Shall we talk about the paper armors?

[Berzerker Jay]

Note the disclaimer: "Keep in mind the tests are not scientific and the materials not precisely representative of historical armor."

I wouldn't call it a "relatively easy" puncture. The helmet in the video is a perfectly still target at waist height, and the guy is standing at exactly the right distance to hit it with the tip. That's the perfect scenario. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most combatants in Bannerlord and real life aren't paraplegic dwarves. Under normal conditions it would be very difficult to get such a result, because your opponent would have their head higher up, be moving, and might try to get closer to you (which would make it impossible to hit them with the tip of the weapon, since they need to be at exactly the right distance for that to happen).

Even in perfect conditions, the end result for the straight and curved blade is similar if you compare them in the same situation.

The straight blade made a dent that could concuss, but not pierce the skin.

The curved blade made a small puncture that could concuss, but probably not go far enough to pierce skin.

This is what I mean about there being no significant advantage in the cutting capabilities.

On the other hand, me being pedantic aside, I guess I'm fine with the falx having exaggerated differences in piercing ability for the purposes of gameplay and making it feel different.

Uh...no one says they need to be paraplegic dwarves, and the benchmark here is nowhere near your point of how easily that point can be brought into play. The game has mechanics in place already to detect how far you are from your opponent and whether you are in that honey-spot where the weapon performs best. We are talking about how it affects and is affected by armour differently than a conventional cutting blade.

Further, the helmet is a sturdier test subject than a breastplate, but guess what! A falx is fully capable of hitting the target in the chest, or any number of other places, too!

That's if your point about the height of the helmet really means the head is somehow immune to falx hits when it's at normal height....

 

[Berzerker Jay]

To be fair... I just did a few tests in game. A swing with along glaive from a mounted rider was doing between 100 and 300 damage. But as I suspected, killed the opponent more often than not - even when heavily armoured.

I then switched to the Vlandian heavy lance, and it was doing up towards 500-700 damage. But killed the opponent far less often than the glaive.

I didn't record the damage locations and someone can correct me because I don't actually know what locations they are on the characters, but I'm assuming that the lance might sometimes be putting all that 700 damage onto a minor hit box like an arm. The glaive with greater length, was more likely to hit multiple or core hit boxes - so it's lesser cut damage was more likely to kill.

Again based on the videos above, and my gut feeling, I think in reality, the glaive is probably more likely to glance off heavy armour, or get tangled in light or loose fabrics, or knock a rider off with impact rather than blade. We've all seen the videos of glaives cutting deer in half when strung up. But I think a speeding rider is a different thing entirely.

But I feel like the developers have the lance about right. It is the most powerful hand held weapon in the game, but has all that power focused on a tiny point. It will one hit any person in any armour if timed right. But one has to have a lot of skill do do it.

Swinging edged polearms in battle can be a tricky proposition, for sure. I've wondered about this, as it happens to be my preferred strategy for equipping a horseman. The heavier Voulge head and the Razor-Head both make for very devastating weapons in mounted combat in the game, but in real life I think the voulge would be difficult to keep on edge. The Razor-Head, or Rhomphaia, would probably hook into its edge alignment, so less of a problem there.

One thing I ended up considering as far as the damage done to armoured opponents and this whole dynamic with swung polearms from horseback -- where deflections go. Unlike combat on foot, the deflection's momentum to bounce or skip off the armour is going to instead be outmatched by the momentum of the horse and rider. The weapon is going to pull along the target, and I think this is where a lot of damage to armoured opponents are going to occur. The rhomphaia blade is going to likely be pulled into spots it's not supposed to reach. A glancing blow off the shoulder becomes a hook under the helmet. The hit across the side of the torso hooks under the armpit, and et cetera. This dynamic alone can be pretty devastating and get the blade to the armour's weak points consistently.

I just wish wear and tear was implemented for arms and armour in the game, because this same dynamic would be havoc on a blade as it skips across the armour. Lamellar in particular would just chew the blade's edge right up.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

On a side-note, I've come to understand mostly from conversations centered around Bannerlord that a falx-like blade on a pole-arm is a rhomphaia. I'm now seeing that the difference is more that one is Dacian and the other Thracian, and rhomphaia are depicted as similar sword only with perhaps less dramatic forward curves, from what I see.

 

[Antaeus]

I just wish wear and tear was implemented for arms and armour in the game, because this same dynamic would be havoc on a blade as it skips across the armour. Lamellar in particular would just chew the blade's edge right up.

Totally.

Along with that I think some sort of dropped weapon dynamic would also be fun to add to the game. I highly doubt that I could charge home with any sort of bladed polearm (with all the possible hook points and joints), or lance, dozens of times without losing the weapon. In particular I am highly sceptical of a rider's ability to keep a lance that has just passed straight through the chest of an opponent. That lance is gone and sword is drawn, or a rider is cycling back to collect another. Same goes for a glaive - catching a glaive on a helmet might take off the head of a footman, or it might pull the rider off a horse that doesn't release the weapon quick enough, or both.

Messy business this.

Edit:

I've come to realise, that any long polearm type weapon - glaive, voulge or what ever, really is a hero weapon. They wouldn't be effective in a tight massed cavalry charge without taking off the knees of your neighbour's mount. This one is for the games only.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

They were a real thing, however. Remember, not all cavalry charged like later knights. A lot of them made use of the battlefield and exercised the primary advantage of cavalry, sowing chaos.

 

[CrazyElf]

The problem with this suggestion (raising armor values) is that it would make an unreasonable gap between top tier troops and lower tier ones.
At the state of the game right now top tier infantry will defeat the lower tier ones in similar numbers, but if they are outnumbered on like 2:1, in medium-large numbers, there's a very significant chance they will lose in an open field battle without using terrain advantages, and I like that for the sake of realism. Raising armor values might lead to situations like the ones we had in warband with the swadian knights, per example:

This is the 1st video I found, but there are obviously more. If you guys find this fun (I do), it's genuinely ok, but the higher armor for the sake of realism argument completely loses it's place. The Swadian Knight isn't a realistic knight, but a mythical beast, a force of nature, a fabled legend, it's romanticized Musashi killing 100 Yoshiokas, Alan Moore's 300 spartans against a million persians, it's pure fantasy.

A tier 5 unit currently costs 6x as much in wages as a tier 1 unit at 12 denars vs a tier 1 unit at 2 denars. A tier 6 unit costs 18 denars per day, which is 9x as much as a tier 1. A unit has to justify it's wage cost first and foremost. Winning 2:1 with mostly tier 5 and 6 units against a mainly recruit army doesn't sound unreasonable given the vast difference in troop wages. Otherwise there would be a far weaker justification for high tier units.

A group of knights losing to peasants outnumbered when outnumbered by just 2:1 seems like the totally unrealistic, immersion breaking part to me.

You are talking about recruits with minimal training and not very well equipped going up against veteran units with top tier equipment. Most recruits are not going to be capable and disciplined. That will progressively improve as they improve in tier, assuming of course they survive and their leader opts to upgrade them.

Historically such recruits were extremely vulnerable to breaking and routing in the face of even moderate casualties. That could result in a chain rout and an entire army, including even veterans falling apart. Not to mention, the home economy still needed workers.

On that note, Swadian Knights were never that invulnerable. Although very powerful, they could be cut down by polearms and struggled against the Khergits' horse archers.

It always buffles me why people play against the looters all the time, its the worst most boring part of the combat gamaplay (monoarmy with garbage gear and garbage loot and zero tactics), you can literally avoid fighting them after 30 minutes of playing and never again bother with them, looters should not be benchmark of anything. More focus should be put on how funny and immersive (and balanced if you are into that in SP) big battles are, not literal gameplay padding that is looters.

Also if realism would be focus, armors should be more more powerfull in general, this includes gambesons.
I even made some tables based on scientific literature and experimental evidence which I apllied in my mod.

The main reason may be that they can still hurt the prosperity of settlements - I believe mods like Improved Garrisons have patrols for this function.


Late game, engaging looters is something I automate. Engaging enemy lords and mods like Scum and Villanry though - that's something interesting and challenging.

All I'm going to say is that I think realistic combat mod should be the stock game's armor configuration.

Exactly, people say "oh but if you boost armor you'll be invincible against looters and that's bad"

But what about medium/high tier units? those would get the biggest benefits of improving armor, the player is just one but armies can have hundreds of those units that would be a treat to you and your army with being able to tank more hits instead of dying in one or two as in vanilla.

in warband lategame i was basically invincible against looters yes but i still dreaded a charge of swadian knights against me, or nord huscarls, rhodok sharpshooters etc if i wasn't accompanied by equally strong soldiers.

Strongly agree.

Armor works both ways. The enemy higher tier troops and lords are also going to have greater effectiveness too and any advantages the player has with their troops will be cancelled by this, unless of course the player is engaging just looters or an army of just recruits.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

Let's also keep in mind in assessing the combat potential for all these units that Taleworlds has always stood by that auto-resolving will produce less favourable results than going through the simulations. Auto-resolving carries this risk, and I think most long-time players accept these risks whenever we auto-resolve combat. I go in to simulations even heavily wounded because I know that even if I'm not able to actively participate in the skirmish, my troops will do better with me there leading them.

I think this is a consideration being forgotten often here in this discussion. You will not do as well auto-resolving combat.

 

[vonbalt]

I think this is a consideration being forgotten often here in this discussion. You will not do as well auto-resolving combat.

Actualy no, vanilla auto resolve formula is very barebones and take no gear into consideration so it'll have nothing to do with the actual fights that the player participates.

Here is the formula:

attackerPower and defenderPower - values are calculated using troop tier, and gives 50% bonus to Heroes, or 20% bonus if the troop is mounted.

strikerAdvantage - value is based on the battle type, settlement (if siege, and uses the wall level), and the party leader tactics skill (that's calculated by DefaultSkillEffects.TacticsAdvantage.PrimaryBonus * (tactics skill / 100) )

damage = 50 * (attackerPower / defenderPower) * strikerAdvantage

I wany improved armors mainly to make fights harder and add value to med-high tier troops, the player is just one guy but your hardened veterans should feel much more treatening than they do now and being able to take more of a beating would help this (player troops and enemy's), mainly heavy infantry which is very weak right now compared to the mobility of cavalry or the range of archers/crossbowmen

 

[Berzerker Jay]

I mean, I am descended from a family that used cavalry to overcome very formidable heavy infantry and conquer England back in the day, but okay. I really am not sure why you believe heavy infantry is a counter to cavalry, rather than a liability. Spearmen, sure, can form a phalanx against cavalry and be quite formidable, but otherwise history shows what happens to heavy infantry when faced by far more mobile cavalry units.

 

[Antaeus]

Hey now.... let's not get ahead of ourselves...

Sometimes mobility is a hinderance, if it can be channelled into places it doesn't want to go.

With that in mind... Perhaps if we're going to buff cavalry, we should also widen and deepen some of the rivers, ravines, and rocks on the battlefields. Really hammer home the importance of picking your field.

If we want stronger cavalry, which I wouldn't complain about, then it has to be done in a way that still offers victory to smart infantry of all types.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

I'm fine with that. My family on top of being known for its cavalry is also named for its home in the northern coastal marshlands. I suspect they knew full well the value of knowing their terrain, and still fielded historically significant cavalry in what otherwise seems inhospitable terrain for horsemen. The terrain I'm talking about would be the moors of eastern Denmark.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

To be fair, I tend to pick most of my battlefields in this game, too. Depending on the style I'm playing, I pretty keenly make sure the confrontation happens either in the forest or in the open, depending on my character's playing style.

I have a Fian Noble playthrough I'm doing, where I'm recruiting only noble characters and so far have only a small party of Battanian archers. In that playthrough I make sure my more dangerous encounters all occur in the woods, especially if there's any cavalry involved.

Meanwhile I have a cavalry character that I do the exact opposite with, and try to ensure all important battles take place in open fields.

On top of that, I've also attempted a playthrough where I patterned after what I expect to be my family clan's more historic strategies, and developed a mounted style made for rough terrain. If the perks are set for it, that too can be pretty devastating.

But, part of the theory behind why my family settled in the coastal marshlands in spite of specializing in fielding mounted warriors was that they knew the terrain very well, used reinforced paths (potentially corduroy roads) and led their enemies into terrain their enemies really shouldn't go. In that case, I really do wish there was some more treacherous terrain in some of the maps. Of course, no doubt a lot of players would complain.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

I actually have a Battanian horse-archer character who thrives when chasing his targets into the woods. He keeps a lot of horses, so even though his party is made up mostly of infantry and archers he tends to careen after his prey in the open, and then they reach the forests and slow down while he's perked to move through the woods like the wind. Most of his battles occur in the woods, which is hard on his Mounted Skirmishers, but I tend to love flying between the trees.

 

[vonbalt]

I mean, I am descended from a family that used cavalry to overcome very formidable heavy infantry and conquer England back in the day, but okay. I really am not sure why you believe heavy infantry is a counter to cavalry, rather than a liability. Spearmen, sure, can form a phalanx against cavalry and be quite formidable, but otherwise history shows what happens to heavy infantry when faced by far more mobile cavalry units.

Man i swear you do this on purpose, you ignore the arguments people make and pick one thing to take out of context.

I only said that infantry is too weak compared to cavalry and ranged troops, they are weak because they drop like flies and can't take a beating since armor is too weak not that they should counter all cavalry automatically, infantry, specially heavy infantry should be the anvil to hold an enemy in place while your cavalry and ranged troops eat them by the flanks/rear, and spearmen are the worst offenders yes when they really should be a huge counter against cavalry, spears really needs a buff.

And if you know anything about the battle your family fought in you'll know that the Norman knights spent hours trying to break the Saxon shieldwall to no avail, it only started to work when they decided to feign retreat so the Saxons themselves broke their shieldwall to start pursuing the fleeing enemy only for them to turn back and charge the now disorganized Saxons with a combined arms assault that led to an infamous arrow piercing King Harold in the eye and killing him.

The same tactics the Normans used in their campaign against Eastern Rome and how they managed to destroy the Varangian guard at the time which was full of exiled Saxons wanting revenge against them.

Try to fight in-game using a shieldwall full of top tier troops, they'll be massacred by charging enemies because formation performance is really bad right now, it only looks cool but fight like **** compared to just commanding everyone to charge.

 

[Nalgasucia507]

Alright, $10 an hour people, c'mon give me your free time.

 

[PeteSKTemplar]

For me the armor would be fine if it was to influence the gameplay around classic use of units like infantry being anvil, cavalry hammer, while archers would be good against ligher infantry/cav but not that good against heavy inf/cav even it they had no shields until firing from very close range. So "hold fire" order was to be an important tactical answer against heavy armor though AI when using archers also would have to be scripted in this "hold fire" against heavy units mechanics.

If the armor was to more effective then shields should probably on the other hand should offer less protection (especially smaller shields) through perhaps increasing an arc of shot missile flightpath so if units would have shields above heads arrows were not harm them but if those shields would be hold straight then arrows coming from higher altitude should find the soldiers uncovered parts like head and shoulders.

(An example - right now cataphracts using lance without shield is worse in protection against arrows in comparison with other heavy cavalry using shield for armor without a shield is almost useless against arrows even from medium range. From long range it seems like armor is good, so if that armor resistancy from long range would be aplied to medium range too only close range fire would be dangerous as it should be. Another mechanic needed do be tonned down as some ppl already mentioned is the speed bonus. Even units having relatively good armor take too much from missiles flying against their movement but too low dmg when runing/riding in same direction as missiles.)

 

[Berzerker Jay]

Man i swear you do this on purpose, you ignore the arguments people make and pick one thing to take out of context.

I only said that infantry is too weak compared to cavalry and ranged troops, they are weak because they drop like flies and can't take a beating since armor is too weak not that they should counter all cavalry automatically, infantry, specially heavy infantry should be the anvil to hold an enemy in place while your cavalry and ranged troops eat them by the flanks/rear, and spearmen are the worst offenders yes when they really should be a huge counter against cavalry, spears really needs a buff.

And if you know anything about the battle your family fought in you'll know that the Norman knights spent hours trying to break the Saxon shieldwall to no avail, it only started to work when they decided to feign retreat so the Saxons themselves broke their shieldwall to start pursuing the fleeing enemy only for them to turn back and charge the now disorganized Saxons with a combined arms assault that led to an infamous arrow piercing King Harold in the eye and killing him.

The same tactics the Normans used in their campaign against Eastern Rome and how they managed to destroy the Varangian guard at the time which was full of exiled Saxons wanting revenge against them.

Try to fight in-game using a shieldwall full of top tier troops, they'll be massacred by charging enemies because formation performance is really bad right now, it only looks cool but fight like **** compared to just commanding everyone to charge.

Man, swear to somebody else then. You don't like my response, that's okay, but if you read it with more comprehension and less reactivity then maybe you'd realize my point instead.

I find your arguments quite tedious, and your summary dismissals the same. You have an opinion, and it's silly -- in spite of all logic you want cavalry to only be so strong as infantry. Beyond that you're disrespectful and argue dishonestly, and you don't think much of my argumentation either. Then I think you and I are done here.

 

[Tajl]

in spite of all logic you want cavalry to only be so strong as infantry.

Cavalry was not always stronger than infantry. In game it is and that is stupid especially because it is because of wrong reasons.

It was quite common for knights to fight on foot. That's because massed archers. While knights had very good armors that made them practically immune to archers their horses didn't. Good plate horse armors that made horses too practically immune to arrows came about same time than early cannons.

So realistically longbows versus knights on 14th century, longbows would easily be able to kill knight's practically unarmored horse, but it would take lucky shot to kill knight. In game it takes just 2 arrows to kill that knight and many more to kill that horse. In game it would be extremely stupid for knight to dismount because of archers, while in history they did just that.

Armors should be more effective. Horses should have less hitpoints and dying horse should be very dangerous for rider.

 

[Nalgasucia507]

Armors should be more effective. Horses should have less hitpoints and dying horse should be very dangerous for rider.

Yes, no, yes

 

[vonbalt]

Man, swear to somebody else then. You don't like my response, that's okay, but if you read it with more comprehension and less reactivity then maybe you'd realize my point instead.

I find your arguments quite tedious, and your summary dismissals the same. You have an opinion, and it's silly -- in spite of all logic you want cavalry to only be so strong as infantry. Beyond that you're disrespectful and argue dishonestly, and you don't think much of my argumentation either. Then I think you and I are done here.

Sorry about the heated response then, totally my bad and i don't want any hard feelings with a fellow internet stranger

Let's just agree to disagree on this matter then, to each his own and all that, i'm just trying to improve the game in an area that in my view is severely lacking thus affecting the fun i have with the game (armor feeling like wet paper to me) but not everyone wants the same thing of course, cheers mate and good gamming!