I wouldn't mind to see something like these examples. They are based on vikings, although they obviously aren't historically correct I think they'd fit the fantasy part of the game nicely.

 

And THIS. I know some people really don't like spiky gear, but even if you ignore the spikes I find the armor very awesome.

I just hope that it is more or less consistent.

 

I think nothing would bother me more than seeing a lot of effort go into recreating a certain time period only to have it shattered by a certain type or style that was just 100% out of place.

 

Pick one period, I don't care which, define exactly what is permitted, and then stick with it.

 

I'm pretty sure this is what they are going to do anyway.

http://xkcd.com/1114/

I'd love to see two-handed mace's (cudgel's?) or giant swords, but my character should be almost dragging them and attack very slowly (Unless having a ridiculous amount of Strength). Giant weapons generally, within reason and with realism/authenticity taken into consideration.

 

EDIT: One tactical aspect of this could also be to buff my Warrior a lot with a Chanter, making him even more capable of wielding the two-handed weapons. So if he attacks super slow without buff's, I can buff him so he attacks "slow" or even "average".

 

In other words it would almost be a disadvantage having a giant weapon, because it'd need an upkeep of 2 characters. However, tactically the two handed weapons could be advantageous (as they should be) against a large crowd of enemies (sweeping and cleaving attacks).

 

This absolutely ridiculous. There is no such thing as "giant weapons that are slow". Even the largest IRL infantry weapons that you can think of are handled with relative speed and ease. Because that's what weapons are for, they are made to be handled with relative ease and sped. I've always despised it how in games, bigger the weapon, the slower it is. Makes absolutely no sense at all. Even the biggest RL axe you have seen is a very versatile and agile weapon. Likewise, a two-handed weapon is a weapon that just takes a total of two hands to use instead of just one which is what it takes to land it on equal footing with one-handed weapons: that you don't get to have an off-hand for second tool of war.

 

I don't know how this retarded trope came to be in the first place. It's a horrible and inherently broken element of balance.

 

Likewise with armour. People wearing mail or plate in ancient and later times were likely far more faster and agile than just about anyone posting on these forums.

 

I say get rid of this mockery even if just for once.

Well, for the most part, I agree. Some conventions in fantasy (huge weapons and such) have become questionable. But you have to remember in a world with a strong, lasting presence of magic, it might not be the case that the only weapons developed and carried are those you could reasonable wield with ability alone. Maybe they're magically imbued to be less cumbersome (this doesn't fix the speed issue - I think many tabletops handle this best with the bigger weapon meaning higher damage, less accuracy). Maybe the full plate is enchanted such that the person no longer needs to wear all the layers of chain, cloth and padding underneath it. After all, the magic veil has been discussed, which is a mix of conventional magic armor and bark skin it seems (it absorbs damage rather than deflects, but not so well with high speed objects).

 

Add to it also that in most of these settings, the normal human limits of potential is waived. Even the life-dedicated body builders in real life would probably have difficulty achieving the things a 20 strength barbarian who goes into a greater or epic rage could. Maybe with some PCP, but even then... The simple answer is, the character aren't necessarily bound to certain limits of genetics and reality which would limit the scope of their equipment. Or such has been the case in many games. I'd like to see Project Eternity return a bit to reality - anyone played Lionhart (black isles), back in 2003? Very low fantasy.

 

I do think the scale of weapons should be scaled down. Bastard swords, half/short-spears and the like were around for a reason; the two-hand variants weren't so overwhelmingly powerful to make them the end-all.

I'd love to see two-handed mace's (cudgel's?) or giant swords, but my character should be almost dragging them and attack very slowly (Unless having a ridiculous amount of Strength). Giant weapons generally, within reason and with realism/authenticity taken into consideration.

 

EDIT: One tactical aspect of this could also be to buff my Warrior a lot with a Chanter, making him even more capable of wielding the two-handed weapons. So if he attacks super slow without buff's, I can buff him so he attacks "slow" or even "average".

 

In other words it would almost be a disadvantage having a giant weapon, because it'd need an upkeep of 2 characters. However, tactically the two handed weapons could be advantageous (as they should be) against a large crowd of enemies (sweeping and cleaving attacks).

 

This absolutely ridiculous. There is no such thing as "giant weapons that are slow". Even the largest IRL infantry weapons that you can think of are handled with relative speed and ease. Because that's what weapons are for, they are made to be handled with relative ease and sped. I've always despised it how in games, bigger the weapon, the slower it is. Makes absolutely no sense at all. Even the biggest RL axe you have seen is a very versatile and agile weapon. Likewise, a two-handed weapon is a weapon that just takes a total of two hands to use instead of just one which is what it takes to land it on equal footing with one-handed weapons: that you don't get to have an off-hand for second tool of war.

 

I don't know how this retarded trope came to be in the first place. It's a horrible and inherently broken element of balance.

 

Likewise with armour. People wearing mail or plate in ancient and later times were likely far more faster and agile than just about anyone posting on these forums.

 

I say get rid of this mockery even if just for once.

 

Good point, a well balanced greatsword would weigh 4 kg at most (usually about 3). It's slower than a 1-handed weapon, but not by a huge margin - but it's way more tiring to use.

As for the plate - wearing chainmail's more tiring; good plate armour usually distributed the weight well.

Edited October 19, 201213 yr by Karranthain

There's a fine line that one must strike, I believe.

 

Purely medieval type armors, purely practical, while I find them interesting, I also find them incredibly bland and boring to look at for the most part.

 

 

 

 

 

As far as weapons and the like, they're all too often quite plain as well, with little enough to differentiate between them, and are often not used in the way one would imagine, or hold up nearly as well in actual combat.

 

Could that perhaps be because of lack of your understanding of them? Medieval+renaissance periods saw possibly the widest range of martial weapons with unique capabilities, designed to adapt to the quickly changing landscape of warfare and with them, wide methods of fighting any of which has yet to be mimicked in a computer game (though a few pnp RPGs have realised them well with excellent results, such as Codex Martialis and The Riddle of Steel).

 

The other end of the spectrum is no better. No, I don't want my character to look like he's wearing a neon plastic castle. I don't want his greatest enemy to be doorways that fail to accommodate for the fellows who like to have 5 foot spikes jutting out in all directions from their armor. I don't want to be swinging Big Ben at somebody, for that matter, either. The realm of the absurd is not something that meshes well with immersion, in my mind.

 

I think most of the artists that got their conceptual work in the D&D books and whatnot have typically done rather well at this (not always), striking the right balance between practicality, realism and the fantastical. That is, they didn't bother adhering to strongly to any one of those three principles. They provide a little something more than what one would normally see in the real world without taking it so far that it loses all connection to what one would associate with reality. I found that level of variance from the norm to be vastly superior to what, say, WoW does, or Dragon Age 2.

 

Being the kind of game it is, with the people that are working on it, I'm quite confident they'll strike the balance just about right.

 

I would have never thought that I would have something positive to say about Bethesda but one thing they did sort of right with Oblivion and Skyrim is the design of armour (except for the highest tier armours, eg. Glass, Daedric). They are mostly, mostly, very reasonably designed and proportioned and more rooted in authenticity than most other games.

Speed depends on weight and balance.

 

Bigger weapons were usually slower - but that's mostly because a lot of htem were poorly balanced.

Two-handed axes, maces, hammers, morningstars - they all have the weight at the tip, which makes them poorly balanced...the best word would be a bi sluggish.

 

It's slow to start a swing and it's even harder to stop it or change direction - but once it hits it hits HARD.

 

Two-handed swords were the fastest two-handed weapons, since their weight was better distributed and their their center of mass was much lower, closer to the hands. You could swing them pretty much jsut as fast as a normal sword.

Personally, I think appearence should be somewhat tied to the strength and value of the equipment. Common spears shouldn't look fancy in the least, same with your average chain shirt. But some consecrated, or lauded/reumoured armor, or especially well crafted swords, should have a bit of a better look to them. Neverwinter Nights did this to a minor degree, and imagination needs to stand in a bit. I don't want the extent of some MMOs where it just gets crazy, but if I delve into a tomb to put to eternal rest (or grant reincarnation) to some restless dead, and find some great patriarch buried with his blade, I'd like for it to look the part (perhaps after some spit and polish?).

I'd also like to add some examples that prove that, quite often, historical weapons are anything but plain looking :

 

 

 

 

Speed depends on weight and balance.

 

Bigger weapons were usually slower - but that's mostly because a lot of htem were poorly balanced.

Two-handed axes, maces, hammers, morningstars - they all have the weight at the tip, which makes them poorly balanced...the best word would be a bi sluggish.

 

It's slow to start a swing and it's even harder to stop it or change direction - but once it hits it hits HARD.

 

That's Hollywood-level understanding of the weapons. Current understanding and studies point to otherwise:

 

 

 

 

A weapon cannot be slow and cumbersome (eg. poorly balanced) to use. There is no "attacks slow, HITS HARD" in real life. A single cut or a shallow stab could be all it takes to kill a person. You couldn't afford to be slower just because you were somehow supposed to "HIT HARD HURRRR" while your opponent will be faster, "hit LIGHTER" and still end up killing you with a simple cut.

 

If a weapon is poorly balanced, it's no weapon at all. These people didn't fck around LARPing ridiculous tropes. They meant business and business was kill-or-die. Most importantly, weapons served special functions. They didn't go around like "oh hey, the enemy has sword so should I take the sword or the spear? gotta weigh the ups and downs". They didn't invent bat**** crazy weapons because they were bored. They had to invent them to face newly emerging threats and develop the tactics to handle them.

Morning stars are a certainly cool type of weapon - a bit of innovation, there. I could see the speed and such being different for different qualities, but again, I think this is established pretty well in most tabletops: lower quality/bigger weapons tend to deal greater damage (or realistically, chance of being deadly with one cut) but are somewhat harder to manuever. The whole reason a halberd or long axe might be chosen over a spear is that the spear is really a plunging sort of motion; you either hit and impale for quite a nice mortal wound in most cases, or miss/divert, and scrath them if you're lucky. On the other hand, a pole axe is a swinging, extended chopping, which puts a lot of force in a circular, range of motion that forces the foe to move a bit more to avoid.

 

Pole weapons as a whole give the reach advantage, with the drawback of not so easily being used in very close quarters, or in narrow passages. I remember one case where we had a few characters break the hefts of their long weapons so we weren't facing these drawbacks.

I'd also like to add some examples that prove that, quite often, historical weapons are anything but plain looking :

 

 

 

 

 

One of my favourites is the flamberge type:

 

 

 

I've long been puzzled by this form but once I understood the reason, I couldn't help but love them:

 

The term flamberge, meaning "flame blade", is an undulating blade found on both long blades and rapiers. When parrying with such a sword, unpleasant vibrations may be transmitted into the attacker's blade. These vibrations caused the blades to slow contact with each other, as additional friction was encountered with each wave.

 

I can see how that would help against enemy pikes among pikemen formations and how it would hamper and possibly disrupt the winding movements on blade and the counter-attacks of an opponent in a one-on-one sword fight. If your opponent had such a blade, you couldn't wind or drive your own blade up or down on it upon contact for a counter attack without disrupting your technique and risking yourself.

 

Then again, using such a blade would most likely require extra training as well. At any rate, it seems to be a pretty late development to have had any impact on the martial trends of the period.

Morning stars are a certainly cool type of weapon - a bit of innovation, there. I could see the speed and such being different for different qualities, but again, I think this is established pretty well in most tabletops: lower quality/bigger weapons tend to deal greater damage (or realistically, chance of being deadly with one cut) but are somewhat harder to manuever. The whole reason a halberd or long axe might be chosen over a spear is that the spear is really a plunging sort of motion; you either hit and impale for quite a nice mortal wound in most cases, or miss/divert, and scrath them if you're lucky. On the other hand, a pole axe is a swinging, extended chopping, which puts a lot of force in a circular, range of motion that forces the foe to move a bit more to avoid.

 

Well, most tabletops are horrid derivatives or copycats of D&D and all the bad things about it. See Codex Martialis and The Riddle of Steel for reasonably authentic martial combat done right without reducing the gameplay to an endless borefest of statistics and rolls. On the contrary, combat resolutions are very pleasingly fast and straightforward in those.

 

RPG tropes, tabletop or otherwise, are a disgrace.

 

Pole weapons as a whole give the reach advantage, with the drawback of not so easily being used in very close quarters, or in narrow passages. I remember one case where we had a few characters break the hefts of their long weapons so we weren't facing these drawbacks.

 

Yeah, this. It's all about tactics, not ridiculously false statistics such as speed and whatnot.

 

Also, awesome solution^ there. Congrats to the players.

I've long been puzzled by this form but once I understood the reason, I couldn't help but love them:

 

The term flamberge, meaning "flame blade", is an undulating blade found on both long blades and rapiers. When parrying with such a sword, unpleasant vibrations may be transmitted into the attacker's blade. These vibrations caused the blades to slow contact with each other, as additional friction was encountered with each wave.

 

I can see how that would help against enemy pikes among pikemen formations and how it would hamper and possibly disrupt the winding movements on blade and the counter-attacks of an opponent in a one-on-one sword fight. If your opponent had such a blade, you couldn't wind or drive your own blade up or down on it upon contact for a counter attack without disrupting your technique and risking yourself.

 

Then again, using such a blade would most likely require extra training as well. At any rate, it seems to be a pretty late development to have had any impact on the martial trends of the period.

 

Same here, I've been wondering about that as well, now it makes sense.

 

Would be great if you could make a character like this one, wielding a flamberge

 

Edited October 19, 201213 yr by Karranthain

Practical armors and realistic weapons are what the majority of us are after, I'm hoping for armors with the same looks for men and women without being ugly and too bulky.

 

Yeah, this and the earlier teutonic helmet 2-hander guy had maybe the sweetest suits I've ever seen.

Much better than going with strict total history style, especially as lots of dudes in history where stupid idiots without style or class.

 

I think there was this one... I think gallic or viking chief that had a full stuffed hawk on top of his helm,

and with a mechanism built in that had the hawk flapping its wings as the chief rode on his horse.

Must have been happy with it and impressed the heck out of everybody, but I'd see that as.. not awesome.

It seemed it, but it was all secret weaponcraft checks, as it turns out, and half the party ended up using splintered bits of wood because they destroyed their weapons. But yeah, weapon designs had to be flexible and situational because there weren't conventional, common firearms that simply outdid whatever they were put up against.

 

As to appearances and such, Lionheart is again one I would say presented a pretty good basis (to my knowledge). The game itself never really sold well, iirc. It was another Black Isle/Interplay game, set during the crusades, with a general plot of the arabian warriors and the crusading forces charging at one another, but before they could clash the gathering of energies tore open a portal to the ether/underworld, and unnatural, magical creatures (jin mostly) poured out. This convinced king Lionheart and the arabian forces to put aside their differences and quell the invaders.

 

http://www.neoseeker.com/Games/Products/PC/lionheart/screens.html

 

Plot aside, the design was essentially meant to be as true to the timing of the third crusade as possible, and a mix of european and arabian designs. I recall a sprite much like the yellow suited man in the game, but I can't find a screenshot of it.

Edited October 19, 201213 yr by UncleBourbon

Really greate theme!

I hope that developers take notice. aesthetics between Arcanum and Baldur's or even more realistic would be ideal.

Blunderbuss

 

 

The only firearm to make this list, the Blunderbuss was an early form of shotgun, using powder and shot. The weapon was muzzle loaded and is identified by the distinctive flared muzzle. The nasty part of the Blunderbuss was actually a flaw in the design, the flared muzzle caused the shot to spread quite widely and reduced the muzzle velocity, meaning that shots outside of very close quarters resulted only in shrapnel wounds rather than death. A blunderbuss could, in theory, be loaded with any kind of shrapnel or shot, small stones or scraps of metal were used as ammunition at times. The gun was used by armies of various nationalities, although the weapon originates from Europe. A smaller, one handed version of the Blunderbuss, called a Dragon, was also used. Wounds sustained from a close range hit from a Blunderbuss would be brutal, potentially blowing away whole chunks of the body.

Notable appearance: Jack Sparrow, of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies, wields a handgun similar to a Dragon, while at least one member of the undead pirate crew seen in the first movie uses a Blunderbuss type firearm.

 

Taken from http://listverse.com...weapons-of-war/

 

Everyone needs to keep in mind that the more fancy weapons were made for nobles, they would commission blacksmith, or force them, to have really nice and shiny weapons made. Chances being that the noble would never use the weapon, just hang it in their house or carry it on their side. But the average weapon a person could afford was unfortunately plain looking. Now I don't expect that to be the case in PE. I'd at least like the weapons to have some flavor to them. It'll be interesting what we'll end up seeing here in the next couple of months. I don't expect to be an average person, so here's to hoping we see some really creative weapons/armors designs.

This absolutely ridiculous. There is no such thing as "giant weapons that are slow". Even the largest IRL infantry weapons that you can think of are handled with relative speed and ease. Because that's what weapons are for, they are made to be handled with relative ease and sped. I've always despised it how in games, bigger the weapon, the slower it is. Makes absolutely no sense at all. Even the biggest RL axe you have seen is a very versatile and agile weapon. Likewise, a two-handed weapon is a weapon that just takes a total of two hands to use instead of just one which is what it takes to land it on equal footing with one-handed weapons: that you don't get to have an off-hand for second tool of war.

 

I don't know how this retarded trope came to be in the first place. It's a horrible and inherently broken element of balance.

 

Likewise with armour. People wearing mail or plate in ancient and later times were likely far more faster and agile than just about anyone posting on these forums.

 

I say get rid of this mockery even if just for once.

 

Yes and no. "Giant" weapons, greatswords, polearms and the like were not SLOW for sure, especially not as described in the post you were responding to. They were definitely slowER than their smaller counterparts however. This is in fact one of the main reasons why rapiers (true rapiers - not the smallswords that many people think of when they think of rapiers) came about as a natural progression from arming swords (your typical one-handed "knight's" sword). And even those arming swords were used partially for speed and nimbleness at handling, especially since their lighter, quicker, one-handed nature freed up the other hand for a shield as you mentioned. So I'm all for seeing relative speed differences between weapon types, but nothing along the lines of "this sword attacks twice every round, that greataxe attacks once every 3 rounds" sorts of differences.

 

Your points on armor are definitely valid as well - the main issue with wearing heavy armor was not an issue of speed, it was an issue of endurance. Most skilled fighters (and in this I can draw directly from modern RL experience and observation) in even full plate can move almost if not as fast and nimbly as they do in nothing but cloth - they just can't keep it up for hours on end without a break. Given what we know of the combat system so far, I would much rather see heavier armors lead to an increase in rate of stamina drain/fatigue, rather than a loss of dex/agility.

Really greate theme!

I hope that developers take notice. aesthetics between Arcanum and Baldur's or even more realistic would be ideal.

 

From the previous topic :

 

I agree with you on all points. I'll make sure to take the spongy Mjolnir I have in my office and smite any artist who dares create unwieldy-looking weapons or crazy, S&M, cosplay outfits . In all seriousness, I have a sneaking suspicion you'll be quite pleased with the art direction and thematic flavor of the gear in Project Eternity.

 

source : http://forums.obsidi...00#entry1201923

 

Everyone needs to keep in mind that the more fancy weapons were made for nobles, they would commission blacksmith, or force them, to have really nice and shiny weapons made. Chances being that the noble would never use the weapon, just hang it in their house or carry it on their side. But the average weapon a person could afford was unfortunately plain looking. Now I don't expect that to be the case in PE. I'd at least like the weapons to have some flavor to them. It'll be interesting what we'll end up seeing here in the next couple of months. I don't expect to be an average person, so here's to hoping we see some really creative weapons/armors designs.

 

Certainly, most were plain designs - but the point of posting those examples was to prove that there's plenty of really appealing historical designs that could be emulated, you only need to look.

Speed depends on weight and balance.

 

Bigger weapons were usually slower - but that's mostly because a lot of htem were poorly balanced.

Two-handed axes, maces, hammers, morningstars - they all have the weight at the tip, which makes them poorly balanced...the best word would be a bi sluggish.

 

It's slow to start a swing and it's even harder to stop it or change direction - but once it hits it hits HARD.

 

That's Hollywood-level understanding of the weapons. Current understanding and studies point to otherwise.

 

 

No, that's physics.

Bigger mass takes more effort to get moving. It is slower to accelerate. It is also harder to stop.

Center of mass affects balance.

Mid-swing a two-handed hammer is just as fast as a sword.

But it takes slightly longer to get up to that speed. The difference is minimal tough, but it exists. And it might very well make a difference in battle.

 

 

 

 

A weapon cannot be slow and cumbersome (eg. poorly balanced) to use.

 

Actually, they can be poorly balanced.

People used not only what was best, but also what they could aford. Some used makeshift weapons, some used weapon made by sub-bar blacksmiths.

Some weapons were made to be used by masses of dirty pesants and survivabiltiy was not a big issue. As long as pesants take some enemeis with them, that is.

Everyone needs to keep in mind that the more fancy weapons were made for nobles, they would commission blacksmith, or force them, to have really nice and shiny weapons made. Chances being that the noble would never use the weapon, just hang it in their house or carry it on their side.

 

Uh...most of those nobles accompanied their armies to war, and actively fought. In some cases, the entirety of the army would be made up of nobles ranging from petty lords to dukes and kings, though for the most part it was "bands" which were made up of tiers of freemen (your "average person") raised from the lands of minor nobility, led by said nobility, and merged into larger groups under successively higher "ranks" of nobility. That is what the entire feudal system was based on...

 

Edit: never mind, I think I misread your post there. Yes, most of the "fancy" weapons shown above were ceremonial or dress weapons/armor - not meant for actual combat use. That's not to say that the people that had them made did not also have superior quality FUNCTIONAL combat weapons/armor which were actively used by themselves in combat however

Edited October 19, 201213 yr by RaccoonTOF

Everyone needs to keep in mind that the more fancy weapons were made for nobles, they would commission blacksmith, or force them, to have really nice and shiny weapons made. Chances being that the noble would never use the weapon, just hang it in their house or carry it on their side.

 

Uh...most of those nobles accompanied their armies to war, and actively fought. In some cases, the entirety of the army would be made up of nobles ranging from petty lords to dukes and kings, though for the most part it was "bands" which were made up of tiers of freemen (your "average person") raised from the lands of minor nobility, led by said nobility, and merged into larger groups under successively higher "ranks" of nobility. That is what the entire feudal system was based on...

 

And a good point too

 

Case in point - Battle of Agincourt.

 

The French suffered heavily. Three dukes, at least eight counts, a viscount and an archbishop died, along with numerous other nobles.

Edited October 19, 201213 yr by Karranthain

Of course, as mentioned already, there was a divergence of parade pieces - from fancy, less effective armor, to decorative spears made of more impressive, but more malliable metals. Additionally, the mechanics of momentum for two-handed weapons is something that I always thought lended credability to the cleave mechanic. The slight delay in wind up means the target, if they're nimble and such, have a smidgen better chance of dodging/readying, but the idea of slashing through two or three kobolds at a time, or the ever comical (and probably purely fictional) tornado spin attack was a nice variation from the single-handed weapon and shield or somesuch.

 

From what I can tell, however, is that such wild swinging was more of a liability to friends than a threat to foes. Given the engine, I thankfully think project eternity will lack the stylised executions and overkills of some more recent cRPGs. I do think there should be some special-case, weapon appropriate kill animations, however.

Edited October 19, 201213 yr by UncleBourbon