"soft" blunt damage type



  • So I was looking at Martin’s damage tables (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ami8d_HZmYHsdDRzc1Byb3ItVWNXSFR1SURHN29TZnc#gid=1) and I noticed the different types of damage and I thought that there should be a “soft blunt” damage type for things like the cudgel. a wooden stick should not be able to bash through plate armor with the same blunt ability as a morning star.





  • To be honest:

    The Cudgel’s a wooden stick with metalblanks to help penetrate the skullbone and platearmour, thus it is a viably “heavy” weapon.



  • Yes, it is a very good weapon. I believe medieval warfare was ruled by non-armored warriors who picked up 400g-wooden sticks on the ground, nailed a few steel thorns on it and killed full-armored knights with ease.

    On a serious note, I’d like a lower damage for the cudgel and a lower effectiveness for blunt damage type vs knights.

    Indeed, the fact that blunt damage is more effective vs armored foes is a nonsense since the best way to hurt a full-armored knight is by stabbing between the metal plates, or reaching the exposed bodyparts like eyes, neck and armpits.



  • @Asmon:

    Yes, it is a very good weapon. I believe medieval warfare was ruled by non-armored warriors who picked up 400g-wooden sticks on the ground, nailed a few steel thorns on it and killed full-armored knights with ease.

    On a serious note, I’d like a lower damage for the cudgel and a lower effectiveness for blunt damage type vs knights.

    Indeed, the fact that blunt damage is more effective vs armored foes is a nonsense since the best way to hurt a full-armored knight is by stabbing between the metal plates, or reaching the exposed bodyparts like eyes, neck and armpits.

    If this game was realistic, Knights would be the only class ever played and everybody would use swords to stab through the armor. MAA would be chum but Vanguards might still have a following. Still only have chainmail, though. If we wanted to go even farther there would be class ratio limits due to money and training issues. Only those knighted would be so armored and most combatants were the lightly armored kind.

    Honestly, what does soft-blunt add to the game? Another number to balance around. Cudgel already does the least blunt damage in the game. Is the intent to reduce it further? To make it more or less effective against another class. This just looks like needless complexity to me.



  • @Asmon:

    On a serious note, I’d like a lower damage for the cudgel and a lower effectiveness for blunt damage type vs knights.

    Indeed, the fact that blunt damage is more effective vs armored foes is a nonsense since the best way to hurt a full-armored knight is by stabbing between the metal plates, or reaching the exposed bodyparts like eyes, neck and armpits.

    Depends on the blunt damage. It’s kind of like being shot wearing a bulletproof vest. The shot won’t penetrate and enter your body, but there’s so much force directed towards you that you’re gonna feel it and be real hurt. I agree a wooden stick shouldn’t crush a knight like it does now, but blunt weapons like the war hammer, the flail and the mace are very effective against plate armour. Sword slashes does pretty much nothing against plate armour, which is why you rather stab (if the sword is good for that) and/or focus on the exposed parts like you said. Otherwise, you just deal blunt damage and swords are generally much lighter than blunt weapons (2-handers could work better though.) But that can be kind of hard, especially when battles probably played out more like armed boxing matches (video that someone linked on this forum earlier.)

    Since the best way to take down a knight is to crush him with heavy stuff, stab him with really sharp stuff or attack his vulnerable parts in his sides and back, I think the knight’s armour should have special defence values (if it hasn’t already). I mean, blunt trauma works best, but it should damage more the heavier it is and the more force it can concentrate on a smaller area. A wooden stick can’t be good for that, so I agree there should be some “light blunt weapons” (which would only be fists and wooden club as I can see now, and sword slashes maybe) and “heavy blunt weapons” definitions (like pole hammer and flail.) There could be percentage values like “30% less damage from sword slashes” and “20% more damage from heavy blunt weapons” and “20% less damage from light blunt weapons”. Don’t mind the values, but something like that, you know.

    Anyways, this is what Wikipedia say about Knight’s armour vs melee weapons:

    Plate armour was virtually invulnerable to sword slashes. It also protects the wearer well against spear or pike thrusts and provides decent defence against blunt trauma.

    The evolution of plate armour also triggered developments in the design of offensive weapons. While this armour was effective against cuts or blows, their weak points could be exploited by long tapered swords or other weapons designed for the purpose, such as pollaxes and halberds. The effect of arrows and bolts is still a point of contention in regards to plate armour. Longbows and crossbows could also pierce plate armour up to ranges of 200 metres (660 ft) with a lucky shot, notably in battles such as the Battle of Visby, though historian Jean Froissart suggests that the success of such weapons at the Battle of Poitiers was less due to the bodkin arrows used by the English and more due to aiming for the side or rear of the armour, which is weaker. The evolution of the 14th-century plate armour also triggered the development of various polearms. They were designed to deliver a strong impact and concentrate energy on a small area and cause damage through the plate. Maces, war hammers and the hammer-heads of pollaxes (poleaxes) were used to inflict blunt trauma through armour.

    Historically, maces and flails were developed and used to combat armoured infantry, such as knights, because of their ability to cause injuries even “through” plate armour, and were also very effective against flexible armour, such as mail. However, blunt weapons are usually heavier than edged weapons, as the extra weight is needed to cause greater damage, especially through armour. This often makes blunt weapons both strenuous to wield and difficult to maneuver.


Log in to reply