[v0.623] Mounted Two-Handed Swords

[[SA]smartbomb]

At least in the tourney mode, it looks like I am riding the horse weilding the two-handed sword model in one hand. The damage also reflects a two-handed sword, unless warrider damage, 9 STR, and 2 power strike can mean ~50 damage. Keep in mind I'm around level 3 or 4. What I guess I'm getting at is, is the sword you get while mounted without a shield a on or two handed sword? If it is two-handed, he is using it one handed. If it is one handed, call me stupid.

 

[armagan]

You can use a two handed sword one handed on horseback, but you'll get a 10% penalty to damage and speed rating.

 

[tylertfb]

I've actually been thinking that it would balance the game better if only one-handed weapons were allowed to be used while on horseback. This would make good one-handers more useful to horsemen (as it is now, there isn't really any reason not to use a 2h wep on horseback) and it would also give you a reason to stay on foot/use foot troops (so they can use 2h weapons). To compensate a little for the big reach advantage that 2handers get, one-handed weapons could have their reach increased (by 5 or 6 points) while on horseback (I guess you can say it's because the guy can lean out of his saddle and get a little extra reach than on foot).

 

[Perturbatio]

I would allow two-handed weapons in one hand but increase the strength minimum for it and have the current penalties, or increase the penalties further. 2H swords are really quite heavy you know

 

[[SA]smartbomb]

Oh. I must have missed that somewhere. Thanks.

 

[zeebah]

I've actually been thinking that it would balance the game better if only one-handed weapons were allowed to be used while on horseback. This would make good one-handers more useful to horsemen (as it is now, there isn't really any reason not to use a 2h wep on horseback) and it would also give you a reason to stay on foot/use foot troops (so they can use 2h weapons). To compensate a little for the big reach advantage that 2handers get, one-handed weapons could have their reach increased (by 5 or 6 points) while on horseback (I guess you can say it's because the guy can lean out of his saddle and get a little extra reach than on foot).

thats not fun.. i love to ride a horse and then use the big stone hammers to just maul my enermies down =) it owns

 

[[bulletproof]]

Yeah, two handers would become almost useless to many players since everyone loves to be mounted. I say keep two handers allowed on horseback, but make some sort of restrictions, perhaps a strength requirement. Severe penalties are usually bad, and just force the player into using other weapons, which defeats the purpose of the balance in the first place. Restrictions/limits > penalties.

 

[timmo]

1. Two handers are slow, which in a tight scuffle with many opponents you'll get done on a horse or on foot, a shield will help you back out or defend u as u fall back
2. Two handers means you can't hold a shield on horse (or can you and is this what this thread is about?) and no shield means u get picked off by ranged units
3. Two handers take a longer wind up than a sabre, i can get a few stabs in with my sabre before a 2hander can hit me properly

 

[Balor]

Well, in fact, two-handers are pretty light. The whole '10 kgs swords' is an old BS... Usuall they are not a lot heavier then 2-3 kgs...
The MOST heavy two-handed sword EVERY found was like 8 kgs or something. (So I heard... and I doubt that it was nothing but a ceremonial weapon).
They are long, though - and means that have higher moment of inertia (since attacks energy calculation formula for circular motion). I = (m*l)^2.
So, if you have a sword that 1 meter long (from axis - that's usually where handle is) and 1 kg of weight that would be (1 * 1)^2 = 1.
And then take two-hander that weights 2 kg, and 1.5 meters long.
(2 * 1.5) ^2 = 9! times harder to swing... but will hit 4.5 timers harder if you'll hit the enemy with the same angular velocity. There is a different formula for stabs, though, but anyway.

 

[Drapabee]

Yeah twohand on horseback you really feel the pain from archers.

You try rushing five swadian crossbowmen with ten health and no shield sometime.

 

[esquilax]

SCIENCE!!

Note: this is all for swinging a two handed sword with one hand.

You're forgetting a few things. First, I= 1/3*ml^2 + md^2, where d is the distance displaced from the pivot point, and 1/3*ml^2 is the moment of inertia for a rod through its end. You also need to factor in for the swinger's arm.

To be simple, if we assume the pivot point at a person's shoulder with a 5 kg, .7 m long arm -- mine is around 3.3 kg, and I am weak, skinny and not clad in armor -- then the values for your sample swords are 1.64 and 3.30 kg-m^2. So its about twice as tough to swing.

I'm not sure how you'd calculate how hard it would hit, but my best guess would be angular momentum. And angular momentum (L=Iω) depends on tons of factors. Using some kinematics, I found L=√(2τθI), so the bigger sword would probably hit about 41% harder. Using other equations, the time taken to swing should also be about 41% longer.

tl;dr for the non-science inclined
Difficulty to swing a 2 handed sword with one hand: Twice as hard as a one handed sword.
Damage: 41% More
Time: 41% More

My suggestions:
Raise damage for all 2 handed weapons (say, for a sword of war to 50).
Lower speed considerably when on horseback. Instead of a 10% penalty, make it around 40-50%. Remember, its 41% more time to swing and to ready the sword. A better solution would be to raise the speed of one handed weapons by about 20% overall, and lower the speed for two handed weapons by about 20% on horseback.

This would make it so that two handed weapons are basically only for "drive by" attacks, and one handed weapons would be much more useful when stopped.

Note for people who will call me a nerd: All the calculations took under 5 minutes, and I needed the practice for my AP Physics test anyway.

 

[armagan]

I love this thread. Just what I would like to see for M&B.

Note that the numbers in balor's post were meant to serve as an example and do not reflect the actual values in the game.

Having said that I would love to go all the way and discuss the mathematics behind combat. I would also like it very much to make the damage model more accurate and realistic.

But before that, I'll be moving this thread over to the suggestions forum. So let's continue with it over there.

 

[corksacker69]

speaking of which, how about giving us some of the alogorithms/formulas you use that determine damage and stuff.

 

[KnZ]

If we are that close to maths and physics, we should also think about the fact that not all the weapons are that well balanced:

So, if you have a sword that 1 meter long (from axis - that's usually where handle is) ...

Most of the medieval swords were made with a such called carolings' balance - the axis is displaced for about 1/5 of the blade's length from the handle. *Just try to calculate, what must be the weight of the "apple" on the end of the handle to balance 1kg blade... And you'll understand Carolings))* And some two-handers (yes, they are light, as Balor already mentioned - NO heavier than 4 kgs) were intentionally disbalanced - to make a blow even more powerful... The closer the axis is to the handle - the faster the blade is, but the damage is lower...
And one more thing - every man has a limit of his move speed and reaction - that is somehow tied to nerve system, I don't remember exactly... So if you have quite a low AG, you won't be able to swing with short sword with a big speed. And if you have big ST and low AG, you WILL be able to swing heavy two-hander with almost the same speed as a shortsword! So really strong but awkward people prefer heavy weapons, because their muscle speed is just not so fast to use all shortswords' benefits...

 

[Manu]

The MOST heavy two-handed sword EVERY found was like 8 kgs or something. (So I heard... and I doubt that it was nothing but a ceremonial weapon)..

I would think to an executioner's sword. The huge weight means a neat cut, and getting tired during a fight isn't a concern there. If it had a blunt tip, it's almost certain.

 

[Balor]

Oh hmm. Well, I've never claimed to be a science nerd myself - quite the contrary. I did download a great book on this subject (Dynamics of Hand-Held Impact Weapons), and got the basic idea from there. I'm not very good at physics myself.
Of course, in RL it's much more complicated then just a formula that takes one line and has a few variables.
2 KnZ
Of course . Btw, about 'caroling's balance'... You may want to d/l this book and see for yourself (Just google the name). Even I, with my almost complete lack of talent and understanding in physics, got a lot from it... if even already forgot even more .
However, I perfectly understand that realistic physics is one thing, and game balance is an other... I'm not sure that Armagan will try and implement to be *this* realistic. At least, so far he didn't show much inclination to do so . If he did, I bet we'd have armour material, thickness and coverage instead of simply protection value, and simply no such thing as damage on swords - only their exact length, weight, balance and sharpenss value. My dream .. but I doubt that many will enjoy playing (or, heh, making) such a game.

 

[KnZ]

Balor:

I bet we'd have armour material, thickness and coverage instead of simply protection value, and simply no such thing as damage on swords - only their exact length, weight, balance and sharpenss value. My dream .. but I doubt that many will enjoy playing (or, heh, making) such a game

Well, you've found one! ME!)) I'm making a game (just for myself, and it'll never be finished - I am realist ), where exact length of the blade and stance during fight are not just words)) A neck hit w/ a twohander won't cause momental death, but the victim will die or drop unconscious after a couple of turns... But we're not talking about it, right?)
If someone asks me - I'm for realism, but the player doesn't need to know about it. So we'll have an armor protection value (which is calculated from other values, such as thickness and so on) - well, you know what am I leading to .