-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Users who are viewing this thread
- Status
Vraelomon said:
...no?
Not quite.
Yeah, Warband will immediately die just like no one ever played vanilla M&B since Warband was released.578 said:
kraggrim
Marquis
There are MB mods I played years after Warband's release. Solid and Shade, TLD (before it was converted), Warsword Baptism, that awesome wild-west mod.
There will be more difference between WB and Bannerlord than WB and original MB, but I'd imagine there will still be mods worth playing.
There will be more difference between WB and Bannerlord than WB and original MB, but I'd imagine there will still be mods worth playing.
Louis The Last Breton
Sergeant
You do realize +custom weapons + MP= Loadtime so slow?Sherlock Holmes said:
Not necessarily, considering every modern multiplayer game has some form of player customisation included.
SmurfInHell
Squire
Meko said:
More than likely due to damage type. Take an unarmored peasant, what would hurt more? Piercing stab through the arm, or a large slash of a spear cutting open a large portion of the arm? Both could be fatal, but on unarmored targets the higher base slash damage will cause more harm. That being said, A well placed pierce to the chest will still kill them as well.
Take an armored knight, damage reduction vs slash is massive. So then you take the lower base damage of pierce, but it goes through without massive penalties. Hence the reasoning behind the pierce being lower than swing damage at almost all times. Because pierce does not get affected by armor on such a large scale like slash is.
As for the bastard sword it seems that way, but I doubt it's completely taken away from in game mechanics.
TL;DR Cut should, and will almost always, be higher than any pierce value on a weapon. For them to simulate somewhat realistic damage types amongst various weapons they use the Slash/cut, pierce, and blunt mechanic. Slash is subject to massive penalties against armor, but should be truly amazing/most effective at lightly armored targets. So they have a high base damage. Pierce on the other hand starts at a smaller base number, but it is effective on almost all targets due to the pierce damage type not being subject to the penalties.
There was a legend. It said that we were about to get a blog.
SmurfInHell said:
Um, nope. Spears were the most used weapon back then and they were used pretty much exclusively as piercing weapons. Pierce will do more damage than cut because of well, PIERCE. Spears were not used as cutting weapons, the philosophy of a spear is a pointy head being pushed into the opponent while you apply strength to the wooden parts of it. Cut damage can be a simple cut that barely touches you so I have no idea how exactly you think spears cutting are realistic. Also blunt damage, if they are the same as warband (hammers etc) will remain dumb as mechanic-wise. Especially for multiplayer. Spears must get an overhaul for bannerlord and make them the worthy weapons they were and not simple and stupid support only weapons with one directional attack when used with a shield.
Úlfheðinn said:
Piercing movement was most fatal wounds when used by spears or swords and that is because the shield was also used as offensive weapon to block an enemy's arm from blocking, giving you a wide variety of choice and exposure to an enemy's body. Slash (cut) was easy to avoid and it could barely touch you sometimes, giving you nothing less and nothing more of a simple cut wound that only itches. Especially with armor, slashing with swords was not preffered. Axes from the other hand, could only slash, but the way axes were built was different. Axe was lets say, was similar to how spears were used, by applying strength and motion to the handle and aiming the deadly part of it to do the damage. But axes could only slash of course and it was preffered my northmen who fought armorless, minimal armor, or leather armor, in general terms, agile fighters. Northmen themselves in reality preferred swords or hammers to axes in reality. Sword is a much more versatile weapon but axe has much more force. Most warriors also carried daggers that had extreme piercing potential to the width and length that allowed much more force in a certain aimed area. In conclusion, open wounds by any weapon would risk the one injured to catch disease, lose a lot of blood but in a very big number, it would not be a fatal shot shortly after the time it was caused.
AFAIK there hasn't yet been any mention of horse dismount... has there?
I think we would all like to see some advancement with it's mechanics, such as the ability to "hop-off" while moving. At a realistic speed, naturally
I think we would all like to see some advancement with it's mechanics, such as the ability to "hop-off" while moving. At a realistic speed, naturally
Yeah, it's a bit annoying that you have to come to a complete halt just to get off. A feature where you can actually lead the horse around to move faster through shallow water or something would be nice too, if completely and uttely pointless.
I would love being able to lead a horse, it would look good. It'd help for role playing especially, in single player or even being a squire/stable man in a Persistent World mod. As you and tanglebones say, being able to dismount when moving slowly would be useful too, and I hope for a specific button for dismounting to avoid the problem of unintentionally picking up weapons instead of dismounting (a particular nuisance in multiplayer siege or other modes in which it is preferable to dismount in a busy location where lots of weapons are dropped).
- Status
Similar threads
