Real Battle

[darksoulshin]

What you actually refer to is tactics, its generally mistaken for strategy due to terms like RTS (technically it should be real time tactics), strategy should be hapenning in BL on the "strategic" world map

you're right about the difference between the two terms, I didn't want to be too fussy and so I just used "strategy".
The tactics concern the sequences of formations, attacks and maneuvers on the battlefield, the strategy concerns the various military actions concerning the movement of armies on the campaign map.
I ask forgiveness if I have left room for doubts.
You can see under my profile a thread called "CREATE BATTLE FORMATION AND TACTICAL ORDERS system", in which I write tactical and non-strategic orders on purpose just because they concern the battlefield and not the world map.
Regarding the strategy, I have written some threads to improve it, I will insert the link if you want to read them in detail in case you want to know how I see it on this topic.
ECONOMY , LOGISTICS and WARFARE SUGGESTION LIST
Mainly take a look at the "geographical coverage" thread that talks about the movement of armies and marching formations, and therefore in a broader context involves ambushes, interceptions, movement fronts of armies (like wave fronts, even if it is improper to call them that, which cover a certain part of the map to avoid circumvention and encirclement or attacks on supply lines) and other nice goodies.
The other thread is the one on logistics and the supply system.
The other two, on the other hand, concern more delicate issues but always indirectly linked to strategy.

In order to get to that point you would need rework of combat (armor, damage, stamina, morale, probably more attack angles - see jedi knight 2 or better Moviebattles 2 for reference) and only then we could start speculating about adding some real tactics.

This is what I do with my threads.
I suggest reworks that do not change the style of the game and do not modify the underlying principles and objectives it wants to achieve) but broaden it and deepen it.
I think the armor system is pretty much what practically dictates everything in this game.
The timing of the battles, the resistance of the units, the depth of the combat system.
These 3 aspects, vital for the game, depend mainly on the armor, so I believe that the greatest effort must be made there.
Making the armor system more realistic (not just changing the armor values .. but increasing the number of hurtboxes and therefore choosing to pay the small price of reducing the number of models per battle) in order to improve those 3 aspects.

People are telling you that your suggestions are pointless because they are realists and because TW explicitly mentioned multiple times that they are going for simplistic game (console port for old gen - must run on slow CPU, no alliances for AI factions etc), writing is on the wall. What you suggest require complete overhaul and it is exact opposite of what TW did until now. But feel free to mod it (to get an idea of how hard / easy it is)

The point is that "simple" or "complicated" has nothing to do with what I write.
I consider a game to be complicated in which the consequences of actions are not their natural and intuitive evolution.
For example: take a fighting game where you have to perform combos to make moves.
The buttons tell you: top, top-right, right, left, bottom-left, bottom, bottom-right, right and finally square.
From this combo comes only one attack, perhaps with a series of animations that in themselves have no connection with the series of keys written above.
If I changed one of the keys to another, or permutated them, what should make me guess that that permutation is associated with a specific attack that differs precisely in a specific animation or effect?
Obviously, only the developer can decide whether to associate a given series of animations to a given series of key combinations.
In another fighting game, press right and the attack button, and it makes an attack on the right.
Press left and attack and left does it.
In this case, following this logic, if you press a given direction and attack, it is intuitive that the attack will go in that direction.
You will say: and the combos?
In this game the combos will depend on how well you are able to chain attacks whose effect and direction you intuitively know.
The first game is based on memory and is complicated because it requires a study in my opinion useless, the second does not require the same amount of study but is not less profound than the first (indeed it is much more so).

Here, same principle for bannerlord.
I take into account the fact that the game also goes on consoles and therefore I elaborate threads in which that factor is taken into account.
The main problem with the consoles, aside from performance, is more related to the controller.
The important thing is that you don't have a complicated key combination.
That would add artificial difficulty, as does the simple variation of parameters such as "hp and armor value" that is done in many games just to give an artificial difficulty where the AI is as foolish as simple difficulties and where the depth of the gameplay It does not change. Everything becomes harder, this is difficult for many, but for me it is a mockery.

I write apparently complicated threads to read, but whose purpose is to simplify the game (in the sense of greater intuitiveness) with, at the same time, an improvement in the gameplay.
greater simplicity + improvement.

Simplicity does not mean "less things", "less mechanical".
At least it is not intended that it should be simple for the developer and not for the player.

 

[Philozoraptor]

you're right about the difference between the two terms, I didn't want to be too fussy and so I just used "strategy".
The tactics concern the sequences of formations, attacks and maneuvers on the battlefield, the strategy concerns the various military actions concerning the movement of armies on the campaign map.
I ask forgiveness if I have left room for doubts.
You can see under my profile a thread called "CREATE BATTLE FORMATION AND TACTICAL ORDERS system", in which I write tactical and non-strategic orders on purpose just because they concern the battlefield and not the world map.
Regarding the strategy, I have written some threads to improve it, I will insert the link if you want to read them in detail in case you want to know how I see it on this topic.
ECONOMY , LOGISTICS and WARFARE SUGGESTION LIST
Mainly take a look at the "geographical coverage" thread that talks about the movement of armies and marching formations, and therefore in a broader context involves ambushes, interceptions, movement fronts of armies (like wave fronts, even if it is improper to call them that, which cover a certain part of the map to avoid circumvention and encirclement or attacks on supply lines) and other nice goodies.
The other thread is the one on logistics and the supply system.
The other two, on the other hand, concern more delicate issues but always indirectly linked to strategy.


This is what I do with my threads.
I suggest reworks that do not change the style of the game and do not modify the underlying principles and objectives it wants to achieve) but broaden it and deepen it.
I think the armor system is pretty much what practically dictates everything in this game.
The timing of the battles, the resistance of the units, the depth of the combat system.
These 3 aspects, vital for the game, depend mainly on the armor, so I believe that the greatest effort must be made there.
Making the armor system more realistic (not just changing the armor values .. but increasing the number of hurtboxes and therefore choosing to pay the small price of reducing the number of models per battle) in order to improve those 3 aspects.

The point is that "simple" or "complicated" has nothing to do with what I write.
I consider a game to be complicated in which the consequences of actions are not their natural and intuitive evolution.
For example: take a fighting game where you have to perform combos to make moves.
The buttons tell you: top, top-right, right, left, bottom-left, bottom, bottom-right, right and finally square.
From this combo comes only one attack, perhaps with a series of animations that in themselves have no connection with the series of keys written above.
If I changed one of the keys to another, or permutated them, what should make me guess that that permutation is associated with a specific attack that differs precisely in a specific animation or effect?
Obviously, only the developer can decide whether to associate a given series of animations to a given series of key combinations.
In another fighting game, press right and the attack button, and it makes an attack on the right.
Press left and attack and left does it.
In this case, following this logic, if you press a given direction and attack, it is intuitive that the attack will go in that direction.
You will say: and the combos?
In this game the combos will depend on how well you are able to chain attacks whose effect and direction you intuitively know.
The first game is based on memory and is complicated because it requires a study in my opinion useless, the second does not require the same amount of study but is not less profound than the first (indeed it is much more so).

Here, same principle for bannerlord.
I take into account the fact that the game also goes on consoles and therefore I elaborate threads in which that factor is taken into account.
The main problem with the consoles, aside from performance, is more related to the controller.
The important thing is that you don't have a complicated key combination.
That would add artificial difficulty, as does the simple variation of parameters such as "hp and armor value" that is done in many games just to give an artificial difficulty where the AI is as foolish as simple difficulties and where the depth of the gameplay It does not change. Everything becomes harder, this is difficult for many, but for me it is a mockery.

I write apparently complicated threads to read, but whose purpose is to simplify the game (in the sense of greater intuitiveness) with, at the same time, an improvement in the gameplay.
greater simplicity + improvement.

Simplicity does not mean "less things", "less mechanical".
At least it is not intended that it should be simple for the developer and not for the player.

I am talking complicated from the perspective of coding or hardware performance. I saw your thread, its typical daydreaming by someone who have no actual experience, no offence.

 

[darksoulshin]

I am talking complicated from the perspective of coding

my suggestions do not present the need to invent things that require a different programming than the one used in the game.
I tend to suggest using existing assets to do other things that potentially can be done.

or hardware performance

it is true that the increase in hurtboxes weighs a lot, but it is precisely for this reason that I accompany this suggestion to make the battles smaller (with fewer units).

Instead of 1000 vs 1000 with a fight that lasts at most 1-2 minutes and in which the armor does not seem to count for anything and in which spam is the master I suggest to do 500 vs 500 but with an armor system that works in a realistic way and that it discourages spam, in such a way as to slightly lengthen the duration of the battles, providing time to attempt additional maneuvers and make sense of the formations and make them more exciting the clashes.
it is obvious that if I use computing power on the one hand I have to save it on the other.

I saw your thread, its typical daydreaming by someone who have no actual experience

I have no experience in programming games and am a bit rusty in the C language studied in the physics course.
So I'm not saying I know how it would be better to code, but I suggest what it would be appropriate and coherent to insert into the game trying to suggest it by giving some idea of how to do it using assets already in the game, using less computing power as possible or suggesting any "compromises" , like the one written above.

no offence.

I am not offended, do not worry, but I would prefer that any counter-argument to my proposal is accompanied by an attempt to improve it and resolve the criticism that gives rise to that counter-argument.
And only if that attempt to improve it is still not applicable, then it would make more sense to give up the implementation of that proposal.

Simply saying "it's too complicated" might come more from the difficulty of understanding what I wrote, which could be my fault since English is not my native language, but regardless of the motivation, it lacks a valid counter-argument.

 

[Mad Vader]

Simply saying "it's too complicated" might come more from the difficulty of understanding what I wrote, which could be my fault since English is not my native language, but regardless of the motivation, it lacks a valid counter-argument.

Hahaha, you are being delusional now.
"Let's see how do I save my low-value idea about adding more hurtboxes? I know, lower the battle size!
Why didn't Taleworlds think of this?? Every performance problem can be solved by making the battles smaller. You want better models? Lower battle size. More particle effects? Lower the battle size! You can improve the game like this right until it becomes a small skirmish game like Mordhau!"

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

There's some hydra posting going on in this thread now, every "I disagree" = 3 more walls of text. I'm not even touching it, cool ideas, not gonna happen, but I will say I think for DAMAGE some adjustments and limits to thier existing stuff will be fine, just beef up the damage %reduction on armors a bit for various tiers and types of troops, or if that's not okay maybe a gamey buff to them instead, whatever so that higher tier troops aren't fodder and lower tier troops...well they can be fodder.... still. ANd a limit to how much speed boost damage can have so we don't have mundane and low tier troops/weapons getting 3-4X damage just because the enemy was riding or running towards them just right. It's just dum because none-ranged units MUST close in so they always at a disadvantage at moving into speed boosted damage. Honestly I would like the idea of some troops just having +20% reduction in damage from a certain source (like Spear mans take -20% damage from mounted melee damage) to give them more of an identity and utility. Could have damage buffs too "Skirmisher Cav ranged attacks (Javs) do 2X damage against HA units", go crazy just make every troop good enough to use for it's cost and tier!

Then we have the AI and UI stuff, because yeah just fixing damage/armor isn't enough if the AI can still be kited butt out in front of ranged units back and forth and troops still will turn butt out to chase a routing enemy and all other manner of durpy behavior.

 

[eddiemccandless]

Arguing with anime avatar people is not my idea of a productive time

That's avatarist.

@darksoulshin the point that I and other people are trying to convey, apparently without much success, is that TW has proved time and again that they are unable to carry through even simple fixes. I don't know how you can look at the state Bannerlord is in, look at the changes that you are proposing and go like "ah yes they should do this, this would work well".

In the end this is the issue imo:

You are so in love with your ideas that you lose touch with reality.

And you know, there is not necessarily anything wrong with that. But when you show up in every thread pushing your ideas like this it does get kind of spammy. Hence my comment to you in my original post that started this conversation.

 

[darksoulshin]

Hahaha, you are being delusional now.
"Let's see how do I save my low-value idea about adding more hurtboxes? I know, lower the battle size!
Why didn't Taleworlds think of this?? Every performance problem can be solved by making the battles smaller. You want better models? Lower battle size. More particle effects? Lower the battle size! You can improve the game like this right until it becomes a small skirmish game like Mordhau!"

There are problems that ruin the gaming experience, immersion and everything in between and problems that don't.
For me, the armor system annihilates everything.
On realistic difficulty if you wear an average of 5 armor and 35 armor, with a slash they still take away 50% of your HP.
You play tournaments, you find yourself an elite cataphract and you expect it to be very hard to pull down and you see that the peasant from the previous round falls down with 3 shots and the cataphract with 5 shots ...
Anywhere you hit is fine.
In any case, the armor does not do all this effect.
So let's spam ...
And if we waste time in getting the armor we are stupid, as well as the enemy should spam and if you go from 5 armor value to 35 the difference is not seen, so you die in 2 hits anyway.
And if it's not 3 it's 5 if you wear the best of the best.

But no ... the armor system is not the problem.

The problem is that if I propose to modify and improve it by paying a cost, it is not good for you because the cost to pay does not seem appropriate.
Instead of responding like a child, WRITE WHAT OTHER COST WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
be constructive instead of annoying.

There are problems that ruin the gaming experience, immersion and everything in between and problems that don't.
For me, the armor system annihilates everything.
On realistic difficulty if you wear an average of 5 armor and 35 armor, with a slash they still take away 50% of your HP.
You play tournaments, you find yourself an elite cataphract and you expect it to be very hard to pull down and you see that the peasant from the previous round falls down with 3 shots and the cataphract with 5 shots ...
Anywhere you hit is fine.
In any case, the armor does not do all this effect.
So let's spam ...
And if we waste time in getting the armor we are stupid, as well as the enemy should spam and if you go from 5 armor value to 35 the difference is not seen, so you die in 2 hits anyway.
And if it's not 3 it's 5 if you wear the best of the best.

But no ... the armor system is not the problem.

The problem is that if I propose to modify and improve it by paying a cost, it is not good for you because the cost to pay does not seem appropriate.
Instead of responding like a child, WRITE WHAT OTHER COST WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
be constructive instead of annoying.

For me that cost is appropriate since the increase of the hurtboxes of the single models I pose a reduction of the number of models and therefore of the total hurtboxes on the field.
If you have better ideas write them.

 

[darksoulshin]

the point that I and other people are trying to convey, apparently without much success, is that TW has proved time and again that they are unable to carry through even simple fixes. I don't know how you can look at the state Bannerlord is in, look at the changes that you are proposing and go like "ah yes they should do this, this would work well".

But I don't ask the developers to apply them now and right away.
I simply put ideas on the plate that even modders can use.
When developers or modders have the means, the time and the skills, they will be tested if they want.
In the case of armor, however, I am quite inflexible, because their unreality ruins the whole game experience.
A looter knock him down with 3 hits and an elite cataphract with 5 hits.
Spamming is rewarded.
You go from having an average armor of 5 to 35 and it always takes you 2 shots to knock you down, to "realistic" mode.
Not to mention the problems with archers and stone throwers ..
Can I say it's bad and anti-immersion?
And if you agree that it is bad and antimmersive and that the change of the armor value alone is useless, can I write an idea that solves all the above problems while improving the combat system?
I really wish this game didn't suck after 12 years of waiting, And since I believe that the main problem related to the core game is precisely the armor system, where we talk about armor and realisticity of the combat system, I think it appropriate to insert that my thread because I think it is a better solution (and not without a cost, but not excessive) than changing the armor value by first increasing it and then decreasing it, going back and forth in the illusion that there is an equilibrium point.

However, instead of wasting time criticizing the way I answer (inserting the thread linik instead of clogging the page), it would be more constructive to respond with respect to the contents of the thread we are in and any arguments posed by users (provided that want to answer, I'm not offended if you don't answer).
In 2 years we will still be here, the armor system will still fail and we will continue to swing illusionally around the non-existent balance point of armor value.
It's been a year and I see the same problems, the same complaining threads and the same, unsuccessful methods of solving the problem.

 

[Mad Vader]

The problem is that if I propose to modify and improve it by paying a cost, it is not good for you because the cost to pay does not seem appropriate.
Instead of responding like a child, WRITE WHAT OTHER COST WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
be constructive instead of annoying.

No cost is appropriate for hurting performance just to do something that can be done with changing the armor/damage formulas with NO performance cost. This is obvious to anyone who's not blinded by his own shower thoughts that became walls of text.
Another thing you fail to understand is that massiveness of battles is one of Taleworlds' priorities and literally no one wants battles to become smaller because your like to hurt boxes.

 

[darksoulshin]

No cost is appropriate for hurting performance just to do something that can be done with changing the armor/damage formulas with NO performance cost

ahaha in the end the truth emerges.
The blind one is you and the one who claims that it is enough to change the armor value or the damage formula.
The armor value formula I have dealt with in another thread in relation to the introduction of an equipment deterioration mechanic, linking the two formulas with a gauss function with certain characteristics designed to guarantee a certain armor value depending on the condition of the equipment.

In the present case, the problem is that you want to act on a system without having the leverage to act on it.
It's not a "damage or armor value" issue ONLY, I've been writing this for months and that's why I'm posting that thread as an answer.
The problem is that the game has few hurtboxes and all of them are "covered" by armor.
So do you understand that if you changed the armor value by raising it a lot, you would make the models too resistant to blows? With blows inflicted at any point?
Also, for high values, given that the protection will be high on average in any hurtboxes, do you understand that "spamming attacks" would be convenient?

If you put in even 1 non-coverable hurtbox, THEN you could afford to raise the armor value to make the highly protective armor REALLY protective.

Why in this case: that single uncovered hurtbox makes the target vulnerable.
So if you hit the covered hurtboxes it takes a long time to take it down (20-30 hits), but if you catch that face, with 2-3 hits you knock it down.
Obviously the number of shots is an example, and will vary according to the type of protection, etc.

However, understand that 1 single more uncovered hurtbox would become "strange" and too local the weak point, with the risk that placing it on one side only, the directionality of the game would lose its meaning against strongly protected units.

So you need at least a number of hurtbozes in more equal to the directions from which it attacks.
In this way an enemy wearing all the pieces of armor finds himself protected, with a high armor value, but defeatable.
Furthermore, if the discovered hurtboxes were smaller than those of the armor, it would become more difficult to hit them and therefore a certain accuracy would be needed, therefore the spam of the attacks would be discouraged.

Instead, raising the armor value alone or varying the damage formula, or both, but not inserting hurtboxes that cannot be covered, simply makes enemies tough but rewards spam, reduces the depth of the gameplay and does not solve the related problems. to ranged vs infantry units.

I repeat: those two formulas, armor value and damage, are not enough as balancing levers, you need an extra degree of freedom.

 

[Mad Vader]

ahaha in the end the truth emerges.
The blind one is you and the one who claims that it is enough to change the armor value or the damage formula.
The armor value formula I have dealt with in another thread in relation to the introduction of an equipment deterioration mechanic, linking the two formulas with a gauss function with certain characteristics designed to guarantee a certain armor value depending on the condition of the equipment.

I'm done here, good luck with your windmills.

 

[darksoulshin]

I'm done here, good luck with your windmills

Incredibly, you were able to answer the less important part, reporting only that, with a comment that certifies your lack of arguments.
Apparently everyone has their illusions, you the values of armor and damage and I the system of hurtboxes.
Except that in a year you will still be babbling about your illusions baffled by the fact that attempts to vary those two parameters (without touching the hurtboxes) have been inconclusive.

 

[Mad Vader]

Incredibly, you were able to answer the less important part, reporting only that, with a comment that certifies your lack of arguments.
Apparently everyone has their illusions, you the values of armor and damage and I the system of hurtboxes.
Except that in a year you will still be babbling about your illusions baffled by the fact that attempts to vary those two parameters (without touching the hurtboxes) have been inconclusive.

No. It's already proven by mods that better formulas work well. Warband didn't need 100 more hurtboxes to feel real as well.

Your basic problem, apart from the personality, is that you think of Bannerlord as a duelling or small skirmish game like Mordhau. In reality it's a game with massive battles between bots where battle modelling needs to be good enough to feel real and not unnecessarily complex, where optimizinng performance is a priority. Taleworlds understands this. Most players (particularly those with weaker PCs) understand this. You don't, because you had an idea once and wrote a wall of text, and can't admit you are wrong.

 

[eddiemccandless]

But I don't ask the developers to apply them now and right away.
I simply put ideas on the plate that even modders can use.
When developers or modders have the means, the time and the skills, they will be tested if they want.
In the case of armor, however, I am quite inflexible, because their unreality ruins the whole game experience.
A looter knock him down with 3 hits and an elite cataphract with 5 hits.
Spamming is rewarded.
You go from having an average armor of 5 to 35 and it always takes you 2 shots to knock you down, to "realistic" mode.
Not to mention the problems with archers and stone throwers ..
Can I say it's bad and anti-immersion?
And if you agree that it is bad and antimmersive and that the change of the armor value alone is useless, can I write an idea that solves all the above problems while improving the combat system?
I really wish this game didn't suck after 12 years of waiting, And since I believe that the main problem related to the core game is precisely the armor system, where we talk about armor and realisticity of the combat system, I think it appropriate to insert that my thread because I think it is a better solution (and not without a cost, but not excessive) than changing the armor value by first increasing it and then decreasing it, going back and forth in the illusion that there is an equilibrium point.

However, instead of wasting time criticizing the way I answer (inserting the thread linik instead of clogging the page), it would be more constructive to respond with respect to the contents of the thread we are in and any arguments posed by users (provided that want to answer, I'm not offended if you don't answer).
In 2 years we will still be here, the armor system will still fail and we will continue to swing illusionally around the non-existent balance point of armor value.
It's been a year and I see the same problems, the same complaining threads and the same, unsuccessful methods of solving the problem.

I agree that it's bad, but it's really easy to fix by changing the armor formula. Your suggestion overcomplicates thing and does not look like good game design to me. If you want it in a mod, you probably should get to work on doing it yourself. Who knows, you might develop a really successful mod and end up proving us all wrong .

 

[darksoulshin]

No. It's already proven by mods that better formulas work well. Warband didn't need 100 more hurtboxes to feel real as well.

Your basic problem, apart from the personality, is that you think of Bannerlord as a duelling or small skirmish game like Mordhau.

Oh my goodness what should I read ..
Mordau or whatever it is called, along with chivalry and mount and blade have nothing realistic about armor.
Being tough EVERYWHERE is not REAL.
Real is that where there is a steel plate you do not suffer cuts or perforations until the plate breaks through with who knows what heavy pickaxe, and it is real that you get hurt where that plate is not there.

The armor system of these games is SIMILAR.
The only difference is that in mount and blade the love value changes from armor to armor, in those games it will depend on the type of class and I suppose that in every game that armor is made it is pure appearance for most of the cases.
The point is that the localization of damage is not enough, which is nothing more than the association of a different armor value in the hurtboxes of the model covered by armor.
I repeat that you also need HURTBOX NOT COVERABLE BY ARMOR.
Only in this way can you increase the love value of the hurtboxes you already use without making the models too resistant in every part of the body.
Because those uncovered hurtboxes function as "weak spots" or "uncovered spots".
Avoid saying what I like and what I don't because you don't know anything about me.

In reality it's a game with massive battles between bots where battle modelling needs to be good enough to feel real and not unnecessarily complex

And what would this have to do with a different armor system?
Try to stay on topic and not change the subject.
You talk about AI, I talk about armor sistem.
In online multiplayer, the clashes between players count more than between bots and the arm system I am talking about is for both modes, both singleplayer and multiplayer.
In multiplayer, specifically in the duel mode, it would give its best, since it would force players not only to overcome the opposing guard, but also to have to aim well to hit.
This would discourage spam.

Most players (particularly those with weaker PCs) understand this. You don't, because you had an idea once and wrote a wall of text, and can't admit you are wrong.

And you say that I'm wrong .... after a year I have seen the same posts with the usual complaints about the armor system.
You like to see a full armored soldier with 90 armor fall down after 100 hits anywhere on the armor.
I like to see a full armored soldier with 90 armor fall down after 100 hits on the plate or after 3-4 hits where he is exposed.
Changing the armor value alone and the damage formula does what you like.
I do not see anything realistic.
But apparently we look at different realities.
I look with the eyes of a physicist and a mathematician who likes realisticity (without reducing the gameplay, because I know that as soon as one writes realisticity, the genius who writes "eh but the fun matters more" comes as if something prevented the other).
With which eyes you look I do not know.

 

[darksoulshin]

I agree that it's bad, but it's really easy to fix by changing the armor formula.

This is the point.
That thread arises from the fact that what you claim doesn't work.

Your suggestion overcomplicates thing and does not look like good game design to me

Your character currently has 6 protection slots (head, torso, shoulders, arms and legs).
When you wear armor there and they hit you in one of those spots, the damage is reduced by one function of the armor value and a second function related to the location of the damage (on the lower arms than on the head and stuff).
If you have armor that has equal damage reduction for all 6 hurtboxes, what happens is that wherever they hit you you will take the same damage.
So if someone spammed you attack and randomly hit you anywhere, you would take that damage.
If they just increased the armor value to make the armor realistic you would simply get tough and it would take more hits to take you down.
But spam is still rewarded.

VS Archers:
wherever it hits you, it hurts you.
If you hit him on the head while he's wearing a helmet (and you'd probably sneak up on him), you headshot him ...
Raising love value means that wherever he hits you, it will hurt you much less.
But that means if you keep love value low, archers disintegrate infantry with very heavy armor but no shields.
If you raise the armor value, the infantry simply resists multiple hits but in close combat the archers will have no chance.
So you will be forced again to lower the armor value ... and it starts again (for a year already it has been done like this and it did not work).


Now follow this pattern:
Add 4 more hurtboxes, make them small and not coverable by armor, and finally increase the armor value a lot.
Differences:
Models become very resistant where they are protected but have some weak points (those 4 hurtboxes).
So if a looter confronts a legionnaire, he would have a minimal chance of beating him if he hit him 3-4 times in an open spot.
Conversely, the legionnaire can hit the looter both in those hurtboxes that cannot be covered (4) and in all those in which the looter is not wearing armor or has only clothes.
it is clear that statistically I will tend to win the legionnaire if we consider that the looter could hit the armor instead of the living flesh, but if he was good enough or lucky enough (which the player can be), then he could do the miracle.

VS Archers:
From a distance the archers would shoot their arrows and if someone hit an open spot she would do injurious damage.
physically and statistically, the likelihood of a frecia hitting a legionnaire is proportional to how much frontal area the uncovered hurtboxes offer compared to the frontal area offered by the model.
If one is 90% covered then you are only bidding 10% and that is the probability that an arrow will hit him.
This taking into account that each arrow shot falls within the area offered by the model.
So realistically the probability is lower.
In short: infantry without shields but protected with very heavy armor can advance against archers without being instantly disintegrated.
(I guess more the plate armor of some mods since bannerlord there aren't any apart from a few exceptions for
the imperials)

Closer archers should aim well at those exposed spots.
In case they hit him on the head, the helmet would protect him.
In the thread I put the mechanic: "helmets fly away", so as to balance things out but this is a plus, so ignore it if you don't like it.

In the melee the archer finds himself against a legionnaire but who has some weaknesses.
As with the looter, if this archer knows how to exploit those enemy weaknesses, he can do it.
Spamming won't help him.

There would be many other benefits, even with chivalry, but I'm pretty tired and I still have a lot of things to do, I hope you won't take it if you don't write them and I leave the imagination to guess them (if you want).

i.e. the thread synthesis would be:
add N hurtboxes (4 minimum) and raise all armor values to the point where armor is realistic.
End of my thread explanation.
Do you think it is so complicated?

If you want it in a mod, you probably should get to work on doing it yourself. Who knows, you might develop a really successful mod and end up proving us all wrong .

I would like to but I can't, otherwise I would have done it a long time ago.

 

[eddiemccandless]

As @MadVader already said, the Warband system worked just fine. I don't really see any of the things that you mentioned being a problem. Mettenheim Forlorn Hope (heavy two handers) in the Prophesy of Pendor mod will die like flies to Ravenstern Rangers (high tier archers), but if they make it to them and engage in melee they will wreck them. On the other hand they will walk mostly unscathed through archery fire from lower level troops (say, Ravenstern Archers). This is proper game balance. No need for a more complicated system.

Either way, most people don't seem to be impressed with the system that you are suggesting. If you are unwilling to mod it yourself, I am not sure what you are expecting here.

 

[Philozoraptor]

Again the game has too simplistic combat for melee hurtboxes, aka complete overhaul would need to predate such a change (there are only 3 swing directions, you need at least basic 7 direction if you want to go in this direction). Also you would need combat to be even more telegraphed in order to have some sort of armpit action. Also fight in best armor are resolved in 1-4 hits, so again rework would be needed to make such changes meaningful in the first place. So instead of one new feature you would need complete overhaul of entire combat in order to meaningfully add this feature - AKA house needs good foundations.

 

[Philozoraptor]

As @MadVader already said, the Warband system worked just fine. I don't really see any of the things that you mentioned being a problem. Mettenheim Forlorn Hope (heavy two handers) in the Prophesy of Pendor mod will die like flies to Ravenstern Rangers (high tier archers), but if they make it to them and engage in melee they will wreck them. On the other hand they will walk mostly unscathed through archery fire from lower level troops (say, Ravenstern Archers). This is proper game balance. No need for a more complicated system.

Either way, most people don't seem to be impressed with the system that you are suggesting. If you are unwilling to mod it yourself, I am not sure what you are expecting here.

He cant mod it because its not possible, we were going for realistic armor deflection and found out that hitboxes are giant baloons that do not correspond to visuals.