Units with stupid weapon choices
 

There are some units that have units with only suboptimal weapons selections.

The most glaring example being some EA Agarthan troops. Nothing larger than a Buckler shield, weapon is either damage 3 spear, or a glaive that makes the Pale One's abysmal attack skill even lower.
The boulder throwers that have two boulders to throw then wade into melee with fists and no helmet.
MA-LA Agarthan Infantry, your only choice being a shortsword.
Considering that they are supposed to be cave dwellers and great miners, kind of counterintuitive.
Any human infantry with spears only in LA.
Gath slingers - as their missile weapons won't damage anything armored, they got two shortswords to wade into melee with minimal protection.

What else is there?

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

However many of the subpar MA Ulm weapons. Does anyone really use hammers, by any chance?

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Actually, a shortsword is the most intuitive weapon to use in caves.

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

TBH: agarthan's light infantry is actually half-decent. Very cheap and reasonably fast and strong.

It's all those useless pale one infantries what hurts them

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Niefel's use of spears and swords isn't that great, either. Swords of that length would be not only extremely difficult to forge perfectly, but very likely to break, especially in the arctic weather Niefels live in. Spears require too much precision. Axes are iffy, and from the graphic they look to be single-bladed axes. They'd be better off using maces and hammers, flails, and longer axes with double, or even triple bits (three moon blades), looking just a bit like this: (O)

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Well if you want realism honey, forging weapons of that size would be a ridiculous task indeed.

Giant clubs, maces, mauls would be much more likely ..

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Or we could just think tree trunks.

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

I think that the best weapons for tunnel-like enviroment would be spears, since your opponent lacks space to maneouver out of the way of your thrusts. Two-handed weapons like glaives don't make much sense for me, they need space to wield properly. IMHO, space is something that a giant race might lack in tunnels.

I think that like 50% of mages carry stupid equipment. Daggers? Quaterstaff is same resourcecost, and gives that sweet +3 bonus defense and some lenght. It also looks much more better.

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

thematically a dagger also makes sense, either as a ritual knife or as a sacrificial dagger

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Boulder throwers aren't battlefield troops. They're siege machines, and should be used accordingly. Glaives are okay for Agartha. A nation with size 4 ancient giants would presumably make tunnels large enough for their size 2 youngers to swing glaives. As glaives were designed as a combination axe and spear, in a constrained space they'd be preferentially used like spears and presumably be adequate anyway.

The game mechanics make certain items seem nonsensical from a min-max player point of view. But the point is that to a large extent they exist for flavour. When a pretender God foists himself upon a nation, he is forced to work with their culture, not redesign them from scrath.

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Glaives and spears are reasonable to be found in the tunnel. Pale ones are not supposed to be highly intelligent, and could fight like human militias, which rely on number rather than skill. And spear is always popular among militias due to its cheap price.
When you are fighting Agartha in darkness like storming their forts, the glaives will appear to be effective. Suffering from the darkness penalty, the agartha can make full use of their strength by wielding glaives. One hit one kill.

Lacking shields is also thematically resonable. In the tunnel it's quite rare to face missiles and need a big shield. Some descriptions in the game have also hinted the Agartha have lost their war against human because they have no experience of those weapons, and only after MA they start to use kite shields.

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Actually, glaive is almost perfect here, as you can both thrust as with spear, parry with blade and cut/slash with short moves if he gets beside your point. Spear doesn't allow this and can be easily beat aside with a likely result of being held fast against the wall... :)
Shortsword is possibly even better, as it doesn't make problems with moving it in winding tunnels - but then, they are not always SO winding and narrow...

They just don't have rights to carry the staff yet! It's a rank symbol, you know... :)

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Daggers actually make a lot of sense for mages. They're versatile, compact, and easy to use, if harder to use very effectively. In addition to performing rituals and sacrifices, they'd also be perfect for dispatching wounded soldiers on the battlefield--a task that certain cultures might be expected to leave to (atleast the supervision of) their mages. After all, you don't want the enemy coming back after death--which is a distinct possibility, in the world of Dominions.

For that matter, spells--even non Blood spells--might very well require some of the mage's blood, in exchange for power. Harder to do that with a staff. Not impossible, but certainly painful to watch your venerable high archimage repeatedly bashing himself in the nose with a cord of firewood, every time you need it to rain.

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

I like your idea of using personal lifeforce to 'start' an effect, but I don't think it would be appropriate to wound yourself, in a medieval context it most often than not implies your death after all, but rather a drain effect that is spread to all your body at once, which can kill you if your clumsy or if you want too much at once. (Shadowrun RPG, and others, use this idea quite well)
This effect should alter your potential lifetime, and your physical might permanently. (not really in any RPG I played so far... Or I can't remember...)

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

That's probably why they have oracles that have E3D1 out of the factory, discounting random points.

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

That's probably why they have oracles that have E3D1 out of the factory, discounting random points.

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Well, you could argue it is easier to seem intelligent when you are hundreds of years old, and know many things.

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Yes, they spend hundreds of years to master those magics, and how about the standard among human mages?

I will be surprised to hear in some game it's Agartha who makes a lead in research, which is the best prove to the intelligence of a race IMO.

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

My quill can write by itself. I am now smarter.

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

I'd like to see Agartha get an upgrade (Oceania's already being discussed, maybe we could get a thread about Agartha?).
I get that they're supposed to be a "fading people", and that's cool to the point of being truly awesome, but I'd rather see more "glorious tragedy", and less "stoogelike tactics", so yeah, among other things, it would be nice if their equipment got reviewed.

Maybe give them some sort of military fork, to replace their spears? That seems like it might better gel with their low perception, while keeping true to the reality of the cave environment. It would make altering their sprites easier, too.

Another weapon that comes to mind would be a sort of "war spade" (No, I'm not married to the name). Imagine a broad metal spade that's been reinforced and sharpened all around the edge, with a metal t-section crossbar, a long metal-shod shaft, and the classic pitchfork handle. Kind of a cross between a spear and an axe--but not in quite the same way as a glaive.

Might look something like this: D=====ID

Something like that, in the hands of an Ancient Lord, might be a good deal more hand effective and "wieldy" (not to mention thematic) than the axes they currently use.

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

you mean something like this: 8===ID ?

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

No, you're thinking of another weapon, entirely.

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Why come up with a "military fork", when the game already has the trident: a more damaging polearm already used by some Agarthans (the wet ones) IIRC. Two-handed, but could be used with bucklers like the Olm Spawn do with glaives and bucklers. Stats: Dam 7, att/def 0.

The glaive-users would suck, though. I think I released the weapon rebalance mod already, it did lots of stuff like increase precision of spears/glaives by 1 and increased damage of glaives even further. I didn't test how if affected Agarthans. Getting rid of the attack penalty should help a lot.

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Underwater only the Wet One Commanders got trident, the rest have spear. Why there's a damage difference of 4 between them, I don't know, against any armor a spear should be better - the trident distributes force among three points not a single one.
And why a pike has larger damage than a longspear?

EP, will check out your mod.

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

how about replacing their spears with longspears and pikes to improve the repelling capabilities of the troopers?

Oh nevermind. They still have -beep- poor attack ...

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Iirc in WW1 trench warfare (which should come very close to Agartha tunnel warfare) flails and knifes were preferred to bayonets (= spear).

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Endoperez: Tridents would be perfectly fine. I was trying to distance them a bit from the wet ones, but there's no real pressing reason for them not to use tridents, except possibly the thematic association of tridents with the sea, which I was a bit concerned with.

P3D, you're right about the spear directing more force along it's single point, but one advantage the trident's three points gives is stability, so that it's easier to center an attack. The trident probably wouldn't be able to penetrate the armour as often, but when it did it would make a much wider and more ragged wound--thus more blood spilled, with a greater chance to clip an artery or puncture an organ. The wound would also be considerably harder to treat medically. Another advantage is-and this is specifically because it doesn't go as deep-a trident would have less of a tendancy to get stuck in an opponent.

I think giving them 7 damage is a bit much, however.

Trident stats, in my opinion, should be more like Dam 4, +1 att/0def.

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Well, the three heads make it easier to block than a spear, as you can put your sword between the heads .It is maybe why they haven't been seen much on the medieval battkefields. I rather see tridents as a fishing 'weapon'. The simpler weapon is often the better one. I thought they used maces during WW1, not flails, you need to train a lot to efficiently use a flail, and a tranche is rather a small place, so the mace is better. The main fault of the bayonnet is you have to fix it to your gun, plus your gun is not a melee weapon, and so has a deficient balance. No perfect weapon exists !

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Well...blocking a trident is possible, but in the process of that, you're still putting yourself in close proximity to it's blades, so it's hardly a golden option. And the trident-wielder can more easily block you, than you can block him, due to the length of the trident.

As far as medieval "tridents", the weapon actually became more sophisticated, not less, over time. Spetums, ranseurs, and partisans--which saw use into the 18th century, all evolved from the trident.

Infact, the partisan was one of the very last melee weapons used on the field of battle. If I remember correctly, partisans were in use by the British (who had one of the most advanced war-machines in existence at the time) in the American Revolutionary War.

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Works something like this in Earthdown, Houses of the Blooded, and some editions of Ars Magica iirc. Not sure about Shadowrun, but quite possible - at least for more massive undertakings.

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Zen staff, anyone? ;)
Be careful - they aren't based on China! :P

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Prrecisely! Short axes and similar weapons, too. Only I seem to remember that Austrians used spiked maces, not flails.
By the way, the only good description of fight in Prof. Tolkien comes from exactly this experience - and in that fight spear gets used exactly once - as a thrown weapon.

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Something like this, probably. I would say that they should have more Defence than attack - they are quite usable to parry enemy strikes and especially thrusts. Actually, Chinese sometimes used tridents specifically against spear-armed enemy infantry.
Also, I'd say that spears should have higher damage overall... Plus probably higher Defence. ;) It's quite easy to fight with one against sword and damn difficult other way around!
As for pikes vs longspears question, I'd say that pikes are used two-handed. Though I would prefer to give them lower base damage and charge bonus as they were quite often used offensively... But that's just me and there was another discussion on this. ;)

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

You're right, Wrana. A trident could probably do with a +1 to defense, as well as attack. I was thinking of their 1-handed use, where they might be a bit unwieldy to defend with, but I forgot the game makes them be used 2-handed, so in that case, they definitely should get a defense bonus.

It's too bad there's no mechanics set up to allow units to switch between 1 and 2 handedness for certain weapons in the game. Although I suppose it could be modded in as a shapechange, in certain (non forged item) cases.

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Tridents should do more damage than spears because tridents are wielded with two hands, not one.

* * *

Partisans were not really battlefield weapons after pike warfare became obsolete. A very similar weapon called a 'spontoon' was on battlefields until the 19th century. However, whilst it would be used as a weapon where necessary, that was not it's main function. Some were given to troops guarding the regimental colours, and were ceremonial more than anything else. Sergeants had them as their symbol of rank (like officers had swords), and used them as a signalling system to give instructions to troops.

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Agema: Tridents aren't difficult to weild in one hand. Easy enough to catch fish with them, anyway, or even throw them over short distances. And gladiators typically used them with nets. It's just a game convention, not something that's true in real life.

The big
polearms that evolved from them would be 2 handed weapons, but not the trident itself, which would often be shorter than a spear, and could be used either 1 or 2 handed.

You're right about them being mostly ceremonial, but that's a bit beside the point, which is their extraordinary longevity in the face of obsolescence. They were officers' weapons (master sergeants' weapons, anyway, approximately, or whatever the equivalent rank would have been), and were certainly still used *as* weapons, when the necessity arose--they examples I've seen, the ones that actually saw combat, weren't blunted or faked. And I suspect there was a good reason such weapons were chosen as "symbols", that had atleast something to do with them being useful in a pinch.

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

If you want to make a 1-handed Dom3 trident, mod yourself one. I'm just saying they're 2-handed as exist in game, and deserve stats to reflect that.

You mean, an extraordinary longevity based on the fact such polearms were no longer primarily used as weapons. A Napoleonic soldier could bash in the head of an enemy with a large rock he picked up, and you could equally enthuse about the extraordinary longevity of large rocks in the face of obsolescence.

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Large rocks have an extraordinary longevity as weapons, as a matter of fact. And I'd question whether they are obsolete; they fill a niche spot, but are extremely effective and cost-efficient in it.

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Rifles can be surprisingly well balanced when it comes to bayonets. Then newer M4 carbines aren't that great, especially when you throw on combat optics, laser sights, flashlights, etc., much less a grenade launcher (M203). But even the now-venerable M16 can have a good combination of blunt and edged attacks, and can be surprisingly nimble.

The problem in trenches in terms of hand-to-hand combat is definitely one of lack of space. I, too, think the Agarthans' use of short swords makes a lot of sense thematically.

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Rocks also have a good combination of blunt and edged attacks, are surprisingly nimble, and can be used in tight places

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Thx, but I'll still take the assault rifle with bayonet. :D

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Isn't that just the Repel mechanic instead of high Defense?

-Max

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Agree, at least in case of Russian ones! :)
Actually, long rifles of WWI were well balanced - but they WERE long. And this was an advantage in open field hand-to-hand, but disadvantage in trenches (and after advent of machineguns, the prime reason for their long barrels also lost its necessity - Russian/Soviet army made its primary rifle a shorter "cavalry" version by the time of WWII). Actually, I think that the change from needle bayonets to bladed ones may also be due to that fact rather than humanitarian reasons often quoted...

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Possibly, but spear also allows a wide range of parries. I mean 2-handed use, of course, and here it gets very high mobility. But even one-handed, it can be quite nimble. Vikings even used spear & sword as paired weapons! :)

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Yeah, sword bayonets were replaced with knife bayonets chiefly because they were too cumbersome for trench warfare. And it's not like troops had to withstand cavalry charges by then either.

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

I meant needle ones - such as Russian Mosin-Nagant rifle had. I don't remember any "sword" bayonets except French ones - and these were used in trench warfare quite handily - without affixing them to rifles!
An offtopic question:
Agema, how well current M-16/M-4 plastic details withstand rough handling and/or using them in hand-to-hand? And another one - what are you supposed to do in case when dirt/dust gets into the barrel of any of these? (these appeared in recent off-line discussion with friends)

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

But that's -5 to attack! How could they hit anything? :D

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

+3 from their beserk

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

The glaive is a travesty. It should be fixed. The low damage of a spear is very strange as well.

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

And the second attack has effectively +2 since your target is at -2 to defend per attack[1].

-Max

[1] It's actually more complicated than that, because if your first hit killed the unit you're not really at +2 for the second attack because your new target doesn't have the penalty. On the other hand, if you're swarming a large enemy 3:1, the third guy will have a net effective +5/+7 to hit (+10/+10 -5 for weapon length) vs. +4 if everybody was using only a single sword.