Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Why don't Greatweapons have Anti Large too??

Unknown6203Unknown6203 Posts: 516Registered Users
edited August 14 in General Discussion
Especially the Greatsword, they should have anti large... historically greatsword were used to "Hew" cavalry Legs or head or kill the rider in one stroke like the 9 ring sword, Nodachi and the Miao Dao at least in Asia that how they were used.

On Europe on the Pike and Shot Era they used them to BREAK the Pikes also the greatsword were mostly anti cav but they were good on the charge not so much on a close quarter combat since they take space to swing and even a very strong man would get tired of swinging a human sized sword than a guy whit a shield and Sword.

Hence enter if monster of that sized existed on the world great weapons would be monster killers. were the rules on tabletop were like that? they dint have high anti armor or anti large bonuses?

I am just rambling since i was thinking about this at work the other day. since new for warhammer are a bit slow....

THIS IS JUST FOR FUN, lol lot of you taking this seriously just imagine for the sake of conversation.
Post edited by Unknown6203 on

Comments

  • Commissar_GCommissar_G Senior Member Posts: 9,953Registered Users
    Simply put: game balance.
    "As a sandbox game everyone, without exception, should be able to play the game exactly as they see fit and that means providing the maximum scope possible." - ~UNiOnJaCk~
  • BoombastekBoombastek Posts: 1,764Registered Users
    edited August 13
    Two-handed sword are not design to being armor penetrated. Only in late middle age was created Flamberg and this of first real anti armor swords, but still it not so good as maces.

    And weight of 2 hand sword is 2-2.5 kilo. Flamberg weight 4 kilo.

    Weight of 1 hand sword 1-1.5 kilo plus shield around 5-6 kilo.

    2 hand on 2.5 kilo against 1 hand with 1.5 kilo plus second hand borther with shield.

    Are you sure sword and board is easy to use?

    And sword against armored horse, no it not good, knight on horse just crush you with pike.

    This is fantasy game, just acept this balance.
  • RandomblondedudeRandomblondedude Posts: 14Registered Users
    There were no "anti-large' mechanic in the dice-based tabletop game. The tabletop game's ruleset for armour and armour piercing made no difference from where the attack originated from or what kind of weapon was used. Instead it was the combined strength value of the wielder and the weapon which in principle decided the chance to penetrate armour.

    So an Empire Greatsword (strength 5) had the same modifier to enemy armour as a monster with the same base strength (5). If the monster had a weapon that increased the base strength then it's modifier to armour would be greater as well.

    Similarly the tabletop game made no difference between armour on a large foe (cavalry, ogres, dragons etc) or on infantry apart from that certain units armour was better at stopping damage than others. But that armour could be worn by both small and large foes.

    As an example a Greatsword had a better armour than a troll, but a troll was harder to injure and could take thrice the damage than a Greatsword.

    Sorry if this abstract rambling is hard to make sense off...
  • Mogwai_ManMogwai_Man Posts: 2,933Registered Users
    Because halberds would become redundant.
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Posts: 16,190Registered Users
    Warhammer's original game design (re tabletop) never factored in "Large" opponents, because Large is a Total War concept.

    The need for (added) anti-Large bonuses exist entirely for Total War/ tactical strategy game needs, something the tabletop never had to deal with.

    Your statement on the use of certain weapons against cavalry isn't so much incorrect but rather irrelevant, because as the good Commissar says, these stats exist entirely for videogame balance. Many units in the game exist because they are Warhammer units, many of them staple units for races; the only way to keep most of them relevant in a Total War game would be that some have ant-Large while others do not. Otherwise, it's a simple fact of recruiting top-tier units...which is already a big fundamental problem with how Total War games work, IMHO.

    That's also not mentioning that races like Dwarfs have a Great Weapon variant for pretty much every melee unit, whereas Slayers and a powerful array of missile unit make up for lack of anti-large amongst the GW units they got.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • Federykx99Federykx99 Posts: 468Registered Users
    You can't look at it realistically.

    Because in reality a greatsword unit would be completely useless against the chaos infused, several centimitres thick armor of the Chaos troops, the soldiers inside being very resistant to blunt force as well.

    Greatswords cannot pierce armor, the only hope would be a halberd.


    Or for that matter you can look at chaos warriors/chosen themselves.
    Anti large version has halberds
    Great Weapons version has... Greataxes. Both are comparably long.

    Those halberds are basically the same of the greataxes just with an extra spike. Irl they would be better to hold a charge, but would perform probably the same against monsters.
  • EarthDragonEarthDragon Posts: 61Registered Users
    Do not despair:

    Most cavalry stuck in with great swords are going to get wrecked. They’ll knock you around on the charge, but then you start to dominate most of those fights.

    Also, aside from balance, they are looking at all aspects of “large”. Pole arms and Spears can be driven into the ground and a creatures own weight can be used against it to do the damage. This applies to Trolls as well as Horses.

    But when your Flamberge is swinging against that same ogre, you are effectively hitting it with a dagger. So it’s not really getting the result you need in all cases. I really wish “cavalry” and “large” were different designators. Cavalry may be large, but Kroxigors aren’t cavalry, but that is another discussion.
  • Theo91Theo91 Posts: 831Registered Users

    Simply put: game balance.

    I would refer all other comments to this one :D
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Posts: 1,466Registered Users

    Simply put: game balance.

    I'd agree this is the intended purpose. I have doubts that it has been achieved or this type of unit design is even the way to do it.
  • Unknown6203Unknown6203 Posts: 516Registered Users
    edited August 14

    Two-handed sword are not design to being armor penetrated. Only in late middle age was created Flamberg and this of first real anti armor swords, but still it not so good as maces.

    And weight of 2 hand sword is 2-2.5 kilo. Flamberg weight 4 kilo.

    Weight of 1 hand sword 1-1.5 kilo plus shield around 5-6 kilo.

    2 hand on 2.5 kilo against 1 hand with 1.5 kilo plus second hand borther with shield.

    Are you sure sword and board is easy to use?

    And sword against armored horse, no it not good, knight on horse just crush you with pike.

    This is fantasy game, just acept this balance.

    Who talking about anti armor? i said Anti Large.

    Shield and sword? depend what kind of sword you have if its the Empire Swordmen combo? yes, way easier than a Two handed sword i am a martial artist..... so i know what i am talking about.... the movement for a big sword is best in one doward stroke or side swipe but its best used in a swirling/rotation motion so you don't lose momentum that why two handed swords were regarded as Elite troops and were not used much compared whit other weapons.

    Also again Cavalry fully armored were elites, in almost all of history they were a tool to punch holes, there instances in Middle east, Egypt and Asia that these "Horse Hewers" troops were uses in lose formation and were irregular troops, they attack the calves of the horse, whit even shorter swords.

    Ming dynasty had a very unusual troop type that were used as anti horse they were regarded as elite they were called the Tigermen they dress to mimic tigers they carried a shield and a Dao but also carried fireworks and rockets to make the horses disperse and easier to slay once they did the cavalry man was and easy target.

    The thing is the two handed sword are sued too on historical, this is just speculations i had since i dint understand the concept of Empire great swords not having a bit of anti large.
  • Unknown6203Unknown6203 Posts: 516Registered Users
    Theo91 said:

    Simply put: game balance.

    I would refer all other comments to this one :D
    Yeah i know, but even in historical games they don't use great sword as anti Cav.

    The only instance i found were large swords were used ahaint Infantry is in Europe on Asia they were used as shock or Anti cav hewer they would chop either the head or the legs of the horse even the shock of the blow would make the horse stagger.
  • Unknown6203Unknown6203 Posts: 516Registered Users

    Do not despair:

    Most cavalry stuck in with great swords are going to get wrecked. They’ll knock you around on the charge, but then you start to dominate most of those fights.

    Also, aside from balance, they are looking at all aspects of “large”. Pole arms and Spears can be driven into the ground and a creatures own weight can be used against it to do the damage. This applies to Trolls as well as Horses.

    But when your Flamberge is swinging against that same ogre, you are effectively hitting it with a dagger. So it’s not really getting the result you need in all cases. I really wish “cavalry” and “large” were different designators. Cavalry may be large, but Kroxigors aren’t cavalry, but that is another discussion.

    I agree large and cavalry are different things.

    I only agree whit you on the Pike thing spear on the other hand don't have that big of a momentum they are shorter and the leaf blade is not even 12 inches. If the great sword is a dagger the spear is a toothpick.

  • Combat_WombatCombat_Wombat Posts: 4,092Registered Users
    I don't know about the rest of you but I'd rather a crossbow over Spears and greatswords.
  • Federykx99Federykx99 Posts: 468Registered Users

    Do not despair:

    Most cavalry stuck in with great swords are going to get wrecked. They’ll knock you around on the charge, but then you start to dominate most of those fights.

    Also, aside from balance, they are looking at all aspects of “large”. Pole arms and Spears can be driven into the ground and a creatures own weight can be used against it to do the damage. This applies to Trolls as well as Horses.

    But when your Flamberge is swinging against that same ogre, you are effectively hitting it with a dagger. So it’s not really getting the result you need in all cases. I really wish “cavalry” and “large” were different designators. Cavalry may be large, but Kroxigors aren’t cavalry, but that is another discussion.

    I agree large and cavalry are different things.

    I only agree whit you on the Pike thing spear on the other hand don't have that big of a momentum they are shorter and the leaf blade is not even 12 inches. If the great sword is a dagger the spear is a toothpick.

    The spear is still better than a great weapon against a charge. Swinging a great weapon around in order to effectively hit a horses leg or head is much harder to do in a formation than poking with a spear, not to mention you are much more open to get hit by the charging horse when attacking with a great weapon.

    Also generally speaking you can still brace a spear against the ground, albeit less effective than a pike.

    In medieval battlefields where cavalry warfare was prominent the standard weapon was almost always a polearm. One handed swords were only sidearms and special great weapons were used by ultra specialized units (like the doppelnsolder wielding the zweihander)
  • RedwolfActualRedwolfActual Member Posts: 240Registered Users
    With regards to larger blade weapons being used to defeat cavalry:
    Those techniques were developed in use for single or small combat purposes, where a soldier would be able to square off with a single horseman. More often than not, a SUCCESSFUL attempt would result in the blade being wrenched from your hands as the horse went down, although you suddenly had the chance to do something about the suddenly stunned rider. If you attempted the same against a fullblown cavalry charge, you'd most likely get spitted on the lance of the guy next to him, trampled by the horse behind him, or both.

    As for breaking pike formations by either breaking pikes or knocking them out of the way to get to the pikemen, those allegations have never been actually corroborated or proven.
  • wunderb0rwunderb0r Junior Member Posts: 367Registered Users
    edited August 15
    Here's me, hoping they won't split 'Large' in two groups for WH3 :(
  • Federykx99Federykx99 Posts: 468Registered Users
    wunderb0r said:

    Here's me, hoping they won't split 'Large' in two groups for WH3 :(

    Why not though?
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 3,660Registered Users
    I think it'd work for more elite troops or specialised RoR.
  • RodentofDoomRodentofDoom Posts: 511Registered Users
    I was under the impression that greatswords (historically) were for chopping through pike-formations

    Which makes anti-infantry the historically accurate bonus
    not that historical accuracy has much of a place in a fantasy title :smile:
  • MonochromaticSpiderMonochromaticSpider Posts: 703Registered Users

    wunderb0r said:

    Here's me, hoping they won't split 'Large' in two groups for WH3 :(

    Why not though?
    Because it would be dreadful? CA would have to do massive rebalancing and either single entities become even stronger or we suddenly have units that are somehow better at fighting the Kholeks of the world than they are at fighting mounted peasants.

    Meanwhile, what does it actually fix? Would we be better off having to bring three kinds of infantry instead of just two? Not really. Would it make the game accessible that new players have to bother with even more non-obvious stats? Not really.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 3,660Registered Users
    I think it's reasonable to assume that a horse would not want to charge into one of these:


  • wunderb0rwunderb0r Junior Member Posts: 367Registered Users

    I think it's reasonable to assume that a horse would not want to charge into one of these:


    how tall is this man? XD
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USAPosts: 18,184Registered Users, Moderators, Knights
    I think it might also be reasonable to assume that the person actually taking this thing into a battle is one of two things. either a very large person physically, or someone with a very large ego (and did not survive the battle). ;)
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 3,660Registered Users
    I believe it's a sword of a famous person, I'll have to look it up.
  • RodentofDoomRodentofDoom Posts: 511Registered Users

    I believe it's a sword of a famous person, I'll have to look it up.

    Possibly this guy --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pier_Gerlofs_Donia
Sign In or Register to comment.