About weapon slots

[jailson69]

In Warband there are only 4 weapon slots, which means that you can carry 4 heavy bardiches or greatswords  , but not 5 stones or knifes. In Bannerlord I hope it'll change for a better system e.g if the player can carry 15kg in weapons, so he is able to throw 30 knifes weighing 0.5kg , or carry only a greatsword and perhaps a another small weapon. What do you think about it, guys?

 

[Hannibal Barca]

Think i hav only seen this screenshot from the 30 minutes gameplay in 2016.

Spoiler

 

[jailson69]

Think i hav only seen this screenshot from the 30 minutes gameplay in 2016.

Spoiler

There's still the old 4 wepon slots, it seems that nothing new is coming in bannerlord...

 

[Kehlian]

Think i hav only seen this screenshot from the 30 minutes gameplay in 2016.

Spoiler

There's still the old 4 wepon slots, it seems that nothing new is coming in bannerlord...

Yeah clearly the new gameplay, new battle system, and improved graphics aren't new at all.

Dude, this system works really well and helps keeping balance. I think it's sweet we get to get 4 weapons slot, it's already a lot of weapon for only one man.

 

[BayBear]

In Warband there are only 4 weapon slots, which means that you can carry 4 heavy bardiches or greatswords  , but not 5 stones or knifes. In Bannerlord I hope it'll change for a better system e.g if the player can carry 15kg in weapons, so he is able to throw 30 knifes weighing 0.5kg , or carry only a greatsword and perhaps a another small weapon. What do you think about it, guys?

The current system is fine. Warband allows us to carry multiple throwing stones/knives in the same slot just like arrows. All a weight limit would do is force players to juggle their outfit to comply with an arbitrary restriction. Features that limit outfit choices and variety don’t add anything to gameplay. The only exception is multiplayer balance but the current denar system already works well.

 

[vicwiz007]

Uh, yes it does let you carry multiple knives or rocks, its called throwing weapons XD if you dont want them to throw, then you equip a normal knife, and even some of the throwing weapons can be used as normal melee weapons anyway. Its a good system.

Think i hav only seen this screenshot from the 30 minutes gameplay in 2016.

Spoiler

Does anyone know what the thing under the horse slot is? A saddle?

 

[Sir Mordred]

Does anyone know what the thing under the horse slot is? A saddle?

I believe they said it was horse armor

 

[Do not look here]

I'd call it a 'horse equipment', considering it can be both armour and simply a saddle with all the thingies required to ride horse around.

All a weight limit would do is force players to juggle their outfit to comply with an arbitrary restriction.

Not that I agree with removing the 4-slot system, but it is just as arbitrary as a weight limit would be. I would defend the 4-slot on ground that it works balance-wise, whether it is sword&board plus heavy and anti-cav or missile + back up. One less and it gets pretty restricting, one more and player can become a walking Swiss army knife. Weight limit weapon-wise would make sense in a way, but it is unnecessarily complicating things when the current system is sufficient, in my opinion.

 

[BayBear]

All a weight limit would do is force players to juggle their outfit to comply with an arbitrary restriction.

Not that I agree with removing the 4-slot system, but it is just as arbitrary as a weight limit would be. I would defend the 4-slot on ground that it works balance-wise, whether it is sword&board plus heavy and anti-cav or missile + back up. One less and it gets pretty restricting, one more and player can become a walking Swiss army knife. Weight limit weapon-wise would make sense in a way, but it is unnecessarily complicating things when the current system is sufficient, in my opinion.

I don't think the current system is arbitrary; in fact, I think you give a good reason for it. It's much less subjective than allowing a player to carry 30kg but not 30.1kg. Anyways we both agree the system should stay the same.

 

[Baltic Marauder]

Am I alone thinking  the current system isn't restrictive enough? Its a bit ridiculous  you can draw a lance from your back. I'd have 3 slots. 1 is a "hand slot", which can carry any weapon/shield, and 2 of them are "holster" slots, for ammo, medium-small shields or  1 handed backup weapons. Would be way more realistic.

 

[FBohler]

Am I alone thinking  the current system isn't restrictive enough? Its a bit ridiculous  you can draw a lance from your back. I'd have 3 slots. 1 is a "hand slot", which can carry any weapon/shield, and 2 of them are "holster" slots, for ammo, medium-small shields or  1 handed backup weapons. Would be way more realistic.

No need to make the game more realistic, thanks.

While it's pretty ridiculous to be able to carry 4 bardiches, it doesn't hurt balance or gameplay, not to mention it is totally pointless to do so.
As many have pointed out, the balance with 4 slots rather than weight limit is okay, there's no need to change that just for realism's sake, this is a video game after all.

 

[Apocal]

Am I alone thinking  the current system isn't restrictive enough? Its a bit ridiculous  you can draw a lance from your back. I'd have 3 slots. 1 is a "hand slot", which can carry any weapon/shield, and 2 of them are "holster" slots, for ammo, medium-small shields or  1 handed backup weapons. Would be way more realistic.

A late 14th century knight on horseback might carry lance, longsword, horseman's hammer and dagger. A cataphract of the 9th-10th century might have lance, bow, two bundles of arrows, throwing maces (!), sword and heavy mace. An archer at Agincourt probably had a maul, axe or arming sword and dagger in addition to his warbow and arrows. There are accounts of duels and passages of arms fought between men carrying spear, poleaxe and dagger while on-foot and wearing plate armor.

Obviously Warband is a bit generous in letting players carry four bardiches, but there is no in-game advantage to doing so. In fact, since weight hurts movement speed, there is an active incentive not to do stuff like that. At the same time, to get an idea of what kind of equipment a reasonably equipped man-at-arms would carry into battle during the medieval era, you need to allow for multiple full weapons. If anything it is restrictive when on horseback, considering a lot of time knights or similar shock/heavy cavalry would be a veritable trotting armory.

 

[Ruler of Calradia]

Am I alone thinking  the current system isn't restrictive enough? Its a bit ridiculous  you can draw a lance from your back. I'd have 3 slots. 1 is a "hand slot", which can carry any weapon/shield, and 2 of them are "holster" slots, for ammo, medium-small shields or  1 handed backup weapons. Would be way more realistic.

Well i agree that you should only be able to carry maybe 1 polearm and have some other restrictions as well, but they all need to be realistic. Knives for example should never count towards total number of weapons. Swords are really easy to carry, and apparently soldiers sometimes had spear, mace and sword as well as shield with them. On cavalry they sometimes in addition had bow and arrows. And i am sure sometimes cavalrymen also carried back up sword on the horse, since swords did sometimes break and swords are easy to carry.

Streltsy carried bardiches, big polearms, and muskets and swords and ammunition and knives. And smaller buckler shields are so small and light that they easily could have also worn those. Same with bayonets (but of course bayonets would have made bardiches obsolete - i am just saying they could have carried them)

 

[BayBear]

Am I alone thinking  the current system isn't restrictive enough? Its a bit ridiculous  you can draw a lance from your back. I'd have 3 slots. 1 is a "hand slot", which can carry any weapon/shield, and 2 of them are "holster" slots, for ammo, medium-small shields or  1 handed backup weapons. Would be way more realistic.

Well i agree that you should only be able to carry maybe 1 polearm and have some other restrictions as well, but they all need to be realistic. Knives for example should never count towards total number of weapons. Swords are really easy to carry, and apparently soldiers sometimes had spear, mace and sword as well as shield with them. On cavalry they sometimes in addition had bow and arrows. And i am sure sometimes cavalrymen also carried back up sword on the horse, since swords did sometimes break and swords are easy to carry.

Streltsy carried bardiches, big polearms, and muskets and swords and ammunition and knives. And smaller buckler shields are so small and light that they easily could have also worn those. Same with bayonets (but of course bayonets would have made bardiches obsolete - i am just saying they could have carried them)

I think some people overestimate how weighty medieval weapons actually are. Realistically a normal soldier could carry multiple weapons because they just are not that heavy. Normal swords/one handed maces only weigh 0.9-1.3kg (2-3lbs), long swords 1.5-1.6kg (3.5lbs), Polearms anywhere from 1-4kg (2-9lbs) and heavier bludgeoning weapons generally topped out near 7kg (15lbs). Too much more weight in each class and the weapons start to feel unwieldy. Of course there are exceptions, but realistically weapons were light and many could be equipped by a single soldier.

 

[Baltic Marauder]

Spoiler

Am I alone thinking  the current system isn't restrictive enough? Its a bit ridiculous  you can draw a lance from your back. I'd have 3 slots. 1 is a "hand slot", which can carry any weapon/shield, and 2 of them are "holster" slots, for ammo, medium-small shields or  1 handed backup weapons. Would be way more realistic.

Well i agree that you should only be able to carry maybe 1 polearm and have some other restrictions as well, but they all need to be realistic. Knives for example should never count towards total number of weapons. Swords are really easy to carry, and apparently soldiers sometimes had spear, mace and sword as well as shield with them. On cavalry they sometimes in addition had bow and arrows. And i am sure sometimes cavalrymen also carried back up sword on the horse, since swords did sometimes break and swords are easy to carry.

Streltsy carried bardiches, big polearms, and muskets and swords and ammunition and knives. And smaller buckler shields are so small and light that they easily could have also worn those. Same with bayonets (but of course bayonets would have made bardiches obsolete - i am just saying they could have carried them)

I think some people overestimate how weighty medieval weapons actually are. Realistically a normal soldier could carry multiple weapons because they just are not that heavy. Normal swords/one handed maces only weigh 0.9-1.3kg (2-3lbs), long swords 1.5-1.6kg (3.5lbs), Polearms anywhere from 1-4kg (2-9lbs) and heavier bludgeoning weapons generally topped out near 7kg (15lbs). Too much more weight in each class and the weapons start to feel unwieldy. Of course there are exceptions, but realistically weapons were light and many could be equipped by a single soldier.

Its not about weight its about clunkiness. You can't fight with a polearm or pavise strapped to your back. I guess I'm conflating two different topics here though. Keep it at 4, fine, just stop pulling lances and bardiches outta nowhere. There should be a size limit for  what you can stow away without dropping.

 

[Apocal]

Its not about weight its about clunkiness. You can't fight with a polearm or pavise strapped to your back. I guess I'm conflating two different topics here though. Keep it at 4, fine, just stop pulling lances and bardiches outta nowhere. There should be a size limit for  what you can stow away without dropping.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/Lalaing.htm#.WlWqRHQRXqA


Under the agreed-upon terms, the combat was to take place on foot, armed with spear, polaxe, sword, and dagger. At the request of the Scots, the throwing of spears was forbidden. The combat was fought with sharp weapons, and was to continue until stopped by the king. Each combatant was allowed to help his companions.

Jacques and his companions agreed in advance that as soon as the combat began, they would discard their spears and switch to their polaxes. When the combat began, they followed their plan; the Scots retained their spears.

Jacques came against James Douglas (the earl's brother) and swiftly disarmed him, knocking the spear from his grasp. James switched to his polaxe, but Jacques disarmed him again, just as easily. Irate at having lost both his spear and his axe, James drew his dagger and attempted to close, striking repeatedly at Jacques' unarmored face. Jacques held him at bay with his left hand, catching his fingers in the eye-slits of his helmet. Discarding his polaxe, Jacques drew his sword, "...which was a thin estoc, and grasped the blade near the point, so he could use it as a dagger, for he had somehow lost his own." Meanwhile, James had caught hold of his bevor (chin-guard); attempting to thrust at the unarmored palm of James' hand, Jacques lost his sword. Now completely disarmed, Jacques caught his opponent with both hands on his visor, and was in the process of throwing him to the ground when the king stopped the combat.


If the Scots weren't carrying their poleaxes on their backs, the only alternatives would be strapped to the waist like a sword or held in their off-hand, which would be awkward as hell.