On the other hand, historically, different weapon types were never "balanced".

Especially during early middle ages, swords were really expensive to manufacture and were typically weapons for noblemen - common troops were armed with spears and shields most often. Later, when heavily armored knights entered the game, specialized weapons appeared (warhammers, flails and morgensterns, polearms of various designs). When firearms made heavy armors obsolete, those specialized weapons disappeared again, and the longest surviving bladed weapon used in military was the sabre - even during WWI, officers still had them, and it was actively used by cavalry as late as in American Civil War.

So it can be said that sword or sabre is really the king of cold weapons, most universal, skill-dependent and effective. Axes, flails and maces were (bar their professional, specialized gothic versions) always half-improvised weapons of the common folks that did not receive formalized military training and was better given the tools that were familiar. 

So swords should really by the fastest, and most expensive and useful weapons. But they really seem to dominate too much, and axes are really not very good in the game.

Strangely enough, I was quite satisfied with the early found stone mace of my Kraxis sov - the mace may be slow, but due to armor, daggers and lighter weapons often do not penetrate the defense at all (CLINK).

Kama, I prefer in my games only a stench of realism, and more balance than reality has, because if you want to base your FANTASY game on realism, your gonna have to change alot of items throughout the game.
(The wings of the dragons should be bigger, to support those heavy bodies in flight, (random stupid fact, I didn't even check the mass index compared to the wingspan, but you get the idea I hope)).

I want to see cases where I feel each weapon have a niche, or a role in combat to play. I still think armour piercing doesn't fit spears, but if that is spears niche, then I am ok with that. swords have a very defensive niche, you can enter defensive mode with units and still get attacks (except half the world is immune to counterattacks by now).
Maces "Should" have the niche in the current system to rob enemy units of a few turns now and then, but the chance is waaaaay off, and the units that is carrying maces are carrying really heavy weapons with a huge initiative penalty, meaning they rarely ever get a turn anyways.
Axes... Not sure what they're current "thing" is, I guess they are the weapon you look at when you want something that is rubbish.

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Swords should be more expensive in resources and time for the standard soldier than other weapons.  It may already be, I don't know off the top of my head.  The reason we didn't have armies of people using swords, is because it takes longer time and better skill to create a sword, better material, and more training to make someone good with it.  

For the game, the big reasons that most champs use swords are this, most of the hero level weapons are swords.  The vast majority of good weapons you gain from quest and loot are swords.  I would love to make my warrior specialize in one handed spears, love it.  But, how many one handed spears are there?  Just the lighting pike, and it's been nerfed.  Also, what "paths" can be good swordsman?  All of them have access to that.  How many have access too additional piercing damage?  Just assassin.  How many for Blunt, Warrior for sure and maybe Defender?  I wish there were more options.

a good point here. if you don't intend to use weapons, you're better off taking a dagger (as opposed to a magic staff, for example). this seems pretty illogical. i'd love to see something changed so that staves are a more logical choice for mages. Maybe giving them significant initiative bonuses, but making more spells have longer casting durations?

I totally agree with this. Maybe instead of buffing the other weapons, swords should have a higher cost and a higher production. So if you want a unit with them, it will take clearly more time that with axes or spears. And with clearly, I mean at least 50% of the time needed, with same equipment.

My two cents.

Swords--leave the same.  Some of the two handed swords are brutal.  Sword of Wrath is two handed and is just devastating if you get it.  Put it in the hands of Verga down the Path of the Warrior and he is pretty unstoppable.

Axes--give them a 50% backswing if you hit the first time, and 100% chance of backswing if you miss the first time.  Having a 50% chance of a double attack every turn would add significant damage to axe users.

Maces--a slight increased chance of bash is all you need.  There are several counters to being knocked prone.  Graceful, a mount, large.

Spears--I think there needs to be lower damage if you are using it one handed.  But other than than that I like spears.

Bows--I think there needs to be a range modifier.  Increase the damage but make it harder to hit at longer ranges.  I still don't think you should be able to use a bow if you are in certain types of armor.  Particularly plate mail, Makes no sense.

Staves--no range modifier, but they need to cost more crystal.  Also no armour, only the robes.

I think they should probably just rework backswing. It just has too selective of a use (Mauling Jugs, Broken Spirit sovereigns), in most situations, accuracy is too easy to get (you get a ton from just building from a fortress, and you gain it naturally leveling), and there is often not enough dodge (unless you are building specifically for it - which the AI doesn't) to make backswing truly worthwhile. If it was me, I would just make it so that axe always swing twice and then have a slight penalty to accuracy and a bit less damage. Basically, axes would have "doubleswing" instead of "backswing". This would turn axes into a weapon type that would gain bonuses from multiple hits (any bonus damage/effect would be doubly effective).

Personally, i disagree. I don't think one class of weapon should be allowed to be objectively better, but also more expensive. This imo removes strategy from the game, and makes it more a game of economic force.

We already have a mechanism to reward industrial and technical prowess, which is the weapon tiers. shortsword, broadsword, longsword, etc. If you have a stronger economy, the fact that you can use longswords instead of broadswords is enough reward.  You should still need to consider the situations and design units appropriately, this is what seperates a good player from a bad player. The whole fun of a strategy game is using your brain to defeat challenges. IMO, all weapons should be equally useful in an equal number of different conditions, to the degree that a player should have some incentive to diversify their army, and adjust tactics dependant on enemy composition. 

If axes are allowed to remain bad, but simply made cheaper, i don't see how that solves any problems at all. It might mean that weaker factions will have a larger army, while stronger ones will still spam swords like there's no tomorrow. it won't much affect the variety of troops or tactics. What is the point of researching more and developing your economy so you can have access to a "better inferior" weapon, when you can instead use the better weapons at your current tech level.

I have a neat idea. One of the uses of an axe is that it's heavy, and hits a lot harder. Perhaps this could be represented by taking the armour penetration from spears, and giving it to axes instead. 

For spears, we could have an initiative bonus, and a two-tile attack range, allowing them to attack through friendly units or obstacles. They could also be given a damage bonus when attacking at the full 2 range (or a penalty at 1 range, same difference). This would give spears a useful niche as attack-focused weapons. A armorless unit using them could safely hide behind a tougher armoured ally, and exploit the zone of control rule to avoid being hit, thus nicely complementing the lack of a shield.

So what works with what?  Do we dumb down the number of weapons down or is there a way to make each type unique?

What makes each of these unique

Club/Mace/Warhammer - Bash (This needs to either be trimmed or make each unique)

Spears - Armor Pierce (1 Handed are unique to defensive which in my opinion is not correct)

Swords - High Init and Counter (Superior except against chain which is why chain was made the way it was)

Axes - Backswing a almost 100% chance of damage each swing but slow

Bows - Lower damage but ranged attack of which there are few.

Elemental Staves - With the current resists for gear regular units get eaten alive by these.  But then you can currently have a mage with plate which makes no sense fantasy wise or balance wise as well.

So I ask you what would make each class more unique or worthwhile?  If you add an armor pierce to axes like has been suggested you cheapen spears, if you make spears have extended reach you just get flanked (as also suggested above), until we can mod more starting spots per tactical battle and increase army sizes.  Basically how many unit types (weapon types) do you need to make a battle.  Defenders, Range, Support, Skirmish, Cavalry and support?  How many of each to work?

no. You've misunderstood the definition of "as good". As i defined earlier, i believe all weapons should be useful in a roughly equal number of situations. This means there would be situations where a sword is superior, and situations where an axe is superior. The problem right now is that there are almost no situations where you'd choose an axe over a sword, (or almost anything, over a sword) this is the problem. The point in balancing them is to make the axe, maces, etc, useful in more situations, without completely making swords useless. You still wouldn't want to put axes on your first advancing units, you want someone who can counterattack to be taking the first hits. 

if ANY weapon is the superior choice every time (or even just most of the time) then you've got a balance problem. and that's what swords are right now.

Slightly out of topic but is there a way to equip your army with other armor/weapons besides the ones you researched? Like for example I would like to make an assassin unit but daggers are too crappy to make it viable for a normal unit.

Hell even making assassin class for my champions didn't work very well as the daggers are lackluster. I usually went Path of Assassin with Bows

Is there like some "Disenchant" system in game so i can integrate the weapon/armor loot i get into my unit design?

Hint, dont stick assassin to daggers, grab double strike and give them the biggest and baddest 2handed weapon.

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Concerning Bows: I think they are great for trained units as their damage gets multiplied by the number of troops. For Champs and sovereign, not so much.

  I have been playing Tarth and it seems impossible to make Lady Irane usefull while yielding a bow, it seems so much easier to build her with melee weapons or going caster. this stinks as I would much rather play her as archer. I am new to the game so I may be missing something though..........

P.S.- Have found several nice purple melle weapons ingame, is there a bow that I have yet to find?