Specialty weapons worth it?

[Insertclevername]

Playing Viking Conquest, are specialty weapons worth it? I'm currently using a tempered goidelic longsword that suits my needs, but fighting against the Norsemen I'm realizing I need something with a bit more of a punch. So are the specialty weapons that you get from talking to a named weaponsmith worth it?

[Tuidjy]

The balanced or tempered Goidelic noble long sword is arguably the best one handed sword in the mod. Some people swear by Nad, which is better for characters with lower weapon proficiency, but loses out on range. So if you want to stick with a sword, the master weaponsmiths have nothing to offer you.

Now, if you want to use a spear from horseback, you can be extremely effective, and for best results, you should commission a Ray, and make it balanced.

Javelins from horseback are devastating, but you get the best ones from killing Irish and Britons, not from weaponsmiths.

I would not recommend using an axe from horseback, and you cannot use any bows or two handed swords anyway.

[Insertclevername]

Originally posted by Tuidjy:

The balanced or tempered Goidelic noble long sword is arguably the best one handed sword in the mod. Some people swear by Nad, which is better for characters with lower weapon proficiency, but loses out on range. So if you want to stick with a sword, the master weaponsmiths have nothing to offer you.

Now, if you want to use a spear from horseback, you can be extremely effective, and for best results, you should commission a Ray, and make it balanced.

Javelins from horseback are devastating, but you get the best ones from killing Irish and Britons, not from weaponsmiths.

I would not recommend using an axe from horseback, and you cannot use any bows or two handed swords anyway.

Sounds good. Thanks!

[White Knight]

The differences between Balanced and Tempered, for the best swords, typically comes down to a choice between a little extra speed or a little extra damage - it isn't about your character's proficiency...or the player's for that matter.

If you are already faster than anyone you could hope to meet in combat, "a little extra speed" might not be worth that much. If your fighting style is one where you choose your hits cautiously, speed might not be an issue. It comes down to more hits or harder hits. There aren't a lot of situations where I find myself initiating an attack at precisely the same moment as an opponent starts his attack - that would be where I might expect a slightly faster weapon to have the advantage.

It's not unlike boxing, or racing cars or most things you can imagine. These kinds of trade-offs are commonplace in the world. Speed vs. Strength is basically like choosing between vanilla or chocolate...there is no "right" answer. It has everything to do with the person and their style.

Since I ride horses whenever I can, my attacks are selected carefully, require a little set-up, and rely upon the speed of my mount. As I pass by, I have time for one attack and I would rather not have to stop or turn around to come back again..."a little extra damage" goes a long way for me.

I like the Nad and I like to have it Tempered. My companions get upgraded Goidelic Longswords, for the most part. You can't go wrong either way. The differences are minor and would likely only be noticeable to the most highly skilled characters, under very specific circumstances.

Weapon length is a more compelling argument in my mind. That doesn't suit my style though. I like to wear heavy armour and don't invest a lot of points into Agility - there is no dancing about trying to keep myself out of range of the other guy. I walk up to get within range for my weapon and finish the fight there. From my horse, it doesn't matter either. I can easily hit a footsoldier from my saddle with a seaxe or a small handaxe - it's just a matter of knowing your weapon and timing the hit correctly.

You can see these same arguments played out in the real world by looking at weapons across cultures and time. There will always be people who favour one over the other, speed or strength - if there was a clear advantage, across the board, all weapons would be one or the other by now. That isn't the case because there is no clear advantage - it comes down to the person wielding the weapon, the weapon itself is more about style and preferences.

You aren't wrong for using the weapon you have. You also aren't better than anyone else for using it. Winning battles makes you "better" and whatever you use to do that, is the "best" choice...for you.

For me, in the end, I enjoy wielding a sword that cannot be picked up from a generic battlefield or bought with gold; one that must be earned and one that some players don't even know exists. A sword with it's own name.

[Tuidjy]

I'm a short guy. I like long swords. Sue me. :-p

Seriously, though, the reason that I said Nad can be considered better at low proficiencies is speed. It's not about starting to swing at the same time, it's about squeezing in a hit where it seems there is no place for one.

In this video, around 0:50, there is an example. The elite viking feints, then starts a high attack. The player starts his attack after the vking, and by combining attack direction, spinning and rushing in, takes the viking out.

If, like me, you try to take those oppenings all the time, and prefer to bypass shields, instead of breaking them, you want a lot of speed. When I play a new character, I dislike being too slow, so I use the fastest swords. As the character gets faster, I gradually go for reach over speed.

Damage? By the late game, damage is less of an issue, at least for me.

[White Knight]

Originally posted by Tuidjy:

I'm a short guy. I like long swords. Sue me. :-p

LOL, I think we're getting closer to the meat of the issue now.

I'm a large mammal and don't go in for agility and finesse. I respect those aspects but I don't focus upon them.

I think the game went wrong by not making weight a more important factor. I suppose players would get all butthurt if their sword arm got tired in the middle of a battle or something?

In the end, I tend to believe that the person makes the difference, the weapon is secondary.

For my next playthrough (or attempt at a playthrough), I think I'll go with being a spearman. Start working on polearms from the get-go and see how good it can get. I already know how badly they suck at low proficiency levels but the Ray keeps coming up in these conversations and I'm wondering if I might have been missing out on something by loving my Nad too much?

I think spears deserve a chance.

[Кiт Максим]

but theres stamina toggle lol

[White Knight]

Originally posted by French Taunter:

but theres stamina toggle lol

Stamina in VC is about armour, as I understand it. The weight difference between a Goidelic Longsword and a polearm are irrelevant. Weight merely affects your speed on the campaign map, wearing heavy armour (and shields?) affect stamina on the battlefield.

Besides, standing still for four or five seconds lets your stamina build back up to full again. It doesn't factor into decisions about which weapons to use.

[Tuidjy]

White Knight, stamina is a bit more complex than that, in Viking Conquest. You will not recover in a few seconds, unless you are at top health, and wearing armor that doesn't overwhelm your athletics.

Weight also matters - it is weight and athletics (modified by armor penalties) that determines your tactical speed. It is true that a 20/20 character can take very short breaks even in heavy armor, as long it is the frankly too light Orm's lorica, but only before he gets hurt.

I play different characters, and I really see the difference. Brant (combat build, maxed strength, agility, and athletics) cannot outrun an enemy shield line in any heavy armor but Orm's. Characters without maxed strength and athletics cannot do it even in medium armor.

By the way, in real life, there are very, very, VERY few swords that are outside the 0.8kg -2.0kg range. There are a few monsters like the Renaissance Zweihänder, the Japanese ōdachi, etc. but those are the exception, and used more like a polearm than a sword. Real swords are light - my longest, combat ready longsword (a bаsтагd sword to most people) is 1.6kg. This not much more extra weight to carry than my lightest sword (not counting my fencing fleuret) which is a .9kg Russian artillery officer sword, modeled after a gladius.

Years ago, for a completely different game discussion, I did some testing. If you feel like it, check that post. You will notice that the longsword was the fastest sword, for the specific test. Two hands make a huge difference, whether you are talking longswords, staffs or polearms. I could give you some links to our HEMA forums as well, but too much is taken for granted in those discussions...

All this to say that most swords are so light that they do not weight you down. Their weight and balance only matter when you are using them in combat, not when you are moving.

[the smoking mค็็็็็n]

i will just add that don't forget at the time,particulary in the region pommels had not even been "invented" yet and using them you were as likely to chop off parts of yourself as anybody else
they were like the knives that you see the turkish guys using to slice the meat for your kebab,but very light