- Best answers
Good thread. Support.
Well like I said multiple times, go do the arena and try and beat a noble's head in with the sword (do Imperial arenas). It takes a long long time. The reason you'd want a mace, is because mace works on nobles and peasants, whereas swords only really work on peasants.But they werent. They were self defense weapon and side arms. Swords were not battlefield weapons. Polearms always were go to weapon for poopy pesants and noble warriors.
Spears, lances, poleaxes, polehammers, halberds, pikes
But i like the idea of swords to be really popular in game, becouse they look cool and very fun to play with and against. So i am totaly fine with popular swords in the game.
Cuts can be good against lots of lightly armored opponents, becouse cuts can be much faster.
I dont like current system, becouse it makes any weapon exept swingeble polearm or swords kinda useless. Why do i need mace if i can oneshot everything with sword?
Well there's different points in history and different armies. At some points swords were status symbols, and at some points they were standard issue.Swords were first of all very very expensive and thus a symbol of status and position. They were of course useful to some degree, especially against not so strongly armoured targets, mainly because of their good handling and balancing compared to the cheaper weapons of the normal soldier. For a plate armour you'd probably have chosen a war hammer with a piercing end, or a pointy spear for the weak spots.
For me there is no reason to depart from that in Bannerlord. If you give swords those advantages and make them expensive, you would introduce a balance that gets near to history without sacrificing the fun part. You could also introduce some kind of fame or renown for carrying an expensive sword, for example.
I think people misunderstood the context of "good" I never said swords were good against heavy armour. I meant good as in useful. I want swords to have a use in this game, but people are proposing damage models that'll just make them worse than they are already.You answered your own question, they were popular because they were easy to carry and draw when your main weapon was unavailable. Swords were, as a battlefield weapon, nothing more than a backup in the vast majority of cases, and they were only used when things went wrong in some way.
There are, as always, exceptions to that, but that's the general rule you see in history. It's not that swords were just so good that they were common, they were just easy to wear and handy for self defense.
In the arena there are some garbage swords, even spear in the face does almost no damage.Well like I said multiple times, go do the arena and try and beat a noble's head in with the sword (do Imperial arenas). It takes a long long time. The reason you'd want a mace, is because mace works on nobles and peasants, whereas swords only really work on peasants.
I switched out my knightly arming sword (T6) for a fullered mace (T5) to test this in the field, and the mace is doing more damage to nobles than the sword did, so it's working correctly despite being a tier lower. If you're going to complain about maces, complain about their length because the damage is fine.In the arena there are some garbage swords, even spear in the face does almost no damage.
My 1h sword can oneshot everyone in the head, and my 2h sword can oneshot everyone in the body.
So what is the reason to pick mace?
This is not the point he made. You see on the current armour balance if you can doo less damage but still 1shot with headshot using sword or do more damage but still 1shot using mace there is no point using mace.the mace is doing more damage to nobles than the sword did,
Do the sword oneshots happen on realistic difficulty?This is not the point he made. You see on the current armour balance if you can doo less damage but still 1shot with headshot using sword or do more damage but still 1shot using mace there is no point using mace.
Reg tiering - it is automatically assigned basing on weapons stats (mostly damage) so its hard to compare them as maces according to games logic would never technically get "t6" assigned
Yes, vanilla difficulty only affects your own / your allies damage, not enemies but despite that when i am testing its always realisticDo the sword oneshots happen on realistic difficulty?
This depends on the sword. If i compare t5 sword to t4 mace vs armored troop of empire i get the following result:Specifics aside, I've been using exclusively swords as my 1h weapon. Only started using mace to test them out, and I found they're performing better against armour than swords do. So that's working as intended right? If a 1h mace does better body damage, and you need 1-2 strikes. That's better than a sword that might always need 2 strikes.
Nobody is going to open their inventory and swap a sword in to fight looters, they're just going to have a mace equipped 24/7 because the mace will work well enough against bandits and peasants, because they're bandits and peasants. You know I'm right.Fighting lightly armored or unarmored bandits and peasants? Use cutting weapons like sabers and rapiers to inflict maximum damage above the low or absent threshold. Fighting heavily armored knights with your strong companions? Switch to maces and hammers, because those sabers won't have nearly as much effect.
Yup, like I said earlier, the problem with maces is the range.Yes, vanilla difficulty only affects your own / your allies damage, not enemies but despite that when i am testing its always realistic
This depends on the sword. If i compare t5 sword to t4 mace vs armored troop of empire i get the following result:
Sword vs mace test
And i did not pick the strongest sword out there. Test was done on fine steel long kaskana (78 cut 113 range t5) vs steel shestopyor (63 damage mace, best of its tier). 2 damage will never justify loss of 50 range.
Remember that this game has 1h swords that can reach over 100 damage, even more if you craft with smithing. That is the reason we say current balance is all over the place
There might be a difference on extremely armored troops (like Empire leaders ie. Lucon etc) or Legionnaire. But then again having a weapon that is slightly better vs 5% of troop types (in damage because we always suffer on range with maces) hardly justifies usage.
Now i want to stress it out - i want maces to be viable but the game makes it really hard to like them