• If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
  • Please note that we've updated the Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord save file system which requires you to take certain steps in order for your save files to be compatible with e1.7.1 and any later updates. You can find the instructions here.

Feedback Regarding Armor/Weapon Realism

Users who are viewing this thread

RodLimitless

Recruit
So I consider myself a historian to a degree, though not what I went to college/university for, I've always enjoyed history and I have taken a number of advanced courses, written historical papers, and studied from renowned professors.

One thing I'd like to address is the realism of armor in the game. Though I may equip the character with heavy armor, I don't feel like my character has any armor.

And what I mean by that, is that the armor slows the character down significantly at least early stages and it's very noticeably slow unless you take form-fitting armor perk.

The movement is one thing, the second thing, is the resistance. I don't even feel like I've any armor. A lootter landing a successful stone throw hit taking 10% of your HP, even if it's to the head, makes no sense. Sure, you have various stories, such as David and Goliath, and many other fact-based stories where if you land the throw in the right spot, you knockout the person instantly, even Kings have been shot either in the eye bypassing the helmet eye sockets, or neck, etc.

But historical armor wasn't sluggish or slow. Knights could do full sprints in full chain and plated covered armor. It was designed to allow the person to have insane mobility while giving the person the most defense it could. Movies and videogames often do depict this wrong for some reason. In addition, armor was made to stop arrows, even sword slashes/hacks would barely do any damage to armor. Melee blunt hits would be more efficient to break armor. There's a reason polearms, poleaxes, halberds exist.

Basically, the armor in-game should be increased or enhanced to the point a stone to the body doesn't take 10-15% of your HP or an arrow takes 25%.

Now, as far as the mobility, some may say, "oh dude c'mon if you're carrying all that weight around of course you're gonna be slow"
Well, no, actually, that's not *entirely* true.

People in this time period didn't spend 8-16 hrs a day shooting bad guys online, they actually worked.
Sure, the nobles always had tutors, but what do you think the kids did for fun? They ran. Ran a lot. Carried stuff, worked the fields, depending on the culture, heck some kids from the age of 8 already were given slings and wouldn't be fed unless they managed to hunt something to eat. You're talking a time period before factories and where "child labor" didn't exist, it wasn't labor for children, it was just life.

Look at yard workers, electricians, plumbers, amongst other hard physical laborers. When you shake their hands, they feel like leather. They develop that stamina. Even soldiers today, you don't know what the human body is capable of doing until you test its limits due to necessity.

For people of earlier time periods, being able to do a 400m sprint while wearing 40lbs atop body weight, was a necessity. (You get the context)

I personally find Bannerlord more realistic than other games I've played, I highly enjoy it, and I'd like if maybe they took a deeper look at this.
 

Askorti

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WB
I agree with you 100%.
This is also why I simply refuse to play the game without mods, one or two of them being dedicated solely to addressing this and similar concerns.

However, it's already been stated by the devs that they care more about "fast paced gameplay" than historical accuracy or realism. The chance that they will fix this issue is very slim, as it would go against their design philosophy for this game.
 
I really wish they went more into the damage type countering heavy armour approach. We have the system ready but they're just not doing it :/
 

guiskj

Squire
Movement speed is completely bonkers right now. You start too slow at low Athletics and become completely imnersion-breaking fast past 125 with a couple of perks.
 

Berzerker Jay

I responded to another post like this complaining about stones causing damage through armour.

We're not talking small stones, but if you look at the size of the projectile in hand, these are full on rocks. If you threw one of these at an unarmoured head, you could very well one-shot that person. Wearing plate armour, this projectile would likely trash your plate -- let alone only damaging you. Any bend in the plate could prevent the suit from moving properly, and a hit in the head would cause the helmet to bend in against your skull and on top of your concussion you would be dealing with a metal plate grinding against your head. If you're wearing mail, the impact of a blunt strike like this would be dampened somewhat, but it would still damage you. A chainmail head-covering of any sort would likely do little to prevent the resulting concussion.

So, in short, yes, you should take damage in certain situations, where appropriate. This is where maces and hammers have always shined, what they were generally used for in history.

I've studied history my whole life, as well, especially relating to weapons and armour. Definitely, blunt attacks have always been used against armour, and also piercing attacks were used with skill to hit vulnerable points. The latter isn't included in the game, and I'd hate to see the realistic play of blunt impacts on armour missing as well.
 

Berzerker Jay

I agree with you 100%.
This is also why I simply refuse to play the game without mods, one or two of them being dedicated solely to addressing this and similar concerns.

However, it's already been stated by the devs that they care more about "fast paced gameplay" than historical accuracy or realism. The chance that they will fix this issue is very slim, as it would go against their design philosophy for this game.
If you want invincibility against rocks being hurled against your armour, you aren't seeking realism.
 

Berzerker Jay

Rocks should have their disadvantages in accuracy and range, not in impact against armour. I do think they are more accurate than they really should be, given their size and how unwieldy that would be. Their size, though, is why they would realistically impact an armoured opponent.
 

stevehoos

Banned
Rocks will not do much against armor, that's why people did not hand carry stones after about 5000 BC. I love the attempts to rationalize this stupidity in here.
 

Berzerker Jay

Rocks will not do much against armor, that's why people did not hand carry stones after about 5000 BC. I love the attempts to rationalize this stupidity in here.
Can you logically rationalize why you think a heavy stone pitched at a metal plate will "not do much"?

People still carry and throw stones to this day, so I am not sure what to do with your suggestion this has not occurred in the last 7000 years.... :wink:
 

Berzerker Jay

And are you aware of why blunt impacts were used against armour...?
 

stevehoos

Banned
Can you logically rationalize why you think a heavy stone pitched at a metal plate will "not do much"?

People still carry and throw stones to this day, so I am not sure what to do with your suggestion this has not occurred in the last 7000 years.... :wink:

Yes, the great rock carrying armies of the middle ages handed down by generations of highly accurate looting parties. Jesus Christ....
 

MostBlunted

Sergeant Knight
Can you logically rationalize why you think a heavy stone pitched at a metal plate will "not do much"?

People still carry and throw stones to this day, so I am not sure what to do with your suggestion this has not occurred in the last 7000 years.... :wink:
And why are there like no reports from battles like:

"The heavily armored knights were beaten by rock throwing peasants in the great battle of Butterlord?"

I mean come on...

If this would have been so easy like some people describe it here why did they use "expensive" weapons instead of just some rocks?
 
Last edited:

Berzerker Jay

Yes, the great rock carrying armies of the middle ages handed down by generations of highly accurate looting parties. Jesus Christ....
Note that you've got to be this hyperbolic to even respond to my point.

Yes, mobs that are the equivalent of looters in this game throw rocks still to this day. Over the past year alone there are numerous instances of them pushing back armed and armoured police squads, too....

I think you are straining yourself to argue for some reason.... Not sure why, but unless you can be reasonable and rational I will not respond to the next.
 

Berzerker Jay

I never said looters or their real-life counterparts have been effective at defeating organized, properly equipped armies. :razz:

I hardly take battles with looters serious, and I walk into their rocks moving side to side. Meh.
 

Midnitewolf

Sergeant
I agree with you 100%.
This is also why I simply refuse to play the game without mods, one or two of them being dedicated solely to addressing this and similar concerns.

However, it's already been stated by the devs that they care more about "fast paced gameplay" than historical accuracy or realism. The chance that they will fix this issue is very slim, as it would go against their design philosophy for this game.

But it is not really an issue because like you say, you have a mod that corrects the gameplay specifically for you.

Honestly so much of what I see complained about on the forums isn't really an issue. Armor protectiveness is just a matter of preference. For example the most common mod addressing armor protectiveness usually weakens archery, but for myself, I tend to love playing an archer, therefore the game wouldn't be nearly as fun for me if archery lost its effectiveness despite historical realism. If they accommodated you and made armor very strong which tends to marginalize archery, I would have to load a mod to weaken armor and/or make archery more powerful so that the game played according to my preference.

This is why I saw that this stuff isn't an issue. Honestly anything that generally can be easily corrected by a mod isn't something the devs should be worried about at this juncture. Early access was only supposed to last about a year and they have only a few short months left to meet that expectation. That being the case they need to be working on real issues like fixing siege towers or doing something about the mucked up economy/production issues. If they have to add features I would like to see them add naval combat and travel or providing a "cause and effect" type of city management game play loop instead of just build to level 3 and be done as it is now or much deeper diplomacy game play.

Weapons and armor balance? Waste of time, 95% of the players will mod this to meet their own preferences and/or it will be drastically changed by some complex mod that will be installed at some point.
 

Midnitewolf

Sergeant
Note that you've got to be this hyperbolic to even respond to my point.

Yes, mobs that are the equivalent of looters in this game throw rocks still to this day. Over the past year alone there are numerous instances of them pushing back armed and armoured police squads, too....

I think you are straining yourself to argue for some reason.... Not sure why, but unless you can be reasonable and rational I will not respond to the next.
I think your missing the difference. In the case of modern mobs throwing rocks and pushing back armed and armored police, the police in question are told they can't hurt the mob. If they were actually unleashed on the mob, given permission to use lethal force if necessary, no rock throwing mob, with less than 10 times the numbers, would push back an armed and armored police squad. Remember in Bannerlord, you can actually kill everyone if you want to.
 

Berzerker Jay

I thought we were talking about the ability for rocks to hurt someone wearing armour, so what does the police in my example being allowed or not allowed to use force in return -- which the police have definitely been shown using force in response, too, so I doubly don't know what to make of this non sequitur.

Can I take it by this argument that you are agreeing that rock throwing has an affect against armoured opponents even to this day then?
 

Berzerker Jay

I'd even contend that if someone were to dress up in full plate armour and I were to hurl a rock of this size at them full force, there would be the potential for a knockdown.

More realistic might be that the rock-thrower take the opportunity to rush the staggered opponent, if such an opportunity is available in range.
 

Tajl

Squire
Can you logically rationalize why you think a heavy stone pitched at a metal plate will "not do much"?

People still carry and throw stones to this day, so I am not sure what to do with your suggestion this has not occurred in the last 7000 years.... :wink:
If it would be heavy enough so that it would do serious damage against that guy in plate, it would be too heavy to throw accurately.

There is reason why there is no records of armies using throwing stones. It just doesn't work. Any other missile weapon would be more effective.
Being blunt doesn't give weapon any more force it would have if it would have sharp edge.

Taking out sharp edge from sword doesn't make it lightsaber.
 

Berzerker Jay

If it would be heavy enough so that it would do serious damage against that guy in plate, it would be too heavy to throw accurately.

There is reason why there is no records of armies using throwing stones. It just doesn't work. Any other missile weapon would be more effective.
Being blunt doesn't give weapon any more force it would have if it would have sharp edge.

Taking out sharp edge from sword doesn't make it lightsaber.
Looters aren't rock-throwing armies either. They're desperate people throwing rocks, for which there are countless examples throughout and including recent history showing such groups successfully engaging in combat with thrown stones as their weapons....
 
Top Bottom