Does anybody choose to equip troops with daggers as opposed to spears?

I don't. It isn't an efficient choice as it is.

I just replied to a post discussing fast weapons vs. strong weapons. I think the fast weapons need a bit more love, and that includes the dagger. They're supposed to be here to clean up lightly armored infantry (at the dagger level, it's actually "unarmored" infantry), but they don't perform so well in that job because even with the increase in speed, their total damage is lower.

The issue is still in flux I believe. I think that in future versions there will be an initiative system that will change the equation here.

Just increasing combat speed on the fast weapons isn't a great solution here, since an enemy gets to counterattack once per attack in the current system (up to a max).  Once the initiative system goes in, there should be a balancing for fast weapons (since every attack will not automatically be counterattacked).

Yes, I have meat shild types with lots of armor and daggers they absorb counteratacks.

No, daggers, like short swords, clubs and axes are completely useless as is.

You would think that a chop from an ax anywhere on your person, you're not coming home for dinner tonight!  Let alone have a counter attack thats worth anything.  But it is just a game.

Uh... real life isn't turn-based to begin with, so....

Part of the problem with only using the highest level weapon is that everyone gets attacks based upon their movement, and not based upon the speed of the weapon. There are no real downsides for using the inherently more "slow" weaponry. Similarly, the "fast" weapons make you move faster? I don't walk more briskly when I'm carrying a knife than when I am carrying nothing.

If attacks used a % of your movement points rather than an integer value, you would see a much greater advantage to "fast weapons" over harder hitting ones. Fast weapons give you extra opportunities to deal a lesser level of damage. At this point in time, you already get pretty much 3 attacks on every unit out there, 4 if you have the right faction trait, more if you are riding a horse, etc. Similarly, it would be much easier to balance the really heavy hitting weapons. Make them slow, and use 75% of unit's total movement.

So, 4 Attacks at Str 9 (32 max damage potential) , or 5 Attacks at Str 5 (25 max damage potential)? Not really even a choice.

If you reduce that to 50% movement for a single attack or 33% movement for a single attack, the comparison becomes more attractive.

2 Attacks at Str 9 (18 max damage potential), or 3 attacks at Str 5 (15 max damage potential). This has more considerations. Are you fighting lightly armored things? That extra attack may be more worth your while.

Let's look at the super heavy weapons in this one as well;

Great Scimitar is 45 Attack, right? Ok, well that's a "slow" attack, so 1 chance to hit and do 45 damage. As compared to a broadsword where you get 2 attacks at 18 (36 max damage potential). That makes the big big weapons great for blowing a single unit's head out it's tookus every turn regardless of armor, where the weapons with less damage per strike give you the ability to attack several units a turn.

'Cept the scimitar should be faster than the broadsword, that's the point of the blade's design Although in actual fact it would be nice if the mechanics could represent that one is designed for thrusting and slashing while the other is purely a slashing weapon.

 I'm not a big fan of using movement % to be honest. Being capable of only one attack per turn would make combat incredibly tedious when you ended up fighting spam hordes of spiderlings or similar who can't actually hurt the character.

 Initiative would be a better solution, limit counter attacks by initiative so a dagger might get in four blows for every counter swing by a hammer or the like.

 Although I notice we now seem to have separate to hit and counter attack to hit chances, so it occurs to me you could have some fun with them. A larger attack weapon like a two handed axe for example having near zero chance of landing a counter attack, while a more nimble weapon like a longsword might have a higher chance to do so commensurate with the lower attack power. Although this sends us down the somewhat clichéd route of opting for either an all out attack or balancing offence with defence, but then generally they only become cliché because they work ...

We don't. The number in the tooltip is the probability the opponent will hit you with his counterattack.

LMAO Werewindlefr we finally agree on something. That was just soooooooooooooo funny kewl.

Ummm I also disagree with taking out counterattacks for everyone later on. It's the only fair thing to do vs the AI. Allow simultaneous attacks even if the unit dies it should get it's swing and attack.

I do use a dagger amed troop has Tarth to burn up the enemys counter attacks. Befor the sovren moves in for the kill.

The point of a fast weapon is the following: dealing more damage but over all attacks means that you're going to have armor factor one more time. So, against weakly armored/unarmored troops, it should be better than the spear.

Daggers should be around 7 damage. That would make them as good as a spear against unarmored opponents (very slightly better actually 7*4 = 28 > 9*3 = 27), and give you the ability to wear a shield. On the other hand, you lose damage over anything with even very light armor.

Not so. If you are fighting wolves you are dealing with some ~12 HP creatures. Strength plus spear in the two attack environment means you will most probably kill a wolf with both your attacks, maybe with a single one. The dagger has a good possibility of killing the wolf with two of the three attacks, leaving the third to be directed elsewhere.

Other possibilities;

High dodge opponents - More attacks is way better than higher damage because of the likelihood that the dodge totally negates ALL damage.

Enemies with tons of counterattacks - The dagger wins every time in my eyes, because over the course of several models, you will wind up getting more attacks with no repercussions, which in a war of attrition (any closely balanced fight with no sovereign) is a tactic to win.

Right now the biggest stick is the only real option because pretty much everything is the same "speed".

That one attack per turn assumes that you are using a heavy bunker-buster weapon, though. Most weapons under a %AP/Attack system would get two attacks, or the model could move a space and attack once.

I like initiative for combat in general, but more as an "activation order" based on dexterity and equipment. Dagger's only benefit being that they get to hit back more often is still pretty weak since you have to be attacked (and risk taking damage) for that benefit to have any effect at all. I would still got for increased effectiveness during my own turn (personally).

Most units don't have a strength bonus. It's important to consider strength in the balance too, but the main question is: if it's available for units, how can we make it worth it to equip units with them.

I agree. If nobody ever uses a thing, what it the purpose of having it in the game.

I don't know about yall but in my last game I was fighting wolves with around 46 hp. Talk about insane times to try and wield anything but the strongest weapons.

You can always factor it into the attack too, so the dagger gets X strikes before the enemy gets a chance to counter attack.

  The main advantage of it would be for characters rather than troops - the multiple counters would be useful for casters in both mitigating their usually lower attack value and providing a little bite in defence.

 For troops it'd be a niche weapon. I could see it being of benefit for a tank style unit (i.e. best armour you can get + shield + defence gear) who's job is basically to sit on the frontline and soak up attacks. You could do it now and still get some benefit from the dagger solely in terms of cost, but with multiple counter attacks it would also mitigate the lower attack value slightly.

Another possibility would be to allow the dagger wielder to counter attack before the enemy gets to attack, which equally could be a useful defensive measure. Although I think that ability might be better suited to the spear.