About piercing attacks

[Elvish_Pillager]

There is. A damage type is nothing more than a name, so if you set one unit's attack

[attack]
...
type="the fall of Rome"
[/attack]

and another unit have a resistance

[resistances]
...
the fall of Rome=1000
[/resistances]

Then when the first unit hits the second, it will do 10x damage. No other changes necessary.

[Duke Guillermo]

How would one go about implementing a new damage type (such as the suggested "missile" etc.)? Is it as simple as EP's last post?

[Tomsik]

Wait... there are very much unit's you would need to rebalance, also you must add such line to every unit and change type of attack for every archer.

[Sapient]

2. charging cavalry is useless against skeletons which would normally be trampled

Then maybe experienced horsemen should get a "hoof (impact)" attack? A trampling attack is problematic. For example, you can't trample anything as large as yourself.

4. polearmsmen have bonuses against drakes, bonus aimed at knights, and penalties against skeletons

Drakes:

Spears and lances are the preferred method of attacking dragons, so the impaling bonus makes sense to me. If drakes are anything like dragons, they should be far weaker to impaling than archery.

Knights:

What better way to harm a charging calvary (even a knight) than impaling its horse? Someone else already pointed this out.

Skeletons:

Skeletons are only going to be harmed by a spear if you use it as an impact weapon. You can do that, but it's not the weapon's main purpose. Therefore, it hurts, but not as much as normal. This is already modelled correctly by the damage resistance.

-very small units, like goblins, could have a 10% resistance to missile

Goblins:

Now you are confusing evasion with damage resistance. An arrow should hurt a goblin just as normal. The goblin's small size should grant him a bonus on his terrain defense.

-largefoot units would have no resistance to missile

Not necessarily. Trolls, for example, have toughened green skin which gives them certain types of damage resistance.

5. for some weird, otherworldly reason, muskets are piercing...

Seems right to me. Unless you are an animated rock, it should pierce you.

...they (Gryphons) have melee only and cost a lot. This make them relatively vulnerable to atrchery.

Well there's got to be some way to kill those flying freaks. They're stronger than trolls for crying out loud. And last time I checked, they have 0% weakness to arrows. I'm going to agree with Casual User on this one.

So, although I disagree with some of your statements, I agree that horses should be weaker to impaling than arrows, and griffons should be weaker to arrows than impaling. Does this warrant a split in the damage type piercing? Maybe. I think it would be nice.

The problem is there is a third branch of piercing damage (very thin swords). Slashing is not a damage type in Wesnoth. It is called "blade" and it is just a general term that covers everthing you do with a normal sized blade. This includes stabbing and slashing (or in the case of teeth, chewing).

Very thin swords such as a rapier should, in my opinion, be classified as piercing because they lack the properties of a normal blade. However, we would be unable to do this if we split piercing to impaling and arrows.

[unsung]

Wow, unction's a word.


What's with all the topic revivals lately?

I still think mounted units should have trample and a resitance ot impact so you can't trample them.


There, I used correct spelling and gramar. I want a cookie. NOW.

[Tomsik]

I want a cookie. NOW.

Best way to get it is not asking for it.

I still think mounted units should have trample and a resitance ot impact so you can't trample them.

I don't think horses should have trample, it would be very unrealistic or not KISS, also there is thing called game balance.
Horses have 20% resistance to impact right now.

[Casual User]

Good afternoon!

How would one go about implementing a new damage type (such as the suggested "missile" etc.)? Is it as simple as EP's last post?

Yes.

Wait... there are very much unit's you would need to rebalance, also you must add such line to every unit and change type of attack for every archer.

Usually, the easiest way is to make a few compromises. In a custom campaign, for instance, you can usually get around it by using either piercing or blade as pseudo-missile attack and special resistances. However, you only really need to screw around with the movetypes and the unit cfg files.

Then maybe experienced horsemen should get a "hoof (impact)" attack? A trampling attack is problematic. For example, you can't trample anything as large as yourself.

Interesting idea, warhorses were usually trained to attack. No need to give it only to experienced horsemen.

Spears and lances are the preferred method of attacking dragons, so the impaling bonus makes sense to me. If drakes are anything like dragons, they should be far weaker to impaling than archery.

Actually, in most stories, dragons were killed by swords...

But, yes, they should be a little resistant to arrows. BTW, I meant the bonus against drakes was meant for knights to have it.

Skeletons are only going to be harmed by a spear if you use it as an impact weapon.

Not true. Arrows have a tough time hurting skeletons because they slip in through the ribs, but in close hand to hand combat where you use spears, you can aim for the head which can very well be shattered by a spear-head. Polearms should be as effective as swords against skeletons.

Not necessarily. Trolls, for example, have toughened green skin which gives them certain types of damage resistance.

Arrows can hit vital parts of a troll's body which melee weapons would be too short to reach.

Now you are confusing evasion with damage resistance.

It is no harder to hit a small guy than a big guy with a sword as long as they are just as nimble. The big guy, however, would be much easier to hit with and arrow. By using resistances, we can model these little differences.

So, although I disagree with some of your statements, I agree that horses should be weaker to impaling than arrows, and griffons should be weaker to arrows than impaling. Does this warrant a split in the damage type piercing?

Yes! Being good against cavalry is THE special identity of piercing attacks. If it only makes sense for impaling but not for arrows...

Since I mentionned the musket, may I mention that the main reason for the developpement of pike and shot tactics in the 16-17th centuries was that musketeers simply couldn't deal with cavalry. In the middle ages, battle after battle proved that cavalry was only vulnerable to archers in very, very special conditions.

That's why it makes no sense for me to have archers deal 20% more damage to cavalry, and in fact 50-60% more than the other physical attack types.

[Cuyo Quiz]

Best way to get it is not asking for it.

I have found otherwise, since asking actually lets the other part choose and recognize your desire for cookies, which he may abide to.

[theCAS]

My proposal.

Divide piercing damage in 2 classes:
1) puncture (daggers, arrows, bullets...).
2) impaling (polearms, lances...)

AND introduce a new modifier that changes unit defense on terrain when attacked with a ranged weapon.

Example Skeleton
puncture: -20%
impaling: 10%
ranged: 120%

The skeleton is hard to hit with an arrow and the damage is inferior.
Impaling does more damage.

Example Yeti
puncture: -30%
ranged: 80%

The huge mass results in arrows doing less damage but hitting more often.

Example Goblin
puncure: 20%
ranged: 130%

A melee attack with a dagger does significant damage, but hitting the goblin with an arrow is difficult due to its size.

[Disto]

Wait... there are very much unit's you would need to rebalance, also you must add such line to every unit and change type of attack for every archer.

Actually you don't (as far as I'm aware), the resistance would you go as 0% in either way (100% in the unit's cfg) thanks to the default system.