Arrow damage is RIDICULOUSLY exaggerated.



  • This was a really great read. I never thought I’d be interested in what Orkboy and the other real life Archers brought up, but damn it was fascinating.

    I do hope the archers are changed a tad, they definitely dominate the battlefield at the moment and especially after the recent changes… Also the head exploding from an arrow… come on.



  • Thanks Teocyn. It’s nice to see some positive responses.

    Like I say, it’s about bringing bows and crossbows down to more sensible levels, not about nerfing them completely. I felt like the projectiles were quite balanced all the way up to the latest patch.



  • Crossbows were so deadly and easy to use the POPE tried to have them banned.

    Archers were feared and despised on the battlefield.



  • @2maidens1chalice:

    Crossbows were so deadly and easy to use the POPE tried to have them banned.

    Archers were feared and despised on the battlefield.

    I urge you to read the rest of the thread. The two statements you have made are true to a certain extent but you have taken them out of context:

    1.Pope Innocent II banned the use of crossbows against Christians, along with bows and slings. In other words, if you really, really HAD to kill a fellow Christian, the Pope preferred for you to use a sword or a pollaxe, you know, something a little more sanctified. It had nothing to do with crossbows being deadly or not.

    2. Kings and Queens practiced archery. I’m sure you’ve heard all about how in England all men under 40 were instructed to own bows and to shoot them regularly. If archers were so despised they would not have been used in such large numbers in so many campaigns in so many armies all over Europe.

    I feel like a lot of people are jumping from one extreme to the other. They read statements such as “archers were feared” (which is true) and read that to mean that armour was useless against longbows and crossbows and arrows went through them like butter. Then they read my statements and assume I’m implying that archers were useless and seldom used.
    Paraphrasing my revered Mike Loades: Of course people were killed by arrows. Not everyone could afford armour, not all armour was made to the same degree of quality, some arrows would find gaps in the plate or weakened parts of mail, some rash young men would lift their visors. But by and large the armour of the day was proof against the weapons of the day. That’s why people wore it. Otherwise, why bother? Only at very close range do you start to see significant penetration, but to imply than arrow would punch through plate or shear through mail every time is simply erroneus.

    The current version of the game simply gives arrows too much power. For reference, the previous patch was fine, in my opinion.



  • Anyone who says that arrows could pierce the plate or break though the chainmaille are right, sometimes it would.

    Where most all of you are wrong is that you forget about the gambeson. The padding worn under the armor was where the arrows would have a really hard time getting to any vitals. Trying to shoot through plate or chain and then peircing 25 layers of folded stitched linen is not easy at all.

    Orkboy’s first post contained all valid information, people quoting facts and then going “Nope” are looking like real idiots.

    From a realistic standpoint and even a chivalry standpoint archers are too strong.



  • Archers are currently unbalanced and they have 2 main issues.

    -First, they have low risk and high reward. They are the easiest class to get a high K/D and the most annoying class to go against because they can kill you from across the map.
    -Second, they generally have a harder time getting the same amount of kills as an equally skilled Knight/Vanguard/MaA.

    What would be some ways this could be fixed?
    -First, increase the speed of the projectile even further so it’s easier to land shots.
    -Second, severely reduce the range of all archery projectiles.

    What would these changes fix?
    -Archers would be able to more easily rack up kills.
    -Archers would have to position themselves in more dangerous positions.



  • @dpunk:

    Archers are currently unbalanced and they have 2 main issues.

    -First, they have low risk and high reward. They are the easiest class to get a high K/D and the most annoying class to go against because they can kill you from across the map.
    -Second, they generally have a harder time getting the same amount of kills as an equally skilled Knight/Vanguard/MaA.

    What would be some ways this could be fixed?
    -First, increase the speed of the projectile even further so it’s easier to land shots.
    -Second, severely reduce the range of all archery projectiles.

    What would these changes fix?
    -Archers would be able to more easily rack up kills.
    -Archers would have to position themselves in more dangerous positions.

    Archers are supposed to be melee support, not be good enough to support themselves, which they an right now. They also are supposed to have shitty melee but the shortsword is borderline OP.



  • yeah, Archers (bow or Xbow) take far less damage than melee classes.

    it seems to me daggers and short sword are horrible in a group situation, because you just have to be to close to your enemy, making you far too much of a target for both enemy and friendly attacks.

    but one on one they don’t seem to be significantly weaker than broadswords at all. and you have to take into account that an Archer doesn’t need the engagement; if they break off that’s good for the archer. that means the other player will have to take the initiative, and that is a big advantage to the archer, which balances for their low armor.
    most of the time when you do face an archer, they can take their time, while you can’t.

    so archers may be too strong in one-on-one melee.



  • @Orkboy:

    @Helgeran:

    In real life plate is is arrow proof but also sword proof.

    Exactly. So we can’t make it 100% realistic because the game would be boring, but we could at least match the amount of arrow proof in the game to the amount of sword proof in the game right? Arrows shouldn’t kill a knight faster or easier than a sword.

    The soft spots in the armour aren’t arrow proof eg around the joints, groin, and face slots (you also have to bare in mind that soldier’s/knight armour isn’t necessarily as protective as the best armour you can get). And even if the arrow doesn’t penetrate the armour a heavy draw longbow or re-curve will take you clean off your feet.

    That is why i made a suggestion in another thread which i think would be a good solution:
    @giantyak:

    I recon it’d be more fun if they made it that:
    -increase the damage (1hit kills)
    -only 1 in 3 hits actually causes damage
    -1 in three hits glance off plate mail
    -the rest of the hits cause knock back.
    This would = the same HTK ratio as current, but reveal the power of platemail, it’d add an aspect of ‘luck’ (which is good for archery), make archery more fun for everyone.

    http://www.chivalrythegame.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=84&t=16295&start=10#p170442



  • @Orkboy:

    I’m actually paraphrasing this guy a lot, I recommend you watch this video.

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

    Obviously this guy has no idea that during the chainmail era shields where used to protect against arrows, while the upraising of platearmor led to people dropping them for the zweihander.

    Also funny that he seems to think armor is only there to protect against projectiles since the usage of chainmail is proof for him that it protected against arrows well.



  • @Towe:

    @Orkboy:

    I’m actually paraphrasing this guy a lot, I recommend you watch this video.

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

    Obviously this guy has no idea that during the chainmail era shields where used to protect against arrows, while the upraising of platearmor led to people dropping them for the zweihander.

    Also funny that he seems to think armor is only there to protect against projectiles since the usage of chainmail is proof for him that it protected against arrows well.

    That guys logic is rubbish. I doubt anyone would stand in front of my bow IRL and its draw is not as heavy as ye olde.



  • @Towe:

    @Orkboy:

    I’m actually paraphrasing this guy a lot, I recommend you watch this video.

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

    Obviously this guy has no idea that during the chainmail era shields where used to protect against arrows, while the upraising of platearmor led to people dropping them for the zweihander.

    Also funny that he seems to think armor is only there to protect against projectiles since the usage of chainmail is proof for him that it protected against arrows well.

    Zweihander just means two handed sword. The one you’re thinking about, represented in Chivalry, is a Renaissance weapon. It was used by the Landsknechte against pike formations. You will notice that members of a Landsknecht did not wear plate armour.

    Shields were used alongside plate armour. If you go to the Tower of London you can see Henry V´s one handed sword, as well as his shield. Here is a picture of the Battle of Agincourt. Notice the plate armour + shields
    http://www.britishbattles.com/images/he … escues.jpg

    Of course mail was also very good at turning blades, and the aketon worn underneath particularly good at protecting from blunt damage. But the combination of the two did protect against arrows very well.

    @giantyak:

    That guys logic is rubbish. I doubt anyone would stand in front of my bow IRL and its draw is not as heavy as ye olde.

    So you’ve read this thread, you’ve read all my citations of tests against mail + aketon being shot at numerous times with 170 pound bows and receiving no penetration, you’ve read all about men wearing plate charging confidently into an arrow storm and coming out of it no worse for wear, you’ve thought about how even though there were enough archers at battles such as Crecy or Agincourt to put nearly a million arrows in the air in the space of one hour (and these battle lasted for some hours) not everybody was killed by arrows in minutes. You’ve noticed how men were willing to wear extra weight and heat and pay sometimes the equivalent of a house for armour, and then when bows were no longer being used, decided to ditch it all together. You’ve thought about all of this but then you’ve remembered what a loud whack your arrows make when you shoot your bow at a target on sunday archery practice and you’ve thought “no way, no one could stand in front of that!”
    I think it is your logic which is a little rubbish.



  • Realism as an argument for balance.

    This whole thread is hilarious.

    Nerf the shortsword a bit and things should be good.



  • Would an arrow zip right through your plate and lodge itself in your lung? No.

    Could it if the archer was lucky and found a chink in your armor? Yes.

    Is the arrow going to simply bounce off your armor while you slaughter the archers, cheerful and unopposed? No. It’s going to hurt like hell and probably break a rib.

    In any case, it’s not going to be pleasant, and it will likely make you think twice about what you’re doing.

    There are just too many conflicting stories. Sure, we can do all the tests we like, but it’s no substitute for the real thing. Just because the head doesn’t enter your body doesn’t mean it can’t kill you or put you out of action.



  • @Orkboy:

    @Towe:

    @Orkboy:

    I’m actually paraphrasing this guy a lot, I recommend you watch this video.

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

    Obviously this guy has no idea that during the chainmail era shields where used to protect against arrows, while the upraising of platearmor led to people dropping them for the zweihander.

    Also funny that he seems to think armor is only there to protect against projectiles since the usage of chainmail is proof for him that it protected against arrows well.

    Zweihander just means two handed sword. The one you’re thinking about, represented in Chivalry, is a Renaissance weapon. It was used by the Landsknechte against pike formations. You will notice that members of a Landsknecht did not wear plate armour.

    Shields were used alongside plate armour. If you go to the Tower of London you can see Henry V´s one handed sword, as well as his shield. Here is a picture of the Battle of Agincourt. Notice the plate armour + shields
    http://www.britishbattles.com/images/he … escues.jpg

    Of course mail was also very good at turning blades, and the aketon worn underneath particularly good at protecting from blunt damage. But the combination of the two did protect against arrows very well.

    @giantyak:

    That guys logic is rubbish. I doubt anyone would stand in front of my bow IRL and its draw is not as heavy as ye olde.

    So you’ve read this thread, you’ve read all my citations of tests against mail + aketon being shot at numerous times with 170 pound bows and receiving no penetration, you’ve read all about men wearing plate charging confidently into an arrow storm and coming out of it no worse for wear, you’ve thought about how even though there were enough archers at battles such as Crecy or Agincourt to put nearly a million arrows in the air in the space of one hour (and these battle lasted for some hours) not everybody was killed by arrows in minutes. You’ve noticed how men were willing to wear extra weight and heat and pay sometimes the equivalent of a house for armour, and then when bows were no longer being used, decided to ditch it all together. You’ve thought about all of this but then you’ve remembered what a loud whack your arrows make when you shoot your bow at a target on sunday archery practice and you’ve thought “no way, no one could stand in front of that!”
    I think it is your logic which is a little rubbish.

    It took less than 5 minutes for the French to advance to the English lines. In case you didn’t know archers didn’t tend to fire once the enemy reached friendly lines.

    And that’s the point. Having 6000-9000 archers firing upon 3000 plated men in a wave. Eventually the arrows would take their toll after about 2-3 volleys. As more men fall the target is smaller and it becomes more likely for those left standing to be hit.

    In chivalry its 1 archer against one target. The archer actually has to aim AND get the range. Rather than just get the range and fire in that general direction.

    Arrows also can break chain, so where the arrow hit there could be a hole even though the arrow itself didn’t get through properly. And arrows can pierce plate and tickle your nipples.

    Arrows can incapacitate someone in heavy armour. Chivalry doesn’t have that feature so they just die. And its game balance. To be rewarded when you hit a knight 3 times. While it may only break a rib or stab his leg or something in reality.

    I mean do you really want It to take 10 hits to kill someone?



  • @lemonater47:

    I mean do you really want It to take 10 hits to kill someone?

    You just gave every archer nightmares.



  • @Carolean:

    Would an arrow zip right through your plate and lodge itself in your lung? No.

    Could it if the archer was lucky and found a chink in your armor? Yes.

    Is the arrow going to simply bounce off your armor while you slaughter the archers, cheerful and unopposed? No. It’s going to hurt like hell and probably break a rib.

    In any case, it’s not going to be pleasant, and it will likely make you think twice about what you’re doing.

    There are just too many conflicting stories. Sure, we can do all the tests we like, but it’s no substitute for the real thing. Just because the head doesn’t enter your body doesn’t mean it can’t kill you or put you out of action.

    It’s like I’m going around in circles. I address a point, and people just bring it up again. I mention that arrows are currently too powerful and people take this to mean I’m saying arrows shouldn’t do any damage.
    Who’s talking about arrows bouncing off?
    The previous patch got it right Being hit by an arrow would stagger you, interrupt your attack and take a modest chunk of health off. This simulated the effect of an arrow breaking a rib, giving you a serious contusion or finding a gap in your armour. If you got hit by an arrow whilst approaching an enemy or an objective you would be at a big disadvantage when you reached melee distance.If you were wounded, or otherwise low on health, you could die instantly. This was balanced, fair and closer to reality.
    Currently an arrow will hit you and take off a very considerable chunk of your health, in the case of the warbow it is larger than most melee weapons. 1 hit kills are very common. Not to mention exploding heads.

    @lemonater47:

    It took less than 5 minutes for the French to advance to the English lines. In case you didn’t know archers didn’t tend to fire once the enemy reached friendly lines.

    And that’s the point. Having 6000-9000 archers firing upon 3000 plated men in a wave. Eventually the arrows would take their toll after about 2-3 volleys. As more men fall the target is smaller and it becomes more likely for those left standing to be hit.

    In chivalry its 1 archer against one target. The archer actually has to aim AND get the range. Rather than just get the range and fire in that general direction.

    Arrows also can break chain, so where the arrow hit there could be a hole even though the arrow itself didn’t get through properly. And arrows can pierce plate and tickle your nipples.

    Arrows can incapacitate someone in heavy armour. Chivalry doesn’t have that feature so they just die. And its game balance. To be rewarded when you hit a knight 3 times. While it may only break a rib or stab his leg or something in reality.

    I mean do you really want It to take 10 hits to kill someone?

    Nobody’s talking about taking 10 arrows to kill a knight except you.

    I really don’t know where you’re getting all this skewed history from. Archers didn’t shoot in elevated volleys at 300 yards like in Braveheart. Most battlefield archery was done at 40 yards or less. Why? Because 1. Arrows were expensive. 2. Armour was hard to penetrate at longer distances. The notion that they were told the range and shot in the general direction is simply rubbish. All contemporary paintings and manuscripts of battle scenes show archers shooting in a flat trajectory, at close distance. I wonder why that is?

    Regarding your incessant mention of Agincourt, 5 minutes is an awfully long time to trudge through mud wearing plate with a closed helmet, being buffeted by arrows, walking over dead bodies, getting crushed in a tight press of men. When the French reached the English lines, the archers did indeed continue to shoot at point blank range. That’s where archers are most effective, that’s where you start seeing significant penetration on weaker armour. In any case most of the killing was done with hatchets and swords.

    And again, piercing or breaking mail and plate is one thing, but then going through an aketon and doing significant damage is another.

    Finally, seeing as I seem to be damned to repeat myself for all eternity, I will finish with this:

    The previous patch got it right Being hit by an arrow would stagger you, interrupt your attack and take a modest chunk of health off. This simulated the effect of an arrow breaking a rib, giving you a serious contusion or finding a gap in your armour. If you got hit by an arrow whilst approaching an enemy or an objective you would be at a big disadvantage when you reached melee distance.If you were wounded, or otherwise low on health, you could die instantly. This was balanced, fair and closer to reality.
    Currently an arrow will hit you and take off a very considerable chunk of your health, in the case of the warbow it is larger than most melee weapons. 1 hit kills are very common. Not to mention exploding heads.



  • Exploding heads is a bug. They changed the damage type of bodkins to seperate then more from broadheads.

    And archers did fire in mass groups. At Agincourt they were behind stakes on the flanks and behind the footmen.

    Archers fired in mass groups mostly. Where did I find that information? I read it. I actually haven’t see the movie braveheart. Archers in mass groups gave been use in mass groups for over 1000 years, from Europe to Japan. Feudal Japan anyway. Samurai archers didn’t fire in mass groups usually. It was only when they started using peasant troops.

    You know why archers mostly fired in mass groups? As it was te most effective way. They did it got the same reason why pre 19th century warships did full broadsides. They inflict massive damage all at once and it takes the biggest moral hit.

    Read accounts from anceint and medieval historians. Or accounts from people who were at such battles. While many things might vary the fact that archers fired in mass groups doesn’t.

    And archery has hardly changed when it comes to the amount of hits to kill. And you were complaining about damage.

    Now you are complaining about flinching? Or not flinching? Personally I haven’t noticed wing flinched or not. Getting hit by an arrow in windup is extremely unlikely. I haven’t payed attention. Bit it looks like run I hit someone they do still flinch. And when I get hit I get flinched.

    There’s only 3 archer weapons (excluding javs) that can one hit an archer. And only one thay can one hit a man at arms. The HCB can one hit headshot a knight and that’s the only thing a k if hit can die in one hit from.

    Bodkins can’t one hit anything with a body shot. And they can’t one hit headshot knights.

    Broadhead warbow can one hit archers.

    That’s pretty much what happened before patch too.

    Infact you haven’t outlined anything that’s changed. Your description of what happened before patch is exactly the same as your description after patch. Read it yourself its the same pretty much. Just with more negativity when you decribed post patch.

    Warbow bodkins is slighty weaker than the grandmace.



  • @lemonater47:

    Exploding heads is a bug. They changed the damage type of bodkins to seperate then more from broadheads.

    And archers did fire in mass groups. At Agincourt they were behind stakes on the flanks and behind the footmen.

    Archers fired in mass groups mostly. Where did I find that information? I read it. I actually haven’t see the movie braveheart. Archers in mass groups gave been use in mass groups for over 1000 years, from Europe to Japan. Feudal Japan anyway. Samurai archers didn’t fire in mass groups usually. It was only when they started using peasant troops.

    You know why archers mostly fired in mass groups? As it was te most effective way. They did it got the same reason why pre 19th century warships did full broadsides. They inflict massive damage all at once and it takes the biggest moral hit.

    Read accounts from anceint and medieval historians. Or accounts from people who were at such battles. While many things might vary the fact that archers fired in mass groups doesn’t.

    And archery has hardly changed when it comes to the amount of hits to kill. And you were complaining about damage.

    Now you are complaining about flinching? Or not flinching? Personally I haven’t noticed wing flinched or not. Getting hit by an arrow in windup is extremely unlikely. I haven’t payed attention. Bit it looks like run I hit someone they do still flinch. And when I get hit I get flinched.

    There’s only 3 archer weapons (excluding javs) that can one hit an archer. And only one thay can one hit a man at arms. The HCB can one hit headshot a knight and that’s the only thing a k if hit can die in one hit from.

    Bodkins can’t one hit anything with a body shot. And they can’t one hit headshot knights.

    Broadhead warbow can one hit archers.

    That’s pretty much what happened before patch too.

    Infact you haven’t outlined anything that’s changed. Your description of what happened before patch is exactly the same as your description after patch. Read it yourself its the same pretty much. Just with more negativity when you decribed post patch.

    Warbow bodkins is slighty weaker than the grandmace.

    There is no fire involved when shooting a bow.
    You’re equating being deployed in a large formation with shooting in massed long range volleys as if they’re the same thing. They’re not. I did not state that archers were never deployed in large groups, I also did not state that they didn’t shoot together. My point was about long range indiscriminate volleys, try reading it again.

    Complaining about flinching or not flinching? Where do you even get this stuff from?

    And do you really think it’s okay that the warbow does only a little less damage than the grand mace? Think about what the grand mace is.

    If you really think the only difference between my pre patch and post patch description is tone then I must simply question your reading comprehension ability. Do you understand the difference between the word modest and the word considerable, for instance?



  • Please stop with the walls of text, it does not make ones point any more valid then a concise statement.
    To the wall of text a few walls of text earlier. I am aware that arrows can not penetrate steel plate, i was referring to the chain mail discussed in the video. If your going to call people on reading comprehension then you need to check your own orkboy…
    Regarding the battle of agincourt, it has been shown that it was not the arrows that caused the defeat of the french, but the muddy conditions and the use of mallets and hammers by the english archers. I’d not trust the internet if your going to look into useful information on the topic.


Log in to reply