Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Author Topic: The (Not-So) Horrible Truth about Military xXScienceXx  (Read 3669 times)

UrbanGiraffe

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The (Not-So) Horrible Truth about Military xXScienceXx
« Reply #30 on: June 11, 2018, 10:53:53 pm »

Iron shields are heavy (you should be using wood, willow for example is only ~5% the density of iron), and this may be exacerbated further in these tests in arena if the dwarfs don't gain strength as they would from military levels in fortress mode.
Logged

Bjiip

  • Bay Watcher
  • Competent Worldsmith
    • View Profile
Re: The (Not-So) Horrible Truth about Military xXScienceXx
« Reply #31 on: June 12, 2018, 12:00:43 am »

They were probably doing ineffective shield bashes in addition to using their weapons. Maybe adding misc object user would help.

(This probably goes without saying, but you gave them shield user, right?)
They were Skilled Shield User, Armor User, Axedwarf, etc.

Is it known what skill is used for shield bashes?  I assumed it was shield user.

Iron shields are heavy (you should be using wood, willow for example is only ~5% the density of iron), and this may be exacerbated further in these tests in arena if the dwarfs don't gain strength as they would from military levels in fortress mode.
Yes- the reason I did it this way is that shields now take battle damage, and at a considerable rate.  I now use metal shields on dwarves in my fortress, so I wanted to reflect that in testing.
Logged

strainer

  • Bay Watcher
  • Bugeyed Goblin Artiste
    • View Profile
Re: The (Not-So) Horrible Truth about Military xXScienceXx
« Reply #32 on: June 12, 2018, 05:04:20 pm »

Quote
shields now take battle damage, and at a considerable rate
If they wear out mid battle - it doesnt look all bad :)
Logged
hey! pssst... a cascade is coming... keep to the caverns - your labors and dreams...

Bumber

  • Bay Watcher
  • REMOVE KOBOLD
    • View Profile
Re: The (Not-So) Horrible Truth about Military xXScienceXx
« Reply #33 on: June 12, 2018, 08:07:05 pm »

Is it known what skill is used for shield bashes?  I assumed it was shield user.
Raises misc object in adventure mode.
Logged
THE xTROLL FUR SOCKx RUSE WAS A........... DISTACTION        the carp HAVE the wagon

A wizard has turned you into a wagon. Was this inevitable (Y/y)?

Bearskie

  • Bay Watcher
  • Nyam nyam
    • View Profile
Re: The (Not-So) Horrible Truth about Military xXScienceXx
« Reply #34 on: June 14, 2018, 07:35:02 am »

Fleeting Frames did some research that dual wielding weapons are significantly more effective than shield + weapon. Do you mind substantiating this claim?

Cathar

  • Bay Watcher
  • Adequate Engraver
    • View Profile
    • My shit
Re: The (Not-So) Horrible Truth about Military xXScienceXx
« Reply #35 on: June 14, 2018, 10:26:05 am »

Fleeting Frames did some research that dual wielding weapons are significantly more effective than shield + weapon. Do you mind substantiating this claim?

Achktually
Dual wielding was shown to be marginally more effective and at the cost of ranged/dragon flame defense once the studies were replicated. The difference is statistically significant but not by a wide margin even in close combat. The latest studies I saw shown that dual wielding was not unpractical and the result exceeded expectations because they shown dual wielders actually beating shield wielders.

The problem of those studies by in large, is their methodology, because they pit one style against the other with the assumption than if a style can reliably beat another, it is considered superior in every other circumstance.

The conclusion those studies shown is, in the event you're fighting a shield wielder at close range, a dual wielding style will give you an additional edge (lol) but little more.

What I did at the time was to conduct a LD50 test on both dual wielders and shield wielders independently. The LD50 is far more reliable as a test when compared with simple pitting, because not only it tests both styles under the same conditions (whereas the pitting test do not, it tests both styles under opposite conditions) but also provides numbers to work with. If my memory is correct (that study can be replicated easily anyway) the difference was somewhere around 10 and 20%

Edit : That the same problem with tests conducted here. The tests shows that a higher tier gear wins against a lower tier at a rate of 60%-70% which could lead to conclude to a significant practical difference. Problem is, that result doesn't mean a lot in terms of practicality, because both gears are tested against each other and not under the same conditions. A gear can reliably win against another yet only translate in one goblin difference in the LD50 test, which is closer than the actual practical use those gears will have.

Just as an exemple to drive the point home : a bronze gear could win against a copper gear 70% of the time because it's stats are slightly inflated. Yet when pitted against goblins under battle conditions, the bronze armored dwarves could only show a very marginal survival rate increase compared to the copper geared dwarves. The result you get from pitting one against another doesn't lead to a number that allows you to have an idea of the effisciency of the two gears
« Last Edit: June 14, 2018, 11:02:13 am by Cathar »
Logged
Current project : Mong Kima
Commission me

quekwoambojish

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The (Not-So) Horrible Truth about Military xXScienceXx
« Reply #36 on: June 15, 2018, 04:16:04 pm »

I really want to know how dual wielding effects these groups, especially if a dwarf with a hammer and sword goes against axe and axe (armored and unarmored)

I love your tests, thank you
Logged

Alastar

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The (Not-So) Horrible Truth about Military xXScienceXx
« Reply #37 on: June 16, 2018, 02:33:03 am »

Very nice work!

Any thoughts about mining picks? When I tested them (years ago), I found them more attractive than any "proper" weapon.
Relevant data doesn't seem to have changed since then: Twice the contact size and penetration of short sword stabs, twice the velocity modifier, on a larger weapon.
Logged

Bumber

  • Bay Watcher
  • REMOVE KOBOLD
    • View Profile
Re: The (Not-So) Horrible Truth about Military xXScienceXx
« Reply #38 on: June 16, 2018, 03:14:47 am »

Any thoughts about mining picks? When I tested them (years ago), I found them more attractive than any "proper" weapon.
Relevant data doesn't seem to have changed since then: Twice the contact size and penetration of short sword stabs, twice the velocity modifier, on a larger weapon.
Morning stars are also said to be the ultimate weapon.
Logged
THE xTROLL FUR SOCKx RUSE WAS A........... DISTACTION        the carp HAVE the wagon

A wizard has turned you into a wagon. Was this inevitable (Y/y)?

Alastar

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The (Not-So) Horrible Truth about Military xXScienceXx
« Reply #39 on: June 16, 2018, 05:34:05 am »

Whips and morning stars were very good can openers when I tested them. Morningstars deliver very narrow stabs, also with lots of energy behind them, and seem to get through most armour just fine without fancy materials.
With the luxury of pitting steel against lesser armour and taking into account opponents other than armoured humanoids, picks seemed better allrounders.
Logged

Admiral Obvious

  • Bay Watcher
  • Novice Wordsmith
    • View Profile
Re: The (Not-So) Horrible Truth about Military xXScienceXx
« Reply #40 on: June 16, 2018, 09:20:43 pm »

Whips have a tendency to anhilate anything they impact. Picks are very similar, though I can't remember the specific data on them. I'd argue that a pick is more reliable as a weapon, since they don't deal with the V Slow modifier that whips do, though I don't know where you'd be able to notice the difference between a slow attack and a quick attack outside of going tick by tick. Morningstars seem to have the benefits of a hammer, with the contact edge of a dagger when it's used to stab.
Logged
"I have a rock here for you.  No animals or plants died bringing you this rock.  How fast do you want me to throw it at you?"

anewaname

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The (Not-So) Horrible Truth about Military xXScienceXx
« Reply #41 on: June 23, 2018, 04:12:00 pm »

Another consideration... If the comparison was speardwarfs against sworddwarfs, then you ran the comparison again after giving the speardwarfs high levels of sword skill, would their success rate improve? Skill in your opponent's weapon could be beneficial during a fight.
Logged
Vabok Ushatebal, Dwarven Child - Society flourishes when law breakers are punished
His second finger left hand is broken smashed open - One Kill: Ayara Playbrown the Brightness of Lights the cyclops

Xilian

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The (Not-So) Horrible Truth about Military xXScienceXx
« Reply #42 on: June 29, 2018, 08:21:12 am »

What I did at the time was to conduct a LD50 test on both dual wielders and shield wielders independently. The LD50 is far more reliable as a test when compared with simple pitting, because not only it tests both styles under the same conditions (whereas the pitting test do not, it tests both styles under opposite conditions) but also provides numbers to work with. If my memory is correct (that study can be replicated easily anyway) the difference was somewhere around 10 and 20%

Edit : That the same problem with tests conducted here. The tests shows that a higher tier gear wins against a lower tier at a rate of 60%-70% which could lead to conclude to a significant practical difference. Problem is, that result doesn't mean a lot in terms of practicality, because both gears are tested against each other and not under the same conditions. A gear can reliably win against another yet only translate in one goblin difference in the LD50 test, which is closer than the actual practical use those gears will have.

Just as an exemple to drive the point home : a bronze gear could win against a copper gear 70% of the time because it's stats are slightly inflated. Yet when pitted against goblins under battle conditions, the bronze armored dwarves could only show a very marginal survival rate increase compared to the copper geared dwarves. The result you get from pitting one against another doesn't lead to a number that allows you to have an idea of the effisciency of the two gears

Mind explaining in a bit more detail how you tested it? Did you pit one dwarf wearing a set of arms and armour against subsequent goblins until the dwarf died, while having another dwarf in a different set of arms and armour through the same goblins? How well armoured were the goblins, stats etc?
Logged

Bumber

  • Bay Watcher
  • REMOVE KOBOLD
    • View Profile
Re: The (Not-So) Horrible Truth about Military xXScienceXx
« Reply #43 on: June 29, 2018, 06:35:57 pm »

How about observer skill? It's used for detecting incoming attacks.
Logged
THE xTROLL FUR SOCKx RUSE WAS A........... DISTACTION        the carp HAVE the wagon

A wizard has turned you into a wagon. Was this inevitable (Y/y)?

Admiral Obvious

  • Bay Watcher
  • Novice Wordsmith
    • View Profile
Re: The (Not-So) Horrible Truth about Military xXScienceXx
« Reply #44 on: June 29, 2018, 08:16:18 pm »

How about observer skill? It's used for detecting incoming attacks.
I thought it was used to detect things which were sneaking.
Logged
"I have a rock here for you.  No animals or plants died bringing you this rock.  How fast do you want me to throw it at you?"
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4