We can debate all day about how strong archery is, but the fact of the matter is that Warband mechanics are not detailed enough to have anything realistic.
The biggest and most glaring issue is the "hitbox" mechanic that is common is most video games, because it works and is very optimized for performance on large scales. If a projectile (of any sort) hits the invisible "hitbox" polygon, then it triggered a damage method that does additional calculations. The problem here is that armor angles are not taken into account. My personal opinion is that at least half of the projectiles that hit armor in this game, should have been harmlessly reflected for zero damage.
For those of you that don't understand what I mean by "armor angles", please refer to my poopy paint example.
Another issue that I hear often is about how easy and unrealistic it is to use bows. (in many different games) Your arrow supply, or instant regeneration or arrow supply is indeed something to think about. But pertaining to the "skill" of a bow user, I don't think things are unrealistic at all. In most cases.
Lars Anderson is a "trick shooter" that has spent years being a historian as well as an archer. He has tried to master old techniques that are not standard today. His videos and writings go into a lot of depth and can be highly educational and very impressive.
BUT, like all humans trying to make a living in today's society, he has made very dramatic statements and does a lot of things that piss of the archery/history community. He makes bold claims that are not 100% true and does impressive trick shots to prove things that don't really make sense in context. He is just trying to sell himself and get people talking and arguing. That's how you get more attention in order to get more views. This translates into more ad revenue and paid appearances. I don't blame him or his production.
At any rate, Both of these videos are highly educational and highly entertaining. And always remember to a take everything with a grain of salt.
If you haven't seen Lars Anderson's video, now is you chance.
Now, here is a great rebuttal video.
The biggest and most glaring issue is the "hitbox" mechanic that is common is most video games, because it works and is very optimized for performance on large scales. If a projectile (of any sort) hits the invisible "hitbox" polygon, then it triggered a damage method that does additional calculations. The problem here is that armor angles are not taken into account. My personal opinion is that at least half of the projectiles that hit armor in this game, should have been harmlessly reflected for zero damage.
For those of you that don't understand what I mean by "armor angles", please refer to my poopy paint example.
I have marked five hit locations as if a projectile has been shot/thrown/loosed from your perspective. On the right I have roughly drawn the angle of the projectile vs the armor. You will notice in examples A and B, the result will almost guarantee a deflection. In example C, it could go either way, depending on the weight, speed, and tip of the projectile. In examples D and E, the projectile would almost always result in sticking or piercing. (Depending once again on weight, speed, and tip.)
Another issue that I hear often is about how easy and unrealistic it is to use bows. (in many different games) Your arrow supply, or instant regeneration or arrow supply is indeed something to think about. But pertaining to the "skill" of a bow user, I don't think things are unrealistic at all. In most cases.
Lars Anderson is a "trick shooter" that has spent years being a historian as well as an archer. He has tried to master old techniques that are not standard today. His videos and writings go into a lot of depth and can be highly educational and very impressive.
BUT, like all humans trying to make a living in today's society, he has made very dramatic statements and does a lot of things that piss of the archery/history community. He makes bold claims that are not 100% true and does impressive trick shots to prove things that don't really make sense in context. He is just trying to sell himself and get people talking and arguing. That's how you get more attention in order to get more views. This translates into more ad revenue and paid appearances. I don't blame him or his production.
At any rate, Both of these videos are highly educational and highly entertaining. And always remember to a take everything with a grain of salt.
If you haven't seen Lars Anderson's video, now is you chance.
Now, here is a great rebuttal video.
I'm just going to assume it's Monday morning syndrom
