapon under the sun available for you to build but even Countries within Europe had a wider variety then Long, Short, and Curved.

A lot of that was based on evolving armor technology though, not all types of weapons would be in use at one time.  (also, it's pierce...)

In terms of your types, I'd rather see suitability ratings for uses, with some implied trade-offs.  Maybe:

1: Blade surface (how good for slashing it is, curved blades are good)
2: Pierce point (how pointy the end bit is, rapier is super pointy, so great piercing, but less damage.  Flamberge otoh...)

[Jake]

1) Chopping Swords: Swords made to have a large chopping power often sacrificing the point. Often these are tools.
2) Peirce Unarmored: Usually light swords meant to have great peircing power.
3) Peirce Armored: Usually very heavy blunt swords mean to knock armored people down and then peirce them with their front.
4) Balance Swords: A balanced sword with both slashing and peircing meant to be held in one hand.
5) Defensive Swords: Usually a sword meant to assist another sword. It is meant to block or deflect other weapons
6) Bashing Swords: Swords meant to have great blunt cleaving potential.

That's not a bad selection of categories, though I think we could cut it down to four types:

1) Regular swords, equally effective at slashing and piercing. This would include anything wielded with two hands.
2)Arming swords, which are only intended primarily to slash and are mostly carried by cavalry.
3) Piercing swords, which need a better name and work pretty much like a Roman gladius.
4) Backswords, which are only intended to slash with one edge and are a lot heavier.

Category 5 is covered by daggers, and Category 3 could probably be merged into one or more of the others.

[SirHoneyBadger]

None of this has any meaning whatsoever, as there is now a modifiable tag for weapon size.

As in, you can now make a "greatsword" that a bronze colossus can use, or one that a human could use, or one that a Nac Mac Feegle wouldn't have any trouble handling.

There can't be many valid reasons a dwarf can't swing a dwarf-sized greatsword, but can swing a human sized longsword. And there's every reason to believe dwarfs can make them, better and of steel.

It actually would be more useful to have a tag for weapons a given culture/civ preferred, and then require other weapons the culture was capable of producing, be ordered by the player, if you happen to be playing that civ. 

Here's a complete list of the weapons I'm currently working on modding in, or modifying. I plan to get rid of humans in the game (Honestly, they don't really add a lot to an environment already extremely rich in sentients. Animal men can take up most of the human "slack", and do so in a far more evocative fashion.), and I thought I might give goblins Arabic, Persian, Turkish, and Indian weaponry. Make whatever unfortunate implications of that you wish--I'm part Turkish, and a (admittedly not a very good) Buddhist. Elves (now allied with plant and tree folk) may possibly get Asian weapons, at some point in time, but I haven't progressed nearly that far. Kobolds, as well, might get Filipino weaponry.

I'm also going to add in a civilization based on primates, who will likely be arming themselves with stone aged weaponry from many different parts of the world.

MALLOT
BROAD_SWORD
ARMING_SWORD
PUSH_DAGGER
CINQUEDEA
ROUNDEL
BASELARD
DIRK
SICA
SPATHA
POIGNARD
HATCHET
DIRE_PICK
MATTOCK
ZWEIHANDER
BIPENNIS
PERNACH
WAR_SCEPTER
GLAIVE
FLAMBARD
CLAYMORE
CLEAVER
MISERICORDE
BASTARD_SWORD
CUTLASS
NADZIAK
FALCHION
ANELACE
SABER
KURZSEAX
SKRAMASEAX
LANGSEAX
BROAD_AXE
TALWAR
PALE_AXE
DOLABRA
WAR_ADZE
MILITARY_FLAIL
BARDICHE
MILITARY_FORK
MORTUARY_SWORD
FALX
SPONTOON
CROWSBILL
PARTISAN
ROUNDEHEAD
BILLHOOK
SCYTHE
TRIDENT
WINGED_SPEAR
FALCATA
THRESHAL
BEC_DE_CORBIN
KRIEGS_MESSER
FALCHION
LABRYS
DORY_SPEAR
BEARDED_AXE
TABAR_ZIN
BULAWA
PLANCON
SOVYNA
RHOMPHAIA
CHAIN_FLAIL
FIRE_STOKER
TRUNCHEON
TRIPLE-FLAIL
WAR_CLAW
ESPADA
KARABELA
RING_SWORD
QAMA
KONCERZ
KILIJ
PUGIO
BATTLE_AXE
MILITARY_SPADE
DIGGING_FORK
AKLYS
MACE
CLUB_HAMMER
PICK_AXE
ALPENSTOCK
VIRGES
WAR_HAMMER
BLACKSMITH_HAMMER
CUDGEL
MANDRILL
SPLITTING_MAUL
BELL_MAUL
BLOW_GUN
BOLINE
GRAIN_FLAIL
SLEDGE_HAMMER
HALBERD
DAGGER
STILETTO
CROW_BAR
CROW_STAFF
ALPEEN
LANCET
ATHAME
GREAT_MACE
MORNING_STAR
AWL_PIKE
SCIMITAR
SCOURGE
BULL_WHIP
SGIAN_ACHLAIS
SGIAN_DUBH
BUIKU
LEUKU
OYSTER_KNIFE
SKINNING_KNIFE
SHAMSHIR
FLYSSA
DUSSACK
FRANCESCA
BROGIT_STAFF
YATAGHAN
KHANJAR
TWYBIL
DOLOIRE
BULL_WHIP
QUIRT
NAGAIKA
SCHIAVONA
PATTA
KATARA
ARUVAL
NAGNI
KHOKRI
PRUNING_KNIFE
REAPING_HOOK
SLING
ARBALEST

[Dutchling]

I think new weapons are ok if:
1) They are special and not just +1% armor penetration but -1% overall damage
2) They have English names and something like okanawu or whatever most of the stuff in above post is called

[SirHoneyBadger]

2) They have English names and something like okanawu or whatever most of the stuff in above post is called

Everything there is in English, and is taken from England, Europe, the Middle East, and India. All places where English has existed for centuries. If you don't know what something means, look it up. I got everything there directly from Wikipedia, for just this reason. 

English, by the way, was created when a people of Norse and German ancestry, living on traditionally Celtic and Welsh (and arguably Roman) lands, were subjugated by a French speaking people with strong Latin ties, while books were still almost excusively being written in Latin and Greek. It's a bastard language, if ever there was one, and it's got a very long history. One of the most powerful and pervasive traits of the English language is it's ability to incorporate and adapt words and ideas from other languages, which goes a long way towards explaining why it's so popular internationally. 

[Jake]

None of this has any meaning whatsoever, as there is now a modifiable tag for weapon size.

As in, you can now make a "greatsword" that a bronze colossus can use, or one that a human could use, or one that a Nac Mac Feegle wouldn't have any trouble handling.

There can't be many valid reasons a dwarf can't swing a dwarf-sized greatsword, but can swing a human sized longsword. And there's every reason to believe dwarfs can make them, better and of steel.

It actually would be more useful to have a tag for weapons a given culture/civ preferred, and then require other weapons the culture was capable of producing, be ordered by the player, if you happen to be playing that civ.

That's a good point, actually; we could have four or five different types of sword, polearm etc that could be made in a range of different sizes to suit the needs of each race, maybe with a bit of random variation between civs. Culture-specific names for each weapon would also be a nice way to add flavour text without adding duplicate raw entries for substantially identical weapons, such as scimitars and falchions.

[Grimlocke]

1) Chopping Swords: Swords made to have a large chopping power often sacrificing the point. Often these are tools.
2) Peirce Unarmored: Usually light swords meant to have great peircing power.
3) Peirce Armored: Usually very heavy blunt swords mean to knock armored people down and then peirce them with their front.
4) Balance Swords: A balanced sword with both slashing and peircing meant to be held in one hand.
5) Defensive Swords: Usually a sword meant to assist another sword. It is meant to block or deflect other weapons
6) Bashing Swords: Swords meant to have great blunt cleaving potential.

That's not a bad selection of categories, though I think we could cut it down to four types:

1) Regular swords, equally effective at slashing and piercing. This would include anything wielded with two hands.
2)Arming swords, which are only intended primarily to slash and are mostly carried by cavalry.
3) Piercing swords, which need a better name and work pretty much like a Roman gladius.
4) Backswords, which are only intended to slash with one edge and are a lot heavier.

Category 5 is covered by daggers, and Category 3 could probably be merged into one or more of the others.

The shape of the sword is not considered here. There are straight swords, outwardly and inwardly curved swordes, numerous variation of curve types, great differences in length, weight, centre of gravity. All of which can make one sword very different from another dispite having the same functions as described in the quoted posts.

For example, take a one-handed viking sword (think of an enlongnated gladius) and a German zweihander (man-long, very long hilt, unshaperened ricasso). Both of these are made both to stab and slash, but are completely different in shape, use, cost and weight.

Generalising swords according to classes is nice and all, but in no way does it mean you should restrict your selection to one of each unless the classification has some bearing on the limits of the game (which the quoted ones do not).