Bannerlord Armor System as a bottleneck for tactical gameplay

Currently viewing this thread:

Please take your advice and stick it to yourself.



On contrary, I choose great example: French cavalry charges English archers, French cavalry die, your argument about rock-paper-scissors goes up in flames. Hence your desperate personal attack above.
If you want to engage in academic discussions then please follow the accepted format. You need to prove your claims.

I claim that the english won Crecy because of submarines.
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
This said they didn't deliver large concussive force. You are not going to knock out a heavily armored opponent with blunt force impact from an arrow, it just isn't going to impact forcefully enough. Arrows penetrate because the force is localized and channeled to the pointed tip, which is why a sharp pin requires little force to push through your hand. Bullets have vastly greater velocity (breaking the sound barrier) than an arrow and even then soldiers are often able to maintain consciousness after a strike to the head that glances off and does not penetrate their helmet, although admittedly they do sometimes get knocked out as well and a barrage of such strikes to a helmet will knock out or even kill a soldier, it is decidedly harder to deliver such a barrage via arrows that are not as impactful. With the advent of later heavy armour Polearms were purpose built to do just this, deliver repeated blunt force and spiked strikes to armour that can deliver trauma to the wearer without even having to puncture the armour. You could knock them down or kill them without ever having to find a means of penetrating their armour. Knocking them out was also advantageous because important knights could then be ransomed. It was often favorable not to kill well armored opponents because it was known that they were wealthy and could be valuable as prisoners.

Blunt trauma is nothing more then energy distributed over area. So again, it does not matter what weight weapon have, it only matters what energy it carries. Smaller mass object with higher velocity will do just as much blunt damage as larger mass object traveling at slower velocity.

And then it's down to how well will armor distribute that energy. Plate will do it very well, distributing energy over large area, unless it cracks or deforms catastrophically. On the other hand been hit by a arrow fired from a war bow wearing just chainmail will break ribs, even if it will not penetrate. Chain mail is bad at distributing energy over larger area and most of the energy will get transferred on point.

Then of course one can wear padding in form of say gambeson under chain mail, so that will help.

But in principle, spear is no more or les effective in delivering blunt trauma then an arrow. It's just an object traveling at speed and impacting another object. No difference between the two.

Of course not all bows and arrows are the same and neither are all spears and hands that trust them. I am not arguing about all weapons in the game to have the same damage, I am arguing that damage calculation should be the same.

When shot at an arch the velocity of the arrow has an upper limit and even at close range where the transferred force of impact will be the largest, angled steel armor can deflect arrows very well by transferring the energy in another direction. Angled armor deflected those arrows directing them so that they did not pierce.

Armor is angled in all directions. Spear trust can get deflected as easily as arrow can if it does not hit square. Than again, chainmail is not going to deflect as well as plate can.

Here you can see how circa Hundred Years War plate armor deflects/stops arrows that are been shoot from a powerful war bow in a strait line:

 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
You guys are talking about real historical battle tactics but are forgetting that this engine lacks one major aspect that is inherent to ALL Warfare - everyone knows where everyone is at all times!! Meaning this game lacks a proper line of sight "find your hidden or approaching enemy" mechanic. Flanking has no subterfuge value when you hide your guys on the side of a hill approaching the enemy area as the archers all know your there. This simply cant be overlooked and its nothing but a willing suspension of disbelief that have any of you intrigued or thinking different

Had this been implemented there would be naturally created avenues to counter enemy archers at least on some terrains
 
Please people, stop bringing "historical" points and arguments. We have been through this road already. Simplify your argument and think of "gameplay" first.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
I don't think nerfing archers is the solution. Archers were pretty damn OP in their time.

I'm fine with archers but we need the means to eliminate them like ordering cavalry to charge...or actually having a flanking force that works.
The reason flanking forces don't really work is that archers kill them fast enough that you lose more men trying to get to the flanks than you do just going hey-fiddle-diddle, straight up the middle. Even with a protected flanking force (e.g. approaching through deadspace), you wind up losing so many troops from your center that the archers can just swing to meet the flankers.
You guys are talking about real historical battle tactics but are forgetting that this engine lacks one major aspect that is inherent to ALL Warfare - everyone knows where everyone is at all times!! Meaning this game lacks a proper line of sight "find your hidden or approaching enemy" mechanic. Flanking has no subterfuge value when you hide your guys on the side of a hill approaching the enemy area as the archers all know your there. This simply cant be overlooked and its nothing but a willing suspension of disbelief that have any of you intrigued or thinking different

Had this been implemented there would be naturally created avenues to counter enemy archers at least on some terrains
There are already lots of approaches you can make against archers where they can't hit you. The AI is occasionally even smart enough to use them. But it doesn't matter because being outflanked doesn't have the any morale effect on the archers. They'll calmly turn, loose arrows and then dive into melee.

Usually win too, because of the way the unit skills build by tier.
 

eddiemccandless

Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
Without hyperbole: armor in native Warband (and almost every mod thereafter) scaled up to 97-100% mitigation on damage. Right now, in Bannerlord the absolute best you can get in terms of mitigation is ~89%. Those numbers look fairly close but the felt difference is Bannerlord hits you about ten times as hard as Warband and most of its mods, assuming top-tier protection in both. See the complaints about looter rocks doing 9-12 damage instead of Warband's bandits hitting for 0-1 (leaning a lot more towards 0).

I am having a hard time figuring out where you are getting those numbers from. I don't think the Warband part at least is accurate. Rhodok Sharpshooters can and will kill a player in full endgame armor fairly quickly, if you could get to 97% they would slowly chip at you (same for Vaegir Marksmen). As far as Bannerlord goes, assuming that this damage model is accurate, I don't see where you are getting the 89%.

From that same thread:
The formula can be divided cleanly into two parts. The first part (100/(100+armour)) is essentially a percentage reduction, and a weak one at that. With 50 armour ( a decent amount to have by the late mid game), this is a 33% reduction. With 60 armour (close to being the best you can get), it's 37.5% reduction. These figures are very low when you compare them to other games. Early ID software games, for instance, had armour ranging from 50% to 80% protection, and even then, they didn't make you feel invulnerable.
The second part is integer damage reduction. This is the main thing that protects you from cut and pierce damage. However, for blunt damage it's completely absent! This means that no matter how much armour you've cheated onto your character, you'll never be fully protected from people flinging 3 damage pebbles.

I guess when it comes to cut damage according to those calculations you would get to 37.5 + 45 = 82.5% reduction for cut, and 62.5% for pierce. Is that what you were thinking? Or are you considering higher numbers for the armor?
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
The reason flanking forces don't really work is that archers kill them fast enough that you lose more men trying to get to the flanks than you do just going hey-fiddle-diddle, straight up the middle.

Flanking certainly do work. Archers are very inaccurate at range and as long as your flanking force is moving forward to the flanks at reasonable distance, they won't get much damage. More so cavalry as archery is even more inaccurate against fast moving targets.

Even with a protected flanking force (e.g. approaching through deadspace), you wind up losing so many troops from your center that the archers can just swing to meet the flankers.

There are two flanks and a center and they can't face more then one direction. It's a trivial thing to divide your cavalry force in to at last two groups a coordinate their attack. You can even use one group as a distraction, sending it across the enemy flank making AI archers turn and waste arrows at a fast moving target while hitting them with another group. Then just send the distracting force in from the other side. Plus you can shieldwall your cavalry before charging them and it will actually work.

Then again, if you have at last some infantry with shields, you can send them in to engage AI archers in a shieldwall and send cavalry from flanks without need to worry about any arrow fire.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
I am having a hard time figuring out where you are getting those numbers from. I don't think the Warband part at least is accurate. Rhodok Sharpshooters can and will kill a player in full endgame armor fairly quickly, if you could get to 97% they would slowly chip at you (same for Vaegir Marksmen).
"Up to" as in the maximum ever, e.g. a player in Lordly Plate Armor vs. the cleaver that some bandits used. There were units that could do more damage but the majority of the complaints regarding armor aren't that high-tier units can do some damage but that low-tier units do way too much. Obviously some people feel some other way, but that seems to be agreed by everyone.

(Which is why looter rocks keep coming up in these discussions.)

As far as Bannerlord goes, assuming that this damage model is accurate, I don't see where you are getting the 89%.

From that same thread:

I guess when it comes to cut damage according to those calculations you would get to 37.5 + 45 = 82.5% reduction for cut, and 62.5% for pierce. Is that what you were thinking? Or are you considering higher numbers for the armor?
I was thinking higher numbers, yeah. Right now on 1.5.9, I think the highest body armor you get is 57+20 but I remembered higher values in previous versions. Plus napkin math, so it might be a bit off. It doesn't change my point though -- plate was extremely protective in Warband (all those 0-point hits) and you can't get anything like that in Bannerlord.
 

eddiemccandless

Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
"Up to" as in the maximum ever, e.g. a player in Lordly Plate Armor vs. the cleaver that some bandits used. There were units that could do more damage but the majority of the complaints regarding armor aren't that high-tier units can do some damage but that low-tier units do way too much. Obviously some people feel some other way, but that seems to be agreed by everyone.

(Which is why looter rocks keep coming up in these discussions.)


I was thinking higher numbers, yeah. Right now on 1.5.9, I think the highest body armor you get is 57+20 but I remembered higher values in previous versions. Plus napkin math, so it might be a bit off. It doesn't change my point though -- plate was extremely protective in Warband (all those 0-point hits) and you can't get anything like that in Bannerlord.
Ok, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to be semi invulnerable against the weakest weapon in the game when in end game armor. If I am wearing armor and someone tries to stab me with a toothpick I expect not to die, otherwise what is even the point 😁

Edit: ok I think I might have misread you. From your previous post I got the impression that you think armor is fine as it is, but reading this one better maybe I was mistaken.
 
Last edited:

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
Edit: ok I think I might have misread you. From your previous post I got the impression that you think armor is fine as it is, but reading this one better maybe I was mistaken.
I do not think armor is in a good place in Bannerlord. I was just trying to leave exaggeration out of the post. My preference is for high-tier armor to be largely invulnerable to low-tier weapons, regardless of damage type. And that protection would include the armor worn by tier 5+ troops.

High-tier troops should meet large masses of low-tier troops in the same way a lawnmower meets unruly grass.
 
Please people, stop bringing "historical" points and arguments. We have been through this road already. Simplify your argument and think of "gameplay" first.
examples from history are fine.
Anyone brining up longbowmen or plate harness to discuss a game set in 1085 is clearly out of their element.

Some kid even brought up a battle that had cannons to use as an example, lol
 

eddiemccandless

Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
I do not think armor is in a good place in Bannerlord. I was just trying to leave exaggeration out of the post. My preference is for high-tier armor to be largely invulnerable to low-tier weapons, regardless of damage type. And that protection would include the armor worn by tier 5+ troops.

High-tier troops should meet large masses of low-tier troops in the same way a lawnmower meets unruly grass.
Yep, that's exactly how I see it as well.
 

Arkyll

Recruit
The problem is Armor and AI.

Armor is painfully pathetic in Bannerlord. There is no payoff for spending those hundreds and hundreds of K's whatsoever on armor that makes you 5% less squishy than before.

Archers are absolutely overperforming in Bannerlord. A shortbow would do absolutely nothing to a big chest of lamellar, plate or even mail.
Powerful warbows might have a good chance of penetrating armor such as mail at closer ranges, but not any old bow fired by any archer as it seems to be in Bannerlord.

The Agincourt scenario was volley after volley after volley of arrows hitting weakspots on vulnerable enemies. It isnt an end all to the archer debate. Especially in the face of many medieval passages of armored soldiers allegedly bouncing dozens arrows left and right.

If you want to get fancy, introduce weakspot zones on characters. Neck, joints, etc. - That is where the damage should be.

Armor being decent is important. It draws more of a divide between trash and elite, it rewards the players hard work to obtain ungodly amounts of gold, and it rewards the player upgrading all of these troops to elite standard. There is also that iconic factor. When you see a tier 5 unit, it is much more interesting to view them as a real threat instead of just another arrow fodder.
 
Yeah the weak spot being the knights horse. Which led to being run over by the horse behind or drowning in sucking mud, or butchered by the english foot men.

I'm sure most of the knights didn't die to arrow fire, the died to the horse being shot out from under them, so the scenario of should high tier armor stop arrows is yes but horses should really hate being shot or stabbed.

Tier 5 infantry should be able to weather the arrow storm and march forward stoically, low level horse should be shot out from under your light cav, heavy cav should be better able to endure but should die to massed xbows or longbow.
The problem Armor and AI.

Armor is painfully pathetic in Bannerlord. There is no payoff for spending those hundreds and hundreds of K's whatsoever on armor that makes you 5% less squishy than before.

Archers are absolutely overperforming in Bannerlord. A shortbow would do absolutely nothing to a big chest of lamellar, plate or even mail.
Powerful warbows might have a good chance of penetrating armor such as mail at closer ranges, but not any old bow fired by any archer as it seems to be in Bannerlord.

The Agincourt scenario was volley after volley after volley of arrows hitting weakspots on vulnerable enemies. It isnt an end all to the archer debate. Especially in the face of many medieval passages of armored soldiers allegedly bouncing dozens arrows left and right.

If you want to get fancy, introduce weakspot zones on characters. Neck, joints, etc. - That is where the damage should be.

Armor being decent is important. It draws more of a divide between trash and elite, it rewards the players hard work to obtain ungodly amounts of gold, and it rewards the player upgrading all of these troops to elite standard. There is also that iconic factor. When you see a tier 5 unit, it is much more interesting to view them as a real threat instead of just another arrow fodder.
 

Antaeus

Sergeant
I do not think armor is in a good place in Bannerlord. I was just trying to leave exaggeration out of the post. My preference is for high-tier armor to be largely invulnerable to low-tier weapons, regardless of damage type. And that protection would include the armor worn by tier 5+ troops.

High-tier troops should meet large masses of low-tier troops in the same way a lawnmower meets unruly grass.

I think this would probably end up favouring the player (maybe some here want that?). The player can manage their parties in a way that AI lords can't. I ride to battle with a carefully curated death squad of high tier forces, and I actively look for mismatches in a way that the AI simply isn't programmed to do.

I think there should always be a risk that some pleb with a sharpened broom could unhorse or one hit a noble riding their medieval tank. The game needs a plausible force equaliser that adds risk to every encounter.

In particular, at the moment, I can casually stroll into a clump of recruits with a glaive and helicopter them to death. But IRL, if I was to do that, sooner or later one would be thinking to distract me while another pulls me to ground or disembowels my horse. The AI can't think or operate in human ways that compensate for the arms imbalance and add risk for the player.

Certainly, rock throwers probably should be more nuisance to those with hardened armour (lamellar or what ever plate exists in game) and I think some of the high end arrow heads are probably not quite in keeping with the time setting.

My solution would come down to programming. Armour could be substantially inflated in value, if the AI for individual units were smarter. But that's dreamland and out of scope. Having hooked weapons that can unhorse cavalry is a good start - I'd like a few more things in this direction to add to the dimensionality of hand to hand combat for the AI.
 
The reason flanking forces don't really work is that archers kill them fast enough that you lose more men trying to get to the flanks than you do just going hey-fiddle-diddle, straight up the middle. Even with a protected flanking force (e.g. approaching through deadspace), you wind up losing so many troops from your center that the archers can just swing to meet the flankers.

There are already lots of approaches you can make against archers where they can't hit you. The AI is occasionally even smart enough to use them. But it doesn't matter because being outflanked doesn't have the any morale effect on the archers. They'll calmly turn, loose arrows and then dive into melee.

Usually win too, because of the way the unit skills build by tier.

Cavalry...esp light cavalry? Or even mounted archers. Problem is difficulty in getting them to attack archers.
 
Armor being decent is important. It draws more of a divide between trash and elite, it rewards the players hard work to obtain ungodly amounts of gold, and it rewards the player upgrading all of these troops to elite standard. There is also that iconic factor. When you see a tier 5 unit, it is much more interesting to view them as a real threat instead of just another arrow fodder.

Best argument for improving armor values but conversely, t5 archers would have better bows and armor piercing arrows.

I think HP needs to be buffed too. A t5 troop ought to have more hp than t1.

But all of these changes need to be accompanied by reformulation of autocalc. Personally, I think the current autocalc seems rather poor.
 

Antaeus

Sergeant
Cavalry...esp light cavalry? Or even mounted archers. Problem is difficulty in getting them to attack archers.
That's a completely different issue, which I think is in most people's want list:

The ability to tell your groupings to attack specific enemy groupings.
 
Top Bottom