Encumbrance needs to be toned down

[Eurafrica]

Before anyone says "you can just turn it off" know that I like to play the mods at a higher difficulty the way they were intended to be played (175% difficulty). I like the idea of encumbrance and the immersion it brings to the mod, but it scales really hard really fast.

For instance, if you want to play as a "Knight" (Heavy Armor/Heavy Long Barded Warhorse) your level 4 riding skill will be brought to a 0, making you move at run speeds losing the shock value of Heavy Cavalry charges. If you ever need to dismount for tactical reasons, you cannot get back on your horse. If you're going to penalize riding, just let it affect horse speed/maneuverability, not riding requirement. In fact, I'd almost say remove the riding skill penalty as War Horses were very expensive and very powerful, and could easily support the weight of a full plate armor knight without sacrificing maneuverability (Cavalry would have been useless if this were the case).

The Archery, Horse Archery and Athletics penalties make sense to me, as the limitations of Heavy Armor would definitely hold true in those cases.

A 37-41 speed War Horse at 0 riding skill =  Gigantic Pin Cushion and not something you'd dare charge into infantry with. Let's face it, with all of the important Intelligence skills and Strength needing to be pumped to match equipment, nobody is going to take their Agility high enough to counteract this riding penalty. (Nor does anyone want to ride a non-armored horse on 175% difficulty).

 

[Caba`drin]

If you're going to penalize riding, just let it affect horse speed/maneuverability, not riding requirement.

This is not possible. Skills do what skills do.

Other than that, you make some compelling arguments about knight-like characters and war horses.

 

[Ferodaktyl]

If you're going to penalize riding, just let it affect horse speed/maneuverability, not riding requirement.

This is not possible. Skills do what skills do.

Other than that, you make some compelling arguments about knight-like characters and war horses.

Or make strength counteract encumbrance, instead of agility. It makes more sense that a stronger character moves faster in a plate armor, not a nimbler one. Also a heavy knight would have some difficulties maneuvering a bow, esp. mounted.

 

[Songyu]

Hm yes, a while ago I had the same thoughts too, but since I play a bow/1hand character
anyway (and kinda want to stay in character), I didn't much care about it. 
The only penalty I have so far is -1 in horse archery. I also always thought that strength
increases the... ability to cope with encumbrance, but now reading here it's actually agility?

Is it possible that both might help with encumbrance? I personally would prefer it to be
strength, it sounds more plausible to me, but both would be cool too.
Of course then each attribute should only add half of the help for each point invested.

On the same matter another idea. Would it be possible to have penalties on ranged
skills/weapons if you use a closed helmet or gauntlets?
Such helmets with only slits to see through would limit the sight of the archer, possibly
reducing their accuracy and the same goes to (heavy) gauntlets because they... kinda
make it hard to have the right feeling with the bow string. I don't know how to best
phrase the last part, hope it's understandable though?

Of course that would only be acceptable if you would want to add a little more realism
to the game. But since the game doesn't have much of that though (which is perfectly
fine of course), I suppose it won't make much of a difference anyway. 

 

[krisslanza]

Huh, I wasn't aware thats why I had a -1 Riding on my knight character... I always thought it was mods that added in things that dropped your skills down. Or... is that whats happening?

I just woke up so my comprehension is not that good.

 

[Eurafrica]

Huh, I wasn't aware thats why I had a -1 Riding on my knight character... I always thought it was mods that added in things that dropped your skills down. Or... is that whats happening?

I just woke up so my comprehension is not that good.

The higher your equipped item weight (Armor/Weapons) the higher the penalty you will receive to Power Draw, Horse Archery, and Riding. We're proposing remove Riding from that list, keep Power Draw/Horse Archery penalized.

 

[krisslanza]

Huh, I wasn't aware thats why I had a -1 Riding on my knight character... I always thought it was mods that added in things that dropped your skills down. Or... is that whats happening?

I just woke up so my comprehension is not that good.

The higher your equipped item weight (Armor/Weapons) the higher the penalty you will receive to Power Draw, Horse Archery, and Riding. We're proposing remove Riding from that list, keep Power Draw/Horse Archery penalized.

Ah, I see... that explains why I had the -1 Riding then. Wasn't aware of that - well, knowing is half the battle!

What is the encumbrance thresholds anyway?

 

[jjmc00]

to be fair, YOU try getting onto a horse without help with tons of armor on you.  You were helped onto your horse before the battle presumably.  I doubt knights would be able to get back on their horses if they are de-horsed or if they get off it.  If you want to get technical that is...

 

[Ferodaktyl]

to be fair, YOU try getting onto a horse without help with tons of armor on you.  You were helped onto your horse before the battle presumably.  I doubt knights would be able to get back on their horses if they are de-horsed or if they get off it.  If you want to get technical that is...

I always do. Just press F. 

 

[Duh]

to be fair, YOU try getting onto a horse without help with tons of armor on you.  You were helped onto your horse before the battle presumably.  I doubt knights would be able to get back on their horses if they are de-horsed or if they get off it.  If you want to get technical that is...

I always do. Just press F. 

I believe thats actually a hollywood myth. Knights were supposedly quite agile in their armor.

Not only hollywood, but:

4. Armor is extremely heavy and renders its wearer immobile.—Wrong.
An entire suit of field armor (that is, armor for battle) usually weighs between 45 and 55 lbs. (20 to 25 kg), with the helmet weighing between 4 and 8 lbs. (2 to 4 kg)—less than the full equipment of a fireman with oxygen gear, or what most modern soldiers have carried into battle since the nineteenth century. Moreover, while most modern equipment is chiefly suspended from the shoulders or waist, the weight of a well-fitted armor is distributed all over the body. It was not until the seventeenth century that the weight of field armor was greatly increased in order to render it bulletproof against ever more accurate firearms. At the same time, however, full armor became increasingly rare and only vital parts of the body, such as the head, torso, and hands, remained protected by metal plate.

The notion that the development of plate armor (completed by about 1420–30) greatly impaired a wearer's mobility is also untrue. A harness of plate armor was made up of individual elements for each limb. Each element in turn consisted of lames (strips of metal) and plates, linked by movable rivets and leather straps, and thus allowing practically all of the body's movements without any impairment due to rigidity of material. The widely held view that a man in armor could hardly move, and, once he had fallen to the ground, was unable to rise again, is also without foundation. On the contrary, historical sources tell us of the famous French knight Jean de Maingre (ca. 1366–1421), known as Maréchal Boucicault, who, in full armor, was able to climb up the underside of a ladder using only his hands. Furthermore, there are several illustrations from the Middle Ages and the Renaissance depicting men-at-arms, squires, or knights, all in full armor, mounting horses without help or instruments such as ladders or cranes. Modern experiments with genuine fifteenth- and sixteenth-century armor as well as with accurate copies have shown that even an untrained man in a properly fitted armor can mount and dismount a horse, sit or lie on the ground, get up again, run, and generally move his limbs freely and without discomfort.

There are a few exceptional instances when armor was extremely heavy or did indeed render its wearer almost "locked" in a certain position, such as armor for certain types of tournaments. Tournament armor was made for very specific occasions and would have been worn only for limited periods of time. The man-at-arms would have mounted his steed with the aid of his squire or a small step, and the last pieces of his armor could then be donned after securely sitting in the saddle.


5. Knights had to be hoisted into their saddles with cranes.—Wrong.
This notion appears to have originated during the late nineteenth century as a joke. It entered popular fiction during the following decades, and the image was finally immortalized in 1944 when Sir Laurence Olivier used it in his movie Henry V—despite the protestations of his historical advisors, who included the eminent authority Sir James Mann, Master of the Armouries at HM Tower of London.

As outlined above, most armor is neither so heavy nor inflexible as to immobilize the wearer. Most men-at-arms would have been able to simply put one foot in a stirrup and mount their horse without assistance. A stool or perhaps the help of a squire would have made the process even speedier; a crane, however, was absolutely unnecessary.

Source: http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/aams/hd_aams.htm#cranes_b

 

[Double A]

I know a guy who LARPs with metal weapons and stuff. He says plate mail's weight is equally distributed everywhere on your body and is much more comfortable than it's made out to be, whereas chainmail is entirely on your shoulders.

 

[Roaring Mouse]

to be fair, YOU try getting onto a horse without help with tons of armor on you.  You were helped onto your horse before the battle presumably.  I doubt knights would be able to get back on their horses if they are de-horsed or if they get off it.  If you want to get technical that is...

He doesnt get back on his horse after falling, but I bet he easily could if that was his goal

http://youtu.be/WMuNXWFPewg

 

[krisslanza]

There's a particular reason that, back in the day, a good set of plate armor would cost more then your house...

I do remember hearing that about chainmail though, it did rest pretty heavy on your shoulders but it, overall, felt pretty lightweight as I recall.