-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Will heavy armor actually be more heavy?
- Thread starter whereisthedevblog
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
I'm pretty sure it's an issue of kevlar helmets being inadequate at stopping the penetration of rifle rounds. They work for pistols.
Necks are very strong.
If you wanted something capable of stopping rifle rounds, you'd need to wear a bowl of 1/4 or 1/2 inch thick steel on your head, which would be extremely bad. However, wearing a 1/4 or 1/2 inch thick steel on your torso is somewhat uncomfortable but not a deal breaker.
Medieval plate worked with similar logic (torso is thicker, limbs and head are thinner) but they were dealing with lesser threats, and the metal got nowhere near as thick as modern items.
Necks are very strong.
If you wanted something capable of stopping rifle rounds, you'd need to wear a bowl of 1/4 or 1/2 inch thick steel on your head, which would be extremely bad. However, wearing a 1/4 or 1/2 inch thick steel on your torso is somewhat uncomfortable but not a deal breaker.
Medieval plate worked with similar logic (torso is thicker, limbs and head are thinner) but they were dealing with lesser threats, and the metal got nowhere near as thick as modern items.
I'd have to agree with Tuidjy on almost every point. In some ways, medieval armor would not hinder you, yet in other ways it would. I was in SCA, and the overheat problem is seriously understated. You just about melt with any kind of prolonged exertion in padding plus armor, and you can't wear armor without the padding because otherwise the blows will still bruise and cause impact injuries. Heatstroke was a real thing.
Medieval armor is NOT modern steel and other advanced materials, and the Dark Ages and early Middle Ages saw very different metallurgy on the battlefield from what was used during the Renaissance. The thin, fluted, and relatively lightweight steel armors of the 15th through 17th Centuries were miles ahead of what was being produced in 1000 AD and thereabouts. MOST of the heavier armor was chain mail, and a lot of that fell into the 30-40kg range, not 20kg. The padded armor was "lighter", but bulky and hot, not that the padding under the chain was a whole lot better.
I'm not suggesting that the heavily armored troops should "plod" slowly forward, but they should either be slightly reduced in speed and more seriously reduced in jumping ability, and should have a noticeable difference in momentum. You don't go from a full run in one direction to a run the opposite way in under a second, ESPECIALLY with heavy armor, and the videos we see show troops shifting back and forth ("swivel hips") with practically no inertia at all. That's simply not possible in armor, and still a bit exaggerated even without it.
Then you have back-pedaling, which should be about 2/3 the speed of your forward movement, slow enough that a totally unarmored individual will STILL be caught by a charging trooper in armor. On the other hand, the trooper in heavy armor should have a great deal of difficulty (without multiple levels of agility, and/or strength to reduce the armor penalties) in catching that same light trooper if the unarmored guy turns and runs.
Medieval armor is NOT modern steel and other advanced materials, and the Dark Ages and early Middle Ages saw very different metallurgy on the battlefield from what was used during the Renaissance. The thin, fluted, and relatively lightweight steel armors of the 15th through 17th Centuries were miles ahead of what was being produced in 1000 AD and thereabouts. MOST of the heavier armor was chain mail, and a lot of that fell into the 30-40kg range, not 20kg. The padded armor was "lighter", but bulky and hot, not that the padding under the chain was a whole lot better.
I'm not suggesting that the heavily armored troops should "plod" slowly forward, but they should either be slightly reduced in speed and more seriously reduced in jumping ability, and should have a noticeable difference in momentum. You don't go from a full run in one direction to a run the opposite way in under a second, ESPECIALLY with heavy armor, and the videos we see show troops shifting back and forth ("swivel hips") with practically no inertia at all. That's simply not possible in armor, and still a bit exaggerated even without it.
Then you have back-pedaling, which should be about 2/3 the speed of your forward movement, slow enough that a totally unarmored individual will STILL be caught by a charging trooper in armor. On the other hand, the trooper in heavy armor should have a great deal of difficulty (without multiple levels of agility, and/or strength to reduce the armor penalties) in catching that same light trooper if the unarmored guy turns and runs.
Honved said:
Back-pedalling made no sense in M&B and led to daft situations letting you kill scores of enemies Blade-style as they came on in single file. Fighting whilst walking backward (putting aside the loss of weapon momentum) would have required considerable foot coordination and spacial awareness. 2/3 or 1/2 sounds reasonable to me.
whereisthedevblog
Recruit
I don't think hevay units should be jumping at all their weight shouldin't be making them go in their air.
Backpedaling is already slower than walking forwards in Warband. Backpedaling in singleplayer is problematic because the AI is dumb, and because AI athletics is fixed while player athletics can be increased. You can increase your movement speed to a point where the AI cannot catch up to you faster than you can kill them, but they never get any faster. It's not so bad in multiplayer, though people certainly complain about it. Mainly, I think they complain more because players are better at blocking which can make it feel like you're chasing them forever.CaptainLee said:
30-40kg? What is this, D&D? There isn't a steel hauberk around that's 40 pounds (~18kg), and you can forget 40 kilograms (88lbs). That's half of an average adult male's body weight. Hauberks typically weigh around 10 kilos, about 22 pounds. They vary based on a person's build, but there is no indication that men of the middle ages were taller or bulkier than men now (the opposite, actually, seems to be the case).Honved said:
OK, 30-40kg is way too much, but 10kg is the weight of a suit that lacks long sleeves and skirts, and is made of modern steel.Orion said:
I own a suit made of modern steel, that fits me well, and that is over 13kg. Long sleeves, relatively short skirts. But I am 5'5". I am sure that a pre-crucible steel suit for a tall Nordic guy would easily weight 15kg and maybe more. And there is no way in Hell you are wearing a full suit of chain without padding.
-------
By the way, I'm going to measure the chainmail suit, plus the belt, plus the pourpoint I wear for padding. I also cheat and tie the skirts of the maille suit to the pourpoint. I'll need a day or two to get the stuff, as it is in the attic, but I would be shocked if it ends under 15kg. And again, in my case, it's short guy, modern steel, and padding for comfort, and not protection.
You know what's sad? Three of the last four times I have been handling my gear was because of measuring stuff for Internet discussions. And the fourth was for Helloween, and I broke off the heel of my boots. Historically accurate gear has its drawbacks.
CaptainLee said:
Backpedal as a system in warband is by far the most retarded thing there is. It has 0 drawbacks and it's not right. I agree with that, a 40% speed penalty should happen when you backpedal, or after 1 second of backpedal. In multiplayer its extremely easy to abuse against players and it renders 2H swords with huge range, spammy awlpikes and spears to have virtually no drawbacks.
On a sidenote, uphill or downhill movement should NOT slow you down to walking mode. It's one of the most annoying things in warband.
Innocent Flower said:
What I've heard is that the helmet was actually the thickest armour.
Nope, although helmets fromnthe 90s and early 2000s look really thick, they are still made of kevlar which is much lighter than steel.
Limbs protection and helmets go up to what they class as IIIa, which is rated to stop .44 handguns at most, so in a warzone where they expect rifles it's mostly to protect the wearer from explosives. Its very good for what police can expect though (shotguns are bad against armour)
Military users put armour plates in their vest. These can be thick metal or light ceramics that break on function. III is enough for most, IV is for armour piercing rounds. I think a III vest could be thinner than some helmets, but the density
'Balistic' armour like kevlar is poor against knives, though im sure the steel plate would get up and laugh at you if you tried to go through one. Modern stab gear is hilariously bad with its own rating system. Modern Riot gear is terrible against bullets.
Limbs protection and helmets go up to what they class as IIIa, which is rated to stop .44 handguns at most, so in a warzone where they expect rifles it's mostly to protect the wearer from explosives. Its very good for what police can expect though (shotguns are bad against armour)
Military users put armour plates in their vest. These can be thick metal or light ceramics that break on function. III is enough for most, IV is for armour piercing rounds. I think a III vest could be thinner than some helmets, but the density
'Balistic' armour like kevlar is poor against knives, though im sure the steel plate would get up and laugh at you if you tried to go through one. Modern stab gear is hilariously bad with its own rating system. Modern Riot gear is terrible against bullets.
Orion said:
fair points, although cataphract armour was often up to 30kg in weight. Being a mounted warrior, this weight didn't really cause many issues.
I hope this has been mentioned, i quickly read through some pages but i might have missed something due to reading it so fast (aka badly).
When people say that movement speed is slower in heavy armor, i hope they realize that actually it is not. It just takes more stamina and sudden change of movements or recovery are slower, unless you use way more energy, but in that case it is likely to be less precise.
Is there stamina in Bannerlord? I hope so. Once stamina is gone, you still should be able to hit as quickly, but recovery/changing direction would take way, way, way longer, walking would be slower and doing things like mounting horses should be way slower, and archery should be almost impossible.
When people say that movement speed is slower in heavy armor, i hope they realize that actually it is not. It just takes more stamina and sudden change of movements or recovery are slower, unless you use way more energy, but in that case it is likely to be less precise.
Is there stamina in Bannerlord? I hope so. Once stamina is gone, you still should be able to hit as quickly, but recovery/changing direction would take way, way, way longer, walking would be slower and doing things like mounting horses should be way slower, and archery should be almost impossible.
Well... It depends how steep it is. Steep hill ofc does slow you down.578 said:
Also, one usually ignored thing is that shoes were actually far more slippery than today. Even as late as WW1 there were hobnailed boots. Which are great - until you find yourself on hard surface. And without them, it is surprising just how small changes in elevation can slow you down as you need to be careful to fall over.
Soldiers propably realized importance of hobnails though. We don't really have that many records about it so it is guesswork. But ofc there was way less hard surface back then, and you could always take your shoes off.
Ruler of Calradia said:
The problem with trying to simulate stamina in a video game is that the effects of immediate fatigue can be overcome by adrenaline or willpower or any number of things. The reason it feels silly to suddenly lose the ability to run when you're being chased by enemies is that it is silly. And what does it really add to the game, especially when battles are so short, maps are so small, and there's nothing to suggest the player or anyone else can rest anywhere?
The closest thing we could get to a believable stamina system would be one where you have to mash a button to perform actions once your stamina is out. You'd be inclined to do it to save your character but not just to get from A to B. And imagine how awkward that would be.
Ruler of Calradia said:
How many elevated hard surfaces were there in premodern times, though? Don't forget that lindybeige is just a larper who uses his modern experiences to judge history without much evidence. He's made some awful videos like this in the past where his conclusions are completely wrong because he doesn't do proper research.
I agree with the post above. Stamina in games like MB will only ruin the adrenaline rush. If we somehow ever need to make the combat slower, they could try and put a charging mechanic on the hit. War of the Vikings had both system. The stamina mechanic was total ****. The charging your swing mechanic worked well though and it created a great feeling when you hit opponents, even the shields.
Innocent Flower said:
I wasn't talking of modern helmets, I was talking solely about medieval helmets.
BIGGER Kentucky James XXL said:
I'm attacking his methodology in places where I know he's wrong. Regardless of what kind of person lindy is, the way he uses his individual personal experiences to draw sweeping conclusions is a terrible method.
[quote author=DanAngleland ]
I wasn't talking of modern helmets, I was talking solely about medieval helmets.
[/quote]
Torso area is thicker.
I wasn't talking of modern helmets, I was talking solely about medieval helmets.
[/quote]
Torso area is thicker.
BIGGER Kentucky James XXL said:
I agree, I used to really enjoy his videos, but the more I watched the more I realised he projects his own opinion on subjects. For example, I find he has very stereotypical British views of the Napoleonic wars.
Similar threads
