Besides, the 'armor user' skill only affects how fast and agile a dwarf is under all that armor. They don't get any better protection from higher skill levels.
quote:
Originally posted by gimli:
<STRONG>The whole combat system could use a rework to be honest.
1 dwarf can beat a megabeast alone with luck as it is now. Is this making any sense? No.
Ranged weapons are totally overpowered, everyone knows about it.
I will make a new thread about the combat system problems soon.</STRONG>
Ranged weapons were always a terrible threat to every army of the middle ages. But there might be some differentation between the weapon types in DF:
crossbows had in fact a good chance to penetrate most types of armor because of the high kinetic energy delivered with heavy bolts, it was the first reliable armor penetrating ranged weapon. Crossbows were also easy to fabricate, and did not need a lot of training to be accurate, that's why it was the poors people weapon of choice.
As a drawback, the rate of fire was very slow, you needed some mechanical help to load the bow, and limited range to achive a penetrating hit.
On the other side, bows as the english longbow or compound bows had lesser penetration potential (but it was not impossible), and it took years to become a well trained marksman; accuratly aiming a bow pulled with 80kg takes time. Bows took a long time to produce and needed to be stored carefully to prevent degradation. But they provided an incredible rate of fire and were effective on longer ranges.
Whenever chivalry did not hinder the effective use of these weapons they played a great role on the battefield. But it was not a noble way of fighting, so it often was not used or used in a wrong way, for the nobles it was more important to fight according the rules of chivalry than to simply win a battle.
Btw. two fingers shown for the victory sign, this comes from the feared english archers taunting their enemies showing the two fingers used to draw the bow string.
[ March 21, 2008: Message edited by: Wawotsch ]
[ March 21, 2008: Message edited by: Wawotsch ]
quote:
Originally posted by toast:
<STRONG>its also easy enough to change the damage that a bolt or an arrow does, if you really want.</STRONG>
Which helps, but even 1 damage arrows set to blunt damage will break limbs and crush torsos at a fairly high rate because the crit chance seems to be hardcoded.
So yes, archers are overpowered. Bows should do less damage (at least to armored targets) and crossbows should shoot slower. Both should be quite a bit less accurate, especially at range and against moving targets.
It's not as big a deal as some people make it out to be though, legendary shield use plus legendary wrestler will make a dwarf damn near unhittable even by mass ranged weapons.
Anyway Toady knows about it and I imagine it will all get balanced out when the combat arc comes around so no use worrying about it for now. It's pretty easy to remove them from the game completely for now if it really bothers you.
quote:
Originally posted by Inquisitor Saturn:
<STRONG>A full statted dwarf with legendary shield and hammer use and a full set of adamantine armor should be able to take out megabeasts.</STRONG>
Why? I agree that this is a fantasy game, so why not to post an answer for myself...but you know if I think about a dragon...that dragon is devastating armies in my mind, and definitely wouldn't be killed by a single dwarf regardless of the equipment...
There must be creatures as stong as a whole army, that is fantasy in my head. ;)
Champions should either be hard to get and as strong as they are now, or quite a bit weaker but still easy to get.
quote:
Originally posted by Asehujiko:
<STRONG>Yup, ranged weapons are overpowered. Oh, wait. Nevermind.</STRONG>
Whoa, how did you get the combat announcements?
quote:Champions versus ordinary footsoldiers. Superb armor against goblin crap. This is not evidence.
Originally posted by Asehujiko:
<STRONG>Yup, ranged weapons are overpowered. Oh, wait. Nevermind.</STRONG>
The problem with ranged weapons in DF isn't that they are unbeatable in all circumstances. Stack the deck enough, and - as this movie shows - they can be beat. I've beat them myself using the same methods.
The problem is that they become as powerful as they are so easily.
quote:
Originally posted by Fedor:
<STRONG>Champions versus ordinary footsoldiers. Superb armor against goblin crap. This is not evidence.</STRONG>
Heh exactly. That movie is hillarious..Its like 5 titans vs. dwarven miners equipped with pickaxes. :D
Elite ranged troops with decent equipment can kill a champ dwarf with 1 shoot.
[ March 21, 2008: Message edited by: gimli ]
As for one dwarf slaying a megabeast, I say if the dwarf is tough enough to smite off a dragon's cockles, then that's how mighty she is. Hell yeah. Even if that dragon has slain scores of foes and has grown strong off of stolen cattle. Even if all kings are cowed by its conflagration. If a dwarf has all the might of dwarven ancestors, all the strength of dwarvenkind, then that dwarf will triumph, at least before dying of dragon-related injuries.
quote:
Originally posted by Benitosimies:
<STRONG>Well it's never a good idea for anyone to be walking into a field of flying arrows, in general. Kind of like with bullets. We aren't talking about rad yoshimitsu robot god armor where the bullets just fly off ptew ptang. Arrows mean business.</STRONG>
Then again adamantine is almost four times as strong as steel. And full plate armor akin to what the teutonic knights wore meant business too. Adamantine plate would probably give at least small caliber firearms trouble. But it's easier to make bigger guns than heavier armor, that's the main reason medieval style armor went out of fashion--firepower was no longer limited by the individual's strength.
So the idea that the penetration of DF armors by missle weapons is just plain unfounded. These weapons are that dangerous.
However, they do have a serious fault. As has been mentioned, the rate of fire is just ridiculous, so much so that I call them my assault rifles. Each dwarf whips out their 25 round clip and fires a burst into the goblins' ranks. Cutting the Rate down to 1/2 to 1/4th of its current setting would balance things well.
BTW I have plenty of victories of footdwarves vs goblin bowmen. The key is to provide the footdwarves with something to hide behind as the goblins approach. For instance, under my road in several locations I have small 5x5 bunkers. These are the rally points to squads with "chases enemies" off. As the goblins pass overhead, I switch the "chases enemies" on, and boom - macedwarf ambush. The next generation involves a chokepoint with a bridge over the bunker. When the bridge opens, the goblins drop (and are stunned for moments) into a pit of dwarves...messy.
As for bows/crossbows, well... that is pretty much the nature of projectile weaponry. There isn't a nation in the world that, at one point in time, hasn't been appalled by the horror of that - that a peasant could kill the greatest warrior with a projectile weapon. If we need to make them less effective, lowering the rate-of-fire seems like a good suggestion (like Ergates suggested).
Incidentally, please keep in mind that the word "overpower" means something completely and utterly different than what's being referred to here. Some people think ranged weapons are too powerful not "overpowered".
But really the word can be used both ways.
[ March 24, 2008: Message edited by: Lightman ]
quote:
Originally posted by Orkel:
<STRONG>Whaat, the armor user skill doesn't give the user extra defence/make him harder to kill? Damn. It should, though, maybe just a small boost but still a boost.</STRONG>
Not really. Your skill at wearing a piece of armor shouldn't affect the armor's ability to deflect a blow. That should just be dependent on the quality of the armor. Armor wearing skill just helps you do other things while wearing armor.
quote:
Originally posted by Crafty Barnardo:
<STRONG>Not really. Your skill at wearing a piece of armor shouldn't affect the armor's ability to deflect a blow. That should just be dependent on the quality of the armor. Armor wearing skill just helps you do other things while wearing armor.</STRONG>
Yeah, but as in that the soldier learns for example the weak spots in his armour and utilizes the stronger areas better, to give more protection. And this affects his defence. And to learn to deflect blows better with his plate armour, and so on.
[ March 24, 2008: Message edited by: Orkel ]
quote:
Originally posted by Footkerchief:
<STRONG>Whoa, how did you get the combat announcements?</STRONG>
I too would like to know this :) detailed combat info in fortress mode would be awesome!
There is also a standalone program that enables them, I don't know anything about it though and I don't know if it's on the wiki or not.
That's not so much archery's fault as it is the fault of sparring. Casualties are ridiculously high once everyone gets trained up, when Dwarves are trading Ultra-Mighty axe blows.