Armor lack of effectiveness Devs should consider

[Halvdan]

Armor is ny effective against projectile weapons. This makes very little sense if a shield can completely block an arrow there should be a damage reduction that is significant when wearing late armor of some variety and being shot with an arrow.

It makes Archer units way to overpowered.

And also increases the effectiveness of mounted archers.

Armor bus need to be significantly increased in regards to projectiles.

Armor should also provide glancing blows against melee weapons

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

Agreed.

 

[Halvdan]

Agreed.

I can't imagine this being too hard to implement. If they can create a invincible kahnate with the best troops in the game and unstoppable horse archers you would think they would be able to also make armor have some sort of meaningful value. As it is right now it is merely for aesthetics. Wearing full armor you barely can take any more hits than being naked

 

[five bucks]

+100

Taleworlds should increase the protection of armor against pierce damage by 1.7x.

Then they should increase the pierce damage dealt by most melee weapons 1.7x to compensate; except for spears/pikes, which should have their damage increased by 2.5x.

The end result: Arrows and bolts will be balanced, spears will become useful.

 

[Csatádi]

I expected more complexity of armors.
For example textile and leather barely protecting against thrusts while plate to be far better than mail against them.
Weapons that are better against mail or against unarmored targets.

 

[Farticle]

I don't use bows but I get shot a lot. Does angle and/or momentum matter in the calculation? It would be so cool to be able to turn or bounce arrows with heavy armor.

 

[thomas13]

I expected more complexity of armors.
For example textile and leather barely protecting against thrusts while plate to be far better than mail against them.
Weapons that are better against mail or against unarmored targets.

Not to nit pick but isn't plate supposed to be weak to thrust damage but strong to swing damage? If they do really improve armor Empire units will be very strong.

 

[Count_Morfetico]

I remember someone saying that arrows and spears share the same damage type, so it would be some kind of challenge... nothing impossible I suppose

 

[Csatádi]

Not to nit pick but isn't plate supposed to be weak to thrust damage but strong to swing damage? If they do really improve armor Empire units will be very strong.

Generally, no, plates aren't weak against thrusts. But a lot depends on the type of the weapon. An arrow has less chance to penetrate plate, when it does, the hole is tiny, it won't damage the wearer. Only the pick head of warhammers can do that, if the plate is not too thick.
That's a good example why I expected more detail in armors and weapons.

I wanted to link videos but there are too many factors to consider: bow strength, arrow type, plate thickness and material, padding, and the angle of the shot. And every test video uses very different setups. For example, you can penetrate a brigandine with the proper arrowhead, and using a 160 pound bow, but the typical archers didn't use that strong bows in the 11th century, and the arrow type wasn't invented either. So can it be considered valid? Your choice.

Edit: Most plates in the game are small like scale or brigandine armor, and many of those have a mail layer under them.

 

[thomas13]

Generally, no, plates aren't weak against thrusts. But a lot depends on the type of the weapon. An arrow has less chance to penetrate plate, when it does, the hole is tiny, it won't damage the wearer. Only the pick head of warhammers can do that, if the plate is not too thick.
That's a good example why I expected more detail in armors and weapons.

I wanted to link videos but there are too many factors to consider: bow strength, arrow type, plate thickness and material, padding, and the angle of the shot. And every test video uses very different setups. For example, you can penetrate a brigandine with the proper arrowhead, and using a 160 pound bow, but the typical archers didn't use that strong bows in the 11th century, and the arrow type wasn't invented either. So can it be considered valid? Your choice.

Edit: Most plates in the game are small like scale or brigandine armor, and many of those have a mail layer under them.

That makes sense. I was thinking about one/two handed swords. Then again in this game thrusting damage for swords doesn't matter much in battle because they rarely thrust only swing or chop down. It would make more sense for infantry in formation to thrust more often.

 

[xdj1nn]

Generally, no, plates aren't weak against thrusts. But a lot depends on the type of the weapon. An arrow has less chance to penetrate plate, when it does, the hole is tiny, it won't damage the wearer. Only the pick head of warhammers can do that, if the plate is not too thick.
That's a good example why I expected more detail in armors and weapons.

I wanted to link videos but there are too many factors to consider: bow strength, arrow type, plate thickness and material, padding, and the angle of the shot. And every test video uses very different setups. For example, you can penetrate a brigandine with the proper arrowhead, and using a 160 pound bow, but the typical archers didn't use that strong bows in the 11th century, and the arrow type wasn't invented either. So can it be considered valid? Your choice.

Edit: Most plates in the game are small like scale or brigandine armor, and many of those have a mail layer under them.

well from my researches done over the years, not even the best arrows with the best longbows (200+ pounds) manage to significantly puncture steel plates, taking into account the shaping of armors it's virtually impossible to happen.
Even the pick heads would have trouble puncturing most of the time and when they did the weapon would get stuck (reason why most technique aims towards gaps)

Puncturing works well against chainmail, though. But it ain't a rock paper scizors rule. Chain also protects from puncturing but it depends more on multiple factors than plate, and plate protects against everything except blunt force trauma, which can't be helped (blunt impact's directly dependent on force rather than something measurable like cuts) - most grenade deaths come from the shock which's blunt trauma by air... AIR...
So blunt protection's odd - padding could help, but it would relies much more on technique in the case of medieval warfare as to not let hits connect with full strength - done right you'd survive what would be "fatal blows" if you were distracted.

To me making puncturing work less reliably's enough to be "realistic" and "fun" as it should be in a game though. Yet, cutting from swords to be anywhere near realistic, would do nothing against armored troops.

 

[stevepine]

The depth of this conversation is simply beyond TW. They don't think like this. I know this issue is easily fixable. As five Bucks rightly points out above. .. but to Taleworlds, armour is just a mesh, a texture and then a damage mitigation number. They simply aren't bothered about things like history or realism.

 

[Csatádi]

well from my researches done over the years, not even the best arrows with the best longbows (200+ pounds) manage to significantly puncture steel plates, taking into account the shaping of armors it's virtually impossible to happen.

Breastplates or helmets cannot be punctured by arrows in significant way, but brigandines, and similar armors are made of small plates. They are weaker and can be penetrated.


Steel plate appears only on helmets in BL. Here you can see the guys can puncture the helmet where it has 1 layer, but not at the double layers. Consider these reproductions are made of steel and not iron, while the early-mid medieval helmets were made of the latter material.


Anyway, I think it would be misleading to rely on such tests as a main source when making a fighting system for a game. The general approach is better, so I consider rather what the rich guys used on the battlefield, and what the poor guys. The rich guys had options and personal experience, so what they wore and used must have been effective. But tests can add many details to the general picture, and can debunk misconceptions.

 

[AoC]

Puncturing works well against chainmail, though.

Not really, against proper mail arrrows were very ineffective. What we have in reenactment isn't done using correct techniques (it's A LOT worse), and current arrow tips aren't done with proper techniques either (a lot better). So long story short, top tier mail was very effective against arrows - low tier ones weren't tho.

 

[xdj1nn]

Breastplates or helmets cannot be punctured by arrows in significant way, but brigandines, and similar armors are made of small plates. They are weaker and can be penetrated.


Steel plate appears only on helmets in BL. Here you can see the guys can puncture the helmet where it has 1 layer, but not at the double layers. Consider these reproductions are made of steel and not iron, while the early-mid medieval helmets were made of the latter material.


Anyway, I think it would be misleading to rely on such tests as a main source when making a fighting system for a game. The general approach is better, so I consider rather what the rich guys used on the battlefield, and what the poor guys. The rich guys had options and personal experience, so what they wore and used must have been effective. But tests can add many details to the general picture, and can debunk misconceptions.

you do know that lamellar plates are steel plates right? Same goes for the scales and brigandines - indeed there were some killing punctures there but not all of them - always take into consideration that a person underneath does not present full resistance so the punctures will often not penetrate as much simply because the body leans back - add to it the layering and only the deeper ones would wound significantly. - than there's what Tod himself said which's that that particular armor was (let's be honest it was destroyed) poor quality - to assess properly it's needed to test all varieties of steel quality available at the time which could be used + place the armor on a "bobby" that mimics body movements.

Not really, against proper mail arrrows were very ineffective. What we have in reenactment isn't done using correct techniques (it's A LOT worse), and current arrow tips aren't done with proper techniques either (a lot better). So long story short, top tier mail was very effective against arrows - low tier ones weren't tho.

Those aren't re-enactment - those are reproductions from treatises. There's a reason why mail was eventually "abandoned" / delegated as a under-layer protection - that up there is the reason. - mail was really good at stopping cuts and avoiding puncture from weaker bows or poor quality thrusting weapons - with proper leverage it will get shredded, and it cannot hold against 170+- pounds war bows.

 

[five bucks]

I remember someone saying that arrows and spears share the same damage type, so it would be some kind of challenge... nothing impossible I suppose

Yes they do share the same damage type (pierce), but spears are very underpowered anyway, and need a buff anyway.

So the answer is simple: increase the protection of armor against pierce damage 1.7x (which will nerf arrows/bolts).

then increase the pierce damage by all melee weapons by 1.7x (which will keep their damage the same), except increase the damage of spears 2-3x (so they end up being buffed).

 

[Hans 77]

Taleworlds takes an all-time L on this one.

For nearly 3 years, dedicated and passionate players have been alerting them of a simple problem that needs fixing.

Their response: neglect.

 

[AoC]

you do know that lamellar plates are steel plates right? Same goes for the scales and brigandines - indeed there were some killing punctures there but not all of them - always take into consideration that a person underneath does not present full resistance so the punctures will often not penetrate as much simply because the body leans back - add to it the layering and only the deeper ones would wound significantly. - than there's what Tod himself said which's that that particular armor was (let's be honest it was destroyed) poor quality - to assess properly it's needed to test all varieties of steel quality available at the time which could be used + place the armor on a "bobby" that mimics body movements.




Those aren't re-enactment - those are reproductions from treatises. There's a reason why mail was eventually "abandoned" / delegated as a under-layer protection - that up there is the reason. - mail was really good at stopping cuts and avoiding puncture from weaker bows or poor quality thrusting weapons - with proper leverage it will get shredded, and it cannot hold against 170+- pounds war bows.

Partly, yes. I'm just stating that good quality mail like 6mm one with riveted/forged rings that was tempered is way better than what you have in those videos. It's not perfect and lato medieval down/crossbows were piercing it, but it's not what is in those videos and not what is in the game's period. It was indeed way more efficient to mass-produce plate armor on coat of plates and use mail for joint protection. As i already said, even in period not all mail was the quality one.
People tend to underestimate mail basing it upon current age indian imported pieces that aren't representative.
It's also funny that people underestimate logistic in wars, where in every single it plays a major role.

 

[Csatádi]

you do know that lamellar plates are steel plates right?

Do you know that these words mean exactly this?

brigandines, and similar armors are made of small plates

Except the steel part, because early medieval armor was iron, not steel.

Same goes for the scales and brigandines - indeed there were some killing punctures there but not all of them

Maybe that's why I wrote this:

For example, you can penetrate a brigandine with the proper arrowhead, and using a 160 pound bow, but the typical archers didn't use that strong bows in the 11th century, and the arrow type wasn't invented either.

***

always take into consideration that a person underneath does not present full resistance so the punctures will often not penetrate as much simply because the body leans back

No, an arrow hit doesn't deliver enough energy to the body to lean back, but they can move and turn on a living person, so the angle of the incoming arrow won't be always ideal.

than there's what Tod himself said which's that that particular armor was (let's be honest it was destroyed) poor quality

Early medieval armor often was of poor quality. But again, Tod tested 15th century stuff, not 11th century ones.

to assess properly it's needed to test all varieties of steel quality available at the time which could be used

Which time?
Anyway, do it! I'm interested.

 

[geala]

I don't want to enter the quite superficial armor penetration debate, it's a disillusionizing read, about "plate" being steel (while the majority of plate before the late 14th century being iron), seemingly coupled with the perception that "steel" means carbonized hardened steel (although almost all plate before the 15th century being of mild unhardened steel), or bows being fundamentally unable to penetrate "steel" (it depends a lot of the quality of the material, the thickness, the angle of hitting etc.). I also wonder why the dumb medieval people added plate to mail although the latter was such a good protection against anything.

We cannot take isolated armor penetration tests as a rule for armor effectiveness. We don't have a realistic armor and health system with deflection and total avoidance without penetration, we don't have gaps in the armor, we don't have heat strokes because of armor and diminished mobility because of damaged armor.

So I think five bucks ideas of buffing armor and melee piercing would lead to the best experience in this given system, without using mods and difficult formulas which might work or not.