Shall we talk about the paper armors?

Users who are viewing this thread

vonbalt

Sergeant Knight
WBNWVCM&B
One thing that greatly affects the enjoyability of the game to me is how armors seem to not protect you at all, at first ok you have a tunic and one or two hits kill you, then you grind and level and wage war across an entire continent until you can save up enough to get some high end armor (or stole it from your new wife) just for it to barely make any difference at all, it's frustrating while this should be one of the basics of the RPG part of the game (character progression and itemization).

Don't know if the problem is in the formula or the armor rating that's too low overall but they don't feel protecting, everyone is tired of hearing this but armor worked much better in warband in my opinion, you truly felt the progress from a leather tunic to a chainmail then to a plate armor for example, you got much more tankier and low level troops with their rocks and poor weapons barely annoyed you with their hits while high level enemies still felt threatening but nothing that you couldn't tank for a while, not to say that it was perfect but it felt much more enjoyable to be able to rely on that protection for a while, in bannerlord you don't get that feeling cause a few arrows or rocks will kill no matter what if they hit even if you are using the best armor in the game.

Does anyone knows if TW acknowledged this problem and said if they are working on any solutions? i can't be the only one who thinks this, just look at the most popular mods on the nexus, "armor does something" came out just a few days after the EA release and "realistic battles" now is the most popular rebalancing mod there.

Of course i can use mods to tailor the game perfectly to my tastes over time but i would like the vanilla experience to be more enjoyable, the stronger the base of the game the fewer mods we'll need to make it truly shine.
 

Adrivan

Sergeant at Arms
There is some visible progress with armors, for example looters can 2-shot you in the beginning, but barely make a scratch with high-end armor. The problem is, as you progress through the game, you face enemies with much stronger weapons. So while your armor increases, their damage also increases. That's why it's hard to see the progress. High tier troops have crazy skills and equipment, they are stronger than the player.
 
There is some visible progress with armors, for example looters can 2-shot you in the beginning, but barely make a scratch with high-end armor. The problem is, as you progress through the game, you face enemies with much stronger weapons. So while your armor increases, their damage also increases. That's why it's hard to see the progress. High tier troops have crazy skills and equipment, they are stronger than the player.
rocks still murder you don't they. Blunt damage and all
 

Greedalicious

Grandmaster Knight
WB
Most likely you're being hit by either blunt weapons or two handed. Blunt ignores armor 100% and two handed damage is insanely high.
Mostly armor works as intended, but blunt is really powerfull.
 

vonbalt

Sergeant Knight
WBNWVCM&B
Most likely you're being hit by either blunt weapons or two handed. Blunt ignores armor 100% and two handed damage is insanely high.
Mostly armor works as intended, but blunt is really powerfull.
Maybe it shouldn't be so powerful then or have a counter for better gameplay? blunt damage is absurd ignoring 100% of armor, there is no reason to use anything other than a blunt weapon then (unles asthetics of course but that isn't good gameplay)
 

Greedalicious

Grandmaster Knight
WB
Maybe it shouldn't be so powerful then or have a counter for better gameplay? blunt damage is absurd ignoring 100% of armor, there is no reason to use anything other than a blunt weapon then (unles asthetics of course but that isn't good gameplay)
Thats fair and accurate.
 

Tajl

Squire
Maybe it shouldn't be so powerful then or have a counter for better gameplay? blunt damage is absurd ignoring 100% of armor, there is no reason to use anything other than a blunt weapon then (unles asthetics of course but that isn't good gameplay)
Or you can use some weapon with ridiculously high damage. Armor doesn't matter much when damage without armor is few hundred.

Basic problem is that armors just doesn't do anything. Even if you have best armor in game archers can kill you with 2 shots.

Because armors are not balanced weapons can't be balanced either and because armors and weapons are not balanced troops can't be balanced.
 

vonbalt

Sergeant Knight
WBNWVCM&B
Either armor needs big buff, or wep damage needs decrease.
yep, it's not fine now, blunt is too overpowered and armor looks like they are made of paper, you spend a fortune in the best catrapact armor the empire has to offer only for a few arrows or sword cuts to kill you almost exactly like they did when you had a tunic on lol
 

alino

Recruit
M&BWB
Blunt damage is 100% effective against chainmail alone, with no other types of material, due to its non-rigid nature.
The metal plates, on the other hand, by distributing the damage over a greater surface, greatly reduce the damage.
Fabric protectors have low to medium damage absorption against blunt.

We also find a similar mechanism with the damage from cutting and perforation, even if the percentages are obviously different.

As I mentioned in an old thread, it is imperative that armor have a specific factor of protection with respect to the type of damage they receive.
Are we simulating medieval battles or am I wrong? I believe the formula should have changed.
Now, in my opinion, as the armor in the game is made up of different materials, the devs have to sit down, perhaps with a beer and looking closely at their models, rephrase the values by establishing an average protection against cut / blunt / pierce.

Example: chain mail over gambeson and small parts in plates = 70% / 30% / 30% protection (just by way of example, I repeat).

Protection! The mistake you devs made was to overturn the logic: weapons do not ignore armor, it is armor that ignores a certain amount and type of damage.

In 2016, someone said that "we are in the final touches". Yeah, for sure! I realize that entering three values for the torso, arms, legs and head can complicate the reading of an armor, but if it works in the field then it's fine. Then it seems to me that computers are used for this, to make boring calculations in a short time.

Oh well, I have re-written mine, then do as you please ...
 
Last edited:
I blame the damage calculations and speed boosted damage for a lot of the problem. It just goes up way too high without any consideration for the damage source, as in because you're riding towards a recruit then they swing their whatever and clonk you in the foot for 80% of you HP....
Of course we see this on units too and is one reason why Cav is vulnerable and die so easily, they must move towards units at higher speed and because they usually miss their lance, they get hit with their speed boosted damage.

Of course armor needs to be better still. I usually go from default gear to near max armor in 1 upgrade (marriage) and the difference is only noticeable against weak archers and units when standing still or moving away. Getting shot while riding around is still so much damage that it's 2-3 hits and you're down. Getting hit by melee as you cross them, at high speed can still 1hko you.

Also I feel there's something weird going on like a break point in armor, I can't put my finger on it but I feel like "near max" armor isn't nearly as good as MAX (imperial scale). Even though it's not that much more armor the lesser ones still feel like you're naked most of the time.

This problem can be looked also as that with troops the difference between surviving 2 hits or 2.5 hits for being heavy armored just isn't enough. Like getting hit for 90% and 90% hp and hit for 50% and 50% hp is still dying in 2 hits, even if one looks twice as good on paper. It may look okay on paper but it actual gameplay troops are far too similar in their survivability.

I'm of the opinion that low tier units should be weak. Meaning it's okay for them to do zero damage to heavy armored troops. It's okay for low tier archers (or their bows) to not be good enough to damage heavy armored units. And of course looter rocks need to changed to cut damage and their accuracy and amount need to be reduced. It's so stupid once they changed the bow handling but not looters throwing abilities, you start with a background in bow but still are slower and less accurate then the lowest least skilled enemy? One time I was killing a militia/garrison for a siege and they had some peasants for some reason, the peasants throwing rocks were the more challenging and dangerous thing then the real garrison units!
 

MakinTorf

Veteran
somewhere in the forum i read a thread about the strenght of high tier units. actually one tier5 is 4xlooter in simlutaion battles and they are aware of the problem.
the will strenghten the high tier units, but nobody knows the roadmap and its impossible to say when this will happen.
 

vonbalt

Sergeant Knight
WBNWVCM&B
Blunt damage is 100% effective against chainmail alone, with no other types of material, due to its non-rigid nature.
The metal plates, on the other hand, by distributing the damage over a greater surface, greatly reduce the damage.
Fabric protectors have low to medium damage absorption against blunt.

We also find a similar mechanism with the damage from cutting and perforation, even if the percentages are obviously different.

As I mentioned in an old thread, it is imperative that armor have a specific factor of protection with respect to the type of damage they receive.
Are we simulating medieval battles or am I wrong? I believe the formula should have changed.
Now, in my opinion, as the armor in the game is made up of different materials, the devs have to sit down, perhaps with a beer and looking closely at their models, rephrase the values by establishing an average protection against cut / blunt / pierce.

Example: chain mail over gambeson and small parts in plates = 70% / 30% / 30% protection (just by way of example, I repeat).

Protection! The mistake you devs made was to overturn the logic: weapons do not ignore armor, it is armor that ignores a certain amount and type of damage.

In 2016, someone said that "we are in the final touches". Yeah, for sure! I realize that entering three values for the torso, arms, legs and head can complicate the reading of an armor, but if it works in the field then it's fine. Then it seems to me that computers are used for this, to make boring calculations in a short time.

Oh well, I have re-written mine, then do as you please ...
Exactly dude, i and a few others made this suggestion before in other threads, if they are going with 3 sources or damage (cut, pierce, blunt) it's a no brainer that they should also have 3 sources of armor to counter those and create better gameplay.

In another thread i had suggested a system where armor rating was divided into deflection, absorption and hardness and each armor piece would have different ratings on each of those based on tier and visual representation, this way you could tailor your character to better protect against the most threating damage types you would typically face but no armor would be good against everything.

Maille would provide superb protection against cut, medium against pierce and low against blunt for example, the possibilities are endless in a system like this!

I know something like that would never be implemented by the devs, it doesn't pass the "can a 5y old handle it?" check so maybe modders will save the day but armor really needs a rework anyway.
 
As someone who mods armor extensivelly I can assure you that current state of armor is deisgn choice, there is absolutelly no problem with buffing it both in terms of code and simple xml modifications. I believe that they are going for "movie immersion" aka swords piercing through mail and plate.

Also what most of people here suggests here is gamey not realistic (I have no problem with that its game after all, just saying). For example mail was worn with padding underneath, lamellar as well, sometimes even with 1 or 2 layer of mail beneath it. So there really should be armors that are good agains everything, obviously they would be heavy and it would be hot in them (if stamina is ever implemented). Finally big problem with any kind of armor rebalance is how simplistic combat in bannerlord is (only for 4 types of attack - 3 swing and 1 thrust at best), therefore more complex techniques that can technically defeat armor are really hard to depict.
 
Last edited:

Antaeus

Sergeant
In the real world, every time there was an armour improvement, it was swiftly followed by a weapon improvement, and visa versa.

I'm perfectly fine with it being possible for me in full armour to be one hit by a lancer, a crossbow bolt if I'm too close or if I ride too fast at a pike. That's literally what those weapons are for.

That said, I'm not going to complain if there are tweaks done to the different armour types and classes. I just don't want to lose the motivation to use good tactics by becoming an invulnerable tank.
 
Well if there was risk of overheating during summer, risk of drawning in the marches and increased upkeep for armored units then there would be drawback to heavy armor. Actual face hitbox would help too (so you are vulnurable even with good helmet for example).
 

vonbalt

Sergeant Knight
WBNWVCM&B
As someone who mods armor extensivelly I can assure you that current state of armor is deisgn choice, there is absolutelly no problem with buffing it both in terms of code and simple xml modifications. I believe that they are going for "movie immersion" aka swords piercing through mail and plate.

Also what most of people here suggests here is gamey not realistic (I have no problem with that its game after all, just saying). For example mail was worn with padding underneath, lamellar as well, sometimes even with 1 or 2 layer of mail beneath it. So there really should be armors that are good agains everything, obviously they would be heavy and it would be hot in them (if stamina is ever implemented). Finally big problem with any kind of armor rebalance is how simplistic combat in bannerlord is (only for 4 types of attack - 3 swing and 1 thrust at best), therefore more complex techniques that can technically defeat armor are really hard to depict.
Oh i know it's by choice i just disagree with their choice and find it completely broken with the way armors mean nothing and everyone seems to be wielding medieval lightsabers.

Those solutions were exactly a gamey way to improve a gamey problem, i love realism in games but i don't even dream about TW changing it to a realistic system so i would be glad with a compromise or actually anything that improves armor in vanilla.

I can always use mods (and realistic battles never leaves my loadorder) but i would like the vanilla experience to be more enjoyable too and a good base from where mods can improve upon :smile:
 
Top Bottom