Melee vs ranged damage: Stats comparison

[Yertyl]

Four starting weapons as an example (1.5.8.):

1. Falchion
   Swing speed: 96
   Swing damage: 58 cut
   Thrust speed: 90
   Thrust damage: 28 pierce
2. Jagged spear
   Thrust speed: 89
   Thrust damage: 29 pierce
3. Steppe Bow
   Speed: 86
   Damage: 46 pierce
4. Light Crossbow
   Speed: 62
   Damage: 75 pierce

First off: According to this thread, even against a highly armoured opponent, 58 cut damage is still much more effective damage than 28 pierce (roughly 20 vs roughly 10). Which means that with a sword, it seems to never be worth it to thrust instead of swing, and spears generally suck, which matches my experience in-game.

But more importantly: Speed seems almost identical for sword, spear and bow, but bow damage is almost twice as high as spear and sword thrust damage. A light crossbow, while being slower, does almost three times as much damage as a spear or sword, putting its DPS roughly on par with that of the bow.
Considering how much, much easier it is to land arrows and bolts without endangering yourself, this is just insane. Also, while the discussion on arrow armor piercing seems to be perpetual, I think we can all agree that an arrow or bolt would not be better at piercing armor than a sword or spear thrust.

So can we please just nerf ranged damage considerably? As in cut it at least in half?
Currently, there are battles in which I can land 30 kills with a ranged weapon, which is almost impossible in melee, even with better training, simply because you have to put yourself in much more danger to land a melee attack. If an arrow also does twice as much damage as a sword thrust...well, I think by now every bannerlord player has has noticed that ranged units dominate battlefields.

So yeah, both from a realism and gameplay standpoint, we could use a considerable nerf in ranged damage, slashing it at least in half.

 

[D0c1]

your steam threas is for warband.

here is a thread explaining the damage formula for bannerlord

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/armour-why-it-doesnt-work-and-how-to-make-it-work.426296/

i do agree that ranged does too much damage.
low tier bows should do next to no damage against highest tier armour and highest tier bows should take several shots to take down highest tier armour.

 

[Yertyl]

your steam threas is for warband.

here is a thread explaining the damage formula for bannerlord

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/armour-why-it-doesnt-work-and-how-to-make-it-work.426296/

i do agree that ranged does too much damage.
low tier bows should do next to no damage against highest tier armour and hiest tier bows should take several shots to take down highest tier armour.

Thank you very much, edited that.

 

[ratschbumm]

I am really thinking that is not as so much the ranged inflicted damage was overrated, as how is melee thrusting is severely downgraded. Well placed stab led to death or disabling fighting abilities. Note, all strait sword technics were eventually developed into making punctures. Same for bayonets of the latter line infantry. Another matter, that is the game cannot emulate minor wounds from arrow reducing fighting ability or shield-encumbering effect of pila, for example, and therefore it predictably failed to put the archers into their niche. But they should matter from the gameplay point of view, so we have is what we have with damage.

 

[Yertyl]

I am really thinking that is not as so much the ranged inflicted damage was overrated, as how is melee thrusting is severely downgraded. Well placed stab led to death or disabling fighting abilities. Note, all strait sword technics were eventually developed into making punctures. Same for bayonets of the latter line infantry. Another matter, that is the game cannot emulate minor wounds from arrow reducing fighting ability or shield-encumbering effect of pila, for example, and therefore it predictably failed to put the archers into their niche. But they should matter from the gameplay point of view, so we have is what we have with damage.

While it is pretty weird that you apparently have to stab an unarmed person four times with a spear before they go down, I still think that bows are also extremely powerful compared to sword slashing.
The whole "speed" stat is a bit confusing, because in practice it does seem to take longer to draw a bow than to thrust with a sword, but still: If we assume both damage values are roughly on par, a ranged weapon will pretty obviously still be a much, much better choice for its ability to land attacks without being in danger of harm yourself. Yes, you can block arrows pretty reliably with a shield -- but the same is true for sword strikes. And when you are without a shield or ranged weapon vs a ranged opponent, you are currently basically just dead (save for some AI abuse -- you can always dodge at the exact moment AI fires, but that only works because AI does not vary the point of release).
Melee attacks need to do much more damage than ranged attacks if you ever want to compensate for the huge advantage of being able to attack without fear of retaliation. And IMO also from a realism standpoint, though that can be debated.

 

[ratschbumm]

While it is pretty weird that you apparently have to stab an unarmed person four times with a spear before they go down, I still think that bows are also extremely powerful compared to sword slashing.
The whole "speed" stat is a bit confusing, because in practice it does seem to take longer to draw a bow than to thrust with a sword, but still: If we assume both damage values are roughly on par, a ranged weapon will pretty obviously still be a much, much better choice for its ability to land attacks without being in danger of harm yourself. Yes, you can block arrows pretty reliably with a shield -- but the same is true for sword strikes. And when you are without a shield or ranged weapon vs a ranged opponent, you are currently basically just dead (save for some AI abuse -- you can always dodge at the exact moment AI fires, but that only works because AI does not vary the point of release).
Melee attacks need to do much more damage than ranged attacks if you ever want to compensate for the huge advantage of being able to attack without fear of retaliation. And IMO also from a realism standpoint, though that can be debated.

I cannot disagree with your point, especially with 'Melee attacks need to do much more damage than ranged attacks' part, but I would add the word "successful'. This is simply why most of state-affiliated war systems in the history relied on melee engagement. Roman military machine with its long daggers (gladii were not swords in fact, not designed or used for parrying, deflecting or other fencing moves) did upper and right stabs from behind the shield, mostly. In its turn, spear, even if not penetrated the armor, at least pushed the target back, and keep it far. Typical example of this is a bear or hog hunting.

 

[MakinTorf]

i agree that spears need a rework. compare it to galve and you see there is no logical point to ever use a spear. just take a glave and everyone is a oneshot (thats why i hate the glave) and its the same "polearm" class.
but i am not for the range nerf. thats more a question of armor then of basic damage. how would you start and survive with a bow in the beginning that deals on looters only 10 dmg? you will need around 10 arrows alone for 1 looter. that would make no sense imo.
no practical, i disagree. the problem is the armor, not the range weapon.

 

[Bluko88]

But more importantly: Speed seems almost identical for sword, spear and bow, but bow damage is almost twice as high as spear and sword thrust damage. A light crossbow, while being slower, does almost three times as much damage as a spear or sword, putting its DPS roughly on par with that of the bow.
Considering how much, much easier it is to land arrows and bolts without endangering yourself, this is just insane. Also, while the discussion on arrow armor piercing seems to be perpetual, I think we can all agree that an arrow or bolt would not be better at piercing armor than a sword or spear thrust.

So can we please just nerf ranged damage considerably? As in cut it at least in half?
Currently, there are battles in which I can land 30 kills with a ranged weapon, which is almost impossible in melee, even with better training, simply because you have to put yourself in much more danger to land a melee attack. If an arrow also does twice as much damage as a sword thrust...well, I think by now every bannerlord player has has noticed that ranged units dominate battlefields.

So yeah, both from a realism and gameplay standpoint, we could use a considerable nerf in ranged damage, slashing it at least in half.

Yes, BUT, ranged weapons have the unfortunate downside of having limited ammunition.

Melee weapons never "run dry", so to an extent ranged weapons do need to do more damage otherwise ranged troops will only be useful in Siege Defense. Which brings up another point: how much does the ammunition type effect the damage done? There's obviously a difference between regular Arrows and Bodkin Arrows in damage delivered. So more then just the raw Bow/Crossbow Damage needs to be considered.

I do agree ranged damage needs to be nerfed a bit, but 50% would be way too extreme. Crossbows in particular feel a bit too powerful, especially the higher tier ones and their overall accuracy. There's also the issue that Longbows are pretty useless now (believed they nerfed them due to Fian Champions) at least compared to Shortbows. I could live with the aiming if the range was at least better, but the way damage works with them is a bit of mystery. They seem to have a sweet spot where they can do more damage then normal Shortbows.

And then there's the useless Throwing Daggers (why aren't they in stacks of like 10?).

I mean there's a lot of ways to go here, nerf the damage, but make the quivers bigger. But even the smallest changes can have pretty big ripples in a game like this. My personal experience is bows usually require 3 body hits for a kill and one-handed weapons tend to be like 3-4 body hits most of the time.

And you can get lots kills with melee, particularly high damage two-handed weapons. But yes it does require more skill/finesse to be a "berserker". One handed you generally don't rack up too many kills, but you get to use a shield which greatly increases survivability.

 

[Hans 77]

The ranged damage output is cripplingly broken.

You can simply make an army of bowmen/xbows and for every battle just F1-F1, go make a coffee, and then return to the post-battle victory menu.

Sad.

 

[MakinTorf]

There's also the issue that Longbows are pretty useless now

thats not true. yes, they are useless as long you dont have something 100 skill in bow, but then they are as fast as shortbows. there is no much difference between them.

one-handed weapons tend to be like 3-4 body hits most of the time.

high tier one handed with 100 skill needs mostly 2 body hits. when you dont hit accuratley you need 3.

again: you all want that you need at the start against looters to need 4-5 arrows from your small 24 arrows quiever? thats not a problem about the bow dmg, its the problem with the armor that doesnt much.

 

[Tajl]

again: you all want that you need at the start against looters to need 4-5 arrows from your small 24 arrows quiever? thats not a problem about the bow dmg, its the problem with the armor that doesnt much.

That is the problem. It is impossible to balance weapons when armors doesn't work.

It shouldn't take many arrows to kill naked guy. Even one arrow to body with weak peasant bow could easily kill. Same with melee weapons. One good hit and it would be over and even glancing blows would cause serious wound.

It is armor which makes the difference. That peasant bow which would be very dangerous to naked guy wouldn't be dangerous for guy in full armor. No penetration, no damage. Same with those melee weapons.

 

[Yertyl]

again: you all want that you need at the start against looters to need 4-5 arrows from your small 24 arrows quiever? thats not a problem about the bow dmg, its the problem with the armor that doesnt much.

As long as you need 4-5 thrusts with a sword or spear definitely yes.
And quiver size: In a straight fight, it is pretty damn difficult to land 24 melee hits without going down. I've done the whole "run in with 2h weapon from behind" thing too, but that seems to rely a lot on AI opponents not turning around and having little sense of self-preservation while moving.
Also, it is usually pretty easy to pick up additional arrows. So yeah, I cannot really buy the whole "I can only land 24 hits unpunished so bow bad". Try walking in with a spear or 1h-sword instead, or 2 sets of throwing weapons for a closer comparison, and see if that has a much better damage potential. Bows are really, really strong, both for the player and troops.

 

[MakinTorf]

i agree that sword and spear thrust need a buff, but that doesnt mean bows need a nerf.
i play on realistic without savescumming and sometimes i get imprinsoned by someone, after release sometimes i have to fight some bandits and thats hard alone against 6 bandits with sword and not a good thrust spear without the skill in polearms.

the only thing i dont agree to nerf bows. armor is the thing that have to do its job.

 

[LuciusDomitiusAurelianus]

I don't think ranged damage needs to be nerfed, besides, outside of the recent 1.5.8 hotfix archers weren't firing on enemy formations until they're at javelin range just about.

What does need to be fixed is the damage reduction calculations and taking another pass as armor piercing perks / weapons / ammo - even with cataphract armor and southern scale shoulders on (putting you roughly ~70 chest armor) I am still taking a grievous amount of damage you think would be reduced fully. Instead of a full subtraction from calculated damage as it is in something like DDO or Fallout, it feels more like a linear scale of damage reduction which doesn't do anything.

 

[Yertyl]

I don't think ranged damage needs to be nerfed, besides, outside of the recent 1.5.8 hotfix archers weren't firing on enemy formations until they're at javelin range just about.

Huh. Quick question: If you need to win a tough battle, would you rather use melee infantry or archers? Also, would you rather use melee cavalry or horse archers?
Because there is a pretty huge gap in the performance of troops
Even for the player: With melee, I can maybe get 10 kills when I'm lucky. But insane 25+ kill battles always involve bows or crossbows. They also basically make throwing weapons obsolete...if you can have 4-8 shots of damage, or 24+, at a much longer range, with much higher precision, and still comparable damage -- which do you pick?

 

[five bucks]

Armor needs to be significantly more effective against arrows and somewhat more effective against melee attacks.