Arrows vs armor

[Jagati Khan]

I am not sure arrows take armor into account at all currently I might be wrong here but it certainly feels this way.
When in melee armor can reduce the damage of my attacks drastically and should be the same for ranged attacks.
Currently seems that every arrow penetrates your armor no matter what same goes for arrows hitting armored horses.

 

[decourcy]

Also javelins, oh dear god, the javelins.

 

[KaelusVonSestiaf]

There are three damage types in the game.
Cutting, Bludgeoning & piercing. Cutting gets affected the most by armor, bludgeoning ignores part of it (and only causes wounds, never lethal) and piercing ignores most of it.

Piercing damage comes from thrusts, stabs and most ranged weapons.

They def take armor into account, they just ignore huge portions of it.

 

[Jagati Khan]

There are three damage types in the game.
Cutting, Bludgeoning & piercing. Cutting gets affected the most by armor, bludgeoning ignores part of it (and only causes wounds, never lethal) and piercing ignores most of it.

Piercing damage comes from thrusts, stabs and most ranged weapons.

They def take armor into account, they just ignore huge portions of it.

I understand the different damage types it just feels like arrows are completely ignoring armor maybe pierce from arrows should be reduced slightly.
Archery is just a bit too effective or armor is not effective enough mail and plate on my horse for example really doesn't feel like it makes enough of a difference.

 

[Bob Gnarly]

Maybe they should make arrows do cut damage to reduce their effectiveness against heavy armor. Keep crossbow bolts as piercing so there's actually a reason to choose crossbows over bows?

Just a thought

 

[Mountainhorse]

Armors in Bannerlord are just too weak.

 

[JustinTime49]

Maybe they should make arrows do cut damage to reduce their effectiveness against heavy armor. Keep crossbow bolts as piercing so there's actually a reason to choose crossbows over bows?

Just a thought

+1
I believe it was like this in WB, but now we have crossbows doing blunt damage and arrows pierce.

 

[Agroplode]

TW dont listen, there are post from day 1 and even from mp beta days about arrows being to strong. (and javelins)

 

[kweassa]

Try making a record of which distances, you get shot at.


There are a lot of things to consider here, but in a vast majority of cases, you're shot at from a distance where the arrow would indeed, duly protect leather, mail, and even scale. High-grade lamellar might endure, but with multiple shots enough damage done to the armor would gradually increase the chances of a decisive penetration.

Another thing to consider, is the amount of armored troops we have in the game. It's rare for the AI, but a player can basically horde a 300-man army armed to the teeth with very high-level armor if one chooses to do so. Filling up your entire ranks with max-tier Imperial legionaries isn't too difficult. So, do we just allow that in the game as a 300-man troop impervious to any normal arrow fire?

AS MUCH as the arrows do unrealistically damage in many cases, it's done in relation to balance. If you want realistic chances of armor blocking arrows even in closer ranges, as well realistic level of equipment given to most archers, then at the same time the game would have to implement some sort of "realistic" balancers -- the most prevalent, would be a need to limit the number of certain high-tier troops from your party. This means your favorite compositions of stuff like 150 Fians or 200 legionaries, would be made impossible by some sort of restriction (unrealistic amount of people with super-high level weapons and armor gathered).

Do you really want that? Think carefully.

 

[Agroplode]

Its not balance when an arrow and javelin do more damage to me than the guy im fighting in melee.

 

[Apocal]

I am not sure arrows take armor into account at all currently I might be wrong here but it certainly feels this way.
When in melee armor can reduce the damage of my attacks drastically and should be the same for ranged attacks.
Currently seems that every arrow penetrates your armor no matter what same goes for arrows hitting armored horses.

Armor has far less soak against pierce damage, which arrows and bolts do. That's why it feels like it has such a muted effect -- because it does. I don't know why they selected those values and if they are representative of the effectiveness they envison for the game, but in the meantime there is the mod "Armor Does Something."

 

[Jagati Khan]

Try making a record of which distances, you get shot at.


There are a lot of things to consider here, but in a vast majority of cases, you're shot at from a distance where the arrow would indeed, duly protect leather, mail, and even scale. High-grade lamellar might endure, but with multiple shots enough damage done to the armor would gradually increase the chances of a decisive penetration.

Another thing to consider, is the amount of armored troops we have in the game. It's rare for the AI, but a player can basically horde a 300-man army armed to the teeth with very high-level armor if one chooses to do so. Filling up your entire ranks with max-tier Imperial legionaries isn't too difficult. So, do we just allow that in the game as a 300-man troop impervious to any normal arrow fire?

AS MUCH as the arrows do unrealistically damage in many cases, it's done in relation to balance. If you want realistic chances of armor blocking arrows even in closer ranges, as well realistic level of equipment given to most archers, then at the same time the game would have to implement some sort of "realistic" balancers -- the most prevalent, would be a need to limit the number of certain high-tier troops from your party. This means your favorite compositions of stuff like 150 Fians or 200 legionaries, would be made impossible by some sort of restriction (unrealistic amount of people with super-high level weapons and armor gathered).

Do you really want that? Think carefully.

lol i just want arrows to lose some of this piercing damage thats all as for balance its EA still plenty of tweaking to do.

 

[Agroplode]

I tried that mod a few days ago but im not sure its right for me, he did leave the damage untouched for the javelins. I think he also removed the blunt Tournament arrows that I use to farm bandits. I liked the shield being destroyed, if that is the same mod. (but not when clearing sea raider hideout and they all got javelins lol)

 

[Nickname]

Maybe they should make arrows do cut damage to reduce their effectiveness against heavy armor. Keep crossbow bolts as piercing so there's actually a reason to choose crossbows over bows?

Just a thought

Of course different arrows should do different type of damage. Standard flesh-cutter head is devastating against unarmored and is also good against padded armor. Be it arrows or bolts, doesn't matter. Against chainmail you need bodkin points, which can pierce to some degree. However they do less damage against unarmored/gambeson.



Against thick plate armor parts all kinds of arrows should just bounce. But anyway there are gaps, we don't have 15th century full plate, so the rain of arrows still would be dangerous.

 

[Jagati Khan]

Of course different arrows should do different type of damage. Standard flesh-cutter head is devastating against unarmored and is also good against padded armor. Be it arrows or bolts, doesn't matter. Against chainmail you need bodkin points, which can pierce to some degree. However they do less damage against unarmored/gambeson.



Against thick plate armor parts all kinds of arrows should just bounce. But anyway there are gaps, we don't have 15th century full plate, so the rain of arrows still would be dangerous.

Agreed which is why i just want arrows scaled back a little and armor should have a chance to defelect them.

 

[bestmods168]

Arrow vs armor

 

[kweassa]

lol i just want arrows to lose some of this piercing damage thats all as for balance its EA still plenty of tweaking to do.

But they do.

Arrows that would normally deal me around 30+ damage from Forest Bandits, tend to do around 15 at a distance of 80~90 plus. Not to mention a close-range arrows test done clearly shows how much armor reduces the arrow damage.

ie.) With a noble bow and piercing arrow -- (the most powerful combo in game except for noble long bow + piercing), a headshot at distance of less than 10m does over 100 damage and kills instantly, when you test it out at bandit hideouts, after killing the boss, shooting at his entourage standing behind him. However, in case of certain sea raiders with high-quality helmets, he actually survives a head shot. Log indicates something like 49 damage absorbed.

It's a misconception that armor does nothing to arrows. Armor clearly absorbs a lot of damage. The problem is, we tend to remember only the instances where we receive super-high damage, and forget all the rest of the times when we've received nominal damage thanks to armor.

It's called "selective memory." It's very misleading, which is why recording/documenting helps to debunk such confusions.


The only real problem with arrows, is that certain high-level armor should have a considerable chance to do 0 damage - actual deflection - instead of just receiving reduced damage. But other than this, in most cases, the damage we receive from arrows are from relatively close range, under 50m. Those DO penetrate, as it should.

 

[Agroplode]

You are the one making up stuff to make your view correct! We dont have selective memory! Its not true that arrows pierce armor! Only in this game it does, in fact even stones make to much damage on high tier armor, looters can kill you after you spent all your money on armor!

 

[chemical_art]

Looters throw rocks, which is blunt damage. That damage most ignores armor. I somewhat understand the logic (rocks don't cut). But while technically incorrect I feel the cut damage actually is more appropriate in practice since even rocks launched from slingers would bounce off heavier armor no sweat.

 

[Jagati Khan]

But they do.

Arrows that would normally deal me around 30+ damage from Forest Bandits, tend to do around 15 at a distance of 80~90 plus. Not to mention a close-range arrows test done clearly shows how much armor reduces the arrow damage.

ie.) With a noble bow and piercing arrow -- (the most powerful combo in game except for noble long bow + piercing), a headshot at distance of less than 10m does over 100 damage and kills instantly, when you test it out at bandit hideouts, after killing the boss, shooting at his entourage standing behind him. However, in case of certain sea raiders with high-quality helmets, he actually survives a head shot. Log indicates something like 49 damage absorbed.

It's a misconception that armor does nothing to arrows. Armor clearly absorbs a lot of damage. The problem is, we tend to remember only the instances where we receive super-high damage, and forget all the rest of the times when we've received nominal damage thanks to armor.

It's called "selective memory." It's very misleading, which is why recording/documenting helps to debunk such confusions.


The only real problem with arrows, is that certain high-level armor should have a considerable chance to do 0 damage - actual deflection - instead of just receiving reduced damage. But other than this, in most cases, the damage we receive from arrows are from relatively close range, under 50m. Those DO penetrate, as it should.

I state in my OP i maybe wrong pal i know what selective memory is and confirmation bias etc.
Also already stated that armor should have a chance to deflect arrows the fact that every arrow penetrates is just wrong.

@chemical_art don't even get me started on thrown rocks lol slings would at least make more sense.