Just nerf ranged damage by 30%

Users who are viewing this thread

mujadaddy

Regular
WB
Or just open the monster.xml look by the id"human" and change the "absorbeddamageratio" from 1.0 to 0.5 to half the dmg. Since we know that the dmg will be multiplied with this variable(return num*absorbedDamageratio). Just for those who don't wanna work with dnspy.
That's for adjusting meat-soak, though. Doesn't help to make armor actually work...
 
I don't deny that there would be work to be done, but it would only be about increasing the number of hurtboxes and slot armors.
If there are currently 5-6, they should be increased to 15.
The work would therefore be linked to:
1) size of the hurtboxes and their model.
2) increase in the number of armor parts and balance of the latter.
Apparently it looks like a lot of work, but not that big.
Regarding the hurtboxes: The number of hurtboxes is practically a copy and paste of what has already been done with the current system, only you have to retouch some of the hurtboxes (5 of the 15 for example), make them small and place them in some particular points ( such as non-covering joints from parts of armor).
Regarding the balance and the assignment of armor value: Once you establish armor values according to the type of material and the construction structure of the armor piece, the assignment of armor values becomes automatic.

It sounds like a lot of work, but it's actually not that big.
It is less and less work than tweaking 2 parameters (armor value and damage of a given unit) indefinitely so that in modifying 1 you unbalance the approach of the latter with everything else, and the same thing in modifying only the other .
I suggest a solution where modifying one can be done without bringing total imbalance with everything else.
In fact, although in the thread I say to greatly increase the armor value, the fact that there are uncovered hurtboxes implies that even a character with an armor that reduces damage to 0 in all covered points is knockable if hit a couple of times in the uncovered points.
The point is that: from a distance, hitting covered puntis is a matter of luck linked to how much that target is covered by the armor and how exposed those points are, while up close it is a question of having good aim (in the case of bows and crossbows) or to know how to attack in the right place, at the right time (with melee weapons).
I wrote this thread a month before posting it (it takes months to write my threads) and I posted it because I knew that threads with titles like:
"papar armor", "nerf archer", "buff cavalry", "buff infantry", "nerf infantry" (yes, even contradictory) for the simple reason that with the retouching of those 2 parameters you do not go anywhere.
A year has already been wasted in changing these parameters and still after a year the same threads pop up.


The skills to do this they have, they practically have to add things that are already at stake.
They have to make a few more models (and they could use the existing models as a base, divide them into 2 and make 2 pieces of armor from a single block that includes them both), and finally assign the various parameters.
They could do it if they wanted to.
i really like your ideas,

and i really hope they do put them in,

but i think they are not going to risk adding something new to the game at this point,

and they are really overwhelmed atm

i just hope a modder reads your post and puts it in some custom server, bc having armor that works will be essential in battle mode
 

mujadaddy

Regular
WB
The skills to do this they have, they practically have to add things that are already at stake.
They have to make a few more models (and they could use the existing models as a base, divide them into 2 and make 2 pieces of armor from a single block that includes them both), and finally assign the various parameters.
They could do it if they wanted to.

Dude, they don't want to. Let's focus on small changes that deliver large benefits. You're talking about a *different game*...
 

VicbossOG

Regular
Arrows -> Padded armor -> Stronger Bows -> Mail armor -> Bodkin points -> Plate armor -> "Knight-killer" Crossbows

Plate armor is a *high* technology, and Calradia is not set in a time when 'real' Plate armor was widely available**. (You need to be able to work 6+ kg ore blooms, which requires a water hammer).

The above progression *should* be represented by the gear at tiers, but it's a little sloppy. Low tier armor should "minimize" low tier bows damage (1-10dmg or something, double for headshots, although padded headgear shouldn't help too much), mid armor:mid bows, high armor:high bows, with heavy xbow damage being enough to do most of its damage to really high armor value. But it's not really numerically 'right' yet. "BUT HE'S GOT -- HIGH HOPES"

** strictly speaking, at Agincourt in 1415, only the wealthiest men-at-arms would have had more than a cuirass, some not even that
I like the idea of tiers but I disagree with your damage numbers. There's no way anyone wearing padded armour would need 10+ arrows to kill. Headshots assuming the arrow penetrates the armour should almost always be counted as a kill.
 

mujadaddy

Regular
WB
I like the idea of tiers but I disagree with your damage numbers. There's no way anyone wearing padded armour would need 10+ arrows to kill. Headshots assuming the arrow penetrates the armour should almost always be counted as a kill.
Sure, tweak the numbers, but the example there is for starter bow (skill 0) and Best Padded (what, about 20 on body?)

Oh, also, I fundamentally disagree with their decision to give everyone 100 hit points.
 
Last edited:

mujadaddy

Regular
WB
True, in that case use bannermans option. Personally I think that there are to much weapons with an "overkill" attitude that ruins the combat.
Agreed: what is the use of 1k damage headshot countercharge? Once you get to the high tiers, the numbers are silly and they ignore armor almost entirely.

I'm open to changing meat-soak, too; but armor DEFINITELY needs to be stronger.
 

VicbossOG

Regular
Sure, tweak the numbers, but the example there is for starter bow (skill 0) and Best Padded (what, about 20 on body?)

Oh, also, I fundamentally disagree with their decision to give everyone 100 hit points.
Not everyone has 100 HP. Lots of units in both SP and MP have over 100 HP. Assuming you have 0 skill and it's a garbage bow against padded armour I would still want around 30 HP taken off for body shots. Head would be a kill, neck maybe 85-90, arms/shoulders and legs could be 25.
 

mujadaddy

Regular
WB
Not everyone has 100 HP. Lots of units in both SP and MP have over 100 HP. Assuming you have 0 skill and it's a garbage bow against padded armour I would still want around 30 HP taken off for body shots. Head would be a kill, neck maybe 85-90, arms/shoulders and legs could be 25.
Yeah, *at minimum 100 HP.

I think we're talking the same language, just negotiating details. 3-4 body shots sounds fine, presuming 1-2 for an unarmored person.

In fact, to clarify, 3-4 body shots for matching Armor vs Weapon tier, 1-2 for below it. No problem with archers headshotting anyone in the game at their tier.
 

ShadInqu

Regular
This is the best soultution imo though the values of armor would need to be recalulated. With the mod where I just doubled ratings for everything basic stuff was like 30-40k and highend stuff was from 250-750K.
You also need to update the armor price cost calculation. It's

CalculateArmorTier under Taleworlds.Core.DefaultItemValueModel
 

mujadaddy

Regular
WB
I'm not saying I agree that a blanket damage nerf is the best option, but it's something that can easily be tested (with dnSpy) to see how it would affect battles and different troop types in order to know for sure how it would feel.

In the method CalculateRawDamageNew there is a value you could simply change from 100 to 50 to halve damage from all sources (or to 70 for a 30% reduction, etc):
My suggested tweak is when the armor value is generated, before it goes to the RawDmg function, multiply the value times the square root of the armor tier; this presumes the armor tier is available at the time of this check. With 77AV/t6, you cap out ~65% as opposed to 43.5%, but t1 armor is unchanged.

If armor tier is not available, just double AV before RawDmg()

I think I've got inspiration for my first mod!
 

ShadInqu

Regular
My suggested tweak is when the armor value is generated, before it goes to the RawDmg function, multiply the value times the square root of the armor tier; this presumes the armor tier is available at the time of this check. With 77AV/t6, you cap out ~65% as opposed to 43.5%, but t1 armor is unchanged.

If armor tier is not available, just double AV before RawDmg()

I think I've got inspiration for my first mod!
Do note that armor tier is not not limited to t6 though, it's a display limit. Armor tier is tied to the total armor value of the armor (literally the sum of all armor values divided by 10, modified by a factor for helmets/boots/gloves). So armor 77 armor isn't t6, it's actually t7.4
 
Also a consideration: the Armour material flags in the xmls are only used for the sound it makes, but maybe it can also be taken into account for absorbing dmg like a percentage modifier against the 3 dmg types.
 

five bucks

Squire
I mean there's you saying it's not effective then there's historical evidence showing they were really effective like for example the English longbowmen during the Battles of Agincourt, and Shrewsbury.
The Battle of Agincourt is commonly quoted by people in discussions like this, but without understanding of the full context.

The English longbows were strong, sure, but they were NOT strong enough to penetrate plate armor in anything but the most optimal circumstances (poorly-made armor with flaws in the metal, hit at the perfect range). Everyone discussing armor should have seen this by now:

So, the only practical way for a longbow to kill someone in full plate was trying to hit the gaps in their armor, e.g. groin, underarm, eyeslit. If they were on an unarmored horse, you could try to shoot their horse down.

And this is what the English did at Agincourt. The French men-at-arms were overconfident on the day, and made a disorganized charge up a very muddy slope into a well-defended English position which was guarded by stakes. The stakes and the mud managed to stop the cavalry from directly charging the archers, who could shoot down the French horses. "Historian John Keegan argues that the longbows' main influence on the battle at this point was injuries to horses: armoured only on the head, many horses would have become dangerously out of control when struck in the back or flank from the high-elevation, long-range shots used as the charge started."

From this point on, Agincourt becomes an example for the effectiveness of armor. "The plate armour of the French men-at-arms allowed them to close the 1,000 yards or so (one football field) to the English lines while being under what the French monk of Saint Denis described as 'a terrifying hail of arrow shot'. A complete coat of plate was considered such good protection that shields were generally not used."

Enough French knights were still alive, despite the tactically moronic frontal charge, that they had to be killed by the English archers... using melee weapons; hatchets, swords, and mallets.

As for archery casualties at Shrewsbury, the answer is simply "most of the combatants were archers, and very few people were fully armored".

So full plate wasn't 100% invincible to arrows, but it definitely gave very good protection, like 90%.
The armor used in Bannerlord's time period (lamellar, chain, scale, and coats-of-plates) wasn't as good as plate, but then again, the bows used weren't as powerful as the English longbow either. Agincourt-era longbows could have draw weights of 150–160 pounds, while early medieval longbows (the best available) are estimated to be 80-90 pound draw weights.
http://myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html Padded, double-linked chain armor was considered basically arrow-proof.
Here's a youtuber testing crossbows against lamellar and plate. Both of them hold up quite well being shot at close range.

So, in conclusion: although it was not invincible, good armor gave high protection against bows and crossbows, even good quality bows and specialised arrows used by skilled archers. I think this is best represented in Bannerlord by T5 ranged infantry taking a minimum of 10 shots, on average, to kill T5-equivalent armor.
If arrows and crossbows were as useless as people are claiming, they wouldn't have been used at all in the Medieval Era.
Think about that statement from the other perspective. If arrows and bolts could be "really effective" against high-quality armor, as you claim, why would nobles bother to spend massive amounts of money getting it made for themselves? A bow or crossbow was far cheaper than a suit of good armor.

Bows and crossbows continued to be used, despite the very good protection a full suit of plate could provide, because not everyone was wearing full plate (although by the late 1400s, a good 60% of combatants on the average battlefield were wearing partial plate) and so there were plenty of partially-armored or unarmored targets to shoot at.
 
Last edited:

Just nerf ranged damage by 30%

So if everything took like 1 more shot to die it would be a big improvement? I guess it'd be a small improvement but I think we need to do much better.

I think we have huge problem in damage calculation and armor effects and if you just nerf archers (enough) then the problem just moves onto "My buff élite infantry and Cav dies to crappy militia and recruits wtf?" because it's not just that ranged does too much damage too easily, it's also that troop tiers/armor and skills just aren't effective or different enough to matter.

Inf and Cav are just programed badly and they trade with lower tier units too much. There's no reason to use them over ranged units and that won't change by just making ranged units suck more. It might make everything suck so much that we just open the files and change it or use mods, but it won't make the vanilla game better.

I think low tier ranged should only be good against other low tier units, but high tier ranged should be 'okay' against other high tier units but obliterate low tier units. Likewise higher tier units should be near impervious to lower tier fire and be skillfully block or strike first against lower tier melee and need to be seriously swarmed to be KO'd by recruit and low tier units. Of course this should mean infantry easily defeat ranged units in a melee fight and likewise must be very outnumbered to be in danger when attacking them up close.

TBC I would describe current ranged as high tier obliterates everything and low tier is pretty good against high tier and obliterates low-equal tier. Cav is good for meat shield and distraction and inf is only good for meat shield. Neither are good at killing, even with mods like rts mod to give better control over where they go and who they attack. Only with heavy ranged support do they get anything done..... but if you just replaced them with ranged it would be equal or better... so.... yeah they need help!
 

mujadaddy

Regular
WB
Do note that armor tier is not not limited to t6 though, it's a display limit. Armor tier is tied to the total armor value of the armor (literally the sum of all armor values divided by 10, modified by a factor for helmets/boots/gloves). So armor 77 armor isn't t6, it's actually t7.4
Ah thank you:

My instinct is to just stick with 2 as the armor-effect-multiplier. It gives 50 AV 50% Damage Reduction, which is kinda neat.

My hope is that TW is firmly planted in the early middle ages, and that their interpretation of real plate armor is with greatly enhanced AVs.

But from what I've seen them do with their great start, notsomucccchhh

{thread title} I guess it'd be a small improvement but I think we need to do much better
Of course! Strive for perfection! TW has (again) offered a good framework which can be enhanced, mods or native.
I think we have huge problem in damage calculation and armor effects ; it's also that troop tiers/armor and skills just aren't effective or different enough to matter.

Inf and Cav are just programed badly
Armor value 77 has 43.5% damage block. I think that's really insufficient for the best armor the timeline has to offer; headshots already do double, before perks. 45 Helmets do almost nothing, math-wise!

Skills? Yeah, for some reason TW has restricted all skills (tactics, etc) from .... mattering in the code. Not sure why. This is a great topic for more senior folks than I to broach...
 
Last edited:

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight at Arms
For all the people saying things like:

"The problem is not ranged units... The problem is just armor"
"The problem is the AI"
"The problem is that high tier units re useless against lower tier units"
"Armor is totally useless!!!!"
etc...



So, while I think that there are some melee weapons able to do too much damage and armor is not much useful against them, and while I think that the gap between high tier and low tier units could get increased, I think the only problem here is that Archers and xBows are able to do too much damage and they have an unrealistically fast rate of fire in this game. Please let's focus on the actual matter of this topic which is related to Archers and xBows are insanely OP.

Armor is OK in melee in my view (except against these big weapons which are able to do too much damage), and the only problem with armor is that it should give more protection against ranged units.
 

CrazyElf

Veteran
So, in conclusion: although it was not invincible, good armor gave high protection against bows and crossbows, even good quality arrows used by skilled archers. I think this is best represented in Bannerlord by T5 ranged infantry taking a minimum of 10 shots, on average, to kill T5-equivalent armor.

Think about that statement from the other perspective. If arrows and bolts could be "really effective" against high-quality armor, as you claim, why would nobles bother to spend massive amounts of money getting it made for themselves? A bow or crossbow was far cheaper than a suit of good armor.

Bows and crossbows continued to be used, despite the very good protection a full suit of plate could provide, because not everyone was wearing full plate (although by the late 1400s, a good 60% of combatants on the average battlefield were wearing partial plate) and so there were plenty of partially-armored or unarmored targets to shoot at.

I think this is the optimal approach.


Arrows can get a lucky hit, but in most cases armor will offer good protection.

Archers will still remain useful - an army is not all tier 5 / 6 units and lords after all. They will be especially powerful against the lower tier units. But unlike in the current game, a force that is balanced between melee and ranged (versus what is currently optimal an archer / horse archer heavy force) will win.
The Battle of Agincourt is commonly quoted by people in discussions like this, but without understanding of the full context.

The English longbows were strong, sure, but they were NOT strong enough to penetrate plate armor in anything but the most optimal circumstances (poorly-made armor with flaws in the metal, hit at the perfect range). Everyone discussing armor should have seen this by now:

So, the only practical way for a longbow to kill someone in full plate was trying to hit the gaps in their armor, e.g. groin, underarm, eyeslit. If they were on an unarmored horse, you could try to shoot their horse down.

And this is what the English did at Agincourt. The French men-at-arms were overconfident on the day, and made a disorganized charge up a very muddy slope into a well-defended English position which was guarded by stakes. The stakes and the mud managed to stop the cavalry from directly charging the archers, who could shoot down the French horses. "Historian John Keegan argues that the longbows' main influence on the battle at this point was injuries to horses: armoured only on the head, many horses would have become dangerously out of control when struck in the back or flank from the high-elevation, long-range shots used as the charge started."

It also illustrates one other point - with good armor, tactics will matter more.

Armor makes effective melee cavalry tactics possible because the archers will not be able to kill so many cavalry units (which often causes a rout of the melee cavalry), but even with good armor, if the knights use poor tactics, it would still result in a win for the archer units even though armor is more arrow resistant.

That's not the case right now, because arrows are so strong.
 

Reiksmarshal

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WBWF&SNWVC
For all the people saying things like:

"The problem is not ranged units... The problem is just armor"
"The problem is the AI"
"The problem is that high tier units re useless against lower tier units"
"Armor is totally useless!!!!"
etc...



So, while I think that there are some melee weapons able to do too much damage and armor is not much useful against them, and while I think that the gap between high tier and low tier units could get increased, I think the only problem here is that Archers and xBows are able to do too much damage and they have an unrealistically fast rate of fire in this game. Please let's focus on the actual matter of this topic which is related to Archers and xBows are insanely OP.

Armor is OK in melee in my view (except against these big weapons which are able to do too much damage), and the only problem with armor is that it should give more protection against ranged units.


Let’s get this straits, you post a video of a melee of elite legionnaires where it takes them about 43 seconds to march across the battle field and the battle is RESOLVED by 57 seconds in. It is a complete joke if anybody thinks that the armor stats are ok. There was no big weapons in that fight as everybody had one handed swords. Literally there was no fight as they other army got destroyed in what 14 seconds.

I’m sorry, but I have looked at the armor stats, weapon damage, and base hit points and the armor values are too low. I have done multiple test with various armor rating buffs and it made all the difference in the world. If anything your video displays how terrible balance is in this game really is. I have also seen the polls that have been posted on the subject and it supports 75-80% believe armor is the main problem.

14 second battles are a joke period!
 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight at Arms
Let’s get this straits, you post a video of a melee of elite legionnaires where it takes them about 43 seconds to march across the battle field and the battle is RESOLVED by 57 seconds in. It is a complete joke if anybody thinks that the armor stats are ok. There was no big weapons in that fight as everybody had one handed swords. Literally there was no fight as they other army got destroyed in what 14 seconds.

I’m sorry, but I have looked at the armor stats, weapon damage, and base hit points and the armor values are too low. I have done multiple test with various armor rating buffs and it made all the difference in the world. If anything your video displays how terrible balance is in this game really is. I have also seen the polls that have been posted on the subject and it supports 75-80% believe armor is the main problem.

14 second battles are a joke period!
You are totally missing the point here. This is a thread to talk about how OP ranged units are in this game, and not to talk about battles lasting for 14 seconds. Sure, I would also like to see longer battles, but this is a totally different topic. Anyway, battles lasting for 14 seconds has much more to do with AI suicidal behavior and not with armor.

By the way, I also posted a battle where 100 legionaries were able to deal pretty handy against 40 Legionaries, 40 Elite Menavliation and 40 Veteran Infantrymen, so I think it is not necessary to test what would happen if I test Legionaries against lower tier mixed armies.

My point is that archers and xbows are insanely OP and it has not anything to do with armor being weak in general (armor should protect better against arrows though), AI, etc. Archers and xbows are unrealistically too fast at firing.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom