• If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
  • Please note that we've updated the Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord save file system which requires you to take certain steps in order for your save files to be compatible with e1.7.1 and any later updates. You can find the instructions here.

Shall we talk about the paper armors?

Users who are viewing this thread

Berzerker Jay

I just played warband again for a while to test the armors, low-med tier armor play similar to bannerlord but a high end armor (40+ rating) is quite formidable, i was able to take some 10 hits before dying from side arms like swords, daggers, stones etc.

Two-handers and ranged were more deadly of course but not to the jedi levels of Bannerlord, it felt fair the amount of damage i was taking for such weapons instead of being one/two hit killed by arrows or Menavlion/billhooks of doom.
Definitely agree, but is that what we want? That's honestly what I'm afraid of this game becoming. Most often it was a bit of a joke where I'd just wade into the enemy forced swinging a poleaxe and not caring about the hits I was taking at all. I really don't want that, especially not on "realistic" difficulty settings. I would consider that a flaw in Warband's design, kind of like having the Sword Sisters wear full plate but no helmets so that we didn't forget they were female. :razz:
 

CrazyElf

Sergeant
For those saying plate did not exist - even china mail and scale armor is well short of the level of protection that we would expect in real life.

Lamellar too should offer far more protection against archers (it was made specifically for defeating enemy arrows).

Definitely agree, but is that what we want? That's honestly what I'm afraid of this game becoming. Most often it was a bit of a joke where I'd just wade into the enemy forced swinging a poleaxe and not caring about the hits I was taking at all. I really don't want that, especially not on "realistic" difficulty settings. I would consider that a flaw in Warband's design, kind of like having the Sword Sisters wear full plate but no helmets so that we didn't forget they were female. :razz:

I would like to see Realistic Combat Mod become the main game to be honest.
 

Berzerker Jay

I would like to see Realistic Combat Mod become the main game to be honest.
I mean, as someone who doesn't install the mod, I hope not. No offense to it, but it didn't appeal to me, and specifically I didn't like its buffs to armour. Would be cool if we could both have what we want, instead. It addresses some AI issues, but then Taleworlds seems mostly focused on addressing its own AI, so I tend to think this aspect of the mod may fall out of date or otherwise be replaced. I mean, that Realistic Combat Mod already exists, and is one way the game can go. What benefit does it offer the playerbase to make this the only way? Armour in this time-period rendered no one invulnerable, no one taking ten arrows and still actively engaging in battle -- I'd be really put off if Bannerlord went this routefor the base game.

Mods'll be great for this, though. There were all sorts of mods I didn't play for Warband. :razz:
 

ratschbumm

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
I am not aware of any such correction.... If so, you might want to take that up with the University of Exeter, as well. Not really sure what to do with your comment. The 100 Years War was most especially turned through the use of cannons against archer formations to disperse them.... If the French saw to it to employ this tactic in order to win the battle, that might actually speak to the formidability of archers more than you care to acknowledge.
The thing is, the flags all the longbow admirer waving are the same three battles, Crecy 1346, Poitiers 1356, and Agicourt in 1415 followed by defeat of Bauge six years later (there were cannons, I guess). These are very short spans, and they cannot be used for such a generalization, especially without historical context, like "civil war" in France and so on. To the "dispersion" you said... 300 years later, the line infantry in very close ranks often had to stay or offense under fire from much more developed artillery. Do you have an readable example of such dispersion made be cannons against amassed archers? What was the numbers? What did they do after that, did they run, regroup, they changed the position, what?
 

ratschbumm

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Don't let yourself be as much of an idiot as he is. I hope you're not so gullible to believe such a pathetic and butthurt attempt at defamation. Would say about as much about you as it does about him.
No offense, but from the side view he seems much more calm than you. Maybe I didn't get the background.
 

D0c1

Knight at Arms
@ratschbumm here are his arguments.

rocks trashing plate
We're not talking small stones, but if you look at the size of the projectile in hand, these are full on rocks. If you threw one of these at an unarmoured head, you could very well one-shot that person. Wearing plate armour, this projectile would likely trash your plate -- let alone only damaging you.

longbow arrows piercing breastplate
Historically, warbows were used against plate armour. They were effective back then, in many different battles, and modern historians have carried out demonstrations to show the penetrating force of arrows against plate armour. This isn't even questionable. Also, no one is saying a rock's blunt impact will match the characteristics of a warbow's piercing impact at all.
then he posted a video of questionable quality of one using 110lbs longbow

strength of people back then can't be matched by us
Where the shooter describes how he decided to go for a lesser weight bow, 160 instead of 200 pounds, that is a significant difference. He talks about how he started shooting in his mid to late teens, and he shoots two or three times a week, so he feels he is comparable to the archers in that battle -- even though those archers likely started well before he did, and we have records showing people were much more physical stronger in this age. In Scandinavian cultures there was a practice by which a man's strength would be determined where he would carry a massive stone around something like a sheep-pen. If he could carry roughly 360 pounds, he was full-strength, 180 pounds and he was half-strength and half the value. I can basically guarantee you he would not rank elite at his level of practice.
and provided no sources

my counter arguments:
rocks can't trash plate
this guy uses lead bullets with sling against a car hood 1mm thick at close range and it bends it to an unsubstantial effect.


plate thickness starts at 1.5mm up to 2.5mm
this he ignored completely.

longbow arrows can't pierce plate

this he tried answering by claiming that they were much stronger, that plate is out of the games time period (the time one is irrelevant argument) and that somehow ballistic gel inside the plate was absorbing the shock. even though gel inside stuff is always used to represent a human body.

the strength one i countered here
farmer's walk
The ultimate goal is to carry your body weight in each hand, which is admittedly very tough and should only be attempted after extensive training.

then he claimed that i'm a troll and unreasonable. he ignored the strength argument completely.

i'm posting this so people can know who they're arguing with.
 

ratschbumm

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
In addition I would say that all armor vs. arrow videos I saw are irrelevant to discussed period methods of warfare, except maybe, the second video from @nyarlathotep1975, if this is that one where shooter goes to 200 meters. Even best archer was not an idiot, and if he could use grazing fire, an he was not on the wall, it strictly meant that things already went pear-shaped. Thus typical use of bows was about the plunged fire from more or less defended position, and this led to completely different set of abilities and options. Few situations where one side successfully realized its tactical advantage with bows doesn't mean that it was because of bows, but mostly because of situation, circumstances and talents/stupidity of armies' commanders.

Edit:

Nope, here is video I mentioned:

It's clear that arrow has enough dragging to significantly lose its velocity even for 100 meters.
 
Last edited:
In addition I would say that all armor vs. arrow videos I saw are irrelevant to discussed period methods of warfare, except maybe, the second video from @nyarlathotep1975, if this is that one where shooter goes to 200 meters. Even best archer was not an idiot, and if he could use grazing fire, an he was not on the wall, it strictly meant that things already went pear-shaped. Thus typical use of bows was about the plunged fire from more or less defended position, and this led to completely different set of abilities and options. Few situations where one side successfully realized its tactical advantage with bows doesn't mean that it was because of bows, but mostly because situation, circumstances and talents/stupidity of armies' commanders.
you guys are funny. why does no one of you realise that there is no simple answer. None of us was present then. all we can do is rely on sources/tests we hope are accurate. if armor is so effective against arrows, why do so many sources claim that longbow archers decided certain battles (even from enemy perspectiv)? we don´t know (proof me wrong if you can). all we can do is getting a good idea how it COULD have been. I don´t mind a good discussion but why do you claim to have found the ultimate answer when even people who do this professional don´t have one? be open minded guys. it´s an interesting topic with much room for discussion, don´t be stubborn.
 

D0c1

Knight at Arms
if armor is so effective against arrows, why do so many sources claim that longbow archers decided certain battles
only the elite (nobles/knights/wealthy) wore full plate armour. most of the army had -much- less protection.
arrows got those guys and routed your army.
 
absolutly true. to me it seems reasonable to assume a psycological effect. even when over all the archers didn´t do that much damage they caused enough damage to break morale. I could ímagine if the arrow impact was hard enough to even get full plated knights off their horses(not killing them), that had a devistating effect on less armored soldiers. This is ofc just me guessing.
 

ratschbumm

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
if armor is so effective against arrows, why do so many sources claim that longbow archers decided certain battles (even from enemy perspectiv)?
There are claims that carpenter axe was very effective against even tanks, see here:

Second one exactly confirmed from German side. But of course this doesn't mean that axes were devastating on the fields of WWII or mortars are good in anti-aircraft defense (was a confirmed case too). Just good use of place and time. And courage with luck, of course.

Jokes aside, you said about certain battles. Then why are they only few, if those longbows were SO great? Answer seems quite easy - enemy quickly adapted to the new danger.

P. S. I remember the Japanese aces in the beginning of WWII. The were real elite and were superior as pilots over US's. But the US adapted and started to produce flying logs with 2 kilohorse engines and shot the aces from the high. And Japan could not replace them so fast, then they were defeated in air warware. It is very simplified explanation, but what I wanted to say, that war is not which unit better, but whose system is better.
 

vonbalt

Sergeant Knight
WBNWVCM&B
Definitely agree, but is that what we want? That's honestly what I'm afraid of this game becoming. Most often it was a bit of a joke where I'd just wade into the enemy forced swinging a poleaxe and not caring about the hits I was taking at all. I really don't want that, especially not on "realistic" difficulty settings. I would consider that a flaw in Warband's design, kind of like having the Sword Sisters wear full plate but no helmets so that we didn't forget they were female. :razz:
Yeah this was that part where we agreed to disagree :lol:

I personally want just that, i could still be killed rather easily fighting high-tier enemies or being overwhelmed but i knew i could count on my armor to tank a few blows if needed i low level troops were only threatening in large numbers.

I'm fine with realistic battle mod staying a mod since it changes so many things and is aiming for completely realism indeed but i just want that sense of progression we had in warband back, low tier armors were trash, medium gave you some meat in the fight and high tier made you a killing machine, in bannerlord all armors stop at the "gave you some meat in the fight" phase while still costing thousands and thousands of denars.
 

Berzerker Jay

The thing is, the flags all the longbow admirer waving are the same three battles, Crecy 1346, Poitiers 1356, and Agicourt in 1415 followed by defeat of Bauge six years later (there were cannons, I guess). These are very short spans, and they cannot be used for such a generalization, especially without historical context, like "civil war" in France and so on. To the "dispersion" you said... 300 years later, the line infantry in very close ranks often had to stay or offense under fire from much more developed artillery. Do you have an readable example of such dispersion made be cannons against amassed archers? What was the numbers? What did they do after that, did they run, regroup, they changed the position, what?
The point is, the armour worn during that time period was superior to the armour worn a few centuries previously, which is where Bannerlord is set. The longbow hadn't changed really all that much from the yew longbow found belonging to a Scandinavian ice-mummy dated to thousands of years before this either. Certainly, that same culture had long used bodkin-like arrows before the game's time period.

As to whether you like to take a troll's advice about me, go ahead. My argument is well cited, his is based on ad hominem nonsense. Yours can just as well be based on his ad hominem nonsense -- I'll accept that. :smile:
 

ratschbumm

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
The point is, the armour worn during that time period was superior to the armour worn a few centuries previously, which is where Bannerlord is set. The longbow hadn't changed really all that much from the yew longbow found belonging to a Scandinavian ice-mummy dated to thousands of years before this either. Certainly, that same culture had long used bodkin-like arrows before the game's time period.

As to whether you like to take a troll's advice about me, go ahead. My argument is well cited, his is based on ad hominem nonsense. Yours can just as well be based on his ad hominem nonsense -- I'll accept that. :smile:

expectedly, you didn't provide nothing what was cited. As well as about "dispersion". Otzi's bow means what? Longbow was used? Ok, I started with that, I said it was devastating (itself), but you still cannot provide an example of using it in warfare except single period with three battles. Explain this, if you don't want to be treated as a fanboy. Oh, the flail, as agricultural tool was used too, for thousands years, of course it was devastating no less from the day one of its existing. But its mass using in warfare (and very successful) was only one time - during Hussite Wars. Hey, this also was the war where hand firearms became useful. And you know what, the war itself immediately changed. New tactics appeared, new defenses was developed. It swiftly became a FACTOR in the warfare, even when it was not better than x-bow. Strange, but this never happened for such a superior weapon as longbow, devastating wrath-of-the-gods from Neolith. Could you explain this?
 

Berzerker Jay

expectedly, you didn't provide nothing what was cited. As well as about "dispersion". Otzi's bow means what? Longbow was used? Ok, I started with that, I said it was devastating (itself), but you still cannot provide an example of using it in warfare except single period with three battles. Explain this, if you don't want to be treated as a fanboy. Oh, the flail, as agricultural tool was used too, for thousands years, of course it was devastating no less from the day one of its existing. But its mass using in warfare (and very successful) was only one time - during Hussite Wars. Hey, this also was the war where hand firearms became useful. And you know what, the war itself immediately changed. New tactics appeared, new defenses was developed. It swiftly became a FACTOR in the warfare, even when it was not better than x-bow. Strange, but this never happened for such a superior weapon as longbow, devastating wrath-of-the-gods from Neolith. Could you explain this?
Read back in the thread. I have already cited these, and your conversation with me is little more than expressed disrespect that I have no interest in. You go ahead and see me as whatever you like -- I started clicking ignore on a number of individuals who keep derailing yesterday, and if you like I can add you to the list.

I am otherwise happy to have a respectful discussion about the topic, only. Why any rando-stranger on the internet thinks a grown man should care about their rando-opinion of him is beyond me. :razz:

I also never said anything about the longbow being superior, and definitely never made any claim of comparison to firearms beyond sharing a University of Exeter study which drew the conclusion that damage from longbows was comparable to that from firearms. My arguments are well cited, and if you'd deign to base your arguments on something more than simplistic defamatory intent, I could help you find those citations.
 
There are claims that carpenter axe was very effective against even tanks, see here:

Second one exactly confirmed from German side. But of course this doesn't mean that axes were devastating on the fields of WWII or mortars are good in anti-aircraft defense (was a confirmed case too). Just good use of place and time. And courage with luck, of course.

Jokes aside, you said about certain battles. Then why are they only few, if those longbows were SO great? Answer seems quite easy - enemy quickly adapted to the new danger.

P. S. I remember the Japanese aces in the beginning of WWII. The were real elite and were superior as pilots over US's. But the US adapted and started to produce flying logs with 2 kilohorse engines and shot the aces from the high. And Japan could not replace them so fast, then they were defeated in air warware. It is very simplified explanation, but what I wanted to say, that war is not which unit better, but whose system is better.
yes and no. they did adept ofc at some point but the reason for the few examples is the documantary. we only have limited battles that are well documanted and have believable sources. if you have more, feel free to share with us.
 

ratschbumm

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Read back in the thread. I have already cited these, and your conversation with me is little more than expressed disrespect that I have no interest in. You go ahead and see me as whatever you like -- I started clicking ignore on a number of individuals who keep derailing yesterday, and if you like I can add you to the list.

I am otherwise happy to have a respectful discussion about the topic, only. Why any rando-stranger on the internet thinks a grown man should care about their rando-opinion of him is beyond me. :razz:

I also never said anything about the longbow being superior, and definitely never made any claim of comparison to firearms beyond sharing a University of Exeter study which drew the conclusion that damage from longbows was comparable to that from firearms. My arguments are well cited, and if you'd deign to base your arguments on something more than simplistic defamatory intent, I could help you find those citations.

Are you joking? If your citations are like the one that was in the post I 'corrected' it looks like this. Did you ever read the whole text by link you provided? Oh, arrow hit somebody in the eye and killed him! What an unbelievable story! Any pen will probably do it. There was not a single word about "how it was powerfully destructive on the battlefield" (c). All what you could get from this, some "skeleton of someone possibly died in battle from the trauma most likely caused by arrow". Nothing more. Not about armor, distance, type or bow, nothing, it's even not sure it was a bow. All other thing are very vague implications that arrow could penetrate and the bullet too. Incredible news again, I thought arrows were like baseball bat punches.

learn not to read and imagine all what is warming your heart but read and think. Read books, not internet.

P. S. I don't care about your ignore list, please live in your echo-chamber, as it suits for nowadays "grown man".
 

ratschbumm

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
yes and no. they did adept ofc at some point but the reason for the few examples is the documantary. we only have limited battles that are well documanted and have believable sources. if you have more, feel free to share with us.
Exactly, very limited. That is why my point that we cannot imply two and a half battles to the whole medieval, and therefore in does not matter could longbow penetrate 2 mm or not, because well-known decisive uses of it in the field battles was not really common, if not to say extremely rare. No matter how weapon is powerful if you cannot bring enough of them all the time. Enough to make every battle victorious, I mean.
 

William7667

Regular
Theres various arguments most have some truth in them

My thoughts on the subject are armour is too weak as are archers but the elephant in the room is spears which definitely need some imrovement.

Good armour is too readily availiable ( good armour ie the heaviest should be limited to around 20% of an army either through expense or just hard caps on types of troops but should slow troops down substantially to give a mobility advantage to lighter armed troops) Yes I've seen youtuibe vidoes of armoured men turning cartwheels but try running a mile carrying 30KG or more. Possibly give them a 30m metre faster move to allow a charge of sorts then slow down by more than half as fatigue sets in.
Good armour is too weak especially to arrows good armour should stop most arrows with little damage but archers should not be allowed the heaviest armour as it would interfere with firing a bow.

Arrows are actually too weak against non armoured troops an arrow or two to the body should take non armoured or lightly armoured men out of a fight and archers have too few arrows there should be a resupply mechanism during a battle or just give them more arrows if that's too difficult to do.

Light crossbows and light bows should do minimal damage to good armour but should decimate un armoured / un shielded soldiers.

Crossbows especially heavy ones are too fast loading but should get an aim bonus over bows at all distances over 30m to partially make up for a much slower rate of fire.
Crossbows should get slightly greater armour penetration at a short distance ( under 30m ) bows slightly better penetration at longer distance ( over 80m ) compared to each other.

The Heaviest crossbows and bows should be roughly similar in damage and should penetrate all but the toughest armours fairly well at optimal ranges but they should be rare and probably limited to certain factions eg: empire has heavy bow at highest tier as do battania Valandia gets heavy crossbow at highest tier the rest of the factions dont get heavy bows or crossbows but obviously do get lighter or medium versions.

Looters should get slings which would account for their good damage and superb throwing skills
 
Top Bottom