Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush

[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.

[Mortifer]

Originally posted by licker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mortifer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by licker:
Even with an addition like this, you'd end up using probably only one unit, as it would be the best for whatever nation you're facing.

Uh this is a very wrong statement.
How does that change anything?? You will have to use different unit with different weapon types than. Why? Because the enemy will be almost resistant to some sort of weapon damage.
Example:
You surely wont attack an army of heavy infantry with Spears [pierce damage] if they have heavy plate mail [20 prot against pierce, 15 against bludgeon, 10 against slashing - examples of course.]
You will surely use units equipped with greatswords [huge slashing damage.]
This is just one example. Lot more strategical than in Doms I, agreed?

---

No not agreed, but that's ok

If your opponent is using one type of unit primarilly you will use the counter to that unit primarilly, thats *one* unit type, unless I've miscounted somewhere...

If your opponent uses units with different armors or weapons combined, you'll have to use combined forces to counter them, unless you have something that is superior to all his units in some way. So either you are using an average of all your units (kinda like Dom1 I guess) or you are using *one* unit again.

All this adds is that you either have to guess what type of unit your opponent is using predominantly and use the counter (rock/paper/scisiors) or you find out one way or another what type of unit he is using predominantly and again, use the appropriate counter. This is simply an added step in actually getting to the battles themselves, which to me, is a bit more management (don't call it micro if you don't want me to) than is needed.

Don't get me wrong though, I think this system is pretty cool, I just don't think it adds much to the gameplay, beyond the cool factor, which isn't enough for me to really support it.

Again remember that simply having more choices doesn't mean that you've added any meaningful strategy to the game, if (and here is where the most disagreement will come in) those choices really arn't difficult choices. Once you find out what you are facing your choice is proably made for you, unless I'm really missing something in this system. There is no additional strategy involved at this point, its just, 'oh he's got rock, I better get some paper'. Ok, thats a bit of a simplification, but until I see a more fleshed out description of how weapons and armor would be balanced between and internal to the races, that's all you've got.

---

Well, I think that this system is lot more strategical, than the current Doms I 'system'. This system can force you to make better strategic/tactical decisions, IE. use the right units always, so you surely wont stick to 1 unit style. This is a very good point in it, agreed? You must always attack with a proper army. Yes I know that we had something like this in Doms I., but that is too simple if you ask me.

With at least 3 weapon/armor types, the tactical palette is lot bigger. That is the whole point behind this system.

[ October 07, 2003, 22:44: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

[Saber Cherry]

You do realize that by saying your not trying to be rude only makes it appear more likely that you are being rude?

Yes, I was trying to appear as though attempting rudeness, using an explicit proclamation of innocence prior to any accusation. Thus, rather than countering my main point, I could shift the opposition to a straw-man argument over my possible character flaws. Furthermore, I could start right off on the defensive, and gain a +50% combat advantage, since I'm in wooded terrain... yep! Too bad you saw right through me=)

I understand your point. I don't want Illwinter to make the game less accessible to new players, or add complexity for complexity's sake. But I feel that as long as the protections make moderate changes rather than huge changes, they will be a wonderful addition for obsessive strategists (Dominions' main following, I would think) without excluding anyone. By moderate, I mean that if you completely ignore damage types and have the worst-case army, you'll tend to need 20%-30% more troops to win battles compared to an army designed perfectly to take advantage of the enemy's damage types and vulnerabilities. Keep in mind that an army's power is generally a factor of the size squared, so a 20% larger force is 44% stronger, assuming a broad front.

So, I would say that as long as the damage type system isn't ridiculous or severe (like the way physical immunity and super-high-defense heroes unbalanced AOW1) then it would be present in the background, averaging out to have little effect, in a newby game; while in a competitive veteran game, it would be used cruelly and viciously, with much treachery to be gained from fielding armies of different armor and damage types than expected.

I played a demo of Empire Earth (or was it Age of Kings?) where the damage types (Infantry versus cavalry versus spearmen, or something) were tweaked to an insane degree, so that it was pure rock-paper-scissors and if you chose the wrong troop type, even a 300% numerical superiority (thus 900% relative strength) wouldn't save you. I thought that was stupid, and it made me not buy the game. So, yes, a poorly done or overly severe damage-type system could destroy a perfectly good game. But that's true of spells, too - it only takes one new spell, or new site, or new racial theme, to utterly wreck the game balance... yet I'm not asking Illwinter to stop putting in new spells

Well, that's that. Now, I'll just cross my fingers and hope something along these lines sneaks into a patch someday And if I have to whip out the Holy Grail to make you heathens either see the light, or be blinded by my glory, don't think I'm chicken!

-Cherry

[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