Realistic Native Weapon Sizes (RNWS) - current version is 1.61 (FINAL)

[The Yogi]

Unadjusted the size of the new 1H axes looks right to me, assuming they're the type of ax you'd use on horseback.  The Native length stat is completely out of whack though.  They're about the same size as the Native hatchet but were given the reach of the much longer fighting ax.

Are they ever! They had a length set to 90(!) when model length was 61 and 48 respectively! That will be fixed in the next update.

For the 2H take a look at this http://www.regia.org/warfare/axe.htm  But then again M&B isn't 100% grounded in reality.

Interesting site. I'll play around a bit with the 2H-handers, probably they could be a little bit bigger. Won't change anything else than the length stats though.

Have you had a chance to playtest your resizing much?  How's the AI, especially mounted, handling the reduced sizes?.

I haven't tested very much, but I haven't noticed any problem with that so far. AI seems to be hitting about as well as usual. Perhaps it's a little bit easier to dodge blows of very large and slow weapons by backstepping, since they have shorter reach now, but then again I'm playing with RCM, where big weapons were made slower. That might have to be tweaked, but I'm leaving it to Ron, who's going to have a look at this when he finds the time.

[The Yogi]

OK, I have been looking at the Axes, and with one glaring exception I do not think we have a problem with 80% general size, leaving the new 1H Axe models as is. While most twohanders are smaller than the four foot Danish axes, the War Axe at length 90 should represent those quite well. There should be a range of size also in two-handers.

The glaring exception is the double headed axe. Even at 80%, that thing is just monstrous, but if reduced much more than that it's not credible as a twohander. So my though was to reduce it to 60% size and make it the top of the line one-hander axe. This would of course necessitate a complete stat rework, but for just a few weapons I can do that.

It would look like this (still held as a 2-hander):


Also, there is not a logical progression in size and stats. The Fighting Axe and Axe are underpowered for their length and weight, compared to the shorter one-handers, and look too long for comfy 1H use. My take is that the new 1-handers should be nerfed a little bit (at least in RCM), the fighting axe made the smallest 2-hander, it just looks too long for single hand use.

The changed stats I had in mind were these (same for RCM and Vanilla unless stated otherwise);

1H War Axe; damage 28 (ie, unchanged in Vanilla)
1H Battle Axe; damage 29, (ie, unchanged in Vanilla)
(1H) Double Headed Axe (reduced to 60% of original), damage 32, speed 65(RCM) 75(Vanilla), length 55, weight 4.5, strength requirement 12

(2H) Fighting Axe, damage 32, strenght required 7, otherwise unchanged
(2H) Axe, damage 35, otherwise unchanged

Version 1.3 with the above changes is up!

[hayate666]

A two headed one handed axe looks strange to me. Perhaps it's just me though.

[The Yogi]

Mate, it's not you. A two-headed axe LOOKS strange, 1-handed or 2-handed. The only ones I know of are greek ceremonial axes from antiquity. The only way that thing could look half-credible was if someone took it apart in wings and lengthened the heft while shrinking the heads. No matter how rescaled, the current one will always look very odd.

But I seem to remember from reading Prince Valiant in my youth, a saxon Champion that fights King Arthur's champions in single combat before the wall of Hadrian using such a thing (pure fantasy, I know, but the weapon IS pure fantasy). He defeated one of the Knights by using the double head to quickly change direction of his stroke, from overhand to underhand. Of course, Val spots the trick and cuts it short, so to speak... Anyway, there's where the idea came from.

And BTW, New and semi-final version 1.31 is out!, featuring smaller pollaxe, longer (than in previous version) 2H swords and fixed faulty default length stats for polearms (the Great Lance is really length 226!).

[The Yogi]

I've made a slideshow of pics from the latest version; enjoy (I hope):

http://img84.imageshack.us/slideshow/player.php?id=img84/6564/1192778645b5t.smil

[Ron Losey]

Haven't downloaded it yet (technical problems for the last two days), but check something.  At last check, BRFEdit would not do multiple frames of an animated object.  So, a scabbard could be rescaled, but only the first frame of the animation.  The others would remain their original size.

Do check on that.

[The Yogi]

Haven't downloaded it yet (technical problems for the last two days), but check something.  At last check, BRFEdit would not do multiple frames of an animated object.  So, a scabbard could be rescaled, but only the first frame of the animation.  The others would remain their original size.

Do check on that.

Already did, and it's that way, only I didn't see it at first. I have calls for help out both here and at Talworlds. Hopefully someone more skilled than I can give me some pointers...

[Ron Losey]

There's no "pointer" to it ... only way to do it is to export every dang frame, resize them, and re-assemble them.

If you want better double-bit axes, I made them for "Cult of the Big Lizard" ... Heavier handles, smaller heads, somewhat fantasy (as the use of double-bit axes goes) but of a size that looks like they could be used.  (Of course, for that mod, the few Native swords being used are intended to be overstated and not terribly realistic.)

However, by the time you scramble all the weapons by that degree, you're going to have a complete mod rather than a retrofit to Native.

Go ahead and mess with the RCM stats for this project ... I'll look them over later.  Just remember to go both ways - if you lower the damage because of the new smaller size, check the speed too.  A lot of the axes and such were modeled for their slightly overdone size, and so made excessively slow as well as highly damaging.

[The Yogi]

I made it easy on myself. Instead of thinking over every single stat of every reduced weapon, I reasoned that the stats were right, only the scale of the weapon was wrong.

So the only stats I had to change were those weapons that I changed in some other way than just a straight 80% reduction in size, which were the new swords (only 85% reduction, gave them stats in the ballpark of vanilla sword/viking sword), the broadsword and the double axe. All others are left as-is.

[Ron Losey]

I made it easy on myself. Instead of thinking over every single stat of every reduced weapon, I reasoned that the stats were right, only the scale of the weapon was wrong.

So the only stats I had to change were those weapons that I changed in some other way than just a straight 80% reduction in size, which were the new swords (only 85% reduction, gave them stats in the ballpark of vanilla sword/viking sword), the broadsword and the double axe. All others are left as-is.

Question: wouldn't it be possible somehow to copy the first frame of the animation (which is scaled down) into all the other frames? That should be a "little bit" faster than redoing each frame and exporting it.

Ballpark on the swords should be a couple of points lower than they were ... not what the Native ones were.  The numbers from Native were massively too low on most swords, and then much too fast on the really big stuff.  If you want to know which way to scale them, look at the RCM stats between the various sizes of viking swords.  That will give you a good idea of how much difference there should be based on a change in length.

On the frames - the scabbards are generally only two pictures - the one with the sword, and the one without.  The one with the sword is imported twice to make it work out.  But yeah, you're talking about two frames - the first one can be resized, exported, and re-imported with no additional rescale.  The empty one must be reworked and then re-imported.  It's a gazillion hours no matter how you figure it... but no, you don't specifically have to do each frame like it's a different project.

[The Yogi]

Ballpark on the swords should be a couple of points lower than they were ... not what the Native ones were.  The numbers from Native were massively too low on most swords, and then much too fast on the really big stuff.  If you want to know which way to scale them, look at the RCM stats between the various sizes of viking swords.  That will give you a good idea of how much difference there should be based on a change in length.

I reasoned like this; vanilla sword in RCM has a damage cut/thrust 41/35 at length 102 or whatever it was.

Now vanilla sword has length 80. In the RCM version I leave it at 41/35 and same speed, since all other comparable weapons are down in size by the same amount. The new swords, however were reduced less in size, so I those which ended up at length 80 have damage stats in the ballpark of 41/35, those who ended up at length 85 have a little more, the short ones quite a bit less. Same goes for speed.

In the vanilla version I did the same, but based on the vanilla stats.

If I changed down the stats of all weapons I reduced, then we would have a much reduced damage scale across the board and create an imbalance with the armours which would suddenly protect much better.

[The Yogi]

News from the scabbard front:

It works, it works!

The new Cinqueda Shortsword scabbard (used to be the broadsword scabbard)   


...and the rescaled scabbards for the vanilla sword and great sword



Now go get v1.4 with scaled down scabbards for all old native weapons![/flash]

[aquiefrog]

Just a suggestion for the fighting axe.  Maybe we could make it a onehand/twohand weapon?  With a penalty when used with shields since it would seem awkward to use it one-handed.

[The Yogi]

That was actually my first though, to maxe fighting axe and axe a 1/2H class of axes, but although they were classed 2handed/1handed in the inventory window, they were only wielded 1h-handed. In the unofficial editor, I'd know how to fix this, but in Python I haven't got a clue.

[LCJr]

Change the animation from itc_scimitar to itc_nodachi.