Note, someone bludgeoned with a warhammer is not going to be a slave afterwards.  Guys that get a beer bottle broken over their head typically die.  Having ten pounds of iron crush your rib cage isn't something you walk away from afterwards.

Personally I think the idea behind a Blunt Weapon is that you can crush them without having to pierce their armor. When your not dealing with an Edge or a Spike/tip ... your less likely to miss, its easier to use, and you just have to keep hitting them/denting their armor until their insides are pretty smashed up ... or give them a concussion to the head. Something simple like that.

Hammers require alot of strength to wield properly, however, so usually Maces are the Easiest weapon to learn. Morning Stars are a little trickier, and require the "least" amount of strength* however more skill/dexterity.

*the least strength is probably a dagger or Rapier/ShortSword, however Rapiers and then Short Swords require the most skill to use, especially against someone heavily armored. Of course, in the golden age of Gunpowder, Rapiers and Bayonettes were the melee weapon of choice.

A variety between Maces, Morning Stars, Hammers, Axes, and Swords would be appreciated. The first three are blunt weapons with varying Skill/Stat requirements, while Axes are probably the best against any armor thats easier to cut than it is to dent ... and Swords are just good for the fleshy weak spots, and really hard to use effectively (require more training and dexterity).

So probably the ones that need the most dexterity are Morning Stars and Swords, with Morning Stars being easier to learn ... and Maces, Axes, and Hammers being more straight-forward blunt requiring an exceptional amount of strength, but possibly less training to get competitive.

I agree if you going to want slaves then a "Capture" type weapon should be invented, like Nets and Bola's

The tech that allows Nets and Bolas should also increase the Food Output of Wild Game resources.

ok this I actually registered just so i could comment on this post 

so far i have been so happy about everything i saw about this game to the point that i checked your website on a daily basis to see if there is any new news about this game



but this post made me a bit worried... you see the thing that made me the happiest about this game was the fantasy world, everytime i playedciv games i wished it will be orcs or undead instead of just russia and england, and i think that one of the main things in a fantasy world is your units, and not only their equipment
i think that you should take more from age of wonders then from the civ games
I want my vampires to suck life when they attack my trolls to regenerate and my shaman to summon minions

the thing that was so much fun in age of wonders over heroes and civ was that every unit had tons of ability's 
yes i want to be able to choose if my goblin use an axe a mace or a sword but i also want it to be different from an elf a dwarf a human or an orc... 

and please don't let it be a rock paper scissors system... that just suck and take all the fun out of the game 

I can see it now, my massive raiding armys pulling snatch and grabs draging whole outposts to be worked to death as slave labor.

Nets and Bolas can't move buildings .... do you mean slowly depopulating a city? as in Capture the entire population via Nets and retreat instead of capturing the city??

also i think that a dwarven axe should be diffrent from a goblin one and that a elven bow should be stronger then a human one, then you can trade and buy weapons from your allies

each army should have hist strong and weak sides

Ooookay ... so I think the essence of what you are saying is that each race has different options for equivalent tech. I think this is fair.

For instance, most people have clubs (3 attack, 1 speed) ... Gildar could have Mallets (4 attack, 1 speed) and Tarth could have a batting stick (2 attack, 2 speed).

Most civs could have Leather armor (3 defense, 4 turns), whie Gildar have Intricate Leather armor (4 defense, 6 turns) and Tarth have Rough Leather Armor (2 defense, 2 turns).

Most civs Chain Mail (5 defense, 6 turns), Capitar Layered Chain Mail (7 defense, 7 turns), and Tarth Loose Chainmail (4 defense, 4 turns, +1 movement speed).

Most people Iron plates (8 defense, 7 turns), while Gildar have Iron Gildar Plates (9 defense, 6 turns), and Procipinee Race has RuneCrafted Iron Plates (8 defense, 9 turns, +1 combat speed).

Broad Sword (7 attack, +1 combat speed), Capitar have Noble Sword (8 attack, +1 combat speed), and Gildar have The Slicer (10 attack).

Dagger(3 attack, +1 combat speed), Altar have Hunting Knife(4 attack, +1 combat speed), Tarth have Butcher(3 attack, +3 combat speed)

Hammer (10 attack), Gildar have War Hammer (12 attack)

Longbow (8 attack, 200 range), Tarth have Yew Longbow (10 attack, 220 range)

Iron TowerShield (6 defense), Capitar have Iron HonorShield (7 defense).

Some things could only have Faction A strength. Other items could have a different kind of strength for two different factions, other items could have an outright weakness for one faction, and a strength of another. Just different things to slightly lean one way or another based upon the Faction that is selected.

Upon creating a custom faction, you could choose the weapon-selection of a given faction, or design your own (with a proper points system)

yes that was my second idea, but the first and more important one (and if its already like that then sorry)

but is that the diffrences between the units wont be only ATK and DFS moddifiers, that it will also be diffrent abiltis for example



ALTAR 

champions - double strike (that you can arm as you wish)
paladin - bless - heal 
griffon's -  
and so on

Kraxis

death knight - aura of weakness - first strike
necromancer - summon zombies / skeletons - steal life
assassin - wall climbing - stealth - backstab



add to that trolls minotaurs and so on and on each race should have different units and abilities... i think its more interesting then just having stronger and weaker units with different weapons... but hey its your game, do whatever you want

Well ... you would have to attach those abilities to various equipment, armor, and weapons ... with "equipment" being the catchall term to imbue necromacy, bless abilities, stealth, wall climbing, backstabbing. Creating the various costs and tech reqs is key.

Im sure that all nations would be able to build wall climbing packs, daggers with backstabbing bonuses, and stealth cloaks. However, perhaps Krax has the best version for equivalent tech. Thats the key I think.

To be honest I would just like to see some of the 'weaker' technologies still useful later in the game.

I don't want to be forced to send out masses of guys in plate armor and with magic swords, I want to be able to say, have shortswords be faster and weigh less, and have leather armor weigh less and reduce movement less.

That way I could design troops with more variety and flexibility the more technology I have, rather than like in some strategy games just pumping out a mass of my strongest units.

If I want for example lightly armored troops with light weapons as well as heavily armored troops, bows, and spearmen in my army, I'd really like it if each of them had their uses.

 I disagree completly that each race should have its own tech. If this game was more "traditional fantasy" where the kingomds already were strongly established than it would make sense. But your pretty much starting from scratch. Each faction should have the same basic starting tech tree (or one of of just a few to reflect differences in culture). This should than be modified by a number of factors. Some are random (discovering unique "starter" techs in goodie huts), some are choices (choosing one branch of the tree which locks out another), and finally some are based on the enviornment around you (if you don't have access to stone, than you shouldn't get masonry technologies, if you live in the desert you might get glassmaking technologies). This would ensure that each game is unique, and would make each side different in every game. If you want to make troops in platemail, with longswords, you would definatly want to find a source for copper or iron, and try to specilize in that style of warfare. This wouldn't completly deny you access to a lighter-type of troop, but more advanced light-troops might not be available to you since those branches are locked out, or not available.

Back on topic, there definatly needs to be differences between spears, and swords, maces and clubs besides the damage they do. Perhaps a system of "Damage Type" would be a good compromise here. Perhaps a sword would deal "slashing" damage, and a club "blunt" damage, etc. Different armors could be better against different types of damage. In regards to longer weapons, perhaps one additional statistic on weapons being "reach" could be added which would affect damage to different kinds of troops (better chance of hitting flying units, more damage to cavalry, etc.)

Of course nations could have their own tech trees. Even without Tech trees, Tech A can give slightly different results for Nation A, B, and C.

So instead of unique Units, you get Unique versions of equipment ... like weapons, armor, ect.

The reason maces(especially the more advanced variants like flanged etc.) were so popular even with the nobility and more professional soldiers in medieval eras was the fact that mace is indeed very effective against metal armor because it doesn't need to penetrate the armor to do damage, the shock and the armor itself when dented kills the wearer. Leather armor on the other hand doesn't get dented and thus a mace wouldn't be especially effective against it. 

As for the OP, i wholeheartedly agree that some tactical difference between troops with different weapons/equipment is needed to make the tactical battles appealing, not rock-paper-scissors but rather slight advantages and disadvantages and if the engine allows it, "special" tactics like the aforementioned pike/lance example. 

I like these replies and the way the discussion is revolving.

To oversimplify: It seems clear that "paper scissors rock" is a poor choice (and one I did not intend to convey), but that some form of inherent possibility for variety is needed -- perhaps one which only becomes functionally manifest if certain conditions are met, e.g. Units U1 through U15 receive a bonus to defense if Tech T5 is unlocked *and* has a shield equipped, Units U7 and U8 receive a bonus to parry if fighting vs. opponent with weapons of length L4 or under, Units U17 and U18 receive a bonus to earth resistance when fighting in Swamp Terrain, Unit U4 gets a bonus to stealth when in Forest Terrain and when not wearing armor of Type A7-A12, while the spell Weakness reduces the Strength rating of units in its AoE by X or X/2 if saving throw was made. and the spell Hypnotize causes units within its AoE to have an attack and movement rating of 0 if their Charisma saving throw fails, etc. etc.

All I want to say here is that the condition for the possibility of variety should be included. Let there be variables that can interact with each other and be connected to conditions, be unit these attributes (constitution, dexterity, perception, charisma), flaggable abilities (can be stealthy, ability drain, special attack or defense options) or characteristics of the immediate environment (equipment, terrain). Making up our own "cards" for our units, complete with pose and quotation, will become a dull chore quickly, much like it was in GC2, because our building options in GC2 only appeared at first glance to be very variable.

Here Here for unit variety. Its the one place I know I will want variety possibility. (one reason is because you don't HAVE to have variety, its all about trying different tactics and counters).

Still .... 600 deathknights and 400 recurved Longbowmen vs 1500 sturdy peasants and 500 ninjaAssasins ... make for an interesting battle no?