Mod: Adept's Mod (weapon, magic and monster changes)

[kianduatha]

Oh, and the Hammer change only affects two things: it makes Claymen super-powerful and makes MA Ulm not purchase any other kind of infantry. I suppose there's also one mercenary band of heavy infantry that is now really good too.

[Executor]

Nightmares are bollocks. One or two death mages or a swarm or two and they're gone.

Anyway, I was wondering how an axe is superior to a sword historically?

[Adept]

Originally Posted by Executor

Nightmares are bollocks. One or two death mages or a swarm or two and they're gone.

Anyway, I was wondering how an axe is superior to a sword historically?

You think it's superior form the stats here? No, it definitely isn't. What it does is do _more_ damage than a sword.

Compare:

Broadsword. dam 6, len 2, def +1
Axe dam 8, len 1

The sword is definitely the better all around weapon, but at least the axe has something going for it. If you manage to get into range 1 and land a hit, it will hurt more. It's "point" is the low resource cost. Compared to a sword an axe is a low tech affair.

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by Executor

Anyway, I was wondering how an axe is superior to a sword historically?

Not that i really want to get into an argument about historicity, but historically an axe had an advantage in penetrating power, because it had a heavy head that came to an 'edge' (not actually that sharp in practice, but momentum helps) at the end of a shaft, so the Force per square inch was really high. On a solid hit it was much more likely to punch through armor than a swung sword was.

FWIW, swords aren't historically much of a slashing weapon either. Sure, if you could bring it to bear on an unarmored target it could slash just fine, but a knight in full armor in the late medieval/early renaissance was mostly immune to a swung sword. Which is why thrusting became the dominant attack mode with a sword, because against an armored foe it makes a much better piercing weapon. And thus developed a number of swords which were focused on using the tip as a weapon rather than the blade per se. Note that a sword has a much smaller area of contact if it strikes with the tip rather than the blade, and since it doesn't get much of a momentum bonus from a swing (because its not end-weighted), its just a very poorly designed weapon for swinging.

(Similarly, the mace was more effective as a swung weapon against a well-armored foe than a sword was).

But lets be honest, the dominant weapon during the heaviest armored periods was the pike, and well-drilled battalions of pikemen dominated the wars in europe.

Swords as a swung weapon (eg, the cutlass) became more popular again as armor got lighter with the growing dominance of gunpowder.

[Deathblob]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

Not that i really want to get into an argument about historicity, but historically an axe had an advantage in penetrating power, because it had a heavy head that came to an 'edge' (not actually that sharp in practice, but momentum helps) at the end of a shaft, so the Force per square inch was really high. On a solid hit it was much more likely to punch through armor than a swung sword was.

I'm not sure if I understand this correctly. Are you saying a longer shaft, and a heavier head, aid in penetration?

FWIW, swords aren't historically much of a slashing weapon either. Sure, if you could bring it to bear on an unarmored target it could slash just fine, but a knight in full armor in the late medieval/early renaissance was mostly immune to a swung sword. Which is why thrusting became the dominant attack mode with a sword, because against an armored foe it makes a much better piercing weapon. And thus developed a number of swords which were focused on using the tip as a weapon rather than the blade per se. Note that a sword has a much smaller area of contact if it strikes with the tip rather than the blade, and since it doesn't get much of a momentum bonus from a swing (because its not end-weighted), its just a very poorly designed weapon for swinging.

(Similarly, the mace was more effective as a swung weapon against a well-armored foe than a sword was).

But lets be honest, the dominant weapon during the heaviest armored periods was the pike, and well-drilled battalions of pikemen dominated the wars in europe.

Swords as a swung weapon (eg, the cutlass) became more popular again as armor got lighter with the growing dominance of gunpowder.

Wow that's almost tldr.

But I think what you are saying here is that for better penetration, thrusting is better than swinging. And pikemen are dominant because their weapons have really long shafts. Is that right?

[Soyweiser]

Executer, never heard of the axe wielding samurai then?

Or the knights of the round axe.

[Adept]

For those who missed it, the Ashigaru are semi professional soldiers with 9/9 skill, and full 10 in morale. Gold cost 9.

[Corinthian]

To be fair, historically the axe was an excellent weapon. It was easy to forge, and you could use the down-hook to pull shields and people off balance. Not a very defensive weapon though. Real life war axes were much smaller and faster than in fantasy pictures. Easier to hit with, but doing less damage.

A realistic stat would prob dmg5, atk2 def -1, len 1 and costing only 1 resource. Real axes probably used as much metal as a dagger and a dagger cost resource 1.

Not that you should implement these stats of course. Changing only weapon stats would unbalance every unit that uses these weapons.

[kianduatha]

Originally Posted by Corinthian

To be fair, historically the axe was an excellent weapon. It was easy to forge, and you could use the down-hook to pull shields and people off balance. Not a very defensive weapon though. Real life war axes were much smaller and faster than in fantasy pictures. Easier to hit with, but doing less damage.

A realistic stat would prob dmg5, atk2 def -1, len 1 and costing only 1 resource. Real axes probably used as much metal as a dagger and a dagger cost resource 1.

Not that you should implement these stats of course. Changing only weapon stats would unbalance every unit that uses these weapons.

Too late! Though from what you say atk 0 and #flail would be more appropriate.

[kianduatha]

By the way, your example Skratti is wearing 40+ gems of gear and supported with extra casters. I would hope that it would take at least a handful of mages to take him down. Looks like orb lightning or just plain some fireballs would fatigue him out and then make short work of him. But none of that matters because he has an army with--you can just cut off retreat routes and rout the surrounding army without even having to take him out. He's only a problem if you don't expend somewhat comparable amounts of resources taking care of him.