Armor vs Melee/Ranged

[UsF]

In the videos, I noticed that it was possible for armor to absorb everything in a melee strike.

I was wondering if this is possible for ranged weapons too and how this will work. Will arrows and bolts be able to be completely blocked by plate armor and only inflict damage to exposed areas of the body, like non visored faces, back of the knee and similar stuff or will it just absorb a part of the damage and still get through?
Normally arrows and crossbow bolts should have not enough penetration power to punch through plate armor.

Also will ranged weapons and melee weapons stagger the opponent? If yes, will it happen at a certain amount of damage vs total player health, will it happen always/never, at a specific damage threshold or will it be a different system?

Last but not least, will the player be able to customize different layers of armor, being able to choose mail under plate to cover those exposed tight spots vs melee or rather choose padded cloth to be better protected against archery in those areas?

[Siegbert85]

Normally arrows and crossbow bolts should have not enough penetration power to punch through plate armor.

I watched a documentary about English long bows. They were actually strong enough to pierce a knight wearing armor completely. Not sure about normal bows though... Crossbows are said to be pretty strong, too.

[UsF]

Do you mean this documentary? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk

Maybe that is where material quality would come into play for the armor you select to have (ingame and in real life), as with lower quality, the chances for a penetration increase. The one they used in the video above seems to be top notch quality. Although it was also shown in other videos that the smithing skill of old somewhat suprassed metal quality of what is being able to be replicated, too.

[Zulhar65]

I cant rember which battle account it was (End of 15th cent), But long bows were fired at point blank range (15 meter) in to fully Armour man and horse that the arrows were said to have bounced off them. High carbon steel Armour offered significant protection from arrows. Of course all steel is not created equal. We fired a musket from 50 yards at my 2 mm breast plate and it did not penetrate

[Baynard]

Plate armour is stronger than I thought it was, it seemed to penetrate that armour, but not actually damage the cloth underneath. Darn I'd hate to be an archer seeing my arrows doing nothing against an oncoming tin can.

[ElricVonRabe]

Plate armour is stronger than I thought it was, it seemed to penetrate that armour, but not actually damage the cloth underneath. Darn I'd hate to be an archer seeing my arrows doing nothing against an oncoming tin can.

Plate armour is stronger than most people think, it's a common mistake. As you saw in the video, even full-force bodkin arrows didn't even harm the person wearing the high-quality harness. Of course, there was a small hole and a big dent, but the important thing is that it didn't take you out of the fight at all.

And imagine the psychological effect on the archers when 100 armoured knights with hundreds of arrows sticking in their armour just kept charging at them...

If you want to make sure to harm someone in quality plate armour from a distance, get a good crossbow or a musket.

Or a ballista or catapult. But that'll be overkill, and hard to actually hit the person.

[UsF]

The thing is that even most crossbows were not stronger than arrows. Yes you would need one with a handcrank and then you might have enough force to punch through, but crossbows were mostly made available to have untrained troops be able to deliver ranged fire as well. Unlike bows, crossbows could be operated by pretty much everyone, once you learned how to use the mechanical device. Bows on the other hand needed long training and you would be devoted to that weapon.

[ElricVonRabe]

The thing is that even most crossbows were not stronger than arrows. Yes you would need one with a handcrank and then you might have enough force to punch through, but crossbows were mostly made available to have untrained troops be able to deliver ranged fire as well. Unlike bows, crossbows could be operated by pretty much everyone, once you learned how to use the mechanical device. Bows on the other hand needed long training and you would be devoted to that weapon.

While one of the greatest upsides of the crossbow was indeed the fact that it was very easy to teach someone how to shoot it, it's penetration power (if it was loaded with a handcrank, correct, but in the period of WoTR, those were the most widely used anyway) was far higher than that of bow. While the range was actually not as long, the kinetic energy/speed with which the bolt was discharged was alot higher than a bows.

There was a reason for why the pope tried to ban it - because an untrained man could suddenly use a decent ranged weapon, AND because it could take down a knight - militia killing knights, whose training was very costly in both money and time, was something the pope had to try to stop.

[UsF]

Yes that is correct, with the handcrank crossbows, you had the power to put that little steel bolt where it counts. I wasn't sure what kind of crossbows we would get (although from the crank load minigame maybe I couldve figured it out).

[BrotherDoma]

*5 days finally up*

The English primarily deployed Longbows, far more powerful than normal bows and a direct counter to heavily armoured knights, most famously seen at the Battle of Azincourt. The French learned the hard way that even the best armour offers mediocre protection against English archers. So, although that was about 50 years before the War of the Roses and the standard of armour is likely better, I'd expect them in particular to pretty effective against plate.

But yeah normal bows I'd think would be pretty lack-lustre against plate.

[ElricVonRabe]

*5 days finally up*

The English primarily deployed Longbows, far more powerful than normal bows and a direct counter to heavily armoured knights, most famously seen at the Battle of Azincourt. The French learned the hard way that even the best armour offers mediocre protection against English archers. So, although that was about 50 years before the War of the Roses and the standard of armour is likely better, I'd expect them in particular to pretty effective against plate.

Just no.

Do you have any proof to back that up?

[Comrade Chaos]

Do you mean this documentary? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk

Maybe that is where material quality would come into play for the armor you select to have (ingame and in real life), as with lower quality, the chances for a penetration increase. The one they used in the video above seems to be top notch quality. Although it was also shown in other videos that the smithing skill of old somewhat suprassed metal quality of what is being able to be replicated, too.

Not to mention that getting a perfect angle on a body is near impossible.

[ElricVonRabe]

Not to mention that getting a perfect angle on a body is near impossible.

Another important argument in favour of plate armour vs arrows.

Some more tests from various people:

http://www.isegoria.net/2011/08/longbow-vs-armor/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCE40...eature=related

(I don't have to link that already linked documentary again, right?)

None of these would have actually injured the wearer of the armour.
While plate armour has some weak spots, if you don't hit those, no bow, no matter what arrow, is going to do it, not if it's quality plate armour. And if you hit those, well it's hard to hit critical spots when a target is moving and shifting all the time, but if you STILL hit, well - that's called a critical hit, isn't it?

[BrotherDoma]

Just no.

Do you have any proof to back that up?

Other than having studied the aforementioned battle extensively? No. Henry V knew what he was doing when he invaded France, where his army consisted mainly of longbowmen *about 3/4 if I remember rightly* and cut down a huge number of heavily armoured French infantry, until they ran out of arrows. But it is widely accepted that longbows were an efficient weapon against armoured targets, I could trawl the internet for references but I don't have the time.

If the armour was well-made, as available to the gentry, it could generally stop a long-bow shot but the vast majority of armoured troops had fairly average armour.

*edit*

Perhaps I over-stated it a bit, if the player has access to the finest armour available at the time long-bows might not be as efficient a weapon against armour as they would generally have been in your average battle, where plate was not always to a high-quality.

[ElricVonRabe]

Other than having studied the aforementioned battle extensively? No. Henry V knew what he was doing when he invaded France, where his army consisted mainly of longbowmen *about 3/4 if I remember rightly* and cut down a huge number of heavily armoured French infantry to ribbons, until they ran out of arrows. But it is widely accepted that longbows were an efficient weapon against armoured targets, I could trawl the internet for references but I don't have the time.

If the armour was well-made, as available to the gentry, it could generally stop a long-bow shot but the vast majority of armoured troops had fairly average armour.

*edit*

Perhaps I over-stated it a bit, if the player has access to the finest armour available at the time long-bows might not be as efficient a weapon against armour as they would generally have been in your average battle, where plate was not always to a high-quality.

History always gets written by the victor - wasn't Agincourt won by the English more because of the MUD the french knights were in knee-deep ? Now if a horde of heavy, armoured people are barely able to keep on their feet, and get shot at all the while, of course the English Longbowmen would have enough shots to eventually hit alot of critical spots.

And to me, it seems more like nothing is "widely accepted" concerning the story of the longbow vs. plate armour. There are way too many controverse articles, opinions and tests about it. Fact is, there are alot of tests where the arrows didn't injure the target, and I'd rather believe those.

Besides, War of the Roses was a very gruesome war fought between ruling houses (and all the guys caught within) - the gentry and well armed mercenaries actually made a good amount of the troops, so there were significantly more people wearing very well made armour than in the usual armies, not to forget that the quality of plate armour was at it's absolute top at that time.

Of course the common rabble is going to get slaughtered by formation of archers - but the nobles wouldn't.

And with the argument about plate not being high quality at the average - the same goes for ANY equipment. ARROWS, for example. The average arrow wouldn't be as high quality either.

[BrotherDoma]

Yeah the mud was one of the key reasons the French troops fared so poorly, but a large amount of them were reported slain by longbowmen in the opening of the battle, so they must have been at least moderately effective against armour. Also, "history is written by the victors" is not really true, the French remember it as well as the English.

As far as the game goes, it would be hard to reflect in a battle of 32v32 the power of longbowmen. In a real battle, such as Agincourt, the 5000 English archers were estimated to be able to shoot 75000 arrows at the enemy in one minute (granted that is according to historical writer Bernard Cornwell, but I expect he's done more research into it than either you or I) Imagine that, pretty nasty to any army I would imagine.

Irregardless, my point was long-bows were significantly more powerful than ordinary bows and I'd like to see this reproduced in the game. I'd rather not get drawn into a prolonged argument.

[ElricVonRabe]

Irregardless, my point was long-bows were significantly more powerful than ordinary bows and I'd like to see this reproduced in the game. I'd rather not get drawn into a prolonged argument.

Irregardless, my point was that high quality plate armour was almost immune to arrows (and prevented serious injuries if penetrated), bar the weak spots, and I'd like to see this reproduced in the game.
If our two points don't collide, I'm fine.

[Kator Viridian]

Yeah the mud was one of the key reasons the French troops fared so poorly, but a large amount of them were reported slain by longbowmen in the opening of the battle, so they must have been at least moderately effective against armour. Also, "history is written by the victors" is not really true, the French remember it as well as the English.

As far as the game goes, it would be hard to reflect in a battle of 32v32 the power of longbowmen. In a real battle, such as Agincourt, the 5000 English archers were estimated to be able to shoot 75000 arrows at the enemy in one minute (granted that is according to historical writer Bernard Cornwell, but I expect he's done more research into it than either you or I) Imagine that, pretty nasty to any army I would imagine.

Irregardless, my point was long-bows were significantly more powerful than ordinary bows and I'd like to see this reproduced in the game. I'd rather not get drawn into a prolonged argument.

"Ordinary bows" ... the longbow was the standard in England anyway, the bows used in France were pretty similar, that and during the time crossbow mercenaries were being bought and brought over from Genoa. I'd also like to point you to this battle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Verneuil ... the battle of Verneuil where Lombardian plated Italian mercenaries ride right the through the English line after being pelted with arrows ... why? Due to the previous video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk

Now archers are useful for slowing down the enemy and weakening them before they get to your lines, NOT as a way to combat armour, there are plenty more useful and better weapons to do that, the volume of arrows and projectiles in the air and hitting your opponent is what makes the bow so formidable ... not what it can and can't penetrate ... because if those cavalry at Verneuil had come back instead of going to a baggage train ... the English army would of been wiped out without a scratch to the french.

Please note Agincourt only took place before this battle by a mear 10 years ... thats not much time at all. Please also note with Agincourt that the french made it past the line of English Archers right into the baggage train ... much like Verneuil ... the English archer and bow is not as powerful as you think it is, its a weapon just like any other. With agincourt the mud posed no problem to the rider of the horse ... as demonstrated here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMuNXWFPewg , the problem was with the horse, it slows down a bit, and if the mud is that bad then obviously infantry would have the same problem as slipping and sliding around, the English probably also had this problem but had the advantage of being static, which means they didn't need to move anyway.

Agincourt is always bigged up as a major victory ... but in just over 10 years the french counter attack again at Verneuil ... Agincourt was not really a major victory as historians think because otherwise the French would still be ruled by the English, it was a victory out of many losses, and after Henry V everything went downhill.

[ElricVonRabe]

"Ordinary bows" ... the longbow was the standard in England anyway, the bows used in France were pretty similar, that and during the time crossbow mercenaries were being bought and brought over from Genoa. I'd also like to point you to this battle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Verneuil ... the battle of Verneuil where Lombardian plated Italian mercenaries ride right the through the English line after being pelted with arrows ... why? Due to the previous video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk

Now archers are useful for slowing down the enemy and weakening them before they get to your lines, NOT as a way to combat armour, there are plenty more useful and better weapons to do that, the volume of arrows and projectiles in the air and hitting your opponent is what makes the bow so formidable ... not what it can and can't penetrate ... because if those cavalry at Verneuil had come back instead of going to a baggage train ... the English army would of been wiped out without a scratch to the french.

Please note Agincourt only took place before this battle by a mear 10 years ... thats not much time at all. Please also note with Agincourt that the french made it past the line of English Archers right into the baggage train ... much like Verneuil ... the English archer and bow is not as powerful as you think it is, its a weapon just like any other. With agincourt the mud posed no problem to the rider of the horse ... as demonstrated here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMuNXWFPewg , the problem was with the horse, it slows down a bit, and if the mud is that bad then obviously infantry would have the same problem as slipping and sliding around, the English probably also had this problem but had the advantage of being static, which means they didn't need to move anyway.

Agincourt is always bigged up as a major victory ... but in just over 10 years the french counter attack again at Verneuil ... Agincourt was not really a major victory as historians think because otherwise the French would still be ruled by the English, it was a victory out of many losses, and after Henry V everything went downhill.

Thank you, thank you so much.
I couldn't have said it better myself, and was too lazy doing so.

[BrotherDoma]

Irregardless, my point was that high quality plate armour was almost immune to arrows (and prevented serious injuries if penetrated), bar the weak spots, and I'd like to see this reproduced in the game.
If our two points don't collide, I'm fine.

Good, it was a pretty pointless argument anyway, alot more hostile than it ought to have been as well unless I'm being paranoid in my reading.

And Agincourt was bigged up not because of it's significance but because it was a pretty unlikely victory. Can we get back on topic?