Mod: Blast from the Past, Return of the Underkings

[MaxWilson]

Aezeal said:
lol + 10 protection.. that would be nice especially since I guess they already have some armour.. why not sacred with earthbless 9 too

Thematically I can imagine the battle ragers needing a lot of room for all kinds of battle raging maneuvres

Ouch, +10 berserk means +10 encumbrance, which means armor isn't going to do a lot to help them survive the battle. They *will* go out in a blaze of glory.

-Max

[PvK]

For the axes and hammers, yeah it's tricky within the existing values. My ideal solution would actually be to make and apply a weapon mod, because the issue is a pet peeve of mine. (I think the two-handed weapons and good one-handed battleaxes are undervalued, and daggers overrated. I'd call the existing Axe a Woodaxe for foresters and other non-pros, and make a one-handed battle Axe cost more resources but have no negatives to skill, like the difference between a Maul and a Battleaxe.)

But given the existing weapons, I think I would suggest adding a non-magic Dwarven Axe weapon with say damage 7 or 8, attack 0, defense -1 or 0, length 1, and giving it a noticeably higher resource cost than the Hammer. I'd also have a Dwarven Battleaxe with at least damage 10, just because.

Also I think your Helmsfire Greataxe should be length 3.

Code:

---

Existing stats:

Fist       -2 -1 -1  0

Dagger      2  1  0  0

Hatchet     5  0  0  1

Axe         7 -1 -1  1

Hammer      7  0 -1  1

Shortsword  5  0  1  1

Broadsword  6  0  1  2

Maul        9  0 -1  3

Battleaxe   9  0  0  3



Your added stats:

Dwarven Pickaxe      3  0 -1  1  (AP)

Dwarven Hammer       8  0 -1  1  (magic)

Dwarven Maul        11  0 -1  3  (magic)

Runed Greataxe      10  1  0  3  (magic + undead)

Helmsfire Greataxe  10  2  0  2  (magic + fire)

---

[Saulot]

I too would probably change some weapons, starting with the ones which were more traditionally for dealing with heavy armor; warhammers, mauls, picks, lucerne hammers, etc. by lowering their damage and making them AP. I'd also probably change some of the spear users to have more variety, with military forks, warscythes, and pikes.

But imposing that inside of a nation mod hardly seems fair, and there's already a balance mod that's quite well developed.

Well, there's nothing wrong with the rationale behind making a dwarf-based axe, it's just that improving it wouldn't just change the balance of one of the dwarf units, but several of them. Due to how size 1 resources go, even if I gave it 3 or 4 more resources, it would still be too similar to a hammer. Also, I'm not sure I could explain away why it would be have such a higher resource cost. Lastly, there's still the problem of there being 3 axes (hatchet, axe, battleaxe). Changing one, suggests the other two should be altered as well.

I didn't add a 'Dwarven Hammer'. That's the base weapon for the magic item of the same name.

As for the two greataxes, that was intentional as I wanted to make them a bit different, to have less similarities between the paladins. The second greataxe is somewhat shorter, double headed (thus the rounded edge means that the most likely point of impact is at the middle of the axehead, and not the top) thus better balanced, and possessing the ability for an equally brutal backswing (this all translates into +1 to hit, -1 to length in Dom terms). However, tweaking the stats of the greataxes is certainly mutable and not set in stone. Hopefully the two paladins are balanced, yet different enough.

[PvK]

Yes, I'm with you on the armor-piercing weapons. I'll have to check out the balance mod.

Seems to me axes are the signature stereotypical dwarven weapon, and these dwarves are apparently expert weaponsmiths, and yet their non-magical axe weapons are inferior to plain hammers or swords. As a player, I'd probably rather recruit hatchet versions at 5 0 0 1 than axe versions at 7 -1 -1 1 (and I essentially never recruit the axe dwarves because of the hammer dwarves). Really it's just a flavor/thematic thing.

...

Especially since they are ultra-strong already simply due to their stacking double the number of figures per square in melee combat.

[HoneyBadger]

Somebody really ought to do a study on weapon type/form efficiency as compared to the size/strength of the person weilding the weapon. It would make for an interesting thesis.

I don't know why Tolkien, or anyone else, felt the need to put axes in the hands of dwarfs, except for their Norse origins. Here's an interesting fact, however: Dwarfs weren't short, in Norse myth. They were, as far as can be told in modern times, as tall as humans. They only acquired their lesser status *after* the Viking age-probably influenced by the general shift of "faerie creatures" from large to small.

Axes, in combat, work by concentrating force-more than a sword-on a smaller area, but allowing the spread of force-more than a spear-to affect a greater area. The axe itself also acts somewhat like a lever, trading greater surface area for greater precision and striking power, which is why an axe requires more room to swing than a similarly sized sword, and much more than a spear does to thrust.

What does this mean? It means that, in the hands of a much smaller person, that lives in close quarters and thrives in heavy armour, you're putting a much larger, heavier weapon, that requires more room to swing, and that actually does less damage-especially to armour and compact targets-and has much less functionality and availability than a pick in similar circumstances.

Axes for dwarfs is great for Dominions, because it's pure myth. If you want something based a bit on reality and common sense, arm them with picks, spears, shortswords, macheti-type weapons, and crossbows.

[Aezeal]

ok that was to much for me.. I can sort of see the 2nd alinea, but I can't see how that translates into the 3th (and thus 4th)

WHy would a very strong small person not wield an axe? What has the heavy armour to do with it?
Why is a larger heavier weapon a problem for a strong person?
Why does it do less damage to armour compared to a sword when you say it concentrates the force more? (ow wait that was compared to a pick right, I can see that)
I always consider dwarven quarters about the size that a dwarf can wield and axe and defend a whole corridor with swings of one axe.. how does that fit into your equation.

on your final alinea.. I can see why picks would be better than axes.. not why spears, shortswords and macheti-type weapons are better, since if you have the power to wield a heavy weapon.. IMHO it will hit harder.. which is a good thing when breaking armour right?

Plz enlighten me (really, no sarcasm here, I'd like to know it all)

[Maraxus]

I think what he wants to say is not, that a heavy swinging weapon is a problem for a strong person.

Point is, that it is worse then a small (or) thrusting weapon, because strength actuall matters less on heavy weapons: Those get their force through their own weight and speed.
And the speed they get per acceleration way (as long as you have a minimum strength to lift it), so long arms are an important advantage, while muscle power is a minor advantage (it effects the speed taken to the squareroot, if you what physics F=1/2*m*v² ).

I don't think that armor of the weapon wielder is a factor here: While it hampers your movements in directions it is not designed for, it does not meaningful hamper the moves it is designed for: Swinging a weapon is one such movement.

The armor of the target plays a role, however: I think dwarves will also train to use weapons which are efficient against heavy armor as they have it, and these are swung weapons: axes, military hammers, picks.

I can not agree with the "axe requires more room to swing than a similarly sized sword" because you don't need to compare length here but weigth. Greataxe beats Greatsword in close areas, because it is shorter. Likewise if you compare a longsword with a same weigth axe.

Picks as an alternative to axes?
Sure, they focus the impact on a single point which is why later Warhammers were more like picks then hammers - but the axe has it's advantage, too: A single long spike in your body is not straight out fatal, unless it hits heart, brain, spine. Probably not even disabling. The victim might live with it for another minute but it needs only seconds to hit you. On the other hand, an axe breaks bones where it stikes. Disables the victim better.

I agree that thrusting weapons - spears and maybe shortswords - make some sense for dwarfs as subterran fighters with short arms. However considering their need to also be able to kill heaviest armored targets, I also see the reason to use swung weapons. Among those axe, hammer and pick all have pros and cons and I can reasonably understand if dwarfs would choose the axe to be traditionally important.

[llamabeast]

Aezeal, what's an alinea?

[HoneyBadger]

Spears are better, because they extend reach, and because they only require a tiny space to thrust forward, which means they can fit into narrow confines, and can be weilded by more combatants, against more opponents, in a given area-thus, the phalanx. And phalanxi are the way to go, underground, where there isn't a lot of maneuvaring possible, or necessary, and where you can usually guess where your opponent is going to come from.

Shortswords are good for dwarfs for the same reason they were good for the Romans-they don't require a lot of room to thrust, preferrably upward under armour.

Machetis are good for three reasons-1: they're versatile, 2: they're tough weapons that can take a lot of abuse, and 3: they're good for clearing underbrush, and when you're a dwarf, not used to being on the surface and having to deal with underbrush, you want to be able to hack through it so you can see, and move.

[Aezeal]

I'd still say a lot of power and a heavy axe is a pretty nice combination as well though