安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
该主题的作者已标记一个回帖作为问题的解答。
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
I think a simple solution would be to just increase the amount of armour points equipment gives across the board, but make it so weapons always do at least 10%, maybe 20%, of their max damage as armour ignoring damage. Blunt could ignore 30% of armour or something.
Alternatively, armour could be increased in general, and now weapon damage kinda works like it does in Total War: Warhammer, where units do damage effected by armour and damage that completely ignores armour. So a regular sword could do, say, 50 regular damage, 10 AP damage. A mace, on the other hand, could do 30 regular damage, but have 25 AP damage or something. Not those exact numbers because I don't know how well it'd pan out, but you get the idea.
Consider this a must-have. I'll never say it enough, vanilla armour is armour in name only, might as well be grey paint on your naked skin.
"Archers are perfectly balanced, according to archer players" "Armour is not a problem when you play on easy"
- Arrows are a lot more deadly than most fiction and games may lead you to believe. A direct hit can easily end your day, thanks to a sharp object entering you at 150-300 mph. Charging/riding directly into a direct hit compounds this for a relative 165-315 mph.
- This game does not account for different arrow types (some could pierce metal armor but not leather, and vice versa) and so all arrows need to work against all armor types right now.
- The game engine uses a physics simulation to determine damage, with the weapon stats as a baseline or multiplier. So charging at arrows and getting hit in the arm is worse than running away and getting hit in the torso (which often has better armor rating).
- The game seems to be designed to have just a few solid hits take down most soldiers unless they have the tier 5+ armor sets. If you're going to play on full realistic in melee, you need to learn blocking and dodging until you get the best armor. Realistic mode is not meant to be a hack-and-slash hero game like Dynasty Warriors.
- Blunt weapons are meant to crush heavy armor, which is why maces and hammers became battlefield weapons once plate armor became more common. Only a charging lance could deliver the same kind of force to heavy armor.
- Related to the above, it seems that the developers have decided to give all blunt weapons armor-piercing rather than code in which types of armor are cloth/mail/plate. This leads to blunt weapons being more useful than they should be, but would require heavily changing the way armor works to implement more properly.
Ultimately, the short version is "realism and game balance are not friends". Archers and cavalry are just as damn scary in this game as in many real combat scenarios, while also being glass cannons in situations that work against them (such as tight spaces and lots of melee near them). This works heavily against infantry, whose main real-world tool was standing in formation and absorbing charges with shields and spears... something the AI is not great at right now. As far as I can see, any concession to one side is going to look like a betrayal to the other side, since it would be difficult to balance the different unit types without taking liberties with how things work in our world (as has already been done with arrow types and armor).
As for the original thread question, I've never felt like heavy armor was a waste of money. Mobility is the biggest defense against archers, so being lightly armored or on horseback is the best way to deal with archers... just like in real life. When those are not possible, shields are essential for a charge against archers. (Just make sure to get a big one or to block upward.) If you're charging archers with a two-handed weapon, no amount of armor is going to fix the numerous tactical mistakes you're making.
When it comes to getting hit, I have to echo someone else who pointed out that hit location matters. If you turned off the combat logs, turn them back on and check out where you're getting hit when you take a lot of damage. It's almost certainly going to be a spot where you have little armor. (For instance, most of my sword strikes on plate-wearing arena opponents do 1-2 damage unless I hit the weak locations for 8-9 damage.) Also remember that you're getting hit at around 200 mph for most bow types, which works against you in the damage calculations. (And I doubt that number drops over distance, since that would be even more calculations for the computer to run every time an arrow is fired.)
Now armor cost, that's a whole other matter. Sometimes, it feels like it can take most of the road toward the "endgame" where you have too much money to spend to actually buy armor. Early on, you can spend thousands of denars for a +2 or +3...
Edit: Did some surface-level research on arrows and armor to refresh my memory on things, and so here's some follow-up commentary:
- Real-world crossbows and longbows could pierce most plate armor from close range, but the padded cloth (about 1-2 inches thick) underneath would prevent injury. However, this level of armor could only be afforded by the richest in an army and wasn't a common level of armor until the late 14th century.
- To show this in the game, armor could be implemented as a scale rather than a direct subtraction value. Perhaps instead of [damage - armor], it could be [(damage - armor) * (100-armor)/100].
- It should be noted that this will HEAVILY skew the game balance to dramatically favor heavy cavalry, as they will need to be taken down with head/neck shots but have the mobility to avoid such shots. With so many people already saying that cavalry are overpowered, this might be something to be careful with.
So, it seems that waaaaaaay too many people are basing their ideas of a fight on Hollywood and fantasy chaotic melee with armour as effective as wet cardboard. So let's set things straight:
A knight will gut you a hundred times out of a hundred fights, period. "Weak spots" are not weak, they're the least resistant part of suits that make you almost invulnerable to most stuff. Here's various video links to see why metal is, surprinsingly, not decorative:
-Armour is not "cumbersome" nor "heavy", at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzTwBQniLSc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGl_UXc9HIE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8-eeJUcO5M
-Secondly, there's a reason why nobles paid FORTUNES to get them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlI8dqfM6Ys
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMT6hjwY8NQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vYFFx4whoE&t=679s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO2nM_2iBXA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBxdTkddHaE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l47Idc7anG4
And now, you will tell me "but not all high tier units wear plate or lamellar" which i will respond by: ALL armour types are grossly underestimated, mail, and even gambesons are WAY more resilient than what is portrayed in media.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtJS1MziI98
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODS7ksbBRuE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5R3EBWBgbk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uoz0eggQen8
Finally. we are talking about literal hoboes against organised veteran troops in what we should assume an actual formation. Do you want to know how often peasant revolts happened all through history? Just the map of the kingdom of France through the medieval period is red due to the amount of dots.
Actual soldiers regularly steamrolled underequipped meatbags without organisation, most of the time with drastically lower numbers and no casualties to speak of.
Conclusion? No, the "rogue dual wielding katana-dagger-lightspeed cutting tanks in half" is not a real thing, no you are not the only one knowing about "weak" parts, the guy wearing his equipment everyday knows it's limits better than you ever will, and will act accordingly, meaning you're screwed.
There's a reason why everyone in history wanted protection, there's a reason why everyone in history wanted the most reach available, there's a reason why casualties of the actual fight rarely go over 15% of the total deaths, it's the route that kills, morale and exhaustion are the principal factor when everyone try to not die above all else.
They went for the 1200s technology. Check out some of Skallagrim videos where he test them out. Thegn Thrand is also a great one. For how expensive it was way back in the day or other historical settings, check out Metatron, he's a real historian. None of these guys are pretentious know-it-all, they're actually quite modest and always encourage discussions about any topics. At the end of the day you can always agree to disagree. Now, imho, the armors themselves were very good against slashing and cutting. Piercing, meh, to an extent, but not nearly as impervious as late 15th century plate armor. It was blunt damage that was a major problem, maces could really mess you up. Hope it helps. The Emperor Protects.
this. nice post,
looks like some people want to play dynasty warriors lol(or be a god/cheat mode), u cant please everyone.
at the end of the day, its a game, not a harcore simulator, all weapons needs to be useful, whats the fun in playing as an archer and doesnt doing any dmg? i hated that on warband, i like to play hibrid builds
Archers should do damage, but armor should also BE ARMOR.
The solution is already in the game, its called crossbows. Currently they are not worth using because archers turn you into legolas of the 360 no scope realm, killing people clean thru even the best armor in the game no problem.
If armor worked properly there would be a more healthy balance. Archers would still shred low armored units and crossbows would counter the heavy infantry.
As it currently stands, crossbows are dead content because sense bows negate armor and to comparable damage, it comes down to fire rate. Something crossbows cant even come close to.
Buffing armor would add real dynamic back to wep and troop balancing.