Equipment buff suggestion.

[Tydeus]

Here are some numbers for polearms, rather than 1h.

Hafted Blade
weight: 1.5
difficulty: 13
speed rating: 94
weapon length: 132
thrust damage: 20 pierce
swing damage: 36 cut

Long Hafted Blade
weapon length: 153
weight: 2
difficulty: 15
speed rating: 92
weapon length: 153
thrust damage: 19 pierce
swing damage: 37 cut

Long War Axe
weapon length: 123
weight: 3
difficulty: 15
speed rating: 92
weapon length: 123
thrust damage: 16 blunt
swing damage: 44 cut

LHB to HB: 20 length, 1 cut damage for 2 speed. You can't even make a good argument for 10 length being equivalent to 1 speed. LWA to HB: 8 damage and bonus against shields for 9 length and 2 speed. So, 1 damage is equivalent to 1 length? It's just that bad of a weapon right now if you take the time to make the comparisons, let alone actually use them. Something like the following would be good.

Hafted Blade
weight: 1.5
difficulty: 13
speed rating: 97
weapon length: 132
thrust damage: 22 pierce
swing damage: 38 cut

There is a huge vacancy of quad-directional 94+ speed cut damage polearms.

Long Axe
weapon length: 115
weight: 3
difficulty: 13
speed rating: 93
weapon length: 115
thrust damage: 20 cut
swing damage: 42 cut

Long War Axe
weapon length: 123
weight: 3
difficulty: 15
speed rating: 92
weapon length: 123
thrust damage: 16 blunt
swing damage: 44 cut

Great Long Axe
weapon length: 125
weight: 3.5
difficulty: 16
speed rating: 91
weapon length: 125
thrust damage: 16 blunt
swing damage: 45 cut

Here's another one. 8 length, 2 cut for 1 speed between the long axe and the LWA. The Long Axe is also 7K gold, it's not exactly cheap.

To help create variety among polearm weapons, I suggest changing the LWA and LA to this:

Long Axe
weapon length: 115
weight: 3
difficulty: 13
speed rating: 97
weapon length: 115
thrust damage: 20 cut
swing damage: 41 cut

Long War Axe
weapon length: 123
weight: 3
difficulty: 15
speed rating: 94
weapon length: 123
thrust damage: 16 blunt
swing damage: 42 cut

Just a few, I still hate the stats of both staff and hoplite weapons.

[Rainbow]

The pole wep fawknard needs a buff.

[Pentecost]

I think the Hafted Blade and Long Hafted Blade would be fine where they are now statistically if they were actually decent (not the best in the game, just decent) horseback weapons rather than being among the worst horseback weapons in the game. They're the only polearms that you can swing from horseback, but they're inferior to both 1h and 2h in that department because their damage is mediocre, their animation sucks, and they don't have a stab or overhead, which are important to have for when you get reared.

They're honestly so bad for cav that I'm pretty sure I could get a better score/kdr from horseback by lancing with a Pitchfork than I could by swinging around the Hafted Blade or Long Hafted Blade from horseback.

[Tydeus]

Buff heirlooms for light armor or nerf them for heavy armor. Is light armor op? Not even close. Would this make light armor OP? Not a chance in hell. Would this help to increase versatility in game and add more viable options for players? Absolutely.

All those 10-20 body armor items, why not buff them so they actually do something? 15 armor is pointlessly low, just buff them to 20-35 for the sake of variety, if nothing else.

[Erzengel]

Sounds good. 

[Smoothrich]

I think it's more than just the stats, the soak/mitigation formulas are messed up. The 1h swords don't need to do more damage to light armor, as they already 2-3 shot archers/ninjas. But taking 10-15 swings to drop your typical strength 2h is totally absurd, since they can 1-2 shot you.

High cut (45+) is  too effective vs. high armor, but medium cut (30-35) is too poor vs high armor. It needs to be linearized a bit more. Pierce/blunt are probably OK against high armor now, but why not have them do crap damage to light armor? So there will be more of a downside to using them.

Paul/Urist broke the game irrevocably by buffing armor for no logical reason.  The gameplay of hitting heavy armor strength builds 10+ times with anything but top tier polearms and 2handers is terrible and is why (along with turn rate) you see every strat army just immobile in full plate poking and shooting each other in a slow retarded ballet of boring.

It was a huge nerf to every non mid 40s cut weapon that has rendered many useless  except the very most powerful, like Elite Scimitar.

I want to see that armor bullshit tweaked down more then anything.  I'd gladly have more likely glances at bad angles then less glances but a million hits on loomed medium armor with str builds/cheesy weapons doing disproportionate damage.

[Harald]

Make loomed items upkeep reflect the price displayed in the game equipment menu

We talked about that once but iirc most were not in favor with it. I like(d) it since it might make lower ranks than +3 more viable and increase the use of cheaper +3 items (but i'm not really into items stats and generally run around with cheap gear only so might be wrong on that).

[Pentecost]

(click to show/hide)

Paul/Urist broke the game irrevocably by buffing armor for no logical reason.  The gameplay of hitting heavy armor strength builds 10+ times with anything but top tier polearms and 2handers is terrible and is why (along with turn rate) you see every strat army just immobile in full plate poking and shooting each other in a slow retarded ballet of boring.

It was a huge nerf to every non mid 40s cut weapon that has rendered many useless  except the very most powerful, like Elite Scimitar.

I want to see that armor bullshit tweaked down more then anything.  I'd gladly have more likely glances at bad angles then less glances but a million hits on loomed medium armor with str builds/cheesy weapons doing disproportionate damage.

I completely agree with this post as far as Strategus goes. Every major power on both NA and EU can, at this point, field thousands of tickets worth of heirloomed 60-70+ body armor. Couple this with the fact that Strategus battles usually have a higher average level overall compared to normal battle, and anything that's not a pierce, blunt, or very high damage cut weapon is going to be very ineffectual, regardless of whether it is +3 or not.

The incident that stands out the most to me regarding this matter is when, during the siege of a village, I ended up in single combat with a guy wearing a Sugarloaf Helmet and Heraldic Transitional. I assume they were both +3, because it took no less than 2+ minutes and 8 or 9 hits to kill him from full health with a +3 Military Cleaver. The worst part though? I'm pretty sure he wasn't even full strength or anything. I've fought the same guy on battle before, and he actually has at least 12-15 agility judging from his top speed.

Also, who thought it would be a good idea to make armor more effective per point as you have more of it? By that I mean the huge jump in durability from 60->70 armor compared to 10->20 or 20->30? From the standpoint of game balance, wouldn't it be better the other way around?