• 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

AndrewArt

Squire
Hmm, the only way I see better armor becoming good for gameplay is if they reduce the amount of armor high level troops have (like the legionnaires) so that lords can stand out more in battle and be more resilient in general. Like someone mentioned, only the wealthy/nobles/knights wore plate armor etc. So the noble line could have better armor, and common troops should have less armor, and lords have the best armor. Then you can increase armor effectiveness and I'd say the gameplay becomes really awesome
 

William7667

Regular
Hmm, the only way I see better armor becoming good for gameplay is if they reduce the amount of armor high level troops have (like the legionnaires) so that lords can stand out more in battle and be more resilient in general. Like someone mentioned, only the wealthy/nobles/knights wore plate armor etc. So the noble line could have better armor, and common troops should have less armor, and lords have the best armor. Then you can increase armor effectiveness and I'd say the gameplay becomes really awesome


yes true although realistic battle mod makes a good attempt at balancing armour the amount of unarmoured / lightly armoured troops needs to be increased and the lighter troops need a mobility advantage of some sort.
 

vonbalt

Sergeant Knight
WBNWVCM&B
Hmm, the only way I see better armor becoming good for gameplay is if they reduce the amount of armor high level troops have (like the legionnaires) so that lords can stand out more in battle and be more resilient in general. Like someone mentioned, only the wealthy/nobles/knights wore plate armor etc. So the noble line could have better armor, and common troops should have less armor, and lords have the best armor. Then you can increase armor effectiveness and I'd say the gameplay becomes really awesome
indeed this would be optimal with increasing the resistance of high tier armor, common troops should be restricted to low-med tier armor at max(1-3 tier) and noble troops + lords should be using med to high tier armor (4-6) or something along these lines.
 
Last edited:

Berzerker Jay

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".
Oh, I have no problem adding an outright liar and probable narcissist to my ignore list. Wow -- nice summary of the study.

Shows what you're here for.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
if armor is so effective against arrows, why do so many sources claim that longbow archers decided certain battles (even from enemy perspectiv)?
Because anything that could've potentially affected a battle's outcome probably did, somewhere in history. Real life battles were shenanigans, more often than not.
yes true although realistic battle mod makes a good attempt at balancing armour the amount of unarmoured / lightly armoured troops needs to be increased and the lighter troops need a mobility advantage of some sort.
You'd need those troops to be as fast as mounted units to get any sort of benefit. Otherwise units have enough time to turn and meet them head-on. Also, the way battles play out in M&B, there is no point to flanking in the melee because morale is only damaged by dying, not being out-positioned.
 

vonbalt

Sergeant Knight
WBNWVCM&B
if armor is so effective against arrows, why do so many sources claim that longbow archers decided certain battles (even from enemy perspectiv)?
Because only a minority of troops wore good armor until the very end of the middle ages where munition grade armor got cheap and accessible, most were lightly armored and if those routed or got killed their army's small noble/elite/veteran numbers wouldn't be able to turn the tide of the battle by themselves.

Longbows were deadly weapons indeed but they were used more like portable artillery shooting barrage after barrage of arrows at the enemy then moving to the flanks and shooting them at almost point blank range when the infantry lines were engaged.

This had devastating effects on enemy morale when their own troops couldn't counter the longbowmen for some reason (terrain, occupied with an enemy attack, defenses etc)

Many medieval countries used longbowmen but mainly as support and harassing units because of how hard it was to train them to be effective (so they had lower numbers available to recruit from), the English were unique in their enthusiastic adoption of longbows for massed barrages and the weapon was even more mystified for their impossible victories against the French thanks mainly due to extremely incompetent French leadership too high on glorious chivalric charges straight out of King Arthur's tales lol
 

kweassa

Sergeant at Arms
If you're fine with your initial, low-spec army being completely unable to harm any opponent army that has significant amount of units with higher-grade armor unless you have more than twice the numbers every time, sure, why not.

You have to remember these things work both ways. If your armies that reach certain tier become practically immune to arrow fire, and their chain~scale grade armor habitually protects against most slashing blows, then you can bet your arse the enemy AI armies, which often have more soldiers than your own army, will benefit the same as well.

Not to mention your initial character trying to fling arrows against most bandits that are higher than looter-grade, will also experience a sudden increase in game difficulty in that considerable amount of arrows would fail to penetrate, and your own slashing attacks on horse with that low-grade weapon of yours would rarely harm anyone.


Things like these, are gameplay decisions, If realistic armor and their realistic effects are to be brought into the game, then every restriction that made such armor less accessible in real life than what we currently see in the game (ie. paying a few coins for a tier upgrade and the soldier magically conjures up high-tier armor) should be brought in as well.

Me, I'm fine with money problems becoming even tighter, as the maintenance costs of your armies become greatly increased, high-grade armor for your soldiers not being accessible in most places and only in limited quantities, a practical 'softcap' on high-tier units coming into exsitance through such limitations and etc.. But the question is, are the other players willing to play a game with even higher limitations?

(ps) like, how willing are you to meet enemies in small-scale fights, that you cannot harm with a blade weapon, nor they can harm you, so you have to resort to beating them up in wrestling matches every time? Or do you want it 100% impossible to hurt any enemy of higher tier in tournaments? That's essentially what this particular "monkey's hand" wish entails.
 

vonbalt

Sergeant Knight
WBNWVCM&B
If you're fine with your initial, low-spec army being completely unable to harm any opponent army that has significant amount of units with higher-grade armor unless you have more than twice the numbers every time, sure, why not.

You have to remember these things work both ways. If your armies that reach certain tier become practically immune to arrow fire, and their chain~scale grade armor habitually protects against most slashing blows, then you can bet your arse the enemy AI armies, which often have more soldiers than your own army, will benefit the same as well.

Not to mention your initial character trying to fling arrows against most bandits that are higher than looter-grade, will also experience a sudden increase in game difficulty in that considerable amount of arrows would fail to penetrate, and your own slashing attacks on horse with that low-grade weapon of yours would rarely harm anyone.


Things like these, are gameplay decisions, If realistic armor and their realistic effects are to be brought into the game, then every restriction that made such armor less accessible in real life than what we currently see in the game (ie. paying a few coins for a tier upgrade and the soldier magically conjures up high-tier armor) should be brought in as well.

Me, I'm fine with money problems becoming even tighter, as the maintenance costs of your armies become greatly increased, high-grade armor for your soldiers not being accessible in most places and only in limited quantities, a practical 'softcap' on high-tier units coming into exsitance through such limitations and etc.. But the question is, are the other players willing to play a game with even higher limitations?

(ps) like, how willing are you to meet enemies in small-scale fights, that you cannot harm with a blade weapon, nor they can harm you, so you have to resort to beating them up in wrestling matches every time? Or do you want it 100% impossible to hurt any enemy of higher tier in tournaments? That's essentially what this particular "monkey's hand" wish entails.
That's exactly what i want, it's more to increase the difficult and length of the currently arcadey fights than to improve the protection of the player himself, the player is just one but what truly matters is the armies and right now high tier troops (and specially infantry which is performing the worst) are droping like flies because armor is too weak.

I'm fine with complete realism (or close to it) being left for modders, i'll be more than happy if only they made armor function closer to warband, i just tested it a few days ago comparing both games side by side and it's a huge difference in armor effectiveness.

In warband you have a clear distinction between low, med and high tier armor, it bannerlord it seems to stop at medium and high tier armor are almost useless for their price.

I could take something like twice or thrice as much damage from armors with similar rating in warband than bannerlord (tested with 40+ armor rating) and some weak attacks (rocks, badly positioned sword cuts, shaft etc) would just glance from the armor most times thus increasing your tankness which would tremendously help the survivality of heavy infantry in bannerlord for example (all kinds of med to high tier troops would benefit for increased armor effectiveness)
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
If you're fine with your initial, low-spec army being completely unable to harm any opponent army that has significant amount of units with higher-grade armor unless you have more than twice the numbers every time, sure, why not.

You have to remember these things work both ways. If your armies that reach certain tier become practically immune to arrow fire, and their chain~scale grade armor habitually protects against most slashing blows, then you can bet your arse the enemy AI armies, which often have more soldiers than your own army, will benefit the same as well.
Yeah, that's the idea.
Not to mention your initial character trying to fling arrows against most bandits that are higher than looter-grade, will also experience a sudden increase in game difficulty in that considerable amount of arrows would fail to penetrate, and your own slashing attacks on horse with that low-grade weapon of yours would rarely harm anyone.

Couched lances would (realistically) still one-shot stuff.
 

Helstrom

Recruit
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 ...

That is some unfounded stuff you are saying there and it is misinformation.

.....


The second guy is someone that has been accurate and uses facts and is well known. I am sure you will learn much from the video.

Getting hit by anything with high enough mass and length, with arm swung momentum, is going to cause serious body harm.
 
Last edited:

Tajl

Squire
Things like these, are gameplay decisions, If realistic armor and their realistic effects are to be brought into the game, then every restriction that made such armor less accessible in real life than what we currently see in the game (ie. paying a few coins for a tier upgrade and the soldier magically conjures up high-tier armor) should be brought in as well.
You would get few armors after you win your first battle against enemy using those armors. Maybe your men would loot then before you could and then you would just have to pay them few coins so that they could customize them.

(ps) like, how willing are you to meet enemies in small-scale fights, that you cannot harm with a blade weapon, nor they can harm you, so you have to resort to beating them up in wrestling matches every time? Or do you want it 100% impossible to hurt any enemy of higher tier in tournaments? That's essentially what this particular "monkey's hand" wish entails.

Or you could carry weapon that is designed to work against armor. Sword is good sidearm, but there was reason why it was almost always sidearm and not primary weapon.

Tournaments would of course need weapon that would work against armors. Current ridiculously effective blunt swords would work of course. Currently tournaments are very easy. So it wouldn't hurt if armors would work little better. I think it was better when you had to use multiple stabs to face to kill high tier opponents with sword. It was challenging to win tournaments with starting character. Now it is not.
 

CrazyElf

Sergeant
I totally agree with that -- warhorses were drastically larger and the feed to prevent atrophy alone, let alone to keep them in top fighting shape, was absolutely higher than normal horses. I could actually see this potentially being best to be a breed-specific modifier, to allow larger horses to have their advantages offset by even greater food requirements, maybe up to 2x.

Definitely, this should apply to other animals as well. I wasn't really thinking about the livestock, but they would be affected the same in the desert.

Perhaps here's where camels may be given an advantage, needing no additional feed?

I agree on that point.

There may be a partial exception. Steppe horses were smaller (ex: what the Khuzaits use). So they should require less feed and maybe be able to be self sufficient on the steppe.


Most of preserved armors was tourney kind of. Or belonged to really big bosses of past who were not going to put their arse in real hand-to-hand combat, and don the armor primarily to not be shot by chance. Such armors were much heavier and tougher than designed for living and fighting with it. Typical wore out field armor was just cut to pieces for infantry brigantines, not exhibited in show case.

Parade armor was - but many parade armors were fully functional.

There have been battle sites dug where even ordinary soldiers had some armor. Not top end plate, but some protection. They were waring Munition Armor, which at times was plate was also that was produced in reasonable quantity. It wasn't custom fitted, but still offered some protection.

Similarly, in Japan during the Sengoku period, there was also mass produced weapons and armor.

In the context of the game, I'm expecting tier 5 and 6 units to have decent protection - tier 6 especially, and the lords to have the best armor money could get, especially for higher tier clans.


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:

It's going to come down to - do you want the armor to be as protective as it would be in real life or do you want just a fast paced game?

One compromise might be a setting (realistic armor vs paper thin armor). We already have settings at the start of the game for damage, deaths, etc.
 
Last edited:

Akka

Sergeant at Arms
People who think armor isn't too weak should just take a sheet of steel and try to puncture it, and realize that, surprise, steel is actually pretty hard.
 

Berzerker Jay

People who think armor isn't too weak should just take a sheet of steel and try to puncture it, and realize that, surprise, steel is actually pretty hard.
That's just it, though -- armour equivalent to that sheet of steel was still centuries away, especially from wide use. We're using lamellar, scale, armours like that. Plate is seen in cases like the Battanian armours that have round metal plates to reinforce over chainmail. These have a pronounced increase over comparable chainmail pieces, and the attacker would be actively trying to avoid that strongest point, so not quite equivalent to steel plate.
 

Akka

Sergeant at Arms
1) Equivalent of plate armor do exist in the game, and they don't significantly protect either.
2) Chainmail is also pretty hard to damage through.
You of course should know both these arguments, so the only conclusion is that once again you're either doing this on purpose or are just very dense.
At this point you're either a troll or someone who is truly dense, so I'm going to just ignore you from now on as you just uselessly clutter the thread.
 

Berzerker Jay

1) Equivalent of plate armor do exist in the game, and they don't significantly protect either.
2) Chainmail is also pretty hard to damage through.
You of course should know both these arguments, so the only conclusion is that once again you're either doing this on purpose or are just very dense.
At this point you're either a troll or someone who is truly dense, so I'm going to just ignore you from now on as you just uselessly clutter the thread.
That's a ridiculous level of irony that you're calling me a troll while being the one making personal insults and nothing factual or productive said otherwise.

Plate armour didn't exist for a long while after the 10th and the 11th century. Between your insults and demonstrated ignorance, you should have no trouble understanding why I'll be hard pressed to pay further attention to your obvious trolling.
 
Top Bottom