Vanilla Armor vs RBM Armor

[JunKeteer]

guys i understand your points but an archer needs to be evaluated at 150m not 3 ( i hope you understand that that's confirmation bias as a proof )

Seems the opposite to me, I haven't mentioned 3m distance at all and even so, at 150m, realistically, it should take 10+ arrows at least to kill a stationary plated knight (or more) based on loss of velocity, armor exposure, etc.... I'm sure there's plenty of anecdotal YT vids out there showing this.
Archers need to be 'evaluated' at ALL ranges from 3m up to 300m; and as of now, the difference between one at 3m and one at 300m is maybe 3 hits.

but anyway, i don't think you guys are wrong but also an Un-atheltic character is going to be more fickle in combat, an old or weak commander can't fight on the same level of the younger or stronger ones, that's simply natural. better armor perks in smithing and athletics can change that for the MC, but obviously not for the troops ( outside of capatins perks or party leading ones that target specific tiers of units or even better: culture, meaning that there might be a bonkers perk that actually makes playing with 1 faction only more rewarding ).

Yes, but I shouldn't be compelled to train my smithing to get that HP perk, or get Athletics to 250; considering you have to fight/move on foot to train that stat (really grindy or to cheese it), meaning you can't use a 'mount and blade away'.

Armor should be better? more than likely, especially against headshots and cut weapons. but also a warrior shouldn't be reckless and expect, without protection ( shield or men around him ), to charge a group of archers with minimal consequences. a good one that can keep his cool can land the shot in the weakest part of the helmet and kill, or wound you right there.

They can't simulate splintering damage from arrows or exposure to specific body parts (ie face) or for parts of armor that should be near impenetrable; let alone the added load for 'aiming' calcs for it. So the only way to mimic it is by reducing the damage of each hit to equalize a realistic representation. Ie say a skilled archer should have a 10% chance to hit the exposed parts of the armor of a knight, make it so each hit arrow is around 1/10 damage so that after around 10 hits, knight dies (+added variables TBD on the other armor values, arrow dmg, distance, etc....because no way will they add another hit-check for each projectile in a battle if it hits a protected segment or exposed segment of a unit (besides the current head-body-leg-arm setup)

I understand the need and want to have more protection but we have no idea if TW isn't testing the system on their own while holding all info to not disappoint people who look forward to such a change.
Knowing how oftentimes they have been criticized in the past it wouldn't be surprising to me if that's the case. if i were in that situation with a pressing community of disappointed customers i wouldn't really say that out load and possibly avoid the forums entirely or they might also be asked to by management.

It's the opposite mostly, all we've been getting is short 'will discuss internally', 'WIP', 'too complicated', etc...then it either goes silent or they add in a change that is completely off target of what a majority want. Which always leads to this spiral of frustration in communication, and in turn, their fear of communicating back, and cycle continues. It's up to their community manager to do their work to ensure these things don't get to where they are and the fact that it has shows how disconnected things are between the forum and TW.

 

[LyonExodus]

Enjoy the evaluation

it does show a clear difference altough yes, 4 shots ain't much but if you have the time can you also please show us the difference in shots it would take to kill a looter and a Cata from an Iperial archer ( hunting bow ) to a Fian Champion ( Woodland Longbow ) .

This should show an even clearer difference between low and High tiers.
thanks for your time @Terco_Viejo

 

[LyonExodus]

They can't simulate splintering damage

i was just making an example of a real life situation. didn't intend you to think of it as a mechanic. your reply here is correct, just taken the context in the wrong manner

meaning you can't use a 'mount and blade away'

you can do both, it works well at this stage of the game. would work even better later.

realistic example: A tanker is a specialized soldier that is trained to use a specific vehicle. if need be he can be athletic enough to survive if needed. all soldiers are fitness trained and tested. Knights back in the day were no different.

the smithing perks might help ( from an RP prospective ) your MC to figure out the best armor to buy. obviously there should be no "real" difference but a trained eye can see the details and that's the effect of the perk.
Athletics skill can be seen as the fitness and stamina of your soldier. the more stamina the longer the soldier can perform at a very high level, therefore increasing HP or armor. for a party leader perk version: your MC requires more intensive and effective training from his soldiers and this makes them more durable.


To notice all of this suggestions do not mess with any calculations and only requires perks to be changed accordingly. ( which i think is a very good solution in the short term when combined with a better perks for AI patch )

Archers need to be 'evaluated' at ALL ranges from 3m up to 300m;

yes, and that's why i said 3m is a confirmation bias distance. 150m is generally a realistic game distance for archers to shoot at. and as shown

from the video above the difference is there, not too big but it's there.

In vanilla this visual information does not have much of impact on your gameplay

that's something i never really paid attention too. for most units i don't find it too difficult to understand what tier they are. but it's interesting to see some find it to be a problem.

 

[Bjorn The Dead]

You never paid attention because there is not too much a impact on your gameplay. This is not about visually understanding which unit in which tier. RBM might be extreme for some people but when you see some metal on someone's armor and when you hit them, you can instantly see how little damage you are making and armor instantly affects how you fight individually and as a commander. In vanilla though, this visual information you get does not affect your gameplay since armor is not affective enough to change how you approach the game.

 

[JunKeteer]

i was just making an example of a real life situation. didn't intend you to think of it as a mechanic. your reply here is correct, just taken the context in the wrong manner

I am saying that it is near impossible to simulate those situations in game (ie arrow splinters, different armor exposures/kinks, deflection angles, etc...) so the 'cheat' is to fudge with the damage/armor numbers to somehow represent those elements. But you can't deny that a fully/well-armored (plated) unit can deflect arrows up to a certain point which IMO should be better represented in game than it is - it would also help give shield-less troops some more usefulness.

you can do both, it works well at this stage of the game. would work even better later.

Yes, but tying it to the requirement to grind both methods (on horse or foot) is a poor decision; given by the time you get higher stats, you're considered 'old' in game years. Then you die and have to start all over with your kid.
Warband had a better balance where it affected your movement speed rather than your HP value.

realistic example: A tanker is a specialized soldier that is trained to use a specific vehicle. if need be he can be athletic enough to survive if needed. all soldiers are fitness trained and tested. Knights back in the day were no different.

Yes, not disputing that, but in this example, whether a soldier is in a tank or not should not relate to whether he can survive an additional bullet/shrapnel (or whatever) because of it. A soldier with kevlar armor in a tank should take the same amount of damage as outside it from the same identical projectile the come in contact with.
What we're asking for is essentially, a greater difference in damage stoppages for a soldier with no kevlar, basic police-grade body armor, SWAT level armor, bomb squad, ceramic plating, or kevlar+ceramic, or whatever other modern equivalents if we're using this example.

the smithing perks might help ( from an RP prospective ) your MC to figure out the best armor to buy. obviously there should be no "real" difference but a trained eye can see the details and that's the effect of the perk.
Athletics skill can be seen as the fitness and stamina of your soldier. the more stamina the longer the soldier can perform at a very high level, therefore increasing HP or armor. for a party leader perk version: your MC requires more intensive and effective training from his soldiers and this makes them more durable.

To notice all of this suggestions do not mess with any calculations and only requires perks to be changed accordingly. ( which i think is a very good solution in the short term when combined with a better perks for AI patch )

I have my own other issues with the perk/skills systems - but as reiterated; just as it is easy to tweak perk stats, it is easy as well to just tweak armor/damage stats - vs rewriting/adding additional scrips for AI behavior on the individual and group scale for battles.

that's something i never really paid attention too. for most units i don't find it too difficult to understand what tier they are. but it's interesting to see some find it to be a problem.

You're missing the point again, it's not that we can't visually see the difference between units, it's the gameplay difference between the units themselves being barely discernable.

 

[Hans 77]

sure bud. let's end this idiotic conversation here

I'm sorry, did something strike a nerve there, bud? We were having a pretty tame discussion before the 'tude but w/e that's on you.

Also, you can brand the conversation as 'idiotic' all you want -it just comes off as a poor deflection in the end. Ultimately, there is an argument to be made with those looter videos. If you watch, you can see them trade pretty well with opponents on an even front -including the engagements which feature footmen, Sergeants, Varyags, etc. The looters aren't massacring them per se, but they consistently get kills at a high enough rate to make any opposing commander appalled -considering the discrepancy in tier, equipment, and cost inputs between the two respective sides.

 

[LyonExodus]

it just comes off as a poor deflection in the end.

that was the idea.

Edited YouTube videos of people playing at 50% friendly troop damage can't be taken seriously.
If you want something taken seriously. Flesson19 over on his Youtube channel is attempting a looter challange too. that doesn't mean it's a good thing to do or meta. it's a "Challenge" . He doesn't even know if it is possible on Bannerlord difficulty and he is taking all of his actions very carefully.
i played bandit only but used companions instead of troops, their skills where as good as looters but their equipment a little bit better. ended up getting my ass kicked a few times and winning was hard and deserved. blabbering about discrepancy is just that, blabbering. the difference in units tiers is great and even on the same tier level some units are just far superior than counterparts ( Legionary for infantry, Master archer and Marksam for archers ) leaving T6 out, cause they are supposed to be unbalanced.

i played an entire Sturgian campaign and let me tell you, an army of tier 2 sturgians couldn't do anything to an Elite army of Khuzaits and Empire troops.
So if i seem a bit nervous in this replies is because i know from experience over 4K hours of this game you guys are exaggerating to say the least.

 

[Hans 77]

Edited YouTube videos of people playing at 50% friendly troop damage can't be taken seriously.

The damage to friendly troops is moot. Their damage output remains unchanged. The videos showcase looters hacking down units superior to them in all regards -a clear example of Bannerlord's flawed armor/damage calc system.

Stop making strawmen.

 

[LyonExodus]

fully/well-armored (plated) unit

there are no plates in Bannerlord, just Lamellars, scales, mail and brigandines. Plate is a bit further down the line in technology than this period. that's why i would change the way arrow, bolts and javelin damage is calculated, but remember you don't need to kill to render someone incapable of fighting, and a shot from a good bow up close delivers quite a kick.
I agree the damage on the projectiles should be decreased against high tier armor but it's hard to not render it completely useless if you happen to only lose 10HP from a Longbow at 150m rather than the current 30.


but once again, you guys are asking for a change that impacts the entire meta, stuff like that should be handled after the game is stable on most basic aspects, like the FPS, sieging at 15 FPS ( on some maps ) with a 3080 is honestly not acceptable.

given by the time you get higher stats, you're considered 'old' in game years.

sorry to say it but if that's your experience something is off. only skills i can't level before 25 are the slow passive ones (Scouting, Medicine, Engi)
with Roguery and Trade being the only active ones.
Engi might even be taken off this list after 1.7.2.

What we're asking for is essentially, a greater difference in damage stoppages for a soldier with no kevlar

yes,i got that. but i don't think it's as simple as just asking. it's more complicated.

 

[LyonExodus]

Stop making strawmen

Damn you got me. you are completely right. how could i not see reducing the damage taken by 50% makes the enemy as good as a looter itself. you are absolutely right, thank you for opening my blind eyes.

no for real man, have a good one. Our conversation should be over

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

The damage to friendly troops is moot. Their damage output remains unchanged. The videos showcase looters hacking down units superior to them in all regards -a clear example of Bannerlord's flawed armor/damage calc system.

Yeah people miss out on this half of the problem: EVERYTHING does too much damage and gets too much speed bonus. Also, skill of units barely matters, they all fight perfectly and high skills are not noticeable. All that is bad too but at the least better armor/damage balance would help even if they're dead set on making every unit a perfect martial master with any weapon by default.

Edited YouTube videos

You don't need to see looter only or any other meme games, in any game you will see "t5/6 unit by recruit" and it utter garbage and unacceptable.

 

[Antaeus]

To be fair... in a mass melee, skills become less relevant

I've pointed it out before... the game has no way of replicating real world injuries.

Neither player or AI characters suffer from broken ribs or the loss of a limb or concussion or the lingering effects of previous wounds, or exhaustion, or for that matter, the slowing down due to age. Both player and AI character will be just as quick, just as strong, just as fast, with 2% health left.

A 3 minute melee means nothing to a character. To a real person, that is exhaustion. Weapons stay strong, blows stay consistently heavy. But as anyone who has done any martial activity knows... you can't hit as hard in round 3 as you can in round 1.

So I guess the trade off for not modelling so many factors that impact on a fight, is to ensure that fights don't go on long enough for the lack of these things to matter.

If I had my way, limbs would become unusable when hit. Characters would become more difficult and slow to control when hit in the head. They would also slow down depending on their athletics depending on how much activity they do in a fight. And they'd start losing athletics and skill points as they age unless they work increasingly hard to keep them.

Only then, when we have balanced the characters performances better, would we have a conversation about balancing armour.

Although, you do notice AI skill levels in tournaments - particularly one on one.

 

[five bucks]

The only minor thing to this, Xbows should be deadly against armored foes as I believe historically they even wanted to ban them on the fact a simple farmer could essentially fell a plated knight due to it's capabilities (at short ranges only though) vs archers which take years of training (ie longbowman).

This is a bit of a myth - the Church attempted to ban crossbows at the Second Lateran Council https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_the_Lateran not because they were especially deadly, but because they wanted to prevent killing between Christians in general (like an early United Nations) so they could minimise suffering or focus on reconquest crusades.

Bows and slings were also prohibited by the same Council. Also, plate hadn't been invented yet in 1130 anyway.

Until quite late in the development of crossbow technology (1400s steel springs and windlass mechanism which could draw back a steel bow), crossbows were not more powerful than longbows, because both were essentially just pieces of wood, except the crossbow's bow was smaller and thus capable of imparting less force, but had a lock to keep it steady. Thus, the main advantage of crossbows over bows was accuracy and ease of use.

Just like how early on the snowballing was the big issue, right now, this seems to be the other major concern that needs to be addressed.

Agreed, this is currently the biggest problem with the game.

Armor should be better? more than likely

Then why does your vote say that you're happy with the armour system in that other poll

but also a warrior shouldn't be reckless and expect, without protection ( shield or men around him ), to charge a group of archers with minimal consequences

Well, I don't think we are asking here to be able to charge a group of archers with minimal consequences. But it would be nice to charge one crossbowman and not lose 80% of your health.

think about Agincourt, it's speculated that the English bowman cut down the French heavy cavalry by aiming at their helmets' weak points from dozens of meters, mainly the breathing holes on the side of the cheeks. than there are splinters and all that BS that causes unexpected damage

Agincourt is a fantastic example of the effectiveness of armour (at least, plate). The French knights' plate let them run a kilometre under heavy arrow fire to reach the English lines, and a lot of them had to be killed "using hatchets, swords and the mallets they had used to drive their stakes in"! The English bowmen were simply putting out such a massive amount of arrows that eyeholes eventually got hit by chance.

Agincourt showed that you could fire a huge amount of arrows at an armoured man and have to get lucky in order to actually kill him. Of course, plate was more effective against arrows than mail, so I'm not asking to be that arrow-proof.

plus on the realistic side an horse falling over means bad things for the guy directly behind it. i know very well Agincourt was a crapshow but it happened, and one thing is for certain the French heavy cavalry took a big L that day.

Other important historical facts to note about Agincourt are: The French did not even all turn up to the charge, because they were so sure they were going to win (destroying everything in their path was fairly standard for French heavy cavalry charges). The knights' horses were unarmoured and got shot down, meaning the knights had to run 1km the rest of the way. The horses who did survive couldn't charge anyway because the English were behind a row of large stakes. The ground was very thick sloppy mud, preventing the knights from running as they had clay sticking their legs down. The knights and men-at-arms who did show up came in three separate waves, rather than all at once; so the ones who died at the English lines acted as a further tripping hazard for their exhausted comrades.

Pretty much the only thing that went right for the French on that day was their armour.

I understand the need and want to have more protection but we have no idea if TW isn't testing the system on their own while holding all info to not disappoint people who look forward to such a change

They have told us they are testing the armour system at the moment.

 

[five bucks]

but it's hard to not render it completely useless if you happen to only lose 10HP from a Longbow at 150m rather than the current 30.

Archers weren't useless in Warband. My proposal is to make armour work more similarly to Warband.

Bannerlord hits to kill from 30m:

Warband hits to kill from 30m:

So roughly 2X as effective as now.

However, I would make one change from Warband - no 0 damage attacks. Every attack would always do at least 1 damage.

That crossbowman you charged at would only deal 40% of your health in damage instead of 80%. That theoretical Longbow fired from 150m would do 20 damage instead of 30.

but once again, you guys are asking for a change that impacts the entire meta

That can only be a good thing! The current meta is extremely stale and archer-oriented due to the state of armour. I can beat literally any lord party the AI will ever field, no matter what their troops are, with a large stack of archers and small amount of infantry, or a large stack of horse archers (especially Khan's Guards).

The meta needs to change, with 4/6 troop types being severely underpowered it can literally only get more balanced from here. As I've said, archers weren't useless in Warband.

 

[0tto]

dude's just arguing for the sake of arguing
straight up said no to everything

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

Agincourt is a fantastic example of the effectiveness of armour (at least, plate). The French knights' plate let them run a kilometre under heavy arrow fire to reach the English lines, and a lot of them had to be killed "using hatchets, swords and the mallets they had used to drive their stakes in"! The English bowmen were simply putting out such a massive amount of arrows that eyeholes eventually got hit by chance.

Agincourt showed that you could fire a huge amount of arrows at an armoured man and have to get lucky in order to actually kill him. Of course, plate was more effective against arrows than mail, so I'm not asking to be that arrow-proof.

There has to be something said about the fact that longbow men were able to basically execute fully armoured knights after all those shots though. Being able to drain your enemy's stamina with arrows and force them to be on an exhausting defensive illustrates a good deal of how strong they can be. I know the muddy fields were what really slowed and sapped the french to the point of losing that badly, but still.

Seeing as there is no stamina system in BL, its hard to replicate that sort of effect. Seeing as a lot of real fighters often believe stamina- health, archers should be hurting armoured troops. But I don't think anyone is advocating for armour to absolutely invincible to arrows, yeah.

Now whether we ought to have a stamina system is a different question... I mean if we wanted to give lighter troops some sort of advantage, yeah.

 

[five bucks]

There has to be something said about the fact that longbow men were able to basically execute fully armoured knights after all those shots though.

Being able to drain your enemy's stamina with arrows and force them to be on an exhausting defensive illustrates a good deal of how strong they can be. I know the muddy fields were what really slowed and sapped the french to the point of losing that badly, but still.

Oh, they still had to actually fight for it. Two important things worth noting are that the 7,000 longbowmen were not fighting in the melee alone - they were accompanied by 1,500 men-at-arms; and the longbowmen were most likely wearing partial plate or brigandines too, as the development of mass-produced munition armour, plus secondhand noble armour that was sold off or looted, had made armour more widely affordable for professional fighting men in the 1400s, unlike earlier periods like what Bannerlord represents.
After the long run through sticky mud under arrow fire in heavy armour, the French knights were described as "scarely able to lift their weapons". You are correct the arrows would have been a significant contributing factor to this exhaustion.

Seeing as there is no stamina system in BL, its hard to replicate that sort of effect. Seeing as a lot of real fighters often believe stamina- health, archers should be hurting armoured troops. But I don't think anyone is advocating for armour to absolutely invincible to arrows, yeah.

Now whether we ought to have a stamina system is a different question... I mean if we wanted to give lighter troops some sort of advantage, yeah.

I'm on the fence about it. I like what it can do for troop and weapon balance, but actually having a stamina mechanic as the player is pretty unfun (I spent most of my time in Viking Conquest walking veeery slooowly).

 

[LyonExodus]

that you're happy with the armour system in that other poll

i am happy with most aspects of it, some not. does that satisfy your question? can't answer yes if i like some of it. poll should have brought more answers. if there was a do you mostly like; or a do you at times like; i would have chose that over a 100% like or dislike.

Also one of the things i always keep in mind when it comes to "issues" is how many resources and time would it take for the team to fix and balance it. at times the trade off in my mind is just not worth it. I say this cause i balanced with some settings and took months to get things where i wanted them.

just because i would also like some aspects to change doesn't mean i agree with it being changed now, like most of you guys here seem to want.

As stated before, this is an "issue" that shouldn't be addressed at this stage, unless what you want is an even slower release and slower patches.

Other important historical facts to note about Agincourt are: The French did not even all turn up to the charge, because they were so sure they were going to win (destroying everything in their path was fairly standard for French heavy cavalry charges). The knights' horses were unarmoured and got shot down, meaning the knights had to run 1km the rest of the way. The horses who did survive couldn't charge anyway because the English were behind a row of large stakes. The ground was very thick sloppy mud, preventing the knights from running as they had clay sticking their legs down. The knights and men-at-arms who did show up came in three separate waves, rather than all at once; so the ones who died at the English lines acted as a further tripping hazard for their exhausted comrades.

well yeah, that's why i called it a crapshow. terrain, conditions, overconfidence, lack of proper command all played a role. but if you asked humble historians even they have little idea of what actually happened that day often all having a different version to tell.


lots of things in the end come down to speculation and that's kinda scary since Agincourt is one of the most renown fights in medieval times. goes to prove how little we actually know of past warfare and how much we have to assume happened on those fields.

They have told us they are testing the armour system at the moment.

So what's up with all of this weekly "armor is big issue" threads that pop up each time? just impatience?

Can't we lay back and let them work is peace? Would you like to constantly be told if you are already there while driving or if you fixed that something yet while you are working on it? that's just annoying man.

That can only be a good thing! The current meta is extremely stale and archer-oriented due to the state of armour.

yet again, you don't find me in disagreement but the issue is "time" it takes time to get things done and balance them. it affect all aspects of the current meta since it's such an impactfull change, can't be done overnight or in a few weeks. Just because it's a good change doesn't imply it's the right time to make it.

You can't compare 2 modders who work and balance one mod and what they are able to do to 50 Devs who work om an entire game. They might bring some changes you guys consider good but for the rest of the team just isn't or brings many smaller problems with it. even in the most simple code change you can create new bugs in the system, unbalances and occasioanl forced crashes in the worst cases blocker crashes. all of that is time consuming

can you just reply if you understand what i am trying to say here. cause it seems like you guys think changing this is as simple as flicking a switch.

 

[JunKeteer]

there are no plates in Bannerlord, just Lamellars, scales, mail and brigandines. Plate is a bit further down the line in technology than this period. that's why i would change the way arrow, bolts and javelin damage is calculated, but remember you don't need to kill to render someone incapable of fighting, and a shot from a good bow up close delivers quite a kick.
I agree the damage on the projectiles should be decreased against high tier armor but it's hard to not render it completely useless if you happen to only lose 10HP from a Longbow at 150m rather than the current 30.

That's the point, they need to change the way arrow/projectiles damage is calculated which is what we're asking for. Not saying to render arrows obsolete but to give a more discernable difference (and rocks too) when wearing different types of armor. I personally don't have a particular issue with the damage of arrows only that their accuracy should be toned down here or there (and more bow varieties); the recent change with the bow accuracy was a step in right direction imo.

but once again, you guys are asking for a change that impacts the entire meta, stuff like that should be handled after the game is stable on most basic aspects, like the FPS, sieging at 15 FPS ( on some maps ) with a 3080 is honestly not acceptable.

Both can be done same time as these are essentially different systems of the game. It's not like they haven't been improving performance as it's substantially better than ~2.5 years ago; it's not as much of a crapshoot if the large battles crash every time.
On your particular set-up, may also be something else on your end affecting as I'm not getting level of FPS even on lower end GPU/CPU (on max settings).

sorry to say it but if that's your experience something is off. only skills i can't level before 25 are the slow passive ones (Scouting, Medicine, Engi)
with Roguery and Trade being the only active ones.
Engi might even be taken off this list after 1.7.2.

You're telling me you can get all your combat-sided skills ~250 each before age 25? Going to have to tell me your method, presuming you're getting at least one melee, one range, riding + athletics.

yes,i got that. but i don't think it's as simple as just asking. it's more complicated.

I can't figure out the disconnect here still, among all the possible (idealistic or not) in the past ~2.5 years given to TW, changing an armor's value from a 50 to a 70, or polearm's swing factor from x1.5 to x1.1 cannot be as complicated as writing/adding a couple more behavioral scripts for AI.

 

[Bjorn The Dead]

Just forget realism and history. Just remember guys what is common thing in gaming for 20 years or so. More armor, more protection. This is the gamers are accustomed to. We do not need to prove that armor was effective or not against bows and xbows.

Edit:
A fking gambesson stops warbow which is 140 pounds .