Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush

[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.