A somewhat unique balancing suggestion for Archers and Knights.



  • So I’ve been reading a bit about battles and that, and something came up that made me think of chivalry.

    In battles, heavily armoured knights aren’t really bothered by archers. Arrows aren’t so much killing as they are exhausting, knights would get peppered with so many that it’d weigh them down, and the constant impacts would wear them out.

    Transfer this to chivalry. How about if archers couldn’t do damage to knights at all, but only flinch and effect their stamina. Why that’d make being a knight fairly badass. You could storm forwards into hails of arrows, and be a spearhead for the team. Sounds pretty knight-y right?

    On the archer side, rather than being a sniper you’re now support. Put an arrow in a knight and it’ll flinch him and reduce stamina. Maybe even lower the max stamina for every arrow a knight has in him. Now other players can see a knight full of arrows and know that he’s an easy target.

    Of course this’d be grossly unfair if the knight didn’t have a more drastic and fitting downside to compensate. And I’ve thought of one: jumping. Lets be honest, it’s effing madness for a man in 110lbs of plate and mail to bounce 3 feet into the air (it’s effing madness for anyone, but, videogames). By cutting a knights jump height lots of areas become hard to reach. Almost all, with the exception of a few glitch spots, can be walked to, so it’s not a death sentence, but a team now NEEDS mobile members and can’t just fill out a whole roster with slowpoke knights.

    Crossbows I can’t decide. They were banned by the Pope for being able to kill or wound knights in plate armour, so it’d be odd if they couldn’t. It does give it the advantage of doing something bows can’t though, which I think it needs. The reduced firerate doesn’t mean much to the person getting shot.

    Anyway, bit of a brain dump, as it’s suggesting changing something I reckon it’ll be hugely popular. People love that shit.



  • Paragraphs, mane.

    But I agree with the exhaustion stuff. Crossbows shouldn’t get special treatment though.

    Maybe if you hit a knight in the head with bows it deals damage, otherwise it just drains stamina and flinches.



  • Yeah, don’t know why they didn’t appear at first. Edited now.

    For the head thing: I thought first shot could knock the helm off, second would be a traditional headshot. Though the problem then is how do you know you’ve lost your helmet…



  • That’s baldhead knight discrimination!


  • Global Moderator

    Realistically it was the helmet that couldn’t be pierced the rest of him could get penetrated easily. A longbow with a bodkin can get through half inch steel plate or 2 inches of butted mail. So the head argument is sorta of backwards.

    And when there were archers they were thousands of them. So if you want your realism to pay off every time an archer fires 1000 arrows fall from the sky around the target.

    Archers fired in volleys. That’s what did the damage. Do wining a few knights every volley. Problem is you can’t have ten thousand people in a game. So to compensate they buffed archers to be enjoyable to play. All your changes would mean is a massive increase in team hits by archers shooting into fights as it will be the only time they are actually useful.

    Ands its not actually that hard to jump in armour. Armour is distributed across your whole body. While hard on your knees when you land getting off the ground is no feat. Sure if you chucked that all into a backpack you’d fall over trying to jump but wearing it wouldn’t be that bad.

    crossbows could got rough plate armour and make a dent on the other side of him which is probably why they were Banned. While arrows didn’t usually penetrate deep enough they often drew blood and having several pointy things in your was pretty painful.



  • @Monsteri:

    That’s baldhead knight discrimination!

    It would just make them more heroic surely.



  • Ever heard of Agincourt?



  • @lemonater47:

    Realistically it was the helmet that couldn’t be pierced the rest of him could get penetrated easily. A longbow with a bodkin can get through half inch steel plate or 2 inches of butted mail. So the head argument is sorta of backwards

    As far as I understand it it was the jacket that stopped arrows. I’m sure the plate didn’t hurt, but that layered linen stuff was basically proto-kevlar. It’s why the heavy horse wore those dapper coat things. Very good at keeping the arrows out. The added penetration of bodkin point is pretty much up for debate, the pro side getting their evidence from Deadliest Warrior and Game of Thrones. (Not to diminish the value of either of those fine, fine works, mind.) Basically it comes down to broadheads having hardened edges, making them just as good at piercing. Mail on the other hand… and on and on and on.

    As you say, they edit the facts a little to make it enjoyable. I think it’d be more enjoyable if the archers had a nemesis that wasn’t being snuck up on.



  • @gndo:

    Ever heard of Agincourt?

    I have. Have you?

    @wikipedia:

    The impact of thousands of arrows, combined with the slog in heavy armour through the mud, the heat and lack of oxygen in plate armour with the visor down, and the crush of their numbers meant the French men-at-arms could “scarcely lift their weapons” when they finally engaged the English line.

    And on and on. There’s lots of back and forth about arrows penetrating or not, this armour and that, but it basically comes down to the fact that arrows hurt, they’re not so much fatal. The health bar as a ‘how close to dead’ is better representative of serious injuries. Stamina is a better place to reflect how much pain you’re in, in my view.



  • Yeah the ground played a massive part in the battle, but my point was massed longbows were lethal against all but the most expensive armours, and they could indeed punch through plate armour.



  • @lemonater47:

    Realistically it was the helmet that couldn’t be pierced the rest of him could get penetrated easily. A longbow with a bodkin can get through half inch steel plate or 2 inches of butted mail. So the head argument is sorta of backwards.

    And when there were archers they were thousands of them. So if you want your realism to pay off every time an archer fires 1000 arrows fall from the sky around the target.

    Archers fired in volleys. That’s what did the damage. Do wining a few knights every volley. Problem is you can’t have ten thousand people in a game. So to compensate they buffed archers to be enjoyable to play. All your changes would mean is a massive increase in team hits by archers shooting into fights as it will be the only time they are actually useful.

    Ands its not actually that hard to jump in armour. Armour is distributed across your whole body. While hard on your knees when you land getting off the ground is no feat. Sure if you chucked that all into a backpack you’d fall over trying to jump but wearing it wouldn’t be that bad.

    crossbows could got rough plate armour and make a dent on the other side of him which is probably why they were Banned. While arrows didn’t usually penetrate deep enough they often drew blood and having several pointy things in your was pretty painful.

    Yeah but look what you’re saying: a longbow with a bodkin. In this game, broadhead arrows have no downsides when shooting knights except the fact that damage is lower. In saying that, this suggestion would be effective and actually make the game more immersive, exemplifying knights further as the superior class (only in terms of brute force and agility) if it was applied only to broadhead arrows. I actually like this suggestion since it would make archers less lonewolf and probably bring archers in-line with teamplay requirements, since one archer with broadhead arrows won’t have stopping power vs a single knight.



  • Well, everyone would be using bodkin arrows then. If this change was applied only to broadheads, bodkins should do basically near to no damage versus MaA or other archers.



  • @gndo:

    Yeah the ground played a massive part in the battle, but my point was massed longbows were lethal against all but the most expensive armours, and they could indeed punch through plate armour.

    That’s the argument. Some say they did, others that they didn’t. Tests have gone both ways. For me the incidentals tell the story.

    “The plate armour of the French men-at-arms allowed them to close the 300 yards or so to the English lines while being under what the French monk of Saint Denis described as “a terrifying hail of arrow shot”.”

    Terrifying. Not lethal.

    “A complete coat of plate was considered such good protection that shields were generally not used”

    Imagine that. ‘Something to get behind? No thanks, I’ve got my suit. I’ll be fine.’

    “When the archers ran out of arrows they dropped their bows and using hatchets, swords and the mallets they had used to drive their stakes in, attacked the now disordered, fatigued and wounded French men-at-arms massed in front of them.”

    If the longbow had been as effective as all that they certainly wouldn’t have had to do this.

    Point is you said ‘‘ever heard of Agincourt?’’ Basically “Longbows, Nuff said.” I’m saying Agincourt is the prime example of a fight that made me come up with this idea in the first place. Yes the mud didn’t help, but the volleys of arrows resulted in a big scrum of demoralised, exhausted, but not dead knights. Chivalry could replicate that effect and do it well.



  • Well the best armours could stop arrows from penetrating effectively, however most soldiers, and even many knights couldn’t afford such high quality protection.

    If the longbow was as ineffective as you seem to imply, it makes me wonder why the English decided to make longbow practice compulsory from a young age.


  • Global Moderator

    @McLumberjack:

    As far as I understand it it was the jacket that stopped arrows. I’m sure the plate didn’t hurt, but that layered linen stuff was basically proto-kevlar. It’s why the heavy horse wore those dapper coat things. Very good at keeping the arrows out. The added penetration of bodkin point is pretty much up for debate, the pro side getting their evidence from Deadliest Warrior and Game of Thrones. (Not to diminish the value of either of those fine, fine works, mind.) Basically it comes down to broadheads having hardened edges, making them just as good at piercing. Mail on the other hand… and on and on and on.

    As you say, they edit the facts a little to make it enjoyable. I think it’d be more enjoyable if the archers had a nemesis that wasn’t being snuck up on.

    Well if you actually look at the knight skins none of them are actualy wearing full plate. Mason knight is a thick studded leather coat of plates with a big solid chunk of steel in the middle. The agathain knight has chainmail over a coat of played seen into some sort of fabric. And what a coat of plates is is lots of cut and flattened pieces of tin can sewn on some fabric of various kind including leather in some cases. Though the metal bit were usually steel not tin but they weren’t that thick.

    Wven the new skins is just some plate with a lot of gaps and a gambeson.

    Anyway way I don’t think it would be fun tickling knights.

    Considering A bodkin can get through rivited chainmail and embed itself halfway through a dense target it was dangled over. I’d say it can get through that Gambeson easily. A direct impact on half inch plate from 20 yards can get the same distance through. But a slight angle can really limit how far it goes through. Then there’s butted chainmail which is really useless. 8 layers of it laid out over a target and it can still get through all a spear thrust can actually get through one layer. 8 layers of rivited chainmail and it can get. Through 2 and damage the 3rd layer. Haven’t seen anything about a coat of plates but they are really thing better for protection against melee weapons rather than arrows.

    A crossbow bow against plate can get right through the plate and stick out the back of the target. Without the target behind it it could often go right through and fall out the other side. Against put a slight angle on it and it didn’t get through at all.



  • We shouldn’t base these things on what would happen in the real world, we should base them purely on gameplay basis.

    Arrows not dealing damage on knight bodyshots is good for the knight. It’s not inherently bad for the archer either, and it neatly gives the knight a bigger tank role. The archer can still do headshots for some hefty damage. That increased stam regen or whatever it was should not be accompanied with an archer nerf like this, though.



  • @gndo:

    Well the best armours could stop arrows from penetrating effectively, however most soldiers, and even many knights couldn’t afford such high quality protection.

    If the longbow was as ineffective as you seem to imply, it makes me wonder why the English decided to make longbow practice compulsory from a young age.

    I didn’t say it wasn’t effective, I said it wasn’t lethal. Which isn’t to say no-one EVER died from an arrow. It just wasn’t the sniper rifle people who’ve watched too much Lord of the Rings want it to be.

    The relatively cheap longbows at Agincourt routed some very expensive cavalry before the main charge (with the help of some pointy stakes and a dug in position). They could also outrange other archers, fire faster than crossbows and, yes, certainly did hurt anyone who couldn’t afford plate armour. Some nob firing arrows point blank into a bit of steel in his garden shed doesn’t prove they penetrated anything, and there’s a world of difference between getting through plate and getting through it well enough to kill a man.

    So why did a powerful nobility, who could afford arrow proof armour, maintain an army of archers but ban crossbows? Well if you’re going to lord it over someone, best it’s someone who can’t kill you.

    ANYWAY. Getting bogged down in the history. Would it be more fun to have one class the archers couldn’t straight up annihilate? For everyone but the archers… yes. Yes it would be.


  • Global Moderator

    Not for the archers.



  • This is a game, not a history lesson. Knight impervious to arrows, dumbest idea ever. Why not make knight impervious to all weapons while you are it… stupid.



  • Not impervious - headshots still count, stamina and flinch are a big deal too if the knight is occupied in a fight.