Magic Items under CBM

[Jarkko]

Squirrel, a short sword would always be used with a shield. There is absolutely no way a man wielding a two hander would ever win a duel against a shield using soldier.

You are also exactly wrong on Pikemen The bane of pikemen were the rodeleros, the sword and shield wielding infantry. Please get your facts right

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by Jarkko

Squirrel, a short sword would always be used with a shield. There is absolutely no way a man wielding a two hander would ever win a duel against a shield using soldier.

...

Based on what? The shield-using soldier carries more weight and has worse line of sight. Shields are useful in a line, but in a duel they're mostly useless.

You are also exactly wrong on Pikemen The bane of pikemen were the rodeleros, the sword and shield wielding infantry. Please get your facts right

Um, no. Please read: Archer Jones. The Art of Warfare in the Western World. More citations available upon request.

Swiss pikemen being undefeated for 100 years is a matter of historical record, and undefeated means undefeated. Why the hell are you talking about a 16th-17th century spanish troops when the age of pike dominance was pre-15th century...

Sombre: with apologies, now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

[Jarkko]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

Swiss pikemen being undefeated for 100 years is a matter of historical record, and undefeated means undefeated. Why the hell are you talking about a 16th-17th century spanish troops when the age of pike dominance was pre-15th century...

The rodeleros were utilised as anti pikemen units from early 16 century, they were used already in the Italian wars which was the golden age of swiss pikes. Later on pikemen, rodeleros and musketeers were combined to the spansih tercio.

Another question is of course why the romans, the archetype of short sword and shield troops, was able to beat the hellenistic spear and pike armies, as well all the barbarian invasions (the barbarians who used very mixed weapons, but are depicted by roman documents on many occasions to have used big two hander axes, swords and spears).

There is a reason why armies and duellists didn't use twohanded swords. They did suck if you wanted to stay alive. By making a twohander weapon as good as a one-hander+shield, something is going terribly wrong. Buff the attack and damage yes (the swiss pikes for example were very strong against other infantry when they attacked, but on defense against the rodeleros they were in serious trouble), but it doesn't hurt to have *some* realism in a fantasy game; two-handed weapons suck for defense, and that would be good to be given a thought

As for the suggested wraith sword stats, I think it is otherwise good except the defense bonus should at least not be *increased* from 3.

[Mardagg]

Originally Posted by Jarkko

As for the suggested wraith sword stats, I think it is otherwise good except the defense bonus should at least not be *increased* from 3.

Ah,on topic again
Yeah,thats the increase i am the most unsure about,too.
Thematically,though,i can justify it:
The Wraith sword is giving its wielder partial etherealness

Thats why i think,the Wraith Sword should offer pretty good Def compared to other 2h swords.
In addition,we got the Hell Sword already,for offense capability.

[rdonj]

Originally Posted by Jarkko

There is a reason why armies and duellists didn't use twohanded swords. They did suck if you wanted to stay alive.

This is not really true. A quick two handed weapon (mainly 2 handed swords and staves) is very effective at defense, due due to the reach advantage, surface area suitable to parrying, and the fact that they can actually be much faster than a one handed weapon, believe it or not. A decent sized shield IS superior, particularly if you have to fight in a line or absorb arrow fire, but a dueler with a 2-hand can be plenty agile and difficult to strike. Axes and maces, and especially flails are less suitable as defensive weapons imo, due to being less well balanced, heavier in general, and having less suitable surface area for parrying. A one handed weapon, in contrast, being shorter, lighter, slower, and carrying less force behind them are much worse for parrying and cover a smaller percentage of the body from attack, which is where the shield comes in.

So my personal take would be that two handed swords (and possibly staves) should in general have higher defense values than they currently have and make up a bit for the lack of having a shield. On the other hand, I do agree with you that they should not be as good defensively as a shield is. But considering just a plain old blacksteel tower shield, it would take a sword with a minimum of 12 defense on it to even approach the usefulness of it as a defensive weapon, not to mention a vine or gleaming gold shield.

I don't necessarily agree that the 2-hand needs to be as good as a 1-hand and shield (which would be very difficult considering all the nice effects some shields get), but it should definitely be an acceptable alternative for the cost. Currently I don't think that's the case.

[PyroStock]

Keep in mind forging shield+sword takes 2 mages (or turns), which means if I forge a 2-handed I can use the other mage to help reach a next research level or forge a another 2-handed weapon or cast a ritual or patrol or... etc.

In my current game, I wouldn't have the magic diversity to forge many of the good shields (10D5F, 10E5F, 5A5E, 5F5E, 10S5B) if it weren't for my pretender so there is a price to pay for that good sword/shield combo. A 2-handed sword that only requires 1 path shouldn't be as good as the good sword/shield combos.

I also think it's better to err on the side of caution, particularly as death magic is already powerful.

[Squirrelloid]

The good shields are all 10n... what the hell is your list?

Also, death being strong is not an argument for death forgings to be weak. In particular, there are other good uses for death gems than forgings. Given that, if there are weak death forgings, that's just a guarantee that no one will ever forge them. You have to think about this from the perspective of a player with death gems. Is he going to use them on some crappy item or to summon tarts? Any use of death gems must be competitive with existing uses of death gems or it will not see play. As such, there being plenty of good uses for death gems already is a strong argument for death forgings to be *stronger*, not weaker.

Sure, you can consider it an advantage for nations that have death gems (but that's going to be everyone, since you need death for the endgame), or you can consider every 12d (CBM) spent on death forgings to be one less tart that player is summoning. Or 2.5 fewer liches. Etc... The only thing death being strong argues for is that death boosters need to be expensive or inconvenient (and they are - one takes 2 hands, ie no hammer use at the same time, and the other is 25d), since those are generally necessary forgings for accessing the good stuff, not optional forgings.

[PyroStock]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

The good shields are all 10n... what the hell is your list?

If you only use 10n shields then you've locked yourself into quite the little hell of a predictable box. Good is relative depending on what you're up against and what you have available.

Also, death being strong is not an argument for death forgings to be weak.

Do you always resort to strawmen? Even on your 1st response to new posters in a thread??? I would be curious why you find all death forges weak, but if your strawmen are any indication of your level of civil discussion then nevermind and goodbye. In short, I never said that.

In particular, there are other good uses for death gems than forgings. You have to think about this from the perspective of a player with death gems. Is he going to use them on some crappy item or to summon tarts? Any use of death gems must be competitive with existing uses of death gems or it will not see play. As such, there being plenty of good uses for death gems already is a strong argument for death forgings to be *stronger*, not weaker. Sure, you can consider it an advantage for nations that have death gems (but that's going to be everyone, since you need death for the endgame), or you can consider every 12d (CBM) spent on death forgings to be one less tart that player is summoning. Or 2.5 fewer liches. Etc...

Hey lets make Stygian Paths work like Astral Travel, because that means 1 less Tartartian too! I'm not convinced by your argument that death is very strong so lets make it even stronger via diversity. In fact by less nature gems spent on shields you can GoR more Tartarians (since now you have your "just as competitive" 2-handed sword). And conveniently, you apparently see the advantage of gaining 1 mage turn (no shield forge needed) as insignificant since you ignored that point.

Thanks for your opinion Squirrelloid, but your ideal CBM with death being awesome at everything just because it is awesome at many things doesn't sound appealing to me.