Recent content by DooomRider

I love that throughout this entire argument one massive factor has been barely mentioned, armour is designed to divert energy either through dissipation such as we see in lamellar, padding, scale and mail or through deflection which is more common in "plated" armours. Now I'm sure that you've all seen the curved nature of the helms and shoulder armours in game this is in effect to prevent a direct energy transference if an axe, mace or sword strikes the armour it is incredibly hard for the attacker to hit at an angle that transfers energy directly to the target which would produce heavy concussive effects, "blunt" weapons usually have flanges or points to help reduce the impact area this is to one increase force and two to reduce the chance of slippage occurring which would make the strike ineffective. Against a well designed helm a thrown rock is quite likely to be deflected off of the target especially from the front as the target need only lean left or right to avoid the shot (impossible in game) meaning a lot of the calculated impact would be lost.

Realism can't be argued in a game sadly as simple tricks that someone trained in armour can use to reduce the impact of an attack or completely negate it can't be adequately introduced, simply put heavily armoured troops would be highly resistant to many forms of attack due to their armour and skill in use of said armour this can be represented by significant damage reduction especially against low danger attacks such as thrown rocks from looters. Throwing weapons are effective however launched weapons are more so, throwing rocks as armour got better became more of a siege defence tactic as the angle of attack is a lot more effective plus gravity is damn scary when dropping weight on people.

Also blunt weapons should have a chance of being lethal, a mace to an unprotected head will make a mess not knock someone out

Final note: I'm not saying immunity to thrown rocks but realistically rocks hitting an armoured individual trained to use their armour is so low in danger that we should be taking at max about 7-8 damage and that's if it strikes well at speed and the target isn't aware. Dropped rocks however should do stupid damage.

bodhi said:

Urgh, my God.You clearly have the wrong idea of what a sandbox game means. It doesn't mean a world with no defined rules, where you can do whatever you like. Example: the real world is the most open "sandbox" known to man - yet it has many rules (from physical to social constructs) Anyway, you clearly have your opinion and I have mine. Not getting into a drawn-out "debate" with you about it.

Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of the French foreign legion? Roman Auxiliary Legions? yes the real world has rules, yes all games needs rules however your predefined notion that recruitment should be limited is flawed. Since you seem to be having trouble answering my questions (which is slightly worrying) I will say this as simply as I can, the restriction can be there if you want it by you having some self control, however the concept of trying to take my playstyle away from me and other people's playstyle away from them because you seem to lack self control is flawed, selfish and morally wrong.

Also next time you decide to tell someone they are wrong try doing a little research:
Sandbox:
A sandbox is a style of game in which minimal character limitations are placed on the gamer, allowing the gamer to roam and change a virtual world at will. In contrast to a progression-style game, a sandbox game emphasizes roaming and allows a gamer to select tasks. Instead of featuring segmented areas or numbered levels, a sandbox game usually occurs in a “world” to which the gamer has full access from start to finish.

A sandbox game is also known as an open-world or free-roaming game.

taken from: https://www.techopedia.com/definition/3952/sandbox-gaming

bodhi said:

I'm not sure from which realm of reality you're imagining the possibility of mass-German recruitment into the British army during WW2. But I assure you, it's a fantasy.

"Yes limits and restrictions define a game but let's just not have any" Yeah, good idea. Good logic, like it.

Click to expand...

I don't believe in mass recruitment of Germans but I was pointing out the folly in your point, the point I was making that even if they did recruit german into the british army (btw some germans did serve in allied forces) they would be equipped like a british soldier not a german one so the whole idea of culture defining your equipment and fighting style is flawed but is a mechanic of the game that some wouldn't want abolished (or else you would lock them out of a significant portion of troop options).

And again try answering the question instead of trying to mock my perfectly valid logic, yes you can restrict yourself through only recruiting culturally appropriate troops if you so wish but where do you have the authority to take away my playstyle? If the developers choose to implement that rule then tough cookie but as a player why do you think you have any right to tell me how I can and cannot play this game?

bodhi said:

Because limited options and restrictions is what defines a game. That's literally how you create a game. If you want a broken game, with no design, use console cheats.

And yes, it makes no sense that you can recruit, as you please, from any village on the map. It's like the British, during WW2, recruiting Wehrmacht infantry from Germany.

Click to expand...

Ahh yes okay so this actually falls apart when you think about it doesn't it? The British could have recruited Germans to fight for them but unlike this game they wouldn't magically gain German equipment and "level up" into Stormtroopers they would actually be equipped with English military equipment.

Yes limits and restrictions define a game but taking my given example, YOU (as in you personally) wish to take MY ability to play that style away just because you can't stop yourself recruiting from outside your culture? This is a sandbox game as in you are free to do what you want, I don't want to take away your style of play but you somehow justify taking mine away for what reason?

I don't understand the whole "please take away our options" mindset, I usually play by this rule but only in my head the whole concept of making it a rule for everyone just seems like the "hardcore" gang trying to force their way of playing. People seriously need to learn more restrictions is bad, more options is good.

An example of why this shouldn't be a thing IMHO:
I currently have a Vlandian play-through as a wannabe king of Rohan (so everyone is on a horse) I recruit Vlandian, Sturgian, Battanian & a couple of Imperial units plus rarely the Khuzait & Aserai prisoners but if this was made a hard rule my playthrough would be ruined without me grinding my way up to get a perk which would negatively affect my enjoyment, all because someone wants a "hard" rule in place that is a perfectly fine "soft" rule.

It wouldn't technically be classified as fencing, but it would be amazing to see different martial styles in use especially with different cultures and units

From my experience Khuzaits usually dominate the early on but if you strike them hard especially taking Chaikand or one of their other cities they tend to focus on reclaiming it allowing you to grind them down in siege warfare. I did it with Odokh on my SE playthrough until they declared peace then when the war restarted I pushed up and took Akkalat and began anew. It's weird but if you take any of their territory they seem to obsessively focus on reclaiming it at the cost of everything else. But that's my experience and as always YMMV

Thanks for your reply,

Honestly I was thinking of sticking my jav cav in a separate formation to use as support for heavy shock cavalry. Would you suggest vlandian cav as shock then? are vanguards any good? Sorry for the million questions but I'm trying to get an idea of what to do next.

I can tell you from personal experience being hit by a horse at canter, it hurts and you'll be floored if you aren't completely braced.
Horses from the period shown in bannerlord wouldn't be much smaller from average height but they would be built heavy to carry the immense weight of an armoured man, you're talking 500kg+ (this is just the horse, add the man on top in armour which is approximately 150kg) travelling at 20-40mph and you have yourself a battering ram. This is without the armour that would often adorn the horse which adds even more weight and counters the point of damage to the steed.

to the point of infantry stopping horses it is achievable as horses don't like shield walls and being stabbed however you have to remember that these weren't ponies dragged from a field these were equipment and treated as such, we have numerous pieces which suggest spiked bits (the thing in the horses mouth), Spurs (spikes on the back of the rider's boots) which were designed to cause the horse pain if it didn't do as told, they also were trained to run over shields in some cases (Late Roman army) which would hurt like hell for the infantry (probable death or incapacitation).

All in all horses should flatten infantry but against a solid formation of locked shield and spears they should falter. Cavalry was a flanking unit designed to break apart unit cohesion so that the infantry could have the upper hand. In pure cavalry forces we see more throwing weapons or bows being used in cantabrian circles to kill/wound men in formation before multiple flanking charges were used which often caused a rout