Shield On The Back

[Crowcorrector]

I guess we will have to wait till bannerlord releases to find out

Lol

 

[jamoecw]

It is dumb because while armor touches to its carriers body, there is a space between a shield on the back and its carrier.

Even if the shield is not concave the space will exist simply because the human back isnt flat.

So even if the whole arrowhead manages to pierce through shield it will stop somewhere between the shield and the body.

Heck, lets say it is not a concave shield and arrow managed to hit the place where the shield touches body.Because of the holding thing the contact place is the centre of the shield and it is covered in metal.

like i said armor is like a shield that you wear. so it is concave most of the time away from your body, like you are saying that shields are, except that they are built so that the concave matches your body to maximize the distance away from you back that it is without being cumbersome. people also wear padding underneath, which is armor in its own right, to help keep things that pierce the armor away from the body. in addition a lot of armor is made out of metal, so the metal in the center of the shield isn't exactly special.

of course i am talking about medieval armor, things were a bit different before then, however when the romans faced horse archers with arrows that would pin arms to shields (pierced shields and then into the arm holding the shield) their armor still managed to stop the arrows well enough so that penetrating the armor wasn't as big of a concern. roman armor tended to be closer to the body than medieval armor.

here are some youtube videos with recreation armor and weapons:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMT6hjwY8NQ&list=PLxClq4a6GD70k2oqBV3jBEIW0M_znFYxH

 

[KhergitLancer80]

''ike i said armor is like a shield that you wear''
no armors aim is to offer a decent protection for majority of the body while shield offers an absolute protection for a very small part of body.
''so it is concave most of the time away from your body, like you are saying that shields are''
The size of the gaps a shield creates and an armor creates are simply incomparable.
''in addition a lot of armor is made out of metal, so the metal in the center of the shield isn't exactly special.''

Show me one armor that has such a dense metal mass.I have seen only Aina-Armors buteven they dont have such a big metal mass.
Yet as far as I know they also offered full protection for the breast.

 

[Kehlian]

Your comparison is dumb sorry.

well shield adds its armor to your own when on back in game. in real life hard armor stops arrows (even soft to a large degree). in fact hard armor is essentially a shield that you wear so you don't have to hold it, hence why people in full plate often forwent shields and those with less armor tended to use them.

so maybe it isn't quite as dumb as you think.

I think I saw a video of a dude testing arrows on breastplates. The arrow went through it, unless it was hardened/tempered steel (not sure of the english word, but it's when steel has been put into water to be better).
When hardened (I'll use that word), the breastplate just deviated the arrow trajectory, making only a small dent on it. When not tempered, the arrow went through steel, and in the manequin.
Hardened steel wasn't so common, because it had to be expansive, so I guess only nobles and rich people could afford it.

I don't know when steel started to be hardened , but I'm sure chainmails and scale armor didn't stop arrows. They prevented death some times, and allowed smaller wounds, but you still had a wound. Shield did stop them, though. I believe those armor were made to prevent slashing of swords and axes, but weren't particularly effective against piercing spears and arrows.
I'm no expert, I just looked for informations that might be wrong, though :/

Regular steel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCE40J93m5c

Tempered steel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej3qjUzUzQg

I think the only thing preventing arrows from killing, is the magical properties of MMORPG's girl's naked armors

Spoiler

 

[Ruler of Calradia]

Just remember that medieval metal varied, and often we don't know exactly how they made it from exactly what and in what exact proportions. That makes testing really difficult. Modern steel/metal is way better than medieval one. Sometimes you could not use sword to block because it would break, which is one of the reasons why shields were popular.

Also what the draw weight of the bow is, what distance is and what kind of arrow is? All of those varied in history.

 

[Kretti]

Depends on what time-period and area we're discussing, but late medieval plate armor probably allowed sufficient protection from arrows. Shields didn't stop arrows either, but using one is a lot different from strapping one on your back.

In the early medieval period (which Bannerlord is supposed to be inspired from) swords weren't that common to begin with when shield-usage was at its height. It's not so much about your equipment breaking (because anything's going to break eventually when we're talking about battlefield usage), shields were used because they were just better at protecting you, and wielding a 2-hander doesn't give enough of an advantage to make up for the disadvantages of not having a shield. Unless you're in the second or third rank with a spear or a long-axe, in which case you'd be relying on the shields of the first rank.

Lindybeige makes some good points about how you'd use a shield to protect yourself from arrows and blows.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNyvLz9w69s

 

[KhergitLancer80]

Depends on what time-period and area we're discussing, but late medieval plate armor probably allowed sufficient protection from arrows. Shields didn't stop arrows either, but using one is a lot different from strapping one on your back.

In the early medieval period (which Bannerlord is supposed to be inspired from) swords weren't that common to begin with when shield-usage was at its height. It's not so much about your equipment breaking (because anything's going to break eventually when we're talking about battlefield usage), shields were used because they were just better at protecting you, and wielding a 2-hander doesn't give enough of an advantage to make up for the disadvantages of not having a shield. Unless you're in the second or third rank with a spear or a long-axe, in which case you'd be relying on the shields of the first rank.

Lindybeige makes some good points about how you'd use a shield to protect yourself from arrows and blows.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNyvLz9w69s

The video you shared gave me a great idea.
In Warband if your shield gets hit it moves a bit and makes you vulnerable to attacks for a second.
In fact I experienced things like when two archers shot my shield second arrow managed to kill me.

The guy referred to the torque I suspect.
If an arrow hits to the edge of a big shield(because the force arm is longer) your shield shakes a lot while your shield doesnt shake that much when it isnt shot from its edge if it is a relatively smaller shield.

The thing is you support your shield with your arm horizonally.
So if you shoot the leftest part or rightest part of the shield it shouldnt shake and it should shake most when the uppest or downest part of the shield is shot since the torque power is maximum in that way.

With this mechanic the small shields and large shields can have a better balance.
Large shields offer better protection.
While small shields can prevent multiple arrows in a row also makes you less cumbersome to carry them(Also cheaper )

 

[Ruler of Calradia]

Or just build time machine so we can roleplay with real armors + VR suits and sensors

 

[jamoecw]

Your comparison is dumb sorry.

well shield adds its armor to your own when on back in game. in real life hard armor stops arrows (even soft to a large degree). in fact hard armor is essentially a shield that you wear so you don't have to hold it, hence why people in full plate often forwent shields and those with less armor tended to use them.

so maybe it isn't quite as dumb as you think.

I think I saw a video of a dude testing arrows on breastplates. The arrow went through it, unless it was hardened/tempered steel (not sure of the english word, but it's when steel has been put into water to be better).
When hardened (I'll use that word), the breastplate just deviated the arrow trajectory, making only a small dent on it. When not tempered, the arrow went through steel, and in the manequin.
Hardened steel wasn't so common, because it had to be expansive, so I guess only nobles and rich people could afford it.

I don't know when steel started to be hardened , but I'm sure chainmails and scale armor didn't stop arrows. They prevented death some times, and allowed smaller wounds, but you still had a wound. Shield did stop them, though. I believe those armor were made to prevent slashing of swords and axes, but weren't particularly effective against piercing spears and arrows.
I'm no expert, I just looked for informations that might be wrong, though :/

Regular steel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCE40J93m5c

Tempered steel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej3qjUzUzQg

I think the only thing preventing arrows from killing, is the magical properties of MMORPG's girl's naked armors

Spoiler

notice the penetration on regular steel with the best tips possible. now add a gambeson underneath and notice that the penetration doesn't even penetrate the gambeson all the way (at least 1 inch of penetration). so even unhardened steel would be enough to protect the wearer.

here is a video on gambesons:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uP4wLMmp-8U
it shows two different historical reproduction gambesons, one which is rather low quality, and the other of higher quality which was used sometimes without further protection. you can see the cheaper one used in missile tests in the other videos, and you'll notice some resistance to penetration, so the distance isn't the only factor when penetrating steel plate, but it is the main one.

@KhergitLancer80
as for the metal of the boss:

it is usually 2-3 mm, plate armor is about 1.5-3 mm depending on wear you measure the thickness on the armor (it was thicker in the center as that was more likely to be struck), so yes it is of comparable thickness. as for the gap being incomparable, you are right the shield when strapped to the back will always offer less of a gap than plate armor, except maybe for the boss for a center gripped shield. as for all the talk about the boss, it is off topic as you were asking about the hit shield on back mechanic which is anywhere on the shield, and thus mainly for flat wood resting directly on the back. so when it it is strapped to your back it isn't being held out and maneuvered by your arms. the very idea that you are defending you have even stopped talking about because it is exactly the comparison you said was dumb. arguing over the boss is just shifting the goal posts, which you will have to do again once you realize that such is not different enough from armor to make a significant difference.

 

[KhergitLancer80]

Wasnt plate armor a thing of 15th century ?

 

[Kehlian]

Wasnt plate armor a thing of 15th century ?

Full plate, yes, but breastplates have existed and have been used for a while before that

But you are right, the most common armor at the time Bannerlord seems inspired from would be scale, chainmail and gambesons

 

[Innocent Flower]

A gambeson with metal over it will almost certainly protect you from an arrow, unless we're talking tinfoil or balistas.  Arrows and bolts were terrible against plate, and relied on by chance accidentally hitting a weaker spot.  Armour was pretty OP when it got good.

I think if you're gonna sling a shield to your back it should bounce around and interfere with you a little bit. Like a slight penalty. 

 

[jamoecw]

Wasnt plate armor a thing of 15th century ?

a style of plate armor referred to as full plate was a 15th century thing, but interlocking plates were what the lorica segmentata essentially was, and that was well before the 15th century. form fitting metal plate with padding underneath was used well before that as well, and non form fitting plate that was strapped to you with padding underneath was far before that. only a handful of cultures used wood strapped to you with padding underneath during a time when metal arrowheads were used, and such was discarded once they got enough metal to use metal instead of wood.

 

[KarlXII]

Depends on what time-period and area we're discussing, but late medieval plate armor probably allowed sufficient protection from arrows.

Late medieval plate armor was bulletproof against early firearms. Saying it "probably allowed sufficient protection from arrows" is an understatement 

Anyway, early medieval riveted mail over gambeson was definitely resistant to arrows. Archers were predominantly used to harass enemy troops on the march or getting water; or against troops on good defensive ground in order to provoke them to move; or to screen the main army. Actually killing soldiers was just a bonus. Even early medieval crossbows struggled against mail.

Ever wonder why Harold Godwinson was killed by an arrow to the eye and not to the chest? Probably because it was the only vulnerable spot.

 

[jamoecw]

in fact the rise of plate is widely regarded as a result in the use of lanced charges. overlapping plates for protection was used by the elite guard in china in the 8th century, an it started to get used during the medieval period in europe in the 11th century (mainly for jousting tournaments), becoming somewhat common on the battlefield in europe by the 13th century. the armor evolved and methods to beat it also evolved. bullet resistant curiasses were very heavy and expensive and fell out of favor, though the standard .30-06 used in WW1 still had problems penetrating the armor well after it fell out of favor. even today the body armor plates worn on the battlefield can stop multiple projectile hits of the common weapons used.

if your armor is worth anything it will stop the common projectile in the scenario you are expecting to find yourself in.

 

[KarlXII]

if your armor is worth anything it will stop the common projectile in the scenario you are expecting to find yourself in.

Exactly. If an armor type is prevalent during a time period then it most certainly worked: and mail was prevalent for over a  millennium (maybe even two). Even today, German police wear mail in the case of a knife wielding suspect.

 

[CalenLoki]

Hey lads! Calm yourself. It's about shield on the back.
So only constructive post on that page was about wooden armour. (which kind of confirmed that it shouldn't completely block hits)

 

[Mount_and_Ride ^_^]

If a shield is on your back then it should protect you just as well as if in front and holding it, with the only exception of actual penetration and weak body armor.

If hit boxes are bad, fix them.  Just because you are holding a shield should not make it undefeatable.  If I aim and my skill points and weapon points allow for it, I should be able to accurately hit your legs and your face, depending of course how big your shield is.

 

[jamoecw]

If hit boxes are bad, fix them.  Just because you are holding a shield should not make it undefeatable.  If I aim and my skill points and weapon points allow for it, I should be able to accurately hit your legs and your face, depending of course how big your shield is.

well if you have tried mount and blade you'd know that you can hit legs and head if you aim for them, minus of course shield skill. maybe you want an animation to demonstrate the quick movement to intercept incoming blows via shield skill?

i don't know what you mean by penetration, as nothing penetrates shields (minus the accepted clipping bug of fast projectiles at close range).

 

[Mount_and_Ride ^_^]

If hit boxes are bad, fix them.  Just because you are holding a shield should not make it undefeatable.  If I aim and my skill points and weapon points allow for it, I should be able to accurately hit your legs and your face, depending of course how big your shield is.

well if you have tried mount and blade you'd know that you can hit legs and head if you aim for them, minus of course shield skill. maybe you want an animation to demonstrate the quick movement to intercept incoming blows via shield skill?

i don't know what you mean by penetration, as nothing penetrates shields (minus the accepted clipping bug of fast projectiles at close range).

I attacked the legs all the time in the original M&B.  Not being able to do it in Warband I thought my skill was just too low and since I never got very far left it at that, although I always felt odd that NONE of my arrows were hitting even by chance or dumb luck with a raised shield.  That is just poor game design then if you can never attack the legs or face, especially with a person purposely using a small shield and effectively hiding themselves completely behind it.  Hopefully mods have fixed that.

If an arrow penetrates a shield and it goes through partially, particularly wooden shields (Think Brave Heart) and you are holding it away from you, the arrow tip itself wont harm you, unless it hit exactly where your arm attached to the shield was at.  Now have that same shield strapped to your back with weak to no armor.  If the arrow penetrates the same as before it will harm you because there is no gap or space, the arrow head just pierces you.  It does not magically go all the way through, because it could not to begin with if held out in the front.  But there is noticeable damage, definitely some blood loss.