Shall we talk about the paper armors?

[Tajl]

In the real world, every time there was an armour improvement, it was swiftly followed by a weapon improvement, and visa versa.

I'm perfectly fine with it being possible for me in full armour to be one hit by a lancer, a crossbow bolt if I'm too close or if I ride too fast at a pike. That's literally what those weapons are for.

That said, I'm not going to complain if there are tweaks done to the different armour types and classes. I just don't want to lose the motivation to use good tactics by becoming an invulnerable tank.

When armor was improved people invented counters for them, but they were not only improvements. Weapons that were good against armor were heavier and slower so they were not optimal against unarmored opponents.

Against armor people started to use 2h weapons. Of course then they couldn't use shields, but that was not problem because heavy armors made them practically immune to arrows. Because armors are useless everyone have to carry shield or be useless.

Or be archer of course. Small army of elite archers can conquer the world and archers are easiest troops to train as only other archers can kill them.

Only way to fight archers is archers. Well. That happened historically too just not with archers. Armor didn't help against rifles so when rifles were invented everyone started to use them. If they would just change every bow and crossbow so that they would look like rifles then damage models would be just fine. Crossbows would be muskets and bows would be bolt action rifles.

 

[Marajah]

I still advocate armor is fine. Dying in 2-3 hits is way worse than dying in 5-10 hits. Specially since you don't get hit much in the endgame if you invest points into cavalry/athletics. Also shields are your friend in this game if you want to melee.
High armored troops are undoubtedly stronger than light armored troops in melee. Too bad they decided to stick to the sluggish shield walls implemented a few patches back, so ranged troops pick them apart through the shield gaps regardless while they do the slowest march ever

Also, people tend to overlook another very powerful effect of higher tier armors: it's substantially harder to get staggered. Turning your shoulder to an attacking enemy while swinging allows you to tank the damage while delivering that killing head bash more often than not. Try doing that in tunics to see how it works out.

If they buff armors to warband levels, soloing armies will probably be a thing.

 

[vonbalt]

If they buff armors to warband levels, soloing armies will probably be a thing.

what? The only way you could solo an army in warband was on the easiest damage settings and cheesing the AI until you almost died of boredom from charging and retreating to pick them one at a time (or using horse archery with lots of arrows in the inventory to replenish going to the inventory chest in your spawn point)

 

[Marajah]

what? The only way you could solo an army in warband was on the easiest damage settings and cheesing the AI until you almost died of boredom from charging and retreating to pick them one at a time (or using horse archery with lots of arrows in the inventory to replenish going to the inventory chest in your spawn point)

I never said it would be like warband. I'm saying it WILL probably be a thing. In Bannerlord. Because of ridiculous walking speed, incompetent AI and a low percentage of high armored troops in enemy armies unless they don't get involved in wars for a significant time.

What prevents us from doing this now is the occasional stray arrow/javelin to the head

 

[Akka]

This issue is really illustrating how wonky TW development is. It's litteraly a one-hour man job to alter the formula, it affects everyone and hampers the whole game, and yet it's been nearly a whole year without a single fix.
It's just... uncomprehensible.

 

[vonbalt]

I never said it would be like warband. I'm saying it WILL probably be a thing. In Bannerlord. Because of ridiculous walking speed, incompetent AI and a low percentage of high armored troops in enemy armies unless they don't get involved in wars for a significant time.

What prevents us from doing this now is the occasional stray arrow/javelin to the head

So you just listed more things that should be fixed and i agree with them, walking speed is too high and makes eveyone looks like Speedy Gonzales, AI is too dumb (both in combat and campaign) and lords should have an easier time recruiting mid-high tier units instead of armies of recruits (hopefully with the least amount of cheating possible).

 

[Marajah]

So you just listed more things that should be fixed and i agree with them, walking speed is too high and makes eveyone looks like Speedy Gonzales, AI is too dumb (both in combat and campaign) and lords should have an easier time recruiting mid-high tier units instead of armies of recruits (hopefully with the least amount of cheating possible).

True, but I lost hope :/

And I think raising armor values alone would make the game worse. It's not like we can't already go in and murder 50 looters by ourselves.

 

[CrazyElf]

Most likely you're being hit by either blunt weapons or two handed. Blunt ignores armor 100% and two handed damage is insanely high.
Mostly armor works as intended, but blunt is really powerfull.

Another problem is that armor is not as protective against arrows.\

I'd say overall armor needs a big buff.

True, but I lost hope :/

And I think raising armor values alone would make the game worse. It's not like we can't already go in and murder 50 looters by ourselves.

That's not the problem. People who advocate for stronger armor are not trying to make the game easier when advocating for stronger armor.

The problem is that it is not realistic - armor right now doesn't offer the level of protection that we would expect and that is taking away from the immersion in a game that claims to be relatively representative of real life (it's not perfect, but it's "more realistic" than most games).

Armor works both ways - it may be harder for low tier enemies to kill you, but enemy lords and high tier units will also be harder to kill. I'd advocate for the AI to have a higher percentage of higher tier troops as well, if necessary (I've made threads about that before).

As someone who mods armor extensivelly I can assure you that current state of armor is deisgn choice, there is absolutelly no problem with buffing it both in terms of code and simple xml modifications. I believe that they are going for "movie immersion" aka swords piercing through mail and plate.

Also what most of people here suggests here is gamey not realistic (I have no problem with that its game after all, just saying). For example mail was worn with padding underneath, lamellar as well, sometimes even with 1 or 2 layer of mail beneath it. So there really should be armors that are good agains everything, obviously they would be heavy and it would be hot in them (if stamina is ever implemented). Finally big problem with any kind of armor rebalance is how simplistic combat in bannerlord is (only for 4 types of attack - 3 swing and 1 thrust at best), therefore more complex techniques that can technically defeat armor are really hard to depict.

The main issue I see here is that Realistic Combat Mod should be the baseline of what the game is - not a mod.

 

[Midnitewolf]

One thing that greatly affects the enjoyability of the game to me is how armors seem to not protect you at all, at first ok you have a tunic and one or two hits kill you, then you grind and level and wage war across an entire continent until you can save up enough to get some high end armor (or stole it from your new wife) just for it to barely make any difference at all, it's frustrating while this should be one of the basics of the RPG part of the game (character progression and itemization).

Don't know if the problem is in the formula or the armor rating that's too low overall but they don't feel protecting, everyone is tired of hearing this but armor worked much better in warband in my opinion, you truly felt the progress from a leather tunic to a chainmail then to a plate armor for example, you got much more tankier and low level troops with their rocks and poor weapons barely annoyed you with their hits while high level enemies still felt threatening but nothing that you couldn't tank for a while, not to say that it was perfect but it felt much more enjoyable to be able to rely on that protection for a while, in bannerlord you don't get that feeling cause a few arrows or rocks will kill no matter what if they hit even if you are using the best armor in the game.

Does anyone knows if TW acknowledged this problem and said if they are working on any solutions? i can't be the only one who thinks this, just look at the most popular mods on the nexus, "armor does something" came out just a few days after the EA release and "realistic battles" now is the most popular rebalancing mod there.

Of course i can use mods to tailor the game perfectly to my tastes over time but i would like the vanilla experience to be more enjoyable, the stronger the base of the game the fewer mods we'll need to make it truly shine.

This can be easily corrected with a Mod. Now I know you point this out and say they should work on the vanilla experience but I would rather them work on issues not easily corrected with a Mod. Also you have to consider that how much armor protection is enough is highly subjective. For example, if you love playing a horse archer character, having armor be much more protective, usually diminishes the roll of a horse archer or any archer for that matter. This is kind of why a mod is a better solution to these sort of things. You can easily add a mod to the game that lets you tailor your personal experience to exactly what you prefer while allowing the devs to work on actual issues, rather than preferences.

 

[Marajah]

That's not the problem. People who advocate for stronger armor are not trying to make the game easier when advocating for stronger armor.

The problem is that it is not realistic - armor right now doesn't offer the level of protection that we would expect and that is taking away from the immersion in a game that claims to be relatively representative of real life (it's not perfect, but it's "more realistic" than most games).

Armor works both ways - it may be harder for low tier enemies to kill you, but enemy lords and high tier units will also be harder to kill. I'd advocate for the AI to have a higher percentage of higher tier troops as well, if necessary (I've made threads about that before).

As long as we don't have the possibility to hit gaps or weak spots in armor, taking no to negligible damage is also not gonna be realistic. An HP system isn't realistic. You don't take hard hits to the head and keep fighting to full capacity until someone manages to knock you out with a soft bump to the hand because you were weakened.

The interpretation of how armor works in games like this is that the incapacitating blow would be the one that bypassed the defenses. Better armor have a better chance of avoiding those incapacitating blows, so the model can take more hits before going down.
Realistically, someone in full armor could still be struck down by a single blow, but impervious levels of armor in games would make that nearly impossible. Wouldn't you agree that's equally immersion breaking?

 

[CrazyElf]

As long as we don't have the possibility to hit gaps or weak spots in armor, taking no to negligible damage is also not gonna be realistic. An HP system isn't realistic. You don't take hard hits to the head and keep fighting to full capacity until someone manages to knock you out with a soft bump to the hand because you were weakened.

The interpretation of how armor works in games like this is that the incapacitating blow would be the one that bypassed the defenses. Better armor have a better chance of avoiding those incapacitating blows, so the model can take more hits before going down.
Realistically, someone in full armor could still be struck down by a single blow, but impervious levels of armor in games would make that nearly impossible. Wouldn't you agree that's equally immersion breaking?

I'm not against the idea of having head shots as a "weak spot" doing more damage. I'm quite for it actually.

As far as other parts, the joints have been a weak spot, although later medieval armors did address that (granted this is an earlier medieval period, so a case could be made that they should be a weak spot).

Likewise, I'm ok with polearms being potent on the field (historically swords were backup weapons, except against enemies with weaker armor), although that is offset as they don't do as well in close quarters. I'm ok as well with one hit kills even against heavy armor from a couch lance, as well, provided they get pikes and brace mechanics working before launch. As far as heavy armor, there should be more blunt weapons and they in turn should be less effective against large numbers of tier 1/2 units than cut or pierce weapons.

So yes, even with my suggestions, there will be opportunities for lots of damage, but armor is way to weak right now against arrows, cut weapons, and pierce melee weapons.

 

[Marajah]

I'm not against the idea of having head shots as a "weak spot" doing more damage. I'm quite for it actually.

As far as other parts, the joints have been a weak spot, although later medieval armors did address that (granted this is an earlier medieval period, so a case could be made that they should be a weak spot).

Likewise, I'm ok with polearms being potent on the field (historically swords were backup weapons, except against enemies with weaker armor), although that is offset as they don't do as well in close quarters. I'm ok as well with one hit kills even against heavy armor from a couch lance, as well, provided they get pikes and brace mechanics working before launch. As far as heavy armor, there should be more blunt weapons and they in turn should be less effective against large numbers of tier 1/2 units than cut or pierce weapons.

So yes, even with my suggestions, there will be opportunities for lots of damage, but armor is way to weak right now against arrows, cut weapons, and pierce melee weapons.

My point with the weak spot thing is that it can't be implemented. Piercing attacks happen in a straightforward manner coming with a slight fixed angle up or down. Swings are 4-directional. We would need a far bigger range of attacking directions to effectively get a game that allows for these mechanics. Extra head damage is easier to implement, because it's simple: head-hit = bigger damage. Not only that, there is a variety of other incapacitating techniques you'd be able to use in a fully armored knight that are just not present in m&b.

The problem with this suggestion (raising armor values) is that it would make an unreasonable gap between top tier troops and lower tier ones.
At the state of the game right now top tier infantry will defeat the lower tier ones in similar numbers, but if they are outnumbered on like 2:1, in medium-large numbers, there's a very significant chance they will lose in an open field battle without using terrain advantages, and I like that for the sake of realism. Raising armor values might lead to situations like the ones we had in warband with the swadian knights, per example:

This is the 1st video I found, but there are obviously more. If you guys find this fun (I do), it's genuinely ok, but the higher armor for the sake of realism argument completely loses it's place. The Swadian Knight isn't a realistic knight, but a mythical beast, a force of nature, a fabled legend, it's romanticized Musashi killing 100 Yoshiokas, Alan Moore's 300 spartans against a million persians, it's pure fantasy.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

If they buff armors to warband levels, soloing armies will probably be a thing.

It already is, but I'm grumpy about my armor!

what? The only way you could solo an army in warband was on the easiest damage settings and cheesing the AI until you almost died of boredom from charging and retreating to pick them one at a time (or using horse archery with lots of arrows in the inventory to replenish going to the inventory chest in your spawn point)

You can do it on hardest setting, but yes you need a box full of arrows but I've killed outrageous amounts of enemies in warband and mods that way, like 250+ in some mods.

 

[Pensaci]

I feels like BL is just mostly on pair with WB in this regard. Well there is shoulder slot right.

Btw the armor thing in Kingdom Come: Deliverance is very impressive imo.
It has some solid points like layers of equipment, different effect for weapon types and weak spot gabs.

 

[Yertyl]

For me, melee damage is far less of a problem than arrow damage.
So just:

1. Lower arrow armor penetration by giving arrows cut damage. They can still slaughter recruits and looters, but two-handed heavy infantry will actually have a chance to do some damage
2. Lower crossbow damage a bit, but let them keep their armor penetration.
3. I would also significantly reduce armor of ranged units, but that's slightly off-topic

And voila. Melee troops more viable, fewer deaths by annoying stray arrows, but elite units can still be killed (just better by crossbows and melee than arrows). Also an indirect buff to throwing weapons, which would be the ultimate armor piercer.
I rarely feel "cheated"/annoyed when I get killed in melee -- at least far less often than when taking a random arrow to the side and immediately losing half my health in high level armor.

 

[Akka]

The problem with this suggestion (raising armor values) is that it would make an unreasonable gap between top tier troops and lower tier ones.
At the state of the game right now top tier infantry will defeat the lower tier ones in similar numbers, but if they are outnumbered on like 2:1, in medium-large numbers, there's a very significant chance they will lose in an open field battle without using terrain advantages, and I like that for the sake of realism.

Sorry, what ?
You think that knights losing to peasants by being outnumbered only 2 to 1 is realistic ? 0_o
Is that a joke ?

REALISTICALLY, on an open field, armoured knights vs farmers should easily win even if outnumbered 10 to 1. We're talking about heavily armored and trained-since-infancy warriors riding a warhorse against random Joe with a pitchfork. Your notion of realism is completely out of here.

 

[Hans 77]

Armor needs a big buff in the form of:

-Recalculating the damage formula vs. armor -especially with blunt weapons which ignore 100% of armor (ludicrously broken)

-Significantly tuning back the damage output of certain overpowered weapons (some of them do close to 200 swing damage!)

-Addressing the sheer cripplingly overpowered ranged damage. Bows and xbows absolutely shred everything in their path -to the point where you can dominate the game on full difficulty with an army of only ranged units

 

[Akka]

As someone who mods armor extensivelly I can assure you that current state of armor is deisgn choice, there is absolutelly no problem with buffing it both in terms of code and simple xml modifications. I believe that they are going for "movie immersion" aka swords piercing through mail and plate.

Adjusting the very obviously, completely broken prices of gear is also just fiddling around in the xml files to change the gear tier. It still took several month for TW to do it. That's precisely the problem we have about, well, nearly everything : even the most obvious, glaring and easy to fix problem, even when they completely ruin the whole game, are left to rot and we rarely get even a simple acknowledgement of their existence (TW has still not even answered if the state of armor is a design choice, a bug or something they will simply look at later).

 

[Terco_Viejo]

Armor needs a big buff in the form of:

-Recalculating the damage formula vs. armor -especially with blunt weapons which ignore 100% of armor (ludicrously broken)

-Significantly tuning back the damage output of certain overpowered weapons (some of them do close to 200 swing damage!)

-Addressing the sheer cripplingly overpowered ranged damage. Bows and xbows absolutely shred everything in their path -to the point where you can dominate the game on full difficulty with an army of only ranged units

+1 Absolutely.

And let me add, that there should (or so I see it) be a re-evaluation of the values of each piece of armour considering "what protects more than what". No way, for example, that an animal skin protects more than a chainmail shoulder pads; or that a helmet with aventail protects much more than an enclosed helmet with a face mask. I already gave my opinion about it in this thread.

 

[Marajah]

Sorry, what ?
You think that knights losing to peasants by being outnumbered only 2 to 1 is realistic ? 0_o
Is that a joke ?

REALISTICALLY, on an open field, armoured knights vs farmers should easily win even if outnumbered 10 to 1. We're talking about heavily armored and trained-since-infancy warriors riding a warhorse against random Joe with a pitchfork. Your notion of realism is completely out of here.

1. I'm considering recruits in BL are capable men, not frail people
2. Any full recruit army in the game still got some leadership. It's not a disorganized mob.
3. In an open field? 10 to 1? Not necessarily. Mobs did it's due throughout medieval to ancient history. Many roman slave revolts, p ex, ended up in losses to Romans outnumbered 10 to 1 (or less), but the Romans had resources to muster a great enough force to subsequently smash the revolt and hunt down the leaders
4. A trained military force could rout a greater lot of peasants through strategic maneuvers and breaking morale. ROUT! Not magically cut them all down as in the video above while they are invulnerable to blows from every side with a peasant mob intent on killing them.
5. Fortifications existed for a reason. Get your outnumbered t5 infantry in a choke point in the game and they will deliver against extraordinary odds. As it should be. Let them get surrounded and chances are they will lose.

If you think the video above appeals to realism, you are the one completely nonsensical here.