Bay 12 Games Forum

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mechanoid:
<STRONG>oddly, "Elephant" and "Maimer" weren't in the language raws.</STRONG>

---

Thats odd, elephants are engraved often, if they are willing to draw them killing dwarves why would they forgo making the words?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pantothenate:
<STRONG>Dwarves have 6 attack types (swords, spears, axes, maces, wrestling, crossbows).  There are only a few damage types (bludgeon, slash, pierce, gore, burn).  The only reason to add a weapon is to allow different damage types (or make 2-handed variations, but this seems a bit bugged at the moment)--otherwise, you're just cluttering up the game.</STRONG>

---

Adding more to the combat system might seem like clutter, but you have to realise that the system is already oversimplified. There are so many things not yet implemented that would add a lot of depth and flavour. Plate armour for example simply adds more "damage reduction" successful hits simply do a little less damage, in reality the vast majority of weapon blows would be deflected but the game does not account for this. Such things can also lead to problems, bows and crossbows as they are now are WAY too deadly because of the current armour mechanics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pantothenate:
<STRONG>Adding a katana, which also does slash-dmg, but more, because it's owned by a Samurai, and samurai are Japanese, and everything Japanese that a while kid sees is automatically better than European stuff, then the introduction of this weapon would render the short sword obsolete. Having it do the same dmg is completely pointless. Having a rapier-type weapon, however, would make sense, because it would give swordsmen an opportunity to do piercing damage, which is more precise, less messy, and doles out more criticals.</STRONG>

---

It would, if damage was simply just a set of numbers! That is exactly why we are trying to upgrade the system. If the combat mechanics worked out that way, i would grow a beard just so it could eat it! A katana and a shortsword are vastly different weapons that are built for a different purpose. A katana is NOT simply a more "slashier" sword.

Rapiers are vastly romanticized and overrated. Rapiers are only built for piercing light armour, simple fact. They were a step towards developing plate armour piercing weapons but were rendered obselete in that regard by other weapons such as the estoc and rondel. They are also not the thin and swishy blades people think of, proper rapiers are thick and bend very little.

If you poke someone in the heart with a rapier, good for you! But the rapier will do nothing to prevent said someone from beheading you with his ax. The damage may be critical, but the actual trauma is limited and people can live for suprising periods even when mortally wounded. This is especially true when drugs are involved.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pantothenate:
<STRONG>Main-Gauches are currently absolutely impossible: They would require a complete overhaul of the combat system to allow a dwarf to parry with weapons, as well as programming in disarming attacks, as well as programming in special skill sets for dagger-type weapons. Impossible? No. But it would be reinventing the wheel--the combat system works fine as it is. There are better things to work on.</STRONG>

---

Such as? Toady is already reinventing the wheel with the addition of Z-levels. A combat overhaul is just as viable as any other change to the game.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pantothenate:
<STRONG>but your weaponsmithing menus wouldn't be clogged up with 18 different kinds of spear.</STRONG>

---

That is assuming that all 18 spears are displayed on the same screen, it does not have to be. A dwarves smith would only produce weapons he knows well. If you asked him to make you a katana, he would refuse, why? Well for one, he probably would have no idea what a katana is, and how to make one.

A weapon would only be added to your build menu if someone comes along and shows you the weapon, teaches you how to use it and how to make it. You would not be able to simply say "hey i saw a katana today, lets make 500 of them!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Felix the Cat:
<STRONG>Going further, the process of weapon invention and improvement could be entirely in the hands of the dwarves, requiring no input from the user, on the assumption that the dwarves are intelligent and will design useful things.</STRONG>

---

YES! Precisely! Every other race would also do the same. There would be a constant arms race going on. Each side would retain thier "traditional" and "classic" weapons like the mace and sword, but specialized variants would pop up whenever there is a need for them.

You should also be able to design a weapon from the ground up. Instead of reacting to your current weapon needs. You could skip ahead and dream up a weapon to fill an imagined gap which may later exist. If you designed your fortress with corridor battles in mind, you would want good spears to work with the terrain you have.

[ August 28, 2007: Message edited by: Tamren ]

Nowadays the US spends large amounts of money on ridiculous weapons that it does not need. The comanche helicopter took 6.9 billion to develop and was scrapped (mostly) in favour of UAVs. Star wars missile defence? lawl, your tax dollars at work!

In comparison, medieval weaponry evolved in response to the armour and tactics of the nearby enemy. This is how DF should work as well. Some weapons are ubiquitous like the spear and club. Others only evolved out of specific needs, like the pike to counter cavarly.

But then, how would dwarves invent stuff out of the blue? Then again... Felsite thongs? Artifact floodgates? all we need is a crazy weaponsmith.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zaratustra:
[QB]I approve of AlanL's idea. That way each civilization could naturally build weapons more suited to its way of living. - Make a collection of 'weapon parts' that can be attached to each other to make a weapon?[QB]

---

One thing I suggested a long time ago was modular bolt parts. The shaft, fletches and arrowpoint are all seperate parts and can be made of different materials. Instead of "bone bolts" and "steel bolts" the name would instead be something like "steel tipped wood shaft bolts", since that is quite long it gets shortened to "____bolts" where ___ is the material of the arrowhead.

This opens up a lot of possibilities. Instead of using "cheapy chuck" wood bolts for practice, you could instead use real ammo and have a soft target that captures arrows without damaging them. On the other hand, you could use cheap disposable bolts and fire them at a stone wall like we do now, but you would also be able to salvage all the unbroken parts and use them to make new bolts.

It would allow you to customize and modify your ammo stores depending on the situation. Say, you had a gigantic pile of bone bolts for hunting a suddenly a siege was upon you. You could take off the crappy bone arrowheads and put proper steel ones on to make the bolts more deadly. Once the siege is over you could swap out the more expensive steel arrowheads.

Anyway, that belongs in another thread, but i believe that it can be applied here. Weapons can be divided primarily into blade/head and handle/grip. There are also uncounted accessories like crossguards, tassels and what have you.

Now the question is, how detailed do we want this to be? For example, every single part on your average longsword plays a part. Having a strong crossguard would let you deflect stronger blows without it breaking. How well the handle is attached to the blade affects how likely the two are to seperate. Each of these components could be replaced, repaired or upgraded based on user preference. Customization is great, but we need to make it convenient. 1 metal bar = 1 sword makes little sense. And neither does having to put a sword together from 10 different parts of various materials that must be made seperatly.

On top of that, more complex parts means more things that can break. Typically most prototype guns are rejected by the military because they are too prone to damage. For a soldier on the front line, you would want the most durable and deadly weapon you can give him.

Ceremonial weapons on the other hand are just that. They can have impractical decorations or be made of weaker materials such as solid gold. Dwarves being a practical people of course would see a gold sword as a piece of art, not a weapons (afaik ).

To manage this, we need finer control over the weapons in the fortress overall. The customizing options are there for when they are needed, but you would NOT have to assemble each and every weapon!

"Steel Human Greatsword"
Dropped by a vanquished bandit on "qwerty road"

When you go to sell it to some blacksmith, you say "id like to sell this greatsword" the blacksmith would say something like "oh we call that kind of sword a claymore". Since you now have "learned" the fine distictions of what a claymore is, any other examples you come across would be called "steel human claymore" instead of just greatsword.

From here on, any other claymores you come across are properly named. You would not need to be told that a claymore is "a long 2 handed sword" because you learned that it is just a type of greatsword.

On the same note, if you came across a bunch of goblin hunters carrying say... boar spears. You would see "funny looking spear" in the goblins inventory. Once you kill the goblins and pick up a spear you can examine it in more detail. YOu would see something like "this is a goblin spear, the blade is wide and flat and has a crossbar attached"

If you already knew what a boar spear is, it the name would change to "iron goblin boar spear" instead of simply "iron goblin spear". If you did not, then you would either have to ask a goblin what it was, which would be very hard, or show it to an npc who knows.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmonot:
[QB]I think you'll find that while many people will agree that exotic weapons should be left out, few people will agree on which weapons are exotic. This is a fantasy game, after all.[QB]

---

I think we can safely draw the line at "practical".  When you look at stuff like dnd dual weapons. 2 sword blades on the end of a staff. You now have the disadvantages of the spear, quarterstaff AND shortsword combined. And yet, none of the benefits you usually get from such weapons. So if the weapon is compatible with the physiology of at least one race. We can include it, but we also leave the door open, in case you really do want those sword chucks.

We can categorise weapons as 3 things, generic (longsword, mace ect), variant (saber, flanged mace) and specialized (estoc, boar spear, rapier) A boar spear is a spear specifically designed for hunting. A katana is a long sword built to maximize slashing damage.

Generic items would be available everywhere. Variants are just slightly different generic weapons and overall, they handle the same way. Specialized weapons are only used to fill a niche, if that niche doesnt exist you would never see one, with a few exceptions. Rapiers are not very good on the open battlefield, but people often used them for duels.

So lets say we have generic dwarf kindom #1. It generally prefers axes and swords. Order up a greatsword, and thats what you get, a greatsword.
Hike up the mountain to dwarf kindom #2. This one relies on hunting for food, ask for a spear and you would be given the option of getting a boar spear or another variant instead of the plain spear.
Over the mountain is human kindom #3. If you ask for a greatsword here, you get handed a claymore, which handles slightly differently.
Kingdom #4 is set on an open plain, and fends off a lot of mounted bandits. Ask for a spear and you will be handed a yari instead.

In this way, weapon selection is determined by culture and enviroment. Weapons built for very specific uses like the estoc and boar spear will only be available from kingdoms that actually NEED such weapons. Other "generic" weapons like the longsword would be replaced by regional variants depending on the culture.

There is also the random factor of course. One dwarf kingdom could have a law banning shortswords or something because they are seen as bad luck.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Savok:
<STRONG>Let's not, though, make this into the kind of game with sixty different weapons, only three or four of which are used much at all.</STRONG>

---

Well thats the thing. We can include zweihanders, claymores, greatswords and what have you. They all count as greatsword variants. Each would work slightly differently because of its shape and balance.

Right now cultures are wholly dependant on race. Ie we have one setting for racial stats and it affects the whole of humanity or dwarfdom. If we could add sub-cultures like plainsman/mountain people and such. We could give each culture a distinct flavour.

And of course, they would use different weapons, which would be important if you ever fight against or beside them. So its not really 60+ different weapons, just 20 weapons and 80 flavours. And they all taste good!  

Im pretty sure a morningstar is just a heavily spiked (not studded) mace. I have seen it used in reference to the ball and chain sort of weapons but i keep hearing thats wrong.

TO keep this simple we need to lump all the weapons and variants into as few categories as possible:
1. Fist/"unarmed": This includes claws/katars/reinforced gauntlets and armour spikes.
2. Stabbing swords: These are swords designed for thrusting attacks against various levels of armour.
3. Slashing swords: Lots of variants here.
4. Crushing: I guess we can lump ALL the maces and hammers into this category. Stuff like chains and spikes are variants.
5. Axes: These come in all shapes and sizes, but at the end of the day, its still just an ax.
6. Parrying: The swordbreaker is a good example for this. I suppose the quarterstaff would also fit in here.
7. Spear: Any pole weapon with a sharp point on it. Tridents and such count as spears.
8. Polearm: Anything with a pole that doesnt count as a spear pretty much. Most have an ax blade of some sort.
9. Whips: Whips, spiked chains, kusari-gama, all fit into this category.
10. Thrown: Throwing axes/hammers, bolas, atlatl ect. Any missile weapon that relies on the wielder as a power source fits in here. A crossbow in comparison does all the work, even though you have to pull the string back.

10 categories might seem like a lot, but from there on its just variants.

Adding a few of my own:
Estoc: An estoc takes the shape of a longsword. Instead of a blade, the handle is attached to a large solid spike, usually with a diamond cross-section. Because its so solid you can parry other weapons with little chance of it breaking. The intended use was for stabbing attacks against heavily armoured enemies. You can also use it in the same fashion as a mace.
Bladed spear: This is what you get if you take a spear and hammer the tip flat into a sword blade. Ive seen this a couple times both in fiction and historical stuff but i dont know if it has a specific name. In general the shaft was shorter so you could still use it to slash and cut as well as stab.
Boar spear: This spear has a crossbar and a very wide triangle shaped flat blade. It is intended for hunting primarily, otherwise the crossbar would tend to get in the way. Unlike the other spears this spear has a hard time getting stuck.
Crossbow bayonets: Because we can, and because its awesome!   This would replace the usual stock bash attack. Less chance of damaging it this way.
Throwing hammers: A finely balanced hammer shaped piece of rock, possibly with a wood handle. These are simply to make and you can throw them farther and harder compared to a piece of rubble you find on the ground.
Throwing Axe: Same thing, with a chopping blade. Can be made entirely out of stone if needed.
Throwing dagger: These would have to be made of metal but who would use them? Im sure it would be a favorite of assassin types.

[ August 14, 2007: Message edited by: Tamren ]