If this is true, and I have no reason to believe otherwise. Then you are of course correct, why make less authentic armour when one can make historically correct armour with the same investment.
I notice not one comment has pointed out a functional significance to the alleged discrepanciesā¦ 
1 Like
Ooh, I like this premise. Positive critique! Alright, first Iād like to give credit where credit is due.
The open-faced bascinet is the underlying helmet for the houndskull visor in the game. So letās start here!
What they got right
- The vervelles follow the opening of the face as high as the wearerās temples.
- The liner has been sewn in, as evidenced by the line of stitching on the leather edge. The leather edge itself is debatable, but a nitpick.
- The basic shape of the bascinet itself isnāt bad. Certainly not bad enough to warrant a rebuild. Itās a little short in the peak for the early 15th, but that can be explained by the following point.
- There is an older mounting point for a center-hinged klappvisor. This suggests that the helmet is an older model, and the side-pivots are a working-life addition. This was a not-uncommon practice when recycling unfashionable helmets for men at arms, and a nice detail.
- In-game, the bascinet is worn with its lower edge sitting just below the jawline of the wearer.
What they did not get right
- There is no aventail. This is so overwhelmingly huge, Iām not sure I can overemphasize it. When wearing a bascinet ā not to be confused with the great bascinet that began to be seen in the early 15th, with its additional steel plate covering the neck ā the only thing protecting the wearerās neck is the aventail and its integral padding. This would be a bit like carrying an M-16 without a magazine.
- There is little-to-no crest in the peak of the helmet along the median sagittal plane. This isnāt completely critical (though it does provide structural rigidity and a better glancing surface) but it is a frequently-seen element in extant pieces, effigies and brasses.
Alright, enough about the Good and the Bad. Letās move on to the Ugly!
The Houndskull visor. Easily one of the most iconic and prevalent visor shapes in the late 14th and early 15th centuries. It deserves more love than it gotā¦really, there could have been multiple variations of the houndskull in the game, as the subtleties of the shape changed in different regions of Europe, but I digress.
What they got right
- The eyes protrude from the basic conical shape of the visor. This made it difficult for a blade to enter.
- The eyes do not droop down on the outside (lateral) corners. This is a very common mistake in modern reproductions.
- The bottom edge of the visor kicks down in a small flange. This also made it difficult for a blade, sliding off the face, to hit the throat.
- The side pivots are hinged.
- The hinge on the visor is an integral piece that was folded over and riveted.
- The majority of the breaths are on the underside of the visor, where they will both be the most effective while compromising the protective nature of the visor the least.
What they got wrong
- THE EYES. Christ almighty, you might as well not wear a visor, as large as these openings are. Extant visors typically have eye slits around 1cm (about 3/8") highā¦these look to be as large as 4cm (about 1.5"). An experienced combatant would have little trouble slipping a blade or a bolt into a gap of that size.
- Location of the breaths. Currently, there are an equal number of large breaths on upper face of the visor. This is incorrect, and atypical for both this style of visor and common practice. Usually, the wearerās right side will have a fairly large number of breaths, while the left side will be completely solid (ref1) (ref2). This maximized protection against right-handed foes.
- The shape of the visorās snout. This is a bit nitpicky, but the visor looks to be alluding to a late 14th style that was typical for the HRE (ref1) (ref2) (ref3). This style is characterized by a quarterly division in cross section along the coronal plane, with two large and sloping planes on the upper faces, and two shallow and flat planes on the underside. Right now, the visor is hexagonal in coronal cross-section, which doesnāt match this style. If they were going for the more rounded style of a different region, then there are conflicting stylistic factors that are missing entirely, which leads me to believe that this is a poorly-executed model of the aforementioned style.
Changes to be made
- Put an aventail on the bascinet. Mail on the exterior, padded liner.
- Reduce the size of the eye slits. Drastically.
- Relocate the breaths to the right side only, across the top of the snout. The breaths on the underside are good enough where they are.
- Smooth out the pairs of cross-section planes on the snout, to reduce it to four definite quadrants, with a strong crease/edge marking the transition to each.
These changes are rather minor to implement, but would remove the glaring anachronisms of this model, leaving only smaller details such as breaths cut into the lower crease, the size of the bottom flange, or the height of the forehead reinforce.
5 Likes
Im not talking about being historically acurate. Its about taste.
I think they should add it. On this image you cam see that iy could work.
(May be its a bug, because only it works with this modle).
Who said they used HEMA armor for modeling? Thats no way posible. They were inspired by actual pieces of armor its easy to see in the great bascinet, for example.
It is, unfortunately, possible. The mistakes that were built into the final models copy mistakes that are present in modern sport armor. They may have been inspired by actual armor, but when it came down to building the pieces, the reference pieces they relied on wereā¦flawed.
I understand why it happenedā¦itās much easier to recreate a piece when you can study it in the round, and so it was convenient to have an inexpensive, modern piece sitting on their desk. Itās a trap many armorers fall into when building, so it was not a surprise to see it here.
2 Likes
To me the mounting point for a center-hinged bascinet looks quite weird, because it would get in the way when you would open the visor (visors are usually quite closely fitted to the helmet) so it would be removed when you would repurpose the helmet
Bascinet without aventail is possible (for common soldier):ĀØ
But I should be far less common than with aventail (and it should not have vervails to mount aventail)
1 Like
Thatās trueā¦and the holes filled with flush rivets. This helmet is also the base for the bulbous klappvisor in the game, so thatās why the hinge is there. But, it really shouldnāt be any trouble to delete the extraneous hinge from the model; any easy fix.
I agree, itās possible that very poorly equipped soldiers would not have an aventail (thereās an old-fashioned bascinet in the game that works better for thisā¦it comes down lower around the neck). In a situation where the options are āwear this, or nothingā, then something is better than nothing. Wisby is an example of this level of ill-funded desperation. I also agree that it should be far less common, instead of the only-available permutation.
I mean, look at all the other helmets in the same miniature: bascinets, kettlehelms, cervellieres, skullcaps, even a few proto-great bascinetsā¦all with aventails. One chap even has a scale aventail.
3 Likes
So can you give me an examble of armor in the game that looks like HEMA armor?
I cam agreee with you that the shapes of the chestplates are wrong, though that doesnt mean that they were HEMA inspired, as i think. Check videos about armor on Warhorse.
I love that you guys are talking about Visby! It is a great place and the more or less intact city wall is really nice!
Unfortunately the Danish won the battle I guess you guys are referring to but Sweden won the city and Gotland in the end.
Sorry for OT but I am a Swedish patriot after all 
1 Like
HEMA armour is probably not a best expression.
The first thing which comes to my mind when you say HEMA armour is this:
Which is protective gear used in HEMA when simulating unarmoured combat.
But the armour in game looks more like low quality modern reproductions and makes lot of the same mistakes.
Interesting video related to the topic:
3 Likes
@Zub Yes, HEMA is the wrong group to reference, my apologies. I more meant the armor seen in the groups like HMB, SCA, and BotN. Ian LaSpina has doubtless done a much better job in his videos pointing out the errors than I ever will.
@Arburu This would be easier if I were at home where I could Ansel the exact screenshots I need, so youāll have to give me a bit of grace on the images.
- As already mentioned, the oversized eye slits on the houndskull and klappvisor are a huge red flag, and very much a modern adaptation.
- Oversized spaulders (img)(img). Especially ones that hang halfway down the triceps. Again, a modern adaptation. Effigies and brasses show these as much smaller pieces, usually only just large enough to cover the deltoid.
- Center points on spaulders and its lames (see img above). Again, incorrect for the time period and a modern adaptationā¦one which the originator of this trend vehemently regrets.
- Spaulders separate from the rebrace (img). A modern interpretation that is almost universally in use. Effigies almost always present them as integral to the arm harness, and do not indicate the strap necessary to hold down the bottom lame. If spaulders were separate, it was an uncommon practice.
- Open-front rebraces (see img above). This is another modern practice. The two extant arms from the 14th century are constructed like this, which has led to its mistaken use. Those are intended to be worn underneath a mail sleeve, which is also why the rebrace on those pieces are so short. All effigies with an exposed rebrace show either a fully-enclosed, hinged pair of plates, or at least a single piece that wraps 3/4 of the way around the arm to cover the front of the bicep.
- Bulbous toe plate on sabaton. One of the models in the game has decent sabatons, and the other uses these swollen toes. This is a mutation caused by people building sabatons to fit over modern footwear. Yes, Iām aware of bear-claw and box-toed sabatons from later eras; those are not pertinent to this time period.
With so few extant pieces surviving from this era, it is foolish to work in absolutesā¦but the remaining art, effigies, and brasses present a strong case against these modern interpretations.
2 Likes
Is that a modern adaptation or a playability adaptation? My guess is that WH made them the size they are so people donāt 
about not being able to see
Could this be done to simplify physics/damage mechanics/calculations?
Iām not dismissing or disregarding your feedback. Just wondering if these could be cases in which WH made ātweaksā for simplicity (memory churn, clipping) and playability
Still donāt know why KCD doesnāt compel us to āmergeā all the layers together to simplify damage mechanics
That is possible, but a poor solution. They could have simply used a historical model for the visor, and a tweaked blackout for the vision overlay. Or, moved the overlay mask closer to the 1st person camera, like so:
Barring that, there are a few historical tricks to improve visibility without exposing the eyes to sharp objects: you can crenellate the bottom edge (widening the eye slit without allowing a greater overall gap), you can widen the eye slit while adding vertical bars, or you can put a row of holes under the eye slit, along the underside of the raised box.
As to the spaulder question, I donāt see how. The model still would have been included in the calculations as part of the arm armor in its historical shape. The oversized piece does make the layering system easier, at least for fitting things underneath. You can already see the jumbo spaulders clip through hoods in-game, so it obviously creates problems fitting additional layers over it. In fact, thereās at least one set of arm armor in the game that has a more reasonable size, so it is possible to have a smaller spaulder. (image) The vambrace on that set is too big, thoughā¦and tube-shaped instead of tapering or tulip-shaped. (image) (image)
1 Like
The skins dont affect playability, i mean the eyesigths dont affect the vision you have on the game, its loke a part of the interface
i donāt have benefit of mods. on ps4, iād have to say i respectfully disagree.
i donāt know how WH structures damage and its calculation in relation to amount of putative coverage. thatās why i ask the question. put another way, does a piece of armor that only covers part of the arm only confer protecton only for portion covered ā¦ or does it also protect non-covered tissue as well?
my (mis) perception of wearing the bell-shaped kettle bell is that coverage has a loose inversion correlation to vulnerability
I agree with you on everything. I am the one who made this topic, so i actually dislike most of the armors for the things you memtioned (although i think they are the best lookimg medieval armor on a vodeo game. I was just sayimg that the could have get historical reproducrions and still make the mistakes they made.
3 Likes
Okey, i play on ps4 too and i think you dont understand how the eyesights work on this game. Makeing the eyesigths bigger doesnt make the vision bigger you can tweek that when you do a game. You know? I could do very narrow eyesigths amd i dont need to do the vision narrow too, i can do it bigger.
Do you understand?
Pd: sorry for my bad english
one doesnt have the same default field of vision (vertically and horizontally) with german basc as italian basc as arching basc as bell shaped ketttle hat etc.