Just nerf ranged damage by 30%

Users who are viewing this thread

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...


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.
People don't agree with your assessment, that's why they bring up other things.

Certainly I don't agree with your assessment. I have no problem with archers downing men in mail. I dare you to stand in front of an archer at 50 metres in lamellar or mail, and let someone fire off a few rounds at you. No you wouldn't do that, because it would be suicidal.

So I don't think the arrows are the problem - or at least the main problem.

I think our inability to target enemy formations is a problem - so cavalry can't be directed at archers, instead you issue charge orders and hope the go there - this makes them ineffective at covering ground and susceptible to archer fire. They stop and reform, or just run off in all directions to be picked off. Instead of charging in a mass. The ability to issue specific attack orders would help a lot (there are plenty of threads about this)

Secondly, we're out of balance in our time periods. Our bows and crossbows are about 300 years too early relative to the armour they face. A longbow with bodkin or renaissance era crossbow should be paired with early plate. These weapons in game do appropriate damage to the armour they face. A renaissance era crossbow is lethal to a man in mail. Weapons and armour are in a constant race, and in Bannerlord, we've jumped the weapons a few centuries ahead of armour that would aid in defending against it. Perhaps rather than nerfing bows or adjusting armour values, we just add another tier of armour above the top lamellar - like a selection of early plate armours. That way we wouldn't need to mess with any values which are appropriate relative to the types of weapons they're facing.
 
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.

I do get the point, clearly range would not be op if armor was not so weak. Do the math, when you have bound crossbows that does 100 piecing damage and your 15k mail body armor has a rating of 24 what do you think is going to happen? It really is as simple as raising the armor values and making some of the heavy armors like lamellar and coat of plates piece resistant.
 
People don't agree with your assessment, that's why they bring up other things.

Certainly I don't agree with your assessment. I have no problem with archers downing men in mail. I dare you to stand in front of an archer at 50 metres in lamellar or mail, and let someone fire off a few rounds at you. No you wouldn't do that, because it would be suicidal.

So I don't think the arrows are the problem - or at least the main problem.

I think our inability to target enemy formations is a problem - so cavalry can't be directed at archers, instead you issue charge orders and hope the go there - this makes them ineffective at covering ground and susceptible to archer fire. They stop and reform, or just run off in all directions to be picked off. Instead of charging in a mass. The ability to issue specific attack orders would help a lot (there are plenty of threads about this)

Secondly, we're out of balance in our time periods. Our bows and crossbows are about 300 years too early relative to the armour they face. A longbow with bodkin or renaissance era crossbow should be paired with early plate. Not just mail. Weapons and armour are in a constant race, and in Bannerlord, we've jumped the weapons a few centuries ahead of armour that would aid in defending against it. Perhaps rather than nerfing bows or adjusting armour values, we just add another tier of armour above the top lamellar - like a selection of early plate armours. That way we wouldn't need to mess with any values.

“People don’t agree with your assessment”

My only assessment is that ranged units are OP, and a lot of people do agree with this.


I do get the point, clearly range would not be op if armor was not so weak. Do the math, when you have bound crossbows that does 100 piecing damage and your 15k mail body armor has a rating of 24 what do you think is going to happen? It really is as simple as raising the armor values and making some of the heavy armors like lamellar and coat of plates piece resistant.

Disagree with this statement, because it just take into account ranged units against heavily armor units. Go to play some campaign battles and count how many heavily armored units the AI lords have in their armies. I can assure you that at least 60-70% of lords armies units wear ligh/medium armor.

The main issue with archers and xbows is that they have a pretty high rate of fire. They are insanely and unrealistically fast, so if people are interested in what should happen in real life, start looking real life rate of fire and compare with the game.

Anyway, I am not saying that making armor more resistant against arrows/bolts is a bad idea, of course not, and this probably would help. What I am trying to say is that the problem is not just about armor, and ranged units rate of fire being too high is one of the biggest issues here.

English archers (one of the most trained archers in the medieval history) were able to fire about 10-12 arrows per minute, while crossbowmen 3-4. Now go to the game and compare, and you are going to find one of the main reasons because ranged units are so ridiculously OP.
 
Last edited:
Certainly I don't agree with your assessment. I have no problem with archers downing men in mail. I dare you to stand in front of an archer at 50 metres in lamellar or mail, and let someone fire off a few rounds at you. No you wouldn't do that, because it would be suicidal.
I dare you to get a crossbow and fire 12-13 bolts per minute with high precision or a bow and fire +20 arrows per minute with high precision.

If you want to talk about real numbers, let’s do it.

Arrows/xBows damage should get down, or rate of fire should be decreased in my view.
 
I dare you to get a crossbow and fire 12-13 bolts per minute with high precision or a bow and fire +20 arrows per minute with high precision.

If you want to talk about real numbers, let’s do it.

Arrows/xBows damage should get down, or rate of fire should be decreased in my view.

The rate of fire isn't a damage issue, it's a rate of fire issue. So if rate of fire is your only issue, sure, let's make crossbows reload slower. I'm ok with that.

But I don't agree that they do too much damage or that existing armour is too weak.
 
I have no problem with archers downing men in mail. I dare you to stand in front of an archer at 50 metres in lamellar or mail, and let someone fire off a few rounds at you. No you wouldn't do that, because it would be suicidal.
This incorrect statement was already addressed in this post https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...anged-damage-by-30.444895/page-6#post-9722805
with evidence from this video
and this link http://myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html discussing how padded, double-linked mail was considered basically arrow-proof in its heyday (the Bannerlord time period).
Caveat: I'm not saying there would be no risk from being shot at, but you would not be highly likely to die if you were wearing good lamellar or mail and being shot at from 50m. As you can see from the video, shooting at lamellar from 10m dents the individual plates but does not pass through the padding beneath.
Secondly, we're out of balance in our time periods. Our bows and crossbows are about 300 years too early relative to the armour they face. A longbow with bodkin or renaissance era crossbow should be paired with early plate. These weapons in game do appropriate damage to the armour they face. A renaissance era crossbow is lethal to a man in mail.
Bannerlord crossbows and bows are not "Renaissance era". Bannerlord crossbows have a wooden bow (consistent with European crossbows from the 10th-12thc), while the Renaissance-era crossbow's more powerful metal bow was introduced in the 14th century, along with windlass mechanisms that allowed for tensioning the metal. Longbows existed in the early medieval period, and were lower poundage than the ones from the Renaissance.
Perhaps rather than nerfing bows or adjusting armour values, we just add another tier of armour above the top lamellar - like a selection of early plate armours. That way we wouldn't need to mess with any values which are appropriate relative to the types of weapons they're facing.
You've failed to establish that the values are "appropriate", and introducing early plate would clash with the established early-medieval aesthetic far too much. Also it would need a lot of additional work to make more armor for every faction, and it would fail to balance the game anywhere but the top tier.
Nerfing ranged weapons and/or adjusting armour values is indeed the solution here. I don't get why you're so opposed to it.
 
The rate of fire isn't a damage issue, it's a rate of fire issue. So if rate of fire is your only issue, sure, let's make crossbows reload slower. I'm ok with that.

But I don't agree that they do too much damage or that existing armour is too weak.

Archers and crossbowmen rate of fire is too high, and not just crossbowmen rate of fire. Plus, arrows do too much damage against heavy armor, and I do agree with people about that, but changing this won’t make ranged units much more balanced in single player, and we will be still able to wreck AI lords with ease with our archers/crossbowmen.

Reducing bows and xbows damage is also an option, and this is the approach I will use for my own mod if TW won’t fix this issue ever. This is a game after all, and if archers and crossbowmen are able to unrealistically fire tons of arrows/bolts per minute, it is also ok if they do not do a realistic damage on an unarmored guy.
 
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.

I had to watch it twice and then go back and do a double take to make sure that troops was what I though it was. Are you saying because t5's inf beat t2/3's in your staged, not-actually-in-the-game (also modded from the banners) fight, that somehow armor is good enough? Why would this mean anything? T5 units beat t2 units in a perfect 1 to 1 ratio without any interference... so? They should be able to kill 500 of em without losses if the game was made well.

Do you know know that in the actual game 1/2 of your guys start to turn around because they see a couple horses and get hit in the back and you'd lose a bunch for no reason because of the bad programing and lack of player control?

I mean, okay, I get that you like ramming infantry into each other and don't like ranged units shooting them too much, but I just don't see how these videos are supposed to sway anyone.

Maybe try say 25 t3-t5 infantry in the actual game and use them in 25%X4 type set up against actual npc parties for say a couple game years of war and see how you feel about thier survival rate, utility and offensive power.

Archers and crossbowmen rate of fire is too high
I agree on this for lower tier ranged units. It's very obvious they don't use the same mechanics the player does when firing weapons, they're all just a bit to fast IMO. It's okay for higher tier ones though, but if does make lower tier one too consistently good IMO.
 
I had to watch it twice and then go back and do a double take to make sure that troops was what I though it was. Are you saying because t5's inf beat t2/3's in your staged, not-actually-in-the-game (also modded from the banners) fight, that somehow armor is good enough? Why would this mean anything? T5 units beat t2 units in a perfect 1 to 1 ratio without any interference... so? They should be able to kill 500 of em without losses if the game was made well.

Do you know know that in the actual game 1/2 of your guys start to turn around because they see a couple horses and get hit in the back and you'd lose a bunch for no reason because of the bad programing and lack of player control?

I mean, okay, I get that you like ramming infantry into each other and don't like ranged units shooting them too much, but I just don't see how these videos are supposed to sway anyone.

Maybe try say 25 t3-t5 infantry in the actual game and use them in 25%X4 type set up against actual npc parties for say a couple game years of war and see how you feel about thier survival rate, utility and offensive power.

1- The only mod I have is "detailed character creation" which does not affect at all these tests.
2- If you think that I am tricking the results, just test this by yourself and check if you get different results. Now it is pretty easy to test units with new custom battles options.
3- I also tested Legionaries against T4 infantry and Legionaries destroyed them.
4- 100 Legionaries being able to defeat 500 T2 units without a single loss? Well, I suppose we want to play different games. I prefer what we have now.
5- I find T5 infantry in this game pretty strong. Infantry is also pretty easy to replace and upgrading troops in Bannerlord is also pretty easy. The only problem is that I just find archers/xbows infinitely more effective and making the game extremely easy for everyone, even if playing at max difficulty. I have been playing my last campaign roleplaying as a bandit mercenary, recruiting only sea riders and the game is still pretty much doable, just using T2/T3/T4 infantry units (except against Khuzaits for obvious reasons).
6- Here you have another video with the character creating mod deactivated (you can test it by yourself if you do not trust me) and Legionaries being able to win while outnumbered:



100 T5 units = 1200 wages
300 T3 units = 1500 wages

If T5 and T6 would be as strong as you want, then the game would be stupidly easy because lords have tons of T1-T4 units. And no, I also dislike the idea of everyone running with full elite armies if you think that it would be a good solution... So yes, we have a pretty different vision of the game, and I really would like to play a challenging game, while you probably enjoy defeating 10 lords in a row without getting a single loss.
 
Last edited:
Plus, arrows do too much damage against heavy armor, and I do agree with people about that, but changing this won’t make ranged units much more balanced in single player, and we will be still able to wreck AI lords with ease with our archers/crossbowmen.
I think it'll make a significant difference to the balance of ranged units if done right.
3- I also tested Legionaries against T4 infantry and Legionaries destroyed them.
It's worth mentioning that Legionaries perform way better than most other T5 infantry. They might not be a good example for the overall effectiveness of armor and importance of tier.
100 Legionaries being able to defeat 500 T2 units without a single loss? Well, I suppose we want to play different games. I prefer what we have now.
100 T5 units should be able to easily kill 250 T2 units or 500 T1 units. Not necessarily "without a single loss" though since of course the frontline would take a hammering.
 
Last edited:
They do good in a vacuum but in real battles I see too many things like they miss their first swing and then get staggered to death, distracted by far off enemies and constantly changing targets so they're never attacking while being killed and the low defensive value of armor makes those constant hiccups pretty deadly


Infantry is also pretty easy to replace and upgrading troops in Bannerlord is also pretty easy.
I wouldn't say it's hard but relative to every other role it's the worst in my opinion. The hardest part of replacing ranged units is getting them to the tier they get their bow, then it's a safe bet most of them get to t5. Cav will suicide themselves if not managed but can level reasonably easy if done. With infantry it's a constant revolving door of recruits because the biggest jump in their survivability is getting a shield at tier 2.
 
You've failed to establish that the values are "appropriate", and introducing early plate would clash with the established early-medieval aesthetic far too much. Also it would need a lot of additional work to make more armor for every faction, and it would fail to balance the game anywhere but the top tier.
Nerfing ranged weapons and/or adjusting armour values is indeed the solution here. I don't get why you're so opposed to it.
I don't need to establish anything. I'm stating opinion. And as such, nothing you have said has changed it. But by all means... carry on hunting for wikipedia articles or what ever. Blah.

I think that changing the values and balance for every ranged weapon would result in repeated iterations and testing far beyond adding new armour would. new armour is added to every iteration of the game already. What you're suggesting would just lead to more testing, more claims of unbalanced something or other and endless cycles of "this thing is out of balance! nerf it!" Which we already have, because people complained last time.
 
I think it'll make a significant difference to the balance of ranged units if done right.

It's worth mentioning that Legionaries perform way better than most other T5 infantry. They might not be a good example for the overall effectiveness of armor and importance of tier.

100 T5 units should be able to easily kill 250 T2 units or 500 T5 units. Not necessarily "without a single loss" though since of course the frontline would take a hammering.

Yes, Legionaries are the best infantry for sure, but aside from Vlandian Sergeants, other T5 infantry units are able to do a pretty good job against low tier units. Legionaries have the same stats as other T5 infantry units and while they have the best equipment, other T5 infantry units

Improving armor performance against projectiles is fine, I also would like to see this happening, but it won’t change much what we have in SP in my view. It will help for sure, but not enough IMO because most of AI lords units are light/medium armored.

I don’t get the last part of your post. I suppose you wanted to say 500 T1 units. Legionaries and probably other T5 units are able to deal with 250-300 T2 units pretty handy which is ok. Anyway, I am not against increasing the current gap between unit tiers, it is just about it is not as bad as people say.


They do good in a vacuum but in real battles I see too many things like they miss their first swing and then get staggered to death, distracted by far off enemies and constantly changing targets so they're never attacking while being killed and the low defensive value of armor makes those constant hiccups pretty deadly



I wouldn't say it's hard but relative to every other role it's the worst in my opinion. The hardest part of replacing ranged units is getting them to the tier they get their bow, then it's a safe bet most of them get to t5. Cav will suicide themselves if not managed but can level reasonably easy if done. With infantry it's a constant revolving door of recruits because the biggest jump in their survivability is getting a shield at tier 2.

Cavalry is infinitely the hardest kind of unit to replace in my opinion. Especially noble cavalry which I never get because they are a waste of money.
 
So yes, we have a pretty different vision of the game, and I really would like to play a challenging game, while you probably enjoy defeating 10 lords in a row without getting a single loss.
There's no "probably" necessary, his explicit goal is making the game easier in a variety of ways.

I wouldn't say it's hard but relative to every other role it's the worst in my opinion. The hardest part of replacing ranged units is getting them to the tier they get their bow, then it's a safe bet most of them get to t5. Cav will suicide themselves if not managed but can level reasonably easy if done. With infantry it's a constant revolving door of recruits because the biggest jump in their survivability is getting a shield at tier 2.
In my own experience, the best way to level cavalry has been to dismount them and send them in as infantry against bandits. Otherwise they have issues getting kills while also surviving, whereas as foot troops they still have good enough gear to consistently welp bandits without taking losses.
 
In my own experience, the best way to level cavalry has been to dismount them and send them in as infantry against bandits. Otherwise they have issues getting kills while also surviving, whereas as foot troops they still have good enough gear to consistently welp bandits without taking losses.
I typically just hammer and anvil and let them kill routers after but I agree if you leave them to their own devices they'll only get themselves killed. A real shame they've done the same now to horse archers as well.
 
I for one do not want ranged nerfed at all due to how broken armor is, besides, certain types of bows/arrows and crossbows were MADE to IGNORE armor ENTIRELY and just kill you. That is their entire purpose and why bowmen made up the vast majority of English armies, they were cheap, DEADLY as hell and common sense because they were after all... Effective. The problem is in no way that "ranged is OP!" The problem is that armor is and has remained TISSUE PAPER that does nothing. Chainmail is horribly weak against anything piercing. Plate can slow it down. But a crossbow just pierces right through it all and your dead. Bodkins also do the same.

The problem is not that ranged is "over powered" in any regards, it is that everything else in the game is so horrifically BROKEN it makes ranged power seem so for some people. I myself, I have never encountered a ranged problem in my play throughs, in fact the ranged forces just... Die. Horribly. They die horribly and do nothing unless you really back them up with hordes of infantry so they can get some shots off but they still do next to nothing, unless its those damned looters with their homing missile rocks.

Do not blame ranged, you should not punish the AI/Player because they bother to AIM for your HEAD. Thats the point. The problem will remain the messed up combat mechanics that cant handle things in any regard.

Here is something I have noticed in my games by studying my infantry which is probably why people complain about ranged troops:
-I order them to shield wall...
-Line forms up...
-Shields up...
-Then they start to DROP their shields... Thats right, they waver and keep trying to LOWER their shields and "stand at rest" but the programming keeps ordering them to "shield up." (I imagine there is a conflict somewhere in the TW coding and I imagine it is also chewing up CPU power)
-There is now a small gap of time as the shield goes down before going back up...
-Arrows/bolts find hole.
-*dead*

OR

-Shields go up on own during charge...
-Immediately lower shields just as arrows/bolts arrive...
-*dead* *dead* *dead*

It is not that ranged is OVER-powered, it is just that the AI is TOO STUPID. That is the real problem, the combat AI just sucks arse and that is all there really is to it.

Dont nerf ranged! You are just running in a circle around the real problem which is suicidal combat AI!
 
I for one do not want ranged nerfed at all due to how broken armor is, besides, certain types of bows/arrows and crossbows were MADE to IGNORE armor ENTIRELY and just kill you. That is their entire purpose and why bowmen made up the vast majority of English armies, they were cheap, DEADLY as hell and common sense because they were after all... Effective. The problem is in no way that "ranged is OP!" The problem is that armor is and has remained TISSUE PAPER that does nothing. Chainmail is horribly weak against anything piercing. Plate can slow it down. But a crossbow just pierces right through it all and your dead. Bodkins also do the same.

The problem is not that ranged is "over powered" in any regards, it is that everything else in the game is so horrifically BROKEN it makes ranged power seem so for some people. I myself, I have never encountered a ranged problem in my play throughs, in fact the ranged forces just... Die. Horribly. They die horribly and do nothing unless you really back them up with hordes of infantry so they can get some shots off but they still do next to nothing, unless its those damned looters with their homing missile rocks.

Do not blame ranged, you should not punish the AI/Player because they bother to AIM for your HEAD. Thats the point. The problem will remain the messed up combat mechanics that cant handle things in any regard.

Here is something I have noticed in my games by studying my infantry which is probably why people complain about ranged troops:
-I order them to shield wall...
-Line forms up...
-Shields up...
-Then they start to DROP their shields... Thats right, they waver and keep trying to LOWER their shields and "stand at rest" but the programming keeps ordering them to "shield up." (I imagine there is a conflict somewhere in the TW coding and I imagine it is also chewing up CPU power)
-There is now a small gap of time as the shield goes down before going back up...
-Arrows/bolts find hole.
-*dead*

OR

-Shields go up on own during charge...
-Immediately lower shields just as arrows/bolts arrive...
-*dead* *dead* *dead*

It is not that ranged is OVER-powered, it is just that the AI is TOO STUPID. That is the real problem, the combat AI just sucks arse and that is all there really is to it.

Dont nerf ranged! You are just running in a circle around the real problem which is suicidal combat AI!

Nobody is asking for making the AI dumber, people are mostly asking for an armor buff. Then some other like me are asking for less ranged units damage OR decreasing their rate of fire which is unrealistically high, and period. I have not read any single suggestion to make the ranged AI worse.
 
Dude, they don't want to. Let's focus on small changes that deliver large benefits. You're talking about a *different game*...
it involves adding some model of armor pieces to compensate for the increase in hurtboxes.
Taking into account that the current armor models already cover the possible hurtboxes that will be added, it will be enough to divide that model into its components.
I'm not saying there's no work to be done, but it's less than you think.

As for the benefits, I will give practical examples:
Let's suppose that the hurtboxes are 15 and that 10 of them can be covered with parts of armor and that the remaining 5 cannot be covered but are smaller and in particular points such as groin, elbow, armpit, etc.
Looking at the model, we can make the ratio of the area of the model covered by the reinforcement parts to the total area exposed in a given direction.
We can call this ratio "coverage percentage".
We establish that a given damage reduction occurs in the covered areas and that in the non-covered areas the damage is not reduced.
For the sake of simplicity, let's assume there is no localized damage, although there is in the game.

example 1:
- damage reduction from 1 arrow to 5 on covered hurtboxes.
-34 damage on uncovered hurtboxes (let's pretend there are no variations due to damage location for simplicity).
- 80% hurtboxes coverage and no shield.
20 archers, 20 infantry with pike and sword weapons.

The infantrymen are at 100m and move with a speed of 5 m / s towards the archers and will reach them in 20 seconds, the archers shoot their forest of arrows with a frequency of 1 forest every 5 seconds, so in total 4 forests of arrows, then 80 arrows in 20 seconds.
The number of arrows that will hit OPEN POINTS is:
80 * (1-0.:cool: = 16
therefore 16 infantry will suffer 34 damage.
Furthermore, let's assume that a part of the remaining arrows (64) hits the infantry and the others fail.
40 remaining arrows hit and therefore each soldier is hit by 2 arrows in HURTBOXES COVERED suffering:
5 * 2 = 10 damage.
So we will have in total, at the end of the 20 seconds and before the melee combat:
infantrymen:
16 soldiers with: 100-34-10 = 56 hp
4 soldiers with: 100-10 hp = 90 hp

We can interpret these numbers by saying that:
20 soldiers arrive, of which 16 with 56 hp and 4 with 90 hp, or:
12 or 13 infantrymen arrive, given that compared to the maximum hp of the entire unit, only about 60% survive.

All this always taking into account that:
1) we have not considered that the odds of hitting increase at close range, since as we have said, it becomes a matter of "aim".
2) we have not considered that an infantryman can be hit several times, in uncovered points. This could have killed some soldiers.
3) no one gets hit in the head

example 2:
With less covered units (75%) or with poor protection (for example a protection that reduces the damage from 34 to 25 or 20), the number of infantry deaths would be:
arrows hitting: 80 * (1-0.75) = 20 so 1 per soldier.
of the remaining 60, 40 hit in "protected" points, therefore 2 arrows for each infantryman.
=> 20 infantry remain with: 100-34-20 * 2 = 24 hp
24/100 corresponds to about 25%, so it means that either this infantry arrives with 24 hp on average, or that of 20 only 5 remain.

example 3 (full armor or very high protection):
- 95% coverage and 1 damage taken in covered hurtboxes
-34 damage taken in uncovered hurtboxes
20 archers and 20 infantry without shields.
arrows on covered hurboxes: (1-0.95) * 80 = 4
of the 76 remaining arrows, 16 miss and 60 hit covered hurtboxes, each soldier being hit by 2 of these.
out of 20 infantry:
4 infantrymen arrive at the goal with: 100-34-2 = 64 hp
16 infantrymen reach the goal with: 98 hp

example 4 (chainmail and gambeson)
-100% covered hurtboxes and damage reduction vs piercing from 34 to 27.
-34 damage on uncovered hurtboxes

no arrow hits hurtboxes uncovered.
of 80 arrows 60 hit the soldiers, so 3 arrows for each of them:
Hp remaining at the end of the run: 100-27 * 3 = 19
So either they all arrive with 19 HP, or only 4 soldiers arrive at the goal.

Excluding headshots and assuming the arrow deals 34 damage on a face-up hurtboxes.

From distance combat tends to depend on how well you are protected (in terms of the number of armor parts), the type of material and the construction structure (which affects the armor value as a function of the type of damage).
As you can see, I have entered very high armor values, in fact the damage reductions are enormous.
But in melee, any model wearing such protection is still knockable if you can hit those exposed weak points, for example with a lunge.

Currently in the game this is not possible because armor always covers 100% of the body although it offers a low armor value.
Armor value which is kept low precisely by virtue of the fact that if it were high (like the ones I wrote above) an enemy could not be killed until after 100 hits, regardless of the player's skill.
This condition currently in the game rewards spam and discourages accuracy and tacticity, as well as forcing the developer to keep armor values low and reduce immersion.

Regarding what I propose, another advantage would be the reduction of the delay of the attacks.
That delay in play is built in to make attacks "predictable" and prevent compulsive spam from becoming the goal of the game.
But this need arises from the fact that armor has low armor values and therefore one would die immediately if hit consecutively.
A high armor value armor, on the other hand, would make random spam disadvantageous.
Conversely, good aiming and tactics (to hit the right points) would prime the player.

Changing only the parameters without questioning an armor system that has existed for 20 years and brings with it the same problems, only leads us to a recursive situation, in which you modify the parameter A, balance one thing, but you find that that the same modified parameter unbalances others, and so you bring it back as before, and round and round you are always there.
The problem is not the parameters per se, but the NON-REALISTIC way in which the armor system is conceived.
 
I have been making some tests, and this is the result of reducing the Archers and Crossbowmen rate of fire (I have reduced reloading and aiming speed about 25%):

- Vanilla:



- My small mod:





Just look at how much natural archers' animations look and more realistic.

(these changes are also applied for the player, so it is not like if I would be only making worse the AI).

They are still OP with my mod but not as ridiculous as before. Making this and adding some armor fixes to make it more resistant against projectiles is what I need in my opinion.
 
Back
Top Bottom