Maces and Clubs

[Rostam_e_Iran]

Two questions really. first, why do these weapons have suck low AP (armor Penetration)? These types of weapons were used to deliver powerful blows, especially to counter heavy armor. Yet in ATW some clucbs have an AP as low as 1 O.o.
second, there's a lack of mace wielding cavalry (and yes I'm going to get crucified for this, but), specifically the Sassanids. They were widely used by the heavier cavalry of the Sassanids most notably the savaran cavalry. There's even references in the Shahnameh of Persian heavy cavalry dueling it out with each other with maces and small round shields.

I guess it's an improvement form the none existent mace in R2, but I wish they had more of an impact in ATW.

Anyway what do you guys think of the AP attributed to maces and clubs in the game?

[Sharpe]

Two questions really. first, why do these weapons have suck low AP? These types of weapons were used to deliver powerful blows, especially to counter heavy armor

Maces are not designed to pierce armour, but to cause massive internal damage to the wearer via kinetic force.

Source:

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Mace_Etiquette



Jokes aside what I said is mostly true. Maces are a crushing, not a piercing weapon. You can still break someones arm without piercing their armour. Internal trauma is the goal of a mace, not bleeding.

[Ulfgard the Unmaker]

Maces are not designed to pierce armour, but to cause massive internal damage to the wearer via kinetic force.

Source:

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Mace_Etiquette



Jokes aside what I said is mostly true. Maces are a crushing, not a piercing weapon. You can still break someones arm without piercing their armour. Internal trauma is the goal of a mace, not bleeding.

Semantics. The AP value doesn't determine damage to the armor itself, it's the amount of damage received by the poor guy on the other end which bypasses the armor's protection. Logically, then, they should have pretty hefty AP.

[stevehoos]

Maces were used against amour, not for there piercing ability but for blunt force trauma. Not quite sure what you are getting at Sharpe? Internal bleeding is far worse obviously. A sword would not have been as affective against strong armor, they should have lower AP against Armour than maces.

[Sharpe]

Maces were used against amour, not for there piercing ability but for blunt force trauma. Not quite sure what you are getting at Sharpe?

You just said exactly what I said.

Maces don't pierce armour but the force of impact cause damage within to the wearer of the armour.

It's like in rugby, you don't pierce the skin, but I nice bosh will will break a few ribs and rupture a few vessels inside.

It's like have a handheld Brian Lima

Semantics. The AP value doesn't determine damage to the armor itself, it's the amount of damage received by the poor guy on the other end which bypasses the armor's protection. Logically, then, they should have pretty hefty AP.

Agreed. Armour value protection should be bypassed, but they should have some drawbacks like being easier to dodge by lightly armoured units.

[stevehoos]

You just said exactly what I said.

Maces don't pierce armour but the force of impact cause damage within to the wearer of the armour.

It's like in rugby, you don't pierce the skin, but I nice bosh will will break a few ribs and rupture a few vessels inside.

It's like have a handheld Brian Lima





Agreed. Armour value protection should be bypassed, but they should have some drawbacks like being easier to dodge by lightly armoured units.

Ha, yep. In my indolence last night I miss read your post.

[Ulfgard the Unmaker]

For the record:

The "armor piercing" label is a complete misnomer. The "armor piercing" value under unit stats is the amount of damage that is transmitted directly to the enemy on a successful hit, which is not reduced by armor in any fashion, compared to "base damage" which is reduced by armor. It does not suggest that it rips a hole in the armor or literally pierces it, simply that it bypasses the armor value during a damage calculation. I can only assume it's called "armor piercing" because that sounds a bit better than "armor bypassing."

This weapon quality has been around since at least Med 2 (possibly in Rome 1, as well, but I can't recall off the top of my head), but it was listed differently. Back in those days, a unit wasn't stated to have an "armor piercing" value, but rather it was stated to be "effective against armor." At the time it meant that in the event of a successful hit, a weapon that was effective against armor would only take into account half of an enemy's armor value.

[Rostam_e_Iran]

Hang on a minute, I was under the impression AP stood for Armor Penetration and not Armor Piercing, which is why I started this thread. The latter just seems too specific to me for the range of weapons in the game. If it is 'Piercing' then surely swords are the least likely weapons to inflict that bar two handed swords, even that wouldn't seem right. To pierce is to make a hole like a crossbow arrow would.

[DisgruntledGoat]

Hang on a minute, I was under the impression AP stood for Armor Penetration and not Armor Piercing, which is why I started this thread. The latter just seems too specific to me for the range of weapons in the game. If it is 'Piercing' then surely swords are the least likely weapons to inflict that bar two handed swords, even that wouldn't seem right. To pierce is to make a hole like a crossbow arrow would.

Its a legacy term from role playing games and as others have said it does not have a direct real world analog but instead is a blanket term to cover damage that bypasses armor. In role playing games, just as in TW, it is a base damage that is applied to the defender regardless of armor rating and attacker rating.

[Rostam_e_Iran]

Its a legacy term from role playing games and as others have said it does not have a direct real world analog but instead is a blanket term to cover damage that bypasses armor. In role playing games, just as in TW, it is a base damage that is applied to the defender regardless of armor rating and attacker rating.

Ok, I know all of this.
But sharpe rightly assumed 'Armor Piercing' when I said AP, which is what the game says. However that's not what I meant and I should have elaborated more clearly. Ofc maces don't have much piercing effect, but neither do swords. However I find it strange that CA didn't use Armor Penetration instead of Piercing as a blanket term like you said.
Logically Armor Penetration would have been a better term to describe bypassing armor. Eitherway, if AP is 'blanket' term for bypassing armor it still doesn't make sense why maces and clubs have such a low AP stat, unless CA meant Armor Piercing literally.

[Caligula's_Horse]

The game's few maces should enjoy higher armor piercing damage, but a lower attack and defense value compared to an equivalent sword unit. Maces swing hard enough to cause internal injuries through armor, but are slow and cumbersome weapons compared to a blade, and near useless when parrying. Current game mechanics don't reflect this very well.

Clubs are a completely different creature. They're about as light and quick as a sword, but lack the force to do much to an armored man, and aren't as effective against an unarmored target as a bladed weapon. Historically, as early as the bronze age, they were only used on the battlefield by those too poor to afford the metal. In that sense, the game is pretty much spot on--an ineffectual weapon that you don't see anywhere but on the cheapest of levies.

[Fanest]

AP is not really important with clubs, since club units in the game have a bonus fighting infantry and thats what tilts the scales in their favor

here use this to seach fo units with diferent stats: http://stinglsa.atria.uberspace.de/s.../index_hd.html


Some stats i think in the game are still bugged so it could be that mace units are completely useless

[Ulfgard the Unmaker]

I think we can all pretty much agree, terminology aside, that the AP of maces should be much higher than it currently is-- even if the overall "weapon damage" stat stays the same.