halbardier

[Dragonking]

As Pikeman/Halabardier line is generally designed as piercing line, we should make piercing attack stronger. If someone needs blade, he should chose Swordsman/Roayl Guard branch.

To make it fair: stats of Royal Guard/Halabardier are rather even (3hp and some resistances diffrences). But halabardier have 2 kinds of attack and firststrike ability.

Royal Guard does 12-4 blade which gives 48 as result.

So I will change piercing attack of halabardier to his main attack, and set it as 14-3 (42 firststrike) and weaken blade attack - set it to 13-3 (39 firststrike).

It will be more universal (so more powerful unit) than Royal Guard, and with great first strike ability. But will be able to deal less damage -6 using piercing and -9 using blade attack, and it is little harder to level up to Halabaldier than to Royal Guard.

I think it will be ok

[Cuyo Quiz]

If we take from reality, the blow from the blade should be stronger, but as it also takes more time to build the momentum with the weapon, should have less attacks than the piercing option, which is what a Halberdier would be more habitued to anyway.

[Elvish_Pillager]

like 14-3 pierce, 19-2 blade?

[Darth Fool]

If we take from reality, the blow from the blade should be stronger, but as it also takes more time to build the momentum with the weapon, should have less attacks than the piercing option, which is what a Halberdier would be more habitued to anyway.

By this argument, the blade should not have first strike either...

[Ganter]

The halbard is mainly a long axe with a pointy end. It's mostly use to guard with and combined with heavily armor the halbard is truly deadly. In tBfW the pierce attack takes more damage because it's basic troop are a pikeman.

[Oreb]

now i know of 3 people using champions, someone must change


But not me

[Disto]

now i know of 3 people using champions, someone must change


But not me

The original guy shouldn't have to change.

[Ganter]

Sorry Raven! But the champion is a looker. And if you're referring to me, you and Na'enthos we all have different shapes of the champions. But don't worry! My avatar is only temporarely.

[Ganter]

A longer (mightier) sword + cloak in the wind change. Will do more.

[Oreb]

A sort of cloud type sword???

(can't spell cloud right)

[unsung]

It actuallly would make sense to have a high number of piercing attacks, since thrusting a weapon is very easy, and liftin git up when it's larger than you isn't.


I agrre though, th epierce attack needs to be more powerful than the blade.

THe blade should stil be a decent option when fighting armored enemies though- that was why halberds had blades AFAIK.



here's a question:
How did the pike end up superior to the halberd? (Why was it used for so much longer?) sure its longer but.....

[Oreb]

it was more popular because it was easier to carry, and you could swing and stab people from far away easier

[Zhukov]

For people who want to know the factual basis of a halbard:
(otherwise, don't bother reading this)

(think on a real halbardier)

The halbard was something of an all-purpose weapon.
The spearhead was used against mounted enemies, ideally the halbardier would be part of a 'hedgehog' formation. That is, a double (or triple) line of infantry with pole arms (aka 'long weapons') pointing toward the oncoming horsemen. The butt end of the weapon would be 'planted' in the ground behind the halbardier, thus when/if the horseman hit, the impact would be absorbed by the ground. Cavalry attempting to assualt a well-disciplined halbardier formation often recieved a severe mauling (hence the term 'poleaxed')

The axeblade component was intended to be used against enemy infantry who could otherwise simply knock aside a normal spear/pike. The blade was also 'useful' in dispatching any horseman unfortunate enough to be knocked from his mount. (Keep in mind that a fully armoured knight couldn't even get to his feet without assistance, let alone remount his horse.)

Genuine halbards also had a hook opposite the blade. If a battle degenerated into a chaotic jumble (not an uncommon event) a halbardier outside of formation could sidestep a charging horseman and hook him from his mount as he passed. Any horseman who stopped moving (thus losing his main advantage, mobility) was also liable to be de-horsed in this way.

So basically, Halbards were a less specialised version of the pike. Due to the axeblade they could be used in fighting infantry as well as cavalry but their shortened handle (the heavier, more complex, head required a shorter haft) meant they were not the perfect weapon with which to counter cavalry.

here's a question:
How did the pike end up superior to the halberd? (Why was it used for so much longer?) sure its longer but.....

European armies continued to use pikes (in preferance to halbards) after the implementation of gunpowder and muskets for a fairly simple reason. As black powder weapons achieved wider use, riflemen replaced basic sword-equipped infantry, but because of their inability to sustain a high rate of fire these new troops were extremely vulnerable to cavalry (who could cross the distance at higher speed, thus recieving less fire from the riflemen). Once the cavalry got among the riflemen the rest was easy (loading a musket in close proximity to the enemy would be tricky to say the least).
This is where pikemen came in. A gunpowder troops would often enter battle in the middle of a protective layer of pikemen, intended to ward of any cavalry. Now, to answer you question, the pike was chosen in preferance to the halbard for this purpose because it was cheaper to make, lighter to carry and simpler to maintain. There was no longer any need for pikemen to be able to combat swordsmen as these had been replaced by musketeers. So it was a matter of tactics and economics, not a question of which weapon was actually superior.

Whoops didn't mean to write a essay on halbard tactics But there you go.

Now how all the above factual infomation would translate into Wesnoth is a different question entirely. I guess the issue is to maintain unit balance rather then conform to historical fact.

Perhaps this:
12-4+firststrike for pierce (stabbing with pole weapon faster then swinging and it would be deadly to charging units)

19-2 for blade (axeblade would cause more damage, but the need to gather swing would take longer)

But would that make the blade attack obselete? Or make an overpowered unit?

[Zhukov]

Sorry about the double post but could someone explain these terms for me...

RIPLB or something like that. I know it has to do with the idea that units should never get worse when they level up, but what do the actual letters stand for?

AFAIK, this one has me stumped. I'm kinda new to the whole forum scene and don't quite have the jargon down pat yet.

Thanks

[scott]

Sorry about the double post but could someone explain these terms for me...

RIPLB or something like that. I know it has to do with the idea that units should never get worse when they level up, but what do the actual letters stand for?

AFAIK, this one has me stumped. I'm kinda new to the whole forum scene and don't quite have the jargon down pat yet.

Thanks

I'm not too sure, but as far as I know, the only thing I heard was that a reduction in power when leveling is bad. May or may not be the same thing.