Feedback Regarding Armor/Weapon Realism

[Berzerker Jay]

the thing is this video represents contemporary arms and armours.

the bow is a replica of the one in the mary rose.

they weren't a bunch of herculeses (herculei?) back in the day. 360lbs is 3.5 plate. deadlifting this number is easy in a couple of years of training.
and like they said, you need to keep some strength to join the melee.

if during warband days armour wasn't as good, neither would arms be better.

The Mary Rose was launched in 1511. It is not relevant. They weren't only deadlifting 360 pounds -- they were carrying it around an enclosure a number of sheep were kept in, as one example. As to your claim about arms, I don't know if you think the swords were previously made of wood, but what especially propelled the development of full plate armour was the crossbow, which itself advanced to become more and more powerful.

The crossbows in this game, I would argue, are more or less at par with the armour.

 

[D0c1]

they were carrying it around an enclosure a number of sheep were kept in, as one example

still not unachievable for us mortals.
farmer's walk

The ultimate goal is to carry your body weight in each hand, which is admittedly very tough and should only be attempted after extensive training.

The Mary Rose was launched in 1511

even better. an armour can withstand bows and arrows made a century later

As to your claim about arms, I don't know if you think the swords were previously made of wood

nice deflection. we're talking ranged weapons.

what especially propelled the development of full plate armour was the crossbow, which itself advanced to become more and more powerful

idk about this nor do i care. plate > puny ranged weapons.

people wore armour because it worked. when it stopped working, it fell out of use.

 

[dogu91]

I think there needs to be a bit of an RNG factor when it comes to heaviest armors vs projectiles.
The blunt vs cut vs pierce differences should be emphasized as armors get heavier.

I remember an old mod from mount and blade that did this perfectly, the 1257 mod that was BEFORE warband era.
There, the armored knigts would either get no damage or 1-2 damage through cut weapons and arrows.

While this might be extreme, I think the game needs to have a luck factor for "penetration" to model this for heavier armors unless it is dealing with blunt force.

 

[vonbalt]

I just don't get why, if you want to survive multiple hits from weapons that deal well over 100 damage before your armour is factored in, you don't just turn down difficulty settings?

Which armour do you expect to leave you fine and ready to continue fighting after taking multiple hits to the chest from a two-handed axe designed for war, and designed specifically to negate your armour?

Two-handed weapons also carry the disadvantage of no option for a shield. This when one-handed swords can approach similar lengths.

First it's about progression and itemization, you should feel higher tier equipment being more effective to compensate the cost (in time and denars) of getting it which is one of the things i believe are bettter balanced in warband compared to bannerlord.

Second it's not all about the player, it's mainly about the troops and the balance of the fights for me, my heavy veteran infantry can't take any beating without falling like flies as if they were recruits because of how little armor protects them, these guys should be able to take a few more hits than they do now.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

still not unachievable for us mortals.
farmer's walk



even better. an armour can withstand bows and arrows made a century later


nice deflection. we're talking ranged weapons.

idk about this nor do i care. plate > puny ranged weapons.

people wore armour because it worked. when it stopped working, it fell out of use.

You're even accusing me of a deflection because of my point about swords, even though I clearly mentioned crossbows were most important in that stage of armour development.

I'm pretty convinced you're trolling, and not going to give you more attention than to laugh at your ironic deflection about how us mortals can't achieve full-strength status according to this era of Scandinavian culture. Us mortals also aren't likely to achieve the status of Bannerlord any time in our lives, either, and so what?

I flat out don't think you're even trying to be reasonable, so you and I should let it rest at that, unless you can convince me otherwise. I'd really prefer you not try, though.

I think there needs to be a bit of an RNG factor when it comes to heaviest armors vs projectiles.
The blunt vs cut vs pierce differences should be emphasized as armors get heavier.

I remember an old mod from mount and blade that did this perfectly, the 1257 mod that was BEFORE warband era.
There, the armored knigts would either get no damage or 1-2 damage through cut weapons and arrows.

While this might be extreme, I think the game needs to have a luck factor for "penetration" to model this for heavier armors unless it is dealing with blunt force.

You're talking full plate when the coat of plates worn over chainmail wasn't even introduced yet in this time-period -- that's 14th-century.

Do the people arguing their armour should be treated as full plate not realize that their characters are not even depicted as wearing full plate?

 

[Philozoraptor]

Complete realism is not good from businness perspective unless it is specifically advertised (plus its harder to do if you want to go into little details). However some basic scaling that anyone can pick up immediatelly would be great: naked = dead in 1 swordhit, clothes = dead in 1 hit, maybe 2 if you are lucky, gambeson or thick cloth = dead in 2 hits, leather = dead in 3 hits, mail, etc = dead in 4 hits, heavy variants of mail and lamellar = 5-6 hits, super heavy armor = 7-8 hits. Is it tottaly realistic? No. Can anyone fell the progress and satisfaction when he buys new armor? Yes. Is there significant difference between unit tiers in terms of survival and are they therefore worth investing in? Yes.

 

[vonbalt]

Complete realism is not good from businness perspective unless it is specifically advertised (plus its harder to do if you want to go into little details). However some basic scaling that anyone can pick up immediatelly would be great: naked = dead in 1 swordhit, clothes = dead in 1 hit, maybe 2 if you are lucky, gambeson or thick cloth = dead in 2 hits, leather = dead in 3 hits, mail, etc = dead in 4 hits, heavy variants of mail and lamellar = 5-6 hits, super heavy armor = 7-8 hits. Is it tottaly realistic? No. Can anyone fell the progress and satisfaction when he buys new armor? Yes. Is there significant difference between unit tiers in terms of survival and are they therefore worth investing in? Yes.

That's what i was trying to say, it's not completely realistic yes but it's a good balance between realism and gameplay, i should feel the progression from a wool tunic to maille and then to a coat of plates for example, right now you pay a fortune (without mods) for a high end armor and it barely protects you more than the initial wool tunic of the game, it doesn't feel rewarding and it badly affects troops aswell with the so called "veterans" droping like flies in battle.

There is also the matter of gear armor rating not following their visual representations which leads to situations were one armor visually has more layers or better material than another but provides less protection because.. reasons

 

[Berzerker Jay]

I just don't get it. Once I have the later armour, I'm wading through the enemies so I can attack their line from behind while they deal with my line. Most are really no threat at all, and I handle myself reasonably well. When I do go down in battle for this tactic, I expect it and just try to bring down as many as I can with me.

I start doing this once I have armour at least around 25. In that armour I am very keenly aware how quickly everything can go entirely wrong.

I like that, and would absolutely hate to lose it. Then it becomes a joke where if you know how to play the game you have to run naked at the enemy. I used to solo in Warband all the time -- it was a fun challenge, and otherwise the NPC's didn't really stand a chance against me. My biggest solo was a series of battles against Harlaus and over 300 of his men, finally going down because the previous rounds had nicked my health down, then getting captured and breaking free to go immediately on the attack again and several rounds later capture King Harlaus.

You can get good at this game if you keep playing, even if you turn down the difficulty levels to suit your level. But don't ruin it for those of us who know the game. This is where replayability dies.

 

[Akka]

Jesus Christ people, where do y'all get so much time to shoot the sh*t with a no brainer thing. Amor needs a buff, period. Once you are in the game 99.99999% will get pissed by the amount of damage you get from small arms. This is about gameplay, that's it.

If y'all got some extra time on your hand, ill buy some.

Well, I guess the last two pages just showed you why we ended up boggled down into such time-wasting argument :p

 

[dogu91]

You're talking full plate when the coat of plates worn over chainmail wasn't even introduced yet in this time-period -- that's 14th-century.

Do the people arguing their armour should be treated as full plate not realize that their characters are not even depicted as wearing full plate?

Actually, a proper chainmail with all the other components underneath it etc is quite strong against cut damage and arrows from distance.
Full plate is almost invincible against arrows.

The damage that goes can both be handled through RNG with chainmail getting more damage and the non-existent plate (in game) less damage.

During this time period a fully armored knight in extensive chainmail should still be protected quite well.

I don't know the physics modelling of the game, but the distance the arrow is coming from being calculated in would be amazing. Or a luck factor on how badly the character can be damaged underneath the mail (as in hits sometimes overcoming "armor" protection) - but I do not know the details of the calcuation .

I'm sure people will balance it eventually I just hope that the vanilla also gets into this to an extend.

 

[Nalgasucia507]

Well, I guess the last two pages just showed you why we ended up boggled down into such time-wasting argument :p

lol yea. I am all good for shooting the sh*t for the sake of shooting the sh*t, but if the intention of the discussion is to create a change in gameplay, KISS, display data/graphs and write as prompt, concise verbiage as possible. Ain't nobody got time to read novels. I can see this thread has turned into a group myspace chat for 2 or 3 people, which is fine, but it will only be read by those 2 or 3 people.

 

[Gandamula]

And what happens when you ride in high speed through a forest wearing good armor, or no armor at all, and you hit a tree? Absolutely nothing, not even a scratch, you just have to accelerate again.

 

[Philozoraptor]

And what happens when you ride in high speed through a forest wearing good armor, or no armor at all, and you hit a tree? Absolutely nothing, not even a scratch, you just have to accelerate again.

AI ignores (does not see) trees and rocks so it would suicide in forest if such feature would be implemented.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

Actually, a proper chainmail with all the other components underneath it etc is quite strong against cut damage and arrows from distance.
Full plate is almost invincible against arrows.

The damage that goes can both be handled through RNG with chainmail getting more damage and the non-existent plate (in game) less damage.

During this time period a fully armored knight in extensive chainmail should still be protected quite well.

I don't know the physics modelling of the game, but the distance the arrow is coming from being calculated in would be amazing. Or a luck factor on how badly the character can be damaged underneath the mail (as in hits sometimes overcoming "armor" protection) - but I do not know the details of the calcuation .

I'm sure people will balance it eventually I just hope that the vanilla also gets into this to an extend.

It's ironic you say all that, because someone just put up a video that wasn't very relevant because it was using armour from nearly half a millennium ahead of Bannerlord's time period. However -- even with this more advanced armour and how well it deflected the arrows, when an arrow missed the breastplate and hit the chainmail, it went right in.

Chainmail most definitely improved by that point in history, too. Ours will not be of better quality than that.

 

[Apocal]

lol yea. I am all good for shooting the sh*t for the sake of shooting the sh*t, but if the intention of the discussion is to create a change in gameplay, KISS, display data/graphs and write as prompt, concise verbiage as possible.

Why do you think that matters?

This thread linked started with all that and -- well?

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/armour-why-it-doesnt-work-and-how-to-make-it-work.426296

 

[Berzerker Jay]

+1. That's it my man.

Ok guys, how about $5 for one hour of y'all free time.

I think Imperial lamellar should really make you almost like a tank. That should be the standard, then everything below.

lol yea. I am all good for shooting the sh*t for the sake of shooting the sh*t, but if the intention of the discussion is to create a change in gameplay, KISS, display data/graphs and write as prompt, concise verbiage as possible. Ain't nobody got time to read novels. I can see this thread has turned into a group myspace chat for 2 or 3 people, which is fine, but it will only be read by those 2 or 3 people.

Okay, so while you're in here commenting on that you think others are cramming the thread with useless spam, here are your last four comments in the same discussion.

Yes, I would love if this stayed on topic and was a bit more efficient and effective, as conversations meant for the purpose of providing feedback for an early-access game goes. lol

 

[Nalgasucia507]

Okay, so while you're in here commenting on that you think others are cramming the thread with useless spam, here are your last four comments in the same discussion.

Yes, I would love if this stayed on topic and was a bit more efficient and effective, as conversations meant for the purpose of providing feedback for an early-access game goes. lol

I feel so special and I like that I am the center of attention. Thanks for making me feel warm inside.


True that. I hope TW makes the changes so that amour does not feel paper thin, but we will always have mods to tailor it to our liking.

Why do you think that matters?

This thread linked started with all that and -- well?

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/armour-why-it-doesnt-work-and-how-to-make-it-work.426296

 

[Nystagmus]

It's ironic you say all that, because someone just put up a video that wasn't very relevant because it was using armour from nearly half a millennium ahead of Bannerlord's time period.

Actually you were first to link a video about arrows piercing breastplate. Just a reminder

 

[wurmo]

An axe will literally inflict blunt damage in addition or even in absence of its cutting damage. You can have the edge taken off an axe entirely and it still remains a devastating weapon, and hitting heavy armour will be equivalent to a flanged mace or similar.

I should know -- for years I carried around a camp-axe with me while backpacking that was never sharpened and blunt as anything. It still chopped wood.

So an axe would do chop damage,
unless it cuts through a hardened wood helmet.
And maybe a flanged mace would do semi-chop...
and a falchion chould do 50/50 shopcut.

More severe now :
I think the weapons should do damage based on their energy,
and based on their shape would try to turn this into cutdamage, or not.
Otherwise the damage would remain blunt.
A mace and an axe of equal proportions would do the same amount of damage.
But the axe would try to turn this into cut.
At the price of balance, the cut-advantage would be traded off for handling.
A sword of the same length would be lighter,
it would also try to cut, would have the best handling but
it would deliver less damage than axes&maces.
A sword of the same weight of a mace would loose the handling-advantage,
but this gets traded off for reach/length.

So why should one try to get cut-damage ?
Because it would be higher than blunt-damage.
This would work well with locational damage.
The highest advantage for cut above blunt would be at limbs and neck.
An armor would subtract a certain amount of damage,
what gets through would be turned into cut.

The subtracted damage doesn't vanish, it just stayes blunt.
Now a certain % from this blunt would get substracted, depending on cushioning...
and the final calculated damage would be blunt&cut combined.
( but the healing rates could be different )

And thrusting attacks could turn cut-damage into pierce-damage.
A thrusting attack would do little base-damage, because the weapons doesn't get swung.
Therefore cut-damage could get turned into pierce-damage,
wich would be especially effective at the chest/torso and the head.
The multiplier would be higher than for cut ( but less at limbs and neck ).
The more pointy a tip is, the higher the portion of pierce damage.
More pointy weapons would also decrease the effectiveness of armor.

 

[Philozoraptor]

So an axe would do chop damage,
unless it cuts through a hardened wood helmet.
And maybe a flanged mace would do semi-chop...
and a falchion chould do 50/50 shopcut.

More severe now :
I think the weapons should do damage based on their energy,
and based on their shape would try to turn this into cutdamage, or not.
Otherwise the damage would remain blunt.
A mace and an axe of equal proportions would do the same amount of damage.
But the axe would try to turn this into cut.
At the price of balance, the cut-advantage would be traded off for handling.
A sword of the same length would be lighter,
it would also try to cut, would have the best handling but
it would deliver less damage than axes&maces.
A sword of the same weight of a mace would loose the handling-advantage,
but this gets traded off for reach/length.

So why should one try to get cut-damage ?
Because it would be higher than blunt-damage.
This would work well with locational damage.
The highest advantage for cut above blunt would be at limbs and neck.
An armor would subtract a certain amount of damage,
what gets through would be turned into cut.

The subtracted damage doesn't vanish, it just stayes blunt.
Now a certain % from this blunt would get substracted, depending on cushioning...
and the final calculated damage would be blunt&cut combined.
( but the healing rates could be different )

And thrusting attacks could turn cut-damage into pierce-damage.
A thrusting attack would do little base-damage, because the weapons doesn't get swung.
Therefore cut-damage could get turned into pierce-damage,
wich would be especially effective at the chest/torso and the head.
The multiplier would be higher than for cut ( but less at limbs and neck ).
The more pointy a tip is, the higher the portion of pierce damage.
More pointy weapons would also decrease the effectiveness of armor.

We are doing most of this with the combat module, its going more in the direction of realism than gameplay balance in our case, but still.