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

[QUOTE=tr00per7;43700140]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] It's not so much the power of the bow or the shape of the arrowhead so much as the material it's made out of, steel was expensive back then and it had to be made by hand in fairly small amounts compared to today, good steel was even more expensive. They simply didn't waste good steel making arrowheads which were expected to get lost or broken. Volleys of arrows are VERY good at forcing enemy troops to keep themselves covered up and their heads down which gives your own troops a chance to maneuver into a good position to either drive the enemy away or engage them in combat and that's about it, they're weapons of harassment with a chance that you do get lucky and wound or kill your target. Even the most powerful handheld bows will not penetrate armour enough to give the man wearing it much more than a pin prick if you actually strike and penetrate the armour, if you get lucky or are Orlando Bloom you'll hit somewhere that's not as well covered and deal a serious wound, not everyone could afford the complete head-to-toe suits with reverse joints and tightly woven maille. [QUOTE=kimchimafia;43700208]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.[/QUOTE] I do, I build and use this stuff all the time, even a needle sharp arrowhead will not penetrate armour enough to be a serious threat to the man wearing it. If I wanted to get super serious I'd make a 120 pound bow then go get some Drill Rod to use as stock when forging arrowheads and give it a very light temper, THEN you stand a good chance of doing some serious damage. But they didn't have Drill Rod or any modern alloys back then, so they used iron which was cheap compared to a carefully made steel. Even firearms were commonly made of iron instead of steel up until the industrial revolution.

[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;43700797]I do, I build and use this stuff all the time, even a needle sharp arrowhead will not penetrate armour enough to be a serious threat to the man wearing it. If I wanted to get super serious I'd make a 120 pound bow then go get some Drill Rod to use as stock when forging arrowheads and give it a very light temper, THEN you stand a good chance of doing some serious damage. But they didn't have Drill Rod or any modern alloys back then, so they used iron which was cheap compared to a carefully made steel. Even firearms were commonly made of iron instead of steel up until the industrial revolution.[/QUOTE] Thanks for the info. I know that the one of the articles published in the Royal Armouries' journal had a test with anachronistically hard bodkin arrowheads(three arrowheads: first one had a hardness of "190-200 Hv with the tip being 300 Hv. Their second arrowhead (Type 10) had a hardness of 230-250 Hv. The third (lozenge) 480-500 Hv") against sheets of "charcoal-rolled iron" which was comparable to munition grade armour. All were fired from a 150 pound bow, from a distance of 10m and the angle of impact for all were 90 degrees. I know that all arrows failed to penetrate the 3mm thick sheet whilst the 2mm one was penetrated with the deepest depth being 16 mm. Even with the test being deeply biased against armour, it went pretty well imo. So yeah you're absolutely right that a shot to a quality made steel breastplate that is around or thicker than 2mm would not penetrate and that bows + arrows were weapons of harassment not 'sniping down troops from afar' and the point about soldiers, not even all knights or men-at-arms having top notch plate armour. [editline]28th January 2014[/editline] Also, here's the [URL="http://www.tforum.info/forum/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=13822"]source[/URL] (fyi it's a downloadable pdf) for that experiment if anybody's interested. Plus, it's good to hear some other experts point out some of the flaws in it too, so [URL="http://www.swordforum.com/forums/showthread.php?79261-New-Warbow-testing-publication"]here's[/URL] a good thread about it.

[QUOTE=Medevila;43701303]It's games like this and the soon to be mainstream Witcher 3 that will make Bethesda [I]really[/I] have to step up their game[/QUOTE] Let's hope that Bethesda actually does step up their game.

[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] If you can easily get plate armor the game has failed at its goal contrary to popular belief, plate armor was rarely used. It was WAY too expensive for the common soldier and severely restricted your movements. You might see it used for show or ceremony, but in battle that'd be a pleasant surprise

[QUOTE=No Party Hats;43701630]If you can easily get plate armor the game has failed at its goal contrary to popular belief, plate armor was rarely used. It was WAY too expensive for the common soldier and severely restricted your movements. You might see it used for show or ceremony, but in battle that'd be a pleasant surprise[/QUOTE] Yes and no. With properly made armour you can do everything you'd normally do on an average day while wearing it (I've done this once, it's hilarious all the people who want to come up and punch you in the stomach to see if it's real armour). It does not slow you down or restrict your movements, in fact most armour has a range of movement which goes far beyond your own range of movement so you don't ever 'hit a wall'. Armourers were not fools who knew nothing about the human body, they knew how to make armour which not only matched but exceeded your own range of movement with a range of vision which allowed the wearer to land accurate and deadly blows.

This looks really good already. I'd donate to the kickstarter but I don't feel like donating to fully backed stuff. Will definitely buy it when it comes out in 2 years.

[QUOTE=Medevila;43701303]It's games like this and the soon to be mainstream Witcher 3 that will make Bethesda [I]really[/I] have to step up their game[/QUOTE] I don't think either of those really overlap with Elder Scrolls games much.

I love the idea of a female medievil Knight, so it'd be pretty cool if one of the much later stretch goals unlocked a fully playable female PC. There's a 600k goal that adds a playable female character for a chain of quests involving saving the main character, but damn it'd be nice playing something similar to Brienne of Tarth for the whole game, and it not just being Male story/interaction/dialogue 2.0. Also non-mancy lesbomancy. They did say they aimed for the story of The Witcher, after all.

I hope it has lots of scary old ruins and whatnot to explore. Since the game has no fantasy stuff going into an old abandoned castle ruin without have spells or powers and knowing that there aren't any monsters or shit like that will make it amazingly immersive and spooky. Just you, the light of a torch and the cold stone depths.

[QUOTE=theseltsamone;43679847]Finally I can live out my greatest fantasies.[/QUOTE] Can finally finish what I started

get wenches or die trying

[QUOTE=Kebab;43705850]I hope it has lots of scary old ruins and whatnot to explore. Since the game has no fantasy stuff going into an old abandoned castle ruin without have spells or powers and knowing that there aren't any monsters or shit like that will make it amazingly immersive and spooky. Just you, the light of a torch and the cold stone depths.[/QUOTE] Yeah, you could trip over some rubble, or maybe cut yourself on something and get tetanus. Maybe even get a cobweb in your hair.

i hope i can help the brother become king, i don't want to help some weak ass pussy retain his kingdom

[QUOTE=Mingebox;43707094]Yeah, you could trip over some rubble, or maybe cut yourself on something and get tetanus. Maybe even get a cobweb in your hair.[/QUOTE] Or run across one of the few (rare as hell) crazy covers that fueled the witch hysteria and get dosed with datura

Awesome, they reached their £600,000 stretch goal so now there will be a playable female character with her own line of quests. Hopefully this extra content will come with the game and won't be paid DLC.