Neccessity Of War Tech

I would be devastated if you didn't have a large and unique variety of weapons to choose from in Elemental.  My main fear however is while swords, spears, axes, etc will look different their actual usage will be static with each only doing a generic amount of damage. I hope there is a deep combat system that makes using spears vs swords vs axes a more tactical decision than aesthetic one.  

There is a fairly awesome post out weapon differences some pages back

What i would like is a gradual build up to that large and unique variety so we don't get swamped at the start. Also within each category there should be asthetic choices (i.e. several different battle axe models) but each category should have its own unique characteristics like i said

Don't get me wrong i love the idea of having an ample selection of weapon types to choose from but the trick here is making it with a degree of sophistication without it being overwhelmingly complicated.

First you have to choose whether the weapons tech tree be based on quality of materials:

     Research Crude Iron Weapons, Improved Iron Weapons, and ect, ect

Or base it on Weapon type and have materials researched elsewhere:

     Primitive Spears --> Crude Spears --> Improved Spears --> Advanced Spears --> Superior Spears --> Ect, Ect

                                   |--> Primitive Javelins --> Ect, Ect         |--> Crude Pikes-->Ect, Ect

     The idea, in theory, is simple. All spear, or more accurately pole weapons, are based into one section which in turn makes it easier for the player to decide how they want to define their armies. And by having Materials like iron be part of a different tech branch can also help, us, the players to costumize our researched weapons with specific qualities. Say, you have access to shortswords but have only researched copper smelting. The problem in a traditional method would be that your shortswords are useless if you need to research iron smelting in order to properly use the shortsword tech. But what i'm suggesting is instead if you have access to shortswords then you can design the blade's hilt, pommel, guard and blade followed with materials used (copper, bronze, iron, steel, ect, ect).

     Another beauty about keeping the materials as a seperate tech is that it can allow us, the players, to be creative in making base alloys to be used as materials in turn. Say, you have access to mithral (known for light weight), Adamantium (legendary for its strength) silver (a natural anti-magical creature metal) and...dark iron (for magic resistance) and then were allowed to combine these metals into an alloy.... , well lets just say you could make more exotic and effortive base materials for arms and armor than the original key ingredients would be.

    Also i believe the levels of a weapon tech (Crude, Improved, Advanced) should effect not the amount of damage but rather the overall cost to produce that particular weapon. This would include: the rate at which a weapon can be produced, the amount of materials to produce it and the price tag to make it. This would help keep armies small at first and as time progresses they would get bigger as the weapons become cheaper to make.

I like this idea  

Stardock suggested they are not going to have the classic tech tree.    I wonder if there really is any room for alternate pre-reqs the way you might in Civ 4. 

I know they said there was not going to be a direct line the way you have the dagger > -short sword > long sword laid out.  Frogboy almost specifically said there were not going to be in that fashion.  From his words, I can't imagine dagger research would be in any way required for sword research.  Certainly not in a linear fashion.      You had "laser > hyper laser" type tech tree in Gal Civ, and they said there wasn't going to be a very different system here.

it simply a way to avoid being swamped in the beginning. there is also the fact that it would add to faction diversity as different factions start out with different weapons being researched

Thanks Szadowz.

You're probably right Landisaurus. We'll just have to wait and see how Frogboy and crew plan to make the tech tree, or whatever they plan to call it. but since we don't access to that info we might as well shoot around philisopical concepts while we wait

As far we know it could more like:

 Research Blades|--> Crude Long Swords --> Ect

                        |--> Crude Short Swords --> Ect

                        |--> Curde Daggers --> Ect

                        |--> Crude Two-Hander Swords --> Ect

Research Poleweapons |--> Spears

                                 |--> Pikes

                                 |--> Javelins

                                 |--> Polearms

This concept also makes it easier since, in truth, all these weapons are just variations of a single general design.

Incidently I like this variant too

Most important thing is for the different kinds of weapons to be really different. Addendum: they must be balanced.

Personaly, I like there beeing a tech tree for metals and different tech trees for different types of gear.

Then, if you have both say Bronze and Short Swords, you can make Bronze Short Swords.

I disagree on the balanced. Someone going up against a halberd with a dagger is not on even footing, nor should he be. (this is assuming equal skill levels). Saying they need to be different and then adding that they must be balanced essentially you are saying different but not different.

Now I could see daggers being cheaper to produce, and I could also see it requiring less training to train someone to use a dagger than a halberd. Certainly there needs to be some balancing on the various costs, otherwise if the costs are all equal then everyone will only make the best weapon. They should make some weapons have advantages such as "quick strike" to give them the advantage of getting the first hit in. some other "specials" like that need to be thought of. Maybe an advantage to a dagger would be to critical strike, hitting a particularly vulnerable area as it is easier to control where you hit wiht a knife than a polearm. Maybe something else gets a bonus vs mounted units. etc etc.

As far as the material and weapon combination - yes I think you should have to both research the weapon type as well as the material you are working with in order to make a specific weapon of that material.

There is also a balance in imbalance. I believe what Gazing was suggesting wasn't that a dagger vs a spear should be equal but rather the spearman shouldn't have an instant kill or insurmountable advantage over the soldier with the dagger. I would expect the spearman to have a clear advantage unless the other soldier had been trained / equipped to deal with the spearman. At least that is how I understand it, so I agree totally with having weapons balanced. 

These are fantastic ideas.  

While it is true that a dagger is in most cases going to be dramatically outmatched by a halberd it has some significant advantages. It is much lightter meaning a dagger wielding unit would suffer much less fatigue and could move faster over long distances. In addition to effectively use a halberd in formation requires extensive training to keep from getting entangled in your own unit. Even with training a group of halbardiers would require more time to manuever in battle. And if the halderd wielding units were broken and the dagger weilding units were inside their formation suddenly that halberd is a massive liability rather than a strength.

While it is true that a dagger is in most cases going to be dramatically outmatched by a halberd it has some significant advantages. It is much lightter meaning a dagger wielding unit would suffer much less fatigue and could move faster over long distances. In addition to effectively use a halberd in formation requires extensive training to keep from getting entangled in your own unit. Even with training a group of halbardiers would require more time to manuever in battle. And if the halderd wielding units were broken and the dagger weilding units were inside their formation suddenly that halberd is a massive liability rather than a strength.

While it is true that a dagger is in most cases going to be dramatically outmatched by a halberd it has some significant advantages. It is much lightter meaning a dagger wielding unit would suffer much less fatigue and could move faster over long distances. In addition to effectively use a halberd in formation requires extensive training to keep from getting entangled in your own unit. Even with training a group of halbardiers would require more time to manuever in battle. And if the halderd wielding units were broken and the dagger weilding units were inside their formation suddenly that halberd is a massive liability rather than a strength.

EDIT: Ummm... Could someone please delete all but one of thiese posts...