From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon May 31 05:11:34 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id FAA20110; Mon, 31 May 1999 05:11:34 +1200 Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id FAA20107 for ; Mon, 31 May 1999 05:11:32 +1200 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p428-tnt1.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.232.174]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id QAA27044 for ; Mon, 31 May 1999 16:53:06 +1200 Subject: Re: DQ - C Class Maximim Ranks Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 16:51:13 +1200 Message-ID: <01beab21$35a922e0$aee86dcb@jimarona.ihug.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 From: "Jim Arona" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz -----Original Message----- From: Michael Woodhams To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Date: Monday, May 31, 1999 9:06 AM Subject: Re: DQ - C Class Maximim Ranks >Jim Arona wrote: > >> I think that some sort of review is in order for C class weapons. They >> appear to have been in regular use as weapons for as long as people have >> been interested in hitting people with something that wasn't their hand. > > > >Maces and flails I understand were used by knights in battle, who presumably >were pretty much unconstrained in their choice (except by technology.) Can >anyone comment on the effectiveness and prevelance of these weapons, >particularly in comparison to more common weapons such as swords? (E.g. were >they equally effective against armoured opponents but easier to use?) Maces and flails are mostly what C class weapons are, aside from crude club and rock. Most of the rest are just different flavours of mace. For example, war club, maul, etc, etc, etc. Staves may behave differently, but that is already covered because it goes to a higher rank than any other C class weapon, and I don't think anyone really wants to review Staff. It doesn't seem to be a problem. Jim -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon May 31 19:52:44 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id TAA20758; Mon, 31 May 1999 19:52:44 +1200 Received: from ismbc.com (roxy.ismbc.com [207.194.198.216]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id TAA20755 for ; Mon, 31 May 1999 19:52:41 +1200 Received: from cricket.bcgas.com by ismbc.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA52678; Mon, 31 May 1999 12:29:34 -0700 Received: by cricket with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Mon, 31 May 1999 12:31:04 -0700 Message-ID: <13526950162FD211A07F0001FA68BE8C01CA4525@orca> Subject: RE: DQ - C Class Maximum Ranks Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 12:28:32 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Martin Dickson To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > I think that when given a choice of weapons unconstrained > except by current technology, people have been prefering non-C class > weapons > for as long as people have had non-C class options. However much damage > you > can do by swinging a big weight, you can do more if the weight has a point > on > it. > Hi Michael, All generally correct, simple clubs and maces figure more as army/battle weapons in the ancient world than they do in the medieval. Another common primitive weapon is the spear because stabbing is an effective attack and harder to block, and a spear does not require the great metallurgical skills of a sword. Simple axes also date from the same periods and have the advantage of mass concentrated along a small blade (more on this below), again without requiring great technical skills. I think it might be truer to say that swords have a higher technological requirement than any of the afore mentioned and once available are a better alternative. Swinging is one of the primary attack forms for humans (stabbing or punching being another) and a sword has the advantage of cutting edge along full length and is thus easier to use than an axe for instance, where a blow with the haft is of limited effect. Another factor may be shields. Axes must strike with the head to be effective, and whilst it is possible to get a good swing with one hand, two hands are better for guiding the axe to its target. Axemen were effective and much feared and often of high social status (consider Harold's huscarls) but may have been more vulnerable to missile fire and shield wall tactics. > Maces and flails I understand were used by knights in battle, who > presumably > were pretty much unconstrained in their choice (except by technology.) Can > anyone comment on the effectiveness and prevelance of these weapons, > particularly in comparison to more common weapons such as swords? (E.g. > were > they equally effective against armoured opponents but easier to use?) > As knightly armour got heavier single handed swords became less effective. Specialised weapons appeared whose sole purpose was to punch through the extra armour. Late medieval maces tend to be seriously flanged, coming to points on the edges so as to deliver the most power onto the smallest area. Other similar weapons are the so-called 'Morningstar" mace covered in spikes (better know to fantasy enthusiasts in its flail form) and the chisel ended war-pick. I'm afraid I don't have much knowledge of flails except as Jim has pointed out they are supposed to be effective against shields -- they tend to wrap over or around shields -- and they use a weight on the end of a flexible chain in order to gain significant velocity at the point of impact. All of these weapons were designed for the express purpose of punching through, or crushing armour. As armour reached its heaviest shields were dropped by the chivalry in favour of two handed weapons such as the halberd which was a short pole-arm 7 feet or so long, shorter than the peasant/infantry pole-arms designed for fighting against cavalry. I have seen accounts that suggest that a halberd was capable of slicing through a plate helm and "topping" an enemy like an egg. :) Anyway... the point of all of this is... what DQ classifies as "C" class weapons are really of two sorts, the simple club or staff, and weapons specifically designed for punching through heavy armour. I have not the experience to comment on their relative complexity of use, and am not able to usefully argue as to what rank they should progress -- but I think that it is fair to say that while DQ weapons are just damage sticks it will not be possible to model the armour piercing/crushing attributes of these weapons -- or the extra odd abilities of flails. Modelling special abilities for each weapon may not be feasible, and I am also unsure as to the playability of an armour penetration model. As to C class weapons topping out at lower rank -- that would seem to be a function of the original system giving 4% per rank across all weapons but making those with a perception of less possible skill end at a lower maximum. However, this suggest that it is easier to master a flail than a dagger, since the lower maximum rank makes the former easier to achieve -- an assumption that I find difficult to believe. One of the changes to weapons that I have made for Kinlu is that per Rank increases need not be 4%. The reason for this is that there are many Japanese style weapons, such as the Manriki-Kusari and the Kusari-gama (imagine 8 to 12 feet of chain with a flail weight on one end and an axe-blade on the other) which I can only surmise must have been of more danger to the inept student than any opponent, yet which in the hands of a master would have been extremely dangerous. I tend to model these as having 5-15% base chance but perhaps gaining as much as 6% per rank up to 8 or 9. The end result is that the weirdo weapons are less effective at low ranks, take as much time to master as more normal ones, but are dangerous in the hands of a master, and they do not suffer an automatic handicap for having low maximums where parrying or attempting to keep an opponent from closing. Perhaps something similar could be used for mainstream DQ weaponry. Cheers, Martin -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers --