Bash & Crush vs. Cut & Slash
 

It occurred while playing MA Ulm - why don't heavy blunt weapons such as maces, morningstars, flails, mauls etc. have some armour-piercing bonuses?

In late middle ages, with the rise of plate armour, the use of swords dwindled and blunt weapons became prevalent. Cutting weapons were practically useless against steel-clad soldiers, but blunt weapons, despite their clumsiness, proved to deal with the obstacle quite efficiently - a strike with a warhammer might not have punctured the steel plating but it DID do a sufficient amount of damage just through the force of the impact.

I realize that adding armour-piercing feat to these weapons might offset the game balance, but perhaps, for the sake of truth, some kind of change could be done?

Re: Bash & Crush vs. Cut & Slash
 

I've seen a few house mods which would alter weapons. An example of something I used changed the maul from 9 normal dmg to 3 ap damage. The balance of course is that while it's more effective against heavily armored opponents, it's far weaker against unarmored ones (This may not be desired by some people).

Is that what you hand in mind? And if so, are you suggesting that to be implemented in the vanilla game?

If not, then a mod which changed every blunt weapon would be a rather straightforward and simple affair to make for yourself.

Re: Bash & Crush vs. Cut & Slash
 

A change is unlikley at this stage, although I kind of like the idea. It should not be too difficult to make a mod though. Reduce dmg on maces, hammers etc and give them AP.

If a mod was made, widely tested and percieved as nice it might be incorporated in tha game.

A quick test mod that doesn't take magical equipment in consideration will be quite quick to make.

Mace, Morningstar, Flail, Hammer, Maul. Some of them would probably need negative dmg values, or they would effectively have damage values way higher than now.
Perhaps mace -2 (6 lower than now). Evens out at prot 12. It bugs me a bit to have a negative dmg value though.

Re: Bash & Crush vs. Cut & Slash
 

Don't feel too bad about it. A fist already has a damage of -2; it's just not armor-piercing.

-Max

Re: Bash & Crush vs. Cut & Slash
 

Well, I tell ya', generally being unarmored myself most of the time, I'd still rather get hit by fist than by a mace... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: Bash & Crush vs. Cut & Slash
 

Well, the damage on small weapons is too high generally. A normal str 10 person hitting a person with 10 hp with his fist, or a small knife, does not have a good chance of killing the other person in real life. However, I think Dominions makes a good tradeoff here between versimilitude and playability; you could plausibly reduce the damage of a fist to -5 or -7 (probably won't kill anyone with one blow unless it's a giant doing the punching) but I don't mind the way it is currently.

Edit: I also think that aiming for parity w/ Prot 12 is setting the bar a little too high, since that's the "well-protected" range that a mace is designed to get through. Maybe Prot 6 or 8, which would put the mace at dmg 1 or dmg 0 respectively. If that seems unbalancing it turn out that maces also affect your attack and defense values more than was previously thought.

On the other hand, it might also be that maces are no more effective than swords at *penetrating* heavy armor, but the extra moment of inertia helps deal a little bit of damage against moderate amounts of armor. The current system models this quite well, because hammers etc. have a high damage (7). Really heavy armors are not affected, of course, except that there is a marginally higher chance of rolling high enough to do some damage. On consideration, I like the fact that blunt weapons are not AP.

-Max

Musing on weapons tweaks...
 

...if I were rambling about what might be funky for weapon-modding capabilities in a sequel, it might be fun to see

- a way to affect how much strength matters, ex. a giant's
sword perhaps having both a high-magnitude negative base
damage but a high strength multiplier, and more length --
right now, Hoburgs and Titans are a bit too similar here

- a way to make a really, really slow melee weapon (does the
rate of fire code work on 'em? Hm.)

- a way to specify arbitrary spells as secondaryeffects :p

Being a weirdo, I'd be severely tempted to play around with a "Heaven's Hammer" polearm that took one or two full turns to re-ready, and enormous strength to use, but also invoked the wonderfully imprecise 'Gifts from Heaven' on attacking. Just for kicks.

Re: Bash & Crush vs. Cut & Slash
 

@Saulot:

Erm... I don't believe so. A good swing with a sledgehammer would, in reality, probably be more than enough to make you kick the bucket, even though you weren't wearing any armour... ><
So a negative damage base doesn't sound like a good idea (put into practice, though, it could represent a good approximation but... Nah, letting a hammer have the same dmg value as a fist doesn't sound too appealing ^^)

@MaxWilson:
True, the hammer has the dmg value of 7 but this is still only one more than the broadsword, whose value is 6... I think such a difference is negligible, especially when taking into consideration all the defence penalities the hammer offers to a unit...

Re: Musing on weapons tweaks...
 

I can confirm that slower rates of fire do not work on melee weapons, I tried that for a shield bash type weapon in Urdheim.
It's a shame, because that polearm, amongst other examples is a nice idea.

Personally, I feel the main distinguishing factor between blunt weapons and swords is that blunt weapons should be far more common, and take far fewer resources.

Re: Musing on weapons tweaks...
 

Well, vs. a unit with heavy armor (16), the mode for the hammer's damage (w/ a strength of 10) is 1 while the broadsword's mode is 0. Because of the random numbers the mean will work out to be more like 1.3 vs. 0.5, but the hammer is still more effective vs. armored opponents. The difference is IIRC more significant the more heavily armored the foe is. Of course, you could increase the difference by increasing the base damage of the hammer as well, but the thing is that there's no reason to think a hammer would be *good* against plate armor. It's just that it's better than a sword, because of the extra momentum. (And a broadsword is a pretty heavy sword, which you could think of as a club with an edge to it. The hammer is something like three times as effective as a shortsword in this scenario.)

Picks are a different story. I could imagine those as armor-piercing, because that's what they do.

-Max

Re: Musing on weapons tweaks...
 

Would it not be easier to lower the damage of blunt weapons across the board and add 1 AN damage.

Re: Musing on weapons tweaks...
 

Well, if this is to be modded, No. Aside from the 1AN+MR mode, I don't think there's a way to add extra, non-elemental, damage to an attack. If its a developer change, maybe. Not quite sure how much code would be needed for that. Not too much I don't think, but it could be quite a bit.

Re: Musing on weapons tweaks...
 

To add 1 AN damage sounds strange in the first moment, because as long as you do any damage anyway, it helps equally as much against Protection 1 opponents as against Protection 30 - Namely 1 per strike.

Next I think: However, it does mean, that, the more likely it is to totally deflect a blow, the more useful it is for the opponent to wield a blunt weapon.

And than again - I do not want a Horde of monkeyees with clubs to easily beat through an Obilisk.



So what? I say: Blunt weaons agains heavy armor should do extra fatigue to the victim.
This would work that way: Take the damage, reduce the rolls, reduce by the value of the natural armor and the damage actually inflicted, than, what is left is multiplied by a factor based on the weapon (daggers bad, swords better, axes even better, maces best) and a factor based on the armor (plate - leather - chain).

Re: Musing on weapons tweaks...
 

Ahh, I've never really delved into the game mechanics (I'm still not that devoted a player), but if your estimations are correct perhaps justice has already been served http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif (Now, don't take that too literally - been excessively playing Baldur's Gate II lately. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif)
Anyway, that was referring to the comparison between the shortsword and the hammer. And on the second thought, you might be right about the broadsword as well though I have little idea how heavy it really is...

Re: Musing on weapons tweaks...
 

Maraxus, Obelisks don't wear armor. AP and AN only get through armor, not natural protection. Obelisks, sphinxes, anyone who's ironskinned or wearing the Marble Breastplate, all those guys will be well protected against AP and AN damage. At least, I'm pretty sure that's the way it used to work; I don't think it's changed?

Re: Musing on weapons tweaks...
 

AP and AN goes through any protection, natural or added armor. It has always been like that.

Re: Musing on weapons tweaks...
 

"So what? I say: Blunt weaons agains heavy armor should do extra fatigue to the victim. "


For a combination of realism and simplicity, I would suggest that blunt weapons do less damage and more fatigue across the board. No need to worry about armor, changing calculations, etc.

-Jeff

Re: Musing on weapons tweaks...
 

maybe a maul or so should get 'armor dent'..

Re: Musing on weapons tweaks...
 

I think AP and AN kinda have rather vague wording about whether it included natural protection or not. Good to hear for sure straight from a dev.

Re: Musing on weapons tweaks...
 

Maybe we can imagine for a next version a type of damage for each weapon just like there are damage type for magical damages (cold, fire etc...)
-Piercing (Swords, but also arrows etc...)
-Crush (Maces, flail)

So a Mace would have for ex. do 7 Crush while Sword would do a 7 Slash. An unarmored target would take 7 by both weapons while an armored one would maybe take 1/2 Slash damages and full Crush.

Of course it's impossible with actual system.

Re: Musing on weapons tweaks...
 

Looking at the weapons from a historical perspective...

Maces and other similar weapons have the advantage of being more effective against armor than most other weapons, as the impact can injure the target even if the blow doesn't penetrate the armor.

Maces vs. spears: Spears have the advantage of reach, which is a big deal in reality. Not sure if it is in Dom3...

Maces vs. swords: Swords can be used to parry blows. They can be used to thrust or cut as well as swing, giving more options for attacks. Being cabable of inflicting bleeding wounds and puncturing internal organs, they are more effective for killing poorly-armored targets (but being hit with a mace will still probably at least take you out of the fight).

Given the above, and the limitations of the Dom3 damage system, I'd say it would be OK if maces did more damage than swords on average - but swords should get more bonuses to defense and attack (or maces penalties, which would probably be less likely to cause unbalances).

Re: Musing on weapons tweaks...
 

I think this works the same as in reality. Spears get their repel attack. On quality units, this will keep attackers at bay, or make it painful for them to attack. Once inside the wall of spears, the mace would make short work of the defenders, just as the Romans did against the Greeks once they were under the spears.

I'd say that these are all in play already as well. Maybe the bonuses/penalties need to be emphasized more, but they are already in there and are quite significant.

Re: Musing on weapons tweaks...
 

The thing is, from a historical perspective men in plate wore padding underneath the armour precisely to mitigate the effects of blunt weapons.
Looking at it from a historical perspective doesn't make much sense though. Knights in the real world never faced the problem of people chucking lightning bolts at them (and if they did, metallic armour would probably be right out). That's before we consider that lava-blooded humanoids weren't prevalent throughout the medieval era either.

Personally, I'd rather see something that kept recruitable troops competetive into the late game.

Re: Musing on weapons tweaks...
 

Perhaps someway to upgrade your troops with cash, resources, or gems? There could be set costs to upgrade your recruitable troops. And you would have to upgrade each fort separately, so that it doesn't make the better troops easy to mass without a bigger investment.

Sounds neat, but I'm not sure I care for it.

Re: Musing on weapons tweaks...
 

Would be complicated but:

Second form for all units with slightly increased stats/resistences. Resistances would be tough, may need multiple forms for the different combos...hmm. Possibly just stats then.

Province specific "dome" type enchantment that induces the 2nd form to show up as recruitable. Or "unlock" additional recruitables. Const 7 maybe.

or

Mytheology mod has spells which summon a Menhir type unit (immobile) that gives province specific bonuses (+morale, +growth, -unrest, etc) which I THINK work. Presence unlocks second form. "all units built in the presence of the molten altar receive 50% fire resistance". Limit 1 per province or make them unique per nation?

Would say +20% to all stats make units more worthwhile or would it have to be more significant? Say +60%?

Re: Musing on weapons tweaks...
 

On repel... more than once I've wondered whether multiple long weapons in a single square should have synergies in repel.

A single pikeman repelling... not effective. Too easy to go around.

Multiple pikemen -- much more dangerous.

Re: Musing on weapons tweaks...
 

That's where Dom3 lacks a formation thing. Regular, trained, pikemen should be very efficient, particularly against mounted charging them. But they would be vulnerable to a mobile oppononent able to turn them. Maybe one day...

Re: Musing on weapons tweaks...
 

You can already upgrade your troops with Strength of Giants, Legions of Steel, Weapons of Sharpness, etc... since that's a major strength of earth magic, I think it would be problematic to make it available to everyone.

And there are already too many ways to get through armor - that's why the armored nations are weak, they pay four times over in increased resources (often needing productivity), higher encumbrance and lower defense skill and mobility for armor that then only protects them against some attacks. What we need are easier ways to buff resistance against the common AN attacks like lightning, poison and shadow blast, not even more ways to kill Ulm.

It *would* be appropriate for blunt weapons (including slings, which could really use the help) to do a small amount of AN stun damage per hit whether or not they do any HP damage through armor/shields, but I'd be concerned that the effect of such a change by itself would be to further weaken the effectiveness of armored troops.

Re: Musing on weapons tweaks...
 

Well, in reality the reason that with the increasing popularity of plate armor more unpleasent blunt implements were being used has little to do with armor piercing effects. A sword of comparable weight is more effective at hitting plate armor than a blunt hammer and only beaten (haha) by pointed weapons. For piercing armor you need a fine point so something like a pick works best, but when you can't pierce the plate anyway and just cause some blunt trauma, weight of the weapon is the only thing that matters, not if it's hammer or blade shaped.
But it is a lot more expensive to forge high-quality steel for a sword that does not break after a couple of dozen hits to plate armor than to simply put a big lump of iron on top of an oak pole, giving you a functional if unrefined weapon.

Re: Musing on weapons tweaks...
 

In Dominions terms, a Great Sword is dam 9, att 1, def 3, length 3 and costs 5 resources, while a Maul is dam 9, att 0, def -1, length 3 and costs 1 resource. The difference between Great Sword and a Maul is that in Dominions, the resource difference between the two is much, much smaller than it would be in real life. Battleaxes are identical to mauls except for def 0 and resource cost of 3 (+1 def costs 2 res). I Great Sword's cost scaled similarly, they'd cost about 9 resources.

Re: Musing on weapons tweaks...
 

I really like the idea of upgradable national troops as the game goes on, I hope this is incorporated into the game at some point. Not only would it make national troops more viable in the late game, it would increase the number of options available in the game, which is always a good thing, imo.

I think care would have to be taken so as not to make this overpowering (especially for sacred units). In fact, I think that generally improving your units like this should be less effective on a per gem basis than simply summoning better troops. Sort of like empowering is usually kind of a waste. The advantages would lie in mage-time (as in, it's not being used), and it would be an easy way to use up a large quantity of gems and see an effect immediately.

I'm thinking it would work like this: Research up to evocation-6 and construction-6, let's say, and that lets you spend 50 fire gems in any fort (in which you also have a lab) to give all the troops coming out of there fire weapons.

Well, it wouldn't be available to everyone, only those people who decided to make the investment. The investment should be large enough to discourage most people from doing it. Additionally, you could make it require one turn of mage-time, a mage with certain required paths for certain effects if you want to restrict it to nations with certain magic abilities.

This sounds like a great idea to me!