搜索结果: *

@ratschbumm :

If an axe would do more raw damage than a comparable sword,
and there would be a damage treshold specially for cut,
then this would represent the "pierce" of an axe also.
Now one wants a log that isn't cut/split by a sword, but by an axe.
So the log gets a damage treshold,
and the sword just not enough damage to develope it's cutting bonus.

This wouldn't solve all problems,
but it could lead to a more haptic feel.
First there is Raw damage, wich is blunt.
Some weapons add cut or pierce if damage is high and armor is low enough.
So this initial blunt damage could be used for calculating bash, interruption, stun.
Wich could be modified due to hit location.
The cut-damage-bonus could be substracted from this, for calculating bash.

Not completely realistic, but already more haptic.
Symbolic realsim.

ratschbumm 说:

Regarding bardiche, the blunt part of damage will be greater due to increased velocity, which is, in its turn, depends on shaft length.

点击展开...

i will dig up my poleaxe

2. deduct part of the impulse have gone to the hands of attacker. the more the distance between mass center and hitting part, more deduction. It was promised to us by the Devs, to the point.

点击展开...

unless developers discover the sweet spots

Weapons designed to deep penetration have no cut.

点击展开...

I think for thrust most weapons would be between cut and pierce.
For example, cut could have a damage-bonus of +0,3 on all locaions
and full damage treshold is applied.
Pierce gets +0,1 for limbs, +0,3 body and +0,5 for head,
with only half treshold.
So a sword would do 50/50 cut/pierce on a thrust.
Just calculate both damages and then take the average.
A Falchion may be at 70/30 cut/pierce.
An Arrow maybe at 20/80.

100 damage at 50 treshold at head :
-Sword (100-50)*0,3*0,5+(100-(50/2))*0,5*0,5 = (15+37,5)/2 = 26,5
-Falchion 50*0,3*0,7+75*0,5*0,3 = 10,5+11,25 = 21,75
-Arrow 3+30 = 33

Want to say something about how cut-damage should work, in my opinion.
Flanged maces look very bad, that's why they are weapons.
But they don't cut, no bread would get sliced.
Tools like wooden hammers could be used as weapons also.
One would expect that they would deal less damage,
but the ability to knock down would be at least the same.
Nevermind.
However, i think cut-damage should be excess damage,
wich only appears if an armor gets penetrated.
So let's say there is a basic damage multiplier,
something like 0,5 for limbs, 1,0 for the body and 1,5 for the head.
And then there is a cut-multiplier in addition,
wich is +0,3 on all locations.
Now someone gets hit by a mace for 100 points,
and his armor blocks all cut-damage for the first 50 points.
This person will suffer no cut-damage anyway,
so it's not a very interesting example with the mace now.
But now if getting hit by an axe of the same size,
there will be the same force behind it,
it would deliever 100 points also.
50 points remain for calculating cut-damage,
times 0,3 this would finally result in 15 cut-points.
Now a Bardiche is used instead of an axe.
It's less head-heavy than the axe,
so if the hit results from the uppermost area the damage should be lower.
The cutting-zone is longer than the axes,
but only if hit at a shorter range,
wich would decrease the damage even further,
before the cut-bonus gets applied.
So if the bardiche would deal 80 points at the longest range,
then (80-50)x0,3=9 would be cut-damage-bonus.
Now the Bardiche strikes from closer range,
it's only 70 points now, but the cut-damage gets doubled, because the whole cutting-zone would hit.
Now it's (70-50)x(0,3x2)=12 points cutting-damage-bonus.

The axe is the most asymetrical,
it should get a worse handling.

vonbalt 说:

Exactly dude, i and a few others made this suggestion before in other threads, if they are going with 3 sources or damage (cut, pierce, blunt) it's a no brainer that they should also have 3 sources of armor to counter those and create better gameplay.

In another thread i had suggested a system where armor rating was divided into deflection, absorption and hardness and each armor piece would have different ratings on each of those based on tier and visual representation, this way you could tailor your character to better protect against the most threating damage types you would typically face but no armor would be good against everything.

Maille would provide superb protection against cut, medium against pierce and low against blunt for example, the possibilities are endless in a system like this!

I know something like that would never be implemented by the devs, it doesn't pass the "can a 5y old handle it?" check so maybe modders will save the day but armor really needs a rework anyway.

点击展开...

This could feel more naturally.
I already wrote (another thread) that i could make sense if the energy of an attack gets calculated, and thats blunt then.
And damage can only become cutting and piercing if it gets through a certain amount of armor.
So armor could have 3 different values :

R) the Rigidity
F) the Firmness
C) the Cushioning

First R gets substracted from the damage.
If the remaining damage is from a Cutting weapon,
it gets checked against F.
Anything above F becomes Cut,
wich should result in higher damage,
while in addition ignoring C.

If the remaining damage is Pierce,
it gets checked against F also.
The damage should be higher than Blunt and lower than Cut (or depending on hit location), but F would be loweredt.

Parallel to that damage-bonus-calculation the base-damage gets calculated, wich would be the same for Blunt and Cut/ Pierce wich falls below F :
Also R gets substracted as a fixed number, but then a divider substract a percentage for C.

How could this look like ?
I compare a chain coif to a plate-helmet.
The coif gets R=0. The helmet gets R=10.
This should help against fists, stones, improvised wooden weapons.
I want them to e both equally effective against Cuts.
I give the coif an F=30.
The helmet already has an R=10, so i give only F=20 here.
Now both come along with some padding,
so i give them both C=15.

Nevertheless the helmet would be more effective against blunt,
due to it's R=10, wich gets substracted prior to C.
The helmet would be also more effective against Pierce.
Because Pierce would only lower F, but not R.

( sorry for having looked only at first pages of the thread )

Berzerker Jay 说:

An axe will literally inflict blunt damage in addition or even in absence of its cutting damage. You can have the edge taken off an axe entirely and it still remains a devastating weapon, and hitting heavy armour will be equivalent to a flanged mace or similar.

I should know -- for years I carried around a camp-axe with me while backpacking that was never sharpened and blunt as anything. It still chopped wood.

点击展开...

So an axe would do chop damage,
unless it cuts through a hardened wood helmet.
And maybe a flanged mace would do semi-chop...
and a falchion chould do 50/50 shopcut.

More severe now :
I think the weapons should do damage based on their energy,
and based on their shape would try to turn this into cutdamage, or not.
Otherwise the damage would remain blunt.
A mace and an axe of equal proportions would do the same amount of damage.
But the axe would try to turn this into cut.
At the price of balance, the cut-advantage would be traded off for handling.
A sword of the same length would be lighter,
it would also try to cut, would have the best handling but
it would deliver less damage than axes&maces.
A sword of the same weight of a mace would loose the handling-advantage,
but this gets traded off for reach/length.

So why should one try to get cut-damage ?
Because it would be higher than blunt-damage.
This would work well with locational damage.
The highest advantage for cut above blunt would be at limbs and neck.
An armor would subtract a certain amount of damage,
what gets through would be turned into cut.

The subtracted damage doesn't vanish, it just stayes blunt.
Now a certain % from this blunt would get substracted, depending on cushioning...
and the final calculated damage would be blunt&cut combined.
( but the healing rates could be different )

And thrusting attacks could turn cut-damage into pierce-damage.
A thrusting attack would do little base-damage, because the weapons doesn't get swung.
Therefore cut-damage could get turned into pierce-damage,
wich would be especially effective at the chest/torso and the head.
The multiplier would be higher than for cut ( but less at limbs and neck ).
The more pointy a tip is, the higher the portion of pierce damage.
More pointy weapons would also decrease the effectiveness of armor.

Honved 说:

A mace will typically have a shorter range, and often a lower base damage value, so it's not the ideal solution against lightly armored OR unarmored opponents.

点击展开...

I think it would make more sense if it would be the other way :
a top-heavy weapon like a mace would do more damage than a sword of the same size.
And because the mace does more damage it's more effective against armor.
But : that damage wich gets through gets multiplied for cutting weapons.
So let's say i have 60 damage, the armor substracts 50, now i'm at 10,
but it's cut so it gets multiplied by, let's say 1,3, so it's 13 points now.
And that 50 absorbed point's stay blunt, so let's say the 50-armor substracts 50%,
so there are still 25 points, so total damage would be 13+25=38 now.

And for calculating bash the total unmodified damage should be relevant,
and cutting could even take away from this, so in the given example where the cut does finally 3 extra-damage,
these 3 point could get substracted from the original 60, turning them into 57,
for calculating bash (or shecking against pushback-treshholds).

Edit :
And for swords it could make sense if the (base)damage gets higher the closer the impact-zone is towards the tip,
because the acceleration would be higher - wich would make it more effective against armor.
On the other hand the cut-multiplier should get higher the closer the impact-zone is towards the hilt,
because this would mean that more of the lenght of the blade gets in contact - wich would be most effective against weak armor.
( and for calculating stun-effects the penetrated damage could get used, but without cut-multiplier )

( sort by version compatibility, plz )

GitiUsir 说:

Probably lot of mistakes here but this is what I think.
All weapons should deal blunt damage depending on weapon speed, weight and balancing. If transfered energy is not fully absorbed by armor it should do damage to the body.
Besides, those weapons that penetrate armor should do cut damage on top of blunt damage. Just because it penetrated it doesn't mean it didn't transfer energy to the body.
Only high velocity projectiles could be piercing, but they would deal blunt damage and cut damage if penetrating.
The formula for penetration should be based on impact area, speed and resistance of material.

In short, the idea of different damage for different weapons is meh, but it works ok. However I really don't understand those damages and prices based on weapon tiers. And the differences based on weapon types doesn't make sense either. As someone pointed out, some polearms, 2H weapons, maces... are way too easy to handle.

点击展开...

I think that all-weapons-do-blunt is right, so for cut and pierce there should be a multiplier for that damage wich penetrated armor.
So if one compares an axe to a sword, the sword should get a better handling (and more expensive, and not for recruits).
But the axe should deal more damage. Basically...until that damage penetrates the armor, then the sword should get the higher multiplier,
for having the longer cutting area.
Well, and to calculate this damage the armor-rating gets substracted from the damage done.

And maybe the absorbed damage isn't just gone, instead it gets divided by an armor value, and this just simulates blunt.

I think different armor types would become too complicated, due to overlapping armor-pieces.
And there isn't plate-armor, both lamellar and scales are still flexy, and chain mostly comes along with padding...
so i think different armor-types aren't that interested, maybe exept : for the head !
This could be collusion-based. Wich would result in a vlandian advantage.
Wich on the other hand could balance out the lack of shoulder-armor.
And it could restrict ranged combat.

I think hit-locations could be more detailed, with neck, shoulder, chest, abdomen, and maybe front/back...
and then pierce is specially good at chest-hits, and cut at limbs...

Attributes have worked so well, and with perks it appears like provisionally looking for little cheats.
If both would have effects these would have to be small, so this would result in two half-dones...
I think perks should be dropped mostly, maybe exept for a few unlocking ones.

So a character should become a meele fencer, then control could help with blades, and so on.

"arrows would block out the sun"

点击展开...

Minor factions should get strict recruiting and upgrading preferences, if they need to get other troops than their own.
So they could keep up some characteristics, adding archers for example.

Padding offers some more resistance against blunt due to the cushioning effect, but not that much against slash and even less against piercing.
Chain mail offers more defense against slashes, but really not that much against piercing and barely anything against blunt.
Any sort of plates offers a lot of defense against both slash and piercing, more against slash than piercing, but almost nothing whatsoever against blunt (it can actually even increase blunt damage due to the plates bending or ripping and causing more damage).

点击展开...

I think it could be funny if it would be like this for helmets/head, maybe even collision-wise.
And then with different sounds, so cutting a padded coif would make an other noise than blunting a kettle hat, for example.

But otherwise it would get complicated cause different armor-types often overlap, as it was already mentioned.
But i think shoulders/chest/abdomen could be seperate hit-locations.
In the inventory it could look like this :
from the pieces of armor on the left arrows/lines point to the hit-locations on the character in the mid,
and bubbles are attached in the mid of the lines, with the numbers in it.
The lines from different armor pieces meet at the locations on the character,
at another bubble, wich has a number for the cumulated armor.

Or a new wanderer type called outlaw boss, that the system generates and randomly given to a few outlaw groups like Looters, or Forest Bandits.

点击展开...

I don't like the idea of levelled-up looters, but think larger groups should have some kind of leader.
I think it could be that :

When prosperity&security are low, then some peasants mutate into looters.
( there could be variation among the cultures )
The size of such groups is limited but gets a boost if they run into a deserter ( low-mid tier ) who joins them.
How big this effect is depends on the Tier of the deserter.
And for deserters itself it's similar, the number of troops of a tier is limited, but they can bind a bigger amount of lower-tier-troops.
If it get's too much cohesion will drop and a split occurs.
( so there will be no big elite-deserter groups )

And then bandits won't join looters, but they can recruit them ( this may fail sometimes if the looters have become too strong ), and if these level up they'll upgrade from T1-looters to T2-bandits.
Bandit's can't upgrade either ( otherwise there would be groups of leaders after a while ),
but there must be some stronger ones.

And at the end ( some ) minor factions have the ability to recruit bandits and then these can upgrade into faction-units, from T2 to T3, or maybe higher for the stronger ones.

So minor factions wouldn't mix up with looters, but bandits could be found mixed both with some minor faction-troops as well as with looters.

but the party perks seem misplaced at least until we see what tactics and leadership does

点击展开...

Yes, will secondary effects be addet to all skills ?
Will a vervefull-leader-perk increase swing speed ?
Will empathic charmer channel some amount of suffered damage onto companions ?

I don't know, maybe it would depend on the way it gets done.
Because there is already locational damage, and there is interruption with treshhold.
And also stun, bash and knockdown.
So if 3 kinds of damage would get calculated and several multipliers applied, then maybe.
But if it's like comparing damage to locational treshholds, maybe not.
So let's say a hit to an arm interrupts always the action with that arm (but not the other->shield/weapon),
a hit to the head always any action (regardless of damage),
but otherwise there should be treshholds (a harder hit to an arm would also interrupt any action).
And these could vary by damage type and location...
And a stun could make an upgraded interruption, maybe if got hit for 50 points or so,
or longer stun if hit for 80 - and on the head it's lower.

And then for bash and knockdown just the unmodified damage is used, without armor calculation.
But the treshholds vary by hit-location and damage-type.
So why should cut-damage cause bash, the energy should go into the body ?
O.k., then just say 100 points unmodified cut-damage to the body-location would cause a bash,
because if someone survives this it's likely due to his armor,
so that absorbed energy can move him.
If this happenes to the leg it's a knockdown instead.
And let's say to the head it's also,
but there is a bash already at 75 damage.

About like thas, maybe that would't be so heavy ?

Think this would get too complicated.
But at some degree such realism could work.
So hits to the arms should cause less damage then hits to the body,
but despite of this hits to the arms should interrupt attacks easier.
But knocking down should work better with hits to the body (and legs).
And blunt weapons should be good for both, interrupting and knocking down.

I think if it's just that with near full capacity all lords become somewhat picky due to their culture, then balancing issues shouldn't be too heavy.

Beside culture-based-recruitment preferences there could also be faction-based upgrade preferences.
So whenever a troop get's upgraded and there is a choice between two upgrades, then the faction the commander belongs to could have influence on it.
Assumedly there is a 50/50 chance by default, then in some cases this could be 55/45...65/35 instead, or so.
So someone sturgian or whatever joined the khuzaits for example, and due to this he /she would upgrade more units into mounted ones than before.

A Khuzait-member has an imperial recruit, and now the chance that the recruit gets upgraded into an archer instead into infantry is 60% instead of 50%.
And the chance a trained archer gets to a vet archer instead of CB is 60% again, instead of 50.
And finally the chance the vet archer gets to Bucellarii - again 60%.
( 60/40 would already mean that one unit is 1.5x more common than the other )

This way faction could have an effect on the composition of armies without restricting recruitment.

I think it would make sense if lords would have recruitment preferences, based on their culture.
So let's say a khuzait lord is building up an army,
and there will be a maximum size for it, and a desired one,
wich is modified by financial situation and conflicts.

So maybe if the desired army size has reached 95%
that lord will only recruit any more troops if he gets khuzait nobles.
And up to 95% he would also recruit khuzait horse archers.
And up to 90% also khuzait lancers and karakhuzait troops.
And up to 85% other khuzait troops as well as imperials/aserai wich are or could get turned into horse-archers.
And up to 80% any other cavalry.
And up to 75% other troops exept infantry without shield,
these would only get recruited when the capacity is 70% or lower.

And let's say there is a member of these wolfskin-archers,
and at 80% capacity this one would recruit nothing exept troops of his minor faction
and maybe also battanian nobles - if he would get any.
And at 60% he would still recruit archers of other factions and battanian troops in general.
( crossbows up to 50% )
And at 40% he would recruit infantry of other factions.
And only up to 20% he would recruit non-battanian cavalry.

This way lords could keep up some habits.

...or 3 or 4 different settings :
- high for the inventory & some dialogues
-medium indoors
- low small battles
- very low large battles

sorting by level, type, culture, and number.

点击展开...

An auto-sorting button wich does all at once !
Infantry on top...within this highest tirer on top...within this highest number...then alphabetically.

And more slim troop trees. But more variety within one kind of troop.
No vlandian Pikemen, just ~20% of the Voulgiers get pikes instead of voulges.
Sturgian Shock Troop/Vet Warrior gets merged, some have javelins instead of spears.
Battanians are all the same until tier3, then comes falxman and at T5 mounted skirmishers.
Maybe Watchman gets merged with Caravan Guard.
But somehow accessable Minor Factions, they are somehow troops of their cultures.

And recruitment preferences, that Khuzait prefer their troops, and if they recruit imperial then try to get to Bucellarii.

Have an idea about recruitment of minor-faction-troops.
They should be recruitable from villages or towns, depending on the description.
Lets look at the vlandian Brotherhood of the Woods :
a peasant movement hiding in the woods.
So they should be recruitable for factions they are not at war with,
and from villages, not towns.
So how many woods has Vlandia ?
If i will bind it to the resource, then this brotherhood could hide behind the wood of Mareiven,
this village has the only vlandian wood.
But they are hiding anyway, so they could do this also in Battania in wood-villages from bordering fiefs.
And now Sturgia has Foresters, wich also have an affinity for wood.
So they could extent to the remaining two eastern battanian wood-villages (Sturgia itself has only one).
But what is with the wolfskins, shouldn't they be recruitable here ?
I think yes, until the faction owning the villages is at war with them.
Then they get replaced by other minor factions.
Should they extend into vlandian territory ? I don't think this would fit here.

Horses would make sense for cavallery.
The Lake Rats get fish and so on.

Iron would work, but for towns rather than villages.
So i make the vlandian Boers permanently available in Rovalt.
But i want more mercenaries,
so other towns get a chance based on their prosperity (rather than security).
And Rovalt gets this also, so there is chance for a second recruitment-row.
I want an overlap with other minor fasctions,
in the northern part of Vlandia this could be with the Skolderbrodva,
in the southern the Legion.

There could just be an additional recruitment-slot, next to the merchants ones.
Showing the minor-factions-flag instead of a head,
troops shown based on prosperity,
open slots based on relation with the minor faction.