Kingdom Come: Deliverance - A Medieval Period Accurate FP-RPG - Achieves Kickstarter Goal In *Two D - General

[QUOTE=kimchimafia;43685720]Depends which 'plate armour' you're talking about. The results would vary on which century it was made in, its maker and its quality. Not all plate armours are created the same so the 'longbows can pierce plate at very close range' statement is extremely fishy if not false. [editline]27th January 2014[/editline] I'm sure that sometimes, an arrow shot from a proper longbow did pierce plate but the real question is, what's the quality of that plate? Is it just a flat sheet of metal? Is it properly hardened? What is it made out of? Is it a reconstruction? etc...[/QUOTE] Not really fishy, you should just assume that if it's a hard thing to do it was under the best possible conditions (cheaper plate armor, high poundage bow, etc). Just saying that plate armor doesn't [i]necessarily[/i] make you invulnerable to arrows under all conditions Here's a random video I found with a quick google, it did penetrate at close range but didn't go through the gambeson [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk[/media]

In that video we are not given any information on the quality, its steel or its maker. Mike Loades just says that it's "specially made" and "specially hardened and toughened". That's it. Also for people who could afford quality plate past the mid-late 15th century, primarily wore arming doublets which is much thinner, more form fitting and only worn under plate armour. If you're wearing cheaper and low quality plate, then yes, longbows perhaps could penetrate it. But if you're wearing something like Clifford's famous Greenwich garniture/set or even a high tier late 15th century set of plate in the Milanese style, then there's no way a longbow would penetrate against that. Tests such as done in the book "The Knight and the Blast Furnace" pretty much concludes that no longbow is going to penetrate a steel breastplate thicker than 2mm, let alone kill the guy under it. The Royal Armoury's Journal tests which were also heavily biased against armour also had the same conclusions that a heavy warbow would do nothing to a guy wearing 2mm or thicker plate. So yeah, a proper suit of plate armour [I]can[/I] make you invulnerable to arrows under all conditions, even ones that are in totally in favour of the warbow. But remember that only counts to the areas that are protected with plate.

[QUOTE=kimchimafia;43685884]In that video we are not given any information on the quality, its steel or its maker. Mike Loades just says that it's "specially made" and "specially hardened and toughened". That's it. Also for people who could afford quality plate past the mid-late 15th century, primarily wore arming doublets which is much thinner, more form fitting and only worn under plate armour. If you're wearing cheaper and low quality plate, then yes, longbows perhaps could penetrate it. But if you're wearing something like Clifford's famous Greenwich garniture/set or even a high tier late 15th century set of plate in the Milanese style, then there's no way a longbow would penetrate against that. Tests such as done in the book "The Knight and the Blast Furnace" pretty much concludes that no longbow is going to penetrate a steel breastplate thicker than 2mm, let alone kill the guy under it. The Royal Armoury's Journal tests which were also heavily biased against armour also had the same conclusions that a heavy warbow would do nothing to a guy wearing 2mm or thicker plate. So yeah, a proper suit of plate armour [I]can[/I] make you invulnerable to arrows under all conditions, even ones that are in totally in favour of the warbow. But remember that only counts to the areas that are protected with plate.[/QUOTE] My point wasn't that no plate armor was completely arrow-proof, it was that not all plate armor was arrow-proof.

[QUOTE=Elspin;43685955]My point wasn't that no plate armor was completely arrow-proof, it was that not all plate armor was arrow-proof.[/QUOTE] My mistake then, sorry. I think I also made a similar point saying that not all plate armour are created equal.

Is it based in History or is it just a world that's in the Medieval period?

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;43681249]depends on whether or not people want a realistic game, it's a matter of opinion facing the consequences of your battles, if it's well done, it would be interesting to experience[/QUOTE] i can't see it being fun in a first person action game though. i mean getting maimed in dwarf fortress is hilarious but that's a different genre that lends itself to that sort of thing

[QUOTE=The mouse;43686060]Is it based in History or is it just a world that in Medieval period?[/QUOTE] From the description page: [quote]Our tale is based on historical events and takes place in 15th century Europe. The year is 1403, and it is most certainly not the best of times. The old king is dead and his heir is weak. The new king’s brother, hungry for power allies himself with a faction of the nobility that sees this moment as an opportunity for advancement, kidnaps the king, invading the country with an army of his own to plunder this defenseless land. The aristocracy is divided between which side to support. Civil war is coming...[/quote]

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;43683985]TBH I'm tired of OP archers in games. The power of bows is greatly overstated and their purpose is generally diluted and misrepresented in most games, including chivalry and M&B. I hope we don't see any legolas/robin hood bullshit to be honest, if I see an arrow penetrate plate/chainmail + gambeson, I'm going to get cancer. It'd be fantastic if bows were accurately represented as a skirmishing weapon rather than "lol longbow shoots through plate armor and kills entire extended family"[/QUOTE] I hate how game either make bows so piss weak you need 10+ arrows to kill anything, or Divine Fingers of Justice that kill you no matter where they hit. I would be cool if you could have different arrow heads, say a pointed arrowhead designed to pierce armour but did reduced damage, or a wide arrow head that did more damage but was practically useless against armour. You could even have cheap ass arrows that are just whittled to a point. Even if an arrow doesn't kill you enemy, which it probably wouldn't unless you got him in the head or heart, it should still take them out of the fight. Fighting with an arrow in your gut or lung would be a little bit painful.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43682662]It'd be cool if they included something like early alchemy flash potions and perhaps something like secret societies/occult mysticism. [editline]26th January 2014[/editline] +1 to constitution for believing in a higher power, whether real or not. Bravery Buff[/QUOTE] They mentioned alchemy a fair bit in the description, so flash/throwable potions will probably be a thing. I'm not sure about any mysticism as this is period accurate, so Christianity, potentially Judaism and Islam, will probably be the only reigning religions. But perhaps the Masons will make an appearance.

The fact that they have a Bull Terrier in the studio is going to make me donate a fuckload of cash. This looks like something I wanted for a VERY, VERYYY long time.

[QUOTE=G-Strogg;43684145]But M&B is mostly played in third person. I rarely see first person gameplay footage. Besides, with the combat system being so different, AND with the addition of crafting and such, and an enhanced, more personal RPG experience, I can't honestly say this is "a high production m&b". The design of the two games are different on several aspects.[/QUOTE] Maybe you don't play in First person but I always did and so did many of my friends that played.

[QUOTE=Brt5470;43688417]Maybe you don't play in First person but I always did and so did many of my friends that played.[/QUOTE] Even then, it's still different.

[QUOTE=TheHydra;43679802]dying slowly and painfully over a course of days would definitely be a fun and engaging gameplay mechanic.[/QUOTE] It actually would, depending on the game. Imagine a game where death is permanent, and you have a character which you are used to, and which you have been playing as a long time, and you're 99% you're gonna die but still try to do something to save yourself, and thus see your character slowly die and are slowly giving up hope.

[QUOTE=proch;43688609]It actually would, depending on the game. Imagine a game where death is permanent, and you have a character which you are used to, and which you have been playing as a long time, and you're 99% you're gonna die but still try to do something to save yourself, and thus see your character slowly die and are slowly giving up hope.[/QUOTE] I'm only into permanent player death if I'm able to make it a glorious one, not a slow and suffering hell on Earth.

On a more serious note, I'd like to see more gameplay mechanics like fighting, TBH. I REALLY want to believe the video, but you never know if it's just a flashier version of Chivalry's combat.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;43688797]I'm only into permanent player death if I'm able to make it a glorious one, not a slow and suffering hell on Earth.[/QUOTE] You could do that too~

[QUOTE=Elspin;43685783]Not really fishy, you should just assume that if it's a hard thing to do it was under the best possible conditions (cheaper plate armor, high poundage bow, etc). Just saying that plate armor doesn't [i]necessarily[/i] make you invulnerable to arrows under all conditions Here's a random video I found with a quick google, it did penetrate at close range but didn't go through the gambeson [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk[/media][/QUOTE] I'm an archer and I've just fired an arrow at some guy wearing plated armour, it doesn't do shit to him and just comes at me with an arrow sticking out of his armour, I would shit a house worth of bricks. I can also imagine him breaking the arrow off and then actually stabbing me with it.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;43688797]I'm only into permanent player death if I'm able to make it a glorious one, not a slow and suffering hell on Earth.[/QUOTE] If there was some "your actions affect history" type of thing, it could work out Bleeding out because of a wound during a siege, you pick up some explosives and blow through the castles walls giving your troops advantage on your final assault to conquer the enemy's kingdom yay stuff

[QUOTE=EcksDee;43688797]I'm only into permanent player death if I'm able to make it a glorious one, not a slow and suffering hell on Earth.[/QUOTE] Man, you wouldn't like Sword of the Stars: the Pit then.

[QUOTE=Water-Marine;43688846] I REALLY want to believe the video, but you never know if it's just a flashier version of Chivalry's combat.[/QUOTE] Doesn't look like Chivalry's arcadey combat at all. Looks more like a reasonably scripted action-reaction system.

[QUOTE=Chief Martini;43690816]Doesn't look like Chivalry's arcadey combat at all. Looks more like a reasonably scripted action-reaction system.[/QUOTE] I know, I just can't help being skeptical, considering a lot of developers preach a lot of claims that are just vague enough to catch our interest. Still buying the hell out of this though

[QUOTE=GHOST!!!!;43689436]I'm an archer and I've just fired an arrow at some guy wearing plated armour, it doesn't do shit to him and just comes at me with an arrow sticking out of his armour, I would shit a house worth of bricks. I can also imagine him breaking the arrow off and then actually stabbing me with it.[/QUOTE] I think that's because your cheap-ass archery club arrows aren't designed for armour penetration.

I thought that archers would use different arrows at in a battle, when the enemy was at short range they'd use sheaf arrows or something that were designed to go through armour?

[QUOTE=GHOST!!!!;43689436]I'm an archer and I've just fired an arrow at some guy wearing plated armour, it doesn't do shit to him and just comes at me with an arrow sticking out of his armour, I would shit a house worth of bricks. I can also imagine him breaking the arrow off and then actually stabbing me with it.[/QUOTE] Real armour is proper tempered steel, even cheap armour could stop an arrow because arrowheads were typically made of plain old iron and thus softer than steel, steel was expensive and you didn't waste it on something that would go and get lost. When on campaign they'd have mobile blacksmiths who spent most of their time making and arrowheads all day. The real advantage to massed arrow volleys is they don't want to lower their shields and risk getting hit in a vulnerable spot, course most medieval infantry didn't have much in the way of armour anyway unless they were rich professional soldiers. [QUOTE=Hiccuper;43695165]I thought that archers would use different arrows at in a battle, when the enemy was at short range they'd use sheaf arrows or something that were designed to go through armour?[/QUOTE] Pretty much all they used were bodkins, and there are many many many shapes and sizes of bodkin, none of them are especially good at going through plate armour enough to do more than piss off who ever is wearing it. Firebox arrows were very specific weapons that weren't tossed around carelessly like they do in the movies, and all those barbed or broadhead arrows weren't intended for combat but for hunting and they were 2-3x more expensive than bodkins which only take a few seconds to make.

Fine, but let me have my poison arrows. You can't take that from me.

"It's understandable that Kingdom Come: Deliverance isn't expected to see the light of day before 2016."

[QUOTE=Elspin;43685783]Not really fishy, you should just assume that if it's a hard thing to do it was under the best possible conditions (cheaper plate armor, high poundage bow, etc). Just saying that plate armor doesn't [i]necessarily[/i] make you invulnerable to arrows under all conditions Here's a random video I found with a quick google, it did penetrate at close range but didn't go through the gambeson [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk[/media][/QUOTE] You must remember, that's a perfectly head on hit on the front of the breast plate, in practice, an arrow is much, much, more likely to have hit on an angle. It's the same story with mail and the myth that an arrow would go straight through it, in tests with their perfectly head on hits, yes, in practice, no. and here's the full video where that clip came from, if anyone's curious to watch it: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqoh0okQ6Ho[/url]

Well its probably not as simple as armour being completely arrow proof, or all arrows being armour penetrating. it needs to take into account the range or distance the arrows are shot at, the draw weight and draw length of the bow, the type of arrow head used and the arrows weight, and the shape, thickness, material and quality of armour its hitting as well as the angle it hits it at. I would imagine the best of armour being arrow proof all round where as munition armour being arrow proof from a long distance but at closer ranges the arrows would penetrate. I don't think equipment back then was standardized like today, I wonder if some longbowmen had less powerful bows or knights having poorer quality armour. And all this ignores that knights horses were targets, kill the horse, the knight falls down.

[QUOTE=ReligiousNutjob;43700106]You must remember, that's a perfectly head on hit on the front of the breast plate, in practice, an arrow is much, much, more likely to have hit on an angle. It's the same story with mail and the myth that an arrow would go straight through it, in tests with their perfectly head on hits, yes, in practice, no. and here's the full video where that clip came from, if anyone's curious to watch it: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqoh0okQ6Ho[/url][/QUOTE] I kinda feel like you might have ignored a part of my post :v: [QUOTE=Elspin;43685783]you should just assume that if it's a hard thing to do it was under the best possible conditions (cheaper plate armor, high poundage bow, etc)[/QUOTE] I'm aware that this is all best case scenario for bow, but that's what you use when you're trying to test if something is [i]possible[/i] not if it's likely.

[QUOTE=ReligiousNutjob;43700106]You must remember, that's a perfectly head on hit on the front of the breast plate, in practice, an arrow is much, much, more likely to have hit on an angle. It's the same story with mail and the myth that an arrow would go straight through it, in tests with their perfectly head on hits, yes, in practice, no. and here's the full video where that clip came from, if anyone's curious to watch it: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqoh0okQ6Ho[/url][/QUOTE] Also like I've said before, we get no specifications about the breastplate or the arrowhead in question. And besides, Mike Loades and/or the series 'Weapons that made Britain' aren't particularly reliable sources on Medieval + Renaissance weapons and armour.