Equipment Overhaul

[willy]

I'm not gonna say that heavy armor would slow someone down a great deal, 25-60 pounds evenly distributed isn't harsh, but I will say that a narrow vision helm and bulky grieves would probably be a bitch to try and charge an enemy in dense brush/brambles (with trees all around for quicker troops to flank from). I just don't imagine heavy infantry being as effective in forests where they wouldn't be able to form a solid line and engage an orderly pitched battle.


Think of Teutoburg forest. Not an ideal case (experience, familiarity with the grounds, and other things factoring more than Germanic light vs Roman heavy), but if you abstract the battles in your head you get the idea. 60 pounds isn't much if you are hiking or for a short sprint, but climb a tree with it (or try to hide with reflective surfaces on you).


Wouldn't want modifiers to be 'make or break' type things, though. Just little advantages that add up or can be capitalized on.

[De-Legro]

I'm not gonna say that heavy armor would slow someone down a great deal, 25-60 pounds evenly distributed isn't harsh, but I will say that a narrow vision helm and bulky grieves would probably be a bitch to try and charge an enemy in dense brush/brambles (with trees all around for quicker troops to flank from). I just don't imagine heavy infantry being as effective in forests where they wouldn't be able to form a solid line and engage an orderly pitched battle.


Think of Teutoburg forest. Not an ideal case (experience, familiarity with the grounds, and other things factoring more than Germanic light vs Roman heavy), but if you abstract the battles in your head you get the idea. 60 pounds isn't much if you are hiking or for a short sprint, but climb a tree with it (or try to hide with reflective surfaces on you).


Wouldn't want modifiers to be 'make or break' type things, though. Just little advantages that add up or can be capitalized on.

Again it is going to depend on tactics. If you have ambushes that can negate the advantage of heavier armour. Of course you are now talking an entirely different form of combat then general battle. Pitched battles within forest are going to favour those with shorter weapons in general. Solid battle lines are less important then you think here, since you aren't fighting against an enemies battle line either. What counts in forest combat (and I am generalising here since my own military training extends to jungle warfare not forest, but many concepts remain) is the ability to fight in loose formations, ie the training and awareness to maintain close proximity to your comrades. Most assuredly narrow visors would limit that, but then narrow visors presented awareness and vision problem in all terrain and by no means were universal among heavy infantry.

Like I said, its not that in certain cases, under certain conditions and certain enemy troop compositions that forest would not confer advantages, simply that it is rubbish to say that light infantry in all circumstances gain some sort of advantage from forest.

[willy]

Again it is going to depend on tactics. If you have ambushes that can negate the advantage of heavier armour. Of course you are now talking an entirely different form of combat then general battle. Pitched battles within forest are going to favour those with shorter weapons in general. Solid battle lines are less important then you think here, since you aren't fighting against an enemies battle line either. What counts in forest combat (and I am generalising here since my own military training extends to jungle warfare not forest, but many concepts remain) is the ability to fight in loose formations, ie the training and awareness to maintain close proximity to your comrades. Most assuredly narrow visors would limit that, but then narrow visors presented awareness and vision problem in all terrain and by no means were universal among heavy infantry.

Like I said, its not that in certain cases, under certain conditions and certain enemy troop compositions that forest would not confer advantages, simply that it is rubbish to say that light infantry in all circumstances gain some sort of advantage from forest.

Oh, I agree that lighter gear wouldn't always help in the real world. I'm more talking about a general "what can be helpful" in the real world...then a way to translate that as a minor game mechanic that gives the world flavor. Where the battles are calculated for us (and with some randomization), all the 'tactics and formations' of battle are RP after the fact. A mechanic that gives skirmishers and non-shinies a (minor) boost would simply help promote more flavored variety in how the dice can fall for combat. XP already kind of covers combat awareness/training, but that would be a great modifier for forests.

[De-Legro]

Oh, I agree that it helps in the real world all around. I'm more talking about a general "what can be helpful" in the real world...then a way to translate that as a minor game mechanic that gives the world flavor. Where the battles are calculated for us (and with some randomization), all the 'tactics and formations' of battle are RP after the fact. A mechanic that gives skirmishers and non-shinies a (minor) boost would simply help promote more flavored variety in how the dice can fall for combat. XP already kind of covers combat awareness/training, but that would be a great modifier for forests.

In the current combat engine tactics and formations are RP. That is not the plan moving forward though.

[Andre]

Camels are fine for dessert warfare, and make decent mounts for archers. They are less useful for lance units or indeed sword cavalry due to their annoying gait, but they make do. Supposedly horses will shy away from their smell, though I did note recently on my way out to a remote sewage treatment plant a property that had both horses and camel in the same paddock. Anyway my point is unless we want to replicate the large scale deserts of North Africa and the Arab states, camels are of limited use compared to horses.

War elephants would be interesting, at least if we implemented the fact that they are almost as likely to demolish your own army as they are that of your enemy.

I believe that horses are frightened by the smell of camels mainly because they are not used to it, not because it is innately frightening to horses. Also, I don't think camels actually have more durability than horses, I can't remember where but I read that they are actually less durable than Destriers and Coursers. I'd mainly put camels as a cheaper and weaker (offensivly atleast) alternative to horses that you can recruit in scrublands.

[Andrew]

Pikes and Halberds were specifically designed to make it easier to force-dismount mounted units, and halberds were also designed to offer their users some bonuses when fighting against swords in melee, hence their bonuses.

Javelins, and to a lesser degree bows, will be able to destroy shields.

I'd like to work in camels offering an initial bonus against horses, but have it be removed over time, but that would mean I have to either start tracking horses or build it into the soldier's info somehow. As for camels, I'll probably restrict them to desert, at least initially. I'm not against turning generic mount categories (horse, camel, etc.) into resources either. It'd be kind of interesting actually to have a resource that wasn't necessarily tied to a region, but required a starter stock.

Right now people tend to choose things based on what is the best. I'd like to create situations where what is "best" depends entirely on what the enemy is using. Hence pikes and halberds being able to force dismounts, ranged weapons being effective against shields, etc.

[Andre]

Why not just make axes very effective against shields? Would give some additional reason to use axes rather than spears or better even. And as others have said, longbows are definetly usable on horseback, and so are crossbows, but I feel like they should recieve a slight debuff on horses, or shortbows should recieve a bonus maybe. That way people might consider using shortbows aswell.

[Andrew]

I've reordered the weapons listed above to account for relative powers.

I plan on having the higher-end of these restricted to larger settlements (4000 maybe?), which buildings that will very quickly fall apart if population isn't maintained. Mid-tier weaponry will probably be restricted to the 1500 or 2000 pop range.

Swords, of all types, as well as clubs, will also confer a small defense boost, as they can be used to block attacks more easily than other weapons. Not sure if this will result in higher defense power or be part of the hit calculation though. Depending on what weapon they are defending against, it may even result in disarmament of one side or the other.

[Andre]

I don't see the reason to have a Morning star and a mace really.


Also I still don't get why you'd make pikes not have a defensive bonus that is larger than halberd but an offensive one that is lower, with some kind of bonus against horses themselves unlike halberds which have a bonus against dismounting someone on a horse.


I also wouldn't make the axe weaker than a peasant flail. Honestly I'd even go as far as to make the axe stronger than a spear, but with the spear possibly having a small defensive bonus that is smaller than the halberds and pikes.


Also what about a throwing axe that might be more effective against shields than a javelin but less effective against armor and possibly have less reach than a javelin if that is added ever. Potentially we could also add specific battle axes which would be very powerful but possibly less effective against shields than a normal axe. I'd put battle axes somewhere around the swords strength, maybe under or above it.


Flails could possibly also be an alternative to axes, where similarly to battle brothers they gain a bonus to hitting people behind shields, but not the shields themselves.

[Andrew]

Pike: a very long thrusting spear. Generally a spear becomes a pike when it is too long to be wielded in one hand.
Halberd: consists of an axe blade topped with a spike mounted on a long shaft. It always has a hook or thorn on the back side of the axe blade for grappling mounted combatants.
(Pulled these definitions straight from wikipedia, if you're curious)

Might even remove the halberd defensive bonus. Pikes and Halberd (and spears) will still get bonuses against cavalry, but Halberd specifically will get a bonus to force cavalry to dismount.

[Andre]

I'd still keep the defensive bonus. Also what of giving spears a small bonus against horses, halberds a medium bonus against horses and a big bonus to dismounting, and pikes a big bonus against horses and a small bonus to dismounting? With pikes having high defense and medium attack, halberds having high attack and little defense, and spears having medium attack and little defense. This way halberds and pikes have about equal amounts of stats, but distributed so that they perform different purposes, with pikes being defensive weapons to kill horses, and halberds being offensive weapons to dismount riders. And spears being a more accesible choice that can combat horses slightly better than other weapons aswell.

[Constantine]

Instead of weapon bonuses I suggest armour mitigation or special effects on weapons.
For example, spear mitigates the chunk of opponents armour value granted by a horse. Mace mitigates a lot of armour granted by body armour. Halberd mitigates some horse armour and some body armour. Axe has a 50% chance to break an opponent's shield and mitigates a bit of armour too. Javelin has a chance to ruin a shield or instantly kill a horse.
Thiss way broadsword, while offering the most raw power, won't necessarily be top weapon for every situation. Like in real life - swords were great for the general battle but when pummeling each other knights often switched to picks, hammers and flails.

[Andrew]

Melee Items (Weapons):

• Club - Think "improvised weapons"
• Axe - Bonus against wood shields
• Peasant Flail - Purely wooden, more powerful than a club. Cheap, breaks easily.
• Spear - Bonus against cavalry
• Pike - Like halberd, but no defense boost
• Halberd - Mostly offensive, but slight defense boosts, bonus to dismounting targets
• Mace - Bonus against plated armors
• Sword
• Morning Star - A mace with pointy bits, no more bonus, but better overall (even when accounting for the mace's bonus)
• One-handed Flail - "Ball and chain" weapon, that can harm it's user when it misses. Powerful though.
• Broadsword

Ranged Items (Weapons)

• Slings - Super cheap, not very strong at all though.
• Shortbow - Small bonus on horseback
• Javelins - Double as a melee weapon in a pinch. No longer single use.
• Crossbow - Single shot if mounted.
• Longbow - Small penalty on horseback

Armour (in order of defense provided)

• Cloth Armor - Light Infantry
• Leather Armor - Light Infantry
• Scale Armor - Medium Infantry, no more metal requirement
• Chain Mail - Medium Infantry
• Mail and Plate - Heavy Infantry
• Plate Armor - Heavy Infantry

Mounts

• Saddle Horses - Really, more intended for work on a farm than part of a military.
• Coursers
• War Horses (Destriers) - More likely to survive blows
• Camels - When we introduce larger scale deserts.
• ?Elephants? - Very powerful, VERY dangerous.

Equipment

• Round Shield - Cheap, wood shield.
• Kite Shield - Standard, wood shield.
• Heater Shield - Metal shield.
• Pavise - Bonus against ranged attacks for infantry, no bonus in melee. Infantry only.
• Dagger - Replaces short swords
• ?Bandages? - Increases recovery chance[/l][/l][/l][/l]
  

I'd like to revive discussion on these, in hopes of, so that it can be added in the current system, even if the bonuses for everything probably won't be added at the same time.
Thoughts?

[Demivar]

Bonuses vs cavalry, or mounts, or ranged attacks, or armour are all total no-nos in my book. M&F has a battle resolver which tends to be fair most of the time, and how to do better than your enemy is also fairly clear, and there's a bit more depth for if you want think harder about what exactly you're doing. As soon as we add counters and bonuses vs different types of things, the game will become far more rock/paper/scissorsey and it will focus even more on micromanagement.


As for classifying things as heavy and not heavy, it would all depend on what exact time period M&F is based around to determine how people would see heaviness. However, leather/shield troops count as mediums and chainmail armoured troops are classified as heavies, if we changed this it would cause massive impacts.

[Andrew]

It's based on whichever time period we want it to be based on. I'm more of the type that we should make it loosely based on a time period, but include things we find interesting or contribute to the game.

The goal isn't to make it require micromanagement, it's to make it have depth. Right now, the battle system is barely a puddle. There's not really much to it, and it's kind of boring.

And chaning the troop classification would, realistically, only impact people's egos. I never said I'd change the values of existing weaponry, except maybe the Javelin if we make it multi-use.