Dev Blog 19/04/18

[parsehtml][IMG]https://www.taleworlds.com/Images/News/blog_post_36_taleworldswebsite.jpg[/IMG] Medieval warfare was as brutal and terrifying as you might imagine. Soldiers fought for their lives in ferocious hand-to-hand combat using a variety of different weapons to protect themselves and defeat their opponents. Polearms, swords, maces and axes were used to devastating effect and anyone unlucky enough to be on the receiving end of a blow from one of these vicious weapons of war would certainly know about it. [/parsehtml]Read more at: https://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/56

 

[Oddness]

Dagger is a sidearm (cheap, easy to carry, mortal on close combat), so you will bring both 

Is like asking a modern soldier if he would bring the rifle or a combat knife. Answer is both.

  That is a fair statement. All I'm saying is that the dagger is a side-arm for a reason. Sure. There's nothing wrong with bringing it. It isn't going to hurt, but it certainly wouldn't be the first choice and shouldn't be used as a primary weapon.
  In your example of the rifle and combat knife, the combat knife is there just in case s*$# hits the fan and, speaking of which, have you ever heard the saying that "you shouldn't bring a knife to a gun fight"? I'm pretty sure that saying applies just as well if you substitute gun for bow 

Edit:
I know. I know. Mythbusters did it. Your opponent has to be pretty close for the saying to not hold true though.

 

[Innocent Flower]

The more time I spend in this forum the more I think it needs an additional degree of moderation/further rules. This thread's been the worst dev blog in a while.


If the next blog is ranged, and the response is any worse, I might want to predict what I would've said; I'm going to be really disappointed in slings because I imagine they'll either be omitted, or they'll be too weak.

Don't confuse slings used in wars from slings kids use to bother small game.

 

[Rabies]

The main point is this:
Daggers are in the game. It would be nice the combat mechanics could find a niche situation where the dagger is the most effective weapon, otherwise the player will never ever use them and they will face no purpose in the game beyond making low-level enemies like looters easier to kill, and then clogging up your inventory as a trash item you collect from the battlefield before you can sell it in town for small coins.
And that would be a pity

 

[FBohler]

It would be nice the combat mechanics could find a niche situation where the dagger is the most effective weapon,

Stealth and assassinations confirmed! YAY!!

 

[lolbash]

Which would you rather go into a fight with?
A dagger or a sword?
I know which one I'm voting for.
There really isn't a single advantage to having a dagger in open warfare if any battle-field weapon is available.
Given a choice between a dagger and bare hands, however, I suppose that I'd take the dagger.

  The advancement of weapons has shown a pattern throughout history. The further away that you can kill your opponent from, the better off you are. Sometimes you sacrifice range to maintain the ability to 'kill your opponent', but you will always want to be as far away from your opponent as you can get while still being able to kill them. A dagger is not particularly good at providing range, nor is it more effective at piercing armor. In the context of warfare, it has zero advantages other than convenience.
  If you are seeing an advantage for using a dagger over a sword then you are thinking in terms of movie physics. Here's the progression of weapons from the stone ages to today. fist -> dagger -> spear -> bow -> siege weapon -> gun -> cannon -> missile -> nuke. You will note that I left a lot of weapons out. The reason for this is that they solve the problem of how to 'kill your opponent.' The great leaps in weaponry have historically been a product of the range from which you can kill your opponent. The rest, in my opinion, has been more about over-coming the challenges of defeating opponents that are reluctant to die (wearing armor) or refining a weapon to be effective under specific circumstances. Swords, for example, were very good at killing unarmored opponents, but were generally used as side-arms. A spear was generally a better option in combat because of its range advantage.

Rondel daggers evolved in the 14th Century, specifically to kill armoured opponents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rondel_dagger
Not a primary melee weapon, but often the killing one.

Referto my previous post on this thread

Buffing daggers in a balanced way is a good thing. I for one don't want them to be just useless dress-pieces like they were in warband.

If done right daggers seem like they can be lots of fun.

Also, er, yeah.. Knights used daggers..

Daggers were probably the weapon that killed the most knights. Of course you don't win a fight with a dagger, you just finish it with one. Straight up fighting with a dagger is probably a good idea if you want to be killed, though.

So what you're suggesting is that every single time I kill someone in Bannerlord I have to switch to my knife and stab him on the ground to make sure he stays dead?

Is that what you call fun gameplay for you? Because having to purchase a second weapon and manually pin down and stab a knight with a knife sounds tedious, boring, and stupid when I could be spending my time raiding, killing archers, having epic duels, or fighting big battles.

Sure cool daggers can kill knights, but mount and blade combat is too fast for stupid unfun crap like having to switch to a different weapon to kill a person.

The realisim mob here pisses me off. Thank god for Taleworlds for not making these guys game developers and focusing on FUN>REALISM, the most important aspect of any video game

 

[Oddness]

The main point is this:
Daggers are in the game. It would be nice the combat mechanics could find a niche situation where the dagger is the most effective weapon, otherwise the player will never ever use them and they will face no purpose in the game beyond making low-level enemies like looters easier to kill, and then clogging up your inventory as a trash item you collect from the battlefield before you can sell it in town for small coins.
And that would be a pity

  Fair enough. Gameplay should always supercede realism so whatever makes the game more fun should be the way that they do it. Just as long as people don't confuse reality and fiction, I have nothing to say on the subject. If you read through some of these earlier posts, people have been really trying to convince others that a dagger could be an ideal primary weapon and I don't think that is the case at all.

 

[Oddness]

Which would you rather go into a fight with?
A dagger or a sword?
I know which one I'm voting for.
There really isn't a single advantage to having a dagger in open warfare if any battle-field weapon is available.
Given a choice between a dagger and bare hands, however, I suppose that I'd take the dagger.

  The advancement of weapons has shown a pattern throughout history. The further away that you can kill your opponent from, the better off you are. Sometimes you sacrifice range to maintain the ability to 'kill your opponent', but you will always want to be as far away from your opponent as you can get while still being able to kill them. A dagger is not particularly good at providing range, nor is it more effective at piercing armor. In the context of warfare, it has zero advantages other than convenience.
  If you are seeing an advantage for using a dagger over a sword then you are thinking in terms of movie physics. Here's the progression of weapons from the stone ages to today. fist -> dagger -> spear -> bow -> siege weapon -> gun -> cannon -> missile -> nuke. You will note that I left a lot of weapons out. The reason for this is that they solve the problem of how to 'kill your opponent.' The great leaps in weaponry have historically been a product of the range from which you can kill your opponent. The rest, in my opinion, has been more about over-coming the challenges of defeating opponents that are reluctant to die (wearing armor) or refining a weapon to be effective under specific circumstances. Swords, for example, were very good at killing unarmored opponents, but were generally used as side-arms. A spear was generally a better option in combat because of its range advantage.

Rondel daggers evolved in the 14th Century, specifically to kill armoured opponents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rondel_dagger
Not a primary melee weapon, but often the killing one.

Referto my previous post on this thread

Buffing daggers in a balanced way is a good thing. I for one don't want them to be just useless dress-pieces like they were in warband.

If done right daggers seem like they can be lots of fun.

Also, er, yeah.. Knights used daggers..

Daggers were probably the weapon that killed the most knights. Of course you don't win a fight with a dagger, you just finish it with one. Straight up fighting with a dagger is probably a good idea if you want to be killed, though.

So what you're suggesting is that every single time I kill someone in Bannerlord I have to switch to my knife and stab him on the ground to make sure he stays dead?

Is that what you call fun gameplay for you? Because having to purchase a second weapon and manually pin down and stab a knight with a knife sounds tedious, boring, and stupid when I could be spending my time raiding, killing archers, having epic duels, or fighting big battles.

Sure cool daggers can kill knights, but mount and blade combat is too fast for stupid unfun crap like having to switch to a different weapon to kill a person.

The realisim mob here pisses me off. Thank god for Taleworlds for not making these guys game developers and focusing on FUN>REALISM, the most important aspect of any video game

  I already did. I generally agree with you, but If TW doesn't, that will be okay. I'm sure that they'll make the best game that they can and something this small will not
cause any world-changing problems. Historically, the dagger, as a primary weapon of war is non-sense. If there is some gameplay to be gained from including it... Not that big of a deal.
Just an opinion.

 

[lolbash]

If there is some gameplay to be gained from including it... Not that big of a deal.
Just an opinion.

I would have agreed with this point if not for the amount of people here suggesting gamechanging ideas that go entirely against the entire core combat system.

Like making it ignore armor.... really?

 

[Oddness]

If there is some gameplay to be gained from including it... Not that big of a deal.
Just an opinion.

I would have agreed with this point if not for the amount of people here suggesting gamechanging ideas that go entirely against the entire core combat system.

Like making it ignore armor.... really?

  That does sound like a bad idea. I'm sure that TW won't do anything too crazy like that... At least I hope not.  lol
I'm not really sure how one would make a dagger into a viable weapon. It really is inferior to battle field weapons in every way.
Yes, NPC99, that includes Rondel daggers I'm afraid. I suppose that if you were in a very narrow space, it would be better to have a dagger...?
When I say narrow space, I mean like a cave that you have to crawl through...
  I understand that the weapon had a very real supplemental role in historical combat. With that being said, I don't know how that would be applied
to Bannerlord. Maybe TW will come up with something interesting.

 

[yedrellow]

You need to control the space between you and your opponent in order to successfully land hits with the head of the axe. 

This seems to me that there will be precise hitboxes, i.e the war of the roses approach. One thing that was a negative about the WOTR approach was that using small hitboxes meant that it necessitated client side hit registration rather than server side hit registration. The negative of client side hit-registration is that it introduced inconsistency in that you could be hit due to the lag or latency of your opponent, so it was less clear whether a missed block was due to you screwing it up, or the opponent's client lagging through your block.

If we do stick with server side registration on the other hand, then I think that the damaging zone of the weapon should probably not be exactly 1:1 with the head of the weapon, as otherwise positional lag will make it frustratingly inconsistent.

 

[dr4gunov]

  Lets define what I mean by a dagger. When you start up Mount and Blade: Warband, look for the item in the inventory which is called a "dagger." That is the weapon that my post is addressing.

Tbh, last time I started I had rusty sword, and before that I started Vikings so there was only spear.

I agree that it isn't as easy as I presented. I presented a general theme, admittedly omitting many weapons and tactics. That does not make the statement, that everything else constant, in a one vs. one fight, the guy with the longer weapon has a major advantage, assuming equal skill between the two combatants and a weapon which can overcome their opponent's defenses.

I would agree with above.

  On the subject of daggers, they have no advantage. They do not provide range nor a better ability to pierce armor than other types of weapons. Their only advantage in a battle is that they are convenient. Can we agree on that?

Well I see where you are coming from. However range is a tricky thing. If you have a spear, you find it easy to thrust into opponent at a distance. Dagger dude is at huge disatvantage there. If he manages to close the distance however, prudent thing to do for a spearman would be to drop polearm and grab something more wieldy on short distances. Ie: short sword or long knife. But there might not be enough time. Armorless fights with weapons tend to be rather quick.

Other advantages of knife: you can eat with it

In general I understand your points, in most cases scenarios reach is good. And unfortunately, Bannerlord does not have combat mechanics to allow for those rarer cases.

 

[Iberian Wolf]

I think the dagger and its variants could shine in specific situations and missions that would require subterfuge in order to succeed. Like an assassination mission, where you'd have to walk past guards with a small weapon like a dagger concealed, until you reach your target. We can't forget daggers/combat knives are actually still important as tools for survival, hunting etc...its importance is not to be shunned.

 

[Baltic Marauder]

Daggers only make sense of the game implements some sort of grappling mechanic, since they're the only weapons that would work in that situation. I really hope they don't do that and just focus on gettin g the game out already

 

[Duchess Skye]

what about a couch lance? hmmm?

Can be chambered if you have a shield (don't ask me why it can't without one)

At least in WB, dunno if it will be chamberable in Bannerlord. I hope it will, it isn't fun without chambering. I hope they keep the barehanded chambering too.

 

[Akka]

Okay, the point I don't understand is the piercing/slashing/blunt situation. I would really have done the opposite (blunt the best at fighting heavy armour, piercing being the best against light armour, slashing being the jack of all trades). Knights used maces and warhammers to overcome plate armour, not spears. In fact, they describe in the blog itself how the arm races between weapons and armour is what gave rise to the blunt weapons, and how the impact was able to reverberate into the guy wearing the protection.

So I really don't get why they made this choice.

 

[Anubi]

...Throwing Weapons, I miss you 

隐藏

ciauz^^,
Jab

So throwing weapons will not be in bannerlord??

 

[Bonky!]

  I saw this conversation begin simply because daggers were rather usless in Warband.

  Now, to set a few things straight. 

-  These are just ideas.  Don't take them personally.

-  I think bypassing armour would be a 'gamey' solution to a combat system that warband is trying to bring depth to.  However, I don't see it as a bad idea altogether.  I just think it's a more apropriate solution for a tabletop game.  I'll talk more on this idea below.

-  Lastly, I don't think grappling is the answer we're looking for either.  The combat system being developed is primarily based around movement, timing, and space (both the environment and the engagement range).  I don't think animated kills belong in this style of play.  They would be jarring rather than enjoyable.

  I propose, within the system being developed, that we take a serious look at what would make a shorter, sturdier, lighter weapon more advantageous.  This includes any and all advantages that come to mind.  It doesn't mean daggers should be a primary arm.  However, in particular situations such as a tightly packed mob, a doorway, or any really confined space they MAY be prefered.

  A dagger would be quicker to bring to speed (especially for those with less strength), more accurate to strike, bear more weight and force of the attacker under a thrust (less pivot on strike as mentioned by Innocent Flower as well as a closer point of impact to the attacker), and would be less of a burden in confined quarters (such as the doorway of a gatehouse).

  These are all points that can be effectively taken into consideration with a physics based combat system.  Of course there are many disadvantages as well (weight, range, etc.) which should also be considered.

  Now, back to armour.  In the case that armour actually has exposed weaknesses modeled into the game, then players could use skill to take advantage of the daggers' natural properties (listed above).  Beyond that, these weaknesses could be taken advantage of by other weapons.  That would be both fun and realistic.

  If you'd like an idea of what I'm thinking then take a look at how Bohemia Interactive handled this with Arma 3.

  I don't know if TaleWorlds is taking this route.  It's simply an idea.  That being said, it would be really nice to hear back from a dev on this.

Let the debates begin. 

 

[lolbash]

notice how no one in the past 6 years ever gave a **** about daggers until this dev blog was released and they broadcasted a dagger, compared to other serious issues that warband had regarding balancinf, like pikes and spears being useless, and horse archers being dumb, people now gave a **** because the word daggers was said by a dev?

That alone should tell you the magnitude of how much we need a buff for daggers. which was none at all.

 

[The Pleb Knight]

pikes and spears being useless

They're not useless though. Pikes and spears are great group fighting weapons since you can hit from behind other people, they also are the only weapons that stop horses although I do wish that they had some sort of passive damage and more attack directions so they don't get rushed quite as easily but they are still decent weapons if you know how to use them.

 

[NPC99]

We’ve been told AI Lords are mortal in Bannerlord, but not how they can be killed. Rondel daggers were used to despatch opponents once they were down. Maybe TW will give us the option to switch to a dagger to finish off an enemy Lord. It would make a change from being told that Lord X managed to escape after you had battered him to a pulp. Obviously it would lose any ransom, but might let you loot his full set of armour.

PS a game rather than a combat mechanic.