Shall we talk about the paper armors?

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

why do so many sources claim that longbow archers decided certain battles (even from enemy perspectiv)?

Because the Hundred Years War was a weird, anomalous conflict that completely stands out in the middle ages for a number of reasons. It shouldn't be used as an example of a "generic" medieval war because almost every aspect of it was unprecedented at the time, from its sheer length to the amount of raiding. This includes the use of so many specialised archers which was something only specific kinds of societies could do. The English had to reorganise their economic system just to make it work.

 

[ratschbumm]

I was unsure if armor is to weak but after watch this

i say yes to weak,..

I have some friends who participate in activities like this, buhurh, HMB and so on. They say the armors are much, much stronger and heavier than their historical prototypes. In addition to the increased plate thickness there are incomparable quality of steel, durability of joints (ie reinforcing wielding rather the rivets), doubles or tripled thickness of the subarmalis/gambeson, because they need to wear it only for comparatively short sessions. Add weapon restrictions and prohibition to target err the sensitive parts of the body... It's not as far from supposed version of history as WWE from MMA, but it's for sure that this combat-used reconstruction of armor is closer to late medieval tourney armor (actually it completely surpass), than to typical field armor which was in its turn surpassed by tourney kind.

It shouldn't be used as an example of a "generic" medieval war

I used word 'common' in the answer to the same question, but 'generic' I like more.

 

[Korven]

I was aware that this armor is much stronger than back then.
Who would not want to fight more than once with out hospital,..
In your days it wouldn`t work with more savety.
BUT it means that there should be a CLEAR difference between non armored and good armored in the game.

-> i mean one hit more dosen`t make the cut and Blunt 100% Penetration is a Joke,...

 

[vonbalt]

I was aware that this armor is much stronger than back then.
Who would not want to fight more than once with out hospital,..
In your days it wouldn`t work with more savety.
BUT it means that there should be a CLEAR difference between non armored and good armored in the game.

-> i mean one hit more dosen`t make the cut and Blunt 100% Penetration is a Joke,...

yup i'm fine with realism being left to modders, just want armor to work at least closer to warband's system were you had a clear distinction between low, med and high tier armor that made it worth to spend thousands of denars and hours playing to get that sweet high tier armor.

blunt doing 100% penetration is absurd, there was a detailed thread a while back talking about the armor formula and how it could be improved, it said that high tier armor in general are giving some 35-37% damage mitigation per hit, it's too damn low for it being the state of the art in armor at the time of the game.

That's why they feel so weak because they are and are not worth the investment ATM, there is no denying the numbers unless you think it's fair to be clad from head to toe with padding, maille and lamellar steel plates and only mitigate some 37% damage, this is just bad gameplay design to me, it makes no sense specially when their previous game was much better on protection.

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

 

[ratschbumm]

BUT it means that there should be a CLEAR difference between non armored and good armored in the game.

Of course it was. But poorly armored units relied on their shields and benefits from fighting in formation. We have nothing of this in the game. Even tunic-armored units go fighting without shield. Units with shields thoroughly open their chests even to make a stab. Devs don't want to give them shields or common sense for "gameplay" and "balance" reasons, so they just emulate this thru hitbars. Did not you agree, that fight of badly armored axmen bearing shield (and using them not only against arrows) with good armored unit is not so predictable as if the first was without any shield? Same for group. Just imagine that they know how to use shield the same as you.

blunt doing 100% penetration is absurd, there was a detailed thread a while back talking about the armor formula and how it could be improved, it said that high tier armor in general are giving some 35-37% damage mitigation per hit, it's too damn low for it being the state of the art in armor at the time of the game./[/URL]

Technically speaking, there is no difference if there is 100% of penetration or 33% but with armor numbers 200% higher, roughly. It is a matter of frame of reference. But the whole system (if it could be called that name) currently looks like temporary thing in my opinion...

 

[Berzerker Jay]

This includes the use of so many specialised archers which was something only specific kinds of societies could do. The English had to reorganise their economic system just to make it work.

This keeps being suggested but I can't understand why. The Celts, the Norse, the Mongols, and so on -- they were all known for having archers. The Norse weren't exactly known most for it, but it was actually very common for battles to open with archers firing on the opposing ranks. The Sagas are also full of references to archery being used in combat, not for hunting -- Gunnar, for example, makes a stand in his home against a group of attackers with his bow and kills ten of them.

The Hundred Years War came nearly a thousand years after the people its ranks of archers came from had already taken up the longbow as their weapon of war -- the Welsh were known for this back in the 5th-century.

What's important about that war with regards to archery is the surviving artifacts. As can hopefully be understood, weapons made from just wood, cord, and sometimes animal-skin as well, are not going to withstand decay over very many centuries generally. The shipwreck of the Mary Rose provided artifacts that we generally otherwise lack for other wars.

just want armor to work at least closer to warband's system

I actually just looked into something related to this last night. I was noticing the Battanian noble armour (can't recall the exact name, but it's the one that costs 500k and worn by Fian Champions) is essentially Banded Armor from Warband. I went and cross-referenced the armour-ratings, and they nearly match, with the Bannerlord armour being just slightly stronger.

It seems the armour from Warband that fits this time period does match up in Bannerlord. Of course there's no full plate like in Warband, but for Warband's time-period that's if anything more abundant than it should be. The earliest reference period for Warband would have started seeing plates inserted in gambesons, and the later reference period would have had very rare suits of full plate.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

This keeps being suggested but I can't understand why. The Celts, the Norse, the Mongols, and so on -- they were all known for having archers.

In that list only the Mongols had archers as a core component of their army, and they weren't used remotely like how the welsh longbow was used. Literally everyone in Eurasia made bows, but they were a specialist weapon that didn't see nearly as much use in battle as most people think they did, and they weren't anywhere near as deadly as most media depicts.

The reason modern tests seem to give contradictory results is that there are just too many variables. There are primary sources which tell of horsemen with gambesons being shot with dozens of arrows and still being alive, and during the crusades there are plenty of instances of armies being bombarded for days with literally millions of arrows but only suffering a few casualties. The only way to test this properly would be to set up a real army and shoot it for days, which is obviously unfeasible. The only thing we can do is read the sources and try to infer why longbowmen were used in the hundred years war at all, when they were so rare in that part of eurasia in all the years prior.

 

[Clsy]

the damage/reduction thing is just bad

cut just go through armour with it's high damage and deal more damage than pierce
pierce just do too less and the attack system/hit box just render it useless(think of spear
blunt base damage too high
high armour value's damage reduction value too low...

from mechanic to numbers, the combat itself just not feel pleasuring by any means

 

[eddiemccandless]

Of course whenever something like this gets brought up it devolves into a discussion on historic realism, but the real issue is that this is just not good balance. Armor is part of the progression, getting high end armor should at the very least make you invulnerable from attacks from the cannon fodder troops.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

In that list only the Mongols had archers as a core component of their army

The Norse, too, I'd argue -- though the historical record isn't as well kept as that offered by the Mary Rose, we do know that the Norse especially employed archers in naval warfare, and its routine use in the opening rounds of battle does show archery had its place. For the Norse, they likely took up other arms as the two sides drew closer, which does seem approximated by the Sturgian Archers at least in equipment.

It would be cool if different archers did have different behaviour and tactics associated with them. For the Norse and Celts, which have influences on two factions in the game, ranged combat was looked upon as far less valorous than melee, and from my understanding both would opt for melee at the earliest opportunities.

 

[Clsy]

Of course whenever something like this gets brought up it devolves into a discussion on historic realism, but the real issue is that this is just not good balance. Armor is part of the progression, getting high end armor should at the very least make you invulnerable from attacks from the cannon fodder troops.

i could really agree on this
rather than realism ,a game really should focus on "fun and enjoyable" gameplay as a priority

having a high armour value should have increase the ability to withstand unmatched damage type and value
such as any kind of cut, low pierce and low blunt
these kind of damage should not go through the expensive armour value like butter


higher damage value weapon also should not have progressed the same rate as armour value imo
if so, the the gameplay will just be the same through out the whole progression
at the start you kill peasant with 3 hits with a arming sword
at the end you kill nobles with 3 hits with what ever you using

it makes the gameplay really just remained the same but with different weapons
the feeling of the armour progression just completely neglated by the weapons

so rather than
wear heavy armour to survive and inflict damage
we have
wear heavy armour so you don't get out paced by the damages

 

[Berzerker Jay]

rather than realism ,a game really should focus on "fun and enjoyable" gameplay as a priority

This is where it all gets entirely subjective. Not everyone feels the gameplay is made more "fun and enjoyable" by making armour tankier and late-game characters nearly invincible. For some it's entirely the opposite.

This game isn't realistic, but it does adhere to some semi-realistic guidelines loosely based on periods of history. Balancing that realism with gameplay is what's made M&B games so great, and undoubtedly there will be all the same mods that turn the armour into tank-plating so players who don't want to learn to block or apply tactics can just wade into battle.

My current character is level 12 and has a body armour rating of 68. That really is pretty good.

 

[daxiapi777]

Of course whenever something like this gets brought up it devolves into a discussion on historic realism, but the real issue is that this is just not good balance. Armor is part of the progression, getting high end armor should at the very least make you invulnerable from attacks from the cannon fodder troops.

Exactly. This whole thread really got carried away. This is actually a very serious issue that not only impacts the combat experience of players but also the whole balancing and scaling of all the units. Right now, the difference between high tier and low tier units is so minimal, and infantry is so underwhelming. Back in Warband, infantry was also underwhelming but was for a different reason.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

Can anyone quantify this difference being proposed between low-tier and high-tier troops?

I just want to register that I absolutely notice the difference, and I'm having a hard time grounding the hyperbole in reality.

I get the feeling a lot of these same people would have complained about facing Rhodian Sharpshooters in Warband.

 

[Akka]

Of course whenever something like this gets brought up it devolves into a discussion on historic realism, but the real issue is that this is just not good balance.

Well, the thing is, the degree of protection we expect from an armor to find the good balance and make it fun DOES come from our real-world expectation, i.e. "realism".
Of course we don't expect extreme realism, but we do expect some sort of logical hierarchy (plate protecting better than mail, powerful weapons being stronger than weak ones, etc.) and results that don't feel too "off" (a club going straight through lamellar armor is just ridiculous).

The discussion usually devolves because when the subject comes, there is usually some contrarians/fanboys who play dumb and pretend the world works differently than it does and try to rationalize the flaws of the game as being adequate.

 

[Maximum997]

Right now armor in the game is useless.

Becouse it reduces move speed. And move speed+reach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any armor.

"But archers will kill a naked guy ezpz" - armor doesnt do anything against archers anyway.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

The Norse, too, I'd argue -- though the historical record isn't as well kept as that offered by the Mary Rose, we do know that the Norse especially employed archers in naval warfare, and its routine use in the opening rounds of battle does show archery had its place.

Yes but practically everyone in Eurasia did that. What's exceptional about longbows in the HYW is how many there were. Something like 2/3rd of the English forces at Crecy were archers, while at Agincourt it was almost 100%. The only other societies capable of fielding that many professional longbowmen were the kingdom of Kongo in Central Africa in the middle ages (basically 100% longbowmen with a bodyguard of spearmen), and Nubia as a frontier region of Egypt. But other than that the longbow takes far too long to train people to use compared to how useful it is, and (probably more importantly), giving so many peasants and smallholders access to weaponary they keep all the time makes rebellions far more dangerous.

In the game currently there are just too many archers and they're all more effective than the most well trained nubian bowman in the world. Instead of being a tool for harrassing groups of infantry and slowing them down, they become machine gunners who mow down everything. I'm not saying the game has to be realistic, but reality and believability is a good starting point for balancing any game.

 

[Clsy]

This is where it all gets entirely subjective. Not everyone feels the gameplay is made more "fun and enjoyable" by making armour tankier and late-game characters nearly invincible. For some it's entirely the opposite.

This game isn't realistic, but it does adhere to some semi-realistic guidelines loosely based on periods of history. Balancing that realism with gameplay is what's made M&B games so great, and undoubtedly there will be all the same mods that turn the armour into tank-plating so players who don't want to learn to block or apply tactics can just wade into battle.

My current character is level 12 and has a body armour rating of 68. That really is pretty good.

i am not saying armoured should be invincible but upgrading armoured should let you withstand low damage and cutting with is meant to be killing unarmored targets

getting rocked to death or killed by cut damage in 2 hit while well armoured is not fun, is what i meant

or maybe we can check how fun spear is right now

 

[Berzerker Jay]

Yes but practically everyone in Eurasia did that. What's exceptional about longbows in the HYW is how many there were. Something like 2/3rd of the English forces at Crecy were archers, while at Agincourt it was almost 100%. The only other societies capable of fielding that many professional longbowmen were the kingdom of Kongo in Central Africa in the middle ages (basically 100% longbowmen with a bodyguard of spearmen), and Nubia as a frontier region of Egypt. But other than that the longbow takes far too long to train people to use compared to how useful it is, and (probably more importantly), giving so many peasants and smallholders access to weaponary they keep all the time makes rebellions far more dangerous.

In the game currently there are just too many archers and they're all more effective than the most well trained nubian bowman in the world. Instead of being a tool for harrassing groups of infantry and slowing them down, they become machine gunners who mow down everything. I'm not saying the game has to be realistic, but reality and believability is a good starting point for balancing any game.

Granted, the Norse troops weren't usually dedicated archers, the longbow was much like the handaxe as equipment went for Norse troops. Axes are commonly associated with Norse fighting because of this, but the real primary weapon of Norse troops was the spear -- neither the axe nor bow usually took preference over this weapon.

Insert gripe about how weak and unrealistic spears are so far in this game here.

I would argue the main difference between the Welsh and Norse traditions for archery is that the Welsh would strategize around continuing to shoot while the Norse would strategize around disrupting formations while closing the distance to engage in melee -- in the initial opening of combat, the two sides both probably fielded about as many bows.

But that's all generalistic. The invading Norman army during the Battle of Hastings fielded many archers as a primary strategy alongside cavalry charges, so not an example of 100% archers in the army, but definitely of fielding archers as a dedicated unit.

i am not saying armoured should be invincible but upgrading armoured should let you withstand low damage and cutting with is meant to be killing unarmored targets

getting rocked to death or killed by cut damage in 2 hit while well armoured is not fun, is what i meant

I mentioned my level 12 character having an armour rating of 68. That character can take a lot of normal hits, but if I face a line of falxmen or something like that, their weapons are going to tear through me pretty quick. I like that -- I've made a beast of a character who can charge in against a squad of looters and come out with a smile and maybe a handful of bruises for all their efforts to hurt me, but even still my character has weaknesses. My armour slows me down a bit, so I really have to watch what situations I get myself into and how near my back-up is. I can generally break through an enemy line so I can hit them from the opposite side as my own line, but while my armour can get me through, I still have to play smart so I don't have too many opponents trying to strike me all at once.

The armour I've gotten my rating so high with is the Battanian Noble Armour and the Warlord Pauldrons. It appears to be a form of Banded Armour, and comparing to Warband shows their armour ratings are nearly exactly the same. That seems perfectly designed for a game that's meant to take place centuries before Warband, before plate and other superior armour existed. Most of our armour is based on mail, which did great against cutting, but much less great against all else.

Now I'm kind of curious whether my character can actually be rocked to death -- in lower sets of armour it doesn't really seem so significant to me, but I suspect at 68 I might be able to get away with it altogether. I'll report in with the results if I can pull it off without messing my character up too much.

 

[eddiemccandless]

Well, the thing is, the degree of protection we expect from an armor to find the good balance and make it fun DOES come from our real-world expectation, i.e. "realism".
Of course we don't expect extreme realism, but we do expect some sort of logical hierarchy (plate protecting better than mail, powerful weapons being stronger than weak ones, etc.) and results that don't feel too "off" (a club going straight through lamellar armor is just ridiculous).

The discussion usually devolves because when the subject comes, there is usually some contrarians/fanboys who play dumb and pretend the world works differently than it does and try to rationalize the flaws of the game as being adequate.

Yeah but then we end up with ten pages of discussion over what the Norses or the Ancient Romans or whoever you want did and didn't, which honestly belongs in the off topic section. It's just not helpful for the development of the game.

To me the issue is very very simple. Players should perceive a difference between wearing a tunic and metal armor when fighting enemies, at least low level enemies (of course high and even mid tier troops should still be a threat). Seems to me like most people don't. This kills the sense of progression, and is therefore bad. End of thread.