Magic Items under CBM

[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

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by 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.

...

Based on what? The shield-using soldier carries more weight and has worse line of sight. Shields are useful in a line, but in a duel they're mostly useless.

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

Um, no. Please read: Archer Jones. The Art of Warfare in the Western World. More citations available upon request.

Swiss pikemen being undefeated for 100 years is a matter of historical record, and undefeated means undefeated. Why the hell are you talking about a 16th-17th century spanish troops when the age of pike dominance was pre-15th century...

Sombre: with apologies, now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

[Jarkko]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

Swiss pikemen being undefeated for 100 years is a matter of historical record, and undefeated means undefeated. Why the hell are you talking about a 16th-17th century spanish troops when the age of pike dominance was pre-15th century...

The rodeleros were utilised as anti pikemen units from early 16 century, they were used already in the Italian wars which was the golden age of swiss pikes. Later on pikemen, rodeleros and musketeers were combined to the spansih tercio.

Another question is of course why the romans, the archetype of short sword and shield troops, was able to beat the hellenistic spear and pike armies, as well all the barbarian invasions (the barbarians who used very mixed weapons, but are depicted by roman documents on many occasions to have used big two hander axes, swords and spears).

There is a reason why armies and duellists didn't use twohanded swords. They did suck if you wanted to stay alive. By making a twohander weapon as good as a one-hander+shield, something is going terribly wrong. Buff the attack and damage yes (the swiss pikes for example were very strong against other infantry when they attacked, but on defense against the rodeleros they were in serious trouble), but it doesn't hurt to have *some* realism in a fantasy game; two-handed weapons suck for defense, and that would be good to be given a thought

As for the suggested wraith sword stats, I think it is otherwise good except the defense bonus should at least not be *increased* from 3.

[Mardagg]

Originally Posted by Jarkko

As for the suggested wraith sword stats, I think it is otherwise good except the defense bonus should at least not be *increased* from 3.

Ah,on topic again
Yeah,thats the increase i am the most unsure about,too.
Thematically,though,i can justify it:
The Wraith sword is giving its wielder partial etherealness

Thats why i think,the Wraith Sword should offer pretty good Def compared to other 2h swords.
In addition,we got the Hell Sword already,for offense capability.

[rdonj]

Originally Posted by Jarkko

There is a reason why armies and duellists didn't use twohanded swords. They did suck if you wanted to stay alive.

This is not really true. A quick two handed weapon (mainly 2 handed swords and staves) is very effective at defense, due due to the reach advantage, surface area suitable to parrying, and the fact that they can actually be much faster than a one handed weapon, believe it or not. A decent sized shield IS superior, particularly if you have to fight in a line or absorb arrow fire, but a dueler with a 2-hand can be plenty agile and difficult to strike. Axes and maces, and especially flails are less suitable as defensive weapons imo, due to being less well balanced, heavier in general, and having less suitable surface area for parrying. A one handed weapon, in contrast, being shorter, lighter, slower, and carrying less force behind them are much worse for parrying and cover a smaller percentage of the body from attack, which is where the shield comes in.

So my personal take would be that two handed swords (and possibly staves) should in general have higher defense values than they currently have and make up a bit for the lack of having a shield. On the other hand, I do agree with you that they should not be as good defensively as a shield is. But considering just a plain old blacksteel tower shield, it would take a sword with a minimum of 12 defense on it to even approach the usefulness of it as a defensive weapon, not to mention a vine or gleaming gold shield.

I don't necessarily agree that the 2-hand needs to be as good as a 1-hand and shield (which would be very difficult considering all the nice effects some shields get), but it should definitely be an acceptable alternative for the cost. Currently I don't think that's the case.