Real Combat 2.0 and EDU Guides

[Melooo182]

http://www.mediafire.com/view/sd31ke...0_MODIFIED.txt

Changes on Charge bonuses, and weapons with AP removed
So it keep more or less what was on the RC2.0 tables

Quality----------Charge
------------------1H/2H
Peasant----------X/+2
Militia------------X/+2
Average---------X/+2
Superior-------+1/+2
Elite------------+1/+3
Exceptional----+1/+3

Weapon--------------------Damage(prev w/ AP)--Base Charge

1H
knife--------------------------------1---------------------0
rapier-------------------------------2---------------------0
light sword, cut&thrust-----------3---------------------0

gladius, t&c------------------------4---------------------0
sax, cutting------------------------5---------------------1
arming sword, c&t----------------4---------------------1
long sword, c&t-------------------5---------------------1
light sword, cutting---------------4---------------------0

arming sword, cutting-----------5----------------------1
falchion----------------------------6----------------------0
archer's mallet--------------------1---------------------0

club--------------------------------3---------------------0
war hammer----------------------1---------------------0
mace-------------------------------2---------------------0
axe---------------------------------5(3)-----------------0..........4dmg for mounted
hatchet----------------------------3(3)------------------0
spear------------------------------3----------------------1

2H
estoc-------------------------------5---------------------0
claymore--------------------------8----------------------1

greatsword, cut&thrust----------9---------------------1
greatsword, cutting-------------10---------------------1

club--------------------------------7----------------------0

axe--------------------------------12(7)------------------0
pike--------------------------------2----------------------0

spear------------------------------5----------------------0
hammer---------------------------5----------------------1

poleaxe----------------------------6---------------------1
poleaxe(blade)--------------------12--------------------1
improvised farm tool-------------8(4)------------------0
halberd----------------------------13(6)-----------------1
billhook----------------------------10(5)-----------------1
voulge-----------------------------11(6)-----------------1
swordstaff-------------------------8---------------------1

With the Table above, we end up having some units with a charge value of 0
Mostly peasants archers and peasant to average quality axemen....is that bad?
Or should we treat every 0 value as 1?

[paleologos]

Most of the weapons above are bladed and most of the weapons above have a pointy spike to pierce armour and most of the weapons above fill both bills.
But not all of them.
So, if the above mix is featured in the arsenal of a militia unit, should we, or should we not give the AP feature to that unit?
That is the question.

And by the way Marius, you surely have given us some very interesting video links in post#19.

But if you were pitched against me in a life or death combat situation and I was clad in a breast plate and you were armed with any of the weapons above, where on my body would you really aim your blows?
A dent in my breastplate would not harm me, but a dent on my helmet would almost certainly result in a severe concussion, after which, any of the weapons above could deliver the final blow through the slit on my visor.
(And mark this, even the bladed side of a halberd can cause a dent on a helmet.)
But you wouldn't even have to go that far.
In battle you don't need to kill your adversary in order to win.
Victory is achieved when one of the sides stops fighting.
All you need to do is incapacitate an enemy soldier and then move to attack the next one, or defend yourself.

[+Marius+]

Most of the weapons above are bladed and most of the weapons above have a pointy spike to pierce armour

That is what you guys do not get, that pointy spike is nothing unlike a spearhead or a pikehead.
Those polearms are basically spears with an added blade extension.

(note that polearms in the game that I am talking about do not actually have the back spine spike so I am basically ignoring it)

Thus giving them AP means that you should then give AP to everything that has a point, from lances to spears and swords.

but a dent on my helmet would almost certainly result in a severe concussion

Padding padding pad the padded padding;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_JSdrBWcmk&t=2m35s

after which, any of the weapons above could deliver the final blow through the slit on my visor.

I do not think your warbuddies left, right and behind you would allow anyone to spend 5-10 minutes trying to stab you through the visor.

(And mark this, even the bladed side of a halberd can cause a dent on a helmet.)

...so can a sword.

[Melooo182]

well but those pole weapons are getting a damage buff (aprox. 2x) to compensate their lack of AP, making them even better vs low armoured foes than concussion weapons, as it should I think.

can we make some in game test instead please, poleaxe old stats vs new stats and get some ingame results of their performance?

[paleologos]

I suppose it would be meaningless to try to explain the physics of it all.
But since hope is the last to die I will give it a try.
Whan you have a rotating disk the point at the rim are rotating at the same angular velocity as the point near the pivot.
But the points at the rim have a much higher linear velocity.
Ergo their momentum is much higher.
It becomes higher as the shaft becomes longer for a given angular velocity.

I don't know how else to put it.
Also read Rotational Energy.

[+Marius+]

I suppose it would be meaningless to try to explain the physics of it all.
But since hope is the last to die I will give it a try.
Whan you have a rotating disk the point at the rim are rotating at the same angular velocity as the point near the pivot.
But the points at the rim have a much higher linear velocity.
Ergo their momentum is much higher.
It becomes higher as the shaft becomes longer for a given angular velocity.

I don't know how else to put it.
Also read Rotational Energy.

Sigh.

Which is why they get a higher base damage value...

[Melooo182]

Also what about the charge values?
with the table i posted, some of them are getting 0 charge bonuses (mainly peasant archers, low tier axemen and macemen)
Is 0 charge bonus bad? or should we make them have 1 at least?

[+Marius+]

Also what about the charge values?
with the table i posted

I am still rounding it all up to see what makes the best sense.

Is 0 charge bonus bad? or should we make them have 1 at least?

Yes.

[paleologos]

Sigh.

Which is why they get a higher base damage value...

I see the disagreement here.
For you the attack stat is the ability to do damage to a given object.
If enough damage "points" are accumulated, the object "dies".

But this isnt a yu-gi-oh! card game to me.

For me the attack stat is the ability (and the statistical probability during an attack sequense) to land an incapacitating blow to an adversary, reagardless (or irregardless if you prefer) of how they are moving around (defense skill) and how protective their shield is.
Ergo, I would prefer to give them a lower attack stat to represent their weapon (eg a halberd) being less wieldy and the AP attribute to indicate that when in fact they do manage to land a hit, then that one hit is a hit that packs enough punch to incapacitate any adversary.
Keep in mind we do have to account for the shields and a high attack stat inevitably renders the shield less consequential to the combatant's overall defense.

[+Marius+]

I see the disagreement here.
For you the attack stat is the ability to do damage to a given object.
If enough damage "points" are accumulated, the object "dies".

But this isnt a yu-gi-oh! card game to me.

It's not about that for me, it is merely the issue of armor becoming useless when giving the AP trait to weapons with above 5-6 damage value.

Ergo, I would prefer to give them a lower attack stat to represent their weapon (eg a halberd) being less wieldy and the AP attribute to indicate that when in fact they do manage to land a hit, then that one hit is a hit that packs enough punch to incapacitate any adversary.
Keep in mind we do have to account for the shields and a high attack stat inevitably renders the shield less consequential to the combatant's overall defense.

Alright, this is another very valid way of doing things, however, not a single polearm should then do more than 6-7 damage, any more than that and the armor values of late units start becoming useless.

I will actually try this.

[Melooo182]

Too much chitchat let's test those values ingame please, then we could at least base this discussion in some ingame facts

[paleologos]

People, there are peasants armed with halberds, urban militias armed with halberds, there are Swiss halberdiers and occasionally there are knights armed with halberds or other polearms.
Do we really mean to give them all attack stats that will be numerically close to each other?
I agree that peasant halberdiers and low tier urban militias should have 6-7 attack rating and AP. It makes sense to me.
But the more professional troops armed with halberds or other polearms should have higher attack stats and AP.

[+Marius+]

People there are peasants armed with halberds, urban militias armed with halberds, there are Swiss halberdiers and occasionally there are knights armed with halberds or other polearmes.
Do we really mean to give them all attack stats that will be numerically close to each other?

No, at least I am not planning on that.

In my current build, halberd militias have 7 attack value while ze varangians have 16.

But I will try and see what I can do with your way of doing things, but that will mean reducing the damage value across the board...

[paleologos]

No, at least I am not planning on that.

Good to know.

In my current build, halberd militias have 7 attack value while ze varangians have 16.

I think that could be acceptable.

But I will try and see what I can do with your way of doing things, but that will mean reducing the damage value across the board...

I really appreciate this buddy.

[+Marius+]

A little video was uploaded today;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX8j5CQRaaw

As you can see, by using the cast blow swing, against a hard surface, the man managed to not only achieve an equal amount of penetration/cut as with the axes, but actually achieved better results.

The axe video for comparison;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxuR66b5byc


This is merely to buff up my argument that one handed axes do not deserve the damage buff in the same way the two handed axes do.

[paleologos]

...by using the cast blow swing...

Would all sword delivered blows be equally powerfull?

...not only achieve an equal amount of penetration/cut as with the axes, but actually achieved better results.

Were these guys using a true war axe, or were they using an axe designed for the purpose of chopping wood?
Because, quite frankly, war axes had a much thinner blade than foresters' axes.

...one handed axes do not deserve the damage buff in the same way the two handed axes do.

No objections by me, so we give one handed axes a much lower attack stat?

[+Marius+]

Would all sword delivered blows be equally powerfull?

No, but they would still be capable of roughly the same feats(provided they were straight and not curved ofc.).

Were these guys using a true war axe, or were they using an axe designed for the purpose of chopping wood?
Because, quite frankly, war axes had a much thinner blade than foresters' axes.

Those are accurate medieval war axe reconstructions.

No objections by me, so we give one handed axes a much lower attack stat?

Like I stated before, roughly equal to swords(which depends on each unit and their place in the roster hierarchy).

[Melooo182]

Well the RC modified table I posted a while ago puts waraxes on the same level than longswords, 5dmg
while hatchets or other not combat purposed 1H axes at the same level than "light swords", 3dmg

RC tables also further alters this value depending the quality of the troop and if the weapon is classified as crude or rustic gets -1 dmg and +15 delay time.

[Olisippo]

I know i'm not contributing to the Thread subject, but i can't resist to throw some ideas to the chit chat (sorry)

First i can see that paleologos is a Houscarl fan, but like others have said dismounted knights were also elite trained warriors. Now, even if training is an important factor for martial prowess, the most important thing training gives to a soldier is the capability of discipline and to be standfast and aware in the confusing swirl of action and horror that a battlefield is. But the great unleveller between armies of similiar level of skill is tactics and equipment, and sometimes it's not the most skillfull soldiers that won the day but the best equipped. (of course we are talking soldiers here, an unskilled peasant would be innefective even if in full plate armor on a horse with lance).

Take crossbows for example, they quicky gained relevance, surpassing bows, even i they weren't fully superior to them, they penetrated better then most bows but they had much slower RoF, their true advantage was that they were much easier to use by untrained troops. Early firearms were also a case, they were pretty innacurate but easy to use and intimidating weapons, you really didn't require great levels of training to use.

Also, although knights training was of immense help, their true power was the fact they could aford good armor and weapons (and horse) that made them almost invulnerable in the battlefield against more lightly armed troops.

Another point regarding the housecarls vs dismounted knights, is that you are seeing it through the eyes of the game, in reality, units of housecarls and dismounted knights didn't all use one kind of weapon. about housecarls i don't really know but dismounted knights (and religious order footknights) usually had two weapons:

1st they used an axe mace, morning star, warhammer etc. (knights choice) - this weapons were more suited fo first strikes of engagment, they were more intimidating, caused greater damage and could pierce even heavy armour, or damage and disarm shields in the case of axes, but since they required large swings were more prone to drain stamina, get stuck in armor or bodies, brake their handles, so...when that happened the knight would change to....

2nd the arming sword or sword - more verstatile, less prone to be lost, stuck, could be used to block more effectively, could swing, thrust and punch with its guard block or hilt

So the Dismounted Knights with swords of MTW2 is not that accurate...

Also Polearms ad Halberds AP was mostly derived of the setting of the waepons to receive a charge not of the swing or thrust of their handlers.

[+Marius+]

i don't really know but dismounted knights (and religious order footknights) usually had two weapons:

1st they used an axe mace, morning star, warhammer etc. (knights choice) - this weapons were more suited fo first strikes of engagment, they were more intimidating, caused greater damage and could pierce even heavy armour, or damage and disarm shields in the case of axes, but since they required large swings were more prone to drain stamina, get stuck in armor or bodies, brake their handles, so...when that happened the knight would change to....

2nd the arming sword or sword - more verstatile, less prone to be lost, stuck, could be used to block more effectively, could swing, thrust and punch with its guard block or hilt

Knights did not carry three melee weapons, they had a lance and with it either an axe or a sword(or anything else)...not both.