Combat - Question: Weapon parts & damage.

[Vold]

Does the damage dealt by a weapon vary depending on the part that hits the target? (e.g: when you swing a standard 2h axe and hit a target with the head (head of the axe), the damage should be higher than if you hit the target with the haft; also the haft should not deal slashing damage).

 

[fluffydino2000]

You are correct. Hitting with the haft is so insignificant that no damage is dealt, from what I can tell. However, it can knock someone off-balance and often the head will make light contact somewhere potentially dealing minimal damage.

 

[Vold]

I see, everything is so complex in this game, I love it.

That answer makes me realize that the model of a weapon has a huge impact on the effectiveness of a weapon to deal damage; which brings me another question: how is that handled so that there's not a weapon type that excels over the others?

 

[tiny lampe]

how is that handled so that there's not a weapon type that excels over the others?

Your weapon's effectiveness depends on your opponent's armor, your opponent's weapon and the range you fight at.

If your opponent is wearing full plate armor and you have a two-handed sword, you are going to be at a huge disadvantage. In that situation, anything with higher impact/penetration is preferable.

The same two-handed sword however can be superior to any other alternative if your opponent is wearing lighter armor, he uses a shorter weapon and you fight taking advantage of your weapon's superior reach.

And a short weapon can be fearsome against opponents with bigger, heavier weapons if you fight so close to them that by the time they try to swing you have already hit them (2nd opponent from expert arena is an excellent example of that).

So any weapon can excel over the rest provided that it's used effectively and the opponent is not wearing a suit of armor that fully protects him against your weapon of choice.

 

[Vold]

Ah, of course. Thanks!

 

[Chris.J0621]

Given all the info I've read about weapons basically performing exactly how they look... Is it possible to actually redirect an opponent's swing with an attack of your own? I hear the clanking sounds as if the two blades actually touch (not talking about hitting chainmail/plate sounds), but I've never actually seen weapons be redirected unless the arms themselves are moved (by another body or what have you).

 

[Parco]

the weapon does actually get deflected by a little, but because the animation speed on the arms doesnt seem to slow down the weapon quickly jumps back into position as if nothing happened. you can test and see this by standing close to a wall and start hitting the wall, you will see the hand animations still continue at normal speed but the weapon collides and stops.
one way to make this work could probably be to give the animation a strength value sort of, lets say an animation with 10 strength collides with one that got 9 strength, then the one with 10 gets heavily slowed down but is still able to push the other animation back/away. so if a strong character with 20 str swings and hits a weaker characters swing with 7 str then his animation would be broken and his arm tossed sideways, but if they were at the same strength it would be similar like when hitting the wall, the animation stops.
and with weapon weight calculated in then it would be scary to block heavier weapons with their own weapon instead of a shield because the arm wouldnt be able to withstand the force and will be pushed into the body, heavily reducing the dmg taken but still makes you want to play more evasive when against heavier weapons and if your strength is low.

 

[Chris.J0621]

the weapon does actually get deflected by a little, but because the animation speed on the arms doesnt seem to slow down the weapon quickly jumps back into position as if nothing happened. you can test and see this by standing close to a wall and start hitting the wall, you will see the hand animations still continue at normal speed but the weapon collides and stops.
one way to make this work could probably be to give the animation a strength value sort of, lets say an animation with 10 strength collides with one that got 9 strength, then the one with 10 gets heavily slowed down but is still able to push the other animation back/away. so if a strong character with 20 str swings and hits a weaker characters swing with 7 str then his animation would be broken and his arm tossed sideways, but if they were at the same strength it would be similar like when hitting the wall, the animation stops.
and with weapon weight calculated in then it would be scary to block heavier weapons with their own weapon instead of a shield because the arm wouldnt be able to withstand the force and will be pushed into the body, heavily reducing the dmg taken but still makes you want to play more evasive when against heavier weapons and if your strength is low.

That's actually a really cool idea! I like that! However, unless their goals changed, I don't think they're adding attribute points regarding strength etc. (Now, I do believe your characters physique that you create will or does replace this). Finally, Helga's butch biceps count for something! xD

 

[Parco]

i forgot to add in the post that the strength could be connected to the characters appearance, making how the character looks like more meaningful.

 

[PapaHet]

the issue of possible: whether to implement the engine knocking weapons out of the hands?

 

[TwoPumpWarrior]

the issue of possible: whether to implement the engine knocking weapons out of the hands?

Madoc has briefly touched on disarming, there is the issue of weapon recovery.
How do you make it not clumsy? Do you implement an auto-equip feature for quickly picking up a weapon?
It's certainly interesting and I think it fits well with a more natural progression system (more practice with a sword makes you harder to disarm and vice versa).
And then there's amputation

 

[Don Kanaille]

That answer makes me realize that the model of a weapon has a huge impact on the effectiveness of a weapon to deal damage; which brings me another question: how is that handled so that there's not a weapon type that excels over the others?

I dont think this is going to be a problem if they stick with a somewhat realistic approach. Simply put, there was no ultimate all-purpose weapon in ancient or medieval times, otherwise everyone would have used it! Some weapons are good for cutting, some are good for hacking, grappling or smashing, some are good for one-on-one situations and others for formation fights on battlefields. Some are effective but huge and clumsy to carry around, others are not as deadly but can be carried comfortably attatched to your belt... the list goes on, and personal preference is a huge factor as well. To say, if it was possible to come up with some sort of ultimate melee weapon design, our ancestors would have figured it out in the 3000 and more years of constant warfare

There were times in which battlefields were dominated by very few weapon types but those were mainly after the period this game is inspired by, namely Renaissance (pike and arquebus) and Baroque (musket and bayonet)(not counting artillery like cannons as they are not personal weapons). But even then, carrying a large, clumsy musket that takes some time to load around for self-defense seems like a pretty bad idea compared to a rapier or a simply long knive... all different pros and cons.
Anyway, I do not expect any kind of advanced gunpowder weapon to be in the game, so I am not exactly afraid of a "muskets beat anything" scenario^^

Madoc has briefly touched on disarming, there is the issue of weapon recovery.
How do you make it not clumsy? Do you implement an auto-equip feature for quickly picking up a weapon?
It's certainly interesting and I think it fits well with a more natural progression system (more practice with a sword makes you harder to disarm and vice versa).

On the one hand, I´d love to see disarming and think it really has a place in SGs combat... On the other hand, I dread the day my favorite weapon gets knocked out of my hands and right into a bottomless pit. ~~

 

[tiny lampe]

Simply put, there was no ultimate all-purpose weapon in ancient or medieval times, otherwise everyone would have used it!

Polearms. They have the range and piercing abilities of the spear, the can slash like an axe and cause blunt trauma like a mace.

 

[TwoPumpWarrior]

@tiny lampe Yes but you sacrifice weight and portability for all that. The length can be devastating in certain encounters but there are still times when a trusty dirk is the perfect weapon.

 

[Don Kanaille]

Polearms. They have the range and piercing abilities of the spear, the can slash like an axe and cause blunt trauma like a mace.

Pole-arms such as halberds and pollaxes are multi-purpose, but not all-purpose. Pole weapons become much less wieldy in close quarters or when the enemy managed to get really close to you (there are techniques which let you use the halberd in confined spaces, decreasing the drawback, but never so much that a shorter weapon wouldnt be a better choice). The weight of the head means that the poles can not be as long as those of pikes, which will outreach you. It requires two hands to make real use of, which means no shield which would be really handy against projectiles. It it is relatively massive and top-heavy which means you cannot strike as fast or easily as you can with a more nimble weapon - if your enemy is unarmored, a quick slash from a sword can be just as deadly as a heavy punt from an axe head.
Finally, comfort. I admit this is usually not a concern in video games with hammer-space inventory and weapons just clipping through things, but it very much is in real life. Granted, a halberd is a great weapon when you guard something stationary because you can lean on it. When you have to walk around with it, not so much. It is heavy and tall while medieval buildings often have low ceilings, preventing you from just shouldering it. Every time you want to use your hands you have to put away the halberd first, unlike a sword in its scabbard, for example. And those are just the things from the top of my head.

No, I dont want to say halberds or polearms are bad - on the contrary, I am a huge fan of that weaponn, both in real life and in Sui Generis. Heck, I even own a blacksmith-made reproduction of one and carry it around on fairs and reenactments - which is where my first-hand experience regarding the "comfort" aspect comes from.
Personally, I think they are great weapons, combining reach and power with a multitude of attack options... but saying that weapon has no drawbacks to its advantages is simply incorrect. While it is a great tool in many situations, it is average to useless in just as many others - as is pretty much every weapon. As I said, our ancestors were no fools - if there would have been an ultimate weapon, it would quickly have become the only one.

 

[tiny lampe]

Pole-arms such as halberds and pollaxes are multi-purpose, but not all-purpose.

Very reasonable arguments, although I don't completely agree with some of them.

The close-quarters scenario for instance: if an opponent with a shorter, faster weapons gets too close you may be at a disadvantage, yes. However: considering that you have the superior reach, wasn't it your fault that the opponent got too close in the first place? You always want to fight at the range your weapon is best at. If you end up fighting at the opponent's preferred range, then that's your fault and not your weapon's.

Regarding the fact that you can't use a shield with a polearm, that's not a problem if you are wearing full plate.

I agree that in enclosed spaces you are going to find yourself limited (and Sui Generis can portray that realistically because walls do have collisions). I also agree that carrying a polearm around is far from ideal, especially if you add full plate as I suggested to the mix. Ultimately, the 'what will you be doing?' question becomes crucial when deciding what gear to take. If you are getting yourself into a battlefield, you want your plate and your polearm (and I would say that in that context plate+polearm is the ultimate combination). If you are the lone adventurer who explores dungeons and takes long walks across the wilderness, you may want lighter weapons and armor.

 

[Don Kanaille]

The close-quarters scenario for instance: if an opponent with a shorter, faster weapons gets too close you may be at a disadvantage, yes. However: considering that you have the superior reach, wasn't it your fault that the opponent got too close in the first place? You always want to fight at the range your weapon is best at. If you end up fighting at the opponent's preferred range, then that's your fault and not your weapon's.

Well, yes. If you play it perfectly, the enemy with a shorter weapon will never touch you. But under the same assumption, an enemy with an even longer weapon like a lance or a pike will always defeat you, as you could never touch him, either.
To be fair, if you never made a mistake, you´d win most battles regardless of weapons involved.

Regarding the fact that you can't use a shield with a polearm, that's not a problem if you are wearing full plate.

If possible, always wear plate armor to battle, as it simply is the best protection there is. But it has all of its own restrictions; it is expensive, needs to be tailor-made to properly fit, needs maintenence and often a second person to properly put on.

In battle field context, I agree that plate+polearm is extremely viable. That is why it was such a popular combination in the late middle ages, plate armor and a pollaxe, for example, which gives you all kinds of options to kill other armored opponents (smash, grab, hook, lever...) with yourself being well protected.
However, for example, if your opponents dont wear much armor, a lighter and faster weapon like a sword would be just as deadly while being less exhausting. Or if you are up against fast and evasive enemies who shoot and retreat, you can either try to catch up until weight and heat build up slowly drain all your stamina or a lucky arrow finally finds a weak spot in your armor. If you need to kill them now (no tactical retreat possible), probably ditch some weight and use a shield instead to to have a chance of catching up. Muddy or unfavorable terrain in general can also have a huge impact on how useful certain weapon and armor combinations are...

It is always a combination of what you have and do, what your enemy has and does and various other circumstances which determine how effective something is in a given context. There are some things more likely to be viable more of the time and some which are only good in some rare cases... but there simply is nothing that will always be the best (in real life, that is. Given that this is a game, the devs could of course programm something that is the flat out best choice ever; im just saying if they stick to a somewhat realistical approach, that wont be a problem).