[Suggestion]Long weapon penalty only when sheated

[inox_ionizer]

In .700, long weapons were given a penalty:

The weapon you are carrying now has more effect on encumbrance. Using extra-heavy or extra-long weapons will make you run slower.

I can't say I have noticed it, but I like the idea. However, I don't think it should count when the long weapon is carried in the hands.

 

[PsykoOps]

Eeh how is the weight changed then? I don't understand the logic. Carrying stuff on your person is easier because the weight is more evenly distriputed also so it should be the other way around.

 

[The Blind Skald]

Eeh how is the weight changed then? I don't understand the logic. Carrying stuff on your person is easier because the weight is more evenly distriputed also so it should be the other way around.

How do you figure? running with an axe held tightly in my hands is a thousand times easier than runing whilehaving it flaping and bumping around while straped to my back by a rope.

Well, in M&B it just magically glues to my back, but I think we can get passed that right?

 

[PsykoOps]

Of course you can rope it to yourself badly and have it flapping and bouncing. Any half decent system is comfortable and feels lighter because weight distribution. It's not really lighter just feels like that.

 

[inox_ionizer]

I can't say I have much experience with carrying spears/pikes, but at least when carrying a rifle/shotgun, I find it significantly easier to carry it in my hands. Of course, it gets tiresome in the arms after a while, but I doubt that would be an issue in the 4-5 minute battles in Warband.

On the other hand, maybe medieval weapons had better systems for carrying weapons on your back. Do you know of any such systems that would warrant the weapon switching times currently in Warband?

 

[PsykoOps]

Nope can't say that I do.

 

[Skandinav]

I like this suggestion, and it was the first thing to strike my mind when I first had to run like in full armor with my pole-arm, wood-shafted long axe in my hands like a quarterstaff and only wearing the default clothing.

Perhaps make it so that only weapons with the pole-arm grip, where weight and balance is much better distributed, will have this benefit, and not 2h swords and base-ball bat grip weapons, which of course will be unwieldy and slow you down.

 

[L-J-F]

Agreed.

 

[DanAngleland]

Why shouldn't it count when the weapon is in your hands? I agree with PyskoOps, I imagine it affects your running more if it is being carried in your hands.

 

[inox_ionizer]

You have better control of it when it's in your hands. When it's on your back, it jumps more around.

Edit; Well, at least that's what we believe. If you have experience with spears/pikes, please share.

 

[Night Ninja]

Carrying it on your back is terribly unwieldy. You have a substantial portion sticking out from underneath or over you.

If you're carrying it in your hands, you can hold it in front of you (like the current polearm animation when moving) or you can hold it in one hand (like the bastard sword).

 

[DanAngleland]

You have better control of it when it's in your hands. When it's on your back, it jumps more around.

Edit; Well, at least that's what we believe. If you have experience with spears/pikes, please share.

I don't have any real life experience to add, it is just my intuition that it would be that way. I would think that if you have the weapon held in front of you it will naturally move around as you run, and its momentum will adversely effect your normal running motion. Unless you have the weapon held against your body, against your shoulder for example (a bit like a rifle is held in a marching drill), but then you wouldn't be ready to use the weapon. Still, it is only my imagination and you see it the other way, so you might well be right.

But I wonder what gameplay advantage it would give, except to possibly disadvantage infantry with what should be much more manageable weapons like sword and shield? The main advantage of a long polearm is to fight cavalry, so what is the need for extra speed?

 

[inox_ionizer]

Well, moving from point A to B in less time is valuable for everyone. In combat, it's also useful. When being attacked by a lancer, you usually have to sidestep (unless you have a pike) to avoid being hit. Slightly higher speed can mean the difference between killing and dying in those situations. 1-hander and shield would still have an advantage, because the spear-/pikemen will probably put their polearm away for melee combat (or get slaughtered) and thus receive the encumbrance penalty.

 

[Commoner]

Why should the additional encumberance apply only to long weapons? Why not to bows, crossbows, shields, and other weapons as well?

In my opinion lugging around anything other than what fits in your two hands and your armor slots should slow you down about 3 to 4 times as much as it does now. Armor weight is very well distributed around your body so pound for pound it should not encumber you more than things that are simply strapped around your body. I also agree that things that you are currently holding on to would probably be easier to carry around since you have a good degree of control how you shift around its weight as you run around.

Not only is this more realistic but I also believe that it will be good for gameplay as well. It will discourage players from strapping everything but the kitchen sink on to their backs so that they can be prepared for any situation. At the moment there is no real practical reason not to strap two shields, a one handed weapon and heavy two handed weapon on to your back.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't be able to carry a wide variety of weapons on your person so that you can equip yourself on the fly as the situation calls for it. I'm saying that you should suffer a heavy penalty for doing that.

In real life, if I were asked to place a bet on the outcome of a fight between two equally skilled swordsmen, one with only a sword and shield in his hands and another with a sword and shield in his hands, a second shield strapped to his back and and a great long axe slung to his side, I would definitely bet on the person who is unencumbered.

The reason for this is simple, all that extra weight would simply get in the way of the more heavily armed swordsman and put him at a huge disadvantage.

Ask me to make a bet on the outcome of the fight in Warband, and I'd have to say the one with the great long axe and extra shield will probably win. Why? Because he can pull out that extra shield if his primary shield gets too battered and he can pull out his great long axe to bust through the other player's shield if he played too defensively. Sure he is just a bit slower on his feet but as it is now, the slow down is not significant enough to have a major impact on how the fight would turn out.

 

[inox_ionizer]

Fully agree.

 

[Skandinav]

I agree fully what most of what you write, but just not that last part; being slowed is all-important for foot-work which is central to any 2h fighter. The long axes are the ones slowed down the most, go and try it out yourselves - it seems too much, though the wielder should of course be slower, but not slower than, for example, people with swords and shields or 2h swords, as it is mainly a wooden pole.

 

[Commoner]

I agree fully what most of what you write, but just not that last part; being slowed is all-important for foot-work which is central to any 2h fighter. The long axes are the ones slowed down the most, go and try it out yourselves - it seems too much, though the wielder should of course be slower, but not slower than, for example, people with swords and shields or 2h swords, as it is mainly a wooden pole.

Perhaps you misread. We're not talking about getting slowed down while you're wielding a two handed weapon. We are talking about getting slowed down for carrying extra weight in equipment strapped on your back.

So, if you carried a long axe, you wouldn't suffer any further slow down. If you elected to lug around a heavy bastard sword and two tower shields while wielding the long axe, however, then you would suffer a stiff slow down penalty.

So, any armor you are wearing on your person and any weapon you are currently wielding would not slow you down more than it does at the moment. However, any cumbersome equipment would encumber your character significantly.

The reasoning behind this is that you can armor weight is designed to be distributed evenly around your body and the weight of the weapon or shield you are currently wielding can be shifted around relatively easily while you move around and fight. Anything you have strapped to your belt or back, however, is another matter. They would likely get in the way of your freedom of movement and are likely to upset your center of gravity, ruining your sense of balance.

In terms of gameplay, this would give players who specialize (either a single two handed weapon only or weapon and shield only) an advantage over players who play it safe and go for a more versatile approach (by carrying everything but the kitchen sink on their backs to cover any situation they might encounter).

The only real issue I see with this is that it might give cavalry a significant advantage since they never have to deal with being weighed down at all until they are dehorsed.