Crossbows vs. Longbows

[Sombre]

Actually giving maces dmg 7 and AP might work to an extent. They'd be like the melee versons of crossbows - less good vs light prot guys, better against high prot guys. The fact they have worse att and def makes sense, since they are deployed against high prot encumbered guys, or heavy cav (who have good def but who shouldn't be taken out by mace armed foot troops anyway, really).

[Endoperez]

Originally Posted by Sombre

Actually giving maces dmg 7 and AP might work to an extent. They'd be like the melee versons of crossbows - less good vs light prot guys, better against high prot guys. The fact they have worse att and def makes sense, since they are deployed against high prot encumbered guys, or heavy cav (who have good def but who shouldn't be taken out by mace armed foot troops anyway, really).

What do you mean by "dmg 7"? Damage 7, no-str or the sum of strength and weapon damage being 7? I've changed hammers, but not maces/clubs, to be dmg -4 and armor-piercing. Details below.

Maces are mostly used by the monkeys of all castes: Atavi, Vanara, Bandar, Kala-Mukha and leaders. Villains and Burgmeister Guards also use maces. They are pretty rare, but armor-piercing doesn't work with these units. Increased damage would be all right, I think.


Since the discussion changed into weapon balance, would you guys be interested in testing out this little mod I've been making? See attachment.

It started out as giving all magical spears #lance bonus, but I've been slowly adding into it and now it changes most mundane weapons. Most of it doesn't really make a difference, but Hammers (but not maces or clubs) are armor-piercing. They are used by VERY few units, which include few nationals (MA Ulm), Claymen and... Siege Golems! Haven't changed the golems yet, don't know if I should...

Other notable changes: +1 att to most spears, mauls, glaives, mauls and such have higher damage, many weapons cost less resources, axes got more precise.

[Sombre]

Originally Posted by Endoperez

What do you mean by "dmg 7"? Damage 7, no-str or the sum of strength and weapon damage being 7? I've changed hammers, but not maces/clubs, to be dmg -4 and armor-piercing. Details below.

Yes, sorry, I meant around 3-4 damage or so, as a weapon stat. I was mixed up with strength being 10 and 7 being less or something.

I don't see why hammers with AP make more sense than maces? Why doesn't ap on a mace make sense on a markata or hoburg?

[Endoperez]

Originally Posted by Sombre

Yes, sorry, I meant around 3-4 damage or so, as a weapon stat. I was mixed up with strength being 10 and 7 being less or something.

I don't see why hammers with AP make more sense than maces? Why doesn't ap on a mace make sense on a markata or hoburg?

I can't imagine Markata (they don't use maces), Hoburgs or the monkeys in general as something that thugs and heavily-armored, mounted knights should be especially afraid of. On the other hand, low-strength Hoburgs couldn't hit through armor even if their weapons were armor-piercing.

Finally, I don't want to make Lanka's Kala-mukha have armor-piercing weapons.

Thanks for asking about the hammers, since after you asked I read more about them and found out armor-piercing doesn't fit them at all.
I thought the spike at the other end of a war hammer was like a pick-axe, meant to push through the armor, but according to Wikipedia it was for hooking the opponent's leg, neck, weapon or such. It also didn't penetrate armor as such, but "transmitted an impact through even the thickest helmet". I've seen videos of a longer "poll-axe" being used in such a manner, and it looks great. Unfortunately you can't model tripping in Dominions.

[Aezeal]

Well I'm not getting it, maces aren't armour piercing in any way right? (IRL I mean) so why would THEY get AP and not something that could actually penetrate armour even on specific weak points.

[Omnirizon]

Originally Posted by Aezeal

Well I'm not getting it, maces aren't armour piercing in any way right? (IRL I mean) so why would THEY get AP and not something that could actually penetrate armour even on specific weak points.

no i suppose they arn't piercing in the way we typically think of it, but it is the type of damage they do, blunt force trauma, that made them more effective than cutting weapons against armor.

[Lingchih]

Thanks for all the replies. This has, of course, gone way off post, but in a good way. I like all the lances and slingers talk.

Still. Nothing posted has deterred me from thinking that longbows should be AP.

[Agema]

I think the reflection of AP on weapons like axes, maces and so on is not that they penetrate the armour per se, but that armour could much less effective at stopping the damage from them compared to a sword. Armour was generally about stopping penetrative damage from thrusts (eg. spears, swords) and slashing (swords). Weapons like maces and warhammers were designed to apply a lot of force into a very concentrated area. Even if the armour wasn't penetrated (in the case of plate armour probably leaving a huge dent), the blow could pulverise bone and flesh under it.

[Aezeal]

well I don't think that is AP, that is just high damage since on an unarmoured person it would do much more damage too. (I'm not sure a well padded armour would give the wearer that much problems from a blow of a mace)

[Aleph]

Read about five pages of this and had to go, wanted to post:

Agincourt, AFAIK, was partly won due to a simple difference in philosophy. The French thought that they were fighting a chivalric war and could expect to be captured and ransomed back if defeated, while the English were well and truly in enemy territory and took to murdering the surrendered French knights with daggers and sledgehammers. It's like if one side of a football game all came to the field with brass knuckles and knives and there were no refs to call foul on it... you'd expect that team to do quite well until the other side caught on. This is a problem you won't have in Dominions - there's no honorable surrender.

Furthermore, AFAIK the French didn't even bother deploying their crossbowmen at Agincourt. Certainly, they might have fared better if they had.

Finally, I believe the longbow was never outlawed for use against other Christians by the Vatican, which tells you that the crossbow was doing something right.