Damage in this game is Ridiculous

[Blyatt08]

The problem is armour, that's it.
Weapons should be lethal. If you're sat wearing a t-shirt and joggers (essentially peasant gear), and someone swings a sword at your chest, you're going to be fatally wounded most likely from one swing.

Now if I'm not mistaken, plate armour was effective at preventing slashing and cutting. It wasn't as effective at preventing piercing damage - and Chainmail was effective at preventing piercing damage, but could easily (in regards to what it actually is) be broken by excessive slashing and cutting.

So... there's the problem;
1. No Armour prevents mortal wounding to the point where a single slash, or single arrow, cannot actually kill a target (unless headshot).
2. Plate Armour doesn't prevent slashing damage much, its barely different than having no armour.
3. Chain Armour doesn't prevent piercing damage any more than plate armour would, which is essentially the same as having no armour on.

All in all;
Armour is broken.

Chain mail is also good against slashing, not piercing. Can go in between the links and break them apart. Most armor was better against cutting than piercing. Which is something they could lean into as well.

 

[TomaSkTemplar]

plate was a thing when people became a much more valued commodity, due to the plague, you had basically more material to use for far fewer people. The bigger the armies, the less expenses per person.

 

[FlameRiot]

The problem is armour, that's it.
Weapons should be lethal. If you're sat wearing a t-shirt and joggers (essentially peasant gear), and someone swings a sword at your chest, you're going to be fatally wounded most likely from one swing.

Now if I'm not mistaken, plate armour was effective at preventing slashing and cutting. It wasn't as effective at preventing piercing damage - and Chainmail was effective at preventing piercing damage, but could easily (in regards to what it actually is) be broken by excessive slashing and cutting.

So... there's the problem;
1. No Armour prevents mortal wounding to the point where a single slash, or single arrow, cannot actually kill a target (unless headshot).
2. Plate Armour doesn't prevent slashing damage much, its barely different than having no armour.
3. Chain Armour doesn't prevent piercing damage any more than plate armour would, which is essentially the same as having no armour on.

All in all;
Armour is broken.

you are mistaken. Real plate armor is definitely effective at preventing piercing damage, just not as good as slashing damage. Chainmail isn't effective at preventing piercing damage much at all, definitely worse than padded cloth. In game armor is good at preventing most cutting damage, and not as much piercing damage. The problem is not really the armor as much as it's the momentum system.

So unless I'M MISTAKEN I think they just take the speed of the projectile or weapon and use that as a multiplier. However, real weapon momentum also comes from mass. An arrow, no matter how fast it's traveling, should be way less powerful than a spear from a horseman to plate armor. Right now arrows deal so much damage that full archer armies are amazing. I agree that they should deal that much damage to fleshy farmers, but getting one-shot by javelins and arrows (even to the head) is ridiculous. Javelins in general should be way nerfed, they dont travel anywhere near as fast to penetrate plate or even scale IRL...

 

[margenat]

Stones? fight steppe bandits they use broad head javelins that deal 80 BASE dmg!!!! When they are riding they can deal with easy 100++ dmg i know because one of those fkcrs oneshot me with a 40 armor (helmet included)!

Damage as far i am concerned it is calculated like this:
Base dmg type * Skill related mod * Speed Mod - Armor so in the broad head javelin situation
80 * 1.2 (20 skill) * Y - 40 =>100
which mean that the speed mod only needs to be 1.4 to instakill with a broad head javeling OR
80 *X * 1 (Still) - 40 => 100
which mean you need a 1.75 bonus in your skill mods to instakill which is pretty easy to do considering that certain perks add dmg, so if you pick the herd the sheep backstory you can just instakill every single unit at game start with a broad head javelin unless they cover with a shield. Thats one of the reasons that imperial infantry troops are so deadly if they launch a flurry of their javelins they get a ton of kills.

 

[TrashMan]

ofcourse this has something to do with game balance. do you think it would be fun if you were the archer and an invincible cataphract massacres you and your troops? ?

Bring a mace with you.
Archers were not expected to kill a knight.

MP ruins everything. When you try to make everything equally viable you ruin everything. F*** multiplayer. If anything, multiplayer should have its' own weapon stats completely separate from SP.

 

[Cankiie]

Do throwns rocks still hit you with the same speed/force as an arrow when standing still?

 

[xdj1nn]

8 angry peasants would F up a Knight in RL

nope. unless they'd manage to throw the guy to the ground. (I mean, if we're talking about full plate armor). If they didn't, they'd all die.

 

[iimstevo]

3. Chain armour is definitely not better at sustaining arrow hits than more modern brigandines or plate. Chain armour was in some cases able to make some projectiles penetrate, that otherwise would bounce, because the rings helped hold the arrow or bolt in place that without the guide of the armor ring would only bounce from cloth armour. As such, the chain acted as a guide for better armour penetration. It depends on the projectiles of course. Some cut through cloth, some bounced, some were better vs plate armour. You simply did not have a generalist type of arrow or boltheads unless the projectiles were carrying way too much energy for any armour anyway.

Chain mail is also good against slashing, not piercing. Can go in between the links and break them apart. Most armor was better against cutting than piercing. Which is something they could lean into as well.

you are mistaken. Real plate armor is definitely effective at preventing piercing damage, just not as good as slashing damage. Chainmail isn't effective at preventing piercing damage much at all, definitely worse than padded cloth. In game armor is good at preventing most cutting damage, and not as much piercing damage. The problem is not really the armor as much as it's the momentum system.

So unless I'M MISTAKEN I think they just take the speed of the projectile or weapon and use that as a multiplier. However, real weapon momentum also comes from mass. An arrow, no matter how fast it's traveling, should be way less powerful than a spear from a horseman to plate armor. Right now arrows deal so much damage that full archer armies are amazing. I agree that they should deal that much damage to fleshy farmers, but getting one-shot by javelins and arrows (even to the head) is ridiculous. Javelins in general should be way nerfed, they dont travel anywhere near as fast to penetrate plate or even scale IRL...

Yup, I thought I was mistaken... I couldn't remember which one was the one that had better preventative properties, but I do recall watching something on the history channel about plate and chainmail armours, and which was most effective.

Now that I think about it, I definitely did get it the wrong way around. Chainmail was more effective at preventing slashing damage, also in due part because it was lighter and allowed for more agile movement (despite still weighing a LOT). Likely if you simply swung at a stationary target, chainmail probably wasn't that effective at stopping the blade, despite a lot of the blade's energy being dispersed among several chain links - the links would break and the armour would become vulnerable at that point (as well as allowing the rest of the blade energy to dissipate into the body of the wearer). Where as a plate armour would take the bulk of the energy and dent the armour instead of break the chains... but, you wouldn't typically be swinging at a stationary target, would you?

Plate armour on the other hand had better properties for preventing piercing damage, which is why plate armour was worn for jousting, and generally for heavy cavalry to help combat spear attacks. A fully plate-armoured infantry unit wasn't something you'd expect to find due to the sheer inability to remain mobile.

 

[Cankiie]

A fully plate-armoured infantry unit wasn't something you'd expect to find due to the sheer inability to remain mobile.

I mean, being mobile in plate armour isn't as hard as most people make it out to be. You can be rather mobile in a heavy armour. The reason you wouldn't find plate-armoured infantry units is because plate armour was expensive as hell.

Plate was used by roman infantry for a while, but due to the cost of it it was stopped. There are also historical references to what is called munition armour which was mass produced for infantry units, but it was usually heavier and made of lower quality metal than the fine plate armour worn by commanders.

There was also specialised plate armour for jousting which was indeed heavier, and is indeed the idea behind the "sheer inability to remain mobile."

Having plate armour that restricts your movement on the battlefield would be counter productive, so yes... you are, by comparison to the general thought, EXTREMELY mobile in plate armour, atleast the ones designed for battlefield use. The ones designed for jousting, not so much.

But you did not need to be mobile in a jousting tournament.

 

[mamastoast]

8 angry peasants would F up a Knight in RL

I mean yes and no?... If 8 people charge you with no concern for their own well being it doesn't really matter what equipment you're wearing.. they're gonna rip you to pieces..

But if we're talking about actual people here, who don't want to die and probably aren't well organised or discplined.... vs a knight who has trained his whole life and is wearing top tier armor? I'm pretty sure the knight would kill like 3 of em and the last 5 would panic and run away... I certainly would.. I'm not gonna be the one charging an armed elite soldier.

Regardless of realism though... armor does feel incredibly ineffective... I don't feel much progression at all . Mid tier weapons are really quite good and high tier weapons aren't much better... and since armor doesn't really do much to protect you, you will get torn to pieces no matter how high level your character is....

I thought it was awesome how heavily armored troops in warband could kill near limitless amounts of low tiers units.. made you feel like you'd achieved something once you finally had that squad of elite soldiers.

 

[brognar]

Yup, I thought I was mistaken... I couldn't remember which one was the one that had better preventative properties, but I do recall watching something on the history channel about plate and chainmail armours, and which was most effective.

Now that I think about it, I definitely did get it the wrong way around. Chainmail was more effective at preventing slashing damage, also in due part because it was lighter and allowed for more agile movement (despite still weighing a LOT). Likely if you simply swung at a stationary target, chainmail probably wasn't that effective at stopping the blade, despite a lot of the blade's energy being dispersed among several chain links - the links would break and the armour would become vulnerable at that point (as well as allowing the rest of the blade energy to dissipate into the body of the wearer). Where as a plate armour would take the bulk of the energy and dent the armour instead of break the chains... but, you wouldn't typically be swinging at a stationary target, would you?

Plate armour on the other hand had better properties for preventing piercing damage, which is why plate armour was worn for jousting, and generally for heavy cavalry to help combat spear attacks. A fully plate-armoured infantry unit wasn't something you'd expect to find due to the sheer inability to remain mobile.

Mail was most definitely not light/lighter than plate and was incredibly protective, it was nearly invulnerable to cuts and only very narrow piercing weapons (with narrow enough tips to go into the rings) could actually pierce through it. The classification of mail as light or medium armour is entirely fantasy. Mail was always HEAVY armour and was extremely valued. Consider how laborious mail is to manufacture- do you think they'd make it if it could be "broken" by sword cuts as you suggest?

 

[brognar]

I mean, being mobile in plate armour isn't as hard as most people make it out to be. You can be rather mobile in a heavy armour. The reason you wouldn't find plate-armoured infantry units is because plate armour was expensive as hell.

Plate was used by roman infantry for a while, but due to the cost of it it was stopped. There are also historical references to what is called munition armour which was mass produced for infantry units, but it was usually heavier and made of lower quality metal than the fine plate armour worn by commanders.

There was also specialised plate armour for jousting which was indeed heavier, and is indeed the idea behind the "sheer inability to remain mobile."

Having plate armour that restricts your movement on the battlefield would be counter productive, so yes... you are, by comparison to the general thought, EXTREMELY mobile in plate armour, atleast the ones designed for battlefield use. The ones designed for jousting, not so much.

But you did not need to be mobile in a jousting tournament.

A full suit of plate armour is lighter than a modern soldier's kit

 

[Cankiie]

A full suit of plate armour is lighter than a modern soldier's kit

Indeed, that is also what I hear.
I have never worn plate armour though, so personally I can't really compare!

 

[Maximum997]

Indeed, that is also what I hear.
I have never worn plate armour though, so personally I can't really compare!

I did. After like 30 minutes you can barely notice it. Weight is spreaded to whole body. For me personaly it is much harder to wear 10-15 kg backpack, becouse it is only on your back and changing balance of the body.

 

[bananenspannung]

May I share both my experience and my opinion?


* Armour in Game seems to hold up against melee weapon pretty good, the best way to see this is when you go into any tournament. Go on and tell me that you can cut down that heavily armoured solder as easy as the looter next to him.
* Armour against missile types? Yea that quite bad, especially on horseback. You can again, easily test this with looters, simple get the fastest horse you have and ride straight towards them, I guess that is what the OP has experienced.

I agree that to the statement that speed has now a pretty big impact. And I think this makes it for the player now far more dangerous in the field.
Why? Well tell me, are you or are you not constantly running around with the fastest horse you could buy, often very near or direct into the enemies?


And funnily that nobody seems to bring up the point that bannerlord is settled before warband. Thus, the armour quality is quite a bit worse. The best armor in bannerlord would protect A LOT less than the best armor in warband.

 

[Maximum997]

Thus, the armour quality is quite a bit worse.

So why quality of weapons is better?

Just compare:

Best twohander in WB - 50 damage
Best onehander in NL - 170 damage.

Bun in warband skills was a good multiplier of hits. In BL they worth sh*t. For example 300 polearms give you 15% damage and 15% speed.

 

[Namakan]

So why quality of weapons is better?

Just compare:

Best twohander in WB - 50 damage
Best onehander in NL - 170 damage.

That comparison isn't a very good one. Damage is calculated differently in both games, and Bannerlord characters generally have more hp (around twice as much, mostly).

 

[Maximum997]

That comparison isn't a very good one. Damage is calculated differently in both games, and Bannerlord characters generally have more hp (around twice as much, mostly).

Yes. But in warband top tier troops with a lot of str and ironflesh had a lot more HP. In BL they are the same.
And perks like "power strike" diesnt exist.

I guess it was done to make progression as little as possible. +15% damage for 300 skill is a kinda joke.

 

[bananenspannung]

I was more pointing out the historical and not gameplay situation with the last statement. I mean it would make sense that the dev would try change the balance of amour/damage. It would both better fit the time period and it would make bannerlord different from warband, I mean, why make a new game if it works exactly like the old one?

 

[Maximum997]

I mean, why make a new game if it works exactly like the old one?

Asf the fans of fallout 2 or gothic 2.