weapon changes

[Rappels]

I'm still wondering to this day, why do we thrust the sword, yet there are no slash

Thrusting is a primary function of a sword first off. 2nd there is no use to having tons of attacks here.

Thusting is only primary with smaller type swords.
That's why in a lot of games short swords do piercing damage and larger ones do slashing damage.

[Dallane]

Thusting is only primary with smaller type swords.

Wrong.

The actual point I'm trying to make is that you have no idea how combat works and it doesn't need more crap to do.

[HolyLight]

Saber : Slashing
Rapier : Thursting

[Dallane]

Saber : Slashing
Rapier : Thursting

Although sabres are typically thought of as curved-bladed slashing weapons, those used by the world's heavy cavalry often had straight and even double-edged blades more suitable for thrusting.

I don't understand why people have a sword fantasy. They were side arms and the spear was the main and best way to fight. If you want to argue the sword for the game why not argue the halberd. Why are we using it for AoE when we would be packed tight in formation thrusting with it but more than likely we would be standing still trying to break a charge or having a pike push.

Again the main point to make is that there is no need to keep adding more moves and artifice. Instead devs could continue to balance and refine the current system.

[KruskDaMangled]

Saber : Slashing
Rapier : Thursting

Although sabres are typically thought of as curved-bladed slashing weapons, those used by the world's heavy cavalry often had straight and even double-edged blades more suitable for thrusting.

I don't understand why people have a sword fantasy. They were side arms and the spear was the main and best way to fight. If you want to argue the sword for the game why not argue the halberd. Why are we using it for AoE when we would be packed tight in formation thrusting with it but more than likely we would be standing still trying to break a charge or having a pike push.

Again the main point to make is that there is no need to keep adding more moves and artifice. Instead devs could continue to balance and refine the current system.

I am entirely aware of much of that. I spoke to the sword because we have that, and because they weren't entirely uncommon (at least cheap ones, or big knives) at the time, and were actually recommended on lists of supplies, or later, listed as an item to be possessed by militiamen on penalty of fine in legal codes in the colonies.

And I feel like you don't understand halberds as much as you think you do, sorry. The big ones like this, yes. Formation fighting. You would use a pike purely for having a shoving match with another tercio, or withstanding cavalry. Halberds are very brute force, and have nifty features for messing with cavalry, but in more of brawl than "keep them in front or we all die". You might also use them to harass enemy pikemen, alternately breaking their pikes, and threatening heavy damage to their persons with your very powerful (if slow) overhead chops. (or the reverse. Many had spikes, or hammerlike things on the back, to deal with armor. Not that the blade wouldn't get through stuff. Big axe blade, huge angular momentum)

You also have dueling halberds, which are a bit zippier, but do less damage. You would use them more for individual combat, either actual duels, or smaller stuff. On that topic I think you could afford to have at least one "you are super stunned or distracted, prepare to take 100 damage" chop with the halberd. Total alpha, slow, long recovery, high reel on you, deadly.

That's what I want, really. Some more sophistication and options with melee weapons. At least one or two per. And the inclusion of useful melee options within and as a compliment to that is fine, and desirable. People fought dirty, and used their hands and legs to fill gaps and stun people and all kinds of things, as needed. We really should give axes some place too, but that's just totally extravagant. More balancing as the devs see fit, more fine tuning.