It's kind of weird that my ranged pawns fight with their fists when they're in melee range...I mean, like, can't they also swing their rifles or something and deal blunt damage? But yeah, letting them carry a small side arm is quite frankly the most intuitive thing to add in.
You should suggest this, it makes sense.
I know this has been suggested numerous times. I just dont remember what the official response was to it.
My guess is balance. Somewhat trivializes making an important choice between having a ranged vs melee equipped pawn.
Probably something you'll find in Combat realism mod, or the upcoming Combat extended mod.
Quote from: Headshotkill on May 09, 2017, 12:34:53 PM
Probably something you'll find in Combat realism mod, or the upcoming Combat extended mod.
Yes. But weapon switching in CR was done in automatic time.
The balance problem is easily over with when one can simply make a stockpile below the shooting base of my colonists and change to them once other pawns charge in.
The best attempt at a successful backup melee weapon can be made if one makes a weapon switch mechanic based on the mass of the item; items with less mass get switched easier. So if my pawn is using a pistol and a knife, the switch would take less time than a spear and a minigun. It would encourage pawns to use lighter equipment and finally a use to machine pistols beside being a stepping stone to assault/charge rifles.
Micromanagement, mostly.
Both managing inventory, and the fact that now when you order an attack you need to specify what kind of attack.
Then there's the AI side.
It's just a lot of work and player burden for a pretty prosaic little feature.
Quote from: Tynan on May 09, 2017, 03:23:39 PM
Micromanagement, mostly.
Both managing inventory, and the fact that now when you order an attack you need to specify what kind of attack.
Then there's the AI side.
It's just a lot of work and player burden for a pretty prosaic little feature.
Its not that prosaic, its one of the fundamentally frustrating things about Rimworld combat.
Also, it could be implemented in a very uncomplicated way by following these simple rules:
- If the pawn has a ranged weapon, it uses it.
- If the pawn is engaged in melee, it switches to its melee weapon until it no longer is engaged in melee.
Alternate solution:
Give (most) ranged weapons a secondary melee verb. (This is something the OP actually suggested.)
Ranged weapons should be worse than melee weapons in melee, but slightly better than fists.
I've done it my own mods in the past, and it works fairly well without affecting AI. It's all automatic :)
I'd be up for making the small changes and showcasing them in a short video, if you want to save yourself the time :P
Quote from: Tynan on May 09, 2017, 03:23:39 PM
Micromanagement, mostly.
Both managing inventory, and the fact that now when you order an attack you need to specify what kind of attack.
Then there's the AI side.
It's just a lot of work and player burden for a pretty prosaic little feature.
Hi Tynan! Big fan of your work ;) Been enjoying Rimworld for like a year now. Awesome progress so far!!
Oh I see your point. The potential added micromanagement could be frustrating, but what about adding just like two weapon slots to pawns? You know, like in Xcom where you can have like a side panel showing each weapon whenever you select a pawn? And they switch weapons automatically when they get in melee range. Oh they should also always shoot with their range weapons unless they are shift-clicked or ctrl-clicked to do melee attacks. That should mitigate some of the micromanagement problems.
And then there's also the alternative way of adding melee stats to ranged weapons. I mean, even a pistol helps in melee as you can potentially butt someone's head with the short stock. The main reason I posted this is because I lost too many pawns to wandering predators who suddenly goes mad. The lone ranged pawn is then forced to fight a megasloth with his bare hands lol...
Quote from: Tynan on May 09, 2017, 03:23:39 PM
Micromanagement, mostly.
Both managing inventory, and the fact that now when you order an attack you need to specify what kind of attack.
Then there's the AI side.
It's just a lot of work and player burden for a pretty prosaic little feature.
_ You got a good point, but we can let gunners use their weapon to fight instead of fists in melee that makes more sense.
The micromanagement would be worth it for a more engaging combat. If you're worried about balance, well it's already in favor of the enemy with their superior numbers (assuming you don't resort to cheese). Secondary weapons would just provide more options to the player and I don't see how that's bad as we're already in the mercy of RNG as it is.
The secondary weapon doesn't even have to be a knife, it could be grenades or a smaller gun for cqc.
Quote from: Tynan on May 09, 2017, 03:23:39 PM
Micromanagement, mostly.
Both managing inventory, and the fact that now when you order an attack you need to specify what kind of attack.
Then there's the AI side.
It's just a lot of work and player burden for a pretty prosaic little feature.
That's actually the kind of micromanagement I as a player would like to do, especially on the combat side, I think it could add a lot of strategies. It can be made very accessible by adding just a couple more buttons on the character cards, one to change the current the default weapon, and other to change the reaction of the colonist when entering melee combat. Besides, considering it would be something optional... I'm not sure how it could be tedious, as is something you'd do because you want.
Also, side arms could include shivs, clubs, and gladii. Maces might arguably be too heavy for this purpose.
I do think it would be alot more beneficial to have. Not asking for them to be loaded with an Assault rifle and a Longsword, but definitely at least a small melee weapon like a shiv or knife. That way they can at least switch out to engage in melee combat when necessary.
Case in point, its kinda hilarious and just dumb when a pawn equipped with like a sniper rifle gets taken out or has to run from a rabbit just because the rabbit got into melee range and he can barely fight back.
I'd like to point out that if you use a ranged weapon to hit stuff in melee combat, your ranged weapon is going to end up damaged, or accidentally discharged. Since Rimworld lacks an ammunition system (and the headaches involved with one) accidental discharge is a real possibility.
Quote from: Tynan on May 09, 2017, 03:23:39 PM
Micromanagement, mostly.
Both managing inventory, and the fact that now when you order an attack you need to specify what kind of attack.
Then there's the AI side.
It's just a lot of work and player burden for a pretty prosaic little feature.
To be honest, as is, you can use ranged weapon in melee anyways.
And right now, pawns automatically start attacking in melee when someone gets close. So simply giving them an option to carry (light) melee weapon would work imo (alongside with disabling ranged weapons in melee).
As someone else suggested, this would open up space for other weapons. Combat knives could be used with sniper rifles, but no long swords. You'd still need to provide these knives to your snipers, and most likely they won't be good with them anyways (you are picking ranged proficient guys to operate ranged weapons for a reason). In other words, you'd have to spend resources to give them weapons for low return you'd want to avoid anyways.
Seems balanced and thematically fit (and not confusing :P).
This would also give more merit to characters that are proficient with BOTH melee and ranged. Atm, you just give them ranged weapons and forget about melee.
Assassin type of characters, if I remember correctly.
About micromanagement - I don't think switching weapons should take time and/or attention from the player. The melee combat weapon should simply be used instead of fists (just like
weaponized arms). In RL scenario you can imagine someone dropping their weapon to the ground (after swiftly securing it) and picking their knife from a pocket (which doesn't make much time).
Quote from: Euzio on May 10, 2017, 11:07:09 PM
Not asking for them to be loaded with an Assault rifle and a Longsword
It wouldn't be crazy. The longsword was probably the most common sidearm during the late medieval period.
Quote from: makkenhoff on May 11, 2017, 01:33:10 AM
Since Rimworld lacks an ammunition system (and the headaches involved with one) accidental discharge is a real possibility.
The majority of accidental discharges involve pulling the trigger in some way, and lots of modern guns have safety mechanism against abrupt movements (like dropping). However, an accidental discharge have much higher chance to occur if the gun was incompetently made, used low-quality materials, didn't have proper maintenance or used defective ammo (which is irrelevant in this case). So it would make sense from both real and game perspective if the accidental discharge chance for high-quality, high-integrity weapons is practically none; reasonably low for normal-quality guns, and considerably greater for awful-quality, low-integrity weapons.
Quote from: SchizoidCrow on May 11, 2017, 03:26:22 AM
It wouldn't be crazy. The longsword was probably the most common sidearm during the late medieval period.
A quality nit-pick here (pls don't kill me), you are probably talking about arming sword. :P Longsword isn't a one handed weapon (well, it CAN be used in one hand, but if you can you'd rather not) and two-handed swords are hardly
a sidearm. :V
flies away
If knife and gun both present, gun automatically overrides knife (no knife option).
If a pawn enters a melee fight, and if a knife is equipped, use knife automatically instead of fist.
This feature would be prosaic if fights are mainly gun fights, but in this game guns are weak and many fights end up in melee, especially against animals.
Quote from: Perq on May 11, 2017, 06:25:09 AM
Quote from: SchizoidCrow on May 11, 2017, 03:26:22 AM
It wouldn't be crazy. The longsword was probably the most common sidearm during the late medieval period.
A quality nit-pick here (pls don't kill me), you are probably talking about arming sword.
Ah, thank you. I incorrectly mixed the terms, which is embarrassing considering I knew that. I appreciate the correction.
I would dislike the ability to wield both melee and ranged on the basis of the "meaningful choice" issue someone mentioned on the first page.
1. brawler would be ONLY a bad trait if this were implemented, and while brawlers might not be the BEST in the game currently, they have their uses and I enjoy implementing them.
2. I enjoy the incentive to use variety in my weapon choices. I feel like the game would be diminished if there was no reason to equip my colonists with anything but charge rifle/plasteel knife.
3. weapon choice makes for more interesting tactical combat. As it is, enemies tend to only arrive at your firing line piecemeal, but its a significant event when it happens, since the melee-wielding charging pirate is better equipped for melee than the 7 guys he charged and because friendly fire becomes a threat. If my entire firing line had melee weapons as well, that entire situation would be trivialized, since the charging pawn would get instantly counterattacked by 3 melee swings. Currently, ranged is king, but -IF- a melee pawn can close with a ranged pawn, then they have a distinct advantage. It would cheapen the game to lose that.
OMG this!! People have just made a mod for exactly this ;)
https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=32497.0
Quote from: Limdood on May 11, 2017, 09:32:54 AM
I would dislike the ability to wield both melee and ranged on the basis of the "meaningful choice" issue someone mentioned on the first page.
1. brawler would be ONLY a bad trait if this were implemented, and while brawlers might not be the BEST in the game currently, they have their uses and I enjoy implementing them.
Because Brawler is a poorly implemented trait which feeds off the current system.
Quote
2. I enjoy the incentive to use variety in my weapon choices. I feel like the game would be diminished if there was no reason to equip my colonists with anything but charge rifle/plasteel knife.
What is keeping you from making stockpiles of melee weapons in your defensive positions and equipping them as required?
Quote
3. weapon choice makes for more interesting tactical combat. As it is, enemies tend to only arrive at your firing line piecemeal, but its a significant event when it happens, since the melee-wielding charging pirate is better equipped for melee than the 7 guys he charged and because friendly fire becomes a threat. If my entire firing line had melee weapons as well, that entire situation would be trivialized, since the charging pawn would get instantly counterattacked by 3 melee swings. Currently, ranged is king, but -IF- a melee pawn can close with a ranged pawn, then they have a distinct advantage. It would cheapen the game to lose that.
See above. In your same example, I could pause, tell the ranged pawns to equip melee weapons, then whack away at invaders before they engage.
Quote from: makkenhoff on May 11, 2017, 01:33:10 AM
I'd like to point out that if you use a ranged weapon to hit stuff in melee combat, your ranged weapon is going to end up damaged, or accidentally discharged. Since Rimworld lacks an ammunition system (and the headaches involved with one) accidental discharge is a real possibility.
You can butt-stroke a rather large number of people before your AK-47 sees much damage. If it's down to melee with ranged weapons, I'd also rather they damaged the gun then DIED.
Tynan, I think you're hewing a bit too tightly to "simplicity" here. None of the above alternatives would be all that difficult to implement, or be overly difficult to use. Every battle is ALREADY full of micro; the % increase would be minimal.
Quote from: SchizoidCrow on May 11, 2017, 03:26:22 AM
The majority of accidental discharges involve pulling the trigger in some way, and lots of modern guns have safety mechanism against abrupt movements (like dropping). However, an accidental discharge have much higher chance to occur if the gun was incompetently made, used low-quality materials, didn't have proper maintenance or used defective ammo (which is irrelevant in this case). So it would make sense from both real and game perspective if the accidental discharge chance for high-quality, high-integrity weapons is practically none; reasonably low for normal-quality guns, and considerably greater for awful-quality, low-integrity weapons.
Yes/no. Open bolt weapons are prone to firing in response to impacts, and are also prone to generally continuing to fire even if the trigger isn't depressed if something is off in the firing process (like a round flash cooking in the chamber before the bolt seals as much as expected and too much gas escapes, or the bolt was jarred loose and didn't hit with enough force to seal as expected yet hit hard enough to cause the round to fire anyways because lowest bidder) and the recoil isn't driving the bolt far enough back to reach the catch associated with the trigger. It isn't a bad design, as needing to twist off a belt to stop it firing is better than it not firing because it is dirty or hot from firing a ton of rounds, and your resting ready state isn't a round fully inserted and sealed into a potentially very hot chamber. I really would not try and hit someone with a loaded SAW, or even use one for any sort of escort task due to how unsafe they are by comparison when when the safety is on, and it isn't because it is a badly designed weapon. Not that realism really ought to be dictating what goes on in games.
As for backup melee weapons, adding a melee slot seems like extra micro potential and definite increase in the general number of administrative clicks required to play a game, as you've now got twice as many item weapons to keep track of per pawn.
What might be better is giving weapons dual melee/ranged stats. Like a rifle with a bayonet is good at range and passable in melee, while something like an LMG is essentially worse than fists at close range. Keeps the number of slots and clicks the same, but makes the decisions related to the slot more nuanced due to the expanded possibility for context and shooting/melee stat combinations.
Maybe there could be some "paired sets" that are really just one item. Like pistol + ballistic shield, or pistol + sword.
Quote from: Perq on May 11, 2017, 06:25:09 AM
Quote from: SchizoidCrow on May 11, 2017, 03:26:22 AM
It wouldn't be crazy. The longsword was probably the most common sidearm during the late medieval period.
A quality nit-pick here (pls don't kill me), you are probably talking about arming sword. :P Longsword isn't a one handed weapon (well, it CAN be used in one hand, but if you can you'd rather not) and two-handed swords are hardly a sidearm. :V
flies away
Sorry, but no. I believe you are thinking of a "bastard" (hand-and-a-half) sword, or something even larger. Longswords are made to be used with one hand, as most people actually use the term. Yes, two-handed swords are ALSO "longswords", but the classification is broken up quite a bit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword. Basically, "longsword" merely means "blade longer than a shortsword and it isn't a broadsword", if you want to get REALLY picky ^^' .
This goes along with the fact that medieval weapons are
nowhere near as heavy as people often think they were. Your average longsword weighs about 2.5-4.5 lbs. or so., and the heavier weight was reserved for "warswords"/"greatswords". Warhammers and maces weighed similar amounts. Remember, these weapons were designed to be used during extended battles; try waving around a 5 lb. yard-long stick as hard as possible for 20-45 minutes, or even longer, while also jogging or other heavily aerobic exercise o.O'.
Another point is that we are entirely ignoring Arabic, Indian/Asian, and Japanese ideas of "longswords", as well =) .
On-topic: Every medieval archer in every culture carried a short sword/long knife, unless they were stupid and/or desperately poor. It isn't a new concept. No one expected them to be good at melee, of course; unless they were also some type of infantry, that wasn't the point. If nothing else, it boosts their morale AND lets them
die slower, so you have a chance to rescue them when they're flanked.
The only
need I see for a backup weapon is to defend against animals, since they don't have ranged attacks. As it stands, you're on equal ground with raiders - they can't switch either, so no one is at a disadvantage. If raiders can switch, you mostly lose the advantage of a second slot, since they will simply switch to match your pawns.
I realize you can kit your pawns out with 2 quality weapons and gain a small advantage that way. But I think it's still mostly fluff.
Quote from: Limdood on May 11, 2017, 09:32:54 AM
3. weapon choice makes for more interesting tactical combat. As it is, enemies tend to only arrive at your firing line piecemeal, but its a significant event when it happens, since the melee-wielding charging pirate is better equipped for melee than the 7 guys he charged and because friendly fire becomes a threat. If my entire firing line had melee weapons as well, that entire situation would be trivialized, since the charging pawn would get instantly counterattacked by 3 melee swings. Currently, ranged is king, but -IF- a melee pawn can close with a ranged pawn, then they have a distinct advantage. It would cheapen the game to lose that.
Good point. Melee is currently a high risk, high reward tactic. If you can close with a dangerous ranged opponent, you can effectively shut them down and probably kill or incap them. It's not worth the risk if there's a chance the pirate pulls out a quality melee weapon to defend himself.
melee-rushing ranged enemies is a useful tactic, and one of the primary ways to differentiate melee and ranged combatants (aside from just throwing personal shields on non shooters and using them as bait). Its a way to get melee pawns into a fight in an intelligent way, and also makes a handy desperation move.
Melee vs. ranged is also a way to keep sheer numbers from being the primary factor in who wins a fight.
I don't want to see that disappear and am personally completely against a "backup weapon"
(btw, backup weapons can be done, at great cost, already by using bionic arms (8 damage) or power claws (much more damage, but at a very slight manipulation penalty)
I like the idea of having a "backup knife", but I would be happy with just getting a few extra points of damage from using the butt of the ranged weapon you are using. Damage bonus should be based on weapon weight. Here is the kicker, when you use a ranged weapon in melee combat, it takes damage.
Quote from: JacksonCoded on May 17, 2017, 10:17:34 PM
I like the idea of having a "backup knife", but I would be happy with just getting a few extra points of damage from using the butt of the ranged weapon you are using. Damage bonus should be based on weapon weight. Here is the kicker, when you use a ranged weapon in melee combat, it takes damage.
Makes sense to me. After all, using the weapon normally also causes "damage" =) . And yes, liberal application to someone's noggin should make it wear significantly each time.
Tying it to weapon quality makes a lot of sense to me, as well.
Allowing every colonist a "knife" slot makes sense to me; no, it won't somehow make them "uber" vs. a melee combatant with both a better weapon
and far more melee skill, not even close. I think it might make a bit more sense, however, to have a "utility" slot, that can hold a knife, a hoe/rake/other farming tool, wood axe, or similar implement that gives:
a) A small bonus to appropriate tasks for that item (knife for butchering, hoe for farming, axe for chopping, etc.).
b) A small bonus to melee combat. Ever been smacked with a hoe (I have, before you ask, and I ended up in ER)..? It's just a clumsy, small axe on a quarterstaff, you know. Many martial weapons started as farm implements modified for rebellion ^^' .
c) Finally, a good reason to use tool cabinets properly!
Any such bonus should NOT be terribly large but should probably increase a bit at higher tool quality tiers.