It doesn't contradict, it supports what I said. The rounded breastplate, thicker in the least rounded center, deflected arrows with minor damage when said arrows hit the angled areas and left dents in the flatter area, the first arrow missed the plate and penetrated the chainmail underneath.
The armorer that made the plate said the center was thicker because the angle was flatter then the rest of the plate. If that plate was totally flat, there would be less deflections with scratches and more dents, like the ones that hit it around the center.
There are no plates like that in game, only mails, scales and lamellar.
I did read what you say.
Lamellar and scale armor was designed specifically to protect against enemy archery fire.
They may not be as strong as plate, but the
chest piece of any armor is going to be the strongest point of any armor. Any openings are a weak point, as are joints. The only other option of course is if it misses or hits the shield.
Yes, this is exactly what I said. And as I said previously, if TW went and increased effectiveness against cutting damage you would see a riot from people claiming swords were useless against armor (which they should.).
I agree that swords should be not very effective against armor. They weren't historically.
To be fair, daggers and half swording was used for trying to penetrate weak points, but only if you could pin the target down.
This is as much a solution as placing something underneath the leg of a table that is shorter than the others. Sure, it would prevent the table from rocking with weight shifts, but it is in no way a definite solution to the problem. The combat AI needs to be reworked not to be suicidal so there is actually a difference in skill rather than armor and weapon.
That doesn't make sense. Higher tier units need to justify their cost..
There are 2 separate problems:
- Armor is not working as well as it should
- The battle AI is making some questionable choices
They are 2 different problems, although they do compound each other.
It is not just about penetration, the game has no internal injury system, the game has no armor penetration mechanics, the best it can do is provide damage reduction with calculations based on armor values and assumed secondary protections, like how thick is the padding underneath and what it is composed of. There can be no penetration but enough force to cause internal injuries, broken bones.
I don't really see how those two videos you linked were any better, if anything they were less strict in material usage (carbon fiber shafts, modern arrow tips, packing blanket) and in target quality (loose mail hanging from hog, or hard mannequin with no leeway to move back and absorb impact, which was considered for the testing in the Arrow vs Armour video) and there was a disparity in results when comparing the man shaped target he used previously versus the hog.
The problem with having an internal injury system is that it would quickly make the game hard to work with.
THe player would suffer injuries for the rest of that character's life.
There would have to be fairly rapid healing mechanism for this to work.
Yep, this is correct. The army that broke and retreated were cut down in vast numbers. That is why the Roman armies had such strict policies for soldiers disobeying orders, cowardice, mutiny, desertion etc. They did not mess around.
There is the expression that the Romans believed that a solider should fear more from his officers than the enemy.
One that note, I think one other issue that I think needs to be looked at is morale - how big is the gap between say, a tier 1 vs tier 5/6 units? THe higher tier units should have a lot more discipline than say, a recruit (really an equal to a peasant levy).
The problem is that the game doesn't really allow this. Archers historically would spend hours, days or in some cases weeks firing upwards of a million arrows at an enemy. The typical use of archers (from what I've read, mainly the Crusades, the Mongols and imperial Roman era battles) was to slow down an enemy and harrass them, not just to kill them. Being hit by arrows, even if you know they can't kill you, would prevent a portion of an army from resting or reorganising, and in the case of the crusades when one side (the Ayyubids and other Seljuk successor states) has a massive ranged advantage, they can dictate the flow of battle and the course of a campaign much better. However in those same wars we have sources where infantrymen and knights were literally covered in arrows but kept fighting. It's similar to how in modern warfare the main effect of gunfire is to suppress an enemy, not to kill him.
Yep - archers were an area weapon. Not Legolas.
To be fair, a lucky hit (ex: shot through the eye hole) or a weak spot might kill or injury.
Early gunfire could actually be resisted by firearms. It was only until later in the 16th century that armor started to go away because well, firearms got better and armor was not able to keep up. Not until modern materials anyways, like kevlar.
I hope people slowly come to realise that realism should not be the goal for this game like I have. I think whatever we have right now is awful, but let's not pretend that taking the literal 'realistic' approach won't result in something just as bad.
Your idea could work, but I feel like TWs won't go for it.
I think we are going to need a balance between realism and gameplay here - the game does claim some degree of historical accuracy here.
![Andrei[beast]](/data/avatars/m/556/556652.jpg?1589629811){kind=avatar}
