Black-Knight

Join Date 09/2009

+15

Advanced Weapon System: Slash\Pierce\Blunt (paper\scissor\rock)

it would only make sense to develop a system like that to justify the great number of weapons present in this game.

Aa a general rule light armors should e more vulnerable to pierce weapons (monsters and animals getting killed with a spear) and heavy armors should be more vulnerable to blunt weapons (a heavily armored knight is unable to avoid a hit from a mace or a hammer, while an animal would probably just dodge it, because those weapons are strong but slow... would you pick a hammer or a spear to kill a lion?)

swords that are typically the best weapons should offer a good compromise but be expensive and less specialized.

As research is achieved one weapon of each kind would be offered as a choice. each weapon would have one attack value for its kind of attack for example:

WARHAMMER attack: Blunt 6

when that Blunt Weapon is used against an armor its attack should be compared to that specific kind of protection the armor offers, for example:

TROLL SKIN defense: Blunt 6 - Slash 4 - Pierce 3

Notice that a troll not having an armor is much more vulnerable to a spear or a sword than to a hammer that can more easily avoid or withstand.

In the above case there would be an attack of 6 against a defense of 6 calculated in the usual way.

SPECIAL WEAPONS:

Some specific weapons could maybe offer 2 kinds of attacks and only the most convenient should be calculated each time (swords for example can both pierce and slash, while axes can both slash and blunt)

IMO that's the combat system that makes more sense for a game like this.

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

ElanaAhova

Join Date 09/2008

+105

This idea has merit -and I hope people comment on this so SD has another souce of ideas to draw from.

The rock, scissor, paper analogy reminds me of GalCiv2 with its three weapon types and three defense types.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting ,

quoting post

heavy armors should be more vulnerable to blunt weapons

Heavy (plate) armor is best suited for spreading a blunt impact over a larger area.
Classic "anti armor" weapons are effectively piercing weapons like a bec de corbin - or even a sturdy spear.

swords that are typically the best weapons should offer a good compromise but be expensive and less specialized

Swords had the best PR agents. The myth surrounding them is the best thing about them.
And while Zweihänders looked cool, they had very few specific roles. They were never a primary weapon.
Simple spears or maybe polearms are useful in a medieval battle. Maybe a short sword or dagger for close-in work but there won't realistically be any duels with long swords - or the space for using them in a formation.

You're exaggerating the "heavy" aspect of hammers. Those were not 20 kg hammer heads. =P
Typically they were one-handed and used for armor piercing because the wielder would not use the hammer head - that only provided the mass - but the spike on the other side.

I'm not sure if armour can be pressed into any convenient rock/paper/shotgun scheme.

Plate / chain: superior against slashing, very good against blunt because it's never worn without a gambeson (or equivalent)
No clear weakness. Weighted piercing weapons are still your most realistic hope of getting through it.

Leather armour can be just about anything else. Good ones offer some protection against slashing, too, because "battle edges" were not exactly razors. That would ruin the weapons far too quickly. Swords were mostly used for piercing because a straight thrust is hard to defend against and doesn't make you as vulnerable as a wide arching (hollywood) swing.

A weapon designed to pierce plate armour would be equally effective against leather armour. Plate armor does not slow/hinder a fighter as much as is "common knowledge". Leather would actually have to be much stiffer as a whole if it were to provide any protection and the better weight distribution of plate (vs chain) enabled knights to literally do somersaults.
(except for especially heavy tournament plate which would be rather dense thing to wear in a battle)
The "evasion property" of leather armour alone would not make it better against blunt weapons. It's cheaper. That's about it.

A system of damage avoidance vs damage mitigation for armour seems more useful.
Plate does not just make you slower. The always curved surfaces are designed to deflect blows - not just stop them cold. So "good" plate could actually increase the avoidance stat. Early plate wasn't as sophisticated or comfortable to wear so it was a lot "bulkier". But that's a matter for the research tree.
With damage avoidance and mitigation there would be sliders to adjust armour to "useful" values.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Gazz_,

reply 2

Swords had the best PR agents. The myth surrounding them is the best thing about them.
And while Zweihänders looked cool, they had very few specific roles. They were never a primary weapon.
Simple spears or maybe polearms are useful in a medieval battle. Maybe a short sword or dagger for close-in work but there won't realistically be any duels with long swords - or the space for using them in a formation.

Yep, and this is when realism tries to come in and stamp out the awesomeness of Zweihänders...

There is a place for some realism, but as long as the mechanics are defined in the game and make sense in the game, the real world be damned.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I definitely think damage types and resistances should play a larger role, but I prefer systems with a little more complexity than rock/paper/scissors. I always thought Gal Civ 2 was disappointingly shallow in this regard.

So maybe not rock/paper/ scissors, but more like rock/paper/scissors/fire/cold/blunt/slashing/piercing/electrical/death/holy/squirrel.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Heavy (plate) armor is best suited for spreading a blunt impact over a larger area.
Classic "anti armor" weapons are effectively piercing weapons like a bec de corbin - or even a sturdy spear.

I really don't care how things are implemented since mine is just a generic idea for a system. But the above is not correct, since certain blunt weapons were in fact specifically designed for attacking armors. Hammers for example didn't look huge dumb and flat like those designed in most games (including this one). They didn't look like hammers for nails: medieval warhammer had cones and points on the impact surface made on purpouse to pierce armors.

http://www.realmcollections.com/images/pl/Other_Weapons_German_War_Hammer_M600366_1753.jpg

Regarding swords while they might not have been the best choice against an armor, you would be surprised to see how much damage a good sword can do. If you have fencing in mind think again: medieval swords were BIG!

Of course it depends on the size and quality of the blade, (and yes, some of them could be better at piercing) but that's exactly what having several kinds of swords is trying to address:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb6QK9pUIjU&NR=1

A greatsword:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRomw2E3G5w&feature=related

A regular sword could cut your arm off with just one slash. A great sword could cut your whole body in half.

Swords were THE best weapon, no hammer or spear can do so much damage with so little effort and so much speed.

But I do agree that an army would probably be equipped with spears rather than swords, because making good sword was very hard and spears were easier to handle in a formation. The greatsword was mostly used by specialist skirmish units that needed space to operate and were therefore spread around as a vanguard.

Right now this game doesn't offer that level of simulation, but by playing the TOTAL WAR series one can very well see what I am talking about.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I kind of agree with both sides here. Yes, realistically a rock/paper/scissors approach doesn't quite work but, a game doesn't have to specifically follow every single aspect of reality so long as it makes at least a rough kind of sense and makes the game more interesting.

Successfully updated karma reason!

i'm all for a good implementation of multiples types of physical damage. I was expecting it all along. Brad was talking about this system being used quite a bit prior to release, but when the game finally came out, it turned out that there was no clear evidence of damage types for different weapons, nor strengths and weaknesses of different armors. I'm still not clear on what happened to the plan for damage types; and I haven't heard anyone from SD talk about it recently... is anyone aware of post-release posts where the devs have commented on this? perhaps it's actually implemented in the game, but it's all happening in the background?

Successfully updated karma reason!

This thread is important.

From memory the game allows classification of damage types in the XML but does nothing with it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I just don't think it adds enough to the game - at least not in a logical and straightforward way.
The weapon/armour interaction is too blurry in some areas.

Rather spend the effort on a resist system for magical damage types.

Successfully updated karma reason!

psychoak

Join Date 07/2007

+225

Weapons need more than just a damage type for anything interesting to happen, but I'm not expecting it. Simple RPS systems are brain dead junk for RTS games. Alas, we lack entirely the functionality for implementing them. No functional morale system, no flanking, no formations...

/wrists

Successfully updated karma reason!

I am very perplexed about a good strategic\tactical system coming out of a map made of squares rather than hexes. It is very hard to try surrounding or flanking an enemy when you can only make lines in two directions, vertical and horizontal (diagonals obviously are not actual "lines")

So it's not the movement that can be part of the strategy in this game but rather the selection of skills of single units. Heroes of M&M 5 manages this on a map made of squares, but the average battle in that game has something that this game sadly lacks: VARIETY. In an average HoM&M5 game there are plenty of different units on each side, because you have plenty of money to buy them, while those few and ONLY those few units of each kind are available, so that you HAVE to buy a variety of troops. Here you have very little money and can choose to make pretty much any unit you like, so you end up with just a couple of armies which are the best armies you can get but they are just a few.

The result is that battles are boring and not epic at all and most units on the battlefield are probably the usual summoned monsters rather than armies.

I don't have a solution, for now, but IMO the reason why battles are boring in this game is precisely that.

A system to specialize individual armies (weapons) against specific targets would definitely help. Forcing players to add variety to their armies in order to face different threats would definitely be a beginning.

Successfully updated karma reason!

ElanaAhova

Join Date 09/2008

+105

I think the important thing about any combat system in this (or any other) game is that it provide an evolving set of challenges, options, and tradeoff as the game (technology) progresses. 'Interesting choices' is my mantra with games. Combat should present the player with options. many possibilities for choices, tactics, ways of exploiting weaknesses, and strengths of both sides' units should evolve as weapon systems, training, skills, etc., also evolve / develop. Combat should reward players (AI) who intelligently use 'combined' arms. By 'combined' I mean using the mix of military / magic assets in clever and intelligent ways.

For me, I don't really care if the interaction between weapons, armor, and magic is "realistic." What does matter is that the system is internally consistent, and is close enough to "reality" that I can "suspend my disbelief" and thereby immerse myself in the challenge and the story. Yes, arrows fly over things and hit enemies. Yes, stronger armor protects from some things 'better' than weaker armor. Yes, ZOC's initiative, varied MPs. Mounted units. Invisible, blurred, flying, yes to it all. Whatever SD finally decides for the tactical sub game of EWoM: Please let it have 'interesting choices, tradeoffs, and options for combined arms.

Successfully updated karma reason!

psychoak

Join Date 07/2007

+225

The hex versus squares argument has never had a bearing on tactical combat using formations and facings.

Squares are simpler, they match the typical rectangular formations. Quarter turn and half turn movement costs, you move only the direction you face. Your flank tiles are to the left and right of your facing, the rear is equally obvious and logical.

With Hex, you don't have a flank, you have two diagonals to work with. The only sensible course of action is to then make only the rear diagonals your flank, which means flanking is significantly more difficult, thus simpler to guard against. If you make the forward tiles flank positions as well, you're basically always flanked.

In either case, what you need is facing and directional movement. Both cases suck, neither is anything resembling a good system for tactical combat using real world mechanics and tactics.

What you really want for tactical combat is distance, no bullshit tiles. You can't do a wheel maneuver in either of them, you can't do real formation combat either. Your formations have to be uniform for it to look at all right.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I don't think the "rock/paper/scissors" idea fits to this game.

This idea is excellent for tactical games and RPGs, but in strategy games it adds a complexity that might not fit what we want from this game.

In the unit generation, the rock/paper/scissors idea will force you to create at least 3 types of the same unit, different only in the type of armor they are wearing.

It does add depth to the tactical stage, but places too much effort on the unit generation compared to the other elements of the game.

Instead of that, I offer some minor bonuses for each weapon type. (an yes, I know the bonuses aren't necessarily realistic)

Slashing should be generally better, doing more base damage than most weapons in their rank.

Piercing weapons do less damage but ignore armor (meaning they will do less damage, but with better chances of hitting heavy armored units)

Blunt can cause stun, reflected in a minor stat penalty for the next round. Or can just be relatively weaker and cheaper compared to other weapons.

Pikes and spears can add a bonus damage to a retaliation strike, or even have a "first strike" ability.

etc.

Successfully updated karma reason!

What the tactical combat lacks are specialized attacks, basically all the player can do is just straight, pure damage. It would be nice if weapons gave units "abilities" for example, a spear would allow the unit to always attack first, a hammer might give a "sunder" ability that would reduce an enemy's armor but do less damage. Long swords could provide a "parry" ability that provides a chance to ignore the damage of a counter-attack

Also when it comes to recruited armies there are only two types of units, melee and ranged. Mounted units can just move farther but are used essentially the same as infantry. Mounts should provide a "charge" ability that substantially reduces moral, that way they could actually be used like shock troops.

I also think units should take moral damage when they take physical damage (proportional to their level of training), and moral should drop for all units as their comrades are killed or flee the field.

To sum it up, I'd like to see combat be more than just groups of melee units slogging it out to the death.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think rock/paper/scissors/lizard/spock is better...

Successfully updated karma reason!