Search results for query: *

HalfMetalJacket said:

To be frank, that looks absolutely absurd. Realistically, those legionaries will find themselves surrounded, tired out or just overwhelmed by the sheer weight of those looters.

Wearing armour doesn't mean you feel nothing either, you be battered up and bruised even from things that don't necessarily penetrate you. And I think a lot of people here underestimate the potential for just getting knocked out too.

And considering how easily and quickly you can amass a force of t5 elites, the game does get pretty easy with RBM.

Click to expand...

I think historically peasants agains professional soldiers never ended well for the peasants. Armor was extremely important and even if armored man could feel when he was hit unarmored man was allready dead or crippled. And of course those professionals had lot better weapons too and were more skilled with them.

Good examples about how professional soldiers did against larger armies of peasants are rare, because usually peasants did know how it would end and didn't do it.

But there is some which I think are relevant. Like Defeat of Boudica. 10000 Romans agaisnt lot larger amy of brittish troops. Who even were not peasants, but still far from Romans well armed professionals. If those Brithish warriors couldn't do it what chance would true peasanst have?

And of course there is peasant rebellions through the history like German Peasan't War 1524-1525 where there was lot of peasant rebels who didn't accomplish anything and were instead slaugtered in masse.

MakinTorf said:

again: you all want that you need at the start against looters to need 4-5 arrows from your small 24 arrows quiever? thats not a problem about the bow dmg, its the problem with the armor that doesnt much.

Click to expand...

That is the problem. It is impossible to balance weapons when armors doesn't work.

It shouldn't take many arrows to kill naked guy. Even one arrow to body with weak peasant bow could easily kill. Same with melee weapons. One good hit and it would be over and even glancing blows would cause serious wound.

It is armor which makes the difference. That peasant bow which would be very dangerous to naked guy wouldn't be dangerous for guy in full armor. No penetration, no damage. Same with those melee weapons.

kweassa said:

Things like these, are gameplay decisions, If realistic armor and their realistic effects are to be brought into the game, then every restriction that made such armor less accessible in real life than what we currently see in the game (ie. paying a few coins for a tier upgrade and the soldier magically conjures up high-tier armor) should be brought in as well.

Click to expand...

You would get few armors after you win your first battle against enemy using those armors. Maybe your men would loot then before you could and then you would just have to pay them few coins so that they could customize them.

kweassa said:

(ps) like, how willing are you to meet enemies in small-scale fights, that you cannot harm with a blade weapon, nor they can harm you, so you have to resort to beating them up in wrestling matches every time? Or do you want it 100% impossible to hurt any enemy of higher tier in tournaments? That's essentially what this particular "monkey's hand" wish entails.

Click to expand...

Or you could carry weapon that is designed to work against armor. Sword is good sidearm, but there was reason why it was almost always sidearm and not primary weapon.

Tournaments would of course need weapon that would work against armors. Current ridiculously effective blunt swords would work of course. Currently tournaments are very easy. So it wouldn't hurt if armors would work little better. I think it was better when you had to use multiple stabs to face to kill high tier opponents with sword. It was challenging to win tournaments with starting character. Now it is not.

Midnitewolf said:

Well considering that there isn't actually any plate armors in the Native game the setting has to be before plate armor became common. I would say probably somewhere between 1150 and 1250 AD so what is that 12th-13th century. Plate armor wasn't really used until the 14th century.

Click to expand...

I think it is hard to say what time this game is because there is equipment from different times. Armors maybe are 1150-1250 and there is no plate. That is true. But then there is pikes, glaives and longbows. Which belong to later times and of course horse armors.

Midnitewolf said:

As far as horse armor though, it was pretty well developed if you ask me. It wasn't gothic plate but it was full chain, lamellar or scale. Also as strong as bows or crossbows were, many studies have shown armor from this period was pretty effective protection. For example a Cataphract from this time period might have worn a full breastplate of Lamellar over a riveted chain hauberk over a gambeson. it would take a hell of a lot of force to get through all that and still penetrate enough to be lethal. You also have to consider a horse is a much bigger animal and something penetrating 2 inch though horse armor probably wouldn't drive deed enough to actually reach anything vital on the horse but would probably kill a man.

I guess my point is that I don't think bow and crossbows were quite as effective at actually killing well armored individuals or horses as many think they were.

Click to expand...

Armor vs missile weapon I agree.

I think horse armors did exist, but they were only used by eastern cataphrach. In west they were not used because massed archers didn't exist yet, so they were not needed enough to justify their cost. A good armor for a horse would cost much more than similar of armor for a man. It was not problem for early cataphrachs, because they were top of their very rich society, but for everyone else, it was not so easy.

Later Byzantine started to lose their wars and relied more to mercenaries. Cataphrach were on decline. Of course Empire in the game probably doesn't have same financial problems Byzantine had so their Cataprach can still have the best horse armors possible, but if every horse have horse armor, then it is not 13th century anymore.

Midnitewolf said:

In any case, I think heavy cavalry was much more effective than it is in game.

Click to expand...

I think main problem for heavy cavalry in game is that AI is not that good using it and "not very good" is huge understatement.

Of course if armors would work that would help too, but horses would need changes too or it would cause another balance problem. Even without working armors horses in are like tanks. In addition to that you can easily control horse while using 2 h weapon like glaive. It would be quite hard to train horse so that you would be able control it with just your legs and then training it to ignore your weight shifts when you are using your weapon.

Berzerker Jay said:

As sure about that bow length as I am sure the Bayeaux Tapestry is a whole lot longer than that, and as I am sure that you are not arguing from research or with sincerity, really. You yourself should go and look at the rest of the tapestry, and see for yourself that I didn't just cite it for nothing. This is ridiculous. lol

I've indicated no desire to continue discussing this unless you can provide a level of evidence you seem to refuse to provide. As it sits you're continuing to waste my time and shouldn't expect more investment in a response than this.

Click to expand...

So when I posted picture from your source which is inconsistent compared to what you said it is me who refuses to provide evidence? You serious???

Maybe you should check your own source. Maybe you could post picture from that Bayeaux Tapestry where there is longer bow? Of course you can not, because there is none.

Berzerker Jay said:

Not that the Battle of Hastings represents some exhaustive and exclusive list of what weapons were in use during combat up to this point, but one of the major historical artifacts that shows us how they were armed and armoured in that battle is the Bayeaux Tapestry, and for what it's worth it does depict archers with bows which are about as long as the bodies depicted carrying them.

Either way, I'm perplexed that you resolutely believe the longbow was not used in military combat when it had been around for thousands of years at this point and the bow was not something unusual on any battlefield -- archeologists often find arrowheads at the sites of battles for a reason. You'll have to explain why you believe this because to me it makes no sense and seems to show a very exclusive and narrow lens on history. Welsh and English history is not the world's history, and certainly not even the actual history of any of the cultures depicted in the game.

Click to expand...

Sure about that bow lenght?

Some individual could have used it. But there were not armies that widely used them. Maybe because longbows take quite lot of training to use. Many years just to build required strenght. Because they were not widely used there was no need to counter them. One or two longbowmen in the army doesn't make any difference. Few thousand and knighs started to fight dismounted.

Bows were used in battlefields yes, but there is huge difference between few unarmored peasants using weak simple bows and few thousand trained professionals using longbows.

Berzerker Jay said:

It's very well documented that their horses wore some rather heavy barding -- could you show me what sources you're operating by?


I don't think you know horses as well as you are asserting here. Warhorses were still in use during the time of gunpowder, when the stimuli that would spook the farmhorses you seem to be referring to were far less dissuasive to warhorses. Further, warhorse breeds are often known for their aggression, aggression they are bred and trained for. It's like you don't think thousands of years of history regarding cavalry warfare didn't happen.... Is it safe to say you want the game a certain way, and you're just arguing for that even if your arguments aren't actually based in historic fact?

Click to expand...

Yes horse bardins are documented when we speak about 14th century and later times. And early cataphrachs in east of course. But if you check, for example, that Bayeaux Tapestry you mentioned, you don't find horse armors there.

It is totally different to hear loud noise than get wound. Cavalry warfare did happen, but horses were not tanks. If they would William's cavalry would have just runner over Harold's army in Battle of Hastings, but they didn't. And of course if horses would have been tanks French would have easily won Battle of Crecy. What could few longbows do against tanks.

Berzerker Jay said:

This applies to human characters, too. A single arrow can hit a vital spot and kill the target instantly. Also, not many people just take an arrow from a warbow and shrug it off to keep fighting -- if we're to apply your rule for realism, then the player should react to taking even a single arrow, because people generally did. Of course that would be silly and people would complain about the game working that way.

Click to expand...

Yes, unarmored human should die to arrows. One good hit should be deadly. That is why armors were used. Longbows could pierce chainmail up close, but even then armor would take most of the energy and wound wouldn't be even nearly as deep as it would without armor. From farther off even longbows couldn't piece chain mail and when it doesn't pierce it doesn't do any damage. Not enough force to cause damage without piercing so yes, if it wouldn't pierce anyone would be able to continue fighting. With adrenaline they wouldn't even feel it at all. Lesser bows like those peasant bows couldn't penetrate heavy armor. Of course they can still be deadly if they hit eye or something like that. And that should be risk with open helmets.

Berzerker Jay said:

Armours do exist, and arrows do too. They did a rather tremendous amount of damage back then. I really don't see reason to your reasoning, other than that you have a way you like to play and in spite of all logic and historic fact you want the game redesigned to make your way of playing more powerful. But there's a reason cavalry and archers were fielded along infantry. The lore in the game's main quest even talks about a decisive battle being decided primarily by an ambush involving two lines of archers shooting down an entire army fielded by the Emperor...all his legionaries and everything.

You don't agree and you have an opinion, but honestly I think you and I can leave it at this unless you have some evidence you'd like to support your claims with. Otherwise I just see a difference in opinions, and you and I don't have a tendency toward respectful discussions. In that case, let's see some evidence because more unsupportable claims are a waste of time.

Click to expand...

In game armors doesn't exist. They are just textures. 2 arrows or few strikes from 1h sword and that heavily armored guy goes down.

You speak about evidences? Seriously? So you have some evidence about tank horses. How horses run over line of pikes or something? Or horsed running over anything other than peasant armies. How about unarmored horses they used 10th-11th century?

Or maybe you have some battle records from 10th-11th centuries where archers were decisive factor? Longbows maybe?

Berzerker Jay said:

Uh...I hate to say it but I think you're perhaps suffering from excluding everywhere else but Britain, maybe? Longbows have been around well before the medieval period. Earliest instance I know goes back several thousand years prior to that, in fact. The famous ice-borne mummy, The Ice Man or "Otzi," was found with his yew longbow. It was six feet long. Further there's evidence in Scandinavia of longbows being used basically for the entire historic record we have for those cultures.

Click to expand...

Yes there were longbows, but as I said "Longbow as weapon of war was late 12th century thing" Some hunter may have had longbow, but armies didn't use them. English didn't have them and even Welsh didn't use longbow but different kind of bow. Vikings had longbows so Normans had to know them too but still in the Battle of Hasting they used different kind of bows.

And horse armors were not used in West, because they were not needed. Many armies didn't have archers at all and when there were archers they were peasant class archers. Nothing like professional archers/crossbowmen of later times. Cataphrach of course had horse armor earlier times, but 10th-11th centuries Byzantine cataphrach didn't use as much horse armors as cataphrach of earlier times. For byzantines all heavy cavalry were cataphrach and their equipment changed over time.

Berzerker Jay said:

Finally, as to the ability for horses to tank. They are quite a bit tougher than humans, trust me. That said you are right about the arrows they can take as well as two-handed weapons. Both need to hit properly, though. Arrows in the right place will take down a horse, but I think most bow-hunters will attest to how difficult it is to take an animal down by arrow, and how much placement matters. To the two-handed weapon in the head, that's an act of timing and precision when targeting an animal that is moving its head while propelling its body at high speed past you -- not impossible, but also quite the hit to rally off while you're standing basically in the path of this charging animal -- but I digress. With perks, you absolutely can one-hit a horse with two-handed weapons, two hits at most. There are perks to quite dramatically increase the damage done to mounts with two-handed weapons, so this reflects the level of skill to take down a massive animal so quickly. I think I'm okay with that, though I'd be interested in what balanced solutions that take those perks into account there might be.

Click to expand...

Horses are not predators. They don't have will to fight. When horse is hurt it will run away. Even very well trained horses today can become scared of some minor thing and throw off their riders. It can happen even the best olympic level riders. Actual wound would be far worse than some minor noise.

It is true that for kill archer would need good hit, but even without that instantly killing perfect hit there would be very good chance that horse would get scared and do something that rider wouldn't expect. If both hand of that rider would be occupied with weapons. I think it would be very very hard to stay in saddle. And of course there is that instant kill possibility. Like if that unarmored horse would run to pike. No way to survive that. In game it take some minor damage and run away. Or stay close so that pike is useless and rider can poke pikeman with his spear.

Berzerker Jay said:

Cavalry does not have all the advantages. I don't honestly know how that can be argued unless other playthroughs haven't been attempted. I actually find far more advantage with an all-archer party. That's my current playthrough, and me and my Fians are absolutely brutal. I have never ended battles as fast with cavalry. Another playthrough I have that absolutely leaves my cavalry playthroughs in the dust is a character whose party is primarily made up of Battanian Skirmishers. They take longer to get across the field, but this swarm decimates that field. The biggest disadvantage I see in cavalry is their post-charge run out, as well as when they get stopped -- they have no support when this happens, and simply get swarmed and taken out. Cavalry takes a lot longer once the fighting starts to end that fight. My archers end it before the opponent can even reach them to do damage usually, and my skirmishers are too good at supporting one another in battle for the enemy to get the upper-hand, and their javelins mean they're able to engage constantly, as long as I don't let them fire them all off in the opening. I really don't think it's as poorly balanced as some are saying, or else my cavalry games should be the ones dominating. Even when I've played horse-archers, they're so painfully slow at taking out the enemy. That's a big disadvantage when taking out the enemy is the objective.

Click to expand...

Yes because armors doesn't exist archers are OP in SP. If armors would exist and horses would be like they are now cavalry would be OP. And of course with archer army you can cheese and run away when enemy reach your lines so you will never lose men if you don't want.

Now cavalry is OP in MP. No downsides and when horse dies they can continue fight as infantry. Usually with better armor than actual infantry. In MP archers are slow and everyone have shield and know how to dodge arrows.

When it is player using that cavalry he is never stopped if he doesn't choose so. Infantry can't catch him. Only way to win him is teamwork (or cavalry). But when it takes teamwork to take down one player there is a problem. And of course cavalry can kill anyone with just single hit.

Berzerker Jay said:

I think 14th-century is Warband's period, and from my understanding Bannerlord is set in the 10th-11th centuries. The plate armour you're talking about didn't exist for knights yet, either. In history there are many instances of mounted combat, and it has been particularly advantageous for many cultures, so without some evidence I'm not sure this can be reasonably disputed. Notably, some of these cultures are represented in the game even, so I don't think we can negate the obvious advantages of mounts in combat.

I agree there should be some potential for injury for the rider when a mount goes down, perhaps mitigated by a Control and Vigor check, but we should also keep in mind that there is already some danger present in the game. I'd say most times when my mount is taken down, I go tumbling stunned into enemy troops who are already swinging, and I am still too stunned to even raise a shield. So some damage would be great, but we should be careful about over-punishing this because it already often spells the rider's doom. Hell, it's why I often target and take down mounts ignoring their riders.

Click to expand...

10th-11th century would mean even less horse armors. Less archers too so less need for those armors, at least in West.

And of course 10th-11th century they didn't use pikes or glaives etc. Lances wouldn't be couched lances of later time. Instead they would be held with a one-handed over-the-head grip. Longbow as weapon of war was late 12th century thing too.

So if Bannerlord is about 10th-11th century, there is lot of things that go wrong. So based on that I would think that it is about later times. Man from 13th century could use arms and armors from 11th century, but for a man from 11th century it would be lot harder to find equipment from 13th century.

In this game horses are tanks. They are WAY harder to kill than they would be realistically. Horses can't take 2 handed axe hits to heads any more than humans and it wouldn't take many longbow arrows to kill a horse. People hunt elks today with bows and they don't do it by shooting it with dozen arrows.

And yeah losing horse in wrong spot can be dangerous. But realistically it would be way more dangerous. Every year ~100 people die in riding accidents and even if you wouldn't die it would be easy to have leg pinned under that horse when it falls. Would be certain death if it would happen in middle of a battle. And of course horses are not machines and doesn't like to get wounded. Most likely horse will do something when it is wounded so I think that that riding/vigor/control check should be needed every time horse is wounded.

It is balance problem if cavalry have all advantages horse can give but no weaknesses. Some knight fought on foot and they had good reason for that. Horses are not tanks and it was very dangerous for knight when his horse was wounded and of course it is not easy to control horse when your both hands are occupied with weapons. Controlling a horse with a glaive, for example, is far too easy.

Berzerker Jay said:

in spite of all logic you want cavalry to only be so strong as infantry.

Click to expand...

Cavalry was not always stronger than infantry. In game it is and that is stupid especially because it is because of wrong reasons.

It was quite common for knights to fight on foot. That's because massed archers. While knights had very good armors that made them practically immune to archers their horses didn't. Good plate horse armors that made horses too practically immune to arrows came about same time than early cannons.

So realistically longbows versus knights on 14th century, longbows would easily be able to kill knight's practically unarmored horse, but it would take lucky shot to kill knight. In game it takes just 2 arrows to kill that knight and many more to kill that horse. In game it would be extremely stupid for knight to dismount because of archers, while in history they did just that.

Armors should be more effective. Horses should have less hitpoints and dying horse should be very dangerous for rider.

Berzerker Jay said:

Here's an in-depth video of him demonstrating one falx. The edge is weak, but for the purposes of our discussion it shows well how that point is used, and it also shows it relatively easily puncturing a plate helm.

Click to expand...

This video is about same thing, but now you can compare that falx to axe and warhammer.

Berzerker Jay said:

If you believe you can take a rock of several pounds thrown full force to your head because you are wearing a helmet, I urge you to reconsider.

Click to expand...

Without helmet it would break your skull. With helmet it will hurt your neck. Huge difference. Any such hit that would be dangerous for man with good helmet would be instant death for man without helmet. Still practically any other weapon would be more useful. That is like yes you can kill man with pen. Just stick it in his eye. Surely he will die, but it doesn't mean that pen is good melee weapon. Or melee weapon at all.

Berzerker Jay said:

Definitely a pointed weapon will do little against a steel helmet unless put through one of its gaps. Meanwhile a hammer or rock to the same helmet carries the power to concuss, as well as to crank the neck in innumerable ways including compression.

Click to expand...

If that pointed weapon doesn't penetrate that helmet it works just like blunt weapon.
Only force matter and being blunt doesn't generate any extra force.

Berzerker Jay said:

Like, I even cited a professional army unit from classical times. I've provided evidence and seen none comparable to the opposite points. As far as asking for a story, I am afraid I must decline because this is getting mired in ad nauseum fallacy.

Click to expand...

Problem is that 400BC was very very long time ago. They barely had any iron and bronze was very expensive. Totally different time compared to medieval times. How useful some weapon was 400BS doesn't tell much about how useful it would be 1000AD.

Berzerker Jay said:

Why do you use this metric? I'm seriously confused by your thinking on this -- it either has to be that rocks are the most formidable weapon in the universe and beat everything, or they have to be the equivalent of stale muffins thrown on the battlefield?

Click to expand...

Rocks were not real weapon of war after stone age ended. (professional slinger used sling bullets)

They were used yes, because sling was good tool for hunting so people trained with and could use them. But fact is that they didn't decide battles. Slings were very cheap weapon to produce and stones cost nothing. If slingers would have been even somewhat effective in war there would have been lot more slingers than there was and they would have been used in medieval times too.

Berzerker Jay said:

I'm not sure how I should respond to these claims, since slings have been shown to be very effective throughout history, including against armour. They were even effective in warfare up to the Spanish Conquistadors invading South America. I accept that your opinion is slings are not effective, including against armour, but I can't accept that as fact because I know better. You'll know better, too, if you take the time to google or research this by other means.

The copy of De Re Militari that I linked to above makes clear that they were in fact used, and not at all just for hunting, and they were quite effective. I take it you didn't look at that?

Click to expand...

If slings would have been effective against conquistadors few hundred conquistadors probably wouldn't been able to conquer Inca nation. Those Incas would have just used their slings against them.

Sling is effective against unarmored target, but against armor it doesn't work. Armors increase area of impact and slingshot just doesn't have that energy and even less penetration. If slings would have been considered to be very effective against armor David and Goliath story would be very different. David the slinger slaughtered helpless brute who was stupid enough to go against power of sling.

De Re Militari says "Soldiers, notwithstanding their defensive armor, are often more annoyed by the round stones from the sling than by all the arrows of the enemy" But it doesn't say that those soldiers died to those slingshots. Arrows couldn't penetrate armors either. Sure it is annoying to be target when enemy is shooting with bows or slings, but I don't remember single ancient battle where slings would have been decisive factor.

Berzerker Jay said:

Apparently, also, the famous historical text, "De Re Militari," details how Roman recruits were to be taught to throw stones both by hand and by sling, and to select one-pound stones for doing so.

That can be referenced here.

Click to expand...

Sling was hunting tool for them. Easy to carry, weight nothing and they could use it as ranged weapon if they had to, but it wasn't really weapon of war for them. Though there were some quite effective slingers at ancient times. They didn't use rocks though. At least not when they were on war. Sling is way more effective weapon than throwing. Still sling was not good against armor.

Throwing rocks as training. Sounds good for troops who were going to use javelins or darts.

Berzerker Jay said:

As far as professional armies go, anyway, in looking for historical record of rocks being used against armoured opponents, I found reference to an actual professional army in Ancient Greece, the petrovoloi, in case you're interested.

Since the only objections at this point are that the target of rock-throwing can and will likely attack and kill the rock-thrower, and since that is exactly how it already works in game -- can we say it's working as it should...?

Click to expand...

Xenophon lived very very long time ago. So his writing were about armies 400BC or something. In his time heavy armor was cuirass, helmet and maybe greaves. Most soldiers provided their own gear. Bronze was expensive and iron even more so. So I am certain that if those professional rock throwers could have had plumbata or something like that, they would have used them, but rocks cost nothing while metal weapons were expensive.

I think those throwing rocks do way too much damage against armored opponent. Though of course looters are not the real problem. Problem is that practically any weapon go through heaviest armor in game. It take just two arrows to chest to kill guy in that heaviest possible armor while realistically those arrows wouldn't do any damage at all as arrows doesn't go trough chest plates. Even bronze armors from Xenophons time would be good enough for that.

Berzerker Jay said:

Looters aren't rock-throwing armies either. They're desperate people throwing rocks, for which there are countless examples throughout and including recent history showing such groups successfully engaging in combat with thrown stones as their weapons....

Click to expand...

Ancient and medieval times peasant mobs were slaughtered every time they tried to fight professional soldiers. Peasants against soldier is not battle its is just slaughter. Always been so.

Today throwing rocks can work as long as opposing side is not allowed to use force.

I can kick down simple brick wall. It doesn't take that much force. Still I don't think that peasants would have easily killed medieval knights with few kicks.

Berzerker Jay said:

Can you logically rationalize why you think a heavy stone pitched at a metal plate will "not do much"?

People still carry and throw stones to this day, so I am not sure what to do with your suggestion this has not occurred in the last 7000 years....

Click to expand...

If it would be heavy enough so that it would do serious damage against that guy in plate, it would be too heavy to throw accurately.

There is reason why there is no records of armies using throwing stones. It just doesn't work. Any other missile weapon would be more effective.
Being blunt doesn't give weapon any more force it would have if it would have sharp edge.

Taking out sharp edge from sword doesn't make it lightsaber.

Antaeus said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

vonbalt said:

Maybe it shouldn't be so powerful then or have a counter for better gameplay? blunt damage is absurd ignoring 100% of armor, there is no reason to use anything other than a blunt weapon then (unles asthetics of course but that isn't good gameplay)

Click to expand...

Or you can use some weapon with ridiculously high damage. Armor doesn't matter much when damage without armor is few hundred.

Basic problem is that armors just doesn't do anything. Even if you have best armor in game archers can kill you with 2 shots.

Because armors are not balanced weapons can't be balanced either and because armors and weapons are not balanced troops can't be balanced.

ratschbumm said:

do you think that ax cannot penetrate mail? Ax is cutting in the game.

Click to expand...

Actually it is not that easy to cut mail with axe:


If it is mail and gambeson below there is good chance that even heavy blow with axe doesn't do wound. It will hurt because axe is heavy and there is lot of force. With very heavy blow it may even break bones. But compared to damage what that same blow would do without armor, difference is huge. Without armor even glancing blows with axe would be very dangerous.