It actually IS possible to block arrows with sword.

[wormydowg]

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?

Yeah, i didn't explicitly state that, But that is what i was referring to. I wish shields on your back actually did provide immunity, or well i wish it was a game option that you can enable.

 

[Harmi]

Why would shields give you immunity if full metal helmets doesn't give?

 

[Orion]

There's a physics-based explanation but I don't know if you'd like it.

 

[wormydowg]

Why would shields give you immunity if full metal helmets doesn't give?

Also the developers were like we know arrows bounce off armor, but we dont want to consider implimenting that as a feature in the name of game balance...

woah... i know that would hurt archers significantly, but to even it out, just make plate armor rare. it should be hard to get. they even saided they made troop trees specifically because it didnt make since for every peasent to have the ability to become a mounted knight.

people in plate armor should dominate... and archers are not useless in melee combat as everyone would assume. Archers would still be useful even if there was a probibility factor associated with their arrows not doing damage to far away armored targets...

also different types of arrow heads were a thing... perhaps that should be implimented...

 

[Orion]

Someone has never been pezzed before.

 

[xdj1nn]

when your head is struck by anything, even a punch, depending on the force applied, makes your brain shake within your skull, which makes you dizzy 100% of the time, and sometimes knocks you out.

That's why Maces were so effective against armored buffs... Hit the fool in the head, he falls down or becomes dizzy enough to not react, pull out your dagger, kill the fool...

Here:

 

[Lord Engineer (Castor)]

Why would shields give you immunity if full metal helmets doesn't give?

Also the developers were like we know arrows bounce off armor, but we dont want to consider implimenting that as a feature in the name of game balance...

woah... i know that would hurt archers significantly, but to even it out, just make plate armor rare. it should be hard to get. they even saided they made troop trees specifically because it didnt make since for every peasent to have the ability to become a mounted knight.

people in plate armor should dominate... and archers are not useless in melee combat as everyone would assume. Archers would still be useful even if there was a probibility factor associated with their arrows not doing damage to far away armored targets...

also different types of arrow heads were a thing... perhaps that should be implimented...

Plate armour in the 11th century... which didn't appear till the 15th century partly due to the Hundred Years War... and there already were different arrow heads in Warband like bodkins (though more variety would be nice, maybe even some cutting arrows?)... Great helms didn't really appear till the end of the 12th century and proper ones didn't appear till halfway through the 13th century.

In Bannerlord, as far as I know, there are no full sets of plate armour, no fully enclosing metal helmets like Great helms, so I think some of your concerns simply do not apply to Bannerlord. It is true that arrows can bounce off of or reflect off of other type of armours, some of which are in Bannerlord, but even that being the case implementing something like this will not only most likely bring a whole bunch of other problems but will also be more effort than it's worth.

And yes, getting hit in the head with a helmet on by an arrow would still hurt. To put in Mount & Blade terms Bludgeoning instead of Piercing. No armour protects absolutely.

 

[giovanio]

what is missing is the actual fall of the arrows since in the game they have very little fall should fall as in a total war with this would give more importance to the helmets and the archers would be more useful in the open field and dependent on the arch is the chain and penetration of the arrows .

 

[FBohler]

No need for more gritty, dull realism. I like the feature, fun should always trump realism after all!

 

[Crossbow Pig]

No need for more gritty, dull realism. I like the feature, fun should always trump realism after all!

What is fun for you may not be fun for others, Imo this perk is BS, but I don't care, since I am not forced to pick the perk if I don't want to, I just hope that it don't make into MP.

 

[Harmi]

what is missing is the actual fall of the arrows since in the game they have very little fall should fall as in a total war with this would give more importance to the helmets and the archers would be more useful in the open field and dependent on the arch is the chain and penetration of the arrows .

That idea I like very much. Arrows just fly too far and too much velocity or too little air resistance, or something. At Warband, archers are almost like riflemen. Also, all bows are too similar. Now there is almost none difference between the longbow and some small bow, expect damage.
https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/8022/how-far-could-an-english-war-bow-shoot

 

[Orion]

Arrows just fly too far and too much velocity or too little air resistance, or something. At Warband, archers are almost like riflemen. Also, all bows are too similar. Now there is almost none difference between the longbow and some small bow, expect damage.

I wish this misinformation would stop being repeated around the forum. It's easy enough to pop into a Warband MP server and check out the different bows yourself. You can see the difference in accuracy and velocity without anyone helping you, just find a target to shoot at from a fair distance away and take some shots.

The great thing is that the stackexchange link you posted has many answers which cite a 200-300 meter effective range, which is well beyond what you do in Warband.

 

[Roccoflipside]

Yeah, I always figured the size of M&B battles didn't require bows to be fired in an arc like that. Plus, that kind of firing was mostly done by groups of archers, as you will be less accurate, but it matters less as you're firing hundreds of arrows at once, while in M&B you need to be able to have one person, the player, aim and shoot the bow accurately. I don't think anyone here wants to be constantly staring up into the sky and then quickly looking at the enemy to see how close they were to hitting, and then having to look back up to shoot again just to see that they moved right when you shot.

 

[wormydowg]

Yeah, I always figured the size of M&B battles didn't require bows to be fired in an arc like that. Plus, that kind of firing was mostly done by groups of archers, as you will be less accurate, but it matters less as you're firing hundreds of arrows at once, while in M&B you need to be able to have one person, the player, aim and shoot the bow accurately. I don't think anyone here wants to be constantly staring up into the sky and then quickly looking at the enemy to see how close they were to hitting, and then having to look back up to shoot again just to see that they moved right when you shot.

Nobody arced their shots though. Lets say you take a (9mm pistol - .30 caliber rifle) and shot it straight up in the air, to where the bullet could hit you. The bullet comming down would be slowed down enough by air resistance that it would dent/fracture your skull but wouldn't kill you.

Arcing your shots would make them ineffective, rule of thumb is 45 degree angle or less. at a 45 degree angle, the arrow maintains its maximum forward momentum until colliding with the ground (Without air resistance that is). So really, if a group of archers wanted to pelt a group of people, they would aim directly at them or a little above them, Not at the sky. 

隐藏

Notice how the angling of more than 45 degrees would severely impact the forward momentum.

Edited - Yeah i misread, my bad. And by arc i meant deliberately try and rain arrows. Every arrow has to arc.

 

[xdj1nn]

Yeah, I always figured the size of M&B battles didn't require bows to be fired in an arc like that. Plus, that kind of firing was mostly done by groups of archers, as you will be less accurate, but it matters less as you're firing hundreds of arrows at once, while in M&B you need to be able to have one person, the player, aim and shoot the bow accurately. I don't think anyone here wants to be constantly staring up into the sky and then quickly looking at the enemy to see how close they were to hitting, and then having to look back up to shoot again just to see that they moved right when you shot.

Nobody arced their shots though. Lets say you take a (9mm pistol - .30 caliber rifle) and shot it straight up in the air, to where the bullet could hit you. The bullet comming down would be slowed down enough by air resistance that it would dent/fracture your skull but wouldn't kill you.

Arcing your shots would make them ineffective, rule of thumb is 45 degree angle or less. at a 45 degree angle, the arrow maintains its maximum forward momentum until colliding with the ground (Without air resistance that is). So really, if a group of archers wanted to pelt a group of people, they would aim directly at them or a little above them, Not at the sky. 

隐藏

Notice how the angling of more than 45 degrees would severely impact the forward momentum.

Edited - Yeah i misread, my bad. And by arc i meant deliberately try and rain arrows. Every arrow has to arc.

Not to be an ass, and not to pick on you per se, but the 9mm example is bad, that's not how it works irl, for a bullet to lose velocity it needs so much air resistance that only extremely distant shots actually lose power. Considering bullets' material and aerodynamics, if you shoot 90 degrees up, the bullet will fall and kill you if you stand there...

 

[Lord Brutus]

Terminal velocity of a falling bullet is about 300 feet per second.  It's unlikely you would die if struck by a falling bullet.

 

[Triune Impurity Rites 999]

Terminal velocity of a falling bullet is about 300 feet per second.  It's unlikely you would die if struck by a falling bullet.

Unless, of course, you had a procedure that removes parts of your skull and exposed the brain.

 

[Orion]

Terminal velocity of a falling bullet is about 300 feet per second.  It's unlikely you would die if struck by a falling bullet.

Unlikely != impossible, and terminal velocity will be greatly affected by size, shape, and orientation of the bullet. Also, when fired at any angle other than vertical, the bullet will maintain the angular component of its ballistic trajectory. Also, it's incredibly unlikely that a person will be able to fire a bullet perfectly vertical (which would induce tumbling as it came back down), so it is therefore highly likely that the bullet will remain spin-stabilized and therefore maintain a much more aerodynamically efficient orientation, greatly increasing its terminal velocity. Please don't give people the wrong idea, it's not safe to fire a gun into the air, and people do die from falling bullets on a regular basis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire

Kids, don't shoot guns into the air. How this isn't common knowledge by now is beyond me.

 

[Lord Brutus]

I agree, don't fire bullets into the air, but Galileo showed that terminal velocity is unaffected by the size, weight or shape of the projectile, the case of a falling feather notwithstanding.

 

[wormydowg]

Terminal velocity of a falling bullet is about 300 feet per second.  It's unlikely you would die if struck by a falling bullet.

Unlikely != impossible, and terminal velocity will be greatly affected by size, shape, and orientation of the bullet. Also, when fired at any angle other than vertical, the bullet will maintain the angular component of its ballistic trajectory. Also, it's incredibly unlikely that a person will be able to fire a bullet perfectly vertical (which would induce tumbling as it came back down), so it is therefore highly likely that the bullet will remain spin-stabilized and therefore maintain a much more aerodynamically efficient orientation, greatly increasing its terminal velocity. Please don't give people the wrong idea, it's not safe to fire a gun into the air, and people do die from falling bullets on a regular basis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire

Kids, don't shoot guns into the air. How this isn't common knowledge by now is beyond me.

Oh its common knowledge alright, but the part of the brain where its stored does not take priority in some individuals, not when they are happy & excited  .