russell132
Recruit
is it me or does the fact that slashing does more damage than stabbing? any1 know that you can do more damage by thrusting than slashing yet its not so in this game![/b]
A couple of inches of point is worth any length of edge!
- Thread starter russell132
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Recruit
Piercing and blunt damage have halved armor penalties.
You can do large amounts of damage with a thrusting weapon, even a lance. My average character does 25 sometimes. The trick is to judge the moment right. If you hit with the very end you don't do as much. I think also the difference in speed changes the damage. So if you're walking backwards while thrusting you do less than if you are running toward the enemy and he is running toward you.
These are my impressions.
These are my impressions.
Lethandis
Recruit
The Pope said:
Which makes loads of sense with the thrusting polearms. Seriously, you can't stab someone who's chest to chest with you with a 5-6 foot spear. Now, on swords and such, you still need a little distance in most cases to really get a good thrust in. A close-quarters, bent armed thrust would work on an unarmored opponent, but an armored one would likey laugh at you, as you gasped your last staring at your bowels on the grassy turf. Conversely, dragging your battle-knicked (thus, serrated) blade accros someone at close range, while lacking momentum, is a bit easier to see how it could do some harm.
A knife, close quarters, should be the only way to do respectable damage, but they'd also need to add a shield bash, or shove feature (maybe hold right mouse, click left mouse to shove/bash). This way, close-quarters fighting, weapons would divide their damage by their normal reach (the longer swing/thrust your weapon is optimized for, the less effective it's likely to be toe-to-toe) when inside what I'll call "grappling range". I'm NOT suggesting adding grappling to the game, just bumping and shoving. Grappling would be cool, but I just don't see a plausible method for adding it.
Hobbes
Recruit
To have damage dealt by optimum range would contribute to making the game more realistic, and you could make use for those short handy weapons like giving your character a spear and a dagger. when people get to close you stop running and instead jump all the way inn and draw a dagger to finish them off.
That gave me an idea to if you have equipped a 2 handed-spear and a dagger then if you press the block button you block swinging attacks with the spear and attack with the dagger.
That gave me an idea to if you have equipped a 2 handed-spear and a dagger then if you press the block button you block swinging attacks with the spear and attack with the dagger.
Daimyo
Veteran
I've posted this already in another topic. With the Mag7/Hugemod mod there's a 43b rune axe, wich maybe for a mistake deals bash damage (and yes it's bash, as it knocks foes unconscious), so I was able to test on many battles my 42c axe vs this 43b axe.
In theory, as bash halves armor, the 43b should deal at least 25-50% damage more than the 42c. In pratice it deals less damage against foes, expecially the armored ones, regardless of +X% speed bonuses.
Usually is 55-70 (unarmored) 40-50 (armored) for the 42c weapon, vs a mere 45-60 (unarmored) 30-40 (armored) for the 43b weapon, tested on foot while inside a river filled with dark knights or mountain bandits (they're so clumped they can't move, so speed bonus rarely is higher than +10%).
I've also noticed that the bash weapon gains less bonus when charging at full horse speed.
Those tests were performed with a 220+ wp skill/18 str/18 agi/6 pow strike char.
In theory, as bash halves armor, the 43b should deal at least 25-50% damage more than the 42c. In pratice it deals less damage against foes, expecially the armored ones, regardless of +X% speed bonuses.
Usually is 55-70 (unarmored) 40-50 (armored) for the 42c weapon, vs a mere 45-60 (unarmored) 30-40 (armored) for the 43b weapon, tested on foot while inside a river filled with dark knights or mountain bandits (they're so clumped they can't move, so speed bonus rarely is higher than +10%).
I've also noticed that the bash weapon gains less bonus when charging at full horse speed.
Those tests were performed with a 220+ wp skill/18 str/18 agi/6 pow strike char.
Lethandis, he's trying to prove that the blunt/piercing bonus doesn't exist.
However, since I almost invariably deal more damage against any and all foes with a heavy morningstar (27p) than I do with a watered-steel nomad sabre (28c), not to mention having some degree of confidence in armagan, I frankly couldn't care less about his alleged test results.
However, since I almost invariably deal more damage against any and all foes with a heavy morningstar (27p) than I do with a watered-steel nomad sabre (28c), not to mention having some degree of confidence in armagan, I frankly couldn't care less about his alleged test results.
Yair Hunter
Master Knight
just the blunt...okiN said:
Whatever, it doesn't make any difference. I still do more damage with a military hammer than with a longsword.
Lethandis
Recruit
Thanks for clarifying Okin, I re-read the post now, and got it a little better. Last night/this morning, I hadn't slept in about 32 hours, and had been getting an average of 1 hr/night for several nights, so. . .I was a little out of it 
Better now, got 11 hours, and I'm back to. . .uh. . normal for me.russell132
Recruit
none of that is the point! the romans where expert at up close and pesonal fighting! a short sword has no range but u dont need range when ur that close! its a lesson from history if you get close enough longswords/spears/axes are usless! thats the point try it, i did on a milk cartn with a knife it does more damage stabbing than slashing. but thats just my humble opinion.
russell132
Recruit
im not saying that it allways will be the case but its not reflected at all!
Damien
Sergeant at Arms
The Romans also understood the importance and utility of a strong cut. That's why the gladius was equally suited to a short, heavy cut or a vicious stab.
Regardless.. the kind of close-range necessary to nullify a longsword's ability to attack would also nullify a gladius's ability to attack.. so the point is moot.
Regardless.. the kind of close-range necessary to nullify a longsword's ability to attack would also nullify a gladius's ability to attack.. so the point is moot.
No name
Recruit
For swords, its hard to give a good poke since it is hard to control. Take a pole at its end and try stabbing. It'll be hard to strike with full strength since you have to make adjustments midpoke. And if you hit hard on an armoured surface, it would usually be deflected if it came at the tiniest angle. It has to do with moments about a fulcrum, but i dont want to explain.
But you're right. Some weapons should have better stab than slash, like a knife. A stab from a knife is more deadly than a silly swing. It is also much easier to control, due to relatively shorter distance between edge and handle.
Hmm... This is the 2nd time i'm explaining this. I wonder if armagan will read this and do neccessary changes.
But you're right. Some weapons should have better stab than slash, like a knife. A stab from a knife is more deadly than a silly swing. It is also much easier to control, due to relatively shorter distance between edge and handle.
Hmm... This is the 2nd time i'm explaining this. I wonder if armagan will read this and do neccessary changes.
