I have said before in this thread quite a few times that spears can and should be buffed.
Agreed, to some extent.
Well you said you think all base damage is too high, right? So if you lower both bow damage and other melee weapon damage, without touching armour penetration, aren't you going to just preserve the current problem of bows being better than melee weapons because they do the same thing but at range? And aren't melee weapons like swords going to deal too low damage with the amount of cut damage reduction that currently applies?
I'd be interested in seeing your ideal proposal for how much the base damage of most melee weapons should be lowered, and how much bows should be lowered.
I dont have time to go and make a detailed analysis and on a per weapon basis, as I dont intend a "50% reduction across the board", but just not having any weapon deal more damage than the total amount of hit points would be a good start. Bow having spears numbers would mean a reasonable step down, compensating lowered damage for their range.
If you really need broad brush numbers without a real basis however, cut one handed shouldnt exceed 40, two handers 77, halve it for blunt and pierce
1: Archers in Warband were absolutely not "useless outside of sieges", Vaegir and Sarranid high tier archers were highly effective and Rhodok Sharpshooters in particular were a deadly menace, even in field battles.
2: sieges comprise a very big part of fighting in Warband. There is also lots of fighting on uneven terrain with massive randomly generated cliffs or steep hillsides, where archers excelled - and which are still present to a lesser degree in BL.
3: Again, being the only troop who can attack from range had a huge number of other benefits. Fighting looters? Your infantry might possibly get wounded but your archers can literally kill them without a scratch. Fighting a enemy who's holding position? Your infantry have to wait for them to show up, but your archers can damage them the whole time. Etc.
4: I'm not even asking for the same amount of protection against arrows as Warband had, anyway. Warband armour gave about 2x more protection against arrows, I am asking for 1.7x more protection against arrows. So if you think BL archers are too strong and WB archers are too weak, a midpoint should result in balance.
1. Why bring full ranged when I could bring full knights? They were a deadly menace as Imperial menavliatons are in Bannerlord, but they are redundant if Fians are an option.
2. Unless you are talking cheering the maps for those minecraft mountains, uneven terrain was as much of a boon as hinderance, blocking line of sight.
3. Recently did an improvised test both in warband and bannerlord custom battle, full range vs full infantry. In both games ranged always lost by wide margin, except when battanian heroes with their two handers mauled in melee. It's not that big of an advantage, more of an AI deficiency.
4. I dont think they are weak in Warband (unless speaking mods like VC or 1257), simply by the way game is built the killing power resides somewhere else, is not evenly distributed.
, will get back if I notice something else.
deadline.com
