Campaign Party Stamina

Currently viewing this thread:

Ranged attacks should excell against Low/Un -protected targets but against highly armoured units they should not. High - tier armour should have a chance to nullify the piercing ranged attack, only giving the target a low blunt damage for the impact.
Maybe, but except bodkin arrows or with lower chance of nullifying those. Those were made specifically to pierce armor, so I guess there should be exception to this.
One problem with this I recall is that some of the units have bodkins as default arrows, rendering them much stronger in comparison.
 

Tryvenyal

Sergeant at Arms
Maybe, but except bodkin arrows or with lower chance of nullifying those. Those were made specifically to pierce armor, so I guess there should be exception to this.
One problem with this I recall is that some of the units have bodkins as default arrows, rendering them much stronger in comparison.
Yes, that´s an issue. But it moves a problem from archers in general to a specific arrow-type. How about them beeing armourpiercing but with a conciderable lower damage, making them more or less wasted on unprotected troops?
 
Armor-piercing should work with certain armor styles and not with others. I still wonder, why we have different damage types, if only blunt matters (capturing prisoners). Mail is very good at preventing a cut but a tipped weapon like an arrow can get through the metal mesh. Solid plate should matter and deflect stuff, padded armor should decrease blunt etc.
True piercing is stuff for crossbows and weapons with high impulse like thrown javelins (because of the mass behind the iron tip)

Archers are a danger for any unarmored troop because:
- range advantage
- usually cadence of shots
- a hail of arrows will inflict damage even by chance

Their bane?
- things that can close in fast -> Cavalry, ambushing troops
- other/better archers as archers themselves are squishy and cannot face the music they are playing themselves
- things with a large shield since it will block most projectiles and not be destroyed, even if looking like a pincushion

This is, why they are good at skrimishing and prevent troops from moving or enter certain terrain or forcing them to leave. Their efficieny versus unarmored should never be questioned. Battle archers? Consider their counter.
 
Yes, that´s an issue. But it moves a problem from archers in general to a specific arrow-type. How about them beeing armourpiercing but with a conciderable lower damage, making them more or less wasted on unprotected troops?
Yeah, as they have only tip as piercing, they may deal less damage overall, with the advantage of penetration. From the other hand, there is the problem of current troop trees. There is no practical division between squishy-target-archers and armor-piercing-archers, most of factions have one or max two lines with ranged units, even then, they aren't segregated in any specialised way.
If we would leave those as it is, we either get one faction that is unbeatable against armor and other that have no chance against armor.
If we would consider high tiers being armor-piercing-archers, then there is issue, that they would fight against low tier units less effectively than their predecessors, because of different arrow type. That would discourage players from advancing in troop tree.
The solution would be splitting them into types in the troop trees AND in the battle, but then we still tackle the issue of enemy attacking in a big mixed mob, with no particular armor type defined per unit. It would end up in random shooting at enemies, sometimes with good type of arrow, but mostly with incorrect type, making armor-piercing-archers run out of arrows shooting at low tier and not dealing much damage, and squishy-target-archers will do nothing against armor. So I guess, that there would have to be also a division depending on the armor type of cav/inf. Then we have too many combinations, taking into consideration the type of damage they deal, and that we should also have control over what type of damage we deal...
And now it turns into strategy game, because we have to be able to specify exactly which type/formation of the enemy we want our heavy-armored-pikemen to attack.
So I guess that is too much changes for a basic BL.

Armor-piercing should work with certain armor styles and not with others. I still wonder, why we have different damage types, if only blunt matters (capturing prisoners). Mail is very good at preventing a cut but a tipped weapon like an arrow can get through the metal mesh. Solid plate should matter and deflect stuff, padded armor should decrease blunt etc.
True piercing is stuff for crossbows and weapons with high impulse like thrown javelins (because of the mass behind the iron tip)

Archers are a danger for any unarmored troop because:
- range advantage
- usually cadence of shots
- a hail of arrows will inflict damage even by chance

Their bane?
- things that can close in fast -> Cavalry, ambushing troops
- other/better archers as archers themselves are squishy and cannot face the music they are playing themselves
- things with a large shield since it will block most projectiles and not be destroyed, even if looking like a pincushion

This is, why they are good at skrimishing and prevent troops from moving or enter certain terrain or forcing them to leave. Their efficieny versus unarmored should never be questioned. Battle archers? Consider their counter.
I guess that disabling accuracy of shots would help, but also would harm low-level fights, because archers would be useless, and in 1v1 fights on the arena enemies would miss too much to be a threat, so that is not the best idea.
 
Ranged attacks should excell against Low/Un -protected targets but against highly armoured units they should not. High - tier armour should have a chance to nullify the piercing ranged attack, only giving the target a low blunt damage for the impact.
Totally agree, I really dont know if armor has protection vs some kind of damage or how in general this maths are done here, but certain armors not even high tier, should be more protective vs x type of damge, for example mail ones vs arrows/piercing.

Would also be nice if debuffs would be applyed depending on the place arrow landed, ex: shot to the arm "cripples" melee attack or attack speed, shot to the leg cripples movement or movement speed, and so on, not just high damage. And depending of how and armor is (the protections that it has, material and so on) is the damage it "nullifies".
 
Would also be nice if debuffs would be applyed depending on the place arrow landed, ex: shot to the arm "cripples" melee attack or attack speed, shot to the leg cripples movement or movement speed, and so on, not just high damage. And depending of how and armor is (the protections that it has, material and so on) is the damage it "nullifies".
Wouldn't it be a little of a overkill?
 
I only see that archers might not be overkill units any more and that battles last longer and smaller bands of high fear troops can dismantle larger squads of low gear troops in an prolongued engagement. Sounds reasonable and right to my ears.

I mean: I want to enjoy battles and they are over in 5 minutes at all with 2 minutes on the clock hunting fleeing troops (which I do - baptised in blood is nice!). Even skirmishes like killing looters are too short for my palate but since there is only a big clash and then some run away after the first losses come...it is bland and repeating. Also I do not like being knocked out by the 3rd hit I get even if I wear full plate and my opponent throws stones at me, ironically spoken. I want staying power for high-armored troops. That is, what armor is made for.
 

Tryvenyal

Sergeant at Arms
If we would consider high tiers being armor-piercing-archers, then there is issue, that they would fight against low tier units less effectively than their predecessors, because of different arrow type. That would discourage players from advancing in troop tree.
"Know your enemy" - Advancing troops should not be a no-brainer or even a clear benefit at all time! Advanced troops are more specialized in one area and might very well be worse than earlier in another.

And a better bow can probably compensate a weaker arrow against low-armour targets anyway :smile:
 
Why should they even give them weaker arrows when they care for a better bow? Would you on purpose use arrows without sharp tips just because you got a new longbow as replacement for your small hunting bow - as 'balance'? Neither immersive nor logical. A skilled longbow archer is dangerous. Use CAV to take him out. Compensation would be as longbows take much time to train they are high tier troops. Swarm them with low tier archers and skirmish them. Even if it takes two T2 archers to take out a T4 pr T5 archer - they are more readily replaced later.

The only problem I see is player behavior. Player parties tend to have lots of high-tier troops.
 

Tryvenyal

Sergeant at Arms
Why should they even give them weaker arrows when they care for a better bow? Would you on purpose use arrows without sharp tips just because you got a new longbow as replacement for your small hunting bow - as 'balance'? Neither immersive nor logical. A skilled longbow archer is dangerous. Use CAV to take him out. Compensation would be as longbows take much time to train they are high tier troops. Swarm them with low tier archers and skirmish them. Even if it takes two T2 archers to take out a T4 pr T5 archer - they are more readily replaced later.

The only problem I see is player behavior. Player parties tend to have lots of high-tier troops.

In above discussion 1 arrow type has good damage but good armour can totally neglect them. Another arrow-type is armour-piercing but cause lower total damage to all targets. This is "weaker" against low-tier units but "Stronger" against ligh-tier units. As the game works currently, arrow-type is hardcoded for every troop, so you must pick one.
 
Still I do not get, why a Bodkin-Arrow should do less damage to an unarmored person than a normal one. It is the same arrow with an improved tip which additionally can pierce armor. Therefore, normal arrows are T1 equipment and Bodkinds are what? T4 or T5? I have not the data from shop menu. Result is the same: you have a pointy piece of wood sticking in your body - not healthy.
So basically spoken: I have no problem with high-tier units using high-tier equipment which may be superior in every regard.
The only difference between both arrow types might be the price because the Bodkin is harder to produce so not as available as a normal arrow. I mean a normal arrow could be done by an archer himself given time. A Bodkin you need a skilled fletcher for.
 
Still I do not get, why a Bodkin-Arrow should do less damage to an unarmored person than a normal one. It is the same arrow with an improved tip which additionally can pierce armor. Therefore, normal arrows are T1 equipment and Bodkinds are what? T4 or T5? I have not the data from shop menu. Result is the same: you have a pointy piece of wood sticking in your body - not healthy.
So basically spoken: I have no problem with high-tier units using high-tier equipment which may be superior in every regard.
The only difference between both arrow types might be the price because the Bodkin is harder to produce so not as available as a normal arrow. I mean a normal arrow could be done by an archer himself given time. A Bodkin you need a skilled fletcher for.
Well, I am not sure if they are the same. Lest assume you get hit by the arrow. would you prefer to be hit by this iron tip that is well forged together (because piercing purpose), that is no wider than the stick it is attached to:
Bodkin1.jpg
... or would you rather have this wider one in your body, that may be made out of literal stone, if you are unlucky, and have shards coming out of it at any point of being in you (piercing, your movement with arrow in bodypart, removing and even after), like this:
1024px-Projectilepoint.jpg

As I am no medical doctor, don't take my word for granted. I have been passionate about medieval times for a long time, and some conclusions came to my mind, so I am sharing my thoughts. Basically, sharp tip will do less damage than a wide one, simply because of area that comes into body, bodkin cutting less vital organs and leaving smaller and clean wound, thus making it easier to heal. But when solid metal plate/chain is on its way, it will be only option to get to the squishy part behind it.

The point of our conversation was that if we would differentiate between damage types and armor types, we would have to consider possible implications going with this package, if we are aiming to realism, we have to consider realistic situations.
 
I guess both share the fact that removing the arrow from the body would be the worst thing, If you hit a vital organ I guess it would not matter anyways. Game-wise I would only differentiate that the Bodkin would ignore some percentage of armor if compared with a regular arrow and damage would be comparable. I would take the look from the other side: what type of armor counters/absorbs what type of damage?
 
I guess both share the fact that removing the arrow from the body would be the worst thing, If you hit a vital organ I guess it would not matter anyways. Game-wise I would only differentiate that the Bodkin would ignore some percentage of armor if compared with a regular arrow and damage would be comparable. I would take the look from the other side: what type of armor counters/absorbs what type of damage?
Bodkin would be less painful, that was the point. In the vital organ, yeah, but still lesser chance to hit those with sharp bodkin than wide normal head, that cuts more.

For the damage type, we had mentioned that. Summarising:
ArmorDamage it counters
PaddedBlunt
ChainmailCut
PlatePierce
LeatherCut/Blunt (but not as much as pad/mail)

But then there is problem of directing type of offense towards intended offence, as now game does not allow to be much picky.
 
You mean, telling your achers to fire at the unarmored troops and not just at anyone? Yes, we are limited a bit, which is part of the problem. But even without being able to direct it is an improvement as I believe it will show, that elite troops indeed have more staying power or are better equipped to battle a certain kind of opponent. What we currently have is somewhat odd.
 
Bodkin would be less painful, that was the point. In the vital organ, yeah, but still lesser chance to hit those with sharp bodkin than wide normal head, that cuts more.

For the damage type, we had mentioned that. Summarising:
ArmorDamage it counters
PaddedBlunt
ChainmailCut
PlatePierce
LeatherCut/Blunt (but not as much as pad/mail)

But then there is problem of directing type of offense towards intended offence, as now game does not allow to be much picky.
Im going to but it, not the point but: chain vs pierce, plate vs cut, you got it backwards. I think I agree with @Mikal Manfriedson, bodkin are suppoused to be an evolution of arrow heads, yes maybe they dont bleed your enemy or hit a bigger area but certainly cut deeper, deeper means more changes of hitting something important... (as having higher chances of critical hit)

And also agree that, why would someone use bodkin vs someone that doesnt have armor, archer troops should have both arrow types and exchange between them depending on the target, also I would like to point out "again" that archers are way too deadly compared with historical sources, where in most battles they were support type.

Meaning a hail of arros would kill a very few and wound a few, not as in game that are killing machines.
 
Although, to be fair, wounding someone could really decrease his battleworthyness, where it in the game makes no difference, whether you are at 100% health or at 1% with lots of arrows sticking in your armor and 4 javelins stuck into your shield. So in that case in the game they 'must' be deadly, because 'partial' kills do not count at all.
 
Last edited:

vonbalt

Knight
WBNWVCM&B
Oh a system like this would be incredible! it would add so much to the game if it applied to both player and AI parties.

Everyone would need to rest for a while to keep battle-readiness so you would often find parties camping in the world map (or resting in fiefs) and you could attack their camp which would give them some defenses (good to stop cavalry charges at least).

The devs could set the camp entrances as places for AI to try and hold position so it would be cool chokepoints aswell (they already do this with normal battle maps setting places for the AI to know they can hold high ground or a choke-point here or there)

Maybe tie it with scouting skill so if the attacker army has higher scouting they could launch an attack before the camp is fully aware so soldiers would be spawning from tents a few at a time giving the attackers an advantage in numbers, the possibilities are endless!

They already have a system somewhat like this with army cohesion, maybe it could be adapted to all parties and to represent stamina drain, useful for modders atleast if the devs pass on this.
 
Top Bottom