Real Battle

[five bucks]

Realism? You think that you, and your troops can run, sprint some times, across all map for so many time with a 20kg Armour?

Keep in mind this video is with the heaviest possible plate armor as well (23kg), and most Bannerlord armor would weigh a lot less than a suit of plate (full mail is only ~15kg, a hauberk alone is ~7kg).

And the funny thing is, that obstacle run lasted 3 minutes 30 seconds, which is the average length of a battle in Bannerlord right now because armor is so weak that everyone dies really fast.

Also what ShakenSpeare said. I think I can sum up our collective approach as "the game should try to be realistic as possible unless that realism makes the game less fun".
Armor's protection being more realistic also makes the game MORE fun, so it is a good thing.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

I think we don't even need to get to side tracked on the word "realistic", we want the games formulas and mechanics to make sense and be useful and rewarding within it's own context, that's enough. We've got all these diddle squat perks like "Your troops get +5 HP", oh wow TW do troops get hit for like 10 HP a hit and this perk is an advantage? NO they get hit for like 50-80 and die in 2-3 hits no matter what! "Foot troops get +4% movement speed" oh wow are they gonna step in and out of range of other infantry and out fight them with foot work.... no they're just gonna ram strait into them so this doesn't matter! It's like it was all designed for a different game.

 

[black_bulldog]

I think we don't even need to get to side tracked on the word "realistic", we want the games formulas and mechanics to make sense and be useful and rewarding within it's own context, that's enough.

Bingo, I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Philozoraptor]

Keep in mind this video is with the heaviest possible plate armor as well (23kg), and most Bannerlord armor would weigh a lot less than a suit of plate (full mail is only ~15kg, a hauberk alone is ~7kg).

And the funny thing is, that obstacle run lasted 3 minutes 30 seconds, which is the average length of a battle in Bannerlord right now because armor is so weak that everyone dies really fast.

Also what ShakenSpeare said. I think I can sum up our collective approach as "the game should try to be realistic as possible unless that realism makes the game less fun".
Armor's protection being more realistic also makes the game MORE fun, so it is a good thing.

Technically BL armor might end up being much heavier - full body mail is (including head protection) 22 kg, any kind of double mail on belly or chest is going to add more weight, scale / lamellar / coat of plates over mail is going to be even heavier. One of the advantages of full plate armor was that it was much lighter at same protection level then previous armors, 2 layers of 1 mm plate (lamellar works this way) will provide only 66% of the protection of solid 2 mm plate of same material (at best).

So to achieve protection levels of early plate armor you have to go for 30-40 kilo armor, which is still doable, more so on horse, but it will be obviously more tiring.

 

[five bucks]

Technically BL armor might end up being much heavier - full body mail is (including head protection) 22 kg, any kind of double mail on belly or chest is going to add more weight, scale / lamellar / coat of plates over mail is going to be even heavier.

I've got this source here which says 18kg for complete mail coverage.

Chainmail Weight, Cost and Time - Some FAQ - Ironskin

Myths about chainmail are hard to debunk. What did it cost? What about chainmail weight? With these answers you will be number one nerd on medieval fairs.

www.ironskin.com

"Full coverage" includes long-sleeve hauberk, coif, mail mittens, and chausses.
It then says that weight could be further heavily reduced by tailoring mail to the body, to reduce the amount of links required and thus weight.

Bannerlord troops mostly don't appear to be wearing this entire combination of gear. For example, the Voulgier has mail mittens and a long-sleeve hauberk, but no chausses. The Swordsman or the Heavy Spearman and Heavy Axeman have chausses but no long sleeves or mittens.

So I probably should have said "full mail is around 18kg" (though tailoring makes that debatable), but 15kg still seems like an appropriate figure for what most soldiers are wearing in Bannerlord. The exception is of course the CoP and heavy lamellar, which could reach weights of 20kg, same as what is seen in the video.

So to achieve protection levels of early plate armor you have to go for 30-40 kilo armor, which is still doable, more so on horse, but it will be obviously more tiring.

Oh for sure, I think protection level isn't really the question here though, just how much weight is worn. At any rate, Bannerlord troops aren't wearing 30-40kg worth of armor. At the worst they're wearing a comparable weight to the obstacle course run video.

 

[Apocal]

Oh for sure, I think protection level isn't really the question here though, just how much weight is worn. At any rate, Bannerlord troops aren't wearing 30-40kg worth of armor. At the worst they're wearing a comparable weight to the obstacle course run video.

The eastern brass lamellar and northern lamellar (same armor, but pallette swapped) are full hauberks under lamellar chests. That's the sort of armor that @Philozoraptor was referring to, with two layers of metal armor over another layer (or two) of textile armor.

For everyone else, realistically, well-made plate is a lot less encumbering because it is more evenely distributed across the body. So you're gonna be a lot more mobile in 20kg of plate than 20kg of mail hanging off your shoulders.

But yeah, actually making armored troops even slower wouldn't really add anything except annoying almost everyone.

 

[darksoulshin]

Nice straw man attempt. Nobody said that. Forcing your troops to walk in battle 90% of the time would be an annoying realism feature that doesn't add hardly anything to the game except unnecessary time wasted. When people talk about realism, they're talking about the most upfront things that would make the game more fun, not tedious, such as, overhauling formations, formation combat, armor, damage, etc.

There is a very simple solution that would not bore anyone.
The maximum speed that a model can reach is not what the model moves once it starts running, but it is the speed it reaches after running for 2-3 seconds.
The initial speed is low but after 2-3 seconds this speed increases to a maximum.
It would be enough to enforce that maximum and insert a fatigue bar that reduces that running speed down to the initial speed value for those units that are tired.
So in general the models would always run but their efficiency in reaching the various positions would change more or less quickly.
This fatigue would only increase with running and the increase should be proportional to the weight equipped and the slope of the place where you run.
This fatigue should be recovered by making them walk.

To prevent units from losing formation during the race, the speed of the group of selected soldiers should be that of the slowest among them.

 

[Mad Vader]

And why would any player want this in his game? What does it bring except "sometimes some troops are slower"? It looks more like a bug than a feature.

 

[darksoulshin]

And why would any player want this in his game? What does it bring except "sometimes some troops are slower"? It looks more like a bug than a feature.

1) Strategy.
2) they run, they don't walk, so it wouldn't change game speed excessively compared to now.
Also because first I wrote to increase the maximum speed.
Don't misinterpret the suggestion.

Heavily protected troops climbing slopes expend much more energy than troops running across a plane.
And troops carrying more weight tire sooner.
This implies that staying at the top becomes a strategic position, as not only those who ascend become slow, but also fatigued.
And being light makes it more elusive to the enemy in the LONG PERIOD, not in short distances.

In addition, poorly protected troops would benefit from hit and run actions, as a heavily protected enemy would go slower than them.

Light troops would be more effective in executing encirclement maneuvers and tactics in general concerning the modification of a formation in battle.

Obviously all this should be accompanied by a slightly longer duration of the battles, since every strategy and tactic is canceled if the battles last 1 minute.

 

[Mad Vader]

Obviously all this should be accompanied by a slightly longer duration of the battles, since every strategy and tactic is canceled if the battles last 1 minute.

Exactly, now that's an actual problem that needs fixing, not adding stamina for a hypothetical game where battles feature plenty of formation maneuvering.

 

[ShakenSpeare]

1) Strategy.
2) they run, they don't walk, so it wouldn't change game speed excessively compared to now.
Also because first I wrote to increase the maximum speed.
Don't misinterpret the suggestion.

Heavily protected troops climbing slopes expend much more energy than troops running across a plane.
And troops carrying more weight tire sooner.
This implies that staying at the top becomes a strategic position, as not only those who ascend become slow, but also fatigued.
And being light makes it more elusive to the enemy in the LONG PERIOD, not in short distances.

In addition, poorly protected troops would benefit from hit and run actions, as a heavily protected enemy would go slower than them.

Light troops would be more effective in executing encirclement maneuvers and tactics in general concerning the modification of a formation in battle.

Obviously all this should be accompanied by a slightly longer duration of the battles, since every strategy and tactic is canceled if the battles last 1 minute.

I like the idea of having dedicated skirmishing troops with throwing weapons be faster than melee infantry, but isn't this idea of yours just, too much? Wouldn't having "poorly protected troops" as you put it, just have a faster run speed be plenty sufficient? The idea of light troops using hit-and-run tactics is pointless unless battles are completely overhauled in many other aspects (which I wish for), but I also think that these light troops would be too easily bulldozed by cavalry either way, as long as we had a "focus attack/focus fire" feature which would be a logical step in overhauling combat. Especially so since this whole premise is assuming that combat would go far and wide beyond what we have now (which won't happen from TW) to implement hit-and-run activities and have them be viable.

 

[darksoulshin]

Wouldn't having "poorly protected troops" as you put it, just have a faster run speed be plenty sufficient?

Is not enough.

The idea of light troops using hit-and-run tactics is pointless unless battles are completely overhauled in many other aspects (which I wish for)

correct.

but I also think that these light troops would be too easily bulldozed by cavalry either way

If they don't have spears or large shields that can be placed on the ground (and that slow horses on impact .. although in theory they should be scared), I think this is normal.

as long as we had a "focus attack/focus fire" feature which would be a logical step in overhauling combat.

Hopefully it will be implemented.
I have written suggestion threads about a system for building battle formations and orders and one for giving orders.

Especially so since this whole premise is assuming that combat would go far and wide beyond what we have now (which won't happen from TW) to implement hit-and-run activities and have them be viable.

I did not consider the hit and run tactics as implemented by the AI, but manually by the player, ordering the troops to take up position (for example on a hill), throw javelins and anything else to the infantry that, for some reason, must go up the Hill.
After that the skirmishers retreat down while the enemy chases, now tired of having climbed the hill.
And since the enemy is tired, it will not be able to reach the skirmishers because in retreating the speed of the latter will be higher than that of the infantry and therefore it will be possible to manually implement this tactic, to stop, throw javelins, then resume the retreat .
And if the enemy backs away, then they go after themselves.

If, on the other hand, the enemy were to stop, adopt a strong defense formation (shield wall or tortoise), then he would recover fatigue over time and in a possible sudden charge it is not certain that the skirmishers will be able to escape him.
But if they are not caught up and the race continues for too long, the heavy infantry will tire before the skirmishers, who will take advantage of this to distance themselves from their opponents.

Obviously if the game were improved and such tactics could be introduced but carried out by the AI, then so be it.

Along with this mechanic I have always suggested something else as well:
[POLL] SHIELD + STUCKED PROJECTILE = ENCUMBRANCE

I write the suggestions on the assumption that the game is complete and reasonably includes a number of features or wants to achieve them.
Before balancing a game it is necessary to introduce the mechanics that compose it.
And if necessary, add those that act as leverage for balancing.

I can't suggest anything on the basis that AI is imbecile because otherwise it wouldn't be a balancing suggestion, as the moment the AI stops being idiotic, that balance becomes a cause of imbalances that will need to be adjusted.
It is up to the developers to make the AI non-idiotic and make the game, in the components not related to the player's will, evolve in the way that it is intuitively assumed to do.

I, for example, would introduce impacts between horses and between horses and walls / obstacles, as well as impacts with allied units.

The reason it can't currently be done is because AI is completely idiotic.
But I don't blame the developers for that, just as I wait for them to fix it, I propose what should be done next (in my opinion) or what should be changed to make the game better.

 

[darksoulshin]

Exactly, now that's an actual problem that needs fixing, not adding stamina for a hypothetical game where battles feature plenty of formation maneuvering.

In my country this is called "benaltrismo".
"there is always something better to do than what is proposed".
Except that, for someone, there is always something more important to do, with the consequence that nothing is done because someone identifies another priority.
This mentality can ruin entire countries, think how much it can ruin a game.
It doesn't occur to you that the introduction of some mechanics serves to balance others.
It is obvious that if I propose a modification, this must be taken into consideration with 2 points of view:
1) adopt it individually.
2) adopt it in the overview (therefore with all the other changes).

Point 2 serves to make the reader make the effort to imagine mechanics in a context in which it finds a justification, although the problem itself justifies its existence (and for this reason point 1 exists).

 

[Mad Vader]

In my country this is called "benaltrismo".
"there is always something better to do than what is proposed".

That's not it. What you propose is pointless because the prerequisite (a game with substantial tactical use of formations) won't be met. Bannerlord is not that game and it won't be that game. You are so in love with your ideas that you lose touch with reality.

 

[darksoulshin]

Bannerlord is not that game and it won't be that game.

This is just your opinion.
The game is, with difficulty, based on being strategic too.
If you deny it, it is you who are out of reality.
That said, if you have to comment, do it proactively, because it is more useless to write to others than what they write is useless compared to what they write.
You don't waste time and you don't let others waste it.
And avoid sarcastic questions whose answer requires turning on the brain, because they begin to annoy.
You spend the time of 2 lines making jokes and then you expect them to answer you in a serious way.
Except that serious answers tend to be argued, as opposed to your OPINIONS that you report as if they were FACT AND FORECAST FUTURE, you didn't even have a crystal ball.

 

[Mad Vader]

This is just your opinion.

It's your opinion too as you said the battles are too short to have tactical maneuvering. It's fairly certain at this point that Taleworlds WON'T change this.
So don't call a good argument "just an opinion" because you don't like it. Your mental gymnastics with stamina are better suited to a Total War game.

 

[Philozoraptor]

The game is, with difficulty, based on being strategic too.

Do you have some examples?

 

[mujadaddy]

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

 

[darksoulshin]

Do you have some examples?

I wonder if all of you are serious with questions like this.
2 or more armies (with various captains), units of various types, control those units and battle formations.
I don't really understand what kind of example you want.
An example of a strategy to follow or an example of how a strategy is used in the game?
Because various types of strategies can be used, only the number of strategies that can be really implemented is limited by the fact that the duration of the battles is too short because everyone dies too quickly.
So you don't have time to perform too many maneuvers or too complex maneuvers, because to do this you need at least 1 of these 2 ingredients:
1) large numbers (which is not possible)
2) more resistant units (which is possible but which requires a different amor sistem that simplifies the balancing)

With at least one of these conditions the times of the battles are prolonged and then it is possible to do some more maneuvers.

 

[Philozoraptor]

I wonder if all of you are serious with questions like this.
2 or more armies (with various captains), units of various types, control those units and battle formations.
I don't really understand what kind of example you want.
An example of a strategy to follow or an example of how a strategy is used in the game?
Because various types of strategies can be used, only the number of strategies that can be really implemented is limited by the fact that the duration of the battles is too short because everyone dies too quickly.
So you don't have time to perform too many maneuvers or too complex maneuvers, because to do this you need at least 1 of these 2 ingredients:
1) large numbers (which is not possible)
2) more resistant units (which is possible but which requires a different amor sistem that simplifies the balancing)

With at least one of these conditions the times of the battles are prolonged and then it is possible to do some more maneuvers.

I unederstood your comment as this. Current (vanilla) game is based on strategy when you increase difficulty enough. Which is not much of a case for people that know anything about actual combat tactics or strategy. 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. But regardless there is not much tactics present in BL atm. 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.

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).