Massacres

[wichita]

I agree with everything AoM just said. I think the lack of uncertainty is probably the most unnerving thing for me in combat right now. It's the aggravation of knowing that even if I stab an unarmed (unclothed) man with a sabre, I will never be able to get a critical hit that kind of puts me off from even bothering to try and fight. A 5% chance to get a critical hit (natural 20 on a d20 in D&D) would certainly spice things up.

[Black Canyon]

First of all, let me say that I have not fallen solidly on one side of this issue or the other. I'm just trying to understand it a bit more.

I wonder if Missy has a point. Clearly battles involving larger groups can take place because one of my characters has been a part of such a battle, right after the tiredness was put in place. It was not spontaneous, took years to plan and prepare for......... probably longer than we needed to, but we wanted to win. So it does take effort. And determination. And wakefulness.

On the other hand, my character was also present during the massacre of a well-established town in which two idiots killed off over half of the citizens during a three day period. I won't go into details but anyone who has been through this clearly can imagine how they did it. This was before the "new tiredness". They would not be able to do what they did now because of it. And I think that is a good thing. Could they kill some people? Yes. Over half of a large town? No.

The problem right now, in my humble opinion, is that defense is too strong. There is only one way to deal with locks on buildings, and that is through crowbars.

There is another way to deal with locks on buildings. Go for the keys. Some successful groups of thugs have figured that one out.

I think that the current problem with cantr can be summed up by saying that characters don't have enough of a sense of their own mortality.

I agree with this. Although there will always be those who don't value their own characters' lives and therefore will recklessly take others. I'm not sure how one-hit kills would make joining an organized, defensible society more safe or lucrative, unless we are talking about that 5% chance pertaining specifically to those who are not armed or protected in any way. If my well-armed, well shielded character still has a 5% chance of dying through one-hit, he will be just as dead whether surrounded by an army or alone.

[Blackdeath]

well he does have his fellow soldiers who might take the hit first. then he can run

[wichita]

I think that is part of the realism that is missing though, Black Canyon. Right now it feels that just because you have an iron shield you are impervious to anything lesser than sabre. But in real life there is always the fluke chance that the little farmer boy finds a chink in your defenses and whips a rock through your eye-socket and Kabong! you're down.

I think I might go as far as suggesting an increased crit range for knives (like up it to 8%) to simulate the chance of backstabbing. This would increase the value of a good rogue carrying a dirk and open the door for real assassinations to take place and shake things up.


As for the war planning, I think that sort of planning is good for the society simulation aspect of the game. A good war should take a year to plan. There is a lot of cooperation to be be had in building up the inventory and working out the strategy. Quick and thoughtless violence is what we should worry about in terms of turning this into a shoot-'em-up.

[Talapus]

However realistic it might be Whichita, for many players, the day one of their characters dies suddendly from a bust appendix (or any number of other things) caused by a lucky punch of a new spawn is the day that they will leave Cantr forever. I wouldn't mind seeing a small chance that damage is increased, but an instant kill however real, doesn't fit what "I" would like to see Cantr become. That said, I am sure there are plenty of other views on this issue, but I just had to give my view point

[Nixit]

There is a chance that shields are ineffective against attacks.

[AoM]

I'd like to make clear that I was talking in extremes simply to make my point. A newspawn using his fists could still get a critical hit, sure. So he'd deal 10 dmg instead of 4 with his fist. (He goes all bruce lee on some dude...) But shielding still is taken into account, and even a critical punch can be absorbed. The reason it's still worth it to punch a shielded soldier is that there's a chance the soldier's shield won't block.

With medium range weapns such as knives, short swords, and war hammers, suddenly these things can worry the claymore/iron shield knight. Maybe that war hammer will crit him at the wrong moment and bam! Suddenly his face is smashed in for 40 dmg.

Now the advantage in any fight is going to be in the knight's favor because he can crit hit for more and block more effectively, but even with all his skill and equipment, he could still be overwhelmed.

But let's say the knight has four buddies with him. Now any lesser armed would-be attackers know that the odds of getting lucky 5 times in a row are next to nil... so they won't attack anyone. Suddenly, being part of the established crowd has possibly saved a knight from an unlucky crit hit.

Is this not what we're trying to achieve? Is this not a touch more towards realism?


And back to the topic about defeating defensive structures... Yes, you can certainly play the educated guessing game and try to assassinate the fellow with the keys, but that tactic is not as effective a plan for an occupying army force that wants to inhabit a large town quickly and consolidate its position.

I'm trying to think ahead to cantr future, when we'll have established republics and kingdoms something like what I imagine Lad was. And if there's going to be war amongst them, would-be generals are going to need a way to occupy, pillage, and indeed, raze the towns that they come across to the ground. Adding damage values to buildings, and machines capable of demolition would open up a whole new level of concern for defensive nations.

The history of warfare has been shaped by how offensive tactics have evolved to counter the defense. When fortresses were built, people undermined them, built seige towers to go over them, and built catapults and later cannons to go right through them. There should be more than one viable straightforward tactic for overcoming defense.

And one last word about avoiding having cantr become a war-game... Preparing for a war will always, if done right, be a strenuous undertaking, one dangerous enough to be considered only amongst the most dire circumstances. In addition, war, pain, and suffering define their counterparts in peace-time much in the same way a villain defines a hero.

[Black Canyon]

But let's say the knight has four buddies with him. Now any lesser armed would-be attackers know that the odds of getting lucky 5 times in a row are next to nil... so they won't attack anyone. Suddenly, being part of the established crowd has possibly saved a knight from an unlucky crit hit.

Here's the thing. You've played this game long enough to have seen plentiful numbers of suicidal newspawns who gain their only enjoyment from punching everything in sight and then begging to be killed themselves. If one of my established characters were to be killed by a lucky punch from one of those idiots .... I would be very unhappy.

[Nixit]

You missed something Black Canyon.

I'd like to make clear that I was talking in extremes simply to make my point. A newspawn using his fists could still get a critical hit, sure. So he'd deal 10 dmg instead of 4 with his fist. (He goes all bruce lee on some dude...) But shielding still is taken into account, and even a critical punch can be absorbed. The reason it's still worth it to punch a shielded soldier is that there's a chance the soldier's shield won't block.

Read that.

[Black Canyon]

I did read that. But we were discussing the topic of one-hit kills. Or at least that was some of what we were discussing. Bare-fisted hits can occasionally get through a shield now.

[Nixit]

Hm. Well, I'm not sure if that's what he was referring to.

Meh.

[AoM]

Okay, so i'll make it clear. The paragraph that Nixit quoted was meant to say that a bare-fisted punch does not have the ability to one-hit kill. A one-hit kill would require 100 damage. Let's say the average fist does 3-4 damage (at 100% force). A crit-hit fist attack would do something like 10 damage.

So under my system you'd need 10 very lucky suicidal newspawns to decide to hit you all at once, and for the shield block to fail every single time in order for your beloved character to die before you come in and check up on him. And let's face it, if that happens, the cosmos are just aligned against you.

[black knight]

i like your idea Avatar, it would certainly make warfare close to reallity. but, dont you think all this would involve too much programming on the part of the staff.

[Missy]

Don't you think that again this is just a better incentive to form a group of pirates? Now they wont even need weapons just 12 people and their fists. (Which isn't an impossible number.)

[SekoETC]

But there would be more likely to find 12 good citizens getting pissed if someone came beating people into pulp with their bare fists. In real life it would be very possible for a gang of 12 people to kill somebody with no weapons, actually even a smaller number of people could do it too. Ok now I forgot what I was trying to say....