Can we do something about the khuzaits?

Users who are viewing this thread

As far as I know, he was talking about turkish archer, not syrian lancer. I think none of us will never be sure how effective arrows were unless we wore some armor and let hundreds of arrows rain down on us. Would you wanna test that?

You don't have to actually wear the armor yourself to see if an arrow will go through deep enough to cause serious injury. A slab of meat or ballistic gelatin works for the purpose. And people have done those tests; even a gambeson alone helps a lot against arrows.

At any rate, it is about game balance. TW decided they want archers to be as effective as they are -- maybe for MP, maybe just their preference overall -- that's why they go through armor as readily as they do. That has obvious knock-on effects however. Most notably the topic of this thread: if arrows act like bullets, horse archers become a lot more brutal in terms of raw killing power and a lot of logical, historical counters don't necessarily work well against them.
 
You don't have to actually wear the armor yourself to see if an arrow will go through deep enough to cause serious injury. A slab of meat or ballistic gelatin works for the purpose. And people have done those tests; even a gambeson alone helps a lot against arrows.

At any rate, it is about game balance. TW decided they want archers to be as effective as they are -- maybe for MP, maybe just their preference overall -- that's why they go through armor as readily as they do. That has obvious knock-on effects however. Most notably the topic of this thread: if arrows act like bullets, horse archers become a lot more brutal in terms of raw killing power and a lot of logical, historical counters don't necessarily work well against them.
Yes, I've seen many videos of arrows vs armors tests. Some arrows can go through the armor, and most of them leave a deep mark on the armor. The power of arrows depends on many factors, the distance, what kind of arrow head, the draw weight of the bow, what kind of bow, and what kind of armor. Now imagine hundreds or thousands of arrows hitting your armor repeatedly on the battlefield because that's what happened in real life. Archers back then could draw much stronger bows. It only takes one arrow out of five hundreds of them to cause serious injure and given the medical technology at that time, you will probably die of infection later. It's funny that many people like you talk about armor can just protect against all arrows, but refuse to actually wear one and let ten people shoot at you. Because given your logic, you should be completely safe correct?

Arrows acting like bullets in this game, are you joking? I'm not going to correct that because you should look up what bullets are. Horse archers were brutal, and that's a fact. But they are not op in this game, crossbows are because they can shoot so fast and so accurately. In real life it took at least 10~30 seconds to reload a crossbow, and they were not more accurate and deadly than composite bows. It takes like three arrows to take down a naked peasant in this game, and you are calling a nerf on bows? Those funny naked troops(ulfneder or somethings) would get destroyed by any army in real life. So I don't think it is bows that need nerfing.
 
Well, one of the weaknesses of cavalry-heavy armies was feeding the horsies. So maybe let a horse eat the same as one soldier (for simplicity) and give a bonus to horse feed needed in grasslands and a malus in deserts, forests and the snowlands?
I think this would make raiding much better than sieging for khuzaits.
Those raids would be a pain in the ass to stop though, which I think fits their style.
 
Well, one of the weaknesses of cavalry-heavy armies was feeding the horsies.
To feed the horse you should just leave it for few hours. Becouse horsies eat grass. And grass grows everywhere. Mongolians horses was even more hardcore. They can eat during march and even dig grass from snow
 
To feed the horse you should just leave it for few hours. Becouse horsies eat grass. And grass grows everywhere. Mongolians horses was even more hardcore. They can eat during march and even dig grass from snow
That's why the most effective counter to horse archer army was scorched earth tactics employed by qing empire against dzungar mongols. They burnt all the grazing lands in mongolia, so horses had no feed. Qing government was led by manchu people afterall, so they knew the weakness of their nomadic cousins.
 
Yes, I've seen many videos of arrows vs armors tests. Some arrows can go through the armor, and most of them leave a deep mark on the armor. The power of arrows depends on many factors, the distance, what kind of arrow head, the draw weight of the bow, what kind of bow, and what kind of armor. Now imagine hundreds or thousands of arrows hitting your armor repeatedly on the battlefield because that's what happened in real life. Archers back then could draw much stronger bows. It only takes one arrow out of five hundreds of them to cause serious injure and given the medical technology at that time, you will probably die of infection later.

Archers generally carried between 30-70 arrows, circumstances depending. You can probably find exceptions, especially in accounts of Mongol archers carrying three quivers of sixty each (!) but having those split between their heavy, armor-piercing arrows, much lighter flight arrows and other specialist types. So hundreds or thousands of arrows actually hitting your (individual) armor would imply of dozens or hundreds of archers, shooting at you, specifically your person. That's patently ridiculous on it's face.

More to the point, arrows were not in limitless supply. The Battle of Carrhae was exceptional in that regard, which is part of the reason the Romans were caught out by it. Under the same circumstances, they previously relied on the horse archers eventually exhausting their supply of arrows then continued on in good order. Other armies, in other battles at other times, only had to contend with archery (and I'm not saying they were perfectly immune or that it wasn't a deeply unpleasant experience) for as long as the arrows held out. And under the most vicious arrow storm, that wouldn't be for long.

So yes, if only one arrow in five hundred caused a serious injury then I would say that armor is effective against arrows. Or even less; if you had to put a dozen arrows in someone to cause a serious injury, due to the armor, I would still say armor was effective (either that or they had God or Allah on their side).

It's funny that many people like you talk about armor can just protect against all arrows, but refuse to actually wear one and let ten people shoot at you. Because given your logic, you should be completely safe correct?

WTF? Because I don't actually live in the middle ages and what was a necessary risk for them is totally unnecessary for me. I also wore full battle-rattle and ducked on the grenade range when the odds of actually get struck by a fragment were like one in a thousand if I stood straight up.

Arrows acting like bullets in this game, are you joking? I'm not going to correct that because you should look up what bullets are.

I am completely serious: tactically, the arrows in this game act more like bullets because they can reliably cause enough casualties to make melee superfluous. That wasn't as much a thing in medieval times, short of woefully unprepared opponents. Instead archery was used to disrupt, cause morale failure, restrict freedom of action and offer one plank of a combined arms platform. But the melee was still important.

That's why the Mongols had a 2:3 ratio of lancers to horse archers, why the Battles of Poitiers, Crecy and Agincourt all ended in melees, why Parthians employed cataphracts even during the horse archer dunkfest that was Carrhae.

Those funny naked troops(ulfneder or somethings) would get destroyed by any army in real life. So I don't think it is bows that need nerfing.

You would have to look hard to find someone around here who hates the bare-chested ulfhednars more than I do. That **** is completely stupid. But they die like flies in Bannerlord.
 
Archers generally carried between 30-70 arrows, circumstances depending. You can probably find exceptions, especially in accounts of Mongol archers carrying three quivers of sixty each (!) but having those split between their heavy, armor-piercing arrows, much lighter flight arrows and other specialist types. So hundreds or thousands of arrows actually hitting your (individual) armor would imply of dozens or hundreds of archers, shooting at you, specifically your person. That's patently ridiculous on it's face.

More to the point, arrows were not in limitless supply. The Battle of Carrhae was exceptional in that regard, which is part of the reason the Romans were caught out by it. Under the same circumstances, they previously relied on the horse archers eventually exhausting their supply of arrows then continued on in good order. Other armies, in other battles at other times, only had to contend with archery (and I'm not saying they were perfectly immune or that it wasn't a deeply unpleasant experience) for as long as the arrows held out. And under the most vicious arrow storm, that wouldn't be for long.

So yes, if only one arrow in five hundred caused a serious injury then I would say that armor is effective against arrows. Or even less; if you had to put a dozen arrows in someone to cause a serious injury, due to the armor, I would still say armor was effective (either that or they had God or Allah on their side).



WTF? Because I don't actually live in the middle ages and what was a necessary risk for them is totally unnecessary for me. I also wore full battle-rattle and ducked on the grenade range when the odds of actually get struck by a fragment were like one in a thousand if I stood straight up.



I am completely serious: tactically, the arrows in this game act more like bullets because they can reliably cause enough casualties to make melee superfluous. That wasn't as much a thing in medieval times, short of woefully unprepared opponents. Instead archery was used to disrupt, cause morale failure, restrict freedom of action and offer one plank of a combined arms platform. But the melee was still important.

That's why the Mongols had a 2:3 ratio of lancers to horse archers, why the Battles of Poitiers, Crecy and Agincourt all ended in melees, why Parthians employed cataphracts even during the horse archer dunkfest that was Carrhae.



You would have to look hard to find someone around here who hates the bare-chested ulfhednars more than I do. That **** is completely stupid. But they die like flies in Bannerlord.
Let's say an archer could shoot 10 arrows per minute, and the army had 500 archers. That would be 5000 arrows per minute, let's say the battle lasted 2 hours. And the archers were focusing fire on your formation of men. It was not ridiculous at all that over the course of battle, hundreds of arrows directly hit on your armor especially if you are standing in the front. Well yes a man can only carry so many arrows with him, but there were wagons and horses that could carry many more arrows, a horse archer army could bring wagons of arrows with them, encircle your men, dismount and start shooting. When they run out of arrows, just grab more. I said that it only took one out of five hundred arrows to seriously injure you, didn't mean that it actually took that many to break the armor. If you are unlikely the first arrow could end your life. I never said that armor was not effective, I am just telling you that arrows were quite effective as well. They were not just some weapon only useful against naked peasants.

If the arrows are actually like bullets in this game, most battles would last under a minute. Every arrow would be one shot kill, you won't need anything else, just archers. It took how many arrows for you to kill a ulfhednar? I played many hours of this game, and some archer units can be op, but not to that extent. What I would recommend is a better morale system and a weight system. Being shot at will decrease the morale of your troops, and more arrows stuck on your shield and armor, the slower you move. Decreased morale would increase the chance of being mortally wounded, and your troops might flee during the battle as well. Without these features, bows should deal more damage or they wouldn't be useful.
 
It's funny that many people like you talk about armor can just protect against all arrows, but refuse to actually wear one and let ten people shoot at you. Because given your logic, you should be completely safe correct?

"Foolish peasant, you criticise serfdom but yet you eat food produced by serfs? Liberals OWNED epic style"
- Bin Şabhiro, Emir of Palestine

Nobody is arguing that armour makes you impervious to arrows, you just made that up to fit your weird hypocrisy accusation. But if you compare what happens when you shoot arrows into thick cloth compared to directly into flesh, it becomes immediately obvious why people wore it. An arrow hitting exposed skin is going to cause injury no matter what, while an arrow hitting skin covered by practically anything is going to have much better time.

Even in the battle of carrhae where the parthians must have shot something like 10 million arrows at the romans, the army was still mostly intact until the cataphracts started charging and the formation broke up.

Let's say an archer could shoot 10 arrows per minute, and the army had 500 archers. That would be 5000 arrows per minute, let's say the battle lasted 2 hours. And the archers were focusing fire on your formation of men. It was not ridiculous at all that over the course of battle, hundreds of arrows directly hit on your armor especially if you are standing in the front. Well yes a man can only carry so many arrows with him, but there were wagons and horses that could carry many more arrows, a horse archer army could bring wagons of arrows with them, encircle your men, dismount and start shooting. When they run out of arrows, just grab more. I said that it only took one out of five hundred arrows to seriously injure you, didn't mean that it actually took that many to break the armor. If you are unlikely the first arrow could end your life. I never said that armor was not effective, I am just telling you that arrows were quite effective as well. They were not just some weapon only useful against naked peasants.

The problem with this is that you've set up a truly exceptional scenario and concluded "arrows were quite effective at killing". Yes, I'm pretty sure they were in that situation, but something like that is rare in real life and in bannerlord. Getting focus fired on by a thousand arrows is something no armour is designed to expect.
 
Nobody is arguing that armour makes you impervious to arrows, you just made that up to fit your weird hypocrisy accusation. But if you compare what happens when you shoot arrows into thick cloth compared to directly into flesh, it becomes immediately obvious why people wore it. An arrow hitting exposed skin is going to cause injury no matter what, while an arrow hitting skin covered by practically anything is going to have much better time.
Best example - domination of 2 handed weapons for infantry in 15+ centuries when armor became advanced and common for regular troops.

Before that it was infantry=shield wall.
 
Let's say an archer could shoot 10 arrows per minute, and the army had 500 archers. That would be 5000 arrows per minute, let's say the battle lasted 2 hours. And the archers were focusing fire on your formation of men. It was not ridiculous at all that over the course of battle, hundreds of arrows directly hit on your armor especially if you are standing in the front.
So.... you're literally going to stand stock still for two hours while being under fire... Yup, logic checks out perfectly well.
 
If the arrows are actually like bullets in this game, most battles would last under a minute. Every arrow would be one shot kill, you won't need anything else, just archers.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying: you can viably win battles in BL -- currently -- with nothing but archers.

And that is bad.
 
So.... you're literally going to stand stock still for two hours while being under fire... Yup, logic checks out perfectly well.
I never said they are just going to stand still, but over the course of a battle, it was completely possible that hundreds of arrows could hit you, depending on the scenario of course.
Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying: you can viably win battles in BL -- currently -- with nothing but archers.

And that is bad.
That actually depends on what the enemy composition is. If their army is just infantry, then you might be able to win with just archers. But if their army is cav, your archers will get slaughtered.


Even in the battle of carrhae where the parthians must have shot something like 10 million arrows at the romans, the army was still mostly intact until the cataphracts started charging and the formation broke up.
Are you sure that in this battle 10 millions arrows couldn't break their formation? Because I don't believe it, nobody will believe it. Again the sources were probably greatly exaggerated. Again I never said that armor was ineffective. i pointed out many times that armor was effective, but arrows were also effective unlike people in this threads are trying to say. Armor was effective, but there is also a limit on how much impact armor could absorb.
 
This whole debate can be solved with one word: volley.
You don't fire in volleys to kill people, but to break their will to fight. And as far as I know, up untill WWI, volley fire was the gold standard in ranged combat.
One exception is the shooting circle, which was specifically designed to wear the opponent out.
 
This whole debate can be solved with one word: volley.
You don't fire in volleys to kill people, but to break their will to fight. And as far as I know, up untill WWI, volley fire was the gold standard in ranged combat.
One exception is the shooting circle, which was specifically designed to wear the opponent out.
This whole debate is pure waste of time and it is visible as soon as one side started talking out of his rectum. Teh "templers" were not defeated, the first crusades result was nothing short of absolute dominance over armies many times their own size. Denying that mail+aketon had a huge deal to do with that is a rare display of ignorance. Bro, honestly - You need to do some reading before posting some arbitrary ahistorical BS and preaching your fantasies as gospel. Especially in the thread packed with informative and well documented historical info like this one. Start with H.E. Mayer History of the Crusades, its pretty good one.
 
This whole debate can be solved with one word: volley.
You don't fire in volleys to kill people, but to break their will to fight. And as far as I know, up untill WWI, volley fire was the gold standard in ranged combat.
One exception is the shooting circle, which was specifically designed to wear the opponent out.
I think some commanders would prefer their archers fire in volleys, but others would just let their archers free shooting until they run out of arrows.
 
This whole debate is pure waste of time and it is visible as soon as one side started talking out of his rectum. Teh "templers" were not defeated, the first crusades result was nothing short of absolute dominance over armies many times their own size. Denying that mail+aketon had a huge deal to do with that is a rare display of ignorance. Bro, honestly - You need to do some reading before posting some arbitrary ahistorical BS and preaching your fantasies as gospel. Especially in the thread packed with informative and well documented historical info like this one. Start with H.E. Mayer History of the Crusades, its pretty good one.
first of all you need to calm down and keep it civil. I never said that 1st crusade was a failure. I said the crusade was a failure, are you going to argue against that? And 1st crusade wasn't dominance over armies many times their own size either. Templers were underestimated and there were many infighting among the islamic forces. All they achieved was capturing some territories on the coast of present day israel. Are you going to say that UK won the revolutionary war because they had some victories at the onset of war? Templers later were destroyed and lost all their tiny possessions, am i not right? And which post I made is arbitrart ahistorical BS, tell me. Also mail armor were used by turkish soldiers as well, they weren't just going to battle naked. Turkish soldiers lost the 1st crusade not because the opposing force had some technological advantage over them, they were simply over-confident. But we all know who won at the end.
 
Last edited:
"Yeah, that is just like your opinion, man"
Jeffus Dudeus II, King of Strawman Argumentia.

And its pretty worthless,sorry. I know we live in an age when everybody is convinced that their opinion matters, but yours does not as you lack competence.

I am calm as a breeze going through the arrow holes in my chainmail. Also, calling crusader states "tiny possesions" made my day, cheers :smile: you are 100% right, similar how the Roman Empire is no longer with us so it definitely means it was a failure. still heartily recommend reading before posting.
 
1st crusade and templars? What?
Territories on coast, whaaaat?
You know that biggest crusader castles are in modern day Syria, right? You know that Kingdom of Jerusalem lasted almost 200 years? And you know that they were outnumbered in every battle they fought?

You have great historical evidence in this thread not only about crusades but also about mongols and you choose to ignore it. Go read something about it. even on wiki you will find enough to understand why crusades failed and why mongols were succesfull (spoiler: Horse archers dont go brrrrrrrrrt like in Bannerlord)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom