Author Topic: Combat realism model  (Read 48976 times)

The Pope

  • Guest
Re: Combat realism model
« Reply #15 on: February 10, 2007, 03:15:54 AM »
I've been testing it out a bit, and it makes atl atls very dangerous. I'd say every class should be given either a shield or a bit better starting armor if this is to be kept up.

Offline Ron Losey

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 4418
    • View Profile
Re: Combat realism model
« Reply #16 on: February 10, 2007, 04:06:57 AM »
The atlatl dart IS very dangerous if you get hit, but you will also find it to be highly inaccurate (even if you're pretty good with it) and suffering from limited ammunition.  Therefore, it is quite ineffective for responding to ranged attack by crossbow and arquebus - who can effectively engage at greater ranges.

Most of the people who actually expected to get close enough to be hit - the Spanish footmen and most of the other natives - do (and did historically) have shields for this very reason.

And it would take extreme levels of armor to survive a hit from that.  In tests by atlatl clubs and groups like ARMA, these darts continuously out-perform arrows and swords for their ability to penetrate armor and meat... assuming you can hit anything with one.  I was really being a little bit generous to the Spanish, requiring someone to have several points in power throw to really get the full benefit of the weapon.

Just don't think you can run around out there like you're superman, like you could with the native version of M&B ... it won't happen.
 

-----------------------------------------------

Edit:  Guys, I have been unable to locate the references to the obsidian blades penetrating armor.  I found some interesting material on the value of the macuahuitl as a blunt-trauma weapon even if the blades did not penetrate the armor, but we can't really simulate that.  I still can't find any actual test cuts that have been done against armor with these things.

Question - does it feel right currently, or should I reset them to a higher damage value, but reset to cut, like a sword?  That would result in the weapon being a little more damaging against exposed targets, but a little less effective against armor.

Logically, anything with a row of sharp points like that should have some armor-penetrating properties ... they should punch holes better than they actually slice.  However, working within the limitations of this game engine, the "pierce" attribute may be over-doing that effect.

-----------------------------------------------

Edit again:  I mailed you a version that has the aforementioned weapons set to cut.  I can't really tell - I think it plays a little better.  There are a few fewer sequences where someone obviously takes a devastating hit and then walks away - which was sort of the intended feel.  I think they will still perform adequately against moderate armor - they seem to.  Anyway, try that version.  Decide which one you prefer.

And yes, the large number of missile weapons among the native forces (both factions) do tend to make things kind of hot, especially for horses.  The individual weapons are not unreasonable, but walking or riding into a hail of them rather complicates the issue....  The historical response is to suppress them with your own missile troops, and that works pretty good here too.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2007, 06:27:19 AM by Ron Losey »

Offline LCJr

  • Journeyman
  • ***
  • Posts: 219
    • View Profile
Re: Combat realism model
« Reply #17 on: February 10, 2007, 03:32:11 PM »
Ron can you provide a source for handheld obsidian weapons piercing Spanish armor?

Offline Ron Losey

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 4418
    • View Profile
Re: Combat realism model
« Reply #18 on: February 10, 2007, 06:52:03 PM »
Ron can you provide a source for handheld obsidian weapons piercing Spanish armor?

It's something I read long ago ... I can't seem to find the source now.

I did find good references on flint and obsidian-tip arrows and atlatl dart, both from the time and in more modern tests.  (Apparently Cortez had some old breastplates shot with arrows, to find out why they were getting slaughtered - the results were pretty scary.)  Anyway, I know that obsidian is capable of piercing at least some steel some of the time - which translates pretty badly for most body armor.  Might be pretty hard on the stone as well, but that isn't really modeled in-game.  Impact speed on arrows or the end of a long club are not that different - if one goes through, so does the other.

I've seen what a stone axe can do - there's no question that those would be murder on armor.  (The one in question was flint, actually a reproduction of a Cherokee hatchet, but close enough.)  They do pretty much the same as their steel counterparts, despite being much heavier and slower, and becoming dull much faster.  The issue is with the thinner and better balanced blades of the macuahuitl and tepoztopilli.  I'm not sure which way they will go.


---------------------------------------

Also, everyone note that this combat model is now up and running on Onin-no-Ran.  Everyone should check it out, to see the kind of changes involved, and how the rescale changes the game.

I think it has been an enormous success so far.  Of course, I might be extremely prejudiced by the fact I created it ... out of annoyance at how the weapons didn't really work in vanilla.  But a lot of other people think it's a good thing too.

« Last Edit: February 10, 2007, 07:16:09 PM by Ron Losey »

Offline guspav

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 218
    • View Profile
Re: Combat realism model
« Reply #19 on: February 10, 2007, 07:38:44 PM »
ok i have played a bit with your damage model and it seems to be working quite nicely, I like the fact about "people" getting cut down with one or two blows instead of 6 or 8 or whatever it took in vanilla

i didn't like the 99 accuracy on arquebuses, since that makes them very slow sniper weapons and they really weren't accurate at all, I think lowering the accuracy to 85 or something (like before) would make them better
Also some weapons and shields look a bit weird when showing on the body, but as someone already said, better to see them than not. My next move will be creating some sheaths so blades don't have that gothic (i,II,III) "magnetic" appearance
all in all good job, dude!   :D
« Last Edit: February 10, 2007, 07:46:19 PM by guspav »

Brigadier Hussey

  • Guest
Re: Combat realism model
« Reply #20 on: February 10, 2007, 08:11:17 PM »
Let us work together to combat realism. If we try hard enough we can destroy it utterly!

Offline Ron Losey

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 4418
    • View Profile
Re: Combat realism model
« Reply #21 on: February 10, 2007, 08:11:59 PM »
I've played with black-powder weapons quite a bit, back growing up.  (Primitive firearms are popular in the United States - they even have hunting seasons for them.  Although most of them are rifled percussion-cap, a few hard-core enthusiast-types still shoot smooth-bore flintlocks.)  The smooth-bore muskets are not as accurate as modern rifles, this is true.  However, at under 100 paces, you can still put round-ball on a human body if the target will hold still.  They're at least as accurate as bows, or more so, at short range - and quite effective out to 100 paces or more.

(Compare that to effective ranges over 1km with a good modern sniper rifle, and your first thought is that smooth-bore muskets are painfully inaccurate.  Compare them to modern automatic handguns, and you'll think the old smoke-poles shoot pretty good.)

("Smoke-pole" - literal translation of the Cherokee term for firearms.  My dad speaks a little bit of Cherokee, and he always called the black-power rifles that.)

The scale and range in M&B never really gives you a shot more than 150 paces, even on totally flat treeless expanses ... beyond that, human-sized graphics are not visible.

I thought the feel was about right.  The 85% thing, where they shot a pattern about the size of a car at 30 paces, was certainly not.  That's the atlatl where you get patterns like that.

Where the guns will get you killed is in the reload time.  (I couldn't really use them at all ... not after the first shot.)  They can put four arrows on you per one round with the arquebus - and now, unless you're wearing a LOT of armor, arrows bloody hurt.  As late as the American Revolution (starting 1776), Benjamin Franklin said the Continental Army should have been armed with bows and crossbows, just for their higher rate of fire.  (His proposal was rejected because the New England colonies had no developed industry for producing bows and arrows, and they would have needed to produce thousands of them quickly.  In contrast, most of them already had muskets, and could steal more muskets and ammo from any Redcoats they killed.)

Anyway, I thought the feel on the guns was about right.  Might increase the reload time a little, to make them even more historically frustrating.

Offline Ron Losey

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 4418
    • View Profile
Re: Combat realism model
« Reply #22 on: February 10, 2007, 08:12:43 PM »
Let us work together to combat realism. If we try hard enough we can destroy it utterly!

Excuse me?  ???

Offline guspav

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 218
    • View Profile
Re: Combat realism model
« Reply #23 on: February 10, 2007, 08:27:27 PM »
hmmm alright I am not so sure about the arquebus' 99 accuracy, but will test it a bit more.
Another thing, I do agree on increasing horses' speed, but manuever is just way too high, even a poor rider can achieve amazing maneuverability and that can't be right...

Offline Ron Losey

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 4418
    • View Profile
Re: Combat realism model
« Reply #24 on: February 10, 2007, 08:47:03 PM »
hmmm alright I am not so sure about the arquebus' 99 accuracy, but will test it a bit more.
Another thing, I do agree on increasing horses' speed, but manuever is just way too high, even a poor rider can achieve amazing maneuverability and that can't be right...

The speed is accurate.  I compared actual game output to realistic speeds of horses.  The speed range around 20 translates to a gallop of about 30 miles an hour.  I didn't model a flat run, which could be almost twice that for a strong horse, because a lot of horses don't get that kind of performance with a rider.  (The original work was for the little Japanese mountain ponies in ONR.)

The maneuver is rather based on my observations/experiences around rodeo barrel horses, back growing up on Oklahoma.  You would be surprised how tight a horse can turn, even at relatively high speeds - with or without a quality rider (and sometimes without even the rider's permission, as often happened to me).

Generally, you will find that horses turn fast, but they're not very precise about it.  That's kind of how I feel about horses.  Unfortunately, the game doesn't model what happens when the horse runs under a tree branch and leaves the rider in the tree, or just decides to jump a fence when you're not ready, or in the case of combat, absolutely refuses to charge a forest of spear points.  That would put the reality of horses into the game.

If you know a lot about horses, by all means, explain where I missed ... I haven't actually been on a horse in a lot of years.

Brigadier Hussey

  • Guest
Re: Combat realism model
« Reply #25 on: February 10, 2007, 09:22:52 PM »
Let us work together to combat realism. If we try hard enough we can destroy it utterly!

Excuse me?  ???

It was my daily act like an idiot phase.

I've played with black-powder weapons quite a bit, back growing up.  (Primitive firearms are popular in the United States - they even have hunting seasons for them.  Although most of them are rifled percussion-cap, a few hard-core enthusiast-types still shoot smooth-bore flintlocks.)  The smooth-bore muskets are not as accurate as modern rifles, this is true.  However, at under 100 paces, you can still put round-ball on a human body if the target will hold still.  They're at least as accurate as bows, or more so, at short range - and quite effective out to 100 paces or more.

Too true, I have a rifle (1858 2 band enfield) and a smooth bore (brown bess) and up to the 150 yard target off of a bench rest I can consistently hit a man size target in the head and chest area with both, but If I want to shoot nice tight groups or at that long range from standing the rifle is best. I'd say the smoothbore is great to 80 metres standing then all right to 150 kneeling or lying down.

Offline Ron Losey

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 4418
    • View Profile
Re: Combat realism model
« Reply #26 on: February 10, 2007, 09:39:29 PM »

The old Enfields are fine weapons, by any standard, ancient or modern.  A lot of guys make shots of 300 meters or more with them pretty consistently.  (Considering how much time the M-16 spends jammed, they sometimes get a rate of fire as good as a modern assault rifle too.  ::) )

The matchlock arquebus wasn't quite so reliable as the weapons you mentioned, but I still figure that M&B's "99% accuracy" is not too far off.  Anything less than that, however, would be murderously underestimating the biggest advantage of early firearms - the simplicity of training people to use them.

And yeah, now that you mention it, combating realism does sound like a good idea.  I think that's part of the whole computer game thing - escapism.  The trick here is trying to get "suspension of disbelief", so people will stay in the game rather than going back to reality.


Offline guspav

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 218
    • View Profile
Re: Combat realism model
« Reply #27 on: February 10, 2007, 09:45:37 PM »
ok, yes but those are more modern rifles, matchlock arquebuses were much older and much more inaccurate, mainly because of varying bullet sizes and powder quality.. and because they would sometimes blow up (poor metal quality) :D

now about the horses here's the thing: setting their stats too high will effectively make crippling negligible.
Riding skills will also become useless because you'd only need them to get better horses, the increases in maneuver and speed skills would no longer be useful.
If we want to give a reason based on realism, an experienced rider will always know how to take better advantage of his/her horse's abilities, while an inexperienced rider might actually have trouble with even a very good horse (not because the horse can't do it, but because the rider can't make the horse do it). Since mount and blade can't simulate horse disobedience in any way, I think we should just stick to horse stats similar to those from vanilla, a higher speed is in order, but not too high (I'm talking about 50% increases or something similar, not much more)

EDIT: about crippling I have a live example right now, my sumpter horse has just been crippled and still can run like a hunter from vanilla
« Last Edit: February 10, 2007, 09:49:53 PM by guspav »

Brigadier Hussey

  • Guest
Re: Combat realism model
« Reply #28 on: February 10, 2007, 10:02:17 PM »
The old bess has been used since the early 1700's though, when it was a doglock (first type of flintlock musket)
I agree the Enfield is a magnificent beastie, It has a nicer feel that the Zouave (with the thicker stock and wrist) and I just aint too fond of the springfield, it seems less balanced in the grip and in the recoil it seems to twist more, which admittedly doesn't matter in a single shot it just irritates me having my rifle swinging around everywhere once i have fired. ROn do you own any black powder weapons?
/Offtopic

I hadn't heard about muskets blowing up in the Spanish expedition, but I wouldn't put anything past that shoddy Don workmanship  :P

Offline Ron Losey

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 4418
    • View Profile
Re: Combat realism model
« Reply #29 on: February 10, 2007, 10:17:32 PM »
The guns in question were a little more modern, yes, but the basic premise is not.  Any setting under 99% in M&B will reduce their accuracy to a pattern that is as likely to hit your own foot as your target.  That undermines the logic of using firearms - that they are easy to use, but tragically slow to reload, and their damage not always reliable at stopping targets in spite of good armor penetration. 

The "bazooka o' randomness" model you had before was like something out of a cartoon.  Don't do that again.

--------------------------------

On the horses, forget about the horses in vanilla.  I've seen snapping turtles who could outrun those horses.  They had all the cornering ability of a municipal stadium.  A real horse - even a lousy one - could out-perform one of them while dragging an automobile.

On the maneuver numbers I gave, improved riding skill will still help a lot.  It greatly improves performance on difficult terrain (like climbing steep inclines), which this mod is full of.  It also improves cornering at speed ... not really critical when only one side has horses, but it played a huge role in balancing ONR (where the greatest power of the samurai was their role as horse archers, and horse-to-horse clashes were too normal).

Granted, the whole "lame" thing doesn't entirely disable the animal.  We might be able to edit that.

However, we do not want to cripple their performance.  They would be utterly sitting ducks in the new damage model.  They already go down with annoying regularity.  The horses MUST have realistic (possibly plus benefit-of-the-doubt) performance, or they will be utterly useless.