Knave's Idea #3 - Weaponry

Throughout history, a number of unique and useful weapons have been developed. Sure, there are things we already know about, but there also interesting weapons that we didn't know about. At least, a lot of us didn't know about. At least for most of our lives. Here I shall suggest weapons. Some already suggested just to make it a longer post because length is fun, right guys?

Crossbow

• More accurate and powerful than a bow, but at the cost of slower rate of fire and shorter range.
• No drawback time, the weapon is already fully loaded and does not burden the user.

Chu-Ko-Nu, the Repeating Crossbow

• Accurate at close range, but weak and poorly suited for piercing armored targets.
• Has an incredible rate of fire, firing much faster than any other ranged weapon.
• No drawback time, the weapon is already fully loaded and does not burden the user.

Polybolos, the Repeating Ballista

• Heavy and stationary. It is carried by a Bricktron, placed and assembled.
• Very accurate and very powerful compared to the Bow. It is capable of bruising castle walls.
• It has a slower rate of fire compared to other ranged weapons.
• As a siege weapon, it is weak, but has a much faster rate of fire and is capable of cutting down archers.
• Operators must also remain stationary while in use, leaving them open to melee attack if unguarded.

Trebuchet

• Resource intensive to create, and less mobile than standard Catapults.
• Much longer range and much greater accuracy at those ranges than other heavy siege weapons.
• Has a big punch.
• Slower rate of fire, and requires more Bricktrons to work at full efficiency.

Ballista

• Very accurate with a long range and still quite powerful, but not quite as powerful as other siege weapons.
• The best out of all the heavy siege weapons to use against non-stationary targets.
• About the same mobility as a catapult, with a similar rate of fire and resource requirement.

The Firespitter, an Ancient Chinese Flamethrower

• Wheeled metal boxes of flammable liquids of some sort (historically, it was gasoline).
• Rotatable tube that can spray the enemy with burning hot flames.
• Resource intensive to create and fuel.
• Very powerful against all units, but stationary while in use and slow to move.
• Short to medium range.

Cannon

• Resource intensive, requiring iron to build and gunpowder to fuel.
• Somewhat accurate, and very powerful, but shorter range compared to Trebuchets and Ballistae.

Arquebus

• Musket predecessor, crafted by a gunsmith with iron.
• Inaccurate at long ranges, but good against targets at medium range.
• Low rate of fire, balanced by a high amount of damage useful against even armored targets.

Mace

• Blunt weapon capable of dealing large amounts of damage even to heavily armored targets.
• It cannot be used in conjunction with a shield, unlike Swords.

Battleaxe

• Sharp weapon capable of dealing massive amounts of damage to unarmored targets.
• It cannot be used in conjunction with a shield, unlike swords.
• Though powerful, it lacks the ability to thrust, making it ineffective against heavily armored targets.

All of these weapons really existed, and were being used during, around, or before the Medieval Era.

I'm sorry, but the cannon has been brought up before and every time the conclusion has been that they would just break any sort of PVP combat.

Cannons would break PvP because... they are called cannons? I never said they'd be any better than the other siege engines. They are expensive and have a short range. Just because cannons were overpowered in real life doesn't mean they have to be overpowered in Castle Story.

Jeez, don't be so hostile. It doesn't help anyone. Sound familiar?

I didn't mean to sound hostile in my sentence, please point it out if you feel strongly about it.

The canons you stated were shorter range than catapults, but still, ranged explosives make for a very volatile combo, and if they weren't explosive, they would be no different form your average catapult and then pointless to add.

They fire a cannonball carrying much more kinetic energy. I don't see how that is pointless.

Siege weaponry doesn't have to be that in depth, the more weapons you include the harder it is to balance.

Cannons would ruin the game because 1. there would be no need for explosive barrels and 2.You could just get an army of cannons and destroy their castle. Cannons would be an unfair advantage. They shouldn't put in cannons. That's my opinion.

Though some of the other ideas are good, like the various kinds of catapult, it would bring more variety and customization into the game.

I would like to see a trebuchet and some other types of siege weapons too, but please no cannons.

I like the Ballista, Trebuchet, Crossbow, Battleaxe, Mace, and musket thing. But maybe not the musket thing. I don't mind if the musket was put into the game.

For future reference, don't double post

If they were to put muskets or any kind of gunpowder firearm in the game I feel that they should be very hard to create. Otherwise the game would become too much like every other RTS and be solely based on who has the most of the best unit.

And cannons=bad idea in my opinion

1. Cannonballs don't explode.
2. You could do the exact same with any siege engine, or if your definition of destroy is wider, any combat bricktrons.

1. They aren't muskets, they are arquebuses.
2. I already said they'd be resource intensive to produce.
3. They are not the best unit by far. They are susceptible to archers at long range and knights at melee range, and they don't have a good firing rate.

mmm cannons could be a fun thing im always game for things that go boom but making cannon was even a feat of engineering in old days so if it would take so much effort to build 1 of those things they would be better for defence then for attk since they are so valueble
and easy pickings during a reload when they are alone.

but to add the the post this would give some great merchantile goods for iron realy becomes a product of trade
and u could a make alliances to make a stronger and faster unit production so it does have its advantages

I don't think that cannons would be that overpowered. After all they're slow, expensive, inaccurate and their power is easily compensated by building thicker walls and maintaining them. They would only be good for pounding the enemy's position while you got your sapper teams ready to blow their walls sky high.

FYI, both axes and maces were used with shields and almost never without.

I would enjoy a large selection of weapons, especially if you only reached some with better ores and such.

I throw my hands into the air sometimes, saying ayooo, **** realistico.
But seriously, one wouldn't want to make them too effective, now would they?
Balance is always more important than realism.

Actually the balance solves itself; swords were more expensive to make than axes or maces, and they were also more effective except against armored opponents. What you would have if you included axes or maces would be a different price tier countering armor for maces or (possibly) shields for axes. I would need to test the axe thing myself; I have some friends in the SCA however who say that axes are very good for hooking your opponent's shield out of the way of your weapons.

In my opinion though, it would be best to keep the "small arms" simple as in the kickstarter video. Differing siege equipment however is something I'm all for.

I Like the different melee weapons, however, for their apparent advantages and disadvantages we do not know if enemies will have different stats. - I.E heavily armored/light armored/armor piercing/fast attack/slow attack, thus the "armor piercing weapon attribute" or lack of it could prove irrelavent...
However I could easily see the designers adding different enemy types and this would be a welcomed design allowing for a more strategic approach.

Although you have mentioned many different siege type weapons the abundance of them is overwhelming and could, given the more simplistic design I believe this game to be taking in the RTS field of gameplay, over complicate and lead to more difficult balancing (as someone stated above.)

Because of the amount of different types of siege weaponry you explained above this sounds more like a game of hardcore RTS micro-management, -I.E Starcraft, Warcraft, Age of Empires. And because the developers have only discussed 2 different soldier types, I believe that individualized unit effectiveness of say, "this unit is good against this unit, but poor against this other unit." does not fit well with the current design of simplistic RTS/creative construction theme.

*I could of course be absolutely wrong and all of your points are valid, but I personally cannot see many of these weapons being added even in late stage game production.

Sorry if this post is not articulated well... Just re-reading it even makes my brain hurt.