This is a pretty false representation of what I am saying. In no way did I suggest there are no gradients in between. In this discussion people have talked about being able to take repeated hits from heavy two-handed weapons delivered at speed from charging mounts. That to me is enough to justify calling it invincibility -- that to me is ridiculous. I'll explain why while responding to your other points.
High-tier troops had such high HP in Warband because of a number of dynamics which have been substituted in Bannerlord, namely the Ironflesh perk. As I understand it, Vigor does improve HP (I believe I read it was by 3 HP per point) -- though I haven't seen the code for exactly how -- and a number of perks also give fairly significant improvements to HP. Most characters are probably 100-110 HP in Bannerlord, but just with the possible perks alone it's definitely not all. Warband's Ironflesh perk granted a maximum of 20 HP, just to add to the record.
The AI is a work in progress, and will hopefully be a vast improvement over Warband. In a lot of cases I do actually see better AI in Bannerlord, and for sure I have a far harder time soloing any parties in Bannerlord, and so far have not dared to try against any nobles. In Warband I once solo'd King Harlaus and more than 300 of his men. To the point of how many hits you should be able to take from a two-handed weapon, in my current playthrough I have an axe which deals just over 130 damage naked, and on top of this it is around 125 long which if you hit the sweet spot will generate more force and leverage with the current game mechanics. If I hit just in the right point of the swing, it seems like my damage tops out somewhere around 150 naked. Now I also ride an Aserai Horse, to make use of its acceleration and help me navigate the crowds. When I'm swinging this weapon at those speeds, I'm doing enough damage to generally kill anything in one hit, and a little elbow-grease will generally do enough extra that it will go through most (but not all) armour in the game. And shouldn't it? If someone took a hit from a blunted version of that axe from a mounted rider, even if they were wearing the kind of plate armour that existed half a millennium after the game period they would still at the very least be incapacitated from battle.
And that's important to remember. We are almost always only incapacitated, rather than killed. Getting incapacitated in battle really didn't take that much, and the game doesn't even factor in our wounds to how well we're moving and fighting, so it would seem once we're at the point we're no longer effective the game effectively takes us out of the combat. This aspect could be altered without making armour so strong.
That axe I just described will often need two hits to take down a high-tier troop. The axe is fairly rare, (only two seen so far in this playthrough, and many years apart,) and does a very heavy amount of damage balanced by a fairly slow swing speed -- I've died enough times with it in sieges where I just couldn't swing fast enough to attest to it being a well-balanced weapon. But think about the amount of damage that's being soaked up there, nearly 300. With most two-handed weapons you're looking at around at least 100 naked damage per hit. Even if you have 10 Vigor and every perk that boosts HP available, two hits from a lot of the two-handed weapons should knock you out. If they don't, then can we talk about what the game is like with all the other weapons? Most of the weapons do not do this much damage.
This argument keeps being made, but the fallacy isn't being acknowledged. At least acknowledge the subjectivity, because I definitely feel the progression around armour in the game. My 500k suit protects me well, and definitely I would not have invested that much if there was no feeling of progression in doing so. Can you clarify what you mean by this? Can you be specific with items in the game, or the mechanics that you feel no progression in? Or are you seriously arguing that there's no progression between a tunic and chainmail? Is it fair to point out that if this was really the case, I should obviously expect you're taking advantage of the lighter weight tunic and not bothering to wear heavy armour at all? Because if you are still going to the time and effort of getting that heavy armour, you should see the same hyperbole to that argument.
The added hp is +2 per Ironflesh and +1 per Strenght. A nord recruit has 44 hp, while the nord huscarl has 60 hp. That's 36% more hp. A level 24 player can gain as much as 40 hp if he only invests in strenght. That means around 85 hp, so almost double a recruit's hp. That is considerably more than in bannerlord.
If you are going for realism, perfect connections should be few and far between since real people don't just stand straight taking a full blow. And from a gameplay perspective, it's even worse. What's the point if you can just one hit anyone as long as you have a fast horse and a moderately good weapon?
Lords get hit in the face with great bardiches and survive, they get empaled in the face at full speed on horses and are fine after a day. This is a game. Gameplay matters more than realism. And on the point of gameplay, you can't actually "fight" npcs that die in two blows. You just slaughter them. Most weapons kill in 3 hits max. Even Farming tools. And that's with High tiers. That is terrible. High tier units feel weak.
In my playthroughs I wouldn't bother to upgrade units to high tiers unless they were archers. Simply upgrade infantry so they have a shield and just swarm the ennemy. The ennemy nevers wins. They can't. Units supposed to be strong fall like flies getting bashed by cheap tier 1&2 weapons. They suck.Horses with armor can take a few hits, but it's only because they have so many hitpoints.
You didn't solo armies because you or they had good armor. You solo'ed them because Native Warband AI isn't known for its competence. Give Bannerlord troops Warband AI and you will be able to solo armies just the same, if not better thanks to smithing, with which you can make super long and deadly spears.
Sure, it's subjective. But the vast majority of people who have posted here agree that armor is too weak.
I am not going to lie you are irritating me to the highest order, which I expected, but damn. You last paragraph is, I'm sorry to say, frankly stupid. Of course I am going to wear the better armor, even if it doesn't do much at all. Something is better than nothing. But you can't call that
proper progression and keep a straight face. This isn't Mordhau, one more hit needed to kill doesn't change as much. And in any case, I only feel progression because I can either afford to buy more expensive armor, or because I have gathered loot that I like and end up dressing up with them. I don't feel progression in the mechanics, just in the aesthetics.
In any case I'm going to stop here because you clearly have your mind set and, judging by the number of pages on this thread, could keep on defending your point of view until the end of times.
