Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush

[licker]

Originally posted by Maelstorm:
Long and pointless post, licker.
This idea about weapon damages is brilliant.
If you do not like it, that is your personal problem.
The fact is, that it would raise the quality of the game, if this system would be added.
Just my 2 cents.

Short and pointless post Maelstorm. The idea about weapon damages is not brilliant. If you like it, that is your personal problem. The fact is, that it would lower the quality of the game, if this system would be added.
Just my 2 dollars.

Sigh... Hey its all personal opinion anyway, no one post is any more or less pointless than any other. Besides I think I made it clear that the system is a pretty good one, just not one that I feel is needed or necessarilly a boon to Dom. If this system or one like it finds its way in I won't be disappointed (unless its butchered in its implementation), quite the contrary, I'll be happy that there was some discussion about it before hand so that any potential kinks and balance issues could be addressed beforehand.

Some of the worst additions to games are those that get trumpeted by the board crawlers, who no matter what they want to think about themselves, are not representative of the total pool of players enjoying the game. Anyway, lets not get off on a tangent here, and lets not get snippy with each other. If you got a question or a comment about the system all the better, if all you want to do is bash on those who have a differing opinion, well that's fine too, I can handle it

[st.patrik]

There is a certain amount of this kind of thing already in place in Dom I, you know. Of course it's not to the complexity you're talking about, but for example flails (or is it morning stars) do extra damage to targets with shields. And then there is that whole thing about long weapons and morale checks. So what weapon you're wielding does make a difference.

I do like the sound of the suggestion, in terms of realism. But I'm not sure it would be worth it for a couple of reasons:

1. You have to field a diverse army anyway. Practically speaking the only times you'd use this is late game when you're fighting only one opponent who has only one troop type. Early game you're tussling with independants, which are differently armed in each province - you're not actually going to not attack until you've built up the correct 'counter'. Middle game you're fighting perhaps mainly one human opponent, but you can't afford to give yourself a liability by having 90% of your force armed the same way, just in case some other player figures it out and attacks you with the kind of armour you're not prepared to handle. Finally, in the end-game, when you've got fewer nations so you know who you're attacking and such, it would only work against enemies who have the same kind of armour on all their units, unless you have UNGODLY intel about what troops they are fielding. So maybe Ermor, and Ulm, and perhaps one or two more nations - and that's not counting for them hiring mercenaries, or raising independant troops, etc.

2. In practice, in most realistic situations, it wouldn't make that much difference - I mean, if you have skilled 'maul' troops against less skilled swordsmen, and the armour such that the swordsmen had the advantage, it's still very possible that the 'maul' guys would win out, since they are more skilled in general. I think it would only change the outcome of about 1 in 100 battles.

Having said all that I think it would add great flavour to the game, and as such I'd probably be in favour of it - but I don't think it would have a very profound effect on gameplay - and if it were overdone to the point that it did it might very well mess up a good thing. And I think we all agree Dominions has a good thing going.

[ October 08, 2003, 00:14: Message edited by: st.patrik ]

[Wick]

GURPS uses a system like this but I've gradually decided I don't like it. The problem is that what makes a weapon/armor interaction cutting, piercing, or smashing is scale sensitive. If weapon damage refers to kinetic energy then the injury increases first with the depth of penetration then, once the vital organs have been reached, with weapon area. A mace that goes through the target does more damage then a arrow, right? When a Jotun swings a mace at a sprite he _will_ go through it. So it's a piercing weapon. Sometimes.

When a human attacks someone wearing plate armor she wants to use either a piercing weapon like a pick or a blunt weapon like a mace but not a sword. Why? Because a sword, unlike a pick, doesn't concentrate the force enough to penetrate but is more expensive and harder to use then a mace. Why doesn't it penetrate? Because the armor is optimized to resist a human wielded sword. A Jotun is still better off using a sword instead of a harder to use pick or less penetrating mace. A Rimtursar would probably be rambunctiously happy with a mace, unless he's fighting another giant wearing giant armor! Then getting penetration becomes important again and a spear carved from the trunk of the world ash looks good.

Yes, I am neglecting that you must hit small things faster then big things if you don't want them to be simply bounced out of the way.

Anyway, the distinction between piercing, cutting, and smashing has more to do with impact velocity and target depth then weapon shape.

Lastly, Dominions already has more weapon variation then most RPGs. While gilding a lily isn't necessarily bad it's usually wasteful.

[Saber Cherry]

Originally posted by Wick:
Lastly, Dominions already has more weapon variation then most RPGs.

A lot of the weapons seem to be different primarily in name and graphics... but very similar in function. I suppose some of your arguments could be overcome with a still-more-complex system that I personally favor, but haven't yet mentioned... essentially, weapons having triplicate damage rankings, just like armor. So a greatsword could do a base of 9 slash damage, or -2 pierce damage, or -4 crush damage (base 9 slash, -2 pierce, -4 crush). Thus, against a skeleton - with, say, +5 pierce protection and +3 slash protection, the greatsword would do 9-3=6 slash damage, 9-2-5=2 pierce damage, or 9-4=5 crush damage. The maximal damage type would be used, and the sword would do 6 slashing damage.

On the other hand, a battle axe of base damage 9 crush damage, -1 slash damage, or -9 pierce damage (base 9 crush, -1 slash, -9 pierce) would do crushing damage versus a skeleton, for 9 damage (since slash damage would yield 9-3-1=5 damage). In this case the axe would be superior to the greatsword.

However, when soulless (+3 crush, +5 pierce) approached, the sword would become superior to the axe, as soulless would have a higher crush resistance than slash resistance. This time, both the sword and axe would deal slash damage, yielding 9-1=8 for the axe and 9 for the sword.

So, yes, every system has its flaws, and a Jotun axeman should always be able to cleave through a size 2 opponent regardless of his damage type. And, yes, if the system was made complex enough, it would model that fairly accurately as well. Still, either way, a Jotun would do more damage to skeleton using a maul than when using a spear… period. And either way, the Jotun would probably kill the skeleton in one hit. Just as one would expect. Personally, I want any new damage system to increase realism and depth without adding stupid artifacts that detract from the game. But just as importantly, I want to rein in the damage system so that it can accomplish that goal with minimal added complexity... And I tend to think that as long as the values are moderate, a simple +X protection for 3 damage subtypes on units/armors, and a single, specific physical damage subtype assigned to each weapon, will be adequate to increase realism, depth, variety, and strategy without particularly adding any unwanted negatives (like Jotuns not chopping people in half because they are using the wrong weapon).

There always has to be a balance between maximizing realism and allowing people to understand what the heck is going on, so I'm not really going to promote the much more complex system that I mentioned above, even though I personally think it would be more interesting and realistic. And I'm not going to suggest that Illwinter buy a mechanical engineering finite element analysis package to model impact effects on different armor alloys from different weapons of different masses at different velocities and angles at various temperatures for every single weapon strike, even though that would be *really* cool, because then mere humans could no longer predict the results of their actions and choices. But it seems that the original, simple proposition, or one similarly simple and effective, would improve the game without creating unwanted side-effects. I guess what I'm trying to say is that any realistically accomplished damage system will not perfectly model reality, but if a simple method is identified to move the current system into greater congruence with reality, it should be taken advantage of - and not scorned, because it is only an incremental improvement, rather than a single leap to perfection.

-Cherry

[Psitticine]

I also think this is a rather good idea, but for slightly different reasons. I think it would encourage combined arms, just to make sure one isn't caught with one's codpiece down, as it were. That would mean units that might otherwise fall by the wayside would have more usefulness as recruiting them into existing armies would help make sure one always has at least some of the most potent counterforces available for whatever they run into.

I tend to agree with St. Patrik in that, during the early game, one goes up against the diverse independents, and that during the middle game, one couldn't over-specialize their troops with this kind of system without becoming more vulnerable. However, I do think that those are things that would go along with what I said above to help insure a useful place for all kinds of different troops.

[Pocus]

Originally posted by Maelstorm:
Long and pointless post, licker.
This idea about weapon damages is brilliant.
If you do not like it, that is your personal problem.
The fact is, that it would raise the quality of the game, if this system would be added.
Just my 2 cents.

Short and pointless most Maelstorm. I'm a proponent of differing weapon damages, still I try to read what others say, and see that the reasoning of Licker is well thought, and certainly not pointless.

So let some year passes before posting again, I'm sure you will get at Last some wisdom (if you are capable of learning behavior).

[DominionsFan]

WOW! This system sounds damn cool! I would be very happy to see it in game!

I have a question. The AI will handle the troops properly if we will have a system like this? I mean you will have to build different troop types than, because of the various weapon damages. So if I build troops with good slashing protection, the AI will know that he must build troops with piercing attacks?
If the AI could handle this situation, than I say do not even hesitate to add this system!

[Mortifer]

Yes, I love this system too. If the AI can be scripted properly to use it well, it should be added indeed.

[Vger]

Hi,

OK, I just waded through all this and I have ONE thing to say: TOGGLES!!!!!

Please, please, please, PLEASE make this an option that we can select at game start. (Or a global option. That would even be better.)

Normally I'm a more is better kinda guy and have played these systems many times in CRPGs, RPGs and wargames, but I find myself in the camp that its swatting the coolness of a gnat with a sledgehammer made for Cthulhu. (Who is six miles tall, as I recall.)

But if, in their wisdom, the wonderful people of IW decide to put this in, if they make it optional, then we all get whatever we want. Those who want it, can play with it. Those who don't, don't have to.

Personally, more options that ARE optional are better than all of us having to play a game in lockstep.

Thank you, I feel SO much better,
V'ger gone

[WraithLord]

I've played the warlords series, age of xxx and other TBS/RTS that implemented this system.
Some implemented it very badly some better.
For example, the age of XXX system is horrible. both shallow and extreme. really turned me off and is the main reason I stoped playing them.
OTOH the warlords implementation is more subtle and added depth, diversty and increased the fun factor in the game.

buttom line I agree with saber, this system can add a lot to the game if it's introduced subtly.
If the devs don't have the resources/inclination to do so carefully then I prefer they leave it be.