Feedback Regarding Armor/Weapon Realism

[Tajl]

I'm not sure how I should respond to these claims, since slings have been shown to be very effective throughout history, including against armour. They were even effective in warfare up to the Spanish Conquistadors invading South America. I accept that your opinion is slings are not effective, including against armour, but I can't accept that as fact because I know better. You'll know better, too, if you take the time to google or research this by other means.

The copy of De Re Militari that I linked to above makes clear that they were in fact used, and not at all just for hunting, and they were quite effective. I take it you didn't look at that?

If slings would have been effective against conquistadors few hundred conquistadors probably wouldn't been able to conquer Inca nation. Those Incas would have just used their slings against them.

Sling is effective against unarmored target, but against armor it doesn't work. Armors increase area of impact and slingshot just doesn't have that energy and even less penetration. If slings would have been considered to be very effective against armor David and Goliath story would be very different. David the slinger slaughtered helpless brute who was stupid enough to go against power of sling.

De Re Militari says "Soldiers, notwithstanding their defensive armor, are often more annoyed by the round stones from the sling than by all the arrows of the enemy" But it doesn't say that those soldiers died to those slingshots. Arrows couldn't penetrate armors either. Sure it is annoying to be target when enemy is shooting with bows or slings, but I don't remember single ancient battle where slings would have been decisive factor.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

If slings would have been effective against conquistadors few hundred conquistadors probably wouldn't been able to conquer Inca nation. They would have just used their slings against them.

Sling is effective against unarmored target, but against armor it doesn't work. Armors increase area of impact and slingshot just doesn't have that energy and even less penetration. If slings would have been very effective against armor David and Goliath story would been very different too. David the slingers slaughtered helpless brute who was stupid enough to go against power of sling.

De Re Militari says "Soldiers, notwithstanding their defensive armor, are often more annoyed by the round stones from the sling than by all the arrows of the enemy" But it doesn't say that those soldiers died to those slingshots. Arrows couldn't penetrate armors either. Sure it is annoying to be target when enemy is shooting with bows or slings, but I don't remember single ancient battle where slings would have been decisive factor.

Why do you use this metric? I'm seriously confused by your thinking on this -- it either has to be that rocks are the most formidable weapon in the universe and beat everything, or they have to be the equivalent of stale muffins thrown on the battlefield?

 

[Berzerker Jay]

I go up against looters in late-tier armour, and I barely take any damage. I'm not getting beaten by rocks. Isn't that exactly what you are arguing happens against people who throw rocks...?

 

[stevehoos]

Yet people throw rocks in combat situation to this day, even if they can't defeat modern weaponry with it.

I think as formidable as looters are, this is fair, no? It is very rare that they actually beat military units.

Give me a reference of a Medieval story about bandits that used rocks to subdue a caravan or party. They would have been laughed at. People throw rocks at playgrounds lol.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

Give me a reference of a Medieval story about bandits that used rocks to subdue a caravan or party. They would have been laughed at. People throw rocks at playgrounds lol.

Rock-throwing has been used in robberies for quite some time, and still is....

Honestly, I think there's a lot of strain to nerf thrown rocks and logic isn't keeping up with that strain. I feel like I've made a lot of points that I backed up with evidence, and those points are only being bypassed. I'm going to stick to those points and ignore further responses that ignore those points.

As far as subjective opinions, we'll agree to disagree. As far as facts, the facts speak for themselves.

Like, I even cited a professional army unit from classical times. I've provided evidence and seen none comparable to the opposite points. As far as asking for a story, I am afraid I must decline because this is getting mired in ad nauseum fallacy.

 

[Tajl]

Why do you use this metric? I'm seriously confused by your thinking on this -- it either has to be that rocks are the most formidable weapon in the universe and beat everything, or they have to be the equivalent of stale muffins thrown on the battlefield?

Rocks were not real weapon of war after stone age ended. (professional slinger used sling bullets)

They were used yes, because sling was good tool for hunting so people trained with and could use them. But fact is that they didn't decide battles. Slings were very cheap weapon to produce and stones cost nothing. If slingers would have been even somewhat effective in war there would have been lot more slingers than there was and they would have been used in medieval times too.

 

[Tajl]

Like, I even cited a professional army unit from classical times. I've provided evidence and seen none comparable to the opposite points. As far as asking for a story, I am afraid I must decline because this is getting mired in ad nauseum fallacy.

Problem is that 400BC was very very long time ago. They barely had any iron and bronze was very expensive. Totally different time compared to medieval times. How useful some weapon was 400BS doesn't tell much about how useful it would be 1000AD.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

Rocks were not real weapon of war after stone age ended. (professional slinger used sling bullets)

They were used yes, because sling was good tool for hunting so people trained with and could use them. But fact is that they didn't decide battles. Slings were very cheap weapon to produce and stones cost nothing. If slingers would have been even somewhat effective in war there would have been lot more slingers than there was and they would have been used in medieval times too.

When have throwing rocks decided a battle in favour of looters in this game?

Has it even happened? Because it's never happened to me.... I basically have to try and solo a large party of them at the very beginning of the game in order to lose.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

Problem is that 400BC was very very long time ago. They barely had any iron and bronze was very expensive. Totally different time compared to medieval times. How useful some weapon was 400BS doesn't tell much about how useful it would be 1000AD.

Throwing rocks are still used as weapons to this day, and can still do damage....

We've been through this....

We have three factions in the game based on Rome, and I provided a historical document that specifies how Roman recruits were trained to throw rocks by hand in combat, and how all soldiers had been trained to throw stones the size of a pound in the hand.

If you can't respond to my actual points, I have to insist against engaging in a circular argument for that reason alone.

 

[Nystagmus]

Warbows and rocks do very different damage in game, and in fair reflection of the very different damage the two do in reality.

Historically, warbows were used against plate armour. They were effective back then, in many different battles, and modern historians have carried out demonstrations to show the penetrating force of arrows against plate armour. This isn't even questionable. Also, no one is saying a rock's blunt impact will match the characteristics of a warbow's piercing impact at all.

I am only reffering in terms of realism. Rock thrown with a hand will not come even close to generate the amount of power that a war arrow will do and yet those arent in any way a surefire way to stop quality armor. If that's the case then a rock should be by comparison a non-threat.

Talking from gameplay perspective - I am kinda out of the loop. I still remember rocks being definitely a threat even when wearing high quality armor which made no sense in both realism and gameplay sense. Perhaps they fixed that

 

[Berzerker Jay]

I am only reffering in terms of realism. Rock thrown with a hand will not come even close to generate the amount of power that a war arrow will do and yet those arent in any way a surefire way to stop quality armor. If that's the case then a rock should be by comparison a non-threat.

Talking from gameplay perspective - I am kinda out of the loop. I still remember rocks being definitely a threat even when wearing high quality armor which made no sense in both realism and gameplay sense. Perhaps they fixed that

Doing blunt damage versus doing piercing damage to plate armour is entirely different, as I already said.

Warbows do more damage than rocks in the game already, but should that mean rocks do no damage? I find it hard to follow this logic.

 

[Nystagmus]

Doing blunt damage versus doing piercing damage to plate armour is entirely different, as I already said.

Warbows do more damage than rocks in the game already, but should that mean rocks do no damage? I find it hard to follow this logic.

Again - I was pointing to the realism and rocks being threat to an armor or not. I was using bows for comparison

In game I can only relate to how it was. As said - I was out of loop for a long time so perhaps now their dmg is reduced. Tho personally I always thought that only thing they needed were range, speed and accuracy nerf.

 

[MostBlunted]

Honestly, I think there's a lot of strain to nerf thrown rocks and logic isn't keeping up with that strain. I feel like I've made a lot of points that I backed up with evidence, and those points are only being bypassed. I'm going to stick to those points and ignore further responses that ignore those points.

So in a battle like 17 looters vs an army with 20 heavy cavs,30 shielded infantry and 20 archers it should be possible that one heavy cav dude dies because of rocks?

 

[black_bulldog]

So in a battle like 17 looters vs an army with 20 heavy cavs,30 shielded infantry and 20 archers it should be possible that one heavy cav dude dies because of rocks?

Why would 17 looters even think of taking on such a group it's basically suicide? I mean even if they got someone down all of them are going to die.

 

[stevehoos]

I have seen a few things on this forum in my time, this ranks up there.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

So in a battle like 17 looters vs an army with 20 heavy cavs,30 shielded infantry and 20 archers it should be possible that one heavy cav dude dies because of rocks?

You don't think there should be any chance at all of dying in combat? There's such a thing as lucky hits and tragic fails.

Are you just auto-resolving? Because if so, that carries this risk. How often do you have casualties against looters? I have maybe a couple per playthrough.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

Why would 17 looters even think of taking on such a group it's basically suicide? I mean even if they got someone down all of them are going to die.

I think he'd have had to be the attacker, or else this group of looters would have ran away. Unless his definition of heavy cavalry and such includes such low-tier troops that these looters would feel superior. I think even a party of 15 Tier-I troops will scare a party of 17 looters, though.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

Again - I was pointing to the realism and rocks being threat to an armor or not. I was using bows for comparison

In game I can only relate to how it was. As said - I was out of loop for a long time so perhaps now their dmg is reduced. Tho personally I always thought that only thing they needed were range, speed and accuracy nerf.

A warbow is not a relevant comparison for the damage rocks will do to armour -- my point made repeatedly. They do entirely different types of damage, affect the metal plate in totally different ways. A piercing attack through plate will even have its capacity for damage diminished, while blunt impact against plate will be less diminished and carry its impact through to the wearer. Against plate armour, an edged weapon still is effectively functioning as a blunt weapon.

Think about this. If you throw a heavy rock hard at a steel plate, will it be damaged differently than by an arrow even if all else is equal other than the way force is distributed on that plate?

I'm trying to help you understand this, but if you don't then maybe it would help to research why blunt weapons were used against plate armour?

 

[Berzerker Jay]

You can have the most hardened steel helmet available on the planet, incapable of being pierced or cut, but if you take blunt force to that helmet it will absolutely carry out through your head and concuss you, no matter what armour rating the helmet has, actually.

 

[Nystagmus]

A warbow is not a relevant comparison for the damage rocks will do to armour -- my point made repeatedly. They do entirely different types of damage, affect the metal plate in totally different ways. A piercing attack through plate will even have its capacity for damage diminished, while blunt impact against plate will be less diminished and carry its impact through to the wearer. Against plate armour, an edged weapon still is effectively functioning as a blunt weapon.

Think about this. If you throw a heavy rock hard at a steel plate, will it be damaged differently than by an arrow even if all else is equal other than the way force is distributed on that plate?

I'm trying to help you understand this, but if you don't then maybe it would help to research why blunt weapons were used against plate armour?

Steel helmet won't care if it was hit by a pointy stick or by a flat rock. Power is what mostly actually matters.
Also those blunt weapons that were used against armor were quite sharp and spiky a lot of times. Warhammers, morgensterns, pickaxes, flanged maces. You generate a lot power with them by virtue of having leverage in form of handle. Something a rock does not have. You also don't loose any momentum before hitting the target. Which thrown rock does