When an expensive, heavy iron helmet is only as good as a peasant's leather cap... something is very wrong

[Lord Earl]

Speaking of realism: that's how a real fight works. You don't skillfully eliminate people.when you're getting mobbed: you fight desperately and you're lucky if you don't go down fast.

Yes and no. You're not likely to do well, when outnumbered, that's for sure. But you can certainly take a few men down with you. And there are plenty of accounts across history of one man taking on large numbers of enemy. Morale and psychology play a big part in that, and we're missing that piece of the simulation for the most part, but even unarmed brawls online you find cases of one guy taking on several. Weapons and high lethality are a good equalizer against numbers.

As for berserkers: the eddas that they're based on appears to disagree with your assessment. Far from one-shot wonders, they were feared individuals who lived long enough to make a reputation.

Yeah... and they didn't go charging half-naked into battle. So do you want the naked berserkers in furs, or not? At this point, you are just being contrary, and I don't know why.


Armour is ineffective enough that two handed weapons are reasonably effective against it. So two-handed weapons feel more reasonable as a result, yeah. But once you get armor right, then suddenly they would be underpowered.

 

[Beaowulf]

I vehemently disagree. It feels stupid when I hit a bandit solidly on his naked neck or head, while riding past at full tilt, and he is just fine. Even on foot, I expect a proper swing to a naked neck with a one-handed sword to decapitate someone.

It also makes being outnumbered a hundred time worse, as you can't skillfully eliminate your opponents before you're overwhelmed. Damage is just high enough that you will die pretty quickly as you're swarmed, though.

I think that might be more of an enemy HP issue rather than a damage issue, because armor only has a max of 55 per piece and a min of 0, so weapons shouldnt change but enemy health should, thats how it was in warband at least, a looter only had like 20 hp, in this they have 100, so the weapons not dealing 100 damage is good ebcause then they would still do 45 damage per swing against FULL armor.

 

[Worldsprayer]

it would be nice if there was actual ARMOR in the game. I think only southern emprite has anything remotely like actual armor, everything else is leather and cloth

 

[Worldsprayer]

I vehemently disagree. It feels stupid when I hit a bandit solidly on his naked neck or head, while riding past at full tilt, and he is just fine. Even on foot, I expect a proper swing to a naked neck with a one-handed sword to decapitate someone.

It also makes being outnumbered a hundred time worse, as you can't skillfully eliminate your opponents before you're overwhelmed. Damage is just high enough that you will die pretty quickly as you're swarmed, though.

Contrary to common belief, decapitating someone is EXTREMLY difficult. The blade has to go directly between 2 vertibrae and even then, be incredibly sharp, storng, an fast. There was a reason being a second at a japanese ritual suicide was a big deal: They had to kill their suicider fast enough with a head-cut that decapitated so they wouldnt make sound...and decapitating someone is, for most people, near impossible. Far far more likely in the scenario you mentions is the blade cuts through all the flesh in the way and shatters the neck...which is good enough.

As much as i hate bringing this up, but for example in the various beheading videos on the net like those girls in morrocco...there is a reason the beheaders sit there for a bit with an axe or serrated knife and hack and cut away for a while. Necks are tough.

 

[Lord Earl]

I think that might be more of an enemy HP issue rather than a damage issue, because armor only has a max of 55 per piece and a min of 0, so weapons shouldnt change but enemy health should, thats how it was in warband at least, a looter only had like 20 hp, in this they have 100, so the weapons not dealing 100 damage is good ebcause then they would still do 45 damage per swing against FULL armor.

Whether you lower HP or raise damage, it is the same. If you mean they need more HP variety, that is true. I don't know if HP can vary much at all, in this game. Does Vigour raise it, or only the silly Perks you can select?

And yes, you need to rebalance armor with weapons. The process involves cutting up naked dudes in testing, until it feels about right, then building armor to combat those damage numbers. I might add some extra variables into the game, to make armor a bit more nuanced.

Contrary to common belief, decapitating someone is EXTREMLY difficult. The blade has to go directly between 2 vertibrae and even then, be incredibly sharp, storng, an fast. There was a reason being a second at a japanese ritual suicide was a big deal: They had to kill their suicider fast enough with a head-cut that decapitated so they wouldnt make sound...and decapitating someone is, for most people, near impossible. Far far more likely in the scenario you mentions is the blade cuts through all the flesh in the way and shatters the neck...which is good enough.

As much as i hate bringing this up, but for example in the various beheading videos on the net like those girls in morrocco...there is a reason the beheaders sit there for a bit with an axe or serrated knife and hack and cut away for a while. Necks are tough.

Children can decapitate people. They still do, in certain countries. There are theories that European blades were reasonably dull, so it's possible that you could compare it to makeshift attempts at doing it with tools as opposed to weapons.

As for difficult... not really. You can take a head off in a second, with a sharp knife (no serrations necessary). With a low level character, you might screw up your edge alignment and not manage a proper beheading, but leaving the head half-on is sure to disable them anyway.

 

[Beaowulf]

actually European swords were just as sharp as other swords in the world, the idea that they were dull is strange propeganda and historically innacurate.

 

[Lord Earl]

Like I said, they're theories. There are accounts about how sharp Eastern (Middle-Eastern) swords were, how they could cut silk handkerchiefs just by the weight. I think the evidence is good that the more advanced Levant had better metallurgy and better sharpness. Some people argue that were chisel-like in sharpness, for the sake of dealing with armor. And that, due to poor metallurgy, they didn't sharp them too much ("appleseed" sharpness has been thrown around before).

Personally... I figure a blade should always be sharpened to a razor's edge, so I'm not sure I buy it. I expect blade quality and sharpness varied wildly, though, which is why Ulfbert swords were so popular in the Viking age.

 

[Beaowulf]

well I really hope you make this mod tho as I cant handle the game when things that look like they should protect better dont at all

 

[Lord Earl]

I'm pretty sure I will. I can't stand the game anymore, so I need to mod it. It'll probably take some time though. The virus may mean some people have a lot of free time, but it means I have to do a bunch of stuff to prepare more and more for it.

 

[Worldsprayer]

Whether you lower HP or raise damage, it is the same. If you mean they need more HP variety, that is true. I don't know if HP can vary much at all, in this game. Does Vigour raise it, or only the silly Perks you can select?

And yes, you need to rebalance armor with weapons. The process involves cutting up naked dudes in testing, until it feels about right, then building armor to combat those damage numbers. I might add some extra variables into the game, to make armor a bit more nuanced.


Children can decapitate people. They still do, in certain countries. There are theories that European blades were reasonably dull, so it's possible that you could compare it to makeshift attempts at doing it with tools as opposed to weapons.

As for difficult... not really. You can take a head off in a second, with a sharp knife (no serrations necessary). With a low level character, you might screw up your edge alignment and not manage a proper beheading, but leaving the head half-on is sure to disable them anyway.

Children can yes, anyone can, if they know what they're doing, how and where to cut, and have a sharp implement...but that's not combat.
Combat decapitations with this like sword is EXTREMELY difficult and only popularized by movies. Significant, immediate, combat-related severing of limbs didn't really start happening until the use of gunpowder/explosives where the kinetic energy was simply so freaking great that endons and ligaments would immediately sever.
There was a reason there was an executioner role: besides being a person who killed, it required skill, and very often in the middle ages a blade-executioner would be tipped by those being executed in order to pay for a clean cut. History records are replete where executions turned into horrid affairs because the executioner messed up and didn't take the head in one go. And these were people often very strong, standing with few distractions, a perfectly positioned target, and lots of time. Combat related decapitations were incredibly, incredibly rare. Partial decapitations..no...but usually someone had to work at it for a few blows to actually accomplish the goal to finish the job.

 

[Lord Earl]

History has plenty of botched executions, because beheading was a common form of punishment in the past. Beheadings in combat are rare for a number of reasons. I think I've seen more accounts of men being cut through the shoulder and into the chest.

Go watch some Cold Steel videos, they'll give you an idea for how easily you can cut through flesh and bone. Certainly, if your edge isn't sharp and you cut like an idiot, then you're not going to take someone's head off.

Significant, immediate, combat-related severing of limbs didn't really start happening until the use of gunpowder/explosives where the kinetic energy was simply so freaking great that endons and ligaments would immediately sever.

Have you used a blade, or did you learn from too many amateurish execution videos? Go watch those videos, and read some battle accounts.

 

[Northcott]

Yes and no. You're not likely to do well, when outnumbered, that's for sure. But you can certainly take a few men down with you. And there are plenty of accounts across history of one man taking on large numbers of enemy. Morale and psychology play a big part in that, and we're missing that piece of the simulation for the most part, but even unarmed brawls online you find cases of one guy taking on several. Weapons and high lethality are a good equalizer against numbers.

And in such cases there are always extenuating circumstances. It's never Hollywood badassery where that person can easily be mobbed, as we see on M&B battlefields. With M&B, the issue comes with how the physics of the environment interact; even if you get your back to a wall and/or get yourself in a confined space (such as a hall or doorway) where they shouldn't be able to mob you, the AI still allows for it -- or at least, used to. I haven't tested those conditions in the new one.

It used to be frustrating as Hell to hole up to make a stand, block one enemy's shot, and then have the guy behind him randomly 'ghost' a spear through his pal in front of him to gank you. Meanwhile your own swings are constantly checked because the animations don't work when you're crowded.

Yeah... and they didn't go charging half-naked into battle. So do you want the naked berserkers in furs, or not? At this point, you are just being contrary, and I don't know why.

Again, the Eddas don't seem to agree with you. While there are some accounts of berserkers with armour, there are also those that describe them as you have just said.

One of us is being contrary. The other is making a counter-argument.

Armour is ineffective enough that two handed weapons are reasonably effective against it. So two-handed weapons feel more reasonable as a result, yeah. But once you get armor right, then suddenly they would be underpowered.

If you get armour 'right', as in historically right, then everything is underpowered against it and specialized techniques are required to bypass it -- which M&B can't replicate with it's relatively simple level of play. Nor can it reasonably replicate the intricacies of various fighting tricks and styles that evolved with different implements and different conditions over the years. Nor should it. That would be an *insanely* complex game.

It doesn't need to be historically accurate. It just needs to be consistent. We'll also know more about how that plays out once they have the perks fixed for the various skills. Right now 2-handers have garrison and leadership perks in the tree... and once you get the last perk at 275 skill level, you get a *minimum* of a 25% speed and 33% damage increase (if memory serves), on top of the bonuses that a high skill rank gives you... which is *nuts*. Even if they fix/temper that, the discrepancy between a scrub with 70 skill in 2h and someone with 275 will be night and day.It makes sense to me that the lower skill guy will have to whack someone with heavy armour 4-5 times before taking them down, and that the character who has mastered it can one-shot someone. I'm good with that.

 

[Lord Earl]

It's pretty hard to deal with mobs. For realistic reasons, and for unrealistic ones too. High weapon damage is the only way to have any chance of dealing with them. And I have sometimes managed to kill dozens of enemies single-handed.

The worst was when the code changed sometime around version 0.808, when enemy bodies became insubstantial in the moment of death/incapacitation. So enemies were totally free to step into their falling corpse or swing through it into you, the very instant you took them out, when you had no chance to defend (and not like you can see through the body). That made it practically unplayable to fight mobs.

Again, the Eddas don't seem to agree with you. While there are some accounts of berserkers with armour, there are also those that describe them as you have just said.

One of us is being contrary. The other is making a counter-argument.

Oh please just stop. You talked about how furs need to act like good armor for your fantasy of naked men charging into battle, I pointed out high damage helps with that. Now apparently you're arguing that, historically, naked men would run into walls of steels and come out unscathed to live long careers...? And after you were talking about fighting large groups of people being unrealistic? Even Lindy Beige has pointed out that bearsarkers were known to wear armor and use shields. The eddas have truth in them, I'm sure there were some cases of naked fighters, but they are not reliable historical records.

What are you trying to argue here? Your first thing was how realism is bad, as it doesn't allow for berserkers... but now you're saying it DOES? Then why did you complain about realism, if reality has what you want?

What you've given isn't a counter-argument, it is three counter-arguments, each working against the other two. If you just want to be contrary, please leave me out of it, as I have work to do.

 

[PenisMightier]

A spreadsheet could tell you immediately the balance is wrong there, where the price and weight of the cap does not justify its defence.

chill dawg maybe they aint got excel

 

[PenisMightier]

Worse, this is a very simple fix, and a basic quality control issue. While I'm fine with there being a lot of bugs in the game during EA for us to help iron out, this kind of thing is pretty inexcusable. There are many incidents of armour that is obvious of inferior construction having superior stats. Shoes with calf wrappings should not grant more armour than leather boots with metal plate over the shins. Nor should a nasalhelm offer the same protection as a leather cap.

I'm all for fudging stats a little so that some atmospheric elements can be maintained (such as the Wolfskins armour perhaps being slightly disproportionate so that the supposed badass faction doesn't fold like wet cardboard every fight)... but inconsistencies in gear should not be this rampant.

It's always tough to do that though because of people who want to roleplay. Certain systems like these are hard to balance because everyones just gonna go for Best in Slot. The ol' desert horse archer dressed like a swadian knight. Even then... This stuff needs to be fixed.

Maybe if there were certain faction bonuses for wearing your factions armor. Maybe set bonuses that help guide an armor sets role or if you're playing as that desert horse archer apply bonuses to leather armor to make it more viable so not everyone immediately goes best in slot. Doesn't make sense to have a dude in full plate and mail rolling around the desert trying to be an archer. Or skills that give boosts to certain types of armor.

 

[blazerules]

chill dawg maybe they aint got excel

Probably use google sheets. It's free after all.

I'm just hoping this is an early access issue as a lot of stuff is clearly, in the words of Gordon Ramsay, f**king raw. So I'm holding out hope that they'll look at things and fix them.

Perhaps armour values are placeholders. They feel like it too.

 

[PenisMightier]

in the words of Gordon Ramsay, f**king raw.

I really shouldn't have laughed as hard as I did. I also shouldn't have read it in his voice lmao

 

[Northcott]

It's always tough to do that though because of people who want to roleplay. Certain systems like these are hard to balance because everyones just gonna go for Best in Slot. The ol' desert horse archer dressed like a swadian knight. Even then... This stuff needs to be fixed.

Maybe if there were certain faction bonuses for wearing your factions armor. Maybe set bonuses that help guide an armor sets role or if you're playing as that desert horse archer apply bonuses to leather armor to make it more viable so not everyone immediately goes best in slot. Doesn't make sense to have a dude in full plate and mail rolling around the desert trying to be an archer. Or skills that give boosts to certain types of armor.

At first glance, it looks like all the cultures are fairly balanced in terms of having different tiers of armour -- and those with lighter armour overall should have more mobility (Battanians in their woodsy terrain, on foot, for example).

But both our Mongol knock-offs and European knight knock-offs have some very heavy armour options which should offer comparable protection values.

I suspect that if it were simply broken down into a bodypart diagram, with each region acting as a multiplier, and the material of the armour offering the numerical base, we'd have a decent system for eyeballing it. Where a piece of armour appears to cover (for example) half of that region (e.g. chain mail halfway down the thighs instead of complete coverage) simply give half the value.

So if the torso were broken down into four regions, and chain mail provides 8 points per location, then a chain shirt would provide 32 points of protection to the body. (Not necessarily the numbers I'd suggest, but it serves as an example).

Now the trick would be getting the right relative weight values, which could be assigned in a similar fashion, scaling it so that the heavier the armour, the more punishing it is to mobility, and that light armour (leathers, for example) would offer little to no impediment, but also offer considerably less protection.

Then err on the side of granting protection rather than not, making the more 'flavour' oriented options viable (though far from optimal), and it could do the trick.