A new equipment screen

[Kelpo]

I was thinking the other minute there about the problem of the player character being able to carry several large weapons with him to the field of battle which, as one might well believe, is somewhat unrealistic. The equipment screen we have now doesn't make a difference between 4 daggers and 4 great lances when you enter a battle, which I believe, could be improved by setting some restrictions to the weapon slots. So here's what I thought:

The equipment screen

Here's what the slots should represent, and what could be carried there. I divided all the equipment to 4 groups: 1. 1-handed (1h) weapons (all the wepons carried in one hand + bolt & arrow quivers, throwing axes, daggers & knives), 2. 2-handed (2h) weapons (all the non-polearm 2h weapons, crossbows, bows, javelins, jarids), 3. polearms and 4. shields.

Slot 1 - Right hand (this is the weapon you start the battle with)
Polearm, 2h weapon, 1h weapon

Slot 2 - Left hand
1h weapon, shield (if you have a weapon here, you can only carry it, not fight with it (unless dual wielding is added at some point))

Slot 3 - Belt
1h weapon

Slot 4 - Back
2h weapon, 1h weapon, shield

Naturally your left hand slot (slot 2) should be empty in order to use 2 handed weapons.

Here's some virtues of the system:

You can only take 1 polearm into the battle with you, and you cannot use another weapon it unless you throw the polearm away first (which should be an option). So if you want to switch into another weapon, you must first throw away your halberd, and then take your sword from your belt and the shield from your back.

You can take a maximum of 2 non-polearm 2h weapons into a battle, one in your hands and one slung to your back. If you do, you cannot take a shield, as there is nowhere to carry it.

So that's that. Any thoughts?

edit: an attempt to clarify the text

 

[svart]

Well i think the current system is just temporary anyway.
If change would be introduced to this system, i would personally like to see more realistic one (realistic in terms of visuals, i don't really care if someone carries a ton on his back).

So back to your system, i don't see much logic in carrying stuff with the hands. (unless it's a spear, and you can't carry it on your back anyway)
And if someone can carry one lance on his back, why wouldn't he be able to carry 4 ? (except for weight issues of course).

I agree with you that a change should be made, but the system you suggested don't make sense to me just like the previous one. (which actually left some room for the imagination)., and i hope some people could share their thought here about it.

 

[Kelpo]

So back to your system, i don't see much logic in carrying stuff with the hands. (unless it's a spear, and you can't carry it on your back anyway)
And if someone can carry one lance on his back, why wouldn't he be able to carry 4 ? (except for weight issues of course).

I didn't quite get that first part about carrying stuff in your hands, but the inability to carry polearms in your back is due to the plain lenght of them. A zweihander is about 1.5m long, and thus a man of, say 175 cm, might be able to carry one in his back. A halberd, a lance or a poleaxe on the other hand, can AFAIK easily be over 2 meters long, and so quite a lot more difficult to carry in your back, let alone fight anyone with it there.

You could try to strap a 2m long wooden shaft with a heavy iron weight at the top into your back, and then try to poke someone with a sword. I believe it's rather difficult.

 

[svart]

About the hands part, i meant that most of the time people carried things on their back or belt.
I would like to see a polearm carried only by hand too, but then you'd have to toss it in order to draw another weapon - and i would assume around 500 people would whine like there's no tommorow.

You could try to strap a 2m long wooden shaft with a heavy iron weight at the top into your back, and then try to poke someone with a sword. I believe it's rather difficult.

I thought you included polearms on the back, sorry.

Your system starts to make sense to me, i think it's not explained well. (for example if someone carries a polearm, you didn't mention there would be no way to free your hands except for tossing it)

 

[Kelpo]

About the hands part, i meant that most of the time people carried things on their back or belt.

They do, but it is humanely possible to have a sword on your hip, another in your back, one in your right and another in your left hand. That's a total of 4 weapons, which is the amount you can carry now as well. Of course people would more often use their left hand to hold a shield, which takes away one weapon slot, just like it does now instead of carrying another weapon there.

I would like to see a polearm carried only by hand too, but then you'd have to toss it in order to draw another weapon - and i would assume around 500 people would whine like there's no tommorow.

I dunno. We have quite a few people here and most of them seem to reard realism quite highly. It wasn't possible to stick a polearm up your.. anywhere in the medieval times, so it shouldn't be possible in M&B.

You could try to strap a 2m long wooden shaft with a heavy iron weight at the top into your back, and then try to poke someone with a sword. I believe it's rather difficult.

I thought you included polearms on the back, sorry.

Nope, I was unclear and I'm the one who should be sorry.

Your system starts to make sense to me, i think it's not explained well. (for example if someone carries a polearm, you didn't mention there would be no way to free your hands except for tossing it)

Yeah, I'm not too good at expressing myself in finnish, let alone in a foreign language, so the description might have been less than clear. Sorry about that.

 

[kkrizan]

I think it would be OK to add some restrictions for carrying weapons. For example, only one lance.

It might be nice that all weapons carried by the caracter are visible. Also changing weapons might take more time. As it is its almost instantenious. Option to drop weapons would also be OK (if they could be picked up again).

 

[Nog Robbin]

I agree. I get a mite frustrated at games in which the player can become a human tank - wearing a full suit of armour, and carrying enough extra armour or weapons to recruit an army.
I like the inventory system of storage - having slots of carrying to prevent carrying too much. But even with this, a player can carry vast quantities. Maybe items could take more than one slot? And some items could fit multiples into a single slot (such as arrows - maybe a single slot can hold 24 arrows?). On top of this have a weight limit - how much can physically be carried - so although you may have slots free, if you are carrying too much weight, you can't use them.
Worn armour should count as less weight when worn than when carried - the distribution means it is easier to wear than simply carry.
The amount you can carry could go up if you have a horse. You may need to have seperate slots between what is on the horse, and what is on your person. If your horse dies and you can't carry the stuff yourself, you're likely to lose it.
Different horses could carry differing amounts (have different weight limit and inventory slots). The better war horses may not be able to carry as much as the pack horses (meaning pack horses are better for somethings).
Weapons would take up varying slots in the players inventory (or horses inventory - a horse maybe able to have a number of lances strapped to it, but it would be less effective maneuvering).
Weapons equiped on the player are deemed to be in a scabard or belt holder. Therefore you can "carry" a bow, arrows, and a sword. Or maybe a two handed sword, an axe and a mace. Obviously a shield can't be used when wielding a two handed sword, but I guess in those instances it's deemed to be on your back or something.
The lance is really the only odd weapon. A player is unlikely to be able to carry one effectively (apart from in their hands) unless they have a horse. It certainly can't be stowed easily, and a horse lance tends to be different from a footmans lance - so being thrown from your horse and standing and using your mounted lance is a bit odd. It certainly wouldn't do a lot of damage. In fact, jabbing someone with a lance isn't going to do a lot unless they are charging at you, and should do no damage if the player is inside the range of the end of the weapon (but that's probably something for another topic). I think allowing the player to carry a single lance may be a simple concession to make - a break from reality maybe, but not a huge one.

 

[svart]

Well my suggestion after re-reading the original post.
(two handed weapons don't include polearms)

Right hand : all weapons.
Left hand : shield, two handed weapon, polearm.
Belt : one handed weapon, throwing knives.
Back-1 : one/two handed weapons/ranged, all projectile quivers (throwing too) and a shield.
Back-2 : one/two handed weapons/ranged, all projectile quivers (throwing too)
Back-3 : quivers only.

• The idea is basically the original idea with more slots on the back.
  It's based on the assumption a warrior can carry quiever, a tzwei hander, and on top of them a crossbow. (ala gothic http://www.piranha-bytes.com/gothic2/files/media/shots/shot07.jpg)
• While this idea relys on stick weapons on the ground and picking them up later, it can also work without this feature by added a "polearm" in Back slot 2.

This allows a player to have the setup of :
- bowman with 3 quivers (like current game)
- bowman with 2 quivers and a zweihander
- a person with polearm, shield and two quivers of throwing weapons