The only thing 2h/long axes need is separate shaft and head damage.
Like I said, I haven't done the math, but 15 or 21 percent at only 15 armor? That's pretty damning.
I think axes are generally not as effective as other options in CRPG.
I'm all in for a light buff of some axes, especially the 2h axes as they are really rarely used.
Erm, what? Great axe isn't effective? That's sth new to me... :rolleyes:
But can anyone argue that it stands up to any of the greatswords? What with all their stabbiness, etc? Is the shield bonus really enough to make up for that, and the shorter length?
On siege I would take Great axe over any other 2h, including greatswords. 50 dmg, 96 speed and bonus against shields, yeah, not effective at all :wink:
50 cut, with no pierce alternative
The only reasonable thing I can imagine is giving weapons hybrid-damgetypes.
A small indicator next to the damage value that says: Damage 46 (20c / 15p / 11b ) for examle.
If that is too complicated, giving axes or head-heavy weapons a 50/50 mix of cut and pierce( or blunt ) in general would do also I guess. But since that would probably mean a lot of coding I doubt we will see any changes since M:BG probably consumes all the devs attention atm.
The hybrid damage type idea is as old as sin. I think Arch3r first posted it way back in Warband beta. A long time ago we discussed it for cRPG and iirc came to the conclusion that axes should have something in between of cut and pierce or cut and blunt. It was planned to implement it once the damage system gets reworked.
I dunno what the status is on that now. Maybe cmp still has it written on the old pizza boxes he uses as todo-lists. Other stuff is probably more important now. A quick-and-easy solution would be to give axes a flag that makes them use the arithmetic mean of cut and pierce soak/reduce armor parameters in damage calc. Might be a bit much with the recent axe damage buff though.
I mean look, it will kill people if you hit them with it, yeah. But can anyone argue that it stands up to any of the greatswords? What with all their stabbiness, etc? Is the shield bonus really enough to make up for that, and the shorter length?You spend 2 much time on forums and such shit like this stays in your head. Axes like great axe are 1-hit-victory. It means that if you accidentally hit the enemy he will shit his pants, especially if it's ~95 speed 49cut dmg great axe (+3). Axes are good if you know how to use them, like everything in this mod...
You spend 2 much time on forums and such shit like this stays in your head. Axes like great axe are 1-hit-victory. It means that if you accidentally hit the enemy he will shit his pants, especially if it's ~95 speed 49cut dmg great axe (+3). Axes are good if you know how to use them, like everything in this mod...
Just like to say, that in medieval Europe, the axe became nearly extinct as a weapon. Swords were the choice of the noble and knight class. Then obviously the "professional armies" that became more frequent used swords, maces and the such.
Based off that, the reason why axes are "inferior" to the other weapon classes is because they weren't continued through medieval technology. What I mean by this is that the nobles continued having stronger and harder steel for their blades, maces became smaller while staying the same weight, which made them a more attractive weapon. The point is, axes fell out of use BECAUSE they filled such a niche cap.
Think as a noble, why arm yourself with an axe when you can carry a high quality longsword, which is quicker? The answer would be to bash plate in, however, halfswording and maces are more effective (historically) against plate armours than axes.
Within the freeman/peasant classes, axes were unpopular to arm your soldiers with as they require a LOT more skill to use than say a mace. Imagine trying to always make the blade edge of the axe land rather than any area of a mace.
Personally, I'm happy with axes. They have a high cut, bonus vs shields, GREAT for small spaces. And for me, they fit historically too. I take axes when I'm low level/low on money but still want to dish out damage.
(...) Which means you are basically right, axes work better against armor than swords, but they don't penetrate it, either. What they do is break bones under the armor, IF you can get a straight hit (which is hard to do on curved plate).
Just like to say, that in medieval Europe, the axe became nearly extinct as a weapon. Swords were the choice of the noble and knight class. Then obviously the "professional armies" that became more frequent used swords, maces and the such.Hallberds, Poleaxes, Bardiches and voulges. Seems to me the axes evolved just fine as milita/guard level equipment.
Based off that, the reason why axes are "inferior" to the other weapon classes is because they weren't continued through medieval technology. What I mean by this is that the nobles continued having stronger and harder steel for their blades, maces became smaller while staying the same weight, which made them a more attractive weapon. The point is, axes fell out of use BECAUSE they filled such a niche cap.
Think as a noble, why arm yourself with an axe when you can carry a high quality longsword, which is quicker? The answer would be to bash plate in, however, halfswording and maces are more effective (historically) against plate armours than axes.
Within the freeman/peasant classes, axes were unpopular to arm your soldiers with as they require a LOT more skill to use than say a mace. Imagine trying to always make the blade edge of the axe land rather than any area of a mace.
Personally, I'm happy with axes. They have a high cut, bonus vs shields, GREAT for small spaces. And for me, they fit historically too. I take axes when I'm low level/low on money but still want to dish out damage.
(sorry to double post)
Then make it a hybrid cut/blunt instead of cut/pierce 8-)
That's actually not a bad suggestion. But not possible in cRPG, I fear.
...A quick-and-easy solution would be to give axes a flag that makes them use the arithmetic mean of cut and pierce soak/reduce armor parameters in damage calc....
Your math is flawed. Great Axe outdamages Bar Mace up to nearly 60 armor. Use this calculator:
http://infinitum.dyndns.org/crpg/calc.htm (http://infinitum.dyndns.org/crpg/calc.htm)
And look at the average damage values. I think it assumes a .25 second hold.
In fact, your entire argument is backwards. With the current armor soak values, high cut damage weapons (such as axes) outdamage their blunt/pierce counterparts up to absurdly high armor levels. This means that pole/2h players have virtually no reason to use blunt/pierce weapons. However, low-medium cut damage (1h swords) is almost entirely soaked up by even loomed medium armor, so 1h users almost have to use blunt/pierce weapons to damage anyone. For instance, I have 57 armor body armor, and can survive 5-6 hits from most 1h swords. However, I routinely get 1-shot by 2h+pole axes/loomed greatswords.
High cut weapons are the way to go right now, and axes are king in this department. Don't complain, enjoy your OP-ness.
I'm willing to accept that my math may be off, but I don't see how what you describe could be true, based on the info in the Mechanics thread... but oh well, if you're confident enough to stand behind it, I'll follow.