Magic Items under CBM

[Sir_Dr_D]

In comparing the defense values you would get with the stats I gave , to thsoe of a shield, I think Jarkko may right. You would get almost the same defense value with a shield, that you would with a two handed weapon. I think that at most the defense should be raised by 1 instead of 2, if at all. Note that those weapons I listed are all const-0. So they should only be compared to const-0 single handed weapon and shield combos.

[Mardagg]

For a start, I like your changes.
Some general thoughts:

A problem with the 2handed Bane Blade weapon is,that its used by Bane`s and Bane Lords.

Also,its important to consider the constr level and the gem cost,especially when altering level 0,5 gem weapons.

Personally i would prefer to agree on the exact changes for the Wraith Sword first.Then we would have a nice and more expensive weapon to be compared to for balancing reasons.

Wraith Sword:

15 Dgems,Path 3D( 25Dgems,4D before)
Construction Level: 6

Damage- 16 (+7)
Attack- 4 (+2)
Defense- 5 (+2)
Length- 3

Partial Life Drain

overpowered?

@Jarkko

I thought the same about the defense bonis before,but Sombre had a good point about that.
I now think,some increase in def for the 2h swords,only the swords,are ok. Especially for the Wraith Sword,i think its thematic anyhow.

[militarist]

About 2H swords.... I don't really think that doubling damage of the same 1H sword is a good idea. In such case 1H will do MUCH MORE damage on more unit than 2 hits by 1H swords because of game mechannics. And it will greatly change the game. SCs, who bet on protection will be much easier to fight against. I agree though that 2H weapong should be improved, I almost never use it now.

When we forge a weapon agains PD, we do AoEs.
The question is, when we will use 2H weapon?
It's obvious that mostly against SCs and nations with heavy protected units (if he will be lucky to get to them).

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by Jarkko

I don't like the two handers getting too high Defense bonuses. They already are longer and thus will be able to repel, and they are not IMO so "agile" that it would warrant an increas on Defence stats. I mean, you are not supposed to be as good defending with a two-hander as you are with a one-hander + shield, right?

I'd like to suggest letting the Defense numbers be as is, just fix the the damage and attack values (and the charge bonuses for spear type weapons, I like that idea).

Which context? In a duel or in line formation?

In line (ie, as a unit): I will note the swiss pikemen were the premier military unit for over a century following the introduction of the pike. So certain were they of their defensive advantages they didn't even wear greaves. Pikes certainly gave tremendous defensive advantage, and the poor excuse that is repel doesn't even begin to account for this.

Duel: A 2h sword is arguably superior to a 1h sword in a duel on the defensive. The 2h Sword is more maneuverable because it has 2 hands providing impetus, and capable of changing direction more rapidly. Especially as a well-made 2 handed blade didn't weigh anywhere near double the weight of a 1h sword. (Unless you want to talk about stuff like rapiers - but rapiers are rather past the tech levels involved, and useless against heavier armors). Parrying would have been a more effective and advantageous counter in a duel than blocking with a shield - in a parry you retain control over directionality (can direct your opponent's blade) and you don't give up line of sight to his weapon. Obviously, I'm assuming the person holding the weapon understands how to use it.

[Jarkko]

Dunno, two handed weapons should definitively IMO not have higer Defense value than the basic Short Sword. FWIW in a fantasy game, short swords were historical used exactly because they were good *defensive* weapons, while longer swords were better offensively put poor of defense (because even continents move faster...). With the suggestions above the whole historical (again, for what it is worth in a fantasy game) truth get turned upside down, and that feels very very odd.

[Jarkko]

Squirrel, assuming equal skill, the one wielding the more agile weapon wins. Which is why rapiers were the duellists weapon of choice.

Pikes were introduced as a defensive weapon against cavalry charge. In melee with sword wielders the pikemen always were at a disadvantage. When bayonets were invented and attached to guns, the pikemen disappeared fast, as they were simply no match for the bayonet charging infantry.

[militarist]

One more difference between 2H and 1H - 2H has more reasons to be AP and AoE. Ideally, if 1H weapon could never be AoE at all. If we imagine AoE short sword, which does AoE by fire for example, it should be easy to damage yourself. On the contrary, its easy to imagine a big guy with a huge sword, which looks like AoE machine.

Also, there can be different aims of equipping your SC. And can giving him 2H, you take 2 slots from him. And that's painful, getting to account that for SC (which are frequently big and expansive, and some gems also could be invested) ,good shield can be MORE IMPORTANT than weapon, especially for units with no built-in shield. So, it 2H has either add some def to compensate it, or really should worth some strategy, which would make it really competitive against fire band+good shield.

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by Jarkko

Squirrel, assuming equal skill, the one wielding the more agile weapon wins. Which is why rapiers were the duellists weapon of choice.

Pikes were introduced as a defensive weapon against cavalry charge. In melee with sword wielders the pikemen always were at a disadvantage. When bayonets were invented and attached to guns, the pikemen disappeared fast, as they were simply no match for the bayonet charging infantry.

A rapier was an excellent weapon because (1) it was *long* and agile, so didn't give up reach advantage, (2) heavy armor was no longer worn, especially not for duels, during the rapiers time of predominance. So the rapier didn't have to deal with armor penetration.

A hand-and-a-half (bastard) sword has a substantial reach advantage over, say, a short sword, and given two equally skilled swordsmen i'd expect the bastard sword to win. Its also about the same weight per hand used. If the short sword user also adopts a shield, he's taking a weight disadvantage and a line of sight disadvantage. (The bastard sword, because 2 hands provide 2 possible fulcra, is also more unpredictable in where it strikes). (Edit: a bastard sword is pretty agile when used well. Think of a katana - certainly depicted as an elegant weapon - and a bastard sword is the same weight and approximate size).

You are almost totally wrong on the pike.

Pikes were advantageous against cavalry, sure, but the swiss pikemen were the dominant military force for a century because they outperformed all other heavy infantry as well. No other weapon system compared to them until the introduction of mass gun formations.

At that point the pike became a cavalry defense system for gunners, because there was no such thing as dedicated melee assault troops anymore. Such a weapon system was useless because it was insufficiently fast to close under fire.

The pike was retired with the bayonet, not because the bayonet was better in melee, but because the bayonet was *sufficient* as an anti-cavalry charge weapon since cavalry was now using sabres instead of lances, and using bayonets let every soldier carry a firearm, thus increasing firepower without needing to increase manpower. Pikes would have massacred a bayonet charge, but withered under rifle fire.

[Jarkko]

Squirrel, a short sword would always be used with a shield. There is absolutely no way a man wielding a two hander would ever win a duel against a shield using soldier.

You are also exactly wrong on Pikemen The bane of pikemen were the rodeleros, the sword and shield wielding infantry. Please get your facts right

[Sombre]

Well pikes certainly didn't rise to dominance as an anti cavalry tactic. They were superb against infantry too, you only have to look at history.

This is a pretty major diversion from the point of the thread though. Pikes under cbm have decent att bonus and dmg, which actually does make them pretty good anti cav weapons, which is nice. I think the magic pike should be high att and high damage, really. I can't see what else could be done with it.