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.
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.