Shall we talk about the paper armors?

Users who are viewing this thread

You do realize it depends on the axe's base damage value?
Please correct me, if I get it wrong. We discussed about damage against armored target here, which is presently seems unnatural for some players. Then on picture which was proposed as an approach any cut damage should be zeroed after, say, 55 points of armor. It also seems quite unnatural to me if an axe (no damage value, only weight) do no damage at all. So I ask my "physics inspired" question about mace's and axe's heads.

It seems you are agree that axe should deliver at least the same damage as the mace of the same properties, due to the ol' good Newton's Laws. Even more damage, you said this. Why now you are trying to bring supposed damage to some "points"? Points are points, different maces has different points too. It's completely gameplayish, mostly describing "levels" of the weapon . I wanted to know, why the picture author thinks that after hit with 1 kilogram mace against 55-armor target 28 hitpoints (e.g) should be deducted, and nothing in case of an 1 kilo axe?
 
Then on picture which was proposed as an approach any cut damage should be zeroed after, say, 55 points of armor.
No. The numbers on the left axis are absolute values, not percentages. That's what probably confused you a little.
And the picture itself was just a rough representation of the general idea which was then elaborated on with the formulas. The damage is never getting brought down to zero, and the amount of armor needed to bring it down to a certain point depends on the base value.
 
No. The numbers on the left axis are absolute values, not percentages. That's what probably confused you a little.
And the picture itself was just a rough representation of the general idea which was then elaborated on with the formulas. The damage is never getting brought down to zero, and the amount of armor needed to bring it down to a certain point depends on the base value.
From my perspective these absolute values still mean nothing. If problem is in the points, just add the points to the armor. Or set easy setting, what is eventually the same. Numbers irrelevant, how them are interpreted matters. The way where any axe does zero damage is really bad. It denies common sense.
 
Last edited:
Would you like to give any details about how the 1 kilo mace is doing some damage, but 1 kilo axe isn't?
Well I don't think there are many 1 kg maces out there to begin with. Axes are meant to cut, Maces were I believe made to indent armors that couldn't be cut open and deal damage via force. Obviously getting hit with a large axe would probably be worse then say a small mace when wearing plate armor. Technically in-game any weapon can cause damage if the raw damage is high enough due to speed, etc. So the game does simulate force in a way, even if it's not ideal.

The damage models I came up with are to encourage more varied gameplay (i.e. there is no single best weapon) and even the best armors still have a weakness of sorts, whilst providing some meaningful protection.

I'm trying to work within the current confines of the game. Even though Armor Types/Material Types would be more sensible I don't see TW doing it. It's too much work. Even if it's programmatically possible to add these to the current calculations you also have to change all the item descriptions and then rigorously test everything afterwards.

I don't think Bannerlord really aims to be realistic anyways.


Edit: I'm throwing in some additional pictures to illustrate more examples from what I posted on Page 12.

This depicts results from raw damage ranging from 100 to 300 against no Armor
TKTxIkr.png


This depicts results from raw damage ranging from 100 to 300 against 100 Armor (what I'd consider the true max cap)
eQLmpdK.png
 
Last edited:
I'm trying to work within the current confines of the game. Even though Armor Types/Material Types would be more sensible I don't see TW doing it. It's too much work. Even if it's programmatically possible to add these to the current calculations you also have to change all the item descriptions and then rigorously test everything afterwards.
There are already the material types Cloth, Leather, Chainmail and Plate as a part of the spitems XMLs.
 
Well I don't think there are many 1 kg maces out there to begin with. Axes are meant to cut, Maces were I believe made to indent armors that couldn't be cut open and deal damage via force. Obviously getting hit with a large axe would probably be worse then say a small mace when wearing plate armor. Technically in-game any weapon can cause damage if the raw damage is high enough due to speed, etc. So the game does simulate force in a way, even if it's not ideal.
You took it incorrectly. You opinion of maces is strictly Europocentric, more of it, late-medieval Europocentic, while we have steppe, half-steppe and desert cultures in the game. The sabers, maces and flails were there hundreds of years, if not a millennium before, because of developed horsemanship. When Vikings went to the shield wall on their own, steppe people were warring on the horses of theirs. Mace was better than axe for horseman because it did not stick, chance to leave it in the opponent body or armor was minimal, especially with added velocity of horse. And of course, axes never meant to cut, they are cleaving devices, designed for penetration. Isn't it obvious? Will you chop the tree in the same move pattern as you are cutting loaf of bread?

In our history both axes and maces weighted roughly the same 1-3 kilos. When armor went high, both weapons seconded. But there were some borders. Velocity matters the same as weight for impulse, but excessive increasing of weight severely limited ability to accelerate, along with just handling. Moving further, the completely blunt maces got flanges. Ask yourself why was there a need to put dull blades (still blades though) to the head?

SG-3003.jpg


As for me, that pointy part is just like axe's toe or heel, eh?

The damage models I came up with are to encourage more varied gameplay (i.e. there is no single best weapon) and even the best armors still have a weakness of sorts, whilst providing some meaningful protection.

There will be still no variety, because the whole model of yours ignores the fact that any hard object will deliver energy. And this energy will not dissipated to somewhere, but will be spent, firstly, to the armor damage and secondly to the body behind with blunt trauma if armor was not perforated or pierced/slit wound if it was. Funny thing, most people are agree with an axe as good shield breaker, but hey, it's marked as cut, I should have no damage from it.

I'm trying to work within the current confines of the game. Even though Armor Types/Material Types would be more sensible I don't see TW doing it. It's too much work. Even if it's programmatically possible to add these to the current calculations you also have to change all the item descriptions and then rigorously test everything afterwards.

I don't think Bannerlord really aims to be realistic anyways.

I only wanted to say that any model with zero damage will not be unrealistic, but just silly, because IRL first we have blunt force applied, then penetrating ability, then, if in place, cutting damage. In your scheme you are implying that axe has no weight and can't perforate thing, and therefore it shouldn't damage armored unit at all, while real damage received should be laying somewhere between blunt and pierced.
 
Last edited:
Want to say something about how cut-damage should work, in my opinion.
Flanged maces look very bad, that's why they are weapons.
But they don't cut, no bread would get sliced.
Tools like wooden hammers could be used as weapons also.
One would expect that they would deal less damage,
but the ability to knock down would be at least the same.
Nevermind.
However, i think cut-damage should be excess damage,
wich only appears if an armor gets penetrated.
So let's say there is a basic damage multiplier,
something like 0,5 for limbs, 1,0 for the body and 1,5 for the head.
And then there is a cut-multiplier in addition,
wich is +0,3 on all locations.
Now someone gets hit by a mace for 100 points,
and his armor blocks all cut-damage for the first 50 points.
This person will suffer no cut-damage anyway,
so it's not a very interesting example with the mace now.
But now if getting hit by an axe of the same size,
there will be the same force behind it,
it would deliever 100 points also.
50 points remain for calculating cut-damage,
times 0,3 this would finally result in 15 cut-points.
Now a Bardiche is used instead of an axe.
It's less head-heavy than the axe,
so if the hit results from the uppermost area the damage should be lower.
The cutting-zone is longer than the axes,
but only if hit at a shorter range,
wich would decrease the damage even further,
before the cut-bonus gets applied.
So if the bardiche would deal 80 points at the longest range,
then (80-50)x0,3=9 would be cut-damage-bonus.
Now the Bardiche strikes from closer range,
it's only 70 points now, but the cut-damage gets doubled, because the whole cutting-zone would hit.
Now it's (70-50)x(0,3x2)=12 points cutting-damage-bonus.

The axe is the most asymetrical,
it should get a worse handling.
 
No that's your misunderstanding of the problem, you are the one that asserted that it would take very high damage to 2-shot through heavy armor, because you mistakenly think that the damage rating is the absorption. Although incredibly high damage (100-200+)amounts occur, what I described as *naked I take 90 damage of my HP and die from the next hit, but now with this amazing max armor I take only 60 damage and die from the next hit.* is just about normal types of damage that people typically suffer in battle.
I understand damage absorption quite well -- that's your own misunderstanding to presume otherwise. I know full well that there's a speed bonus to damage -- I frequently use that to my benefit. The speed bonus is hardly what I'd call unreasonable, and I scarcely ever see double damage even from myself, even if I'm goofing off and playing on easy. On harder levels I rarely see the AI give me so many opportunities to bring the heavier bonuses down against them.

We can disagree and have different experiences of the game, different preferences -- but projecting my views as based on some misunderstanding as a crutch for arguing against me isn't really worth even your time, I imagine.
 
I understand damage absorption quite well -- that's your own misunderstanding to presume otherwise.
NO, you said 70 armor = 70 damage absorption and it doesn't, you WERE wrong, maybe NOW you know, but what you posted was still wrong.

I'm goofing off and playing on easy. On harder levels I rarely see the AI give me so many opportunities to bring the heavier bonuses down against them.
I play only on max difficulty and slaming a Long glaive into a HA or Cav almost always is 200+ damage and obviously a 1hko, the mounted AI is too poor to actually do much too you up close.
 
NO, you said 70 armor = 70 damage absorption and it doesn't, you WERE wrong, maybe NOW you know, but what you posted was still wrong.


I play only on max difficulty and slaming a Long glaive into a HA or Cav almost always is 200+ damage and obviously a 1hko, the mounted AI is too poor to actually do much too you up close.
I would suggest you to stop arguing with this person. It feels like you are not really on the same page. He seems to be someone who did not play a lot and pretend to know more than he actually knows about the game. Worse still, he likes to make every argument personal. From my experience, this is the worst type of people to argue with on the internet.
 
NO, you said 70 armor = 70 damage absorption and it doesn't, you WERE wrong, maybe NOW you know, but what you posted was still wrong.


I play only on max difficulty and slaming a Long glaive into a HA or Cav almost always is 200+ damage and obviously a 1hko, the mounted AI is too poor to actually do much too you up close.
You seem to be arguing in order to feel right, even to the point you don't care how overtly manipulative your rhetoric is. Take buddy's advice, and just quietly acknowledge to yourself that we are not on the same page. I play on both difficulty levels, highest and lowest, depending on my mood -- and people arguing to take this away from me with fallacy-ridden reasoning is what I am arguing against. Good for you that you can play on maximum difficulty, just as I do. You, just as I do, have the option to have an alternate game with a lower difficulty setting for more casual play. Pride is the only evident concern you have, that you are unwilling to adjust the difficulty settings you have been given to adjust -- with your disrespect in about every exchange you and I have ever had, I really don't know why you want to talk to me.


I would suggest you to stop arguing with this person. It feels like you are not really on the same page. He seems to be someone who did not play a lot and pretend to know more than he actually knows about the game....
I'm not the one who's made the arguments personal, but once I've received a bit I don't mind giving it back. Do you catch your irony?

Anyway, I've probably clocked close to a thousand hours on Bannerlord already. Since reinstalling it and Steam resetting my hours on this playthrough, I have 531 hours. My Steam account shows just over a thousand hours on Warband, and that's probably not even a third of my actual playing time. I've unlocked 72 of 80 achievements, every single one from single-player and only missing a couple multiplayer achievements related to weapons I don't generally use. Does this qualify me to have a valid opinion on the game, sir? :razz:

Once dueling is brought in, I'll gladly wipe the floor with anyone who thinks I don't know this game. :wink:
 
I would suggest you to stop arguing with this person. It feels like you are not really on the same page. He seems to be someone who did not play a lot and pretend to know more than he actually knows about the game. Worse still, he likes to make every argument personal. From my experience, this is the worst type of people to argue with on the internet.
It's more I just want to point out miss info when possible, as I told him I don't actually care about convincing him. I don't mean that in a mean way either.
At the end the day, TW knows how it's damage formulas work and it's not we're gonna vote for a change or not, but the overwhelming reaction from players has been armor just isn't right all year.



I already had these from another thread but you can clearly see hitting from 200-500 with the long glaive, it's not that rare . I'm posting this just for the benefited of anyone reading this thinking "can you really get hit for 200-500 damage?". It also show the absurdness of the speed damage boost as a more slow hit is just 120 or so.
 
I already had these from another thread but you can clearly see hitting from 200-500 with the long glaive, it's not that rare . I'm posting this just for the benefited of anyone reading this thinking "can you really get hit for 200-500 damage?". It also show the absurdness of the speed damage boost as a more slow hit is just 120 or so.
I don't know what happened to the Bannerlord damage formula, because I feel that the Warband damage formula was working just fine. I made some testing in Bannerlord by pairing 100 tier 5 elite infantry with 100 tier 1 recruits for each culture. The worst result comes from the Battanians, 25 picked warriors died before routing the Battanian volunteers. The loss of elite infantry for other cultures was around 10-15 men (except for the Empire, but mainly because the imperial recruits suck). I don't think this is a good demonstration of the benefits of armour for high tier troops.
If you pair 100 tier 5 infantry with 200 Battanian volunteers, the volunteers will actually win in most cases only losing to Imperial Legionary and Kuzait Darkhan.
 
Last edited:
It's more I just want to point out miss info when possible, as I told him I don't actually care about convincing him. I don't mean that in a mean way either.
At the end the day, TW knows how it's damage formulas work and it's not we're gonna vote for a change or not, but the overwhelming reaction from players has been armor just isn't right all year.



I already had these from another thread but you can clearly see hitting from 200-500 with the long glaive, it's not that rare . I'm posting this just for the benefited of anyone reading this thinking "can you really get hit for 200-500 damage?". It also show the absurdness of the speed damage boost as a more slow hit is just 120 or so.

really glad that i picked the perk that give me 5 more hp
 
It's more I just want to point out miss info when possible, as I told him I don't actually care about convincing him. I don't mean that in a mean way either.
At the end the day, TW knows how it's damage formulas work and it's not we're gonna vote for a change or not, but the overwhelming reaction from players has been armor just isn't right all year.
If you think I don't understand, perhaps you'll deign to explain what you keep derailing to insist I don't understand? You think I don't get that inertia and contact points and damage types all factor in? What's that got to do with anything I have said? I've addressed all this at various points in the discussion, but you're narcissistically working to discredit me -- and it's pathetic.

So put up or shut up -- what specifically do you accuse me of failing to understand? Let's put it to rest, so this menial drama you insist on can stop taking up bandwidth.
 
Last edited:
Want to say something about how cut-damage should work, in my opinion.
Flanged maces look very bad, that's why they are weapons.
But they don't cut, no bread would get sliced.
Tools like wooden hammers could be used as weapons also.
One would expect that they would deal less damage,
but the ability to knock down would be at least the same.
Nevermind.
However, i think cut-damage should be excess damage,
wich only appears if an armor gets penetrated.
So let's say there is a basic damage multiplier,
something like 0,5 for limbs, 1,0 for the body and 1,5 for the head.
And then there is a cut-multiplier in addition,
wich is +0,3 on all locations.
Now someone gets hit by a mace for 100 points,
and his armor blocks all cut-damage for the first 50 points.
This person will suffer no cut-damage anyway,
so it's not a very interesting example with the mace now.
But now if getting hit by an axe of the same size,
there will be the same force behind it,
it would deliever 100 points also.
50 points remain for calculating cut-damage,
times 0,3 this would finally result in 15 cut-points.
Now a Bardiche is used instead of an axe.
It's less head-heavy than the axe,
so if the hit results from the uppermost area the damage should be lower.
The cutting-zone is longer than the axes,
but only if hit at a shorter range,
wich would decrease the damage even further,
before the cut-bonus gets applied.
So if the bardiche would deal 80 points at the longest range,
then (80-50)x0,3=9 would be cut-damage-bonus.
Now the Bardiche strikes from closer range,
it's only 70 points now, but the cut-damage gets doubled, because the whole cutting-zone would hit.
Now it's (70-50)x(0,3x2)=12 points cutting-damage-bonus.

The axe is the most asymetrical,
it should get a worse handling.
Glad to see detailed scheme, eventually. Yeah, flanges cannot do not cut long and thin, however the axe was not kind of razor blade too. Nevertheless, if you manage to add pulling move along blade right it the moment of hit (real technic) - it will tear the tissues, what is a kind of rough cut. It is expected output for not-so-deep penetration, and some weapons developed this way, not to go deep, but intrinsically slide. Sabers, bardiches as well as every round-blade axe. This is why you are right about cut is added damage, not a sort of separate s***ty damage. The weapon evolved to blades and spearheads not without reasons, primarily it made weapons lighter. Regarding bardiche, the blunt part of damage will be greater due to increased velocity, which is, in its turn, depends on shaft length.

Summarize, more or less plausible model of damage should be like this:

1. count mass x velocity
2. deduct part of the impulse have gone to the hands of attacker. the more the distance between mass center and hitting part, more deduction. It was promised to us by the Devs, to the point.
3. if there is an armor, part of energy goes to its deformation, so another deduction. best if armor damage could be accumulated some way .
4. apply the residue as blunt trauma with or without p.3
5. decide, is there penetration of armor or skin
6. apply piercing damage, full for skin and deducted for armor, because it still resist to perforation widening.
7. Apply cut damage. IMO cut is partly skill-based (adding pulling move to hit, as I meant above) and for greater extent for special weapons, like sabers. The more the speed the long the cut. Weapons designed to deep penetration have no cut.

this model really lacks of real-world chances, the blade very rare strictly hit perpendicularly to surface, this is why 6 flanges better than one of the axe (handling, yes). In addition, not all parts of the armor are the same, thus better to have some handling rng to mitigate variability of both attack and surface, except for really blunt/spherical weapon for the former.

Granted, the topic is strictly about point 3, but I hope to show that it's meaningless to discuss single point out of the whole.
Besides, in the code of game I've seen the thing which is seems similar to my description, at least logically. All three types of damages have a certain property called "blunt factor", which might be used for the same calculations. Unfortunately, my skills are very low to trace the real meaning of this. If this used to calculate two factor damage (like Kenshi), it would be very nice.
 
The highest armour ratings the player can achieve seem to be roughly around 70 for the body. The way this game works, that's 70 points of damage reduction,
^This part is wrong. It makes everything else you said after mostly wrong too, because you think the raw damage needs be much higher then actual does to deliver the damage I described as
Ah yes, naked I take 90 damage of my HP and die from the next hit, but now with this amazing max armor I take only 60 damage and die from the next hit.
This is the second (and last time) I have quoted this and told you you're wrong. If you can't be bothered to read the many explanations of how armor works, I don't care. This isn't really for your benefit that I post at all.
 
I don't know what happened to the Bannerlord damage formula, because I feel that the Warband damage formula was working just fine. I made some testing in Bannerlord by pairing 100 tier 5 elite infantry with 100 tier 1 recruits for each culture. The worst result comes from the Battanians, 25 picked warriors died before routing the Battanian volunteers. The loss of elite infantry for other cultures was around 10-15 men (except for the Empire, but mainly because the imperial recruits suck). I don't think this is a good demonstration of the benefits of armour for high tier troops.
If you pair 100 tier 5 infantry with 200 Battanian volunteers, the volunteers will actually win in most cases only losing to Imperial Legionary and Kuzait Darkhan.
The damage formula is not wildly different in bannerlord compared to warband but the results are, probably because of the difference in parameters.

Warband's formula (source: https://www.reddit.com/r/mountandblade/comments/4pal3n/how_does_damage_works/)
reduced_damage = base_damage - (armor * armor_soak_factor)

final_damage = reduced_damage * (1 - (armor/100 * armor_reduction_factor))

Alright, so let's explain what all these terms are.

  1. base_damage: The base damage of the weapon used.
  2. armor: The armor of the target.
  3. armor_soak_factor: This factor is a constant based on the weapon type used (cut, pierce, or blunt), set by the mod you're playing.
  4. armor_reduction_factor: Like the armor_soak_factor, this is a constant based on the weapon type.
The factors are set to these values by default:

Damage typearmor_soak_factorarmor_reduction_factor
Cut0.81.0
Pierce0.650.5
Blunt0.50.75
Let's take a look at an example. Someone hits an enemy with a sword with 30c damage, while playing Native. The hit lands in the chest, which is protected by 20 armor.

This will be the game's calculation:

reduced_damage = 30 - (20 * 0.:cool: = 14
final_damage = 14 * (1 - (20/100 * 1)) = 14 * (1 - 0.2) = 11.2

In another example someone uses a spear with 35p damage against an enemy with 30 armor.

reduced_damage = 35 - (30 * 0.65) = 15.5
final_damage = 15.5 * (1 - (30/100 * 0.5)) = 15.5 * (1 - 0.15) = 13.175

The type of weapon used (one handed, two handed, etc) is irrelevant. Added to this damage is the bonus of the associated skill (+14% per Power Draw point in case of a bow, for example) and the relative speed between the two actors.

Bannerlord's formula (source: https://www.nexusmods.com/mountandblade2bannerlord/mods/2758)
The default calculation goes something like this:
AbsorbFactor = 100/(100 + Armor*ArmorAbsorbModifier);

if blunt :
damage = Absorbfactor*BluntBlunt*Magnitude

if cut
damage = Absorbfactor*CutBlunt*Magnitude + (Absorbfactor* magnitude - CutFactor*Armor) * (1 - CutBlunt)

if pierce
damage = Absorbfactor*PierceBlunt*Magnitude + (Absorbfactor *magnitude - PierceFactor*Armor) * (1 - PierceBlunt)

Basically, no part of blunt damage is thresholded.
The damage of cut and pierce weapons needs to get over a threshold, but they still have a smaller amount of blunt damage.
All the damage of Cut and Pierce weapons go against the threshold and is adjusted for how much of the damage was blunt after that calculation.

Default values
"ArmorAbsorbModifer": 1,
"BluntBlunt": 1,
"CutBlunt": 0.1,
"PierceBlunt": 0.25,
"CutFactor": 0.5,
"PierceFactor": 0.33
 
^This part is wrong. It makes everything else you said after mostly wrong too, because you think the raw damage needs be much higher then actual does to deliver the damage I described as

This is the second (and last time) I have quoted this and told you you're wrong. If you can't be bothered to read the many explanations of how armor works, I don't care. This isn't really for your benefit that I post at all.
As expected you can't explain what I'm missing, because it's not about that and you can't put your emotional reactivity and personal dislike for me into those words. There are some changes to the formula, improvements in my view, and I think you probably have no idea if you're just getting hit in the arm or leg where you have substantially less protection. That would actually explain why in your example you only received thirty points off...what you even insist is the exact same hit, even though we both acknowledge the complexities of the damage formulas.

My statement about the amount of damage reduction was very general, and I am bewildered as to what you need clarified. You don't want to say what you need clarified.... You insist on using your misunderstanding as something to attack, and I just think that's foolish and unproductive.

I don't know, man. You're not saying anything productive to any point I've made, and the only point you've made is that of attacking me for not approving of your whining about the difficulty levels being too much for you while you're too proud to turn them down to a level you can contend with. We should just stop talking. I'm growing convinced of nothing respectful about you.
 
As expected you can't explain what I'm missing, because it's not about that and you can't put your emotional reactivity and personal dislike for me into those words.
As a third party to all this, why is a post lamenting emotion starting by accusing someone of being emotional? I do not bring it up to project attributes to you, but only to state contrasted to vonbalt's post of:
The damage formula is not wildly different in bannerlord compared to warband but the results are, probably because of the difference in parameters.

Warband's formula (source: https://www.reddit.com/r/mountandblade/comments/4pal3n/how_does_damage_works/)


Bannerlord's formula (source: https://www.nexusmods.com/mountandblade2bannerlord/mods/2758)

which I feel is a very detailed explanation using figures to illustrate a point, yours just leaves me confused.

I genuinely want to understand your point. However the only way i can do so is if you illustrate your point with examples.
 
Back
Top Bottom