On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Peter Knutsen wrote:

> Hi
>
> In Sagatafl, all weapons have a Durability value, derived from the
> weapon's size (Medium size, equivalent to shortsword, is optimal) and
> type (sword-like, polearm-like, staff-like, axe-like...), and what
> material it is made from. This is then modified according to the
> craftsmanship quality, and can be further modified by magic that adds a
> temporary (spell or Power) or permanent (Enchantment) bonus to the
> Durability.
>
> Thus it is metaphysically possible to make a broadsword out of gold.
> Just make the sword, then Enchant it with a huge Durability bonus such
> that the final Durability is equal to that of a broadsword made of
> primitive steel.
>
>
> But how *much* lower should the Durability be of weapons made of more
> reasonable metals such as bronze, silver or copper?
>
> Sagatafl's Durability scale is fairly coarse-grained.
>
> "Iron", the game-mechanical term for primitive steel, has no Durability
> modifier. "Steel", the game-mechancial term for more sophisticated
> steel, has a +1 Durability bonus. "Advanced Steel", meaning
> post-medieval steel (which should be sufficiently good that useable
> rapiers can be made of it) has a +2 Durability modifier, and modern
> steel alloys have a +3 modifier, and perhaps +4 for really expensive
> NASA-grade alloys (such as the "magic" sword depicted in John
> Christopher's "Sword of the Spirits" YA post-apocalyptic science fition
> trilogy).
>
>
> I'm thinking bronze should be -1, but is that proper, or should it be
> -2? Or even be +0? (Keep in mind, this is for making swords and similar
> weapons out of it - not making armour.)

Bronze is less brittle than iron or pattern-welded steel (which I
guess is what you mean with primitive steel), but it holds an edge
less well and it bends more easily. Stories from bronze age Greece
has warriors straightening out their swords after battle by banging
the flat side against trees or rocks. Iron weapons will break rather
than bend in battle. If you have only one number, I would give bronze
the same durability as iron or pattern-welded steel. The main reason
iron took over from bronze was price, not quality. You can find iron
everywhere, but copper and especially tin are much rarer. Bronze
weapons were cast in forms rather than being banged together on an
anvil. This made it possible to make a large number of weapons
quickly, but the cost of raw materials was prohibitive.

> What about silver? Should it be -1 or -2, or even -3? What about copper?

Silver has good corrosion resistance, but it is fairly soft. In old
days, silverware included only spoons and forks -- knives were made of
steel and usually had handles of horn or exotic wood. I can't recall
anything but ceremonial weapons ever being made of silver. Copper is
similar. I would probably put both at -2 on your scale. Pure gold is
very soft and should probably be at -4. But you can alloy all of
these materials to make them harder. Gold is usually alloyed with
silver and copper -- even for jewelry.

Just like you have advanced steel, you can add advanced bronze alloys
to your list. Modern bronze alloys are used in places where steel is
too brittle, such as for pistons or mechanical hammers.

> So that's the scale. Where should I place silver, bronze and copper?
> (Information about other metals and alloys, such as gold, is welcome,
> but not badly needed.)

You can start at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metals for general
information and follow the links to the individual metals.

Torben