<< Weapons & Damage >>

In know these ideas prezented hereinafter are in the game more or less.
But this reprezents a potential evolution of the game.
And it is based on real facts.
So weapons damage should depends of weight, sharpness and speed.

1) Weight of weapon. The weight of the weapon affect its speed in proportion with strenght of your character.
So an character with, let say, 9 point on strenght can handle a sword which is for 11 strenght (to heavy for him), but (!) the compromise of speed must be much biger. A two-handed sword might be 17Kg weighty but slower then one-handed swords.

2)Speed of weapon. The relative speed of your sword has a direct ifluence on damage.
- Damage must to be in the rise with the motion of the swing. Something like 10% at the begin, 100% at the midle & 80% at the end. Becouse the speed of the sword/axe/etc grows with the motion. At the beginning is very slow... Of cource the motion and AI of the opponent must to be ballanced so you can have room to swing.
- Impacts between swords are not exclused.
- The speed of the sword is increased with the speed of the horse - allready in the game.
- The speed factor of the sword is obtained with a surten skill and swing and equal with 1. This must be established by developers. It is a necesar parameter for calculation of the damage.
Ex. - if a two-handed sword (15Kg) has speed factor equal with 1, a one-handed sword (7,5Kg) has a speed factor 2. A higher skill can duble the speed of the sword probably. A slower strenght level can drop the speed factor to 0.5, so damage to 1/2.

3)Sharpness of weapon. The sharpness of the sword is another needed parameter for calculation of the damage.
a) sharpness = 0. Blunt weapon. Blunt weapons can be much heavier (or not) than two-handed swords and more longer (or not). So speed of the hamer will be higher in a later momment of the swing.
A hamer used by barbarian armys in Roman period were used with circular swings to smack the heads of the opponents. Ex. Gladiator movie - the first battle. The speed of this kind of hamer can be much higher and is very dangerous.
b)sharpness = 1. Moderate sharp sword. Modest price or more heavyest. Cheap metal.
c)sharpness = 2. Good sharp shord.
d)sharpness = 3. Very good sharp shord. Can be sharpned with a emery stone. (Every man have a stone for this meaning. Already purpose in other threads.)

Damage is the product of Weight, Potential Speed and Sharpness of the sword. So:

DAMAGE = Weight x Speed Factor x Sharpness

Ex. For a good sharp two-handed sword (17Kg)  with a potential speed 1, damage is:
DAMAGE = 17 x 2 x 1 = 34.

Note: For lunge hits you can aply the same tipe of calculation. A thrust hit is slower but can concentrate the force on a very small surface (point). The sharpness of aglet can be the same or different from shaprness of the edge.
The speed of the lunge move in raport with a swing move can be established by someone who practice medieval matial arts.

Brave_Lung said:

In know these ideas prezented hereinafter are in the game more or less.
But this reprezents a potential evolution of the game.
And it is based on real facts.
So weapons damage should depends of weight, sharpness and speed.

1) Weight of weapon. The weight of the weapon affect its speed in proportion with strenght of your character.
So an character with, let say, 9 point on strenght can handle a sword which is for 11 strenght (to heavy for him), but (!) the compromise of speed must be much biger. A two-handed sword might be 17Kg weighty but slower then one-handed swords.

2)Speed of weapon. The relative speed of your sword has a direct ifluence on damage.
- Damage must to be in the rise with the motion of the swing. Something like 10% at the begin, 100% at the midle & 80% at the end. Becouse the speed of the sword/axe/etc grows with the motion. At the beginning is very slow... Of cource the motion and AI of the opponent must to be ballanced so you can have room to swing. Impacts between swords are not exclused.
- The speed of the sword is increased with the speed of the horse allready in the game.
- The speed factor of the sword is the speed obtained with a surten skill and swing and equal with 1. This must be set by developers. It is a necesar parameter for calculation of the damage.
Ex. - if a two-handed sword (15Kg) has speed factor equal with 1, a one-handed sword (7,5Kg) has a speed factor 2. A higher skill can duble the speed of the sword probably.

3)Sharpness of weapon. The sharpness of the sword is another needed parameter for calculation of the damage.
a) sharpness = 0. Blunt weapon. Blunt weapons can be much heavier (or not) than two-handed swords and more longer (or not). So speed of the hamer will be higher in a later momment of the swing.
A hamer used by barbarian armys in Roman period were used with circular swings to smack the heads of the opponents. Ex. Gladiator movie - the first battle. The speed of this kind of hamer can be much higher.
b)sharpness = 1. Moderate sharp sword. Modest price or more heavyest. Cheap metal.
c)sharpness = 2. Good sharp shord.
d)sharpness = 3. Very good sharp shord. Can be sharpned with a emery stone. (Every man have a stone for this meaning. Already purpose in other threads.)

Damage is the product of Weight, Potential Speed and Sharpness of the sword. So:

DAMAGE = Weight x Speed Factor x Sharpness

Ex. For a good sharp two-handed sword (17Kg)  with a potential speed 1, damage is:
DAMAGE = 17 x 2 x 1 = 34.

Note: For lunge hits you can aply the same tipe of calculation. A thrust hit is slower but can concentrate the force on a very small surface (point). The sharpness of aglet can be the same or different from shaprness of the edge.
The speed of the lunge move in raport with a swing move can be established by someone who practice medieval matial arts.

Click to expand...

I think there is also a place for the effect of different types of weapons on different types of armour as well.

For example cutting weapons like "broadswords", sabres and falchions are devasting against people who are unarmoured or wearing fabric armours, but less much effective against mail and almost useless against coats of plates and plate armour.

Blunt weapons like maces and warhammers are most effective against plate armour becuase they damage flexures and joints immobilising the wearer.

Thrusting weapons like lances and longswords are most effective against mail because they burst through the links, but much less effective against plate, because unless they go in a weak spot like the armits or groin, they just glance off.

Arrows from most bows are very effective against unarmoured and fabric aramoured oppenents but much less effective against mail and almost useless against plate armour.

Crossbow bolts can penetrate mail but are less effective against plate.

And so on. Would that be too difficult to script though?

Aqtai said:

Would that be too difficult to script though?

Click to expand...

I think some of these evolutionary ideas demands new motions. Other are not very hard to implement.
Nice links! 

I'm curious what is the appreciation of the developers about of these ideas.
But they look over these topiks? Or we're wasting words here?

Armagan certainly looks at the suggestions board. You can spy on him (when he's on) through the Forum Users Online. Doesn't tend to comment too much, for a variety of reasons, but some suggestions definitely get implemented. 'Course, they might be ones that are already being planned.

As to the suggestions: As you noted, these effects are involved in the concept behind the damage factors of the weapons, so there's probably no need to add an extra layer of complexity. Just tweak the numbers a bit here and there. Aqtai 's suggestion is one which if done correctly, could add quite a bit however, especially in conjunction with a more complicated armor system (as was discussed elsewhere).

I think there needs to be a distinction between "cutting" and "hacking" damage as well.  Yes, a sabre is less effective against plate and mail, but an axe?  Axes should be devastating against all types of armour.

Actually, forget what I just said.  The difference is in the mass of the weapon.  A baton is no more effective against plate than a sabre.  Add a "mass" qualifier to damage, which gives it the bonus against plate and mail.

Sabre: cutting.
Axe: mass cutting.
Staff: blunt.
Mace: mass blunt.

Lastly, tweak the weapon speeds so that swords are MUCH faster than axes and mass weapons.

Eogan said:

I think there needs to be a distinction between "cutting" and "hacking" damage as well.  Yes, a sabre is less effective against plate and mail, but an axe?  Axes should be devastating against all types of armour.

Actually, forget what I just said.  The difference is in the mass of the weapon.  A baton is no more effective against plate than a sabre.  Add a "mass" qualifier to damage, which gives it the bonus against plate and mail.

Sabre: cutting.
Axe: mass cutting.
Staff: blunt.
Mace: mass blunt.

Lastly, tweak the weapon speeds so that swords are MUCH faster than axes and mass weapons.

Click to expand...

That is a very good point. Because of course one of the reasons pole-axes were so popular in the 15th century is precisely because they were effective against plate armour.

Against mounted men in plate armor. The length was to deal with horsemen, not the armor itself. Additionally, anything that large is meant to be used in fairly tight formation, and not swung about. Given such, a weapon like this should be just about useless in M&B, until troops learn to stay in a formation.

Axes in general were far more effective against plate armour than swords.

And maces were more effective than axes. So?

And lasers were more effective than maces. So?

calandale said:

And maces were more effective than axes. So?

Click to expand...

They were?  I don't see how a mace head would be a more effective shape than an axe head, assuming the two weighed the same.

An axe blade is more likely to skip off a curve in the armor than a mace.

Sword weights don't really differ that much. 17kg is far heavier than any two-handed sword would have been.

Brave_Lung said:

Damage is the product of Weight, Potential Speed and Sharpness of the sword. So:

DAMAGE = Weight x Speed Factor x Sharpness

Ex. For a good sharp two-handed sword (17Kg)  with a potential speed 1, damage is:
DAMAGE = 17 x 2 x 1 = 34.

Click to expand...

I support implementing physics-based damage system, but your equation is wrong and ain't gonna work much better than arbitrary numbers.

The topic has been discussed many times. one of the latest threads is this one: http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,9342.0.html . You'd find more details there


And the sword weight, you missed a decimal point between 1 and 7, didn't you?

Eogan said:

calandale said:

And maces were more effective than axes. So?

Click to expand...

They were?  I don't see how a mace head would be a more effective shape than an axe head, assuming the two weighed the same.

Click to expand...

To be honest I don't really know as I have not used maces, warhammers or axes against men in plate armour. Maces, warhammers and maces would all seem to fall into the same broad category of hafted weapons, i.e. they are designed for swinging rather than thrusting (although many axes and warhammers have spikes on top to allow them to be used for thrusting too) they have a heavy head  mounted on a wooden haft, many axes and hammers also had a spike (or "picks) at the back. all were availble as single-handed weapons for horsemen and two-handed weapons for footmen (the two-handed infantry version of the warhammer is often called a "Lucerne hammer").

AFAIK warhammers and maces are "mass weapons" , "having the ability to strike with shock and percussion through plate. Such strikes could injure the person underneath, or in some cases dent the armour's articulations and joints so that the wearer would be unable to move." I quoted that directly from the my armoury website. Now presumably the disadvantage an axe has is that if it hits plate armour at the wrong angle it would just glance off, but if it hits at the right angle and has enough power behind it it, it would penetrate the armour causing damage to the tissues underneath. presumably if used against someone wearing mail, even if the axe fails to penetrate, the impact would still cause blunt trauma.

As I understand it :

The main advantage of the axe is that it's effects are kind of like a symbiote of the blunt weapon and the sword. You get the weight and top-heavy balance of a hammer combined with the edged blade of a sword. So you would cause blunt trauma. Of course, if you were lucky enough to hit a joint it may be possible to cleave right through to the flesh underneath.
If you don't penetrate or glance off, then you have the weight and momentum to use it as a blunt weapon. Rather than denting the armour in a similar manner to a mace, your concentrating the force on an edge so you would have a chance to penetrate. Not sure if it would be as effective as a true blunt weapon though, your not likely to cause as severe damage without penetrating the armour. On the other hand, the axe works equally well against pretty much all armour, which is not necessarily true of a blunt weapon.

First Citizen said:

Sword weights don't really differ that much. 17kg is far heavier than any two-handed sword would have been.

Click to expand...

I know. But it was just an exemple. All the parameters can be ballanced with real weights. With a 2Kg sword for ex., the standard speed factor and sharpness must be aprox. 4. It's about proportions anyway (2x4x4=32).
A half weight, speed or sharpness drop the total damage to 1/2. It's simple. The numbers dosen't mater so much.

Manitas said:

Brave_Lung said:

Damage is the product of Weight, Potential Speed and Sharpness of the sword. So:

DAMAGE = Weight x Speed Factor x Sharpness

Ex. For a good sharp two-handed sword (17Kg)  with a potential speed 1, damage is:
DAMAGE = 17 x 2 x 1 = 34.

Click to expand...

I support implementing physics-based damage system, but your equation is wrong and ain't gonna work much better than arbitrary numbers....

Click to expand...

You make me laugh! 

---------------------------------------------

I think that blunt weapons were more for smashing heads than panatrate armors. Even if you have a healmet you're not safe against hammers.

And what's so funny exactly?