NanakoAC NanakoAC

Weapon types are not balanced

Weapon types are not balanced

Maces suck, quite frankly. So do axes. And bows.

The best weapons in the game are swords, spears, and magic-bolt-throwing staves. The reasoning:

 

Swords:

Swords often give a bonus to initiative, which is a huge thing in this game. being able to take more turns than your enemy, essentially equates to a massive amount of extra damage due to attacking more often, and it more than makes up for the relatively lower damage. Counterattacks are also amazing, they simply compound the above. A counterattack is essentially ANOTHER free turn, although one in which you don't get to choose what you do. What it means is that someone with a longsword can do 2-3x the overall damage compared to a mace user, simply due to hitting more often. 

Swords combine amazingly with shields. you can advance on the enemy and defend infront of them with your shield up, resuting in you taking far less damage from an incoming attack, and then getting a free counterattack against the enemy, who is NOT in a defensive stance. The athican longsword with it's two counterattacks is just overkill. Personally i think, to balance swords, the counterattack should either not be reliable (50% chance to trigger?), or counterattacking should delay your next turn by giving a temporary penalty to initiative. also lower the damage of all sword weapons.

 

Axes:

Axes sometimes have an initiative penalty, and we've already established that sucks. The backswing ability is kind of neat, but the AI doesn't use evasion enough for you to need it. and it doesn't compare to counterattacking. an axe is basically just an inferior sword, and they only have real usefulness against warg riders. Axes need more damage, more initiative, and perhaps counterattacks of their own. An ability to destroy shields might be fun too

 

Spears:

Spears have armour penetration, which is very useful in the lategame against plate armour. The immunity to counterattacks also makes them a good counter to swords. However, i feel that their damage just isn't high enough, and unless you're playing krax, the inability to use a shield with one kind of cripples you defensively. Given the long reach of a spear, i feel that spear type weapons should have an inherent initiative bonus (more than swords) or that they should be able to attack over a distance of 2 tiles, instead of 1. bonuses versus mounted units would be nice too, as the game has almost no incentive not to stick each and every soldier on a horse, as is. 

 

Maces:

Maces suck. The initiative penalty pretty much kills them, regardless of anything else. They do tend to have the highest base damage, but this doesn't matter much - spears are better and often hit harder, due to the armor penetration. Lategame is even worse, as plate armour has double defense against blunt weapons, which just drives another nail into the coffin.

The Bash ability is a nice idea in theory, but in practical terms it isn't very useful. Unless you're already overwhelmingly more powerful, the chance of it proccing is simply too low to be reliable, and if you ARE that powerful then you don't need to stun anyone, you're probably killing them in one hit anyway.  And as others have pointed out, being able to deny your enemy an occasional turn is pretty much negated by the initiative penalty giving YOU less turns, too. The only time that maces can really be useful is if you're teaming up against some huge target, such as a dragon. Get several people with hammers pounding on it, and you might be able to stunlock it into eternity, but that's assuming you don't get fireballed to death as the dragon takes three free turns at the start of the battle first.

I do have a simple suggestion to make maces better. Take away the Bash ability, and give them splash damage instead - dealing 50% of the attack's damage to all enemies within 1 tile of the target. This would give maces a purpose, a niche to fill, as crowd control.

 

Bows:

Bows suck. They do. The main reason is their low damage. Although a bow can be useful earlygame against bandits and darklings, all it takes is a suit of leather armour and a wooden shield to make bows virtually worthless. it feels like they're affected more strongly by defense, than other types of weapons. The tarth do have a bow with armour penetration, but it's right at the far end of the tech tree, which i feel is pointless. I think ALL bows need some amount of armor penetration if they're to be of much use at all, and less of an initiative penalty

 

Magic staffs:

The best troop weapon in the game by far. The ember/frost staff at 6 damage, and later the upgraded versions which do 13 damage iirc. These staves fire magical bolts of energy, and so they are ranged weapons. However, they are very difficult to resist, as they ignore both "defense" and "magic resist" entirely, dealing their full damage unless the target specifically resists that element. 

In all practical terms, they fill the same role as bows, they have the initiative penalty, and you shoot them from afar, and they have roughly equivilant damage. But magic staffs are like bows if they all had 100% armour penetration. They're miles better and there's just no comparison. Magic staves need nerfing badly. The easiest way i can see, is to make Magic Resist reduce the damage from them, in addition to elemental resistance. Having a bigger initiative penalty on them compared to bows would help to balance them, too

 

 

IMO,  you can steamroll any army in the game using ice staves and athican longswords, alongside some half decent armour on the sword troops. Two troop archetypes are all you need to dominate the world, even the spears are optional. The weapon types are not balanced at all, imo. to that end, i'd also say the kingdom of altar is overpowered, as they have the best unique variant of the best kind of weapon.  And don't even get me started on henchmen stacking auras.....

46,128 views 59 replies
Reply #26 Top

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).

Reply #27 Top

Quoting nates1984, reply 26
I play dense monster games on an epic pace. Backswing is incredibly useful. I can't speak for Axes once you get further into the tech tree, as I haven't played a game to completion yet, but they at least have a use early game. I haven't taken an axe to any units sporting heavy armor yet, so it could be totally useless at that point, I wouldn't know.

 

I agree with this one.  If you are 'Lucky' (+25% accuracy) or produce all of your army units from a town with training facilities (+10% minimum, ramps up fast) then you don't need backswing.  If you're recruiting from small hamlets and are stuck with basic 70% accuracy units, then backswing can really help a lot in the early game. 

One place I did go for axes in the late game was with a super-conclave I had built.  This thing had FIVE essence, and with enchantments on it my troops were coming out with +5 attack, +5 defense, +5 initiative, +5 health and maybe something else, I forget exactly.  However since the training buildings are only available in Fortresses they only had the base accuracy of 70%.  So I had them use axes, and they kicked ass.

 

 

Reply #28 Top

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

Reply #29 Top

I wanted to mention a factor which i don't think anyone else has mentioned here. First hit gives superiority. 

Damage in this game works by adding up the total damage of each man in a unit. If some of the men in a unit are dead, the unit's attack drops appriopriately. While this may be only an occasional  factor with smaller units (3 people) at the higher levels it becomes almost inevitable that at least 1-2 people in a 7-person unit will be killed with the first hit. This greatly reduces their capability to fight back.

This is one of the reasons the charge trait (and mounted units) are so powerful. Being able to get clear across the battlefield and hit the enemy before they hit you gives a clear advantage in power. In addition, if you have high initiative (like from a sword bonus) and you can hit the enemy before they even get a turn, then they won't be in defensive mode, and thus will have less defense. 

My point here is that initiative is Very Important. The fact that swords give it is a major factor in why they're so powerful.

 

 

Another thought, i notice everyone is mainly talking about troops. Does anyone think it's at all worth considering weapon balance for champions and heroes? When a unit is nurtured, and gains a high inherent accuracy, traits to boost damage, useable skills like stun, or armor piercing from shadow strike ability, then the advantages from other weapons start to fade away. A hero is a powerhouse, and in some ways the weapon they use is merely a conduit for projecting that power (rather than the source of it). In this case, the counterattacks and initiative bonuses just give them more opportunities to use their power, and make them the clear choice. If there's a bias towards swords for ordinary soldiers, there's a bias several times larger towards them when it comes to heroes. Does anyone ever not use swords on their melee champions ?

Perhaps this is how things should be. Swords do have that romantic notion, and as someone mentioned, they often were the weapons of nobles and rich folk.  Perhaps some thought could be given to a means to make swords less useful for grunts, maybe some level dependant bonuses.

 

As an aside, i do think there's a high level balance issue, in that most of the best legendary weapons are swords. things like the shadow/berserker's broadsword, boreal blade and heartseeker. Not to mention the 42-damage greatswords like void scythe. Curgen's maul and the lightning longbow are about the only non-sword magic weapons that i care to use on a hero. 

Reply #30 Top

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.

Reply #31 Top

Quoting NanakoAC, reply 30
Another thought, i notice everyone is mainly talking about troops. Does anyone think it's at all worth considering weapon balance for champions and heroes?

I know that is whack, but hero balance is a chapter in and of itself, I have not spoken about it because I disagree with the current trait setup, and choices in multipliers.
Path of the mage is a perfect example, it will multiply damage by a percentage, while Path of the warrior just gives +3. Early game this equals somewhat a similar bonus except you don't have mana for your mage, lategame this 50% additional damage is devastating compared to my warrior upping damage from 24 to 27.

Currently mages take the bacon what power-heroes go anyways, so all heroes wears daggers anyhoo. ^_^

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Reply #32 Top

Quoting Kongdej, reply 32


Currently mages take the bacon what power-heroes go anyways, so all heroes wears daggers anyhoo.

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

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?

Reply #33 Top

Quoting NanakoAC, reply 33
Maybe giving them significant initiative bonuses, but making more spells have longer casting durations?

Dont touch initiative, but give staffs spell mastery. (that would hopefully make you lower the normal spell mastery value), but this is a discussion for a different thread.

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Reply #34 Top

Quoting Lord, reply 31
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. 

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.

 

Reply #35 Top

I have to say I am loving this thread because while I have been tackling my armor/weapon mod i have come across the same issues but didn't know how to tackle them alone.  You guys are throwing out some awesome food for thought on how I might be able to work on some of these issues.  One thing I will say for weapon balance is this, the armors, in my opinion were not balanced right so it throws the weapons way off for power.  Plate being the biggest problem with its current blunt defense bonus when it is actually one of the few things that can effectively damage plate armor, I have been attempting to research as well as I can which damages work best against different armor types.  

I can't say for monsters but for armors it basically works like this; leather is strong versus blunt but crap versus cutting and piercing, chain is very strong versus cutting but weak versus blunt and piercing, and plate is strong versus piercing and cutting and somewhat weak against blunt.  With this in mind blunt becomes more viable as its damage is not being negated as hard as before leaving the problem of the axe.  This is the hardest nut to crack as it really doesn't have a niche except possibly as mentioned before of possibly having a sunder armor effect.  This would reduce cutting defense or all defenses which would make it a useful weapon against monsters/soldiers with high defense that you are going to be in a long fight with.  Anyhow that my 2 copper on this problem.

Sorry if this isn't as clear, running on only 4 hours sleep and its exam week (again).

Reply #36 Top

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.

Reply #37 Top

Ok so here is what I am looking at for different weapons for effects/damages/ and damage types.  Critique away or make suggestions.

Weapon Tier Hands Weight Speed   D [B] D [C] D [P] D[M] D(Total)   Gildar Training Metal Crystal Special
Club 0 1   -4   5 0 0 0 5           Bash
Staff 0 2   0   4 0 0 0 4           (-1) Chance to crit
                                 
Rapier 2 1   2   0 0 4 0 4           Crit +3, Dodge +6
Short Bow 2 2   -4   0 0 5 0 5           Ranged, Fast light attack
Short Spear 1 1   1   0 0 7 0 7           Armor Pierce (25%), Immune to Counter
Pike 3 2   -2   0 0 9 0 9           Armor Pierce (50%), Immune to Counter
Long Bow 3 2   -8   0 0 9 0 9           Ranged, Slow hard attack
Dagger 0 1   3   0 2 2 0 4           Crit +9
Short Sword 1 1   1   0 3 3 0 6           Crit +3, Dodge +3
Broadsword 1 1   1   0 5 0 0 5           Crit +6, Dodge +3
Sycthe 2 2   -1   0 5 5 0 10           Trip Chance
Hand Axe 1 1   -1   0 6 0 0 6           Backswing, Armor Pierce (10%)
Longsword 2 1   0   0 7 0 0 7           Dodge +6
Battle Axe 2 1   -2   0 8 0 0 8           Backswing, Armor Pierce (20%)
Greatsword 3 2   -2   0 10 0 0 10           (+1) Counterattack, Cleave
Great Axe 3 2   -3   0 11 0 0 11           Backswing,  Armor Pierce (30%),Sunder Armor
Warhammer 1 1   -1   6 0 0 0 6           Bash
Mace 2 1   -2   8 0 0 0 8           Bash
Maul 3 2   -4   12 0 0 0 12           Bash, Knockback

Tiers mean when in the research tree they become available.  0 means you start with it, 1 is first research in weapon line and so on.  Rapier and scythe I have to add into the game, I can pull some of the art from E:WoM when I get that far.  Also To solve the problem of counterattacks, remove it from all weapons, make it a trainable skill.  Also remove 1 handed spear from defensive trait but add +1 counter to it.

Reply #38 Top

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).

Reply #39 Top

Axes don't have to be as good as swords, they need to be balanced by needing less resources and time to train.  There are other ways to balance them out.

Reply #40 Top

Quoting Lord, reply 40
Axes don't have to be as good as swords, they need to be balanced by needing less resources and time to train.  There are other ways to balance them out.

 

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.

Reply #41 Top

I'm not sure how you can not agree. If you can produce an axe as good as a sword for less metal, and less production, the axe is going to end up being the superior choice every time. It may be a fantasy game but some things should be kept within the ream of  rationality. The weapon teirs reward good research and dedication to military technologies. What should be limiting you is strategic resources. If you have all the iron (or are willing to buy it through diplomacy) AND you can afford to spear metal after your armour purchases, then you should be 'rewarded' with swords. If you're a little light on iron you'll need to take a cheaper approach being axes, which should be able to compete with swords, but not be as good them in every way. It forces players in this situation to make decisions on where to spend their resources, on better armour and worse weapons, or on better weapons and worse armour. In my current game I've found myself using axes on my cheap 'militia' units because they do decent damage, and with backswing I can forgive their lack of training. The lazy initiative means they act AFTER my better, stronger, death warded  knights (Swords being the choice here) who can take the brunt of the initial damage and survive.

Transferring armour piercing to axes is a fine choice, and other games have done defense reduction/mitigation on bladed heavy weapons (I think in Dwarf Fortress the natural attributes of the axe, like the weight, is enough to rip through lesser armour). However creating a new niche for the spear is pretty hard. While it would make sense that the pike had a 2 tile range, those bad boys could be damn long, the rest of the spears don't quiet fit. And with only 9 units in an army having units hide behind others is just asking you to be flanked or shot to pieces by archers. We have no pilums in the game (Though I'd love a Throwing Axe/Pilum upgrade to the throwing knifes). A halberd could have a mounted bonus, as this is what it was designed to do. And something like a Partisan could have a dodge bonus. And a spetum could have a crit bonus. Which might be part of the problem. Developed spears were usually specific tools. You wouldn't go trying to parry a sword blow with a pike, since that wasn't their 'use', you'd lose the pike.

I think a single style of spear would have to be focused on to prevent the previous styles becoming redundant. Like using a dagger instead of a shortsword. Only if the dagger was replaced with a 'mail breaker'. And you wanted the mail breaker... but compared to the shortsword it was a waste of a unit slot in your army.

Reply #42 Top

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?

 

 

Reply #43 Top

Quoting Lord, reply 40
Axes don't have to be as good as swords, they need to be balanced by needing less resources and time to train.  There are other ways to balance them out.

^^^^ This.

Quoting NanakoAC, reply 41
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.

No weapon should be better in all situations (objectively better).  Better in most situations?  Sure, as long as it has some drawbacks.  In the case of swords, it should be training time, material cost, and weakness against heavy armor.  Why would being able to use longswords be a reward if it was mechanically balanced with every other weapon?

Quoting NanakoAC, reply 41
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.

What happens when you are pinned in a corner without access to metal?  The guy that has metal should just be able to steamroll you?  Designing cheap, quick to produce units in higher quantity is what a good player would do, if the game allows.  What would you have them do, start a new game because they got a suboptimal start?

Quoting NanakoAC, reply 41
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.

...or just make spears 1-handed, the way they were used historically.  A 2-handed spear isn't a spear, it's a pike (or another of the nearly infinite pole-arm variations).

Reply #44 Top

Quoting stage62, reply 42
I'm not sure how you can not agree. If you can produce an axe as good as a sword for less metal, and less production, the axe is going to end up being the superior choice every time 

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.

Reply #45 Top

swords and spears are good right now (relatively, I think).


Axes and Maces and Hammers on the other hand ....

 

(ranged weapons are also handled well)

Reply #46 Top

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?

Reply #47 Top

Well this kind of threads are good to extract ideas, but it is hard to get to a point everybody is satisfied.

Because each one has a concept of what a weapon is for, how much can it cost to make, and how much time can be necessary to train. At le4ast, with standar (non-magical) weapons.

So, we try to give reasons for:

- Justify that a type of weapon may be better than other, because of their properties (extension, easy to use...) Call an expert in History for that.

- Forgetting that, and just focus in give balance, as it is said, that each weapon has a use, and no weapon is better in all situation.

So let's see this: remove counterattack from swords. Now, we still have a fast weapon with good damage, but not so OP.

The problem is that, once you get used to counterattack, now you don't want to lose it. But swords should not have it. At least, not all. Maybe only daggers should, as they are light, small and easy to use.

counterattack is what is breaking the weapon balance now. Get it out, only for very special items, and maces, spears and axes will gain presence.

 

Reply #48 Top

Quoting deathcoy, reply 47
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

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

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Reply #49 Top

Quoting SOLOSOL, reply 48
Well this kind of threads are good to extract ideas, but it is hard to get to a point everybody is satisfied.

I think you will find that some of us will be satisfied if we just see atleast 1 or 2 proper uses for maces, and a use for trained squads, for axes. So I will atleast consider them once in a while.

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Reply #50 Top


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?