Reply To: Buce's suggestions list

#3970
Jago
Participant

1)I agree that there could be more weapons that deal bleeding damage, but armor bypass for these weapons is alright. It’s important to keep these low-damage weapons relevant.

2)Why not? Might be very similar to the shortsword though.

3)The longsword was not a two-handed weapon. I think there are already plenty sword types in the game, but maybe the falchion could become a weaker war cleaver and the longsword could take its place.

4)Yes, please! More ranged melee weapons are planned.

5)Yup, why not?

6)Instead of higher AP cost, I would add more fatigue with each reload, so you can still fire one shot each turn and reload. You’d just tire faster.

7)Shouldn’t be better against armor than a hunting bow. Otherwise crossbows become obsolete. Otherwise yes, I’d like that. Maybe call it a warbow instead.

8)Yes, please. Maybe as a weapon for a barbarian human faction.

9)Instead of leaving it in front of you, you can place it on the field you are standing. Every unit standing there counts as partially in cover. Also it can only be carried with both hands.

10)Adding obstacles to the battlefield sounds a little OP. Maybe it could just slow down attackers.

11)There’s already a two-handed axe. It’s fine.

12)Two-handed warhammers would be cool, as long as they have an respective high minus on the max. fatigue.

13)Tripping enemies. How different would that be from stunning?

14),15) and 16): There won’t be armor types from the 14th and 15th century. If the game had it setting in the real world it would be somewhere between 1066-1300AD.