Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush

[st.patrik]

It is important to make a distinction betwen tactics and strategy - there is a very real distinction.

Tactics is about how to win against an opponent on the smaller scale - i.e. if I get this combination of attacks, placed at these locations, then I should be able to defeat 3 of his guys for every 1 of mine I lose. The current discussion is about adding a new tactical element (or increasing the tactical importance of certain factors). I think Warcraft III is a game with a lot of tactics, but next to no strategy.

Strategy on the other hand is big picture - i.e. assuming we have roughly equal losses [or whatever set proportion], where will I attack such that he is forced to open a hole in his defenses, etc. Risk is an example of a game which has strategy, but no tactics (i.e. you can't change the effectiveness of your armies in any particular battle at all).

This change would add to the tactical options, but would not, by definition, add to strategy at all. Maybe the doubt being articulated by several people could be explained as a desire not to turn the game into a primarily tactical exercise, but maintain the emphasis on strategy. Right now I think Dominions has a pretty good balance between the two - enough tactics that you can plan killer combinations of troops and of spells, and yet a certain amount of strategy - it's not just about fielding the largest, most effective army - it's also what you do with it.

[Saber Cherry]

Damage types could open strategic options that are currently unimportant. Choosing which indy province to fort, in order to use the local troops to suppliment your national troops' range of damage types, is one example... and labbing a death-mage province to recruit mages who can summon skeletons, when faced with an opponent who relies too heavily on archers (cough *Man*), is another example.

Damage types would also increase the difference between leather (low pierce protection) and metal (high pierce protection) armors, allowing specific counter-strategies versus opponents who attack with massed cheap leather-wearing units, or opponents who attack with only piercing weapons (spears and bows).

I would say... it increases strategic depth.

Oh, and the more I think about it, the more I think dual-typing is necessary. For example:

Bow: Pierce
XBow: Pierce
Spear: Pierce
Javelin: Pierce
Lance: Pierce

Mace: Crush
Hammer: Crush
Fist: Crush
Flail: Crush
Pincer: Crush
Hoof: Crush

Sword: Slash
Claw: Slash
Scythe: Slash
Whip: Slash
Shuriken: Slash

Dagger: Pierce/Slash
Halberd: Pierce/Slash
Spike Whip: Pierce/Slash
Spike Tail: Pierce/Slash

Bite: Crush/Pierce
Ballista: Crush/Pierce
Mattock: Crush/Pierce
Spike Club: Crush/Pierce

Axe: Crush/Slash
JotunSword: Crush/Slash

For dual-type weapons, the more effective damage type is chosen. This should reduce problems introduced by a new system, while keeping it streamlined and straightforward. It would also make certain units more flexible than than other units... Historically, halberds were an excellent weapon due to their flexibility, and this system would recreate that effect. Currently, a halberd is just a different-looking spear.

-Cherry

[ywl]

Originally posted by HJ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ywl:
Some more questions while licker is still at it.

How about the various magical spells and attacks? The armor negating ones (e.g. lightning) are fine. But how about the ones which are affected by protection or only armor piercing (1/2 protection, I guess): various forms of fire, "Geyser", "Cold bolt", "Blade Wind", "Gifts from Heaven", "Acid Rain", "Magma Eruption"?

How about monsters? Life drain of undead (armor piercing only), breaths weapons, crushing of Water Elementals (also armor piercing only)? Also, how much piercing and slashing should we assign to the monster and animal bites and claws? Piercing for longer claws and slashing for shorter?

The problem is classification of damage to piercing, slashing and bashing are only good (to a limited extent) for melee weapons. It fails (badly IMHO) if we want to use it on wider circumstances. Using a single protection number may be rough, but it's at least simple and approximate most situations equally well (or bad).

Why would that be a problem? The same way you attribute damage to melee weapons, you can also attribute it to other things, depending on how someone (the devs) envision them. It's the same thing like saying "how do we attribute defense to different armours?" in the present state of the game. Yet it has been done, and they decided that this shield will have a defense value of 2. In the same way they can say that bite does crushing damage, and that particular spell does slashing damage. That is, if the system works by attributing only a single type of damage only per weapon.

---

The problem is the Piercing/Slashing/Bashing system is not good for anything more than a dagger .

To be serious, what I meant was if we want damage types and specific armor versus them, we have to incorporate them into the spell system of Dominions. For example, we might need:

Physical (for respect of the original discussion):
Piercing: self explanatory;
Slashing: also self-explantory;
Bashing: for small bludgeon weapons;
Crushing: for large heavy physical objects ("Earth-Quake", "Gift of Heaven")

Magical:
Lightning;
Fire;
Cold;
Life-draining: undeads, "Hand of Death" and variants;
Magical: unclassified spells such as "Astral Fire" (or maybe "Nether Dart"?);
Mental: "Mind Burnt" and related;
Chemicals: how about "Acid Spray"?

It'll be more complicated to my taste...

And also, Dominions has a system to deal with these magical damage already. Fire resistance, for example, grant 100% (in Dom 1) or 50% (in Dom 2?) protection to Fire. Some armors grant it.

The question is why we need different number crunching for different physical damage. A simpler and more compaitible system could be to separate the weapons into "Edged" and "Blundgeon". Some creatures or monsters, e.g. Skeletons, Abominations, because of their lack of vital organs, might have "resistance" and 50% damage to edged weapons.

[HJ]

The other types of damage would be characterized according to the devs' perception. It's not like there are no templates to go by: many RPGs, many TBS, many other games as well. If you cast a spell called "Iron chef's swirling blades" that spell will do physical slashing damage, as blades "materizalize" and do damage. As for the rest of the spells, those that negate armour would of course do that. As for the armour piercing spells and those that actually get stopped by armour, I guess you can work them out the same way as fire protections work in DomII. The question in SPB would be do you have a basic protection value, and the resistances are added to it subtracting from all damage that goes above that protection value, or do you just take into acount resistances, and there is no basic protection. If latter is the case, then you would need to attribute protections to all specific types of damage, and characterize them as well (and also rework the current system more thoroughly). If former was the case, then you simply subtract that basic protection from damage, unless otherwise stated, and specific resistances diminish the damage of a certain type that goes over the protection value.

Examples:
scenario 1.
You have 8 prot. and 25% resist piercing, and the damage dealt is 16 piercing. 8 is stopped immediately (as it is now), and 25% of the remaining 8 is also neutralized, hence the actual damage received is 6. If that damage is armour piercing at the same time, you would stop 4 at once, and 25% of the remaining, hence resulting damage would be 9, unless AP means that it halves resist as well, in which case it would be 10 or 11(depending on rounding up or down for unclear cases). If it's armour negating, you receive the full 16. If there is no specific resistance specified for that damage type, but it's not armour piercing, you would stop 8, and get 8.

scenario 2.
If you have no basic protection, and have only 25% resist, the damage would be 12. If it's armour piercing, it halves the protection, hence the damage would be 14 (only 12.5% would be stopped). Armour negating again gives full 16, as well as if no specific resistance for that damage type is specified.

I think I favour scenario 1 a bit more myself. Well, in fact, I would favour an even more complicated scenario, where each weapon can do more than one type of damage etc. , as I described previously when I was talking about Siege of Avalon system, but out of these two, the first is more appealing. Of course, these scenarios don't take into acount the random dice, but it would work the same.

And you can of course have a third scenario, where you would simply have different protection numbers for different damage types that would behave as a current system, i.e. no percentile values, but different basic protections. That would also be ok.

As for the kinetics argument, that giants should do crushing damage in addition to e.g. piercing because of the impact, methinks that's already factored in with addition of strenght to the equation. Against the same level of protection and using the same weapon, a stronger unit will always do proportionally more damage, since the damage = weapon damage + strenght, and that, in my view, covers the difference in kinetics. After all, it's not like the hoburgs fly around when hit by a troll anyway.... Not that I can't think of a system that could incorporate things like that as well, but, since people already have problems with this one, I'll stop now....

[ October 09, 2003, 19:32: Message edited by: HJ ]

[PvK]

Not essential, but would be an improvement, if done well. In most cases it would just be a minor modifier, but in a few it could be an important and interesting advantage. It would be possible to implement in an annoyingly wrong way, though so far Illwinter have done a great job. I can just imagine a rock-paper-scissors idiot designer making an annoyingly silly Version, though.

PvK

[Mortifer]

Originally posted by PvK:
Not essential, but would be an improvement, if done well.

How true.

Anyways what is the difference between strategy and tactics?

Strategy:
The science of military command, or the science of projecting campaigns and directing great military movements; generalship.

Tactics:
The science and art of disposing military in order of battle.

If the tactics part will be upgraded and enchanted via the various weapon damages and protections, the strategy part will change too, it will be more diverse, and complex.

Sometimes complexity is not better, but in a game like this, it is improving the gameplay.
Of course IMHO, since we are subjective, and it is all good.

However, if the devs could make a system like this, what works "perfectly", I see no point that why do not implent it to the game.
All of your opinions and examples were about the same thing: This is a good idea, but not necessary, and I agree with it.
We must step over this, and let the devs think about it.

[licker]

Yes let the devs weigh in (again). I have the feeling though that their opinion will still be that its an interesting idea with some merits that is just too cumbersome to bother adding in.

Thats my impression of the idea as well. Well I also don't think it would add much interesting gameplay, but for now I'll stick with the 'its too big a change to bother with' sentiment

[Saber Cherry]

Originally posted by Mortifer:

Anyways what is the difference between strategy and tactics?

Some say, "Tactics are what happen after the bullets start flying".

[HJ]

Ok, time out...

Btw, it's great to see so many like-minded people with regard to rock/paper/scissors model. On other forums I usually get shouted down for saying that it's not a God-given-model-to-end-it-all.

Cheers

[ October 09, 2003, 21:11: Message edited by: HJ ]

[MStavros]

Hmmm I agree. Not necessary, but a good idea. If the devs can add it, I will be happy with it.