I just don't get TW priorities.

[Highest of all Landers]

Plate armor should be very potent against cut damage, except perhaps the most powerful polearms.

By plate I assume you mean the scale armors, and sure, lacerations should be the least effective type of damage against pretty much anything made of metal, but then, if you do that, you are going to see people complaining that swords are no longer effective because they have this hollywood idea that swords would cut through everything.

Armor should also be relatively resistant to pierce damage and arrows, except when they hit weak spots.

Depends, scale armors made of stitched small pieces of solid metal should offer some degree of deflections and there shouldn't be so many arrows sticking out of people, even though damage should be applied because of the impact of the arrow. As for other types like chainmail, no, there are plenty of videos on YouTube (Tod's Workshop, for example) that showcase armors, weapons and shields, some even use ballistic gel to demonstrate blunt force applied even when the arrow/bolt fails to pierce.

Armor should be somewhat better protection against blunt damage, although blunt weapons will be the main weapons used against armor. Blunt weapons in turn should be less effective against unarmored units.

This just doesn't make any sense, why would blunt be less effective versus less armor? If you have increased padding and leather, then sure, those would absorb a greater amount of force, the whole idea behind blunt is not to penetrate, but to transfer force into the squishy thing underneath the armor, namely you.

As for TW priorities, I believe they had their priorities before the release of EA, and then issues arose and they shifted what they could to deal with those, like the snowballing that is being worked on until now with constant progress.

IMO their mistake was trying to fix everything at the same time and rushing changes before they could properly plan and test their impact on gameplay, specially since they don't have a really big team that can be dedicated to making those changes while another part of the team sticks to their planned priorities. Part of the reason why I think their development time increased between patches.

And before someone says anything, no, selling a lot of copies and making money does not mean necessarily that they should start hiring as many people as they can, first because they are a company and costs have to be managed, we have no idea on how their financial status is to advise anything, second because there might not be enough qualified professionals available, and even if they had promising applications, those people would still have to be brought up to speed on the project before they could pick up things to deliver.

 

[Akka]

um... priorities... and balancing the game and stuff. I expressed how ranged troops are very strong and efficient. You're talking about armor and how weak it is, and frankly we aren't that far apart on the subject then.

It was completely drowned in several huge wall of text. I do agree with ranged being too strong and armour too weak, but it went on FAAAAR too long and verbose and too much of a tangent here.

I would like to take a moment to to reflect on what the core of the OP actually consists of, even though much of it is about armor (thus the OP can't be mad at people going on about armor), but it's not about tactics, strategy, archers, game difficulty etc, thus hijacking the thread with unrelated content is undesirable.

Yep, that's the point.
I'm not mad at people talking about armour, but that's just one striking example of the main problem - that is, disconnect between TW and the community, how incomprehensible their priorities are and how they should communicate and explain their vision and said priorities to help with understanding and effective feedback.

Other striking examples would be smithing - TW is making a lot of tweaks to the economy, but with smithing altering it so much it's weird to try any sort of fine-tuning before fixing it -, mechanics which are removed before their replacement is made (troops positioning before battle, disciplinarian, etc.) or implementing death before marriages, births and coming of age work (so the world obviously would end up empty).

It's, again, a request to TW to explain their vision, their intentions and discuss REASONS and PLANS with us so we can understand what's the goal and why it's done like that. And then, we may have constructive feedback instead of the limbo we find ourselves at the moment.

 

[Darkath]

By plate I assume you mean the scale armors, and sure, lacerations should be the least effective type of damage against pretty much anything made of metal, but then, if you do that, you are going to see people complaining that swords are no longer effective because they have this hollywood idea that swords would cut through everything.

As i said in many threads, a sword is useful against all kind of opponents because you can also thrust it though armor. If TW made thrusting/piercing weapons worthwile compared to swing, it wouldn't be an issue to nerf swing/cut damage.

This is also why a sword with a tapered blade (wider at the bottom, narrow near the tip) was more and more favored through the middle ages. So you could use it in a chopping motion without breaking it (wide base) as well as thrust it trough chainmail/plate armor.

Given chainmail was not very widespread in 11th century swords designed at that time were still mostly made for chopping, but as you progress through the middle ages, the swords become more and more designed to pierce armor in a thrusting motion (by the 14th-15th century most swords were designed to pierce through the gaps of plate armor rather than try to cut through it).

 

[Apocal]

or implementing death before marriages, births and coming of age work (so the world obviously would end up empty).

The thing holding marriages back was a bug. They apparently didn't realize that the AIs weren't getting married because they'd see the stream of babies in the feed from the pre-made couples.

 

[jak1up]

I just don't get this thread.....

 

[Terco_Viejo]

i like mount & blade because it doesn't have long hp like in every game else
mount & blade feels realistic because of this.
buffing armor would ruin that.
the fast combat problem is because of bannerlord "collision system" between npc's
warband is better even with the traffic and getting stuck and siege issues.
there is no traffic in bannerlord, the battles are fast and the collision is basically in bubbles form

I'm not talking about HP, I put it as a reference...
If you've played Viking Conquest you'll know what I'm talking about. Troops with good armor in VC resist much more than their peers in Bannerlord. I only wish that VC's criteria would be implemented in Bannerlord...
I agree with you that there is a problem with colliders too.

 

[black_bulldog]

In the end the only real solution would be a community manager who actually interacts with the community and is the bridge between developers and the community.
Atleast that is my general understanding of a community manager

This what one would hope from a community manager. But it seems to me that TW thinks that communication is done with a few blogs, or a monthly video or a few interviews at gaming conventions but for most players that's just a starting point. Imho it's really about daily interactions with players especially if you're going to have an ea. I mean what is the point of trying to get player feedback if you don't talk to them? TW makes changes and we never can understand why and repeated requests often go unanswered. It becomes disheartening to say the least.

I just don't get this thread.....

The problem is the OP had a point about communication but went of on a bit of side tangent about armor and people latched on to that and ignored what the post was really about.

 

[Dr-Shinobi]

The problem is the OP had a point about communication but went of on a bit of side tangent about armor and people latched on to that and ignored what the post was really about.

Lol what part of the armor part didnt you understand ? xD

But there definitely is one point at least where I really don't even understand TW's rhyme or reason, and it's armours.
Armours being far too inefficient and blunt tearing through anything in a weird fashion are two of the most ancient and recurring complaints. They are absolutely central to the core and gameplay loop of the game (as they affect fighting and gearing), so it's not like if they were of secondary importance or rarely used. And yet, it's been months without any significant change, despite both being completely broken.

More puzzling, though, is that TW did a big pass over most units armour rating lately. Seemingly trying to balance units between factions on this point. And this is really something I can't get : how can you balance armour on units when the armour mechanics themselves aren't working ? The whole balance pass has no meaning if the working of armour change later.
So logic would dictate that you FIRST makes armour formula work, and THEN you balance armour ratings.

Help us understand, TW, please, because it's certainly not making sense from here.
Why has something so crucial as armours not being looked at for so long ?
Why is there balance passes made when the mechanics on which the balance relies aren't yet working ?

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

By plate I assume you mean the scale armors, and sure, lacerations should be the least effective type of damage against pretty much anything made of metal, but then, if you do that, you are going to see people complaining that swords are no longer effective because they have this hollywood idea that swords would cut through everything.

Tough luck, hollywood "physics" makes for bad games with zero variety. Making swords practically useless against a fully armoured opponent would avoid the warband problem where a 2handed sword is the strongest weapon in the game because it has raw damage and reach, and nobody uses the blunt weapons or polearms.

 

[Dr-Shinobi]

So its time to make M&B medieval simulator game now ? Thought this was an strategy action game but guess i was wrong

 

[black_bulldog]

Lol what part of the armor part didnt you understand ? xD

What part of the TW not communicating did you not understand...

 

[Dr-Shinobi]

What part of the TW not communicating did you not understand...

the 10% of the first message you mean that wanted to push TW of bad communication because they dint implemented armor buff you mean ? Its not like the 30th time ive heard that ^^ Funny part is that many people have replied to you in the past about post where devs are communicating and you oh ok. Then now youre saying again that they arent communicating. Seems like a theme going on around here

 

[yourself335]

Tbh i'm kinda glad TW isn't losing its time trying to communicate too much on endless discussions like this. The updates are already slow as it is (Not complaining, kind of is a fact lol). Why slow them down even more, so they can take the time to argue about the density of rocks or the sharpness of arrowheads? There's always gonna be people offended about something anyway, they try to fix something for someone, somebody else is gonna complain...

Imma go back to play god with infinite armor in Warband now

 

[stevehoos]

A don't think it's unreasonable or even that opinion based to hope that battles last more than 20 seconds. 2 hits or 3 hits per soldier is too fast for tactics.

 

[yourself335]

I haven't read the whole topic here, but i assume you're not playing in realistic settings? I'd say in harder difficulties 2-3 hits would be pretty normal (i assume, i've always played in easier settings myself, being a casual.)

So yeah i like my reduced damages to an extent, and if it takes nothing to kill me or my T5 soldiers on normal i would be annoyed a bit, but at the same time i don't want to be an OP god. I'd rather not have a reboot of warband where me and my nord huscarls/swadian knight were the apex predators on the map. It's a balance game, and i feel like the devs may be a little reluctant to make modifications based on that kind of topic where people are already at each other's throat.

 

[Great White Nanuk]

They are probably going to leave it up to individual agents at close range (that's when formations come the hell apart) because the alternative is an open field version of the "militia block at the gate" phenomena.

The real elephant in the room that a lot of historical formations only work because they deal with people, not with fearless AI agents, and maintaining cohesion (not necessarily shoulder-to-shoulder, but in mutual support) was tantamount to keeping the unit from panicking and fleeing wholesale. Just applying those formations 1:1 in a game where the AI is much more aggressive means they aren't going to work in the same way.

But I've *****ed enough along the lines that all battles are about breaking morale, not wholesale slaughter...

Good points. Yeah I don't want monotony. Whether that's always wild melee bashing or perfect little soldiers moving like a Total War game. I hope in the continued development, TW introduces some changes that can bring variety to the battlefield. Perhaps something like certain tier soldiers move better in formation because of training and comradery (how cool would it be to have units that not only build experience but also comradery like the unit tracks how long it's been together in your party, so behaves better in combat such as more morale). Perhaps bring cohesion to the micro level for individual unit types and formations. There's a lot they could improve on, but I maintain that any individual element will not be a cure-all. I think a little slice of every kind of pie is better than all-you-can-eat of only one specific type.

Looking forward to the future of this game. Because if nothing else, there will be mods.

I would like to take a moment to to reflect on what the core of the OP actually consists of, even though much of it is about armor (thus the OP can't be mad at people going on about armor), but it's not about tactics, strategy, archers, game difficulty etc, thus hijacking the thread with unrelated content is undesirable.

Didn't mean to hijack, sorry. I was only speaking to how in the current meta, I think more armor would need to come with other improvements to not just be a swap of one trend for another one. I would like to see variety in matches, and having some units with better armor to increase their lifespan is definitely one part of that, for me.

So yeah i like my reduced damages to an extent, and if it takes nothing to kill me or my T5 soldiers on normal i would be annoyed a bit, but at the same time i don't want to be an OP god. I'd rather not have a reboot of warband where me and my nord huscarls/swadian knight were the apex predators on the map. It's a balance game, and i feel like the devs may be a little reluctant to make modifications based on that kind of topic where people are already at each other's throat.

Agreed. Having balance is crucial otherwise the campaign meta stays the same just now your troop choice is different. I will reference a few historical cases where having highly armored troops actually led to a defeat - Agincourt, Sterling Bridge, Stamford Bridge, the list goes on. Heavy armor will take the field most of the time, but sometimes lighter troops who even outnumbered can outsmart a foe. And I would like to see upsets happen from time to time.

 

[cyresdog]

This what one would hope from a community manager. But it seems to me that TW thinks that communication is done with a few blogs, or a monthly video or a few interviews at gaming conventions but for most players that's just a starting point. Imho it's really about daily interactions with players especially if you're going to have an ea. I mean what is the point of trying to get player feedback if you don't talk to them? TW makes changes and we never can understand why and repeated requests often go unanswered. It becomes disheartening to say the least.

After all, communication was never easier and more important than it is today, we literally have over a dozen sites/apps/forums that they could talk to us. And even if it is just an FAQ or AMA on a monthly basis. I don't want a daily update or a weekly one, because that would mostly just consist of the same stuff, but Bi-Weekly or like i said once a month is, in my oppinion, the least one can expect from a serious developer especially when it is about a Early Access title.
But TaleWorlds is a total let down in that regard.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

More puzzling, though, is that TW did a big pass over most units armour rating lately. Seemingly trying to balance units between factions on this point. And this is really something I can't get : how can you balance armour on units when the armour mechanics themselves aren't working ? The whole balance pass has no meaning if the working of armour change later.
So logic would dictate that you FIRST makes armour formula work, and THEN you balance armour ratings.

Perhaps the person doing the "balancing" of units has nothing to do with damage formulas and gets shushed if they bring it up.
All they can do is tinker with what items go on what troops and change a few stats. Maybe the guy that does the damage formulas is a bratty pre-Madonna and refuses to listen to anyone else. Maybe they only test it on easiest settings but lie about it. They could play in a very stereotyped way and not know that a hit from anything can obliterate you if you're moving towards it because of the wild speed damage bonuses. Who knows but something's up.

I think a main problem is that at some point TW liked the combat pace and though it was good so they started building other stuff around that.
I think this mixes with the problem of trying to use too much of the same stuff for MP and SP.
Having a fast paced captain match where if you go down in 2 hits you warg into another unit and you get fresh troops every match is okay I guess.
However in SP you end up sitting around IRL healing and replacing troops so it's not the same at all.
I think somehow the MP setups backed them into a hole where all units are too similar in offense/defense.

 

[stevehoos]

Perhaps the person doing the "balancing" of units has nothing to do with damage formulas and gets shushed if they bring it up.
All they can do is tinker with what items go on what troops and change a few stats. Maybe the guy that does the damage formulas is a bratty pre-Madonna and refuses to listen to anyone else. Maybe they only test it on easiest settings but lie about it. They could play in a very stereotyped way and not know that a hit from anything can obliterate you if you're moving towards it because of the wild speed damage bonuses. Who knows but something's up.

I think a main problem is that at some point TW liked the combat pace and though it was good so they started building other stuff around that.
I think this mixes with the problem of trying to use too much of the same stuff for MP and SP.
Having a fast paced captain match where if you go down in 2 hits you warg into another unit and you get fresh troops every match is okay I guess.
However in SP you end up sitting around IRL healing and replacing troops so it's not the same at all.
I think somehow the MP setups backed them into a hole where all units are too similar in offense/defense.

Yep, I think the game will continue to have these issues ( actual diplomacy as well) until modders are able do their thing.

 

[cyresdog]

Having a fast paced captain match where if you go down in 2 hits you warg into another unit and you get fresh troops every match is okay I guess.
However in SP you end up sitting around IRL healing and replacing troops so it's not the same at all.
I think somehow the MP setups backed them into a hole where all units are too similar in offense/defense.

This sounds extremely logical to me.
And makes sense that they don't really distinguish between SP and MP atm.