Arrow realism

[Ychop]

Hey Guy,
latley i watched a Video on Youtube, where some Guys tested the impact of an Arrow to an Plate/iron Amour.
Before i saw the Video i thought that Arrow can easily pierce armour, but i've proven wrong, so much for that ...

So i thought how it is in Bannerlord?
I belive that there the arrow/the Archer are pretty Strong and CAN pirece Plate Amour(or at least the Imperial Lammelar Armour).
I haven't tested or saw any Plate Armour in the game yet, but i think the arrow would also go through it easily.
So i would ask you Guys what do you think about it? Should it be harder for an Archer to Fight against a fully Platearmoured Guy, or should it be as it is right now?
In my Opinion i would like it to be a bit harder, so you a froced to aim at the weak point of the armour as Archer.
let me hear your opinion about it, i'm curious!

the Video i saw:


PS: sorry for my english im no native speak <3

 

[Premu]

You need to find a good balance between realism and game mechhanics.

One problem with full realism would be, that heavy armor would turn arrows almost completly harmless, making a large group of troops useless. Unless one of them lands a lucky shot in one of those small gaps which immediately kills you of course - just like in the video, in which the first shot while technically a miss just goes below the breastplate and pierces the chainmail under it as if it was made of butter.

Such a high degree of realism would not make fun gameplay. If some late game units or the player turn almost completely immune against arrows (and swords, spears and all other kind of cutting or piercing weapons), it would completely throw off former combat techniques which were useful and could also lead to removing all challenge from the player.

Armor is already phenomal important in Mount & Blade. The difference between wearing just some clothes and a full lamellar armor is massive. In my opinion this is a good enough abstraction.

 

[Ychop]

Such a high degree of realism would not make fun gameplay. If some late game units or the player turn almost completely immune against arrows (and swords, spears and all other kind of cutting or piercing weapons), it would completely throw off former combat techniques which were useful and could also lead to removing all challenge from the player.

Yeah you right, it would make much less fun for some people , but still i think it would add a bit more rougue-like elements. And that is defenitly a matter of taste
maybe someday there will be a mod for it, this would be also totally fine if you asked me

Armor is already phenomal important in Mount & Blade. The difference between wearing just some clothes and a full lamellar armor is massive. In my opinion this is a good enough abstraction.

i've not seen too much of a diffrence, a friend of mine and I had pretty good armour and were killed easly by Stones( but i think they have fixed it already if i'm not wrong)

 

[Ted Striker]

Arrow can definitely pierce armor (look at Agincourt, which that channel also explained) but only in certain conditions and depending on the armor and arrow. For instance, a lot of speculation is that the french knights were shot in the sides where the armor isn't nearly as effective at stopping arrows, and it's possible shards and shrapnel from shattered arrows on impact could possibly cause some damage.

For the most part though I think arrows are entirely too effective in this game vs armor. They shouldn't just pierce heavy armor from the front unless it's specific arrows shot from very high strength bows, but this game doesn't make you replenish your supply of arrows so a one-time purchase of the armor-piercing variety is all you'd need.

Same with most melee weapons. It makes blunt weapons and weapons designed vs heavy armor not worth using. Shouldn't be able to slash at someone in heavy plate armor with a sword and expect to do much to them, but a mace or warhammer? That's what they're for. Shorter reach but the perfect weapon to use vs a walking tank impervious to your sword and arrows. What, you're an archer with a sword only? You didn't plan ahead enough. Just run away.

Stones are the worst offenders!

 

[Ychop]

For the most part though I think arrows are entirely too effective in this game vs armor. They shouldn't just pierce heavy armor from the front unless it's specific arrows shot from very high strength bows, but this game doesn't make you replenish your supply of arrows so a one-time purchase of the armor-piercing variety is all you'd need.

Same with most melee weapons. It makes blunt weapons and weapons designed vs heavy armor not worth using. Shouldn't be able to slash at someone in heavy plate armor with a sword and expect to do much to them, but a mace or warhammer? That's what they're for. Shorter reach but the perfect weapon to use vs a walking tank impervious to your sword and arrows. What, you're an archer with a sword only? You didn't plan ahead enough. Just run away.

that sound very Intresting, to mind not only Arrows, but also meele Weapons have a diffrent impact to Stronge/weaker Amour would give the game a LOT i would say. very good idea, much appriciate.

 

[Staal]

There isn't any plate armour in this game. The era of this game is more chainmail. To my mind, plate armour denotes very high quality steel armour from the high/late medieval period that, yes, was practically impervious to arrows. The only way to stop a guy in full plate was to break something using blunt force trauma with a heavy weapon or somehow get through under the armpit/visor with a blade. The armour itself was pretty close to impervious.

 

[Herofellas]

If you make a good search on this you will see arrows has the same effects as a bullet so nothing stops it only the very high-density objects such as sandbags.

 

[Tajl]

If you make a good search on this you will see arrows has the same effects as a bullet so nothing stops it only the very high-density objects such as sandbags.

Difference between arrow and bullet is speed. With medieval bows 70m/s is close to max speed for arrows while rifle bullet travels ~1000m/s. That speed difference is huge and that is why even early firearms could penetrate armors that bows couldn't. Bows doesn't work against plate. Never worked in history and shouldn't work in game.

 

[Ted Striker]

There isn't any plate armour in this game. The era of this game is more chainmail. To my mind, plate armour denotes very high quality steel armour from the high/late medieval period that, yes, was practically impervious to arrows. The only way to stop a guy in full plate was to break something using blunt force trauma with a heavy weapon or somehow get through under the armpit/visor with a blade. The armour itself was pretty close to impervious.

I'm hoping mods change that. I much much prefer late medieval and early renaissance. Warband had mods for it and I'm sure Bannerlord will too.

Armor sucks in this game no matter what it is though. Slashing swords vs chainmail should do pretty much the same as arrows vs plate, IE not much. Bodkin arrows were great against it and of course any blunt trauma weapon like a mace, but slashing swords weren't at all, and in this early medieval period that's what swords were. They were not 15th and 16th century thrusting swords that could find their way through the links.

Chainmail was heavy and unwieldy but excellent vs swords of the time.

This game is ahistoric when it comes to these things too. Voulge and glaive were mid to late medieval weapons, not early post-Roman weapons, so plate armor can easily be added without messing up any historical context that isn't already messed up.

 

[Staal]

I'm hoping mods change that. I much much prefer late medieval and early renaissance. Warband had mods for it and I'm sure Bannerlord will too.

Armor sucks in this game no matter what it is though. Slashing swords vs chainmail should do pretty much the same as arrows vs plate, IE not much. Bodkin arrows were great against it and of course any blunt trauma weapon like a mace, but slashing swords weren't at all, and in this early medieval period that's what swords were. They were not 15th and 16th century thrusting swords that could find their way through the links.

Chainmail was heavy and unwieldy but excellent vs swords of the time.

This game is ahistoric when it comes to these things too. Voulge and glaive were mid to late medieval weapons, not early post-Roman weapons.

I've always hoped a game like this would move away from the generic health bar. As you say, armour should be better in general. It should however degrade as it is hit, but damage to your character that determines being wounded/dead should not be about how many times you get hit.

But you could get hit once by a halberd on the head and be out of the fight regardless of armour.

 

[lcmiracle]

There are lamellar armors in the game for Empire. Not quite the iconic Loric Segmentata but nevertheless were made of overlapping metal plates. Somehow they've got about the same armor values as the best imperial mail. Would really like to see actually segmentata though.
Also IMO we should really be allowed to use cuirasses and maybe even "musculatas". Let's just say some rich people really liked the old imperial armors and had they repaired/reproduced with improved iron or whatnot.

 

[Morbo513]

Currently, arrows and bolts deliver piercing damage, which negates a fixed proportion of armour protection - So the wearer of a plate or a gambeson, which for argument's sake have the same armour value, will receieve the same amount of damage from the same projectile. I don't think this is reasonable or even fair - Heavily armoured troops are just as susceptible to ranged weaponry as peasants, if we ignore the difference made by armour values which is negligible due to the properties of the piercing damage-type.

In my opinion, the most simple yet most comprehensive way to address this is damage thresholds. For an arrow or bolt to be a danger to the wearer of any given type of armour, it first needs to penetrate that armour. Doing so takes energy from the projectile or weapon impinging on it, and if successful will reduce or potentially nullify the damage it might otherwise have delivered. This would allow for a greater diversity in armour types than what's currently possible with the values of armour vs weight alone.

 

[Ted Striker]

I've always hoped a game like this would move away from the generic health bar. As you say, armour should be better in general. It should however degrade as it is hit, but damage to your character that determines being wounded/dead should not be about how many times you get hit.

But you could get hit once by a halberd on the head and be out of the fight regardless of armour.

which would open up terrific opportunities for the smithing skill, NPC smiths and smithy workshops.

Armor being terrible in this game also means weapon choice pretty much comes down to reach, speed and damage. Does anyone really take into account cut, pierce or blunt? No, there's no need. Your elongated slashing sword can deal with a highly armored foe easier than a shorter reach mace because damage is borked. Takes a few more hits yes but it's easy.

 

[almightycricket]

Hey Guy,
latley i watched a Video on Youtube, where some Guys tested the impact of an Arrow to an Plate/iron Amour.
Before i saw the Video i thought that Arrow can easily pierce armour, but i've proven wrong, so much for that ...

So i thought how it is in Bannerlord?
I belive that there the arrow/the Archer are pretty Strong and CAN pirece Plate Amour(or at least the Imperial Lammelar Armour).
I haven't tested or saw any Plate Armour in the game yet, but i think the arrow would also go through it easily.
So i would ask you Guys what do you think about it? Should it be harder for an Archer to Fight against a fully Platearmoured Guy, or should it be as it is right now?
In my Opinion i would like it to be a bit harder, so you a froced to aim at the weak point of the armour as Archer.
let me hear your opinion about it, i'm curious!

the Video i saw:


PS: sorry for my english im no native speak <3

Mod for that here.

 

[Herofellas]

Difference between arrow and bullet is speed. With medieval bows 70m/s is close to max speed for arrows while rifle bullet travels ~1000m/s. That speed difference is huge and that is why even early firearms could penetrate armors that bows couldn't. Bows doesn't work against plate. Never worked in history and shouldn't work in game.

First of all there are no plate armors in the game second I have seen an arrow penetrate a hard surface like it's going in a block of butter, surely it was way more faster than 70m/s )))

 

[kekkuli5]

What is this op about though? There is no late medieval plate armor in this game. I have seen tests made against lamellar and it can protect you from most arrows, but at very close strange with sufficiently strong bow it can sometimes be penetrated or the arrow might just come from a nasty angle and go in between the plates.

First of all there are no plate armors in the game second I have seen an arrow penetrate a hard surface like it's going in a block of butter, surely it was way more faster than 70m/s )))

And no arrow couldn't really penetrate any real plate armor unless it was extra poor quality armor and even then it's unlikely it would actually penetrate enough to hurt you. And yeah 70 m/s is pretty realistic, in fact it could be even lower depending on the draw weight of the bow.

 

[Tork789]

If we go full realism then any class except heavy cav would literally be unplayable, at least in multiplayer, since there wouldn't be enough mass and coordination in infantry and archer formations to oppose it.

 

[VincentNZ]

Yeah this is a classic case where game mechanics have to trump authenticity. Armour already does give quite the protection especially at further ranges. There is always room for tweaking, but in the grand scheme of things they did well.

 

[mr_nifty]

that sound very Intresting, to mind not only Arrows, but also meele Weapons have a diffrent impact to Stronge/weaker Amour would give the game a LOT i would say. very good idea, much appriciate.

I honestly also like this. Obviously you would adjust the game so not everyone everywhere is running around in full plate - it also wouldn't fit in with the time period anyway - but it'd be fun to make the game a just a bit more tactical (although it is already relatively good). I would like to see the requirement of having to buy more arrows/javs/ranger ammo at times in game. Maybe not a whole quiver every time, but maybe you can buy something like bulk of arrows or javs or some kinda ranged supplies, and you top up your own from that.

 

[Van der Auwera Jurgen]

Agincourt was won because of difficult terrain, horses got stuck in, the arrows weren't the problem, but in the chaos the English archers killed off the knights with their cludgels. Also the Armour wasn't as fluted as a late 15th century armour is. It's the fluting or correct bending of Armour that makes the arrow not pierce through. So it should penetrate lamellar or brigandines without any problem for it is not as effective against arrows as a fluted Armour like a Gothic one.