cRPG

cRPG => Beginner's Help and Guides => Topic started by: Arkonor on July 30, 2011, 11:55:17 pm

Title: Two hand vs Polearms
Post by: Arkonor on July 30, 2011, 11:55:17 pm
Can someone tell me what the mistery difference is between two hand weapons and polearms.

Polearm weapon stats seem across the table stronger. Examples.

Long War Axe
speed: 92
length: 123
thrust: 16 blunt
swing: 44 cut
cost: 9909
"Bonus against shields"

Then we find about the same price 2h and speed

Heavy Great Sword
speed: 92
length: 120
thrust: 22 pierce
swing: 39 cut
cost: 11701
"Secondary mode"(that is somewhat useless since you have 0 in polearms)

The sword is inferior in pretty much every way other then thrust which on both weapons is too low to be considered useful anyways.

So the axe gets polearm stuns, destoys shields and has 5 higher base swing damage.

Now I do realize the 2h swing animation is a bit longer so the 2h weapon probably has a bit more reach but still about the same. Plus it costs more.

Also the better examples is when the axes had secondary mode between the two. Then they got a minus to stats when you changed it to 2h mode.

So something is suppose to be "worse" having it a polearm. I just can't find what!

Arkonor
Title: Re: Two hand vs Polearms
Post by: Mala on July 31, 2011, 12:53:27 am
A it offtopic.
I have only pierce 21 with my sword, and i kill people with it, so i would not tell it useless.
Title: Re: Two hand vs Polearms
Post by: Tot. on July 31, 2011, 01:14:31 am
Quote from: Arkonor on July 30, 2011, 11:55:17 pm
I do realize the 2h swing animation is a bit longer

A bit? Polearm loses 20+ reach because of the grip, aka from any polearm lenght you substract 20 when measuring it against corresponding 2h. Great long axe has shorter actual reach than, ie, miaodao.
On top of that you have 2h swords thrust which adds 63 iirc range. With the fantasy swords (danish etc.) you can outrange proper cavalryman with heavy lance.

For me theres also something weird about polearm animations, its a matter of personal preference I guess but I seemed to glance a lot when I was trying to use polearm axes after using 2h for long time.

The only real advantage I'd say the polearm section has is vs. shielders and the pikes. Otherwise polearms are totally inferior to 2h and in any 1v1 I'd go with 2h.





Title: Re: Two hand vs Polearms
Post by: Mouse on July 31, 2011, 01:30:12 am
Comparing just two weapons is not a good way to compare two-handers against polearms. There are valuable weapons in both sets.

One thing many people do not know: the weapon length stat slows you down a little bit. If you want to move fast, you will be a bit quicker with a two-hander which has the same effective reach as a polearm.
Title: Re: Two hand vs Polearms
Post by: Thucydides on July 31, 2011, 04:01:48 am
You want to rape people in duels: 2h

you want to rape people in battle: polearm

Ultimately, once you get good at 2h or polearm it wont matter which one you pick, each has it's own peculiar benefits.
Title: Re: Two hand vs Polearms
Post by: Bazinga on July 31, 2011, 04:04:56 am
Quote from: Thucydides on July 31, 2011, 04:01:48 am
You want to rape people in duels: 2h

you want to rape people in battle: polearm

Ultimately, once you get good at 2h or polearm it wont matter which one you pick, each has it's own peculiar benefits.

Sums it up pretty good.
Title: Re: Two hand vs Polearms
Post by: Arkonor on July 31, 2011, 04:25:33 am
OK thanks for the replies. At least I know there is no hidden bonuses that I didn't know about :D
Title: Re: Two hand vs Polearms
Post by: Riddaren on July 31, 2011, 07:26:25 pm
All 2H weapons are pretty similar compared to polearms which have a much greater variety of weapons.
2H is a class in itself (duelist footman) but polearms can be used to play as cavalry, pikeman, axemen etc.

Also, polearms can be very useful even with low wpf (lances from horseback and pikes on foot). That is not the case with 2H.

I have played as a lancer (horse + lance) for like 10 generations with all points in polearm proficiency.
However I've just proven to myself that a dedicated lancer doesn't need more than 50 wpf in polearm. I'm doing just as good as I did with 160wpf.
But if you are going to use a polearm on foot you want all points in polearm of course.

This is my current build and I do really well both as a lancer and a 1h/shield-cav.
For the next gen I might get wm instead of shield and put all but 55 wpf in 2h (lancer +2h footman).

(click to show/hide)

And this:

Quote from: Tot. on July 31, 2011, 01:14:31 am
A bit? Polearm loses 20+ reach because of the grip, aka from any polearm lenght you substract 20 when measuring it against corresponding 2h. Great long axe has shorter actual reach than, ie, miaodao.
On top of that you have 2h swords thrust which adds 63 iirc range. With the fantasy swords (danish etc.) you can outrange proper cavalryman with heavy lance.

2H also got better speed and the animation makes it harder to block than polearms.
Title: Re: Two hand vs Polearms
Post by: Arkonor on July 31, 2011, 09:27:05 pm
Thanks for nice post Riddaren :D

Or Riddari as it is called in my language :P