DerekPaxton DerekPaxton

Fallen Enchantress: Weapons

Fallen Enchantress: Weapons

There are currently 124 weapons in Fallen Enchantress including 17 base weapons.  The base weapons are the normal weapons you will encounter and equip your armies with.  One of our design goals for FE was to make every weapon valuable and distinct.  So there is a reason you may want to use a broad sword instead of a mace, or a spear instead of a dagger.

To accomplish that we needed to add more depth to weapons, they needed to be differentiated by more than their attack rating.  The following table is the weapon stat spreadsheet in the editor (where it breaks down the base weapons so I can compare and tweak numbers).  There is a lot of new information in this sheet.  But the primary information I wanted to show is the stats on the comparisons on the individual weapons.

Type- This is the damage type of this weapon.  Armor has the ability to have different defense values against different damage types.  Plate mail is better against blunt weapons and chain mail is better against cutting weapons.  The elemental types are also damage types so magical weapons can do fire, lighting, cold or poison damage, and magical armor or items can provide defense against those attacks.

Armor Piercing- This means that they negate 2/3 of the opponent’s defense (spears, pikes and yew longbows).  They are excellent against heavily armored opponents.

Strength Mod- This is a modifier to the amount of unit’s strength bonus.  100 means it doubles their strength bonus (the massive Maul is deadly in the hands of Trog units).  Shortbow’s negate the strength bonus entirely (you don’t get to use your strength bonus when using a bow).

Production- How much production time the weapon adds to the units train time.  Improvements can decrease this time (having a weaponsmith in the city) and are a good idea when you are considering building large groups of units with advanced weapons.

Weight- Weight limits are used in FE.  This is the big reason why you don’t simply want to put the best armor and weapons on all your units.  At some point you will have to decide if you want that huge maul or tower shield or full suit of plate mail.  Especially if you are playing as the Wraiths (base stats are faction specific in FE, so the Trogs can get away with more equipment than other races).  Mounts also increase a units carry capacity so another reason you may want to invest in mounts (besides the increased movement) is to be able to use more armor and bigger weapons.  As mentioned in an earlier designer journal you can give traits to units you design, so if you want to make heavily armorer unis with big weapons, prepare to add some traits for strength (as compared to the other cool things you would add with traits, it’s all hard decisions).

Combat Speed- In FE on each combat tick all units get to add their combat speed to their initiative.  When they get to 100 initiative they get an action (this is all behind the scenes, in game players simply see a queue of units in the order they get actions).  The higher the combat speed the more frequently the unit gets to act, and it allows us to be more granular about creature speed.  The base speed is 12, but weapons can affect speed so that a unit with a dagger will get more (ie: if you are a heavy spell caster, carry a dagger or a staff, not a Maul).

Those are the base weapons, but that’s only the start.  Now that we have more depth in what weapons can do we can really go wild with them for magical weapons.  We are creating a dangerous world and we need reasons for the players to risk their units exploring it.  One reason is to find magical equipment.

We added Staves that make spell casters more powerful, swords that do lightning damage based on the wielders level, bows that do more damage vs beasts, etc.  We have a unique great sword that is stuck in one of our elemental lords (good luck getting that one).  We have weapons that poison victims they strike, Slag Teeth that are like short swords with increased crit chances, the Druss Blade that ignores armor, etc.

There are common, uncommon, rare and unique weapons.  There are a lot to find and we want players to be discovering new ones as they play and replay the game.  We won’t have Diablo style drop rates (you won’t be swimming in magical equipment).  Instead we want every magical weapon you get to be something special and interesting.  You should have a few to spread around to your champions by the mid to late game, and you can share them with units that can use them best or pile them all on one champion so he becomes even more powerful.

And this is open to modding.  There are a lot of bonuses to give, and they can be impacted by things like the wielders level (as in the sword that does +1 lightning damage per level of the wielder), only have their bonus apply against certain creature types (this is part of the conditional gamemodifier work we did for traits), vs damaged units, vs units with a higher or lower specified stat, etc.

But my favorite ability is that weapons can apply a spell when it strikes an opponent.  This came out of the requirement to be able to have weapons that poison opponents.  Instead of simply applying a poison effect the weapon applies a spell, so we have the capabilities of the entire spell system open to us for what weapons can do (more about all the new spell functionality later).  Weapons can blind opponents they hit, they can weaken them, they can curse them, whatever the modder wants to make a spell to do, the weapon can apply.

So if you started reading this article and thought that 124 weapons was a lot of weapons, it’s only a fraction of what the game can do and the interesting things we can create.

 

294,946 views 164 replies
Reply #76 Top

Quoting Kadrium, reply 66
I'm kinda disappointed we'll be going with a rock/paper/scissors system with cutting/piercing/crushing.

They actually don't got with such a system at all. In Rock, Paper, Shotgun, Rock beats Paper beats Scissors beats Paper. With the currently proposed system, you don't have any interactions with weapons against each other. It's plate protects against blunt weapons and mail against cutting.

Just because there are 3 damage types which coincidentally is the same number of moves in RPS doesn't mean it's the same.

 

Quoting mqpiffle, reply 73
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the highlighted portion, but I believe that the more 'specialized' (i guess by that I mean having specific bonuses and detriments) weapons, armor, spells, items, and skills are - and become later in the game - the more interesting the late game becomes simply because the character cannot be great (or even good) at everything. The more the game designers force a a character to become specialized, the more replayable the game becomes as well.

Agree, I don't see much of a problem in more formulaic combat, since imo usually the most boring part of late games are overpowered units which have no counter and thus you can just run over everything without the need for tactics.

Reply #77 Top

Another factor, some monsters may be weak against one of those damage types.

 

Maybe a sand golem is immune to piercing, but vulnerable to crushing.

 

A shrubbery might be vuln slashing, etc.

 

I'm hoping magic will be as varied as weapons, with stuff that I can play this game for a year as my main game, and still see stuff I haven't seen before then.

Reply #78 Top

Quoting Kadrium, reply 66
I'm kinda disappointed we'll be going with a rock/paper/scissors system with cutting/piercing/crushing.

Don't forget there will also be magic damage (fire, cold, electricity, ... something else) and special armors to defend against those magic damage types.

Reply #79 Top

Huzzah! Looks like the laundry list of improvements we wanted are making it in! Can't wait for this. Brilliant!

Reply #81 Top

Quoting Kadrium, reply 80
I just feel that rock/paper/scissors styles weapon and armor interactions restrict viable choices and remove flexibility and variety by pigeon-holeling the player into tactical unit matchups.

What's the other choice? Any system where there are multiple weapon choices that isn't horribly broken will have situations where some weapons are better then others. 

Reply #82 Top

Quoting Kadrium, reply 80
I just feel that rock/paper/scissors styles weapon and armor interactions restrict viable choices and remove flexibility and variety by pigeon-holeling the player into tactical unit matchups.

I think RPS designs make for dull gameplay.  Unit A beats Unit B which beats Unit C which beats Unit A isn't an interesting choice, its the illusion of strategy.

Instead of RPS we want a unit system with some depth to it.  We want weapons, armor, traits, factions, etc to offer enough strategic variety that the players can make hard choices about what they want.  Its isn't as simple as A beats B beats C.  And I wouldn't read the fact that plate armor gets a bonus vs blunt weapons as any sort of RPS mechanic.  It's one of many factors to be considered when picking weapons, including attack, accuracy, combat speed, weight, production cost, metal costs, material costs, strength adjust, crit adjust, etc.

In my mind its like call Magic the Gathering a RPS design.  Sure there are cards and strategies that are better against some and worst against others.  And Im sure there are examples of card (or creature) A is better than B which is better than C which is better than A.  But thats just a small part of a much larger picture, where the cards have strategic strengths and combinations.

So keep in mind we are talking a system where the player doesnt have 3 units to pick from, but customization options which allow a huge amount of end results.  If we had horsemen, which got +40% archers, archers that got +40% vs infantry and infantry which got +40% vs horsemen i would agree with you (and in your comments about RPS).  I just dont think that is the design he have.

Quoting Kadrium, reply 80
It's additionally concerning that each weapon is supposed to have a compelling special ability. Spears are awesome because they <ability> and no other weapon does. But if your opponent makes a lot of units that are strong against piercing, the spear ability is essentially useless.

Great example, there is no such thing as units that are strong against piercing.  Thats the point, and how we keep this system from falling into RPS.  We need strengths that are actually strengths, not good against A, weak against B stuff.

Reply #83 Top

Quoting Kadrium, reply 80

Quoting marlowwe, reply 70
Quoting Kadrium, reply 66I'm kinda disappointed we'll be going with a rock/paper/scissors system with cutting/piercing/crushing.

May I ask why?

I'm just glad there will be a system period. Right now there's no unifying design theme with respect to weapons.

 

Such a system really actually works to remove your choices in combat. If you have piercing weapons and cutting weapons in a certain combat, and your opponent has some troops with armor strong against piercing and some other troops with armor strong against cutting, then which of your troops you want to fight which of their troops is a decision that is made for you. You'll want your piercing units to fight against their units which are weak against piercing. This removes viable options and choices and somewhat forces your hand on tactical decisions. Not creating certain unit v unit matchups is disadvantageous, so you will match certain units up against certain other units. The choice of who fights who is made based on game mechanics and not strategic situations.

I just feel that rock/paper/scissors styles weapon and armor interactions restrict viable choices and remove flexibility and variety by pigeon-holeling the player into tactical unit matchups.

 

Hmm, I understand what you are saying but I disagree with you.

The fact that you are engaged in combat with an opponent who has troops which counter your piercing and cutting units is not an example of a lack of flexibility in the rock/paper/scissors system. Instead, it is a result of your poor play. You made a conscious decision to 1. make those cutting and piercing units and 2. to use them to engage the enemy. No wonder you think you are pigeon-holed into fighting a certain way...you put yourself in this situation!

It's additionally concerning that each weapon is supposed to have a compelling special ability. Spears are awesome because they <ability> and no other weapon does. But if your opponent makes a lot of units that are strong against piercing, the spear ability is essentially useless.

Then don't make spear units! That's the whole point of the system. The strategy part comes from how well you apply and use the RPS system against your opponent.

Reply #84 Top

Quoting Dsraider, reply 81

Quoting Kadrium, reply 80I just feel that rock/paper/scissors styles weapon and armor interactions restrict viable choices and remove flexibility and variety by pigeon-holeling the player into tactical unit matchups.
What's the other choice? Any system where there are multiple weapon choices that isn't horribly broken will have situations where some weapons are better then others. 

This is not at all true. Let's look at a hypothetical system with multiple weapons all with identical statistics. In this system, we have a 1h sword/shield, a 2h sword, 2h mace and a 2h pike. For all intents and purposes, these 4 weapons all have the exact same attack and defense statistics. Thus, none is better than another at this point in our hypothetical system. To differentiate the weapons we shall give each weapon an ability. The sword/shield combo will gain the ability to control a given area in front of them, which means that any enemy that enters the controlled area will take an attack. The 2h sword will have always strike with a frontal AOE. The 2h mace has the ability to knock back thus breaking the control area. The 2h pike can at 2 range. Thus, here we have differentiated the weapons while also adding emergent tactics by the combination of weapons.

Reply #85 Top

Quoting Derek, reply 82

Quoting Kadrium, reply 80I just feel that rock/paper/scissors styles weapon and armor interactions restrict viable choices and remove flexibility and variety by pigeon-holeling the player into tactical unit matchups.

I think RPS designs make for dull gameplay.  Unit A beats Unit B which beats Unit C which beats Unit A isn't an interesting choice, its the illusion of strategy.

Instead of RPS we want a unit system with some depth to it.  We want weapons, armor, traits, factions, etc to offer enough strategic variety that the players can make hard choices about what they want.  Its isn't as simple as A beats B beats C.  And I wouldn't read the fact that plate armor gets a bonus vs blunt weapons as any sort of RPS mechanic.  It's one of many factors to be considered when picking weapons, including attack, accuracy, combat speed, weight, production cost, metal costs, material costs, strength adjust, crit adjust, etc.

In my mind its like call Magic the Gathering a RPS design.  Sure there are cards and strategies that are better against some and worst against others.  And Im sure there are examples of card (or creature) A is better than B which is better than C which is better than A.  But thats just a small part of a much larger picture, where the cards have strategic strengths and combinations.

So keep in mind we are talking a system where the player doesnt have 3 units to pick from, but customization options which allow a huge amount of end results.  If we had horsemen, which got +40% archers, archers that got +40% vs infantry and infantry which got +40% vs horsemen i would agree with you (and in your comments about RPS).  I just dont think that is the design he have.

Indeed, Derek explained it well. I certainly don't think that FE will take the RPS system literally i.e. unit A totally dominates unit B. The strategic dimension comes from fudging the strengths a little bit and seeing how well the player can use their units.

Reply #86 Top

Quoting kenata, reply 84

Let's look at a hypothetical system with multiple weapons all with identical statistics. In this system, we have a 1h sword/shield, a 2h sword, 2h mace and a 2h pike. For all intents and purposes, these 4 weapons all have the exact same attack and defense statistics. Thus, none is better than another at this point in our hypothetical system. To differentiate the weapons we shall give each weapon an ability. The sword/shield combo will gain the ability to control a given area in front of them, which means that any enemy that enters the controlled area will take an attack. The 2h sword will have always strike with a frontal AOE. The 2h mace has the ability to knock back thus breaking the control area. The 2h pike can at 2 range. Thus, here we have differentiated the weapons while also adding emergent tactics by the combination of weapons.

 

I am not against giving certain weapons abilities, but I think we should give the Derek's (and cie.?) proposed weapon system a chance. It's rather pointless to blindly theorize how the system will play out without seeing it in an actual game. For example, I have the initial impression that the spear/pike are overpowered compared to the other 3 weapons in their respective tier. The system looks unbalanced but I'm sure other factors will come into play. And if they don't, we will point them out during the beta.

Reply #87 Top

Quoting Derek, reply 82
In my mind its like call Magic the Gathering a RPS design.  Sure there are cards and strategies that are better against some and worst against others.  And Im sure there are examples of card (or creature) A is better than B which is better than C which is better than A.  But thats just a small part of a much larger picture, where the cards have strategic strengths and combinations.

The fact that you just mentioned the depth of Magic the Gathering for FE made me pop a nerd boner. In one of my first posts on these forums 6 months ago I mentioned how awesome it would be to bring the depth of Magic the Gathering to EWOM and have EWOM visually represent the depth. I'm thinking how Peter Jackson brought Tolkien's books to the big screen. Man, this is exciting.

Reply #88 Top

Quoting Derek, reply 82

Great example, there is no such thing as units that are strong against piercing.  Thats the point, and how we keep this system from falling into RPS.  We need strengths that are actually strengths, not good against A, weak against B stuff.

 

I have to admit, at first I too thought that you were taking the easy way out with A -> B -> C -> A but you have eased my worries.

Perhaps you will save Elemental after all :)

Reply #89 Top

Quoting kenata, reply 84
This is not at all true. Let's look at a hypothetical system with multiple weapons all with identical statistics. In this system, we have a 1h sword/shield, a 2h sword, 2h mace and a 2h pike. For all intents and purposes, these 4 weapons all have the exact same attack and defense statistics. Thus, none is better than another at this point in our hypothetical system. To differentiate the weapons we shall give each weapon an ability. The sword/shield combo will gain the ability to control a given area in front of them, which means that any enemy that enters the controlled area will take an attack. The 2h sword will have always strike with a frontal AOE. The 2h mace has the ability to knock back thus breaking the control area. The 2h pike can at 2 range. Thus, here we have differentiated the weapons while also adding emergent tactics by the combination of weapons.

But if the weapons are better at different things because of their abilities then they will therefore be better in certain situations, against other items, or when used in certain ways. You would always use the sword against mobs, the shields to hold ground, and etc. You would choose your weapons in reaction to a certain stimulus, and that is at it's heart a RPS system where you make strategic choices before hand. I can certainly say that a game where all weapons are good in every situation and you couldn't make strategic choices would be very far from a better system than RPS.

Reply #90 Top

The problem is it's very hard without such a system to keep spam from dominating.  Usually it's spammed ranged units , or spammed mobile units, or spammed horse archers.

It can be done, it's just difficult to design. 

 

One idea of the top of my head- mounts.  The base mounts of wargs and horses.

 

Horses should be the more effective mount, wargs could have the ability to scare horses, causing negative effects to horses within say,  a 2-3 square radius.

 

 

Reply #91 Top

i don't like RPS either, and it looks to me that elemental won't follow that path.  it does seem to me that there are to many modifiers for it to be that simple.  i am very excited at seeing the end result.

Reply #92 Top

Quoting Stmorpheus, reply 91
i don't like RPS either, and it looks to me that elemental won't follow that path.  it does seem to me that there are to many modifiers for it to be that simple.  i am very excited at seeing the end result.

My thoughts exactly. With as many variables as are involved with combat now, I think that the results are going to be hard to predict until we actually get to play the game. And Kael's comments about damage types being one factor among many only makes me more hopeful that it's going to be a good system.

Just one thing, though. Have you all considered making armor piercing a variable instead of a Boolean? I think that it would be nice to have weapons that ignore X points of armor, rather than a straight 2/3 reduction. I don't know, it's just a thought.

Reply #93 Top

Quoting LightofAbraxas, reply 92

My thoughts exactly. With as many variables as are involved with combat now, I think that the results are going to be hard to predict until we actually get to play the game. And Kael's comments about damage types being one factor among many only makes me more hopeful that it's going to be a good system.

Just one thing, though. Have you all considered making armor piercing a variable instead of a Boolean? I think that it would be nice to have weapons that ignore X points of armor, rather than a straight 2/3 reduction. I don't know, it's just a thought.

Its implemented as an integer so modders can do whatever they like with it.  The stat spreadsheet shows it as the straight number because that was simple.  Every weapon can be set to whatever armor pierce % we want, in fact there is a magical weapon that ignores armor entirely.

Reply #94 Top

.

Reply #95 Top

.

Reply #96 Top

Shouldn't Plate Armour be strong against Swords and weak against Blunt weapons?

Reply #97 Top

"But if the weapons are better at different things because of their abilities then they will therefore be better in certain situations"

 

 

Well of course. All weapons/units function like this. Archers are better in ranged situations and so forth...

 

 

I don't really care about armour types, weapons and all that malarky. I just want the battle map environment to MEAN something. If there are hills, make hills important in combat. Forests, rivers, flat lands, swamps, make them all matter. If a unit is effective against my plate, fine, I'll just try to hold that threatening unit up in a valley, or ambush them by the forests. Right now it is just move next to each other and exchange blows.

Reply #98 Top

I hate RPS.

Reply #99 Top

Quoting Kadrium, reply 94
how you can then also say that there is no such thing as units "strong against" a certain damage type. This sort of "strong vs damage type, weak vs damage type" is what I'm concerned about, and these two statements seem to conflict.

The illusion of strategy that 'strong vs/weak vs' interactions tend to create is something I desperately hope is avoided.

There is a difference between weapons that are better in some situations and a RPS design.  There are a lot of factors that go into creating a unit and damage type and defense bonuses are only one of them.  If everything else was equal, all units had the same accuracy, dodge, hp, move, combat speed, special attacks, spells, attack, defense, etc then I would agree that what we would have left would be a fairly dull implementation of RPS.  In fact if that was the only criteria then players would only use weapons with pierce damage.

Each weapon has its pros and cons, the weapon is one piece of the things that go together to make a unit.  Maces do more damage than any contemporary one handed weapons (they are only 1 point less than the best base 1 handed weapon in the game).  But they are weak against plate and they are heavy.  They are great against monsters and the contemporary chain mail troops.  But with that much weight you will probably need to be running strong troops (mmm... Trogs...) spending a few traits on strength or cutting back on the armor.

So yes, some weapons are better in some situations.  But there is a host of variables to consider, and +Defense is only one of them.

It is probably something that needs to be played with to be appreciated.  But like you I dont want a RPS design either.  I want players laboring on the unit design screen.  I want players to have favorite weapons and builds and arguing about why build x is overpowered, while other players argue that a different build is better.

Reply #100 Top

Quoting Kadrium, reply 95

If I have two units in a combat, one who does piercing damage, and one who does slashing damage... and you have two units, one who is strong against piercing damage and one who is strong against slashing damage... The decision of who fights who is made up for me. That's not poor play, that's a game mechanic giving me the illusion of strategy.

You're example is arbitrarily removing the actual strategy to prove your point.  You're ignoring the fact that the research you did, resources you sought out, units you designed, and your decision to explore (or not) your enemies capabilities are all parts of "strategy". 

If you hop in a jeep and try to run me over while I shoot at you, that's not RPS mechanics.  That's smart thinking on your part for having realized I wouldn't have a jeep and bringing one along.  Likewise, if my friend hops in his Apache and blows up you and your jeep, that's not RPS either.  That's also strategy.  I presumably researched Apaches, gathered the necessary resources, built it, and trained someone in flying it all because I thought it might give me an advantage in combat. 

E:FE is presumably a strategic game, which means strategy extends beyond the immediate tactical scenario.  You options in a tactical scenario are defined by what you do in the strategic game.