Progression

[Teh Pizza Lady]

Well.... actually...

Initial reports of ironworkers suggest that you might be slightly correct. Early iron wasn't good at all, but the ironworkers quickly learned how to remove impurities which immediately made iron better than bronze in every way except for moisture/corrosion resistance. But let's look at the facts:

• Iron ore was more widespread than the precious copper and tin ores that were hoarded by the elites and the wealthy.
• Iron ore's widespread distribution made it easier for new tradesmen to access local deposits than rely on expensive trade routes.
• Iron ore was initially difficult to process, but experimentation quickly revealed it's true quality and benefits, giving a better reward for the metal workers' effort. Compare this to bronze which just requires a simple smelting and casting process; Iron required smelting, and forging to purify and turn into a workable material.
• Iron tools were initially brittle and weak, but once the forging processes were mastered, they became far stronger than bronze. Iron tools required less metal to perform the same tasks as bronze tools. They could hold a sharper edge, didn't work-harden, and were physically stronger than their bronze counterparts.
• Iron was cheeeaaaap. Like ridiculously so, compared to bronze. Local ore supplies meant no more relying on expensive trade routes. Iron ore was more abundant than copper or tin and remains so today.

Civilizations didn't switch from Bronze to Iron because they lacked resources or the means to acquire them. They switched because it made sense. Why keep using an expensive metal that could break just from using it when you could use a cheaper metal that proved to be superior in 99% of the ways possible?

Yes, initially iron wasn't as good, but it quickly got better. But...this was like 1200 BCE. Vintage Story is set in the late medieval ages, LONG after iron was first discovered, produced, and mastered. Bronze is a necessity to mine the iron ore because the tools were harder and better than copper. Once iron is obtained, the metalworking techniques of the ancient civilizations would be quickly employed to work the iron ore into a useful metal, no experimentation needed. No "side-grade", just pure progression from the expensive and vastly inferior bronze.

[Bumber]

4 hours ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

Yes, initially iron wasn't as good, but it quickly got better. But...this was like 1200 BCE. Vintage Story is set in the late medieval ages, LONG after iron was first discovered, produced, and mastered.

Isn't mastered iron basically just steel without the carbon? Removing impurities is a significant part of the steelmaking process.

I think there's a lot of labor and technique involved that the seraph isn't necessarily good at (lacking a blacksmith background). It's not unreasonable that our own iron wouldn't be much better than bronze, due to failure to work it properly.

The steelmaking process, by contrast, removes the skill issue for anyone who knows the proper ratios of materials. The end result is good quality without the need to fold it like a katana.

Edited October 20, 2025 by Bumber

[Tabbot95]

4 hours ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

Civilizations didn't switch from Bronze to Iron because they lacked resources or the means to acquire them. They switched because it made sense.

I mean that depends on your theory/nuances regarding the bronze age collapse; 

but I think there's a place for having iron in different kinds of grades and deposits; Iron sand and the like;

3 minutes ago, Bumber said:

Isn't mastered iron basically just steel without the carbon? Removing impurities is a significant part of the steelmaking process.

I think there's a lot of labor and technique involved that the seraph isn't necessarily good at (lacking a blacksmith background). It's not unreasonable that our own iron wouldn't be much better than bronze, due to failure to work it properly. The steelmaking process, by contrast, removes the skill issue for anyone who knows the proper ratios of materials.

At the very least this might make villagers/NPC's or other players an essential part of an iron tool production pipeline; not that a single player couldn't do every task but that it would just be a lot of tasks to keep doing

[Teh Pizza Lady]

9 minutes ago, Bumber said:

It's not unreasonable that our own iron wouldn't be much better than bronze, due to failure to work it properly.

That's why you have to process the iron blooms after making them.

Trust me, you wouldn't find it fun to play a game that made you go through hundreds of years of iron processing to master the techniques used back then.

You might have been a bit too quick to hit "Submit Reply". Try thinking in terms of enjoyable gameplay loops.

2 minutes ago, Tabbot95 said:

At the very least this might make villagers/NPC's or other players an essential part of an iron tool production pipeline

Requiring the player to learn the knowledge from the village blacksmith could be interesting, but might drag out the story content needlessly. Still I could see it being a "thing", especially for those who are really into the lore of the game. This ties into my previous statement of thinking in terms of enjoyable gameplay loops. I would absolutely NOT enjoy having to simulate hundreds of years of re-learning iron forging techniques. Hammering a bloom is tedium enough for me, haha.

[Tabbot95]

oh I'm not talking about the re-learning I'm thinking about just the various "jobs" of iron production that go into producing an intermediate ingot product.

 

civilization progress is plate spinning, having NPC's take up some of the plate spinning would still show this while keeping bits fun.. and they would justify my increasingly absurd agricultural yields..

 

[Teh Pizza Lady]

2 minutes ago, Tabbot95 said:

oh I'm not talking about the re-learning I'm thinking about just the various "jobs" of iron production that go into producing an intermediate ingot product.

 

civilization progress is plate spinning, having NPC's take up some of the plate spinning would still show this while keeping bits fun.. and they would justify my increasingly absurd agricultural yields..

 

until you decide to play Homo Sapiens mode and there are no NPCs, yeah.

[Bumber]

1 hour ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

That's why you have to process the iron blooms after making them.

Trust me, you wouldn't find it fun to play a game that made you go through hundreds of years of iron processing to master the techniques used back then.

You might have been a bit too quick to hit "Submit Reply". Try thinking in terms of enjoyable gameplay loops.

I'm not calling for any extra steps. I'm saying it's okay if VS iron were to be nerfed to bronze tier and made more abundant.

Dwarf Fortress makes iron equivalent to bronze (except magma-proof). Steel bars are made from 2 iron bars + 2 flux + charcoal, plus the extra logistics. Iron in that game is really just a one-ingredient alternative to bronze, up until you get enough of it and flux stones for steel.

VS presently wants to mandate bronze before iron. It could just rely on the material requirement for refractory bricks for steel (bauxite is presently hit or miss here) and the iron anvil requirements. This lowers the number of combat material tiers, but more isn't always better.

Edited October 20, 2025 by Bumber

[LadyWYT]

1 hour ago, Bumber said:

I'm not calling for any extra steps. I'm saying it's okay if VS iron were to be nerfed to bronze tier and made more abundant.

Except iron is already incredibly abundant in VS--all the player has to do is find one and they're set for the rest of the game, essentially. The only ore deposit that might be bigger than iron ore deposits, is quartz deposits. Iron ore can be a bit tricky to find sometimes depending on what kind the player is searching for, and also because I think iron deposits have more distance between themselves than other ores due to their sheer size and importance. 

In any case, if you nerf iron to bronze tier, then all that's really accomplished is pushing players to stick to bronze since there's less effort required to obtain/work it and no upgrade for durability/damage output by upgrading to iron. It also hurts story content pacing; tier 2 is required for chapter 1, meaning that bronze is sufficient in most cases, but players in singleplayer or playing at lower skill levels may need to opt for iron instead in order to have a more manageable time. Tier 3 is the minimum required for completing chapter 2, which means that players will need to have obtained iron or better on default settings, unless they're very skilled. If iron is the same as bronze though, then story content essentially becomes locked behind steel unless the player is highly skilled or otherwise has friends to play with. Mind you, I don't think locking some story content behind steel is a bad thing, but that should be reserved for later chapters, and not the entire story itself.

[Teh Pizza Lady]

not to mention that historically iron was vastly superior to bronze by the late medieval period

and this isn't Dwarf Fortress. This is Vintage Story, so the DF logic doesn't apply. like, at all.

[hstone32]

For me, progression is the main feature of survival-crafting games. The longer I am engaged in furthering progression, the more worth I'm getting out of the game. My favorite survival-crafting games implement progression in a way that increases the number of opportunities available to the player, rather than just some number going up.

from a game theory perspective, that's the only way I know how to judge the quality of progression. The amount of time it takes really doesn't matter to me, so long as it's implemented well.

i've said it before, and I'll say it again. The other block game is a lousy survival crafting game. It's entire progression loop can be completed by an experienced player in a single play session, and each step in the progression barely adds any more opportunities to the player besides the ability to work towards the next tier up. Survival mode is just a formality at this point. Sure, Microsoft is constantly adding new crap to survival mode, but they're always shallow novelties that are easy to advertise but don't add any depth to the experience. The real fun comes from building and redstone and of course, modding. For years, I've been chasing after the ideal survival experience through modpacks, but I would always lose interest in them after getting too annoyed with the mounting technical and performatce issues.

seeing as I have no patience for building and redstone, nor do I derive pleasure therefrom, VS was a godsend when I at last discovered it.

[Bumber]

3 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

Except iron is already incredibly abundant in VS--all the player has to do is find one and they're set for the rest of the game, essentially.

You do have to find one, though. (There's a certain % chance, depending on the specific ore, that the deposit you detected isn't actually real.) And then you need to go through the whole smithing process.

3 hours ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

not to mention that historically iron was vastly superior to bronze by the late medieval period

and this isn't Dwarf Fortress. This is Vintage Story, so the DF logic doesn't apply. like, at all.

DF uses real measured material properties. That's basically saying real world logic doesn't apply. Which is technically true, but VS does strive for realism in most places.

When you say iron is "vastly" superior to bronze, you're likely talking about steel. Genghis Khan had his armies outfitted in steel in the 1200s. Damascus steel is mentioned back in 800. Humans have known iron alloys well with carbon for a long time. (IIRC, some of the processes don't involve flux.)

Wrought iron, as we're making, is going to have silicate impurities and would need to be worked skillfully.

Edited October 21, 2025 by Bumber

[Teh Pizza Lady]

15 minutes ago, Bumber said:

You do have to find one, though. (There's a certain % chance that the deposit you detected isn't actually real.) And then you need to go through the whole smithing process.

DF uses real measured material properties. That's basically saying real world logic doesn't apply. That's technically true, but VS does strive for realism in most places.

When you say iron is "vastly" superior to bronze, you're likely talking about steel.

Perhaps it does, but we still have material data to rely on and while it's fun to speculate about what some other video game developers claim they did, real world data tells a different story.

Mohs hardness (scratch test, higher number is better)

1. Bronze -- 3.0
2. Iron -- 4.0
3. Steel -- 4.0

Rockwell Hardness (tensile strength, higher number is better)

1. Bronze -- 42
2. Iron -- 86
3. Steel -- 60

Brinell Hardness (Steel ball or TC compression test, higher number is better)

1. Bronze -- depends on alloyed material but ranged between 70 and 150
2. Iron -- 200-1180 depending on carbon content
3. Steel -- 120

Vickers Hardness (Diamond compression test, higher number is better)

1. Bronze -- 250
2. Iron -- 608
3. Steel -- depends on carbon content and annealing/tempering but ranges between 120 and 900

Sources: 

https://www.metalsupermarkets.com/metal-hardness-testing-methods-scales/

https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-engineering/metals-what-are-metals/alloys-composition-properties-of-metal-alloys/copper-alloys/bronze/tin-bronze/strength-and-hardness-of-tin-bronze/

https://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/design-innovation/manufacturing/content-section-9

[Teh Pizza Lady]

Iron is just more durable than bronze. You can work-harden bronze, but it becomes brittle and prone to breaking as the crystalline structures of the metal separate under force.

[Bumber]

21 minutes ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

Perhaps it does, but we still have material data to rely on and while it's fun to speculate about what some other video game developers claim they did, real world data tells a different story.

What iron sample do these represent? Your links likely imply the data is for 20th-21st century manufactured iron. That would mean fully melted down to liquid form and impurities removed (i.e., not wrought iron).

At any rate, the VS numbers are clearly designed for gameplay and not realism. Black bronze is certainly not a superior bronze. I'd never throw an ornate gold spear.

Edited October 21, 2025 by Bumber

[LadyWYT]

18 minutes ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

Iron is just more durable than bronze. You can work-harden bronze, but it becomes brittle and prone to breaking as the crystalline structures of the metal separate under force.

It's not just that, iron is also lighter than bronze, with the exception of aluminum bronze(which to my knowledge, is a modern alloy and not something that was known in medieval times). When it comes to making weapons, tools, and armor, heavier does not mean better. Armor needs to be light enough for the user to function in for long periods of time, without getting worn out. Lightweight tools and weapons allow the wielder to use them more effectively for longer periods of time.

https://www.coyotesteel.com/assets/img/PDFs/weightspercubicfoot.pdf

23 minutes ago, Bumber said:

What iron sample do these represent? Your links likely imply the data is for 20th-21st century manufactured iron. That would mean fully melted down to liquid form and impurities removed (i.e., not wrought iron).

Yeah, just a quick browse of the internet suggests that medieval smiths had access to tech that allowed proper iron smelting--late 14th century, roundabouts, which tracks with the setting of Vintage Story. I wouldn't be too surprised if options for iron and steel casting were added later, but I'd wager the reason that the current design(in terms of how to refine the ore) is the way it is, is that the iron blooms were both easier to implement at the time while also being different from the earlier metalworking gameplay loops.

https://metalcastinginstitute.com/iron-history/

 

[Teh Pizza Lady]

2 hours ago, Bumber said:

What iron sample do these represent? Your links likely imply the data is for 20th-21st century manufactured iron. That would mean fully melted down to liquid form and impurities removed (i.e., not wrought iron).

OH YEAH! Pure iron would be softer! I didn't consider that. Wrought iron would have impurities which would make it harder! Thanks for reminding me.

[Tabbot95]

12 minutes ago, Bumber said:

I'm not calling for any extra steps. I'm saying it's okay if VS iron were to be nerfed to bronze tier and made more abundant.

Dwarf Fortress makes iron equivalent to bronze (except magma-proof). Steel bars are made from 2 iron bars + 2 flux + charcoal, plus the extra logistics. Iron in that game is really just a one-ingredient alternative to bronze, up until you get enough of it and flux stones for steel.

VS wants to mandate bronze before iron. It could just rely on the material requirement for refractory bricks for steel (bauxite is presently hit or miss here). This lowers the number of combat material tiers, but more isn't always better.

DF's combat was always more about just getting an organized group of armed, semi-trained fighters on point before goblins managed to sneak off with children.. war dogs are great in that regard.

5 hours ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

OH YEAH! Pure iron would be softer! I didn't consider that. Wrought iron would have impurities which would make it harder! Thanks for reminding me.

meteoric iron might be softer; we should also consider meteoric iron could be worked by a people in the far north/arctic (Inuit, Inupiat, Yupik).. and were useful in whaling; Meteoric iron should be purer though should still produce slag when smelting..

Wrought Iron should be 'harder' but that should also be 'more brittle' especially early on (without repeated cycles of folding and heating and folding and pounding and etc. etc. 

6 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

Yeah, just a quick browse of the internet suggests that medieval smiths had access to tech that allowed proper iron smelting--late 14th century, roundabouts, which tracks with the setting of Vintage Story. I wouldn't be too surprised if options for iron and steel casting were added later, but I'd wager the reason that the current design(in terms of how to refine the ore) is the way it is, is that the iron blooms were both easier to implement at the time while also being different from the earlier metalworking gameplay loops.

 

as I see it that should be the role of "tier IV Iron"; there should also be a Tier III(b). or even Tier II(b). iron; Iron should have grades.

[Bumber]

12 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

When it comes to making weapons, tools, and armor, heavier does not mean better.

For maces it might, but we only have scrap metal ones (that swing faster than a falx for some reason). It will possibly absorb kinetic force better as armor.

But I think the weight difference is negligible here. More benefit in putting a lead core inside an iron mace and adding more armor layers.

11 hours ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

OH YEAH! Pure iron would be softer! I didn't consider that. Wrought iron would have impurities which would make it harder! Thanks for reminding me.

If it's brittle hard, that's not necessarily a good thing. You need the impurities to be oriented in the correct direction or your blade might shatter.

Edited October 21, 2025 by Bumber

[Teh Pizza Lady]

5 hours ago, Tabbot95 said:

Wrought Iron should be 'harder' but that should also be 'more brittle' especially early on (without repeated cycles of folding and heating and folding and pounding and etc. etc. 

This is wrong. Wrought iron is the softest of the irons. It is produced in a bloomery. After the slag is removed, the iron bloom is turned into wrought iron. The heating and forging process burns off some of the carbon content, making it more pure than bloomery iron.

1 hour ago, Bumber said:

If it's brittle hard, that's not necessarily a good thing. You need the impurities to be oriented in the correct direction or your blade might shatter.

I don't know what any of this means "impurities oriented in the correct direction". Are you referring to tempering/annealing, the process by which iron alloys are able to reorient and relax their crystalline structures, thereby increasing the strength of the metal by balancing rigidity and flexibility?

Let's look at the material science data again, folks. Don't be hasty with that "Submit Reply" button.

1. Bloomery iron  0.02–0.10%Carbon  Very soft, forgeable; mostly slag that needs to be removed; Primitive Technologies on YT produces this in his furnaces
2. Wrought iron   0.02–0.08%Carbon   Tough, malleable, low strength; product of removing slag from pig iron; This is probably what VS iron is
3. Mild steel   0.15–0.30%C   Stronger, still ductile; didn't become prominent until 18-19th centuries
4. Medium steel   0.3–0.6%C   Harder, still workable; this is your tool steel
5. High/hardened steel   0.6–1.2%C   Can be quenched to high hardness; This is probably what VS steel is
6. Cast iron   2.5–4.0%C   Hard, brittle, castable
7. Pig iron   3.5–4.5%C   Very hard, brittle, impure (needs refining); produced in blast furnace and contains silicon, too

Somewhere on the list is stainless steel which has relatively large amounts of Chromium in it which helps the metal protect itself from corrosion by producing it's own self-healing protective barrier when exposed to oxygen, but I couldn't be bothered to look up the data sheets for it since it's not realistic to think that we could have stainless steel in VS. We just don't have the materials for it in game yet. Same for Alnico which is a weird iron alloy that requires aluminum and cobalt to make and has strong magnetic properties. Iron is just so good.

Edited October 21, 2025 by Teh Pizza Lady
clarity

[Teh Pizza Lady]

32 minutes ago, Bumber said:

But I think the weight difference is negligible here. More benefit in putting a lead core inside an iron mace and adding more armor layers.

There is real world data that suggests that a lighter weapon is better because it can be swung easier. Don't buy into movie and cartoon tropes. Heavy weapon = harder to swing effectively and therefore might not hit as hard.

[LadyWYT]

56 minutes ago, Bumber said:

For maces it might, but we only have scrap metal ones (that swing faster than a falx for some reason). It will possibly absorb kinetic force better as armor.

But I think the weight difference is negligible here. More benefit in putting a lead core inside an iron mace and adding more armor layers.

Not really. If you look at real warhammers and maces, they aren't the monstrosities often depicted in movies and videogames. It's one thing to have the supreme spooklord of evil swinging a mace the size of a Volkswagen, but it's another thing entirely for your average Joe. I'm not saying that a sledgehammer-type weapon wouldn't do a lot of damage, but it takes a lot more effort to swing, and does not swing very fast. Not only will it wear out the user a lot faster, but said user is also at a higher risk of death since their opponents have plenty of time to counter the attack.

A real mace or warhammer, on the other hand, isn't going to be that heavy--probably somewhere around 2-5 lbs(roughly 1-2 kg). It's not so much the weight itself that is dangerous, as much as it is the force the weapon is swung with, and the design of the weapon itself. They have spikes or flanges that are designed specifically to dig into armor, and the lighter weight means the weapon can be swung around efficiently at higher speeds. Heck, even the "really big" weapons like greatswords don't weigh very much--they're usually around 5 lbs(2kg) as well.

As for armor, thicker plates are more protective, yes, but the user still needs to be able to function while wearing said armor. The heavier the armor is, the faster the user tires, and the less agile they are due to the weight. Incidentally, this is also why full armor started being phased out towards the late Middle Ages; the introduction and improvements to firearms meant that armor was getting thicker to stop bullets. Eventually, it was too thick for full armor to be practical for warfare, thus the cuirass took its place. A cuirass could easily be made much thicker to withstand gunfire and protect some of the most vital areas of the body, while also being light enough for a soldier to feasibly wear into battle.

34 minutes ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

There is real world data that suggests that a lighter weapon is better because it can be swung easier. Don't buy into movie and cartoon tropes. Heavy weapon = harder to swing effectively and therefore might not hit as hard.

Yeah pretty much--it's a matter of finding that sweet spot in regards to the physics. The speed is also a critical factor in reaction time, as I mentioned above--slower speeds means the opponent has more time to react.

[Teh Pizza Lady]

1 minute ago, LadyWYT said:

and the design of the weapon itself.

don't forget weapon balance.

A weapon with most of the weight towards the tip will hit harder but also be harder to swing. A weapon with the weight towards the hilt will be easier to swing, but more likely to bounce off the target.

A balanced weapon will be relatively easy to swing and be effective. Examples:

• Sledgehammer: all of the weight towards the tip. Hard to swing. Hits very hard. Missing target will throw user off-balance. Not a balanced weapon.
• Rapier: Most of the weight in the handle. Very agile weapon. Typically made of steel for strength and flexibility. Used for stabbing and parrying. Cannot reliably used for cutting due to blade weakness. Balanced weapon.
• Shortsword: Most of the weight in the blade with a pommel in the handle for balance. Made of bronze but switched to iron/steel later for durability and repair-ability. Somewhat agile. Can be used for stabbing, parrying, and cutting. Balanced weapon.
• War axe: Long handle with small iron or steel axe blade towards the tip. Can be used for smashing and parrying. Balanced towards the tip for power but still easier to swing due to lighter payload. Balanced weapon.

[Facethief]

54 minutes ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

but I couldn't be bothered to look up the data sheets for it since it's not realistic to think that we could have stainless steel in VS

It is in the game, just not at all in a functional state.

[Bumber]

On 10/21/2025 at 7:36 AM, Teh Pizza Lady said:

I don't know what any of this means "impurities oriented in the correct direction". Are you referring to tempering/annealing, the process by which iron alloys are able to reorient and relax their crystalline structures, thereby increasing the strength of the metal by balancing rigidity and flexibility?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrought_iron

Quote

Because these silicate inclusions separate layers of iron and form planes of weakness, wrought iron is anisotropic, its strength varying depending on its orientation.

Kind of the entire point of working the iron. Needs to be folded repeatedly to disrupt these planes so it won't fracture along them.

On 10/21/2025 at 7:41 AM, Teh Pizza Lady said:

There is real world data that suggests that a lighter weapon is better because it can be swung easier. Don't buy into movie and cartoon tropes. Heavy weapon = harder to swing effectively and therefore might not hit as hard.

I literally said the weight difference (between iron and bronze) is negligible. Don't be so fast to press "Submit Reply".

On 10/21/2025 at 8:18 AM, LadyWYT said:

Not really. If you look at real warhammers and maces, they aren't the monstrosities often depicted in movies and videogames. It's one thing to have the supreme spooklord of evil swinging a mace the size of a Volkswagen, but it's another thing entirely for your average Joe. I'm not saying that a sledgehammer-type weapon wouldn't do a lot of damage, but it takes a lot more effort to swing, and does not swing very fast. Not only will it wear out the user a lot faster, but said user is also at a higher risk of death since their opponents have plenty of time to counter the attack.

Two issues that disappear on horseback. Not only is the horse's momentum helping you with the swing, but you're out of range by the time your opponent recovers from their shield splintering in their face. You're only getting one hit per pass, regardless of swing speed.

[LadyWYT]

1 hour ago, Bumber said:

Two issues that disappear on horseback. Not only is the horse's momentum helping you with the swing, but you're out of range by the time your opponent recovers from their shield splintering in their face. You're only getting one hit per pass, regardless of swing speed.

Last I checked, horses don't magically defy the laws of physics. The rider still needs to be able to swing his secondary weapon(because on horseback the primary weapon is the lance, which often breaks or sticks in the targets) efficiently for extended periods, and you can't always count on just riding away once you charge in. The horse could die, or otherwise be incapacitated, and the sheer number of bodies(live and dead) congregating together impede movement. Likewise, while horses are very strong, they have their limits as well, and there's only so much weight they will tolerate before they either attempt to throw the rider, or are injured.

That's not to say there wasn't heavier armor, but that stuff was typically reserved for jousting and not actual fighting.