It actually IS possible to block arrows with sword.

[Triune Impurity Rites 999]

Personally, I block arrows and lances, sword strikes and axe blows, also mace swings and other stabby/hurty implements with my muscles.

 

[xdj1nn]

I hope it is possible, just so difficult that even most skilled people get shot at more than they block. Shields and armor are what protect you against arrows really well, swords don't.

Can we not? Even their most famous battles were won only after long and gruesome melees.

Precisely. Ranged weapons by themselves don't win battles unless it is rare expection that then becomes so well known because it was something extraordinary. Ranged weapons can do somewhat little against soldiers who wear protection. But any arrow you shoot at them increases your chances of winning the melee fight. That is (one reason) why many Byzantine Cataphracts carried bows and even were said to have javelin which they would throw at enemy. War darts were also very common, basically being more advanced version of throwing rocks. And slings were propably quite common even among non-ranged units not because they were super effective, but because how incredibly easy it is to carry around and how plentiful ammunition is for it (even though professional/dedicated slingers did use shots which were more advanced than just rocks which you pick up anywhere).

Ranged weapons are something any army should always have. But they don't win the battle themselves. Even if your army is entirely focused on ranged combat, it still needs to close into melee sooner or later.

If ranged weapons in medieval era before gunpowder won battles, they were expections. And expectional stories often become more popular than average every day stuff.



I would like to see lot of, at least high tier, melee soldiers in most armies in Bannerlord being armed with basic ranged weapons. Some have war darts, some have slings, some have bows or throwing javelins. They should not cause many losses, but they would soften up the enemy a bit. And ofc melee soldiers should always loose to dedicated ranged soldiers in any ranged combat.
Not all heavy cavalry should have crossbow, but few of them. Say every 5th maybe, with far lower skills with it than dedicated ranged troops.


Don't double post, please. -Orion

Interesting points...

At any rate, in VC I see some more serious approach towards what you are going at here. I often mix-match infantry and archers, usually let them lose at medium range (javelins, spears, bows) while moving towards the enemy to engage into organized shield-wall fighting. It's very effective. In fact, it can win battles if you time the distance correctly to let ranged hell loose...

In more than one occasion I didn't even have to use flanking tactics by doing this, most of the time I'd be able to take down most of the opposing shield wall front-roll by doing so, but then again I've only really avoided losses using this tactic because the AI itself keeps using only bread and butter patterns and don't actually give firing orders (a flaw in the AI I'd say)... What I call Bread and Butter in Warband generally speaking is the whole archers/skimishers in front, wasting ammo, then move them back when enemy infantry is closing in to engage. By doing that the opposing infantry would use their ranged weapons in non-optimal ranges... 

I'd also use shield-wall mixed units to beat enemy cavalry charges in both Warband and VC very effectively, by only allowing fire at will when the enemies' cavalry was about to hit the shield-wall... Extremely effective too (and historically often used to stop Knight Charges effectively, given the infantry was disciplined enough to not flee in terror) The latter can be avoided by having pikemen properly assigned and positioned instead of using a shieldwall with mixed units, but I've not always played with rhodoks or rhodok akin units in Warband, so....

 

[Honved]

Many of the melee troops in original M&B carried absurd numbers of throwing weapons: axes, knives, javelins.  Historically, they would have carried one or two at most, unless they were a lightly armored skirmisher with an armload of objects to throw.  Sea Raiders and Nords in particular, could wreck opposing troops from the same range as longbows and crossbows, fire faster while the ammo lasts, and do more damage per hit (with +100% bonus damage to shields).

I REALLY hope that the range of throwing weapons is reduced in Bannerlord.

 

[Harmi]

Many of the melee troops in original M&B carried absurd numbers of throwing weapons: axes, knives, javelins.  Historically, they would have carried one or two at most, unless they were a lightly armored skirmisher with an armload of objects to throw.  Sea Raiders and Nords in particular, could wreck opposing troops from the same range as longbows and crossbows, fire faster while the ammo lasts, and do more damage per hit (with +100% bonus damage to shields).

I REALLY hope that the range of throwing weapons is reduced in Bannerlord.

The problem is that there is no meaning to have throw weapons at all if you have only 1 or 2 of them and that will take one weapon slot from you. You just throw 2 times and then get killed from archers cause there is nothing left to fight with against them. That would increase the number of archers in multiplayer immediately if that was the case.

 

[Orion]

The range problem is actually an accuracy and thus proficiency problem, with a bit of AI limitation thrown in. Troops with lower proficiency will be less accurate, making them less effective over increasing range. Getting the AI to not waste their throwing weapons then requires a smaller range threshold at which the AI will decide to use throwing weapons. A combination of the two would be sufficient to address your concern, without meddling with ammo count & causing a cascade of other balance issues.

 

[Honved]

The range problem is actually an accuracy and thus proficiency problem, with a bit of AI limitation thrown in. Troops with lower proficiency will be less accurate, making them less effective over increasing range. Getting the AI to not waste their throwing weapons then requires a smaller range threshold at which the AI will decide to use throwing weapons. A combination of the two would be sufficient to address your concern, without meddling with ammo count & causing a cascade of other balance issues.

Agreed.  Not allowing thrown weapons to be used at a quarter mile away or more would prevent them from being wasted, and then a lower ammo count wouldn't be so crippling.  The high damage and anti-shield bonuses already make them rather effective at short to medium range, to the point where I probably lost more troops to thrown axes than to arrows or bolts, until I learned how to move diagonally or laterally to an opponent, and let them waste all their ammo on a moving target at long range.  Having the AI withhold thrown weapons fire until 50-60 yards range would make them count, and dangerous, while not constantly tossing sharp objects 5x the maximum distance that humans have ever been able to throw them.

 

[Roccoflipside]

I definitely exploited the **** out of this in VC.  I'd park my army just inside javelin "range" (maybe one out of every twenty would hit a shield) and just let the enemy waste their javs and whatnot. When they were out, either they charged, or I then walked my army really close and had them start throwing their javs.

 

[Honved]

Topic: It actually IS possible to block arrows with sword.

Observation: It actually IS possible to block arrows with your face, too.  Does hurt a bit.

 

[wormydowg]

Topic: It actually IS possible to block arrows with sword.

Observation: It actually IS possible to block arrows with your face, too.  Does hurt a bit.

Well you can block it with your armor... Which is why people wore armor to begin with

 

[Cpt. Nemo]

I prefer to catch them using the Force.

 

[Harmi]

Topic: It actually IS possible to block arrows with sword.

Observation: It actually IS possible to block arrows with your face, too.  Does hurt a bit.

Well, you can block it with your armor... Which is why people wore armor, to begin with.

Not in Mount & Blade. If the armors were as effective as they for real were, the fights would be really long and boring. Also everyone would always be 100% armored, which would make the game boring, at least on multiplayer.

 

[xdj1nn]

Topic: It actually IS possible to block arrows with sword.

Observation: It actually IS possible to block arrows with your face, too.  Does hurt a bit.

Well, you can block it with your armor... Which is why people wore armor, to begin with.

Not in Mount & Blade. If the armors were as effective as they for real were, the fights would be really long and boring. Also everyone would always be 100% armored, which would make the game boring, at least on multiplayer.

Not entirely true, in fact the problem would be the level of complexity the game would go into. Battles were sort of fast, sort of, soldiers would stabby stab gaps, shoot arrows at gaps, basically their truth their lives would be gaps... Mind the gap please!

Now just imagine having to aim your weapon in-game to strike a tiny gap in an armor, or aim your shot... Pretty problematic considering how limited game AI is, rectify that, how limited AI is, rectify that, games only use VI not AI... 

 

[Ruler of Calradia]

Btw i really hope shields will be useful for blocking ranged weapons. They were incredibly useful in real life, and nobody carried more than 1 shield because they did not break that easily.

And skirmishers and other ranged units are very difficult to balance in all games, mostly because of how short the battles are. In real life they can last entire day or longer, with lot of pauses in fighting. In those pauses skirmishers and other ranged units are great. But in set piece battles where armies face each other head on, heavy cavalry and heavy infantry are better.

Its going to be really difficult to balance ranged troops in Mount & Blade as well, though it has managed this much better than most other games i think.

 

[lolbash]

Btw i really hope shields will be useful for blocking ranged weapons.

They already are in Warband and this does not seem to have changed in Bannerlord. What exactly are you asking for?

 

[wormydowg]

Btw i really hope shields will be useful for blocking ranged weapons.

They already are in Warband and this does not seem to have changed in Bannerlord. What exactly are you asking for?

That shields on your back should actually provide protection..... Yes i know turtle shelling is a thing, but still your giving up 2 weapon slots. Just disable it for multiplayer if you must.

 

[Knezevic]

It already exists in warband.
"arrow has hit shield on back"

 

[Terco_Viejo]

In real life and having only one chance it's really hard to deflect an arrow... take a look at this video:

 

[wormydowg]

It already exists in warband.
"arrow has hit shield on back"

nope, the damage is just nurfed.

 

[Triune Impurity Rites 999]

How about making it a critical block? I really don't want to see anime/jedi dudes running around deflecting arrows. Not even as a perk. Just something that could rarely happen. And at that point I don't even think it should be implemented. Every happens by chance, but blocking arrows with two-handed weapons is just not very reasonable. I play with a two-handed sword a lot, and if I don't want to get shot up, I equip my companions with shields and have them follow me around.

 

[Knezevic]

It already exists in warband.
"arrow has hit shield on back"

nope, the damage is just nurfed.

You said you wish it provided protection. It does, 50% damage reduction from arrows that hit shield on the back to be precise. Noone said anything about making you 100% immune from arrows that hit it in the back, right?