=?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:=20Re:=20[CF-Devel]=20New=20Archetypes, =20New=20maps, =20+Idease?=

Wed Sep 29 19:43:41 CDT 2004

As Tim knows very well there were weapons of different grades when the enhanced materials system was in effect.  I see that material system (is in the code but off by default) as a huge step above the proposal of making a bunch of bronze weapons in the arches.  That doesn't mean I am entirely in love with the materials system as it was but it was a more comprehensive approach (really it just needed to be merged better with the other material system).  I don't see how a the slight difference that would be between a bronze and iron weapons would make much difference in game balance at lower levels however.  

I think bronze was replaced by iron as it would bend and break in combat against iron weapons.  Not sure if bronze swordsmen lasted long enough to get around to sharpen their heavily notched blades.  Maybe it wans't the swords at all - maybe it was more the helmets, shields, or armour?  I'm sure someone out there can give us a detailed accounting anyway.

>

      Umm.. since when?  The iron age came after the bronze age.  If bronze weapons

     >

      were better, they would have kept making swords out of bronze.  Bronze is a

     >

      relatively soft metal that dulls easier than iron does.  Additionaly, the

     >

      forging process of iron generally imbibes it with a small amount of carbon

     >

      making a low grade steel.

     >

     >

      I would expect a bronze sword to be less effective over it's lifetime than an

     >

      iron one, simply because it would dull quickly.  As for bronze/iron hammers,

     >

      they would be relatively similar other than mass.

     >

_______________________________________________
crossfire-devel mailing list

     crossfire-devel at lists.real-time.com

     https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/crossfire-devel