Damage in this game is Ridiculous

[SavatageRoyo]

Wears full plat armor...gets taken out by rocks thrown from peasants.

Seems legit.

I don`t want to judge on the damage system as much currently. I don`t have that much experience with different weapon types and armor.
However today I was thinking about how the interaction between weapons and armor seem to break down after weapons reached a critical point. I was thinking about my new two-handed sword and polearm one-shooting pretty much everybody with swing attacks - and then I realized, wait this doesn`t seem right. This feels very gamy. Weapons says "lots of damage" games says "lots of damage = enemy dead"
Shouldn`t a blade doing a cutting strike simply do very very little against chain and plate armor? We have "thrust"-values and attacks in this game. Isn`t that the whole point of this "combat-system"!
But from what I can tell, once you crafted a two-handed sword with +110 cutting damage or a polearm maybe having +160 cutting damage you pretty much one-shot everything anyway with a swing.

And yeah throwing rocks against plate armor and losing hitpoints is very gamy as well.

 

[Maximum997]

But from what I can tell, once you crafted a two-handed sword with +110 cutting damage or a polearm maybe having +160 cutting damage you pretty much one-shot everything anyway with a swing.

And yeah throwing rocks against plate armor and losing hitpoints is very gamy as well.

With a lot of weapons it is stupid when you need the same ammount of hits to kill a naked pesant and the armored elite warrior.

 

[h1zchan]

with any bow and arrow, could not pierce plate armor. There are even youtube channel, where they test medieval weapons and armors

Theres no plate armor in bannerlord. It's set in 11th century. But i agree given the high base damage of weapons in bannerlord (roughly twice that of warban) the armor values need to go up by 2x as well to be worth the trouble.

 

[CyberianK]

Theres no plate armor in bannerlord. It's set in 11th century.

You are correct in that Bannerlord does not have 1390/1415/1485 "full plate". Bannerlord does not fully use 1066 period correct armor though but a wild mix especially for the high tier armors.

Like a Banner knight or what you wear as player if you go for Vlandian Style:

That is Coat of Plates on Mail Hauberk with some kind of Spangenhelm with face plate on mail coif (I'd guess they modeled it after this

While the Spangenhelm is an early medieval design the Coat of Plates is clearly 1250-1350 so right before bigger plate tiles and harnesses became widely available at the end of the 1300s. So this is a strange mix and you ofc have other mixes with the different cultures. We can also assume that some kind of gambeson or arming doublet is worn below this so we have 3 layers: plate + mail + fabric.

Now if a warbow or crossbow does not hit specific weak points (like between the plates on the torso or a good hit on the faceplate but even there penetration is not guaranteed) even the above armor will not penetrate (Plate on mail on fabric) on the main torso and helmet. As for something like Vlandian Sargeant wears with just Mail + Fabric that would still be good armor and at least would protect against low tier bows and thrown weapons like throwing axes (or rocks). While the higher powered warbows or Javelins could potentially penetrate but there would you would still be better off wearing that armor then not.

 

[h1zchan]

You are correct in that Bannerlord does not have 1390/1415/1485 "full plate". Bannerlord does not fully use 1066 period correct armor though but a wild mix especially for the high tier armors.

Like a Banner knight or what you wear as player if you go for Vlandian Style:

That is Coat of Plates on Mail Hauberk with some kind of Spangenhelm with face plate on mail coif (I'd guess they modeled it after this

While the Spangenhelm is an early medieval design the Coat of Plates is clearly 1250-1350 so right before bigger plate tiles and harnesses became widely available at the end of the 1300s. So this is a strange mix and you ofc have other mixes with the different cultures. We can also assume that some kind of gambeson or arming doublet is worn below this so we have 3 layers: plate + mail + fabric.

Now if a warbow or crossbow does not hit specific weak points (like between the plates on the torso or a good hit on the faceplate but even there penetration is not guaranteed) even the above armor will not penetrate (Plate on mail on fabric) on the main torso and helmet. As for something like Vlandian Sargeant wears with just Mail + Fabric that would still be good armor and at least would protect against low tier bows and thrown weapons like throwing axes (or rocks). While the higher powered warbows or Javelins could potentially penetrate but there would you would still be better off wearing that armor then not.

Well that coat of plates has massive gaps between its plates so no wonder. Jokes aside i do especially dislike Vlandian armor pieces in this game purely because they clearly belong to a different time period compared to the equipment of all the other factions and therefore feel out of place. I hope they redesign the Vlandian armor textures eventually to make them blend in with the time period. I should also mention even the Vlandian castles are largely time travelled from 13th century. 11th century castles would have been the mote and bailiff type, but thats another topic for another day. I agree though that the armor values are too low considering the fact that weapon damages in bannerlord are double the values in warband.

 

[Marlax]

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.

anything layered over the body helps vs slashing. even cloth ect depending how thick is it. chainmail helps vs slashing not so much peircing and plated metal armor is still goign to help with slashing and helps with piercing aswell because the angles ect on the armor. blunt damage is the way through plate knights didnt use shields as much because they didnt have to worry so much about damage and could focus on offensive attacks.

now 3 peasants taking down elite units. 1 v 1 the yloose but in real life if 3 people go after one even if he is a stud he iwll get taken down. when you fall in armor you can get stuck like a turtle on its back. so yes you will loose vs many enemies even in plate.

 

[Tobi7043]

Now, granted I normally mod the crap out of Warband and toy with the damage values on a regular basis, but I don't remember native warband being this ridiculous in terms of damage. Most melee weapons are sitting around at f*cking 60 cutting damage with swords, axes, etc, and maces can deal a whopping 50 damage. In Warband you are lucky to get your hands on a weapon that good that's two handed, and armor at least does something in native warband. In bannerlord however? It's expensive garbage that merely drags out your slim healthbar by an meager sliver. Why the hell are so many weapons not only so damaging, but able to deal damage what is supposed to be the toughest armor in the game? I even tried using the dummy max value heavy armor and it still wouldn't protect me from looters throwing rocks, or basic melee strikes from some of the weakest melee units in the game. Why the hell is fodder able to counter elite units like Catpahracts, when the entire purpose of such units is that they are essentially invulnerable to fodder with no armor and wielding one handed weapons with no shields? Arrows likewise are absolutely ridiculous, as are missile weapons in general, to the point that there really is no point to ever get in melee. You will get swarmed by the cheapest and most garbage infantry swiftly and cut down regardless of how "good" your equipment is, and you're basically screwed as soon as you run out of ammo for your missile weapon of choice. Considering this is supposed to coexist with permadeath, the current lethality in bannerlord is ridiculous. And not just for a basic character level, but for gameplay as well. Being able to hack apart even the toughest units or characters with just a couple hits isn't fun, it's goddamn boring. There's no such thing as a lengthy good fight with the bots even on hard, as one of you will go down in just a couple hits despite wearing armor that should render you impregnable to most basic weapons.

Please, for the love of god, either nerf the damage of every weapon in SP into the ground to make fights drag out for an actual length of time instead of these ridiculous anime-esque battles with people wielding lightsabers disguised as arming swords, or at least give us the modding tools (or just module armor soak and armor reduction values to damage) to do it ourselves ASAP. I'm pretty much losing all interest in bannerlord for the time being until something is done, as the combat is just dull compared to Warband.

The hp is also double the amount here if you havent seen...

 

[qmax]

I thought that this aspect of the game was very good, the way to modify this is to play on easiest mode if you don't want to get hurt. And I can often beat looters without anyone wounded or killed so I see nothing wrong with the looter simulation.

 

[iimstevo]

anything layered over the body helps vs slashing. even cloth ect depending how thick is it. chainmail helps vs slashing not so much peircing and plated metal armor is still goign to help with slashing and helps with piercing aswell because the angles ect on the armor. blunt damage is the way through plate knights didnt use shields as much because they didnt have to worry so much about damage and could focus on offensive attacks.

now 3 peasants taking down elite units. 1 v 1 the yloose but in real life if 3 people go after one even if he is a stud he iwll get taken down. when you fall in armor you can get stuck like a turtle on its back. so yes you will loose vs many enemies even in plate.

Yes, further comments already clarified I was mistaken on the purpose of each type of armour. I got it the wrong way round, mostly.
However, it doesn't negate the underlying point.

A peasant in cloth rags is just as effective as a knight in plate armour at reducing incoming damage. That should not be the case.
A peasant should not be able to withstand a single swing of the sword to the torso or head... they'd be lucky not being cleaved into two, let alone still standing and swinging away. Being full on-impaled on a spear or sword also seems to have absolutely no affect on them.
This is the main issue... Armour is completely irrelevant because it isn't a case of saving your life - not wearing any armour also "saves your life" (and the AIs) from the same amount of incoming damage.

No armour = 2-3 swings
Best armour = 4-6 swings

Considering there's barely any difference going from no armour at all, to virtually the best armour in the game, everything in between becomes completely irrelevant. The same applies to arrows as well as melee weapons. No armour = 2-3 arrows, full armour = 4-6 arrows (excluding headshots).

 

[Skjuld]

Definitely agree. Armor hardly changes anything, which does not feel right. A hit from a sword by a trained warrior on an untrained peasant wearing rags will cause horrid wounds. There's not much feel of a difference between trained/untrained, armoured/ unarmoured. The only noticeable change is going for a higher DPS weapon.
The whole hitpoint/ armour/ weapon/skill system feels off. It does not give you a sense of progress at all and is quite unrealistic. I don't understand how someone can pitch a rock at 30 m/s at a moving target 50 m away and wound it through a steel helmet.

 

[Demoulius]

To chime in on the 8 peassants vs 1 knight front.

I think people are really under restimating how bad it is to be outnumbered in combat. Sure, people really dont want to die but get them pissed off enough that they would go into that combat and my money is on the group of 8. Unless the knight is in some open field and he can just back up indefenitly and MIRACOUSLY the mob dont surround him.... Whats more likely is that he will be overrun. Incapacitated and/or tossed to the ground and get shanked to death. Even full plate armor had vunerable parts and if someone tosses you to the ground they can jank your helmet off your head and just stab you in the face.

Gameplay wise though? Yeah those peasants are dead, no contest

 

[Skjuld]

To chime in on the 8 peassants vs 1 knight front.

I think people are really under restimating how bad it is to be outnumbered in combat. Sure, people really dont want to die but get them pissed off enough that they would go into that combat and my money is on the group of 8. Unless the knight is in some open field and he can just back up indefenitly and MIRACOUSLY the mob dont surround him.... Whats more likely is that he will be overrun. Incapacitated and/or tossed to the ground and get shanked to death. Even full plate armor had vunerable parts and if someone tosses you to the ground they can jank your helmet off your head and just stab you in the face.

Sure... But most probably the peasants would just run away in every direction After all, a knight on foot in full plate will hardly be able to catch them all
But yeah, if your adversaries are determined and halfway competent, you'll get crushed by numbers.

 

[iimstevo]

To chime in on the 8 peassants vs 1 knight front.

I think people are really under restimating how bad it is to be outnumbered in combat. Sure, people really dont want to die but get them pissed off enough that they would go into that combat and my money is on the group of 8. Unless the knight is in some open field and he can just back up indefenitly and MIRACOUSLY the mob dont surround him.... Whats more likely is that he will be overrun. Incapacitated and/or tossed to the ground and get shanked to death. Even full plate armor had vunerable parts and if someone tosses you to the ground they can jank your helmet off your head and just stab you in the face.

Gameplay wise though? Yeah those peasants are dead, no contest

You've kind of missed the point though...
Say your scenario does happen... The Knight is going to kill at least one or two of them before they even surround him. That's now 1v6.
In the event that these peasants are coordinated enough to simultaneously attack the knight, that's still another dead in the process of pulling the knight to the ground.
And then after that, its a case of an even fight in which the peasants will win because of the numbers. The individual peasants stabbing the knight, the knight scuffling with one or two simultaneously, and being pinned down by the rest.

All of this is with the expectation that seeing their peasant allies being gutted and slaughtered doesn't cause them to waiver in confidence and flee...

That's still a signficant flip of being outnumbered 1 to 8, to being outnumbered 1 to 4 or 5.
In raw numbers, you're looking at an army of 100 beating an army of 300 or 400 before taking any casualties.

EDIT: Don't forget, in the days of the arenas of the Roman Empire. Peasant executions were often carried out where several unarmed / lightly armed peasants were put into the arena against one or two gladiators. In those numbers, the peasants would outnumber the gladiators often enough at 4 to 1.

 

[Skjuld]

While the higher powered warbows or Javelins could potentially penetrate but there would you would still be better off wearing that armor then not.

I'm a bit dubious about the javelins, though. That type of weapon was mostly phased out in medieval times. I think their range and power are largely overestimated in BL.
A light javelin will hardly penetrate a gambison (you see tests of that on youtube). A spear will, but you can't throw it more than a few meters away in an aimed throw.
Volleys of light javelin in an arc might be useful in a battle scenario against lightly armored troops.

 

[kekkuli5]

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.

That's all wrong actually. Plate is good versus pretty much everything. You can't really easily pierce it, just go through the gaps in armor. Mail armor makes you pretty much immune to slashes and can even prevent arrows and spears going through. But blunt weapons will hurt a lot more through mail when compared to plate.

 

[Marlax]

You've kind of missed the point though...
Say your scenario does happen... The Knight is going to kill at least one or two of them before they even surround him. That's now 1v6.
In the event that these peasants are coordinated enough to simultaneously attack the knight, that's still another dead in the process of pulling the knight to the ground.
And then after that, its a case of an even fight in which the peasants will win because of the numbers. The individual peasants stabbing the knight, the knight scuffling with one or two simultaneously, and being pinned down by the rest.

All of this is with the expectation that seeing their peasant allies being gutted and slaughtered doesn't cause them to waiver in confidence and flee...

That's still a signficant flip of being outnumbered 1 to 8, to being outnumbered 1 to 4 or 5.
In raw numbers, you're looking at an army of 100 beating an army of 300 or 400 before taking any casualties.

EDIT: Don't forget, in the days of the arenas of the Roman Empire. Peasant executions were often carried out where several unarmed / lightly armed peasants were put into the arena against one or two gladiators. In those numbers, the peasants would outnumber the gladiators often enough at 4 to 1.

i would pit a gladiator vs 6 armored knights. gladiators are not slow bulky enemies and very skilled probably with arms and hand to hand and wrestling. peasants trying to use weapons they have never used.

 

[Skjuld]

i would pit a gladiator vs 6 armored knights. gladiators are not slow bulky enemies and very skilled probably with arms and hand to hand and wrestling. peasants trying to use weapons they have never used.

That would be a dead gladiator. Gladiators were more akin to modern-day wrestlers and luchadores than real soldiers. Sure, they were very trained in some weapons, but they were primarily showmen. And, depending on the type, they could be slow and bulky. A Retiarius or Secutor would be fast, but a Mirmillo was meant to be rather slow and tanky.

 

[Demoulius]

You've kind of missed the point though...
Say your scenario does happen... The Knight is going to kill at least one or two of them before they even surround him. That's now 1v6.
In the event that these peasants are coordinated enough to simultaneously attack the knight, that's still another dead in the process of pulling the knight to the ground.
And then after that, its a case of an even fight in which the peasants will win because of the numbers. The individual peasants stabbing the knight, the knight scuffling with one or two simultaneously, and being pinned down by the rest.

All of this is with the expectation that seeing their peasant allies being gutted and slaughtered doesn't cause them to waiver in confidence and flee...

That's still a signficant flip of being outnumbered 1 to 8, to being outnumbered 1 to 4 or 5.
In raw numbers, you're looking at an army of 100 beating an army of 300 or 400 before taking any casualties.

EDIT: Don't forget, in the days of the arenas of the Roman Empire. Peasant executions were often carried out where several unarmed / lightly armed peasants were put into the arena against one or two gladiators. In those numbers, the peasants would outnumber the gladiators often enough at 4 to 1.

Why would the knight instantly instagib 2 of the peasants? Do you assume that they would casually walk into his sword or something? Peasants might be untrained for combat but they arent suicidal nor are they ****ing stupid. If you have someone outnumbered 8 to 1 it is very easy to surround them and cut off their escape. They dont got eyes in the back of their head and they cant keep track of everyone at the same time.

Their approach to such a fight could be compared to how a pack of hyenas would kill an isolated lion. If you have ever seen that on nature documentaries then you know they dont even have to do it while fighitng. They can just disable their opponent with exhaustion and when he is disabled go for the kill.

Where are you getting the idea that peasants were casually tossed into the arena to be butchered during executions in the roman era? If 99.999999% of your population IS peasants or people of equal status thats a very fast way to get your regime overthrown. Unless you are talking about condemned men beeing given a chance in the arena rather then just facing death then yes, that did happen. But they werent large groups to my knowledge but 1 on 1 fights or 2 on 2. Been a few years since I visited the colloseum so dont recall the exact method that they described. And a gladiator is something very different from a knight so im not sure if the comparison works....

 

[Speedkermit]

I just use whatever armour I like the look of. As far as I can tell the stats don't seem to make a shred of difference in a battle.

 

[iimstevo]

Why would the knight instantly instagib 2 of the peasants? Do you assume that they would casually walk into his sword or something? Peasants might be untrained for combat but they arent suicidal nor are they ****ing stupid. If you have someone outnumbered 8 to 1 it is very easy to surround them and cut off their escape. They dont got eyes in the back of their head and they cant keep track of everyone at the same time.

In what situation are knights trained without being outnumbered in the first case?

also about the hyenas:
Hyenas are literally pack hunters... they instinctually know from birth how to hunt as a pack and fight as a pack. You can't compare a bunch of untrained, strangers, that have no idea how to fight, with Hyenas.

And yes, generally those condemned to die had the option to fight in the arena.