The above listing, combined with the 30 base weight capacity of trained troops and heroes (+20 from Strength, +15 from Muscle) makes me think that part of the issue with weapon balance is just how easy it is to max out the carry capacity.  Moreover, the only available and purchasable weapons which can penetrate high-end defenses well are two-handed, unless you play Gilden (Sledge) or Kraxis (Short Pike - one hand version of the pike).

Other things to note:

No one-handed axe upgrades.

No one-handed blunt weapon beyond the Mace (although you would need a 1-handed weapon which can do up to about 24 damage to equal a longsword against plate).

Armor values double against whatever the armor type is good against (chain is good against cutting, plate is good against blunt).

Initiative bonuses are probably as good as they are right now because it is very easy to gain the initiative penalties from encumbrance, and when these are stacked on top of the initiative penalties from some of the weapons you have a very slow unit.

Trained troops seem to have a maximum weight capacity of around 65 (85 with Champion Plate or a horse, 105 with both), unless playing as Trogs.  This would seem to make the Golem Shield a very bad choice, and almost preclude the use of two-handed weapons.  This is probably a large part of where the power of mounts comes in, and also why Muscle and Strength are very good traits to take for trainable units.

very interesting notes

Maximum damage by various weapons against research-able armors (shields were not included in damage calculations):

                         Leather      Chain      Masterwork Chain        Light Plate           Plate          Champion Plate

Dagger                   2.6          0.9                     0.6                   1.3                     0.9                0.8

Shortsword             5.6           2.4                    1.6                   3.1                     2.4                2.1

Longsword             12.5         6.5                    4.6                     8.1                    6.5                5.9

Greatsword            15.2         8.3                     6.0                   10.3                  8.3                 7.6

Axe                       4.8           2.0                      1.3                 2.6                     2.0                 1.8

Battle Axe             9.8           4.8                      3.4                  6.1                     4.8                 4.3

Warhammer          4.8           3.2                    2.3                    2.6                    1.1                  1.0

Mace                    10.7          8.0                    6.1                    6.7                    3.2                  2.8

Maul                     21.8         17.8                  14.5                  15.7                    8.5                 7.7

Pike                      12            9.6                   7.7                    8.4                      6.9                6.3

Yew Longbow        6.4            4.5                  3.3                     3.7                      2.8                2.5

As can be seen above, Greatswords and Mauls do comparable amounts of damage against Plate and Champion Plate, though Mauls are *slightly* better in terms of damage.  Daggers do pitiful amounts of damage to even the most basic of armors, and probably should not be bothered with once any form of armor is in play.  Yew longbows, the top-of-the-line bow for anyone without Master Archers, do damage comparable to mid-game weapons in all cases.

It would appear that while the predominant armors are chain-type, blunt weapons and spear-type weapons are the best.  When plate armor is predominant, high-end swords (longswords and greatswords), mauls, and pikes are effective, Battle Axes are reasonable, and anything else is a bit of a waste unless it's all you have.

Bows seem to do universally poor damage for the cost of researching them, but allow you to hide behind tougher melee troops, and possibly use lighter armors to avoid encumbrance penalties.

I would say that with the new armor values you show here, weapons are at an okay balance. The major problem weapons have already been discussed. But okay is not metascore 90. Okay is what you start with and then fix the problematic weapons and special attributes to make each one feel unique in the hands of the player. Assuming that Bash and Counterattack cancel each other out in terms of power, Backswing needs to be fixed. Discard it, make each soldier in the unit get one, or add another ability to it. The current design is to make each new tier of weapons and armor outclass the previous ones. I think that is fine as long as the weapons from the previous tier are still reasonably good. This should be the drive to continue researching weapons, but it shouldn't force each game to always rush weapons. It's a delicate balance and Werewindle is probably the best one to calculate reasonable numbers. Dagger seems like enough of a problem to deserve its own thread and maybe an NGO too. For my money shields need to do a little more armor and only have air dodge. Archery just got a boost, so I will play with it some more to see how it works. I think the general idea that shortbows are crappier versions of longbows is a bad way to go. Shortbows should do less damage, but get less of a penalty. Yew Longbow should get 10% armor piercing.

The real question is whether or not the devs are even considering this thread given how irrelevant it all is when heroes are in the game. They just don't compare yet.

Well, in one thread or another Tjurururudury has proven that there is one build to make infantry worth getting early on and by extrapolation, I am going to go farther and say that the best weapon is... a staff. 

Lucky + Krax racial + Fortify + Sindanriririlrlzl staff = dodge near the 70s. That's probably the only infantry I would ever bother running with since their attrition rate is nearly non-existent while simultaneously outputting decent damage something your sov and champion cannot do as easily nowadays. 

There are a lot of factors such as dodge and various debuffs that have not been discussed here - that includes racials. I think, as the community, we ought to be a bit more context sensitive.

updated for .981

shorswords less init, more balanced

longswords are now uncommon but still slightly too much dmg

many mace and maul gain bash and are uncommon

2h swords small balance changes

bow troops are much faster to train

Sean really good reply at reply#55.
I really agree with most of the little thing.

I do think shields should be more dodge dependant than defense dependant though, to give them some flavour, but they should have a tiny bit more dodge, and adding air dodge would be cool.

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

There are some very good mathematical analyses of some of the weapons in this thread, but everyone seems to have made one fundamental flaw in the analysis of counter-attack.

The OP's assumption is "counter attack is basically just one extra attack per turn", and later calculations based on counter-attack involve doubling the dps because of the counter-attack trait.

In reality, counter-attack only activates if your unit is attacked.  If it is not attacked, counter-attack is worthless for that round.  Let us take a real battle involving two rational-thinking players as an example:

To maximize the use of counter-attack, the best formation would be to have your swordsman all in a straight line.  This prevents flanking and limits the maximum number of attackers to 3 per round.  Now, if these 3 attackers, presumably also in a straight line, all focus fire on the middle swordsman with counter-attack, then counter-attack only activates once per 3 hits.  The swordsman on either side of the middle guy are left untouched that round, wasting their counter-attack potential.

Whether the computer utilises the above tactic or not to minimize counter-attack damage is a whole different matter (if it does not, that is an AI flaw, not a game mechanic flaw).  However, in theory counter-attack should really only add a minimum of 33% extra damage per round, NOT 100% more damage like other people have assumed!

Now, if you compare that 33% extra damage (along with the sword initiative bonus), to the extra damage and bonuses of other weapons, you may find the sword is not as OP as you think.  Or you may still find it is.  But please be thorough in analysing your starting assumptions!

There are a lot of other assumptions that people make that can also be questioned, such as ignoring the following situations that actually occur quite commonly:

1. Difference in army sizes would allow for greater flanking/surrounding opportunities and further reduce counter-attack advantages.

2. As stated before, there are a vast array of monsters that have 0 blunt defence and high cutting/piercing defence.  This is a HUGE factor.  Do not underestimate the advantage of blunt damage over cutting damage, which holds true until you research heavy armor.  Given that games are usually decided in the early to mid-game (at least my games are), plate armor is rarely acquired (i have NEVER ever researched plate armor before winning my games, even on the hardest difficulties).

3. Counter-attack is less effective against single powerful monsters, where your army is only attacked with one huge attack each round.

4. High damaging first round attacks means you dramatically reduce the DPS potential of the attacker's army as you will kill more troops (in multi-unit armies anyway).  This advantage can dramatically widen as the ratio of your DPS to opponent's DPS widens during the battle.

I am sure there are numerous other flawed assumptions people have made that do not reflect what is really going on.  All these are just from the top of my head.

You have big armies

I never really bring tons of trained units, and If I bring swords, I only bring a few swords, then a few spears, and archers.

I honestly think that this is the wrong way around balancing damage, since this is a very hidden way of boosting blunt damage, also I don't like weapons that "sometimes work, but usually sucks".

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

The examples and analyses people gave before all involved big armies.  I was just using their examples.

Anyway, as long as you have an army of at least 3, you can minimize the counter-attack damage to 33%.  I would not call an army of 3 large by any means.

tbh i talked about numbers of army

reread:

"basically counterattack is 1 more attack each turn so basically 100% bonus dps (or 1/n bonus if you have n champions with counterattack (even though you could still place champions to tank each 1 enemy and use all counterattacks))"

so its written that if you have n its not 100% but like i said if you are smart (and have good initiative mainly) you can divide 3 4 troops/champions to actually being hit by different enemies and so have n counterattack each turn

this is true but ai isnt (and probably wont anytime soon) be able to do it, we cant really balance things hoping for such a complicated manouver, if and when ai will do such a thing we will balance based on that

this was 99% a bug, this patch already added blunt defense to EVERYTHING in the game, just saying it was  a bug so many monsters had missing stats

but yeah you are right that eventually there will be monsters with different resistances and blunt is maybe the one that will be lower on average, this is surely a factor to consider

this was already analyzed...

 "ofc there is one exception where fighting with high number a solo creature (like a boss/dragon or so)"

[quote]4. High damaging first round attacks means you dramatically reduce the DPS potential of the attacker's army as you will kill more troops (in multi-unit armies anyway).  This advantage can dramatically widen as the ratio of your DPS to opponent's DPS widens during the battle.[quote]

this is also true but since we are comparing 2 weapons with so much initiative difference its more likely swords will always be the one to attack first

anyway this point is very complicated to theorycraft for armies with many troops, too many factors are in play

That said, we agree that counter attack is not ALWAYS 100% more damage, but 33% damage is well.. stretching it, if I place my units correctly my swordsmen (usually built as tanks, since they tend to receive punishment) gets to use counter-attack always.
I use archers only to allow my swordsmen to do counter attack more, in recent battles I just fill my army with spears and win everything (Seemingly this is my best tactic, since spears have no weakness, and a huge strength against both armoured opponents and opponents with counter-attack.

The reason I don't use swords-men a lot is I consider the 50% armour reduction from boar spear / winged spear to be superior.
I might be mistaken, but oh well. and BTW. Thanks for your input

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

And we never talked about the auto-defend strategy only humans can do. We can get +15 Armor by defending with the same number of the exact same units and win quite easily. It's something I hope the AI eventually learns to do.

this is the usual philosphycal question of when the best  move for both opponents is not moving... what to do?

maybe instead of turn limit they should introduce starving

Sadly, the AI have more patience

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

I disagree to longswords on the basis that all weapons above the initial tier should do more damage.  I will soften that a bit by saying I'm still evaluating the new armor values.  That is/was my position before the most recent changes.  After reading the suggestion of Sunder, I would much like to see some axes with that. 

For Kongdej:  a comparison of spears against swords.

Dagger or Short Spear - unit is equipped with full leather armor and a wooden shield. Equipment weight: Dagger - 20, Short Spear - 30. Defense rating is 10.

Spear - unit is equipped with full leather armor. Equipment weight:  25. Defense rating is 8.

Shortsword, Broadsword, Winged Spear - unit is equipped with full chain armor and a kite shield.  Equipment weight: Shortsword - 35, Broadsword - 40, Winged Spear - 40. Defense rating is 38 vs cutting, 22 vs anything else.

Boar Spear - unit is equipped with full chain armor.  Equipment weight:  30. Defense is 32 against cutting, 16 against anything else.

Longsword, Short Pike - unit is equipped with full plate armor and a tower shield.  Equipment weight:  65 for both. Defense rating is 72 versus blunt, 40 versus anything else.

Pike, Greatsword - unit is equipped with full plate. Equipment weight:  Pike - 50, Greatsword - 60. Defense is 64 against blunt, 32 against anything else.

Maximum Damage by x to y:

Dagger to Spear - 2.57

Dagger to Short Spear - 2.25

(Short) Spear to Dagger - 4.76

Shortsword to Boar Spear - 2.38

Shortsword to Winged Spear - 2.08

Broadsword to Boar Spear - 3.27

Broadsword to Winged Spear - 2.88

Winged/Boar Spear to Short/Broadsword - 5.5

Longsword to Pike - 6.48

Longsword to Short Pike - 5.59

(Short) Pike to Longsword - 6.04

Greatsword to Pike - 8.32

Greatsword to Short Pike - 7.23

(Short) Pike to Greatsword - 6.90

Your intuition appears to serve you well until you reach Plate armor, at which point the damage favors swords, except with Longswords against Short Pikes. Given that unit weight capacity is 30, most of these units require at least one of Muscle (+15 weight capacity) or Strength (+20 weight capacity) or a horse, and several require two of the previous. I did not account for the attack bonus from Muscle, nor did I account for the defense bonus from defending - these numbers are strictly for when the units are attacking enemies who made attacks on their previous turns.

Thanks for the calculations, I actually am "pretty confident" in my intuition, might be my ego talking though

I never really hit plate armour, so I have little experience with plate armour, also spears use the bonus attack better, due to decreased armour, and armour working on a percentage basis.

But... Thanks!

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

If we add in traits to the discuss, spears will almost always come out on top because Brute, Underdog and Finesse are all buggy and too powerful. +9 attack per soldier? WTF?

A max of +7 if you have more initiative... except ofcourse for finesse not working, dunno about brute, will check asap. (even have the units trained).

Brute seems to be working perfectly.

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Last I checked, the vslower tag doesn't function. Is that fixed now? Anyhow, my general point is that up to 100% Attack can be added to a unit. Combine that with the fact that the dev unit designs use almost non of these traits and we have another big problem with weapons. I would actually say that spear with the most attack bonus is better than swords. They can nearly ignore all armor and with the low armor values we now use, any bonus to attack is much more powerful. 

ddd888,

As I said in my original post, just because the AI does not have the capability of taking advantage of weaknesses in counter attack does not mean counter attack is OP.  All it means is counter attack is OP against incompetent AI.  Fix the AI and you will help fix the counter attack.  It does not seem difficult to change the code to make the computer concentrate fire on one unit.  They have done it with MoM, a 15+ year old game, so I am sure they can do it with this game.  At least I hope they can.

That kind of logic doesn't fly. This game is doing something completely different. I doubt there are that many similarities or easy outs by taking examples from old games. And also, MoM is so old, it took a decade to get the AI to have some semblance of intelligence. Not fair to compare the two. 

I do think that focus fire is one thing the AI will be capable of, but we must use relevant logic to get to that conclusion, else we be damned to ignorant ramblings. 

Okay, how about this logic:

A very old game has managed to implement focus-fire AI, from a non-professional amateur modder with a day job.  Therefore, it is safe to assume that it does not take a leap of faith to believe a professional game designer, 15 years later, can do at least the SAME thing.

Note that the tactical battle systems of both games are virtually identical.