[Suggestion] Heavy blunt weapon should be lethal

[pkawol]

I was chasing after a couple of fleeing enemies at my heavy hunter with long two-handed mace. I struck both of them and they fell unconsious and all. All of a sudden i thought that in real life they probably would have been killed. They wore no helmets, and that iron mace is thought to be very heavy. Their craniums should have been smashed into pieces in this way.

My suggestion is to add the chance of lethal strike to heavy blunt beapon (especially for horsemen). And especially when the victim wear no helmet at all.

 

[SockMonkeh]

Similarly, add a chance for non-lethal last hits to edged weapons... but this belongs in the single-player forum.

 

[alh_p]

1 hit kills? Isn't that what happens to people who don't wear armour anyway? I've also heard that a regular sword or axe can be pretty lethal, whether denting someone's head or their gut. That could just be hearsay mind.

 

[Kazzan]

No thanks, wouldn't it be just arshish that when you want to take someone prisoner for a quest or something you can't because your blunt weapon suddenly killed the guy? Leave it as it is.

 

[Silver Wolf]

I agree with pkawol... It totally unrealistic right now.

 

[BumpInTheNight]

On one hand I agree there should be a chance that a blunt weapon does end up killing the victim I can see a need for ensuring the victim 'lives' through the encounter as well, especially ones that have been routed and fleeing.  I liked how the Total War series covered that in which once a unit routed its just assumed that when your own units catch and land a hit its just implied that the act was forcing them to surrender/give up.

ED:  What this does make me think though is a new flag for certain weaponry that would ensure its a non-lethal capture weapon, such as the ol polearm man-catchers and thrown nets & bolas etc.  Things that are guaranteed to not kill a target if they work.  Hell even introduce a component requirement of 'shackles' to your inventory that deplete and replenish as you acquire and sell prisoners, would even open the concept of some factions adjusting their view of you depending on how they feel about a group of free lance soldiers roaming their country side with an inventory of shackles at ready for purposes both nefarious or noble.

 

[pentagathus]

Yep, makes sense for every weapon to be possiblt lethal. Also, give AI parties some skill in surgery.

 

[socks]

Yes, seriously, a great hammer in the face ought to do a tad more than just put them in a short sleep

 

[Xoatl_169]

Yes, seriously, a great hammer in the face ought to do a tad more than just put them in a short sleep

Lol, you and the OP are right. I use a heavy great hammer, and i love watching it smash through a recruits overhead block and square into his forehead, a splatter of blood and then he collapses. Only to then find out that he is merely knocked out. I got used to this, but don't get me wrong i found this funny at first. But im still sticking with leaving it as it is. I like the ability to harvest as much as my skill as a player and the skills of my character can handle.

 

[Qwertyman]

although its probably a little late for such a big change, due to the balance issues surrounding it-  but I'd like to do away with the 'blunt wounds, cutting/piercing kills' logic.  I'd like every weapon to be given a 'Lethality factor' alongside their damage.  basically how likely a weapon is to deal lethal damage,  overall blunt weapons will be the lowest, then slashing and then pierce.    but weapons like the greathammer will be exceptions, as they will have pretty high lethality.

On a 'kill'  the speed factor and damage of the last blow will alter the lethality  (a ride-by hit from a horse will be more likely to kill than incapacitate)  headshots will significantly boost the lethality, and arm/leg shots will significantly reduce the lethality.  then the ironflesh skill will play its part (making elite troops more likely to survive their wounds)  and finally, Surgery will play its part.

if the final 'score' of this lethality factor is above a certain level it deals a kill,  if it is below-  it incapacitates, alowing for capture.
this way-  you can purposefully use lethal weapons to kill rather than wound,  or the other way around-  use less lethal weapons so you can capture more,  without having to rely on the blunt-never-kills logic.

 

[CryptoCactus]

A simple way to do it might be making kills come from doing significantly more damage than necessary, whilst knockouts come from doing just a bit more.


For instance, an enemy has 10 health, you do 40dmg with your [any weapon], he dies.
Another enemy has 10 health, you do 12dmg with your [any weapon], and he's just KO'd.


Make it standard, like:

health - damage <= -10  ----> kill
-10 < health - damage <= 0    ----> KO


Or it could be set by damage type, so the "fatal threshold" is different (for instance, blunt at -15, piercing at -10, cutting at -5), if we want to retain the whole "some weapons being easier to KO with than others" thing.

Or it could be set as a percentage of max health, so that strength and ironflesh are automatically taken into consideration. For instance, if blunt fatal damage was set at -25%... for an enemy with 60 max health, they'd have to be reduced to -15 to die, while an enemy with 44 max health would only have to be reduced to -11. Thus stronger/ironfleshier units would naturally be harder to kill.

Or something like that.

Devs might not want to mess with it, but it would be neat, imo. I've always found it kinda funny that I can smash someone's head in with an enormous warhammer from atop my horse at full sprint, and have them up and speaking again after the battle's over.

 

[aka1nas]

A simple way to do it might be making kills come from doing significantly more damage than necessary, whilst knockouts come from doing just a bit more.


For instance, an enemy has 10 health, you do 40dmg with your [any weapon], he dies.
Another enemy has 10 health, you do 12dmg with your [any weapon], and he's just KO'd.


Make it standard, like:

health - damage <= -10  ----> kill
-10 < health - damage <= 0    ----> KO


Or it could be set by damage type, so the "fatal threshold" is different (for instance, blunt at -15, piercing at -10, cutting at -5), if we want to retain the whole "some weapons being easier to KO with than others" thing.

Or it could be set as a percentage of max health, so that strength and ironflesh are automatically taken into consideration. For instance, if blunt fatal damage was set at -25%... for an enemy with 60 max health, they'd have to be reduced to -15 to die, while an enemy with 44 max health would only have to be reduced to -11. Thus stronger/ironfleshier units would naturally be harder to kill.

Or something like that.

Devs might not want to mess with it, but it would be neat, imo. I've always found it kinda funny that I can smash someone's head in with an enormous warhammer from atop my horse at full sprint, and have them up and speaking again after the battle's over.

I like that, as it would have the effect of making heavier weapons more likely to kill.

Some alternate ideas/tweaks that could go with this:

- Make Ironflesh increase your "negative" health limit before death alongside your HP total.

- Surgery could either remain a straight % chance of "saving" the unit when it should have died (easier), or it could also be a modifier on how much damage from the killing blow is applied to the unit's remaining health total.  I.E. If the party Surgery skill gives you a 20% bonus, then the damage from deathblows would be reduced by 20% (but still taking the unit at or below 0 health).  This latter idea might be better suited for First Aid.

- I'm not familiar enough with all of the weapon types to present a solution for balancing.  Do the blunt weapons on average do less raw damage than the other types?  If so, they might not need additional tweaks as the heavier weapons will naturally be more likely to kill.

 

[Alhanalem]

The commander order "use blunt weapons!" would lose its purpose with these changes. You give the order to do that because you want to take prisoners.

 

[buzbybadman]

Not if blunt weapons still maintain a significantly higher chance of just knock out, plus these calculations could be made at the end of the battle.  I like it.  Maybe prisoners wounded very close to their fatality mark could be given a small chance of dying over the next few days, according to surgery skill, remaining unsellable until considered to have survived this.  You could therefore choose to keep them in your party costing food until better, or heartlessly ditch them in the wilderness to meet their own fate, and the crows.    Probably too detailed.

 

[Qwertyman]

The commander order "use blunt weapons!" would lose its purpose with these changes. You give the order to do that because you want to take prisoners.

If every weapon were to have a unique 'lethality'  all (well most, excluding huge warhammers ect) blunt weapons would have significanly lower lethality,  so using them would have a large effect on the number of prisoners you get.  and also-  if we use a generalised system that allows blunt weapons to kill and 'lethal' weapons to caputure,  blunt weapons would still have a huge advantage in terms of non-lethal hits.

 

[buzbybadman]

CryptoCactus' method got it spot on I reckon, your lethality factor would already be in the calculation if each weapon had its own factor.  The illusion of a free flowing world needs these little touches.

 

[josefvin]

I too like Crptocactus' idea.

 

[Wu-long]

Crypto nice idea

it would be nice to have some weapons that have thrust as non lethal and hack is lethal or vice versa too.

 

[SvÄn]

Crypto great idea.
Any time i use a blunt weapon all enemys get knocked out
but i think in many cases they should be killed

I can't think of surviving  a hit by a great Hammer or by winged mace
maybe you will survive for some time but internal injuries would kill you after some time

 

[Da-V-Man]

Another way you could make blunt weapons lethal is by creating a "can kill" or "lethal" modifier, where said blunt weapon has a chance or will kill someone when attacking them.