Print

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

[irmo]

also: axehead to a chain is a really cool idea. It would be like a flail except it has more of a chance to slash!

See, that's why this is a bad idea. The DF combat mechanics aren't up to the task of determining whether some entirely new weapon design is effective. In reality an axe head on a chain, swung like a flail, would almost never hit the target with its edge. But the game would most likely treat it like "a flail with a chance to slash". For all the "elasticity and tensile strength" gritty detail about weapon materials, the simulation of weapon physics is very crude. There's no accounting for reach (a major advantage of spears), or material cost (another major advantage of spears, as sockless mentioned), or how much strength it takes to wield a weapon (once you allow variation of the basic hammer/mace design there's no reason not to make it arbitrarily huge), or interactions between different weapons.

Which is fine, because we have thousands of years of real history to draw on. The game doesn't need to be able to "evolve" spears because we already know about spears. But if it can't evolve spears, it can't evolve any other workable weapon design either.

[Urist McCheeseMaker]

While I agree with your point, Irmo, I disagree with your argument.

The "axe head" part could simply have some kind of probability associated with each attack. So, 20% of the time you'd hit with the sharp side, 60% with the broad one and 20% with the top or bottom, and maybe some pointy bits. Those could also apply to your chance to get good attacks in with an aimed attack (the little exclamation mark thingies).

Accounting for strength and material costs is simple: just use the weight of the parts and add them up, then add weight penalties to any weapon too heavy or big for its user. Size would be a bit harder, I think, but anything that adds reach would also make it harder to wield, simply said.

[irmo]

Accounting for strength and material costs is simple: just use the weight of the parts and add them up, then add weight penalties to any weapon too heavy or big for its user. Size would be a bit harder, I think, but anything that adds reach would also make it harder to wield, simply said.

I'm not sure you're seeing the problem.

We can come up with a table of "weight modifiers" and such to simulate the ways in which a spear is better or worse than a dagger (they're both built for stabbing; the spear has more reach; the dagger is lighter and shorter and therefore easier to aim at a moving target). RPG designers have been doing that for forty years.

But this table won't tell you why there are spears. It won't tell you why an axe head on a chain is a stupid idea, or why shields are made in more than one shape. For that, you need physical intuition, or, if you're a computer, a physics simulation.

Forgotten beasts work as a setting element because their physiology is impossible. That's the point of forgotten beasts--they defy biology. It doesn't work to have weapons that defy physics. That gets us into old-school Japanese CRPG territory where you have a guy with a sword, and a girl with a staff, and a kid armed with a toothbrush, and this has no mechanical effect other than to make them use different equipment charts.

[IT 000]

So, 20% of the time you'd hit with the sharp side, 60% with the broad one and 20% with the top or bottom

Not possible with the current mechanics.

Additionally, if you tried to swing the flail ax, the sharp end would never hit the target at all. Try 'chopping' someone with a flag like object, it's impossible.

[antymattar]

it all depends on what you say. Anywasy, this is the thing with you guys. we have dwarves using mega hammers and shit and drinking out entire lakes and you want to "realistic" about procedurally made weapons. Sure the axe head on a chain would practically never hit anything with the sharp end...if you flail it. But if you whip it then you have a higher chance. Anyway, dwarf fortress assumes this is possible...just like having walking limbs and crap. Stop ranting about the axe head to the chain. Also, if the "axe heads" sharp side is curved around the rest in a half cresent then it would probably hit stuff. That is all.

[irmo]

it all depends on what you say. Anywasy, this is the thing with you guys. we have dwarves using mega hammers and shit and drinking out entire lakes and you want to "realistic" about procedurally made weapons. Sure the axe head on a chain would practically never hit anything with the sharp end...if you flail it. But if you whip it then you have a higher chance.

Use your physical intuition. You know a bullwhip, like Indiana Jones has? Imagine tying a heavy weight to the tip of that, and then trying to lash it like a whip. If you want the gory details we can talk about the physics of whips vs. flails, but I don't think it's really necessary.

Anyway, dwarf fortress assumes this is possible...just like having walking limbs and crap.

Ah, there it is. "It's FANTASY, it has kobolds and demons and Forgotten Beasts, why do the physics have to make sense?"

- Because fantasy needs to be accessible to those of us from reality. Grounding it in real physics (and real geology, and real economics, and even real mythology) gives us a way to relate to it.

- Because the fantasy elements of the setting stand out better when they're contrasted with gritty realism.

- Because it's a useful filter to keep it from turning into Wonderland or Oz or some such dream-logic place where everything is possible and nothing is interesting.

[antymattar]

it all depends on what you say. Anywasy, this is the thing with you guys. we have dwarves using mega hammers and shit and drinking out entire lakes and you want to "realistic" about procedurally made weapons. Sure the axe head on a chain would practically never hit anything with the sharp end...if you flail it. But if you whip it then you have a higher chance.

Use your physical intuition. You know a bullwhip, like Indiana Jones has? Imagine tying a heavy weight to the tip of that, and then trying to lash it like a whip. If you want the gory details we can talk about the physics of whips vs. flails, but I don't think it's really necessary.

Anyway, dwarf fortress assumes this is possible...just like having walking limbs and crap.

Ah, there it is. "It's FANTASY, it has kobolds and demons and Forgotten Beasts, why do the physics have to make sense?"

- Because fantasy needs to be accessible to those of us from reality. Grounding it in real physics (and real geology, and real economics, and even real mythology) gives us a way to relate to it.

- Because the fantasy elements of the setting stand out better when they're contrasted with gritty realism.

- Because it's a useful filter to keep it from turning into Wonderland or Oz or some such dream-logic place where everything is possible and nothing is interesting.

Ok, yeah! Youre right. Anyways, there should and WILL be a slight overhaul of the dynamics. Lets just forget about the axehead and shit. But think about this- would you like to be hit by one:

[tsen]

Kusari-Gama work on entirely different principles than flails. Also, that is a poor example of a Kusari-Gama.

The point irmo is trying to make is that while *HUMANS* can (in theory, with proper knowledge) create weapon designs; a computer that lacks a detailed physics simulator that takes fighting styles, the physical forms of both the attacker and defender, and the historically prevalent attacks and defenses of the setting into account.

Procedurally generated weapons would be fine; the problem is that we already have procedurally generated weapons in real life--lo and behold, they're remarkably similar across different geographic and cultural boundaries, with allowances made for materials and culturally grounded styles of fighting.

There are always *reasons* for things.

An axe for example, seeks to focus power onto a relatively small and sharp area, while providing mass behind the strike to enhance momentum.

A flail, on the other hand, uses the length of rope or chain as an enhancer to the lever force, and the benefit to be gained from having an axe-head shape would work counter to the efficacy of the weapon.

Your example, a variant Kusari-Gama, is not just "an axe blade on the end of a chain"--it has some very specific purposes as well. First, the weight can be used in much the same way as a flail. The blade (note that it is clearly designed for stabbing (i.e. can be thrown a short distance to enhance reach) but the hook portion is designed such that the bladed section can also be held and used as a stabbing and cutting weapon at close range while leaving the weight free.  The chain also has a purpose, it can be used to trap weapons and limbs. The entire point of a kusari-gama is that a skilled user can continuously manipulate the battle situation in unpredictable ways. The weapon itself is actually less effective, mechanically speaking, than a spear thrust or a flail strike. A traditional Kusari-Gama also had the advantages of being easily concealable and easily constructed with commonly available materials.

Also, a simple axe blade on the end of a chain would lack the follow-through that the haft would normally provide, which would further weaken its efficacy as a weapon. The reason flails work is that they don't NEED follow through, they just get the head of the flail up to a very high speed and strike sharply. Enough of that though.

So the real trick is for the combat simulation to be sophisticated enough to recognize and exploit these sorts of things. As it is, reach is ignored, skill is mainly a matter of one or two skills vs one or two skills, whereas in real life it would be more accurate to have 40+ vs 40+ fluctuating constantly as to which were used at any given time. Once the combat simulation can do that, then it also needs not only to be able to evaluate the relative merits of altering a basic weapon design but also to do it within the context of a specific tradition of warfare and perhaps even up to the next level, considering more than one at a time.

Nobody disagrees with you that it would be awesome Anty--it's a question of figuring out ways to do it properly so it does not become a ridiculous, exploitable, kludgy mess.

[antymattar]

well..actually, anything tied to a chain does not fin into the df universe!

[Stormcloudy]

...Buckets. Buckets attach to chains.

Anyway, as has been said, there are really very few unique weapons. Some look different, some sound different, some are decorated or have their form manipulated slightly by cultural ideals.

All spears are spears, whether they're rounded or straight, or a knife on a stick or a nail on a pole. They poke people from far away, but can't be used in tight spaces (like a fortress) very well.

All swords are swords, whether they're straight or curvy or heavy or light. They slice through soft stuff, with weight only affecting the users' speed and penetration.

All axes are axes,  whether they're bearded or double edged or hatchets. They slice through hard stuff, with weight only affecting the users' speed and penetration.

And on and on...

[Urist McCheeseMaker]

...Buckets. Buckets attach to chains.

Anyway, as has been said, there are really very few unique weapons. Some look different, some sound different, some are decorated or have their form manipulated slightly by cultural ideals.

All spears are spears, whether they're rounded or straight, or a knife on a stick or a nail on a pole. They poke people from far away, but can't be used in tight spaces (like a fortress) very well.

All swords are swords, whether they're straight or curvy or heavy or light. They slice through soft stuff, with weight only affecting the users' speed and penetration.

All axes are axes,  whether they're bearded or double edged or hatchets. They slice through hard stuff, with weight only affecting the users' speed and penetration.

And on and on...

All I got from that massive speech is that we need bucketeers. A new skill called bucketeering, where you smack people around with a bucket on a chain. Good idea though!

[antymattar]

AWESOME!!!

[loose nut]

Procedurally generated weapons would be fine; the problem is that we already have procedurally generated weapons in real life--lo and behold, they're remarkably similar across different geographic and cultural boundaries, with allowances made for materials and culturally grounded styles of fighting.

There are always *reasons* for things.

An axe for example, seeks to focus power onto a relatively small and sharp area, while providing mass behind the strike to enhance momentum.

A flail, on the other hand, uses the length of rope or chain as an enhancer to the lever force, and the benefit to be gained from having an axe-head shape would work counter to the efficacy of the weapon.

Here's the sort of thing that attracts me to the idea of procedurally generated weapons (of some sort.) Weapons are designed to kill enemies, so, the dwarf civ you're using probably prefers weapons that are used to kill their historic enemies. For example, my current fort is regularly attacked by very poorly-armored goblins (metal helm and shield, tops), trolls, and giant rat mounts. If that's my dwarves' historic foe, it would make sense for my dwarf civ to favor light slashing swords – no need to defeat armor, so may as well focus on making swords easy to wield and not fatiguing for long fighting – and possibly pikes or harpoons to deal with the trolls and giant rats. They might not even make war hammers at all.

But that's the most basic level of weapons. Now imagine a dwarf civ that has to fight really weird shit on the regular, like antmen, giant cave swallows, beak dogs, or forgotten beasts. What kind of tools would a dwarf civ favor to deal with the strange stuff, foes that have little or no historical analogue? That's where it gets interesting.

[tolkafox]

"No Urist, that's Gassyblob the Flaming Ball of Gas! He can only be defeated by a master bucketeer wielding at least a silver bucket attached to an adamantine chain!"
I believe this is already being pondered by Toady on the slayer arc where he (hopefully) adds cool adventure mode weapon crafting and magical trinkets with engravings of cheese.

Personally, I would like to see history of fights where mothers fight off goblin snatchers with whatever they have close at hand. I assume most mothers don't carry around halberds and swords, and that they would bludgeon the goblin to death with pots full of boiling water. Or a carving knife attached to a rope reed fiber thread. Or she could just choke the goblin with the rope reed fiber thread.

Rat-flails!

[Starver]

Additionally, if you tried to swing the flail ax, the sharp end would never hit the target at all. Try 'chopping' someone with a flag like object, it's impossible.

From a "how to make an IRL version of a fail axe so that it strikes square on enough of the time" POV, there's two possible solutions:

• Either have an attachment to the chain that rotates easily and a 'drag fairing' behind the axe-head to encourage it to 'slice the air' whenever possible, and the mass concentrated towards the centre of the head to reduce the rotational inertia and allow it to switch quickly (and/or just practised use so that 'slashes' don't need to spin into position than they possibly can),
• Or it's a few (two or three?) long links in the chain, rigidly hinged non-axially to their adjacent links (and the head) so that a twist of the handle transmits rotation to the head like a short series of universal joints do (which, again, would need practise to use properly, but would be easier when under a full centripetal pull, less likely to 'helix-up' such a chain).

An alternative method is to have a "three-headed axehead", as I'm sure have been drawn in certain improbable fanart and fantasy illustrations of the kind where female barbarians also have very little armour on, but seem to do Ok for all that... probably they keep getting combat initiative against male opponents...

From the practical application of how the game treats the 'chance', then (notwithstanding the above methods changing the chances, in the first place) the connection of rigid shaft to axe-head could include a modifier of "rotational accuracy" which is higher than the same modifier in the connection of chain to axe-head.  This modifier would be a property of the shaft/chain/rope/whatever is the element involved, and would exist regardless of whether the head is a spiked ball, axe-head, solid hammer lump, straight-out spike, etc, but the 'head' elements would have their own features of either needing to face a certain direction for certain attacks or not...

If there was a high rotational accuracy of the shaft, then heads with directional bias (like axe, and to some degree at least probably a hammer-head) get biased towards the 'best' attack, although inexperience with the weapon would tap into the possibility of a worse attack.  With a low rotational accuracy of a chain (a rope even more), it would skew the possibility significantly away from the best-hit option.  Some heads might even be biased (where they are allowed to) almost entirely to the opposite way round from that needed to strike efficiently.  (If they aren't double-headed, of course.)

Implementing a "self-steering" mechanism such as the drag-fairings, mentioned above, would be represented in the component's raw spec by making that type of head inherit less directional uncertainty from the haft.  Implementing a haft-steered mechanism would count as a higher rotational accuracy being transmitted to a potentially inaccurate head.  But both (and also with regular solid-shaft-with-directional-head weapons) could definitely involve modification by user skill on top of the mere internal mechanical aspects of the weapon's whole linkage.

(To be honest, operating a flail (and other weapons, but flail-types and equivalents especially) really should also have an skill(or lack of it!)-based chance of self-harming through not understanding how easily it is to bash oneself with the thing when swinging wildly, anyway. )

However, that's all just academic.  Just thought I'd say, though.