speaking of real life... the real issue with game(s) vs real life, there are many pros and cons.
1- it is extremely hard to create a game that is still exciting and fun while being challenging and balancing that with what weapons/armor can or cannot do in RL.
2- riding down someone from horseback with a 2 handed weapon carries so much force and weight that it is an instant kill if you hit someone (no matter what your skill level is), granted it does take skill and practice to be able to hit someone more often than not.
3- having realistic damage in a game can often (too often) lead to a failed game because your character keeps dieing too much.
4- bows are not that hard to aim, with practice they are lethal if you are wearing anything but metal (unless its a long bow, then you're ****ed if you get hit)
5- crossbows dont take that long to load, they are the simplest medieval weapons to use
6- no slingshots, this was used by every farmer and herdsman in the dark ages back to beginning, they were cheap and easy to make (but required more skill and practice to use efficiently, even more than it took to learn how best to use a longbow)
7- 2 handed weapons were used from horseback (well over half, closer to 3/4, used them from horseback even into the black powder era of warfare) so why are they now restricted to only being used from the ground?!
8- even the gentry/lords/etc. that were captured were more often than not killed instantly or taken back to the winners castle and then beheaded in front of the general populous.
9- armore, there was some weird armor in medieval times... but all of them were based on animals (in feudal europe) by medieval times there was nothing left of the eagle/panther armor bits (which were never in europe to begin with since they were all from parts of the inca factions), what was left was metal helmets or shields that depicted things like lions or dragons beaten into stark relief patterns on the metal (decoration only)
10- firearms, (this and above mostly apply to only fire and sword) the more powerful and more accurate firearms were used from horseback (usually only with sabres) what do you think the heavy dragoons used in campaigns, pistols?!, thats why they were called HEAVY dragoons (and no dragoon ever used a bow or crossbow of any kind, ever, it didnt happen)
11- no shortbow could ever peirce medieval armor, it didnt have the power by the time the arrow reached any distance above 15 being very jenerous... so why are they also able to do 1 hit kills and reach anything at 500+ feet?!
12- longbows are (where) the most lethal form of projectile in medieval times, javelins were not used much in wars of any size (unless the troops and/or commander wanted to get stomped), they were mostly (almost exclusively) used in tournaments by that time to test ones strength (being brought to europe via the scotts)
13- the crossbow, more than one type of bolt was available at the time... the two most used where the cheap all wood bolts (excellent against unarmored opponents) and the steel tipped bolt (often had to get 5 or more shots to kill someone with armor on)...
14- crossbow accuracy, well it isnt... in medieval times crossbows were the least accurate of any type of projectile weapons, even into the black powder era... it wasnt until the the mid-late 20th century that crossbows became effective (thanks to improvements to metallurgy and purification using chemicals)
15- in order for the crossbows to be remotely useful (used because they were cheap to make along with the bolts) you had to have at least 100 and more likely 500 crossbow men in your army troops, anything smaller would get you and your army killed.
16- more often than not smaller groups of specialized longbow men would be used to take down hundreds in defense or in offense, while the costs where higher for the longbows appropriate training and arrows, the effectiveness superseded the overall costs... the benefits from those smaller teams ended up costing less over time.
17- wooden shields, much like the crossbow were extremely cheap, and that above anything else is why they were used at all and pretty much only by the lowest of the low in ranking troops or by farmers and civilians... the problem with relying on wooden shields is that they break on first contact with any sword that had a little bit of weight to it, especially if the sword was weilded from horseback.
18- the only advantage to having a full wood shield was that it was a nice arrow/bolt catcher, except in the case of longbows which would punch throw wood into someones head/chest and often in combination with the shield arm... which was pinned to the dead person.
19- women in medieval times didnt have any authority EXCEPT when their husbands were campaigning and at war away from home... women were not allowed to join armies (even under the women left to defend and take care of the castle) and it was only the noble women who could do even that
20- slaving, slave trading, etc. (whether for servants or sexual 'toys') was at an all time high england and most (if not all) of europe practiced this past-time, because every enemy (kingdom/race) were all barbarians and the gentry and common alike thought they were doing these conquered savages a huge favor by allowing them to live as slaves.
21- lances, they were used in both tourneys and in war... much more than people think they were. the lance was the most effective weapon against a larger army (outside of longbows) that was on foot than any other weapon used, so why the hell is it the weakest POS weapon in the mount and blade games?!...
22- horses, were the hell do i even begin... its excruciatingly obvious that the creators have never ridden a horse in their lives, or (it would seem) ever seen a horse ridden. of all the things that are not realistic about MB games its the horse, i can only hope that they fix it with bannerlord or at least allow enough mod support for someone to fix them.
23- horses, all horses used for anything militant were bred specifically for war... they were just as lethal as those riding them, they were much larger than what is depicted in the game... should be thinking along the lines of clydesdales, the huge horses where the only types of horses that could handle a man/his armor/and the horses armor as well. clydesdales and any type of horse whether its carrying weight or not is much more maneuverable than shown in-game and if the horse was bred for war, they wouldn't stop no matter how many ppl it ran over on foot or on horse.
24- horses, the force of that much weight combined would knock down any other horse that it ran into... this is the biggest reason that most wars/battles ended up being fought on foot. you cannot slow down that much mass so suddenly, its not physically possible.
25- horses, when a horse is stopped you can turn it 180 - 360 degrees quickly, however you can turn a horse 90-180 degrees at a full gallop within a very small area... im guessing the devs have never seen a rodeo (twisting around barrels full tilt), even an untrained horse can do that (not as well perhaps). the point is that the horses have much much more mobility that shown in MB games so far... this more than anything else in the game(s) bugs and frustrates the hell outta me.
with all the inconsistencies (or inspite of them) for horses and riding them (armored or not) the rest of the game makes up for at least... and i keep playing them, but for the love of god someone needs to fix this more than anything else in the game.
