Feedback Regarding Armor/Weapon Realism

[Berzerker Jay]

A softball-sized rock can do a lot of damage.

Hell, when I was Eleven years old, I broke through the exterior brick wall of my school throwing a stone at it. Not exactly my intention, or believed to be a possibility, but no less it happened. That was a child throwing that stone.

 

[Tajl]

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....

Ancient and medieval times peasant mobs were slaughtered every time they tried to fight professional soldiers. Peasants against soldier is not battle its is just slaughter. Always been so.

Today throwing rocks can work as long as opposing side is not allowed to use force.

I can kick down simple brick wall. It doesn't take that much force. Still I don't think that peasants would have easily killed medieval knights with few kicks.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

We are not talking about whether the target of a thrown rock can hurt the thrower of the rock. That is irrelevant to the point.

In the game, I absolutely and always hurt the throwers of the rocks.

As far as professional armies go, anyway, in looking for historical record of rocks being used against armoured opponents, I found reference to an actual professional army in Ancient Greece, the petrovoloi, in case you're interested.

Since the only objections at this point are that the target of rock-throwing can and will likely attack and kill the rock-thrower, and since that is exactly how it already works in game -- can we say it's working as it should...?

 

[Berzerker Jay]

Apparently, also, the famous historical text, "De Re Militari," details how Roman recruits were to be taught to throw stones both by hand and by sling, and to select one-pound stones for doing so.

That can be referenced here.

 

[vonbalt]

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.

Did you find archers weak in warband? i would be more than happy if we had warband levels or armor in bannerlord, i usually fielded archer/crossbowmen armies in warband and wreaked enemies like there was no tomorrow, i agree that realism etc is best left for modders so that everyone can eventually tailor the game to their personal preferences but i'm speaking about vanilla bannerlord and i find armor too damn weak and not worthwhile in it, there is basically no sense of progression or that felling you had in warband when upgrading from a leather tunic to chainmail and then to a swadian full plate, you could feel it protecting you much more but you were still far from invincible.

 

[Tajl]

Apparently, also, the famous historical text, "De Re Militari," details how Roman recruits were to be taught to throw stones both by hand and by sling, and to select one-pound stones for doing so.

That can be referenced here.

Sling was hunting tool for them. Easy to carry, weight nothing and they could use it as ranged weapon if they had to, but it wasn't really weapon of war for them. Though there were some quite effective slingers at ancient times. They didn't use rocks though. At least not when they were on war. Sling is way more effective weapon than throwing. Still sling was not good against armor.

Throwing rocks as training. Sounds good for troops who were going to use javelins or darts.

As far as professional armies go, anyway, in looking for historical record of rocks being used against armoured opponents, I found reference to an actual professional army in Ancient Greece, the petrovoloi, in case you're interested.

Since the only objections at this point are that the target of rock-throwing can and will likely attack and kill the rock-thrower, and since that is exactly how it already works in game -- can we say it's working as it should...?

Xenophon lived very very long time ago. So his writing were about armies 400BC or something. In his time heavy armor was cuirass, helmet and maybe greaves. Most soldiers provided their own gear. Bronze was expensive and iron even more so. So I am certain that if those professional rock throwers could have had plumbata or something like that, they would have used them, but rocks cost nothing while metal weapons were expensive.

I think those throwing rocks do way too much damage against armored opponent. Though of course looters are not the real problem. Problem is that practically any weapon go through heaviest armor in game. It take just two arrows to chest to kill guy in that heaviest possible armor while realistically those arrows wouldn't do any damage at all as arrows doesn't go trough chest plates. Even bronze armors from Xenophons time would be good enough for that.

 

[stevehoos]

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.

The point is ridiculous to begin with. It was not worth a response in the first place.

 

[Mad Vader]

This thread needs more Youtube videos about throwing rocks, making various improbable claims.

Spoiler: Definite proof that looters throwing rocks are effective anti-armor missile troops

 

[Nystagmus]

Could a famished and ragged looter throw a rock with more power than a 100lbs war bow could shoot an arrow?
If not then a hand thrown rock wouldn't do absolutely anything to a good quality plate.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

Sling was hunting tool for them. Easy to carry, weight nothing and they could use it as ranged weapon if they had to, but it wasn't really weapon of war for them. Though there were some quite effective slingers at ancient times. They didn't use rocks though. At least not when they were on war. Sling is way more effective weapon than throwing. Still sling was not good against armor.

Throwing rocks as training. Sounds good for troops who were going to use javelins or darts.

Xenophon lived very very long time ago. So his writing were about armies 400BC or something. In his time heavy armor was cuirass, helmet and maybe greaves. Most soldiers provided their own gear. Bronze was expensive and iron even more so. So I am certain that if those professional rock throwers could have had plumbata or something like that, they would have used them, but rocks cost nothing while metal weapons were expensive.

I think those throwing rocks do way too much damage against armored opponent. Though of course looters are not the real problem. Problem is that practically any weapon go through heaviest armor in game. It take just two arrows to chest to kill guy in that heaviest possible armor while realistically those arrows wouldn't do any damage at all as arrows doesn't go trough chest plates. Even bronze armors from Xenophons time would be good enough for that.

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?

 

[Berzerker Jay]

The point is ridiculous to begin with. It was not worth a response in the first place.

I mean, yes, the idea you should be immune to damage from thrown rocks is ridiculous, especially since such is still not the case in modern times. There's not much in the way of effective armour even today that you could put on and take any number of rocks hurled with force against you, especially against the head considering concussions are a factor.

I am not sure why someone would believe metal plate can't be affected by a heavy rock thrown as hard as humans are capable of throwing.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

Could a famished and ragged looter throw a rock with more power than a 100lbs war bow could shoot an arrow?
If not then a hand thrown rock wouldn't do absolutely anything to a good quality plate.

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.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

I think we should really acknowledge that the damage is very different between piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning versus plate armour. That's the reason why warhammers became a thing on the medieval battlefield, to counter these heavy armours.

When you smash armour, rather than pierce it, you deform it and you can even cut the enemy with their own armour. More than that, these impacts would disable heavy armour by deforming it in such a way that it no longer cleanly moves against itself. Showing this kind of affect in this game, affecting whether one of your limbs is able to move at all, et cetera, would be fairly difficult. I'm fine with it being reflected in direct damage, as far as game purposes go.

I don't really want to respond further to assertions that ignore such a dramatic and relevant difference between blunt and edged weapons against plate.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

Found a video clearly showing a yew longbow piercing a breastplate: here.

 

[vonbalt]

I mean, yes, the idea you should be immune to damage from thrown rocks is ridiculous, especially since such is still not the case in modern times. There's not much in the way of effective armour even today that you could put on and take any number of rocks hurled with force against you, especially against the head considering concussions are a factor.

I am not sure why someone would believe metal plate can't be affected by a heavy rock thrown as hard as humans are capable of throwing.

Not imune but they should barely annoy you in high end armor instead of taking large chunks of your health.

And i've done riot control in RL, modern riot armor is absolutely effective against rocks and other small/sharp projectiles, been there, done that myself in real conflicts and the armor was excelent but hot as hell and a bit cumbersome (but not heavy) even after carefully adjusting it since it wasn't tailored specifically to my body being mass produced and all.

Modern riot armor is basically a munitions grade plate but made of polymers instead of steel, you have your uniform under it all, then the plates with integrated padding (basically what a plate + gambeson feels like)

 

[Midnitewolf]

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?

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.

My point was that while it is entirely possible for someone to hurt an armored police officer of today with a rock, rock throwing would be largely ineffective at driving back the police if they were allow to use force in return. Sure if you throw enough rocks at an unresisting foe, even if you weren't really causing any harm, eventually they would back off. Also the armor police use today is no where near as protective as armor was back in the middle ages. They usually have some sort of soft armor chest and back armor with a 8x12 hard or even soft ballastic plate in the center of their chest and back. Occasionally they have side armor protection. They also wear a helmet with face shield and maybe elbow and knee pads. This leave a whole hell of alot of soft tissue exposed, things like the neck, underarms, waist, groin, upper legs, lower legs, shoulders, upper arms, fore arms and even hands exposed to those rocks. The armor in Bannerlord doesn't leave that much exposed.

Speaking of Bannerlord, lets get back to it. The largest rock that someone would likely be carrying and throwing as a weapon would be maybe 1-2 lb and the size of a baseball. You could probably throw a rock this size maybe 20-30 mph (consider a baseball weight 5.5 ounces or 1/3 lb and most people can only throw one 60-70 mph). Against someone in padded armor like a gambeson, at hit might cause a bruise. Even chain which has very little rigidity and lacks protection against blunt force, at most you would get are bruises from rocks and you could probably take dozens if not hundreds of bruising hits before you were incapacitated or killed. Against any sort of rigid armor like say the lamellar armor widely depicted in Bannerlord, you would suffer no damage if hit by a rock.

If we are taking hits to the head, ok if you weren't wearing a helmet then yeah, sure a hit from a thrown rock could be lethal. Even if you were wearing a chain coif, a hit in the head from a rock could be lethal. However any sort of real helm, especially if it had face and jaw protection, would largely protect the wearing against lethal damage by a thrown rock. As someone who has been hit in the side of my helmeted head with a 6 ounce hockey hockey puck being cleared up the boards at probably 60-80 mph, I can say it will ring your bell a bit, but it doesn't actually hurt though I am sure if I had it happen 6-10 times in a short period of time, I could see myself suffering a concussion or something just due to the sheer repetition of hits but your not getting hit in the head by thrown rocks all that often in game.

Also, I guess you might be able to get some stagger effects hitting hard armor. Throw a 2 pound rock at a guy and hit him in the chest, his forward progress might be halted or he might have to take a step back. Hit him in the helmet, sure that will stop him up and if you caught him unbalanced, he might actually fall but getting staggered or even failing isn't any actual incapacitating damage.

Now lets talk looters. They aren't normally hitting you in the head, instead they are hitting you mostly in the body, arms or legs yet fully armored with a rigid armor and full helm, they can damage and kill you rather quickly. That is quite a bit of unrealism right there.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

Not imune but they should barely annoy you in high end armor instead of taking large chunks of your health.

And i've done riot control in RL, modern riot armor is absolutely effective against rocks and other small/sharp projectiles, been there, done that myself in real conflicts and the armor was excelent but hot as hell and a bit cumbersome (but not heavy) even after carefully adjusting it since it wasn't tailored specifically to my body being mass produced and all.

Modern riot armor is basically a munitions grade plate but made of polymers instead of steel, you have your uniform under it all, then the plates with integrated padding (basically what a plate + gambeson feels like)

Would you post a video of yourself in your riot-gear taking a rock the size of what the looters are throwing? You don't think the force would affect you...in spite of physics?

 

[Berzerker Jay]

My point was that while it is entirely possible for someone to hurt an armored police officer of today with a rock, rock throwing would be largely ineffective at driving back the police if they were allow to use force in return. Sure if you throw enough rocks at an unresisting foe, even if you weren't really causing any harm, eventually they would back off. Also the armor police use today is no where near as protective as armor was back in the middle ages. They usually have some sort of soft armor chest and back armor with a 8x12 hard or even soft ballastic plate in the center of their chest and back. Occasionally they have side armor protection. They also wear a helmet with face shield and maybe elbow and knee pads. This leave a whole hell of alot of soft tissue exposed, things like the neck, underarms, waist, groin, upper legs, lower legs, shoulders, upper arms, fore arms and even hands exposed to those rocks. The armor in Bannerlord doesn't leave that much exposed.

Speaking of Bannerlord, lets get back to it. The largest rock that someone would likely be carrying and throwing as a weapon would be maybe 1-2 lb and the size of a baseball. You could probably throw a rock this size maybe 20-30 mph (consider a baseball weight 5.5 ounces or 1/3 lb and most people can only throw one 60-70 mph). Against someone in padded armor like a gambeson, at hit might cause a bruise. Even chain which has very little rigidity and lacks protection against blunt force, at most you would get are bruises from rocks and you could probably take dozens if not hundreds of bruising hits before you were incapacitated or killed. Against any sort of rigid armor like say the lamellar armor widely depicted in Bannerlord, you would suffer no damage if hit by a rock.

If we are taking hits to the head, ok if you weren't wearing a helmet then yeah, sure a hit from a thrown rock could be lethal. Even if you were wearing a chain coif, a hit in the head from a rock could be lethal. However any sort of real helm, especially if it had face and jaw protection, would largely protect the wearing against lethal damage by a thrown rock. As someone who has been hit in the side of my helmeted head with a 6 ounce hockey hockey puck being cleared up the boards at probably 60-80 mph, I can say it will ring your bell a bit, but it doesn't actually hurt though I am sure if I had it happen 6-10 times in a short period of time, I could see myself suffering a concussion or something just due to the sheer repetition of hits but your not getting hit in the head by thrown rocks all that often in game.

Also, I guess you might be able to get some stagger effects hitting hard armor. Throw a 2 pound rock at a guy and hit him in the chest, his forward progress might be halted or he might have to take a step back. Hit him in the helmet, sure that will stop him up and if you caught him unbalanced, he might actually fall but getting staggered or even failing isn't any actual incapacitating damage.

Now lets talk looters. They aren't normally hitting you in the head, instead they are hitting you mostly in the body, arms or legs yet fully armored with a rigid armor and full helm, they can damage and kill you rather quickly. That is quite a bit of unrealism right there.

Why do you think people who routinely use rocks as throwing weapons, even potentially training with them as Roman soldiers did, would not be at least somewhat as proficient at doing so as a baseball player?

I did mention that when I was a kid I myself put a rock through the brick in the exterior wall of my school. The insulation all poured out. I wasn't some desperate criminal roaming the countryside robbing travelers and depending on rock-throwing as my principle means for defense -- I was just a child. Had I hit an armoured person with that stone, I think it might have done damage...and I was a child.

Either way, when was the last time you were pushed back by looters in Bannerlord? I have been pushed back by looters far less than riot-police are pushed back by rock-throwing.

 

[stevehoos]

I think maybe thousands of years of warfare might have ruled that rock throwing was not so useful? Aside from slinger units (a different thing altogether) there's no practical use for rock throwing aside from skipping lake rocks.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

I think maybe thousands of years of warfare might have ruled that rock throwing was not so useful? As other thang slinger units (a different thing altogether) there's no practical use for rock throwing aside from skipping lake rocks.

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.