Armor Effectiveness and other combat related issues

[maxstill]

At first I was debating whether I should open a new thread or just post in the suggestion thread. I decided to go with the first choice, now before I get into the meat of things, let me make something clear, I am well aware that this is a game and balance issues also have to be taken into account and without any doubt, there will be some people who disagree with my opinions.
So before you dismiss anything, please at least provide logical arguments.
Now, to the subject at hand, I find it very weird that regular arrows cause damage to fully armored plate units, or lamellar armored units for that matter. While crossbows might have the strength to penetrate (notice I mentioned penetrate not kill, other layers underneath would render that arrow useless, even with all that power) , I doubt any type of bow could cause any damage to 14-15th century plate armor, yet in countless battles I see my fully plate armored halberdiers getting destroyed even by cheap archers, to make matters even worse they seem to damage even Pavisiers, and that just looks ridiculous, plate/lamellar armor pretty much makes you impervious to any type of arrows, a knight for example would be wearing: the steel plate full suit of armor (usually around 3 mm thick), followed by a mail shirt underneath, and to top it all of, a gambeson.
Call me ignorant or whatever, but logically speaking, there is nothing that will punch through that, you need gunpowder or bust. A mere shower of arrows would not decimate a fully armored cavalry unit and would most likely have 0 to no effect against properly armored infantry, yet in battles these steel clad warriors get decimated by 2 volleys of arrows. If the armor would be that ineffective, no knight or soldier would even bother wearing it in the first place, my suggestion would be to tweak either the armor or the damage missile units deal, this would also have a marked impact on battle length as well as increase the level of difficulty when fighting vs the A.I.
To be fair, swords, one handed axes and other cutting weapons would also do jack against a full suit of plate but Attila can not distinguish the difference in types of weapons which means that issue cannot be addressed, I was laughing my ass off when I saw a sync kill animation of one MAA stabbing one of my plate armored dudes with a sword, through the chestplate, now either that blade is magic, or the guy was bionic.
Consider this more of a friendly debate thread and state your opinion on this matter, do you think armor should be as effective in the mod as it was historically?

[Slytacular]

In the next update, weapons and armour are getting a total overhaul. Hold in your breath until after you witness the game balance on the next big release. Attila Total War is a typical arcade style game using Roman-ish combat animations from Rome 2 rehashed for an Early Medieval game, and we don't want to put in the effort to create some 1000 worth of animations to make Medieval Warfare seem authentic because we already spent the last 4 years making just the units and their appearance. Tier 3 units depending on their amount of armour will be able to deflect projectiles almost entirely from the front minus gunpowder weapons.

[Teutonic]

In the next update, weapons and armour are getting a total overhaul. Hold in your breath until after you witness the game balance on the next big release. Attila Total War is a typical arcade style game using Roman-ish combat animations from Rome 2 rehashed for an Early Medieval game, and we don't want to put in the effort to create some 1000 worth of animations to make Medieval Warfare seem authentic because we already spent the last 4 years making just the units and their appearance. Tier 3 units depending on their amount of armour will be able to deflect projectiles almost entirely from the front minus gunpowder weapons.

This sounds great! What maxstill said has always been bugging me too so to see it fixed will hugely imrove my own enjoyment and immersion. Thank you all for your work!

[TheJackinati275]

In the next update, weapons and armour are getting a total overhaul. Hold in your breath until after you witness the game balance on the next big release. Attila Total War is a typical arcade style game using Roman-ish combat animations from Rome 2 rehashed for an Early Medieval game, and we don't want to put in the effort to create some 1000 worth of animations to make Medieval Warfare seem authentic because we already spent the last 4 years making just the units and their appearance. Tier 3 units depending on their amount of armour will be able to deflect projectiles almost entirely from the front minus gunpowder weapons.

That sounds awesome.

I have to admit, my largest worry in this mod was on how the combat would work, and having my plate-armoured knights getting killed by longbowmen at the very extent of their range always managed to piss me off when I played the mod. It wouldn't be so infuriating if Longbowmen or crossbowmen where killing plate-armoured guys from a distance of 20-30 meters, because the potential is there at that distance, but from over a hundred meters, what are these guys, superman!?

So, do you think the combat and armour system will be overhauled similar to Ancient Empire's attempts, or is it more rebalancing?

I should also give a shout out to the team working on this mod. Thank you guys for putting in all the effort to deliver something totally awesome. AE and MKTW are the two mods that I am hoping to play once they come out, and I cannot wait to play your mod when it is finished. Take heart that this will likely be one of the best Attila mods to ever come out. Ever.

[maxstill]

In the next update, weapons and armour are getting a total overhaul. Hold in your breath until after you witness the game balance on the next big release. Attila Total War is a typical arcade style game using Roman-ish combat animations from Rome 2 rehashed for an Early Medieval game, and we don't want to put in the effort to create some 1000 worth of animations to make Medieval Warfare seem authentic because we already spent the last 4 years making just the units and their appearance. Tier 3 units depending on their amount of armour will be able to deflect projectiles almost entirely from the front minus gunpowder weapons.

I am sorry if I had not made myself clear enough, I was not suggesting that you should make animations or anything of that sort, I know this is a bit beyond the capacity of modders, the game is fine as is, I just wanted to know how others feel about the issue at hand, the roman-ish combat is fine, except for halberds, most weapons present in medieval times were also present in late antiquity, I was just well, cracking a joke at the Attila animations, I'm pretty sure a sword can't punch through any armor, both lorica hamata and lorica segmentata would stop a sword easily.
What I had in mind for the thread was sort like a research thread, where we could debate how armor functioned and how effective the players think it should be, whether it gets implemented into the mod or not, so just a discussion. This is not meant to be a "add this" or "do that" thread, you guys do your thing, because so far, it's awesome and I'm loving every single second of playing your mod.
@TheJackinati275, I could not agree more, though if the knight ever got to 20-30m range, it's quite likely that you would be quite dead as an archer.
Also as a quick mention, even early type units should still be able to stop most arrows, because they had shields. I tried looking into some actual accounts of arrows going through shields, without any doubt some could go through, however, they would lack the kinetic energy to effectively kill after they had gone through, and most would get stuck in the shield itself, now taking into account how large and thick the pavise is, even if you fired the arrow at point blank range, it would most likely do absolutely nothing to the pavise, at best it would lodge in the thick wood.

[zoner16]

Also as a quick mention, even early type units should still be able to stop most arrows, because they had shields. I tried looking into some actual accounts of arrows going through shields, without any doubt some could go through, however, they would lack the kinetic energy to effectively kill after they had gone through, and most would get stuck in the shield itself, now taking into account how large and thick the pavise is, even if you fired the arrow at point blank range, it would most likely do absolutely nothing to the pavise, at best it would lodge in the thick wood.

From what I understand of the combat engine, failing a missile block isn't modeling the shield getting penetrated, but rather the missile going around the shield.

[You_Guess_Who]

In the next release we still need input from the players to further fine-tune the stats. Most of the time balancing work involves many, many tests to figure out the best values we should assign.

On the effectiveness of missile, let me expose some of the underlying calculation for determining the damage inflicted, to give you all the idea how the game works.

Let's say a crossbowmen let loose a 50DMG bolt, consisting of 40 normal damage + 10 AP damage against a man-at-arms with 50 Missile Deflect Chance shield and 50 armour.
If the projectile hit the MAA's battle_entity hitbox, then the game shall roll against the shield's chance to deflect value. This is a percentage, 50 means 50% possibility to render a projectile to be null and void. Note that shield missile deflection only works for projectile hit from the front and left of the entity, and won't do anything against hit from behind and right flank. It also cannot deflect artillery nor splash damage. It can block shrapnel, but not shockwave.
If it passes against the shield missile deflection, then the game calculates against the armour. The bolt has 10 AP damage, meaning 10 damage will always bypass the armour, no matter what. On the 40 normal damage, it shall be deducted by 50% of the armour value, which is in this case 25. This leaves it with 15 normal damage, which the game shall roll RNG from 0 to whatever the remaining value. It can be total failure to apply normal damage, fully apply 15 damage, or any value in between. Note that armour can mitigate splash damage.

So in short, that bolt has 50% chance to inflict 10-25 DMG against the man-at-arms from the front. Assuming it hits, of course.

[maxstill]

In the next release we still need input from the players to further fine-tune the stats. Most of the time balancing work involves many, many tests to figure out the best values we should assign.

On the effectiveness of missile, let me expose some of the underlying calculation for determining the damage inflicted, to give you all the idea how the game works.

Let's say a crossbowmen let loose a 50DMG bolt, consisting of 40 normal damage + 10 AP damage against a man-at-arms with 50 Missile Deflect Chance shield and 50 armour.
If the projectile hit the MAA's battle_entity hitbox, then the game shall roll against the shield's chance to deflect value. This is a percentage, 50 means 50% possibility to render a projectile to be null and void. Note that shield missile deflection only works for projectile hit from the front and left of the entity, and won't do anything against hit from behind and right flank. It also cannot deflect artillery nor splash damage. It can block shrapnel, but not shockwave.
If it passes against the shield missile deflection, then the game calculates against the armour. The bolt has 10 AP damage, meaning 10 damage will always bypass the armour, no matter what. On the 40 normal damage, it shall be deducted by 50% of the armour value, which is in this case 25. This leaves it with 15 normal damage, which the game shall roll RNG from 0 to whatever the remaining value. It can be total failure to apply normal damage, fully apply 15 damage, or any value in between. Note that armour can mitigate splash damage.

So in short, that bolt has 50% chance to inflict 10-25 DMG against the man-at-arms from the front. Assuming it hits, of course.

This is a great post, breakdown of stats gives us a better impression of how missile damage works, they used the same system for Warhammer too, of course as soon as the new update hits, everyone will be able to check it out.
Also, what do you guys think, should lamellar armor match the resilience of plate?
I get the feeling that both of them are pretty much just as effective, despite the difference in design, that would give an edge to the Byzantine successor factions in terms of units, I feel that would be accurate, Cataphracts were quite superior to the early mail armor wearing knights and in fact I'd say they were pretty much the inspiration for western Europe.

[zsimmortal]

Also, what do you guys think, should lamellar armor match the resilience of plate?
I get the feeling that both of them are pretty much just as effective, despite the difference in design, that would give an edge to the Byzantine successor factions in terms of units, I feel that would be accurate, Cataphracts were quite superior to the early mail armor wearing knights and in fact I'd say they were pretty much the inspiration for western Europe.

Lamellar is definitely not as resilient as plate armour. I have seen videos of lamellar turning back a crossbow bolt, but at a great toll to the cuirass' integrity. Backed with additional armour like mail and gambesons, it makes for a formidable defense, but not quite on the level of a full set of plate armour, or even other contemporary armours like brigandines. Even mail (in a triumphant return) and more advanced mail constructs (the various plate and mail corselets) replaced the full coats of lamellar armour in the 15th century, though not completely.

[Ltd.]

Yeah, with plate armour you are far less likely to get pierced by an arrow or bolt due to the armour´s deflective , rounded surface. Ideally arrows and bolts should bounce off. While good lamellar definitely is hard nut to crack , especially with mail and / or padded backing, it simply does not have the characteristics of plate armour.
Cataphracts may have had additional layers of armour compared to western knights, they however used different tactics as well (at least a while) . For western / frankish knights it was their charge that made them potentially unstoppable, whereas cataphracts would normally be using bows and mainly close quarter fights (not exclusively ofc).
Also the quality of maille, the thickness, perhaps even two layers of maille ( though I am not sure if this really was the case) for frankish knigths could be a factor.
In gameplay terms we could have something like frankish knights having far better charge while cataphracts could have better armour values and be slower ( horses would carry also more weight with their own lamellar armour )

[maxstill]

Yeah, with plate armour you are far less likely to get pierced by an arrow or bolt due to the armour´s deflective , rounded surface. Ideally arrows and bolts should bounce off. While good lamellar definitely is hard nut to crack , especially with mail and / or padded backing, it simply does not have the characteristics of plate armour.
Cataphracts may have had additional layers of armour compared to western knights, they however used different tactics as well (at least a while) . For western / frankish knights it was their charge that made them potentially unstoppable, whereas cataphracts would normally be using bows and mainly close quarter fights (not exclusively ofc).
Also the quality of maille, the thickness, perhaps even two layers of maille ( though I am not sure if this really was the case) for frankish knigths could be a factor.
In gameplay terms we could have something like frankish knights having far better charge while cataphracts could have better armour values and be slower ( horses would carry also more weight with their own lamellar armour )

I had the exact same thought, my apologies for not mentioning that I was referring to mostly early plate, which is more , well, the term would be half-plate, since that's what we have in the early 14th century, as for the cataphracts, that seems very accurate, they were slower, that fact is even mentioned by some chronicles that depict certain battles between the Latin Empire and the surviving greek successor states. It was indeed the fact that they had bows , which gave them an advantage over the early frankish knights, shock cavalry was a lot less effective vs the remnants of the Komnenian army. That, coupled with better armor and discipline, made short work of them on the battlefield. I was thinking that the early knights should also have a bit less morale, to showcase the fact that they were not as disciplined, and tended to be rather rowdy, there are several accounts of them charging without orders, pursuing the enemy and breaking formation or refusing to retreat even when the odds were clearly against them.
Though my statement still stands, early, mid, late no matter what period, armor was effective and most especially against arrows, since that would have been the primary concern of any knight wearing one, as for the cataphract, no one really knows how exactly they were equipped, so many different sources, I tend to believe that they were a mix, some might have worn layers, such as gambeson, mail shirt, layer of lamellar cuirass, some others seems to be wearing leather under the lamellar, losing the mail shirt altogether, or even the famous depictions of them wearing a "epilorikion", sort of a padded shirt. Not all of them seem to exhibit the same equipment, in fact, I've noticed some versions just with the mail, and no lamellar cuirass. My guess is that most of them would equip themselves with whatever they saw fit, and with the loss of the more superior form of centralized military that the Komnenoi had, I think most of them would have had to purchase their own equipment. As such, after the loss of Constantinople, their numbers severely decreased, that simply shows that they were far too expensive to equip, hence why the later depictions show them as more of a mix in terms of equipment.
Gibbon mentions them in his work too, he suggests the same thing, that their equipment had become more sparse, and some of them tended to mimic the western knights, now whether he is referring to their tactics or their equipment is unknown, maybe both might be the case. I think the Greek successor states did not posses any organized regiments of cataphracts, like the preceding Empire, but rather just regiments of heavy cavalry jumbled together out of what was left.

[lion8000]

In terms of the effectiveness of plate armor vs longbows in those videos dr. Tobias Capwell- curator of the Wallace Collection explains it very well. In part 2 around 7:00 he shows a historically accurate breastplate, equivalent to the ones used by the French knights during the period of the battle of Agincourt, that was tested against a heavy bow:

Part 1 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ukvlZcxNAVY

Part 2 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yewwhjUYEPQ

[maxstill]

I have something even better, an actual longbow, well, a bit stronger than a longbow in this video, and this is an actual test , with real arrows, filmed live.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej3qjUzUzQg
Now as the video intended to show, the arrow did absolutely nothing to the plate armor, not even a scratch.
This one is even better, crossbows, and not just the regular ones, monstrous sized ones, a bit anachronistic too since those crossbows were used a lot later compared to that specific breastplate, notice the distance he is shooting from as well, it's ridiculous, since as we can see, neither of them do much to the breastplate. The heavy crossbow he uses has almost around 1000lbs draw weight, which would make it roughly around 10 times stronger than a longbow, as a result, anyone trying to penetrate plate with a mere bow and arrow would make me laugh.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMT6hjwY8NQ

@lion8000, I think the whole longbow beating plate armor is a magic english myth, mostly due to propaganda and a slight touch of nationalism, if that thing would be the machine gun they make it seem, there would be no purpose for the crossbow to even exist. In fact, I doubt that even that tiny hole in that video is genuine, since they aren't showing the tests, just the after effects, I find it hard to believe that damage was caused by a longbow, further more, the chestplate they present seems rather thin as well.

[zoner16]

I have something even better, an actual longbow, well, a bit stronger than a longbow in this video, and this is an actual test , with real arrows, filmed live.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej3qjUzUzQg
Now as the video intended to show, the arrow did absolutely nothing to the plate armor, not even a scratch.
This one is even better, crossbows, and not just the regular ones, monstrous sized ones, a bit anachronistic too since those crossbows were used a lot later compared to that specific breastplate, notice the distance he is shooting from as well, it's ridiculous, since as we can see, neither of them do much to the breastplate. The heavy crossbow he uses has almost around 1000lbs draw weight, which would make it roughly around 10 times stronger than a longbow, as a result, anyone trying to penetrate plate with a mere bow and arrow would make me laugh.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMT6hjwY8NQ

@lion8000, I think the whole longbow beating plate armor is a magic english myth, mostly due to propaganda and a slight touch of nationalism, if that thing would be the machine gun they make it seem, there would be no purpose for the crossbow to even exist. In fact, I doubt that even that tiny hole in that video is genuine, since they aren't showing the tests, just the after effects, I find it hard to believe that damage was caused by a longbow, further more, the chestplate they present seems rather thin as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk

Here's a link to a live demo from the guy that lion linked to. The 140mph that the replica arrow was going at seems pretty generous. Recreations I've seen tend to peak out at about 110mph.

Obviously, the construction of the armor itself is one of those things that has a huge impact. Not all armor on the battlefield is of the same quality, and some armor shapes are better for deflecting arrows than others (but may have other drawbacks). Most contemporary military historians and scientists are pretty dismissive of the claim that the longbow could penetrate a quality steel breastplate with any sort of consistency. It's important to remember that the principal virtue of the longbow wasn't to penetrate a steel breastplate, but to take out horses and penetrate unarmored or weakly armored segments of the suit.

Regarding crossbows, even if the longbow was capable of doing what it was claimed to have done, a crossbow still requires much less training and conditioning to use than a longbow. The crossbow's survival as a standard weapon was not in any danger from any success of the longbow.