Function Part Discussion

Okay, for arrowheads, basically...

Do X pierce damage. Can be attached onto handles. Fired from bow-like weapons, and by this I mean bows or any other ranged weapon made by the player similar enough to a bow to be tagged as one.

Now that's all that I can think of, but regarding the pierce damage I put an X above instead of a real number because now we have hit something pivotal. We now need to start plugging in numbers for the damage and combat system.

First of all, Pierce is one of the types of damage, think most RTS games. We need to pick a number for X to base all of our other numbers off of as a reference point. The number should be high enough so that it allows a certain bandwidth below it for melee attacks by organisms in the pre-sapience stages, but it should be low enough so that the damage done by late game weapons won't have to be in the trillions to compare. So, what number?

20?
It is hard to say as the first number. If we want less damage we can go to decimal numbers. Something like a human punch should be like 5, but from a different damage type (normal/blunt?).

The types of damage that I can recall right now are pierce, slash, blunt, and poison. I'll edit this once I get the rest.

20 seems good. I would prefer whole numbers. Also, Tarpy, I was thinking we merge spearheads and arrowheads, since they are basically the same shape, and both do only pierce damage. What would it be called?

Hmmmm... I don't know... Maybe weapon tips?

Does everybody agree with me?

Also, is there a thread on combat so I can go examine it?

(sorry for double post)

So basically these weapon tips would be divided into two categories: blunt, piercing and sharp. I'll describe each category in a detailed way.

Blunt

Blunt would be, basically, non-sharp objects, like warhammer heads and battering rams. By function, they would be seperated into the ones used in soldier-to-soldier combat, and the ones used in damaging buildings.

The ones used in soldier-to-soldier combat would have to be attached to either a handle or a rope/chain attached to a handle. These would do damage depending on the mass of the blunt tip. I need someone to think of a formula for the damage inflicted by the tip. (examples: War hammers, maces)

The ones in damaging buildings need extra force to operate. These would have to get close enough to the building to hit it, and although the length of the time intervals between the hits would be large, the damage inflicted would usually be quite large. (examples: Battering rams, scorpions)

Piercing

Piercing weapons would be divided into those used for ammunition and those used for melee.

Those used in ammunition would be attached onto a handle. The longer the handle, the more accurate ammunition is, but this decreases the length they travel. (due to larger mass) (Examples: Arrows)

Those used for melee would have to be attached to a handle. This would be hard to simulate, but it's worth mentioning. The longer the handle, the more effective these would be when fighting shock infantry/ cavalry, however, they would be harder to maneuver and slower and would be less effective against light infantry. (Example: Pikes, Spears)

Sharp

Sharp would be used in melee combat only.

Needs a more detailed description.

I wouldn't say weapon tips, that is way too general and could mean many things. I think just Spearheads would be best, since that was their original purpose before bows.

I found the attack types on a old thread here. The different types of attack are:

Slash
Blunt
Pierce
Biological
Ballistic
Energy

Each FP has different attack properties. A Spearhead does Pierce damage, a Blade does either Slash or Pierce, an Axe does either Slash or Blunt, etc.

Okay, big flow of ideas I have here. Lemme get my notes I took on combat.

There are several important elements here. First off, how do we calculate the percentages for when which attack type is done. For example, a typical blade, I would imagine, is used to slash 75% of the time, and stab 25% of the time. This would be simulated in game by making each attack by a Blade a 75% chance to be a slash, and a 25% chance to be a Pierce. However, what happens when the player reshapes the Blade in the Tech Editor to be curved? Then, the chance for it to be slash would either increase or become 100% altogether. Therefore, we need to measure how much the player curves the sword, using some index, and then calculate the percentages off of that. After the sword reaches a certain threshold of curviness, it would only slash, and making it curvier wouldn't change that. We would have to set specific numbers for all of this.

To measure how much the player curves the Blade in the editor, I was thinking we simply measure the angle from the handle to the tip of the Blade, as well as set a limit to how much it can be curved. Then, we set specific numbers for an equation that would look like:
For each degree a sword is curved, its chance to slash goes up X% and its chance to pierce goes down X%.

Also, just to make it clear, before the computer runs a check to see which attack is dealt, it must first run a test on whether the attack hits. This adds a new property to weapons, accuracy. How would the player's tweaking affect accuracy? Longer handles?

Furthermore, something else that must be determined is the numbers for the damage done itself. Daniferrito suggested 20 for the attack dealt by an arrowhead. But what if I made the arrow out of wood instead of iron, or if I made it out of silk, or concrete? The solution I see to this is to add a Boolean property to all compounds in the game, for whether it can be used for a tool. I don't think meat, or silk, or water vapour should be able to make tools. However, compounds that are true for this property, such as copper, would then have a further property which defines their effectiveness, which would be a percent. Their effectiveness rating would be multiplied by the tool's base stats to determine the final stats of the tool.

For example, I make a Spearhead. I make it out of bronze. Bronze has an effectiveness rating of 75%. A Spearhead has a base attack of 10-25 Pierce Damage. I apply this bronze Spearhead to a handle, name it a Spear, and equip all my warriors with it. Each warrior would do 7.5-18.75 Pierce Damage, since bronze has a 75% effectiveness rating. This way some compounds will be better for tools then others, which makes sense.

What do you guys think?

NickTheNick wrote:

Also, just to make it clear, before the computer runs a check to see which attack is dealt, it must first run a test on whether the attack hits. This adds a new property to weapons, accuracy. How would the player's tweaking affect accuracy? Longer handles?

Furthermore, something else that must be determined is the numbers for the damage done itself. Daniferrito suggested 20 for the attack dealt by an arrowhead. But what if I made the arrow out of wood instead of iron, or if I made it out of silk, or concrete? The solution I see to this is to add a Boolean property to all compounds in the game, for whether it can be used for a tool. I don't think meat, or silk, or water vapour should be able to make tools. However, compounds that are true for this property, such as copper, would then have a further property which defines their effectiveness, which would be a percent. Their effectiveness rating would be multiplied by the tool's base stats to determine the final stats of the tool.

For example, I make a Spearhead. I make it out of bronze. Bronze has an effectiveness rating of 75%. A Spearhead has a base attack of 10-25 Pierce Damage. I apply this bronze Spearhead to a handle, name it a Spear, and equip all my warriors with it. Each warrior would do 7.5-18.75 Pierce Damage, since bronze has a 75% effectiveness rating. This way some compounds will be better for tools then others, which makes sense.

On the subject of accuracy,( in the case of melee weapons), accuracy based on the handel depends on the type of weapon, as on a spear, the long handle allows the user to more easially reach enemies, while if you took a long handle/shaft/stick and stuck a morningstar head on it, it would be awkward to aim.

Now, onto the subject of weapon materials, i have made a basic chart which is based off of Nick's "bronze spearhead" from the last post.

Spoiler:

For the second part, very good work, that is exactly what I was looking for!

For the first part, that is true, yes. What I was referring to was when Tarpy mentioned arrows with longer handles would be more accurate. Of course, each weapon FP would have its own base accuracy, before other things are taken into account. What's important is to define when what makes what more accurate and by how much.

Raptorstorm wrote:

Spoiler:

My suggestion is to if your enemy have armor on him, effectivity of melee weapons be decreased.
As example, i made this little list:

Spoiler:

Player should also be able to use armor.There would also be armor what would protect mostly from long ranged weapons. Is list good?

I can help with blunt weapons damage.

Here, i will assume we have a mace, but any kind of blunt weapon would use the same calculations.
Here is a simple ascii drawing of such mace:

Code:

  MMMMM
  MMCMM
  MMMMM
    S
    S
    S
    S
    H
    S

Ms are the head of the mace
C is the center of mass of the head of the mace. If all the head is made of the same material, it is just at the center
S represents the stick (handle)
H is the holding point. The point at which the creature holds the mace

The head of the mace will be made out of a single material, with density d. As we know the volume, we can easily calculate the total mass m of the head (we will ignore the handle)
The distance from the holding point to the center of the head will be r. If there is a rope between the handle and the head, it will be added as well (when the head hits, it will be at the maximum distance)

The formula for kinetic energy of a rotating corpse is K = 0.5*m*r²*ω².
Now, that gives us energy transferred, but we want damage. If we assume double the energy applied means double the damage, we can apply a linear transformation. The only problem left is that ω, that means velocity. The faster you move the mace, the more damage it will do. Here, my assumption will be that no matter the characteristics of the mace, you will always move it at the same speed.

That leaves us with the following formula D = C*m*r², where C is an arbitrary number that translates energy to damage. If we want to nerf maces, we just lower it, if we want to buff them, we just make it bigger.

There is one last thing to take into consideration. We should put some kind of downsides to that variables, so people don't just make a 2000 kg mace with a 5 m handle that one shots any building. I can think of a few:
-The material you use to design each item are the cost of that item. This one is already agreed on.
-Each creature should be able to carry at most some amount of equipment, measured in Kg. Extra equipment makes the soldier slower on movement and attacks, to the point it cant move. This makes sure you don't go overboard on the mass.
-Length is somewhat problematic here. Probably longer maces makes the unit hitbox bigger (they need more space so they don't kill each other with the long mace) and reduces the hit chance, attack speed or both.

Tell me what you think of this. Also blunt damage probably ignores armor better than other damage types (no matter how are you covered, if you receive a heavy mace hit to the chest, you will notice it, where a sword probably wont do anything to a good plate armour)

Are we going to be taking into account the muscle mass of any specific creature? (this could change things)

Good explanation Daniferrito.

I think that's very much all on blunt weapons.

Also, "Length is somewhat problematic here. Probably longer maces makes the unit hitbox bigger (they need more space so they don't kill each other with the long mace) and reduces the hit chance, attack speed or both." Why would that be problematic?

The hitbox simply gets bigger, the chances of the blunt weapon landing a hit get slimmer, as does attack speed.

@untrustedlife- Probably. Any ideas here?

I would say that when your creature has more strength, it can carry more, which means heavier armor and weapons, so weapons can do more damage, and armor can absorb more. I believe that blunt weapons will scale the most with size, and ranged weapons will scale the least.

which reminds me of a different thing: when you swing a weapon, you dont swing the mace only, you swing your whole arm, which means that you should add to r the distance from your body center (to make more damage you swing your entire body).

The problem with mussle strength is that not only the size of the mussle matters, you also have to take into acount how that force is done (which bones are you moving and how, and how can everything work together to make the most damage).

@WilliamstheJohn: I wouldn't jump into armour right away. Let's stay on this topic for now.

@Daniferrito: For the limitations, I've come up with Weight Capacity. The Weight Capacity of your species indicates the maximum weight of objects they can carry. This would also be useful and applicable in the earlier creature stages, when the organism of the player picks up objects. The Weight Capacity would be dependent on multiple factors, including muscle mass, as you suggested. It would be measured in kilograms. How much weight the organism/unit carries also affects their movement and attack speed.

Also, anything that the organism equips, as opposed to wears, can only be up to a maximum of 25% of its weight capacity. Now, let me plug in some numbers in some examples to explain how it works.

I have a species of large, robust, humanoid, organisms. Their weight capacity is 25kg. This means that they can carry/wear up to 25kg of TO's, and can equip TO's of up to 6.25kg. Any TO's they equip as opposed to wear or carry still count towards how much weight they are carrying. Let's say my basic infantry unit, a swordsman, has a sword equipped weighing 2kg. He also has leather/mail armour weighing 20kg. His total weight that he is carrying is 22kg. The equation looks like:

1-(W/C)/2 = m

Where W represents the weight carried, C the weight capacity, and m the modifier to the other stats. Let's plug in the numbers we had.

1-(22/35)/2 = m
0.56% = m

So, the result is 56%. That percent is then multiplied by the unit's attack speed and movement speed to account for the weight they are carrying. Using this, the player will have to account for both weight and effectiveness when in the Editor. Also, in response to the dilemma you proposed Dani, the compounds that are most effective for creating tools are also those with the highest densities, and so when the player designs weapons they will be restricted by how large they make it, since if they make it too large, it will be too heavy, and their units won't be able to equip/carry it.

Unless you want the tools to be light. For example, you want armor to be as light as possible so your troops are faster. Only if aluminum wasn't so belgiumly hard to extract...

I like your formula for calculating cost for moving. What do you mean exactly about the 25% limit? Could your example creature equip a 15 kg backpack?

@Daniferrito- An empty backpack can't weight 15 kg. Now that you mention it, we should add backpacks as a function part (for storing stuff).

Also, would dual- wielding be possible?

Probably, but as a drawback (apart from the increased weight of a second weapon) each extra weapon (in case there is a creature with more than two arms) reduces accuracy significantly (or damage)

Edit: Well, i was meaning for a backpack that can weight 15Kg when full, or actually any kind of thing to wear that weights a lot.

The 25% I introduced because I realized that if a units weight capacity is, say, 35kg, there is nothing stopping the player from equipping their units with 35kg swords. The limit to the weight humans can wear is much higher than the limit to the weight they can equip and use for a tool.

I agree with Nick on the 25% limit.

About slash weapons...

Slash weapons would be attachable on to handles- the shorter the handle, the more accurate the blade is (the chance of hitting the opponent is larger) and fighting with them is quicker.

Blades that are in a 90 degree angle with their handle will automatically be double-edged (not sure about this, give me your opinions on it). Double-edged swords give of more damage than regular swords.

Blades that are in a more than 90 degree angle will increase the chance of a slash strike and decrease the one of a pierce, however, they also give bonus damage when slashing.

Attention!

Since spearheads are far more complex than I originally perceived, they, along with other weapons, will be discussed here for more effectiveness.

The descriptions of the weapons will still be included in the OP of this thread.

Also, since spearheads are no longer being discussed, we are moving on to the wheel.

Tarpy wrote:

Attention!

Since spearheads are far more complex than I originally perceived, they, along with other weapons, will be discussed here for more effectiveness.

The descriptions of the weapons will still be included in the OP of this thread.

Also, since spearheads are no longer being discussed, we are moving on to the wheel.

Wheel?
In game, it should be used for moving products from one place to another faster. That is my idea.

EDIT:Wow, i now noticed how much stuff we need to discuss about...Thats alot!

Well, that's what the wheel will be used for, but we need to elaborate more, here's my suggestion:

Here are all of the values of wheels:
ms- Mass supported, or how much kilo's one pair of wheels can support
a- The acceleration of the wheel on a perfectly smooth surface
maxV- Maximum speed the TO with the wheel can reach
turnTime- How fast can the TO with the wheel on a 90 degree curve

The wheel would be used in making vehicles, and would be one of their main components. There would be four types of wheels available, all with their pre-request technology and their special add-ons that are unlocked after researching different technologies. These would be stone wheels, wooden wheels, iron wheel, and rubber wheels.

Wooden wheels- Along with stone wheels, become the first ones available. They can only support relatively small weights, but are much more mobile and fast than their stone counterparts.
ms=200kg
a=0,5 m/s2
maxV= 20 m/s2
turnTime=2s
Add-ons:
Iron rims- Increase supported mass by +100kg
Spoked- Decrease the mass supported by 50 kg, increase acceleration by +0,75 m/s2

Stone wheels- Support high weights, but are very slow and immobile.
ms=1t
a=0,25 m/s2
maxV=10 m/s
turnTime=6s
Add-onns:
Hole in the centre- Decreases supported mass by -300 kg, increases acceleration by +0,25 m/s2

If anyone can do the iron and rubber ones, I would be grateful.

I'm reluctant to have so many variables and equations just for one FP. Could there be a way to simplify the effect of a wheel?

Also, bear in mind that wheels made of different materials are still the same FP, so the FP must have an empty slot for some of its stats that is determined by the material.

I found another, maybe less significant Alloy wheel what should be in list. At least if its enough significant

Doesn't seem particularly prominent enough to warrant differentiation.