Damage in this game is Ridiculous

Users who are viewing this thread

Not really, no. Any armor effectively protected people from sling-stones let alone simply thrown rocks which is why slings fell out of use in periods where armor was common. think of it like this, you cannot generate any more force than you could with a punch by simply throwing an object, if you cant expect to punch thru a helmet why would you expect to throw an object through it?

I don't know about that. According to the Guiness Book of World Records, the fastest punch in the world is 43 mph, while the fastest pitch in baseball was 108 mph. I don't know the physics of it, but I think elbow and wrist action generate a lot more force on a throw than you could get with a punch. One way or another, no matter how good your helmet is, I have a feeling that a well-thrown rock to the head would at least ring your bell.

Very true, the mechanics of throwing motion creates acceleration speeds that can far surpass anything achieved by simply moving one's body alone. So it's wholly inaccurate and rather short-sighted to say that a punch generates the same force as a throw.

That being said, if we are to use baseball pitchers as an example, then we must also keep in mind that in MLB -the highest level of baseball, the pitchers are incredible athletes who are also masters of their craft. They train all year-round to throw a ball at very high speeds and many of them are on steroids (but that's a topic for another forum).

With all of the above in mind, it's not uncommon for batters to get in the head by a pitch. Professional batting helmets are light and made of carbon fiber, and while serviceable, they're not like the heavier iron or steel helmets we find in Medieval-based games like Bannerlord. Even so, you often see batters walk away uninjured or pop right back up after being beaned by a pitch, although head injuries can occur.

On the other hand, the helmets MLB catchers wear are heavier than the batting helmets, with the catcher's masks often being made of steel or carbon-steel hybrid. Thus, they're more in line with the types of helmets worn in Bannerlord, and these catcher's helmets absolutely tank anything the pitcher throws at them. Catchers can get hit when the ball is foul tipped or when a low pitch bounces in the dirt, and even when taking a hit flush they are unfazed. The bottom line is, the helmet does its job.



By applying this to Bannerlord, we can infer that:

>Looters are not MLB pitchers
-they are desperate, starving, homeless men who lack the same access to the modern nutrition or training regimen as an MLB player would

but...

>Looters throw rocks like they are Cy Young Award winners
-the accuracy, the power, and the damage they do would make you believe they're wearing a few World Series rings on their hands. Maybe they should pawn off one or two and get some decent clothes...



Also:

>Helmets protect against thrown spherical objects
-As evidenced by the helmets baseball catchers wear

but...

>Just not in Bannerlord :xf-frown: (In Warband they do)





Thus, we can see there is a disconnect here, and it's pretty disappointing.
 
Very true, the mechanics of throwing motion creates acceleration speeds that can far surpass anything achieved by simply moving one's body alone. So it's wholly inaccurate and rather short-sighted to say that a punch generates the same force as a throw.

That being said, if we are to use baseball pitchers as an example, then we must also keep in mind that in MLB -the highest level of baseball, the pitchers are incredible athletes who are also masters of their craft. They train all year-round to throw a ball at very high speeds and many of them are on steroids (but that's a topic for another forum).

With all of the above in mind, it's not uncommon for batters to get in the head by a pitch. Professional batting helmets are light and made of carbon fiber, and while serviceable, they're not like the heavier iron or steel helmets we find in Medieval-based games like Bannerlord. Even so, you often see batters walk away uninjured or pop right back up after being beaned by a pitch, although head injuries can occur.

On the other hand, the helmets MLB catchers wear are heavier than the batting helmets, with the catcher's masks often being made of steel or carbon-steel hybrid. Thus, they're more in line with the types of helmets worn in Bannerlord, and these catcher's helmets absolutely tank anything the pitcher throws at them. Catchers can get hit when the ball is foul tipped or when a low pitch bounces in the dirt, and even when taking a hit flush they are unfazed. The bottom line is, the helmet does its job.



By applying this to Bannerlord, we can infer that:

>Looters are not MLB pitchers
-they are desperate, starving, homeless men who lack the same access to the modern nutrition or training regimen as an MLB player would

but...

>Looters throw rocks like they are Cy Young Award winners
-the accuracy, the power, and the damage they do would make you believe they're wearing a few World Series rings on their hands. Maybe they should pawn off one or two and get some decent clothes...



Also:

>Helmets protect against thrown spherical objects
-As evidenced by the helmets baseball catchers wear

but...

>Just not in Bannerlord :xf-frown: (In Warband they do)





Thus, we can see there is a disconnect here, and it's pretty disappointing.
Good point about the catcher's helmets. I agree that a rock wouldn't do much, if any, damage against a good helmet, but I still think you're gonna feel it if you take one to the head. You'll probably be stunned and momentarily disoriented, especially if you're not expecting it.

Bannerlord armor is another story, though, since its apparently made out of paper mache.
 
Good point about the catcher's helmets. I agree that a rock wouldn't do much, if any, damage against a good helmet, but I still think you're gonna feel it if you take one to the head. You'll probably be stunned and momentarily disoriented, especially if you're not expecting it.

Bannerlord armor is another story, though, since its apparently made out of paper mache.

A rock should do no more than 5 damage ever if one has elite armor.
 
I don't know about that. According to the Guiness Book of World Records, the fastest punch in the world is 43 mph, while the fastest pitch in baseball was 108 mph. I don't know the physics of it, but I think elbow and wrist action generate a lot more force on a throw than you could get with a punch. One way or another, no matter how good your helmet is, I have a feeling that a well-thrown rock to the head would at least ring your bell.
Force is not speed. You cannot throw an object with more force than you can generate, this would violate the law of conservation of energy. I think the discrepancy is due to fastest punches being measures of jabs or crosses while the throwing motion is more akin to a haymaker. Haymakers are considered a slow punch because you wind them up and your fist has to travel farther but the actual speed of your hand is greater due to mechanical advantage. This is why I also brought up slings, which give a mechanical advantage and allow you to generate significantly more energy than you could with your own body. If armor made those irrelevant why should thrown rocks be effective against it?
 
what people often forget is that damage is based on force. and force is calculated F = M a
Mass times acceleration. Mass is important. very very important. especially in projectiles

while a baseball pitch might be going at 3 times the speed of a punch, a baseball is also 5 ounces or just about 150 grams. a punch has the full weight of that person's arm if not more behind it. (an arm weights in at around 5.5% of a persons total body weight, meaning a 100kg person would have 5.5kgs of mass behind his punch at minimum)

rocks thrown by people can't possibly do that much damage against armor, but will injure you if the person is an expert (maybe 200-300 in throwing skill) and is able to hit you in the face or in other un armored areas. truth is, even in bronze age, you needed a sling to make rock projectiles any effective.
 
what people often forget is that damage is based on force. and force is calculated F = M a
Mass times acceleration. Mass is important. very very important. especially in projectiles

while a baseball pitch might be going at 3 times the speed of a punch, a baseball is also 5 ounces or just about 150 grams. a punch has the full weight of that person's arm if not more behind it. (an arm weights in at around 5.5% of a persons total body weight, meaning a 100kg person would have 5.5kgs of mass behind his punch at minimum)

rocks thrown by people can't possibly do that much damage against armor, but will injure you if the person is an expert (maybe 200-300 in throwing skill) and is able to hit you in the face or in other un armored areas. truth is, even in bronze age, you needed a sling to make rock projectiles any effective.

I'd also like to add that projectiles follow a mostly straight trajectory, making the simple F = MA formula applied to them pretty accurate and straightforward, but punches (depending on the type you throw) would also have added force due to the rotational motion. Things like torque and angular velocity and momentum would have to be applied, along with added mechanical factors due to the arm being attached to the rest of one's body (think of the rotation of shoulders, hips, and knees as well as the individual's total weight contributing to the overall force applied).

Of course, as this applies to punches it invariably applies to melee weapons as well. This is why knights in the middle ages fought with lances, poleaxes, maces, and morningstars -to maximize their lethality, especially against armored opponents. It's just simple physics. Otherwise, if these rules of science didn't exist, everyone on earth would have just fought as horse archers, or in Bannerlord's case, just threw rocks.
 
what people often forget is that damage is based on force. and force is calculated F = M a
Mass times acceleration. Mass is important. very very important. especially in projectiles

while a baseball pitch might be going at 3 times the speed of a punch, a baseball is also 5 ounces or just about 150 grams. a punch has the full weight of that person's arm if not more behind it. (an arm weights in at around 5.5% of a persons total body weight, meaning a 100kg person would have 5.5kgs of mass behind his punch at minimum)

rocks thrown by people can't possibly do that much damage against armor, but will injure you if the person is an expert (maybe 200-300 in throwing skill) and is able to hit you in the face or in other un armored areas. truth is, even in bronze age, you needed a sling to make rock projectiles any effective.
Yeah.
I've thought for some time that the entire damage formula gives bad results because it completely ignore the mass factor and entirely work on speed. Hence ridiculous damage by very light projectiles.
 
what people often forget is that damage is based on force. and force is calculated F = M a
Mass times acceleration. Mass is important. very very important. especially in projectiles

while a baseball pitch might be going at 3 times the speed of a punch, a baseball is also 5 ounces or just about 150 grams. a punch has the full weight of that person's arm if not more behind it. (an arm weights in at around 5.5% of a persons total body weight, meaning a 100kg person would have 5.5kgs of mass behind his punch at minimum)

rocks thrown by people can't possibly do that much damage against armor, but will injure you if the person is an expert (maybe 200-300 in throwing skill) and is able to hit you in the face or in other un armored areas. truth is, even in bronze age, you needed a sling to make rock projectiles any effective.
No, damage is based on energy. F=Ma equation gives how much strength 'F' is needed to give a mass 'M' the acceleration 'a', thus reaching after the application of that acceleration a speed 'v' wich in turn gives an energy E = 1/2 Mv²
Then yes, mass is important, and speed even more, wich makes a thrown rock less dangerous than an arrow.

in this matter the game seems to behave more or less correctly.

what's really wrong is damage reduction from armors.
 
Then yes, mass is important, and speed even more, wich makes a thrown rock less dangerous than an arrow.
What makes an arrow more dangerous than a rock is above all the pointy end, concentrating all the force in a single point.
in this matter the game seems to behave more or less correctly.
The game doesn't seem to take mass into account, which is a pretty huge flaw.
what's really wrong is damage reduction from armors.
True that.
The idea that "blunt goes through armor" (or, basically, blunt > all) is completely backward, as blunt is in reality the LEAST efficient damage possible (as its energy is transmitted through the largest surface, hence minimizing damage). The anti-armor weapons weren't BLUNT, they were PIERCING - a warhammer is in reality more like a pickaxe, and maces were flanged.
 
What makes an arrow more dangerous than a rock is above all the pointy end, concentrating all the force in a single point.

The game doesn't seem to take mass into account, which is a pretty huge flaw.

True that.
The idea that "blunt goes through armor" (or, basically, blunt > all) is completely backward, as blunt is in reality the LEAST efficient damage possible (as its energy is transmitted through the largest surface, hence minimizing damage). The anti-armor weapons weren't BLUNT, they were PIERCING - a warhammer is in reality more like a pickaxe, and maces were flanged.


hmmm. so a two handed blunt weapon is less effective vs a chainmail than a sword? a blunt weapon is less effective vs a full plate hemet than a spear?
there are different armor types vs different damage types, but really , i dont think i (we) need that kind of simulation.
 
The idea that "blunt goes through armor" (or, basically, blunt > all) is completely backward, as blunt is in reality the LEAST efficient damage possible (as its energy is transmitted through the largest surface, hence minimizing damage). The anti-armor weapons weren't BLUNT, they were PIERCING - a warhammer is in reality more like a pickaxe, and maces were flanged.

I wouldn't necessarily say 'backwards'

Percussive weapons were based around the concept of transferring their kinetic energy from themselves to their targets regardless of whether or not the target's armor could be broken, penetrated, or circumvented. Thus, a blow from a mace or the blunt end of a poleaxe or war hammer would still be able to damage soft tissue or break bones regardless of whether the integrity of the armor was compromised or not. The flanges of a mace were designed to magnify the kinetic energy at the point of attack -further increasing the damage output of the blow. Imagine getting hit in the arm by a flanged mace while wearing mail; in all likelihood, your mail would remain mostly intact, but your arm itself would be injured.

You are right though about piercing weapons being anti-armor as well. Warhammers and poleaxes often carried a blunt end and a spiked end, allowing them to be able to both pierce and use percussive blows against an opponent. As to which is more effective, it depends on the situation and and quality of the armor they are going up against.

You're also right about Taleworld's braindead decision to make blunt damage go through armor completely. It breaks the games as well as breaks the laws of physics. Imagine if we applied Taleworld's philosophy to football (American football):

"Hey guys! You don't need to wear helmets or pads anymore because haven't you heard, blunt damage ignores armor entirely! So your equipment is completely useless. Take those stupid helmets and pads off and play like a real man!"

But wait, they actually did play with little to no pads or helmets in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and oh yeah, people died. It's only when they started implementing better helmets and gear that player health and safety improved. There's still issues with concussions in our present day, which goes to show -in a kind of morbid way, an example of what I discussed in my first paragraph. Blunt, percussive force travels through armor, regardless of whether the armor stays intact or not, but armor does help in mitigating the effects of a percussive blow. In other words, it's not totally useless -as Bannerlord would have you believe.


I'm going to use Warband as an example of what Bannerlord should strive for, not because "Warband is better", but because I feel like it balanced cut, pierce, and blunt damage vs. armor perfectly.

In Warband, blunt damage was the most effective damage type against armor, slightly edging out pierce damage in terms of total armor penetration rate. Both were far better against armor than cutting damage, but neither ignored armor completely, there was still some damage soaking regardless.

While blunt was the most effective against armor, many of the blunt weapons had lower damage values when compared to cutting or even piercing weapons. This meant that blunt weapons had diminishing returns. This meant that a blunt weapon was ideally suited for attacking an extremely well-armored opponent, since you were able to deal consistent damage against them regardless of their high armor rating, one which may soak up much of the cutting or pierce damage were you to use one of those weapons instead. But, as soon as you used your blunt weapons against middle to lower armored enemies, you would probably see a drop-off in production from your blunt weapon. Against these lesser armored foes, you would probably see higher damage outputs from your cutting or piercing weapons.

Thus, the blunt weapons in Warband were situational, which added variety and balance to the game. There was a plethora of different weapons and damage types, all ideally suited for a different task or scenario.

So in regards to this particular topic -when it comes to damage types and armor effectiveness, don't be like Bannerlord, be like Warband.
 
hmmm. so a two handed blunt weapon is less effective vs a chainmail than a sword? a blunt weapon is less effective vs a full plate hemet than a spear?
A baseball bat vs a claymore against a chainmail ? A mallet vs a spear against a full plate ? Definitely the blunt weapon would be much less effective.
Of course you wouldn't use a baseball bat against a chainmail, but that shows that "blunt" has nothing to do with being able to inflict damage (on the contrary).

What made weapons efficient against armor was the ability to pierce/damage the armor and/or the ability to concuss the person wearing the armor without having to breach it. In both case, it can be simplified into "transfer a lot of energy". And basically, it means "pendulum-like weapons". As I said previously, none of these anti-armor weapon were actually "blunt", they were all about "short piercing" : they had small area of contact (piercing), but the "spike" were usually pretty short (the goal was to have the impact zone close to the head, to minimize the risk of deflection due to lever effect).

Pendulum effect and maximization of force were the important point, and that required more mass/momentum.
there are different armor types vs different damage types, but really , i dont think i (we) need that kind of simulation.
On the contrary, I think it would be much better to have each armor piece offering different armor value against each form of damage, but simplifying the damage formula to make results much more understandable. Having three numbers with clear effect is actually more manageable than having a single value that has uncomprehensible effect.
 
@ Hans 77: good post, the only point where I flinched a bit is speaking of "blunt force" as working means for wounding. It's energy which does work to tissue, force is for moving objects. Great force can play a role, f.e. breaking joints, but usually we look at energy. A rigid object, like a helmet, usually takes over the energy and applies it to the surface below. Because helmets apply energy over a usually much greater area than the object intended to hit the head, wounding effects are reduced. If the helmet is padded, the benefits are of course much much greater even.

From my humble experience, I received two heavy hits to the head in my life till now, and luckily I wore a helmet each time which worked very well to protect.
 
Blunt weapons were the best at defeating armor plate because they were designed to maximize force through leverage, far more than one can generate with their own bodies. However, they were best which is not to say particularly good, they were best because you could not cut or pierce through most armor plate. Such weapons would not have been anywhere near as efficient as a sword against unarmored/lightly armored targets. Maile was a different story, it provided excellent protection against blades and cutting but could still be forced apart by an arrow or highly concentrated force such as a flanged mace, morningstar, or axe.

WB's damage system was a decent representation of this but not perfect, Bannerlord seems very broken indeed.
 
Blunt weapons were the best at defeating armor plate because they were designed to maximize force through leverage, far more than one can generate with their own bodies.
I refer you to the post I made just above, pointoing that this is not about them being blunt (which they mostly wereN'T actually), and everything about them maximizing kinetic energy.
 
I refer you to the post I made just above, pointoing that this is not about them being blunt (which they mostly wereN'T actually), and everything about them maximizing kinetic energy.
No most such weapons primary damage mechanism was to transfer energy through the plate not to pierce it, this is blunt force trauma. Now such weapons did have small spikes or protrusions but these weren't meant to pierce the plate but to prevent the blow from deflecting. In the case of head-strikes helmets were very protective but no helmet, even modern helmets can't protect against Coup-counter-coup which is the primary mechanism of injury for a head-strike.

It is extremely hard to actually puncture/pierce or deform a metal plate, weapons instead simply tried to transfer force through it. Even when they did so by focusing on a small point transferring through the armor is blunt trauma.
 
What makes an arrow more dangerous than a rock is above all the pointy end, concentrating all the force in a single point.

all the energy.

but a slinged rock will be more dangerous than a hand-thrown arrow, despite the pointy end :p

so yes speed matters more than mass, mass shouldn't be neglected, and sharpness, witch concentrates the energy transfert during the impact, matters a lot.

Devs can't decently implement a detailed physics simulation of damage mechanics. a trade-off will be needed anyways, but yes that's a pity they didn't make it to the level of realism of Warband.

and still think that what i say earlier is a valid solution :

a simple idea, have you seen those chamber block thingies once in a while ? not sure yet when it happens ...BUT !

in real life, a fully armored soldier is like a tank, you can't pierce that plates of steel, but you can stun him (i personnally tried taking a good longsword hit on the head with a steel helmet, don't abuse this :p )

so what i suggest is that this chamber block mecanism could be reproduced for some sort of armor save roll.

-> so heavy cloth and leather armor give a global damage reduction, but tough metallic aromor pieces give a percentage of neglecting an incoming hit, or at least changing it in a greatly reduced blunt hit.
this percentage can never reach 100% though (or that guy is already dead, drown in melted steel). Each armor part should have that extra score of coverage.

Then hitting an armored unit will make this awesome metallic noise :smile: or this satisfying wounding noise when your reached a weak point of your ennemy protection.

... this and a better dealing of blunt damage penetration, as we all mostly agree :smile:
 
I don't know why people are disagreeing with my F=Ma equation when it's literally just a law of physics and what everything is based upon. I emphasized it to bring mass into the discussion. acceleration is important since all weapon swings and projectiles move in an accelerating speed curve through time, the collision when the weapon decelerates to near 0 and transfers the force to the victim is but a snapshot in said frame of time

with every collision of any kind, there's a transfer of force, the greater the force the higher the damage factor. if you are able to swing a heavier weapon at the same speed then there's more energy involved thus more damage. But if you always exert 100% of your strength in your swings then you cannot possibly swing a heavier weapon faster

besides that, there's also a situation of weapon and armor material which offer different hardness and contact area this will also alter the interaction of the collision and dispersion/transference of said force.

the above could be applied to the game with a few multipliers

but what about damage interaction with body part?
your skull for example is extremely tough and durable against cuts, and some penetration but more vulnerable to fractures from impact, a good hit and lights out. your ribcage and chest muscles offer some decent protection of your vital organs vs cuts and some blunt, but piercing deep enough will still do it's job.
damage against certain joints and ligaments will disable you instantly, while other areas might be able to withstand massive trauma without total body failure. the same headshot is completely blocked by your plated helmet if it hits the back of your head and you'll feel a slight ding it might even just bounce off, but if it hits you in the eye you might just die then and there.
 
Back
Top Bottom