Print

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

[Corneria]

Dual wielding in real life is fun. That is assuming you aren't in actual combat. The part that amuses me the most is animes that have people dual-wielding katanas, as if they are actually a good weapon and not rather awkward to use when held with one hand.

[nerdyboy321123]

since shield bashes are blunt and copper is heavier than steel it's a better material in this case.

Wait a sec... Does that mean that COPPER warhammers are better than STEEL ones? If so, that'll be incredibly helpful since i need the steel for armour and sharp weapons, and i'm very short on silver.

I'm going to jump on this opportunity to ask somebody to verify that silver is the best material for blunt weapons? (due to density)

[Girlinhat]

It has been very widely confirmed that (for now) silver is the best blunt weapon.  When weapons eventually degrade, then steel will be preferred for its low decay speed - silver will bend and warp after a few hits.  For now though, all weapons and armor are considered indestructible except by magma, so silver warhammers pwn.

[nerdyboy321123]

Ah, that's quite reassuring, they have so far done well taking care of sieges, but I just wanted to make they were optimal.

[peri609667]

A dwarf with 1 shield will survive shorter than a dwarf with 2 shields.  A dwarf with a shield and a weapon seems to survive at different frequencies.

Copper warhammers are better than steel warhammers.  Silver preferred, but refer to the page of "metal" on the wiki to sort metals by density.

I see... It still doesn't quite add up to me since copper is 15 times cheaper than steel and still makes better blunt weapons, but i'm assuming that's just a remnant from back when steel > everything (except spoilerite). Maybe it'll make more sense when toady reworks the properties to make copper more inferior (as it should be) or just increases its value.

At any rate, thanks for clarifying.

[acetech09]

Equip your army with completely copper armor and copper swords, against a siege. Then tell me how inferior copper should be, compared to how it is.

[Girlinhat]

Copper is a superior blunt weapon because weapons only calculate 2 things: sharpness and weight.  Literally, no weapon or armor will ever decay unless it's burned.  This means that a silver hammer, made of extremely soft silver, will never warp or bend or deform.  A solid silver hammer would never last, the metal head would cave-in and deform after just a few hits.  But, because there is no decay, they work amazingly well.  They have the weight of silver but infinite durability.  Similarly, copper is heavier than steel, and it becomes durable by virtue of being a weapon.  When decay is eventually added properly, then silver warhammers will become useless after one medium-sized battle, and during long battles you may find your soldiers losing power rapidly.  Steel hammers will (eventually) be preferred for their durability, but as it stands, copper and silver are preferred for blunts because it's pure weight formulas.

[Lagslayer]

If I'm not mistaken, dwarves can currently use 2 shields AND 1 weapon simultaneously, even with 1 arm.

[Poindexterity]

I don't think it is worth it, because the dwarfs use the weapon they are more used to most of the time

Example: Legendary Swordsdwarf Equiped with Steel Mace and Steel Sword, He will always use the sword if he can

but if he has 2 swords, what then?

[Lightning4]

Copper is a superior blunt weapon because weapons only calculate 2 things: sharpness and weight.  Literally, no weapon or armor will ever decay unless it's burned.  This means that a silver hammer, made of extremely soft silver, will never warp or bend or deform.  A solid silver hammer would never last, the metal head would cave-in and deform after just a few hits.  But, because there is no decay, they work amazingly well.  They have the weight of silver but infinite durability.  Similarly, copper is heavier than steel, and it becomes durable by virtue of being a weapon.  When decay is eventually added properly, then silver warhammers will become useless after one medium-sized battle, and during long battles you may find your soldiers losing power rapidly.  Steel hammers will (eventually) be preferred for their durability, but as it stands, copper and silver are preferred for blunts because it's pure weight formulas.

Wouldn't it possible to make a weapon with a steel shell, but use a far heavier core metal? Although rather than silver, I would imagine everyone would use gold or even platinum since those are heavier still.

I'm not exactly a metalworker so I don't know if this is even possible, let alone for the technology the dwarves are at.


As for the topic, I think dual wielding will only become somewhat useful when dwarves can attack with two weapons at once. As far as I'm aware, this isn't possible. It only really functions as a backup in case the first gets stuck or they lose that arm/hand or whatever.
I'm not even sure if it has an effect on the ability to parry or block an attack.

[Girlinhat]

I don't think it is worth it, because the dwarfs use the weapon they are more used to most of the time

Example: Legendary Swordsdwarf Equiped with Steel Mace and Steel Sword, He will always use the sword if he can

but if he has 2 swords, what then?

Already answered: There is no speed bonus from having two weapons, and no striking power increase.  You have a spare weapon in case your hand is lopped off, but there is zero benefit to a healthy dwarf.

Wouldn't it possible to make a weapon with a steel shell, but use a far heavier core metal? Although rather than silver, I would imagine everyone would use gold or even platinum since those are heavier still.

I'm not exactly a metalworker so I don't know if this is even possible, let alone for the technology the dwarves are at.

Certainly, either by using a liquid dip or "dribble on" coating, or merely hammering the steel around the dense core.  Or, depending, making a hollow steel ball and then using it as a mold to pour a heavier metal in.  Point is, there's plenty of ways to do this, and I have no doubt that someone will mod in cored weapons once weapons start to degrade, and there may already be some mods that make use of something similar when creating weapons.  But, there's no reason for it right now, and that's a bridge that we'll weaponize when we come to it.

[peri609667]

Equip your army with completely copper armor and copper swords, against a siege. Then tell me how inferior copper should be, compared to how it is.

Note that i said it makes superior blunt weapons. The fact that everything else is worthless is irrelevant if you can get a more efficient version of what you're after for 1/15th the cost. That's broken no matter what way you look at it. Way to take things out of context.

@Girlinhat Yeah, i thought it might have had something to do with a feature not yet implemented. Once decay is introduced that would balance out the cost to usefulness ratio IMO.

[Erkki]

Equip your army with completely copper armor and copper swords, against a siege. Then tell me how inferior copper should be, compared to how it is.

Note that i said it makes superior blunt weapons. The fact that everything else is worthless is irrelevant if you can get a more efficient version of what you're after for 1/15th the cost. That's broken no matter what way you look at it. Way to take things out of context.

@Girlinhat Yeah, i thought it might have had something to do with a feature not yet implemented. Once decay is introduced that would balance out the cost to usefulness ratio IMO.

1/15th the cost? Why should not a cheaper(as in, takes less resources to create, adds less to fortress "wealth") not be in some uses more effective than a more expensive solution? DF only takes the crafting/smithing quality and material "price" into account any way. Theres no real object price or cost in use anywhere. If you think about it, shouldnt for example the traders ask more for everything made out of metals you dont have other access to? And the same way you can make thousands of rock crafts without making their price and exchange value fall. Copper is plentiful and to most quality requiring uses a sub-optimal even if cost efficient choice, so of course its cheap.

Personally I dont use blunt weapons unless if the only ore I have is tetrahedrite, native copper or malachite. And even then more than half of the weapons will be spears.

[Girlinhat]

This isn't a game of balance.  No one is trying to skew things so that the more expensive material is the better suited material.  Cheese is relatively difficult to produce, but not ultimately very valuable compared to other food sources.  Rock crafts are plentiful and hilariously easy and can be extremely valuable.  There is no balance here, things do not become better because they cost more.  They are better based on their material properties, which is completely unrelated to their cost.  The cost is more often compared to difficulty of acquisition.  Steel takes an annoyingly drawn-out process of smelting.  Copper takes ore and a log.  Aluminum is poor as armor, weapons, tools, or anything else, yet is rare and difficult to obtain, and that difficulty determines the high price of aluminum.  The worthless is valuable and the useful is cheap, based purely on how plentiful it is.

[Greiger]

I've had soldiers dual wield swords once.  And I'll also confirm that having a shield instead is better in almost every way, that and they will refer to use their first assigned weapon over their second if equally skilled in both.

But if you haven't modded in two handed weapons, and simply don't want to use a shield I would say two weapons is slightly better than one.  Partially for the previously mentioned limb lopping off, but also if your dudes have two weapons it's a better chance for those critical attack opportunities that the AI is predisposed to using will to land on a weapon instead of a less useful unarmed attack.