The tipes of damage a sword does and "small damage&quot

Users who are viewing this thread

Praetorian

Recruit
Did the search, nothing came up, so here it goes...

I have some doubts aboutthe damage of some weapons, particulary swords... most of the swords used at that time used much more of they're capacity to bash (don't know if the word is correct... to "bonk") on the other guy's armour, rather than to cut/slicethe guy... ofcourse, if you would have the misfortune of being a peasant in front of a 2 handed blade,wielded by a knight, tough... ok, limbs off.

The thing is... it seems quite clear to me that the watered-steel scimitar is the best 1h weapon in the game, no? because, besides of the speed, it also has the punch. Ok, ok... we all know that piercing weapons, like the longsword in frontal assaults do more damage,but still, I would 100 times prefer to use a scimitar to a longsword, if im thinking to attack anything, knights included (as in- wanting more damage and "easier" fighting vs a cool looking character with a nordic sword, for ex.).

I think that in someway the damage done by piercing weapons should be made more strong, or slicing against armour made weaker...

I can see a scimitar at high speed, coming from a great warrior and cutting hard trought a metal dude... I just don't see it happening all the time.

Shoot... i think i got a bit lost in here (actually wanted to say something else... oh well)

Ah, another thing is the small time damages. For instance, if you attack a guy and score 0 on him, he might still attack you, right? (at least it seems to happen quite frequently) I say it should happen with low damage to big guys (men at arms, knights... meaning armor packed guys) - in this way, a knight swarmed by5 peasants could still slash some heads and not just get overpowered (well, it could help)

thanx ppl
 
uhm... don't know if I made it clear.

as ex: a knight is swarmed by 4 peasants and the buggers are hitting him for 1 2 3 or 4 dmg at a time, not letting him respond... I say LET HIM respond while getting whacked (maybe with a small penalty to his hits, i dunno!)

Who cares about those pesky peasants, anyways :wink:
 
yes, it does annoy me when ive got full black armour, and im about to deal a death blow to this wuss pirate in my way, when some other clueless git pegs a rock at me for 0 damage, and my blade stops inches from is head, only for me to flinch, and him to club me for 0 damage

So i basicly pack throwin axes and wait for them to get close, then i just throw and get head shot 155 damage, game over

Ian
 
I agree with Praetorian... in my knowledge also, most swords had quite a dull edge (in late medieval fencing manuals you often see warriors holding their longsword by the blade to bludgeon with the pommel) and a sharp point, which was used to thrust-impale-skewer-kebab...
I also believe that, if some mad-eyed Khergit swung his watered-steel scimitar at my character in black armor, to do some serious damage he would have to find the EXACT place in which the different armor pieces join (could happen, but how often in a fight, when you're busy dodging couched lances?).
As for "small damage" issues, I'm fed up of lightning-striking dark riders with my butchering knife, dealing 0-4 damage but stunlocking them... if a char has 80+ hit points, why should he/she be bothered by 1hp wounds, at least in mid-swing?
btw... hi everyone, this seems to be my first post!
 
To illustrate the difference between European longsword and Arabian scimitar, there is an old tale:

European king and Arabian chalifa wanted to demonstrate the quality of their weapons. The king ordered a mace with metal shaft to be placed before him, drew his longsword and cut the shaft in two with a mighty blow. The chalifa saw this, took a scarf from the finest silk, threw into the air, and as the scarf was falling, he cut it into two pieces with his scimitar.

The point is, the weapons differed greatly by the technique of its use. Longsword (or two handed swords) had straight blades, and were designed to deliver crushing blows against their targets. The cut had two phases - first, the cut itself done with as much power as possible, to penetrate the garment and skin. Then, in the second phase, the blade was pulled backwards in the wound, inflicting slashing damage to the unprotected flesh. These swords were designed to combat armored foes, though sometimes, even the strongest cut could not penetrate a quality plate. But since the blow was so powerful, the opponent still had problems - stunning, bruising, losing balance, the armor could be deformed, hurting his mobility. Also, the armor offered protection against weaker cuts, but IMO could not withstand a full-force blow from a two handed weapon. Especially axes were known to cut through armor quite well. And yes, the edges of swords were quite dull, because the edge deformed with each blow and sharp edge was impossible to maintain, but since so much strength was used, it did not matter much.

On the other hand, the scimitar (and katana, sabre and other curved blade), united these two phases into one, cutting and moving in the wound at the same time thanks to the curved blade. The cut did its damage with speed rather than force, and therefore the weapon was poor in cuting through armor, but deadly against lightly armored/unarmored foe. Many sources state that Saladin's forces could not defeat the crusaders in combat because the sabres bounced off the armor. That's why swords vanished from the battlefield when the armor was made obsolete by firearms (though hussars and other types of cavalry continued to wear cuirrasses till 18 century, if I recall correctly), but sabres remained useful until as late as the end of 19th century.

Gameplay-wise, they are other factors that have to be considered. Swordsmen did not strike against the armor, but were trained to seek the chinks to circumvent it. Such weak spots were : armpits (diagonal cuts from side and below), helmet (frontal stab), knees and elbows, inner parts of the thighs, the place where the cuirrass ended, and so on.
If such a blow landed successfully, the usefulness of armor was diminished/negated completely, since a well armored knight could be killed with a single blow. Some games implement this via the "critical blows", but since it's random and require no skill in aiming, I don't quite like it.

Moreover, please not the special purpose of the blunt weapons like flails, morning stars, maces and warhammers, that were used to deform the armor, inhibiting the mobility of the foe, rather than to penetrate it. Perhaps blunt weapons should have the bonus in the possibility to slow down plate-armored foes in the game.
 
Praetorian said:
The thing is... it seems quite clear to me that the watered-steel scimitar is the best 1h weapon in the game, no? because, besides of the speed, it also has the punch.

I disagree. I think the best one-hander in the game is the military hammer (Balanced or heavy, as per preference). It does blunt damage, so it gets halved armor penalties, yet it has a staggering base damage of 23 damage points (Maximum is heavy with 25b). It's not as fast as the swords, but weapon proficiency and dexterity negate that. The only real weakness with this thing is the range, 90, but it's good enough. And since blunt weapons have a heavily increased knockdown probability, you can just wade in there and let rip, sending foes flying.
 
I think some people are forgetting that a hit of 0 damage does not mean the hit was a mere tickle.. armour subtracts from the damage dealt before it hurts you..
So a 0 pointer might still have been enough to throw you off balance...

There should be a limit to this effect though, such as if the unmodified damage is less than targets str, then target will not be stunned...

So even running around naked, if someone pokes you with a dagger for 5 points and you have str 8, it's highly likely you will still return the favour... :twisted:
 
I'm sorry but i'm just gonna say some little things...
1- To Madhatter: wrong time dude =D You are talking about the Renaissance where they used rapiers(pointy nasty wep :lol: ) and other similar weapons, they could actually touch the blade because it was really not sharp as a longsword since it was only meant to pierce thru the opponent's chest(they were used by nobles since rapiers are very elegant weapons) to inflict mortal wounds(if i'm not mistaken that's where the first firearms were invented).Oh and... seriously who would risk benting an expensive sword to hit the enemy with the pommel? Just punch him.
2-Same as above: Plate armors(and the usual chain underneath) WERE MEANT TO STOP SLASH ATTACKS(and really worked). The only chance to kill an armored foe with a sword(in that time the most used was the long sword which is one handed) was thrusting and praying. :lol:
3-to Praetorian: Agreed, swords SHOULD bounce when hitting fully armored ppl as it did in RL but... I also think that it would be REALLY annoying to buy that cool looking sword with all your money just to know that using a crappy club would work better(maces were real killers against armored ppl, one hit could break bones easily).
4-SAA: No way in hell a human could cut thru plates, sorry but that's impossible. Unless you are using an ax and hit at full strenght(if not you would do one helluva blundgeoning damage =P) you could tear him apart.Limbs off! =D

I guess if i wore a full plate, the only thing i would feel when hit by a stone would be: YOU MOTHER %@#$%@# @#$%@#$@$%! I'M GONNA BREAK EVERY BONE IN YOUR BODY AND (as in Sin City ,Marv style) WHEN I'M DONE THE HELL YOU'RE GOING WILL LOOK LIKE HEAVEN .
 
Axes should do more dmg, swords should have higher pierce dmg, neg. bonus vs. plate armors, etc.

And you should be able to leap 20 feat in the air, kick somebody 5 times, then land behind them and decapitate they're sorry ass.

Or... not?
 
Orion said:
Axes should do more dmg, swords should have higher pierce dmg, neg. bonus vs. plate armors, etc.

And you should be able to leap 20 feat in the air, kick somebody 5 times, then land behind them and decapitate they're sorry ass.

Or... not?

yeah and then you should be able to stop in midair and slow time and kick them in the faces and do the cool matrix moves...
whatever

actully slicing is good as it is now, just armour should take some slicingdamage-30%...
and also, when someone throws a stone at you, no matter how strong you are, nor what armour you wear, you WILL get hurt! unless stones are ths () size.... in which case they wont come that close to you unless being shot from a gun
 
Back
Top Bottom