SP - Player, NPCs & Troops Recruits should have shields

[Renard de Lissel]

For all we know, swords were expansive in our reality, we don't know if that's true for Calradia. Considering the number of them around, probably not, that's not really a valid argument.

What's the reason for that? Is their iron and steel cheaper than wood? No way.
Is it, for some reason, harder for them to forge a spearhead or axe than a sword blade? Not true again, we have crafting system and you actually need higher skill and more materials to make a sword. May be it’s easier to use sword than spear, axe or club? No, it isn’t, it’s actually harder: you can’t really screw up a thrust with spear or botch a whack with mace, and even though you need to keep edge aligned with axes, axe is more forgiving in a cut because it cuts so much better. Are swords easier to maintain or repair? You have a long blade with one or two edges, it’s much longer than spearhead or axe, if your hilt gets loose it’s much harder to fix than replace a shaft, and more metal area means rust is a bigger problem. For all intents and purposes, Calradian swords should be more expensive than spears and axes. Not only that, they also should be used less because training a half-decent spearman takes as much time as training really mediocre swordsman. Especially if you prohibit shields and they have to learn how to parry. Believe it or not, fencing wasn’t really a common thing in the Middle Ages. Granted, they might have that knowledge more or less accessible in Calradia, but it’s still harder to use anyway. In essence, sword is a weapon which is more of a skill amplifier. It doesn’t really work well for a total noob, unlike spears and other weapons. Making sword the worst choice for a fresh recruit.

 

[Pejot]

Lmao you have no idea what you're saying. Try fighting someone who's hitting you with a stick. And then try it again when you have a shield. You'll see how much easier it is. To me it sounds like you base your facts in tv-series "vikings" more than anything else.

If you're so smart then try walking 50 kilometers with shield without any preparation then try to use it while standing in formation (one more thing you never stood in any formation before and the only thing You did was plowing the fields.

Seems more like you're basing your opinion on nothing.

It's totally different to use a shield in duel and use it in battle with people around you and hits going from many directions. Only advantage of shields was when they were used in formations or by experienced fighters.

 

[vahadar]

i see it as tha the recruits are supposed to represent levies/militias and those where often recruited farmers (like in the game) who usually in medieval times bringed their own equipment in times o war, the only soldiers i know and have read about tha was given equipment was soldiers in the standing army, in other words those who worked as regular soldiers as a daily basis.

This alone justify recruit have no shields.

 

[SirStart]

This alone justify recruit have no shields.

to be fair im not sure if yer sarcastic or actually agreeing with me XD

 

[vahadar]

to be fair im not sure if yer sarcastic or actually agreeing with me XD

I am definitly agreeing with your point. I dont see why recruits should have shields. Most of them have only basic weapons,and it fits to their social status (bottom of the ladder, well just above peasants but below militia i guess).

 

[Antoine42]

What's the reason for that? Is their iron and steel cheaper than wood? No way.
Is it, for some reason, harder for them to forge a spearhead or axe than a sword blade? Not true again, we have crafting system and you actually need higher skill and more materials to make a sword. May be it’s easier to use sword than spear, axe or club? No, it isn’t, it’s actually harder: you can’t really screw up a thrust with spear or botch a whack with mace, and even though you need to keep edge aligned with axes, axe is more forgiving in a cut because it cuts so much better. Are swords easier to maintain or repair? You have a long blade with one or two edges, it’s much longer than spearhead or axe, if your hilt gets loose it’s much harder to fix than replace a shaft, and more metal area means rust is a bigger problem. For all intents and purposes, Calradian swords should be more expensive than spears and axes. Not only that, they also should be used less because training a half-decent spearman takes as much time as training really mediocre swordsman. Especially if you prohibit shields and they have to learn how to parry. Believe it or not, fencing wasn’t really a common thing in the Middle Ages. Granted, they might have that knowledge more or less accessible in Calradia, but it’s still harder to use anyway. In essence, sword is a weapon which is more of a skill amplifier. It doesn’t really work well for a total noob, unlike spears and other weapons. Making sword the worst choice for a fresh recruit.

Their iron is cheaper and more ubiquitous than ours, plenty of villages produce some. And considering the fact that every recruit has a sword at their belt, someone had to made those swords so they don't seem to lack able craftsmen either. Wich were the main reasons for swords to be less common in our reality, the training factor aside, in a world where people can only attack and block from 4 directions. So yes, their axes, clubs and spears might still be cheaper, but swords still seems ubiquitous in Calradia.

And I know all that, thank you, this was just a bit of a troll, cause this debate about recruits needing shields to somehow prevent the AI from going into the fights with peasants armies isn't adressing the real issues behind this, knowingly AI needs a fix regarding troop training and shieldwall mechanic needs a fix, ranged AI needs a fix

Obviously they should have clubs and spears and makeshift weapons more than swords. And obviously every t2 one handed footman should have a shield, but I don't think so for recruits. They're fodder after all, and shouldn't stay fodder more than 2 days, after that they should either be dead or upgraded.

 

[SirStart]

I am definitly agreeing with your point. I dont see why recruits should have shields. Most of them have only basic weapons,and it fits to their social status (bottom of the ladder, well just above peasants but below militia i guess).

ah sorry, to much arguing with sarcastic people online make one self a bit cynical to if people are truly agreeing or sarcasticly agreeing with me XD
but aye this is how i see it atleast when it comes to the first tier 1-3 o the troops ye can hire, the tier 4 and up are the experienced regular soldiers.

And peasants are all suicidal people who can't bother to bring shields? It just doesn't make any sense to not bring a shield yourself if you were drafted to fight in a war.

why dont the looters and most bandits have shields apart from sea raiders as i see as experienced viking fighters? never thought about tha? farmers usually didnt have equipment like shields and swords and wha not, they used mostly their working tools as weapons.

 

[Geonshinweed]

Thats why tier 2 have shields. Tier 1 are merely peasants with scythes and whatever else they have.

We do have peasants in bannerlord and they upgrade to watchmen. Recruits are the basic foundation for an army right now. Army of 600 has like 200+ of them. they need that shield to survive.

And please dont make lord go to war with more than half their party consisting of recruits. its not fun to see people just fleeing before even the first clash.

 

[kekkuli5]

If you're so smart then try walking 50 kilometers with shield without any preparation then try to use it while standing in formation (one more thing you never stood in any formation before and the only thing You did was plowing the fields.

Seems more like you're basing your opinion on nothing.

It's totally different to use a shield in duel and use it in battle with people around you and hits going from many directions. Only advantage of shields was when they were used in formations or by experienced fighters.

So basically you're saying that let's say a helmet, would only be useful for someone who knows how to fight? And clearly you know nothing of shields if you think it's such a burden to carry on your back or on your belt. It's true some shields were heavier than others but most were not nearly as heavy as people think. And the last sentence is just stupid. Shield is exactly one of the things you would give to a person who can't afford armor or you cannot afford it for him. I think there's a reason spear+shield was the most commonly used combination of arms throughout the history.

Real world was not like rome total war where you'd throw your peasants in battle with nothing but a knife in their hands. I'm not saying m&b is realistic anyways but still this would make it more immersive to me.

 

[SmattlePattle]

I would like to see if there's any historical evidence for if hastily assembled levies carried shields. I imagine it varies time/place/culture though.

I mean, making a basic/poor quality shield is a pretty easily thing to do, you'd think if you were being levied and your life was on the line you wouldn't think twice about throwing a few scrap pieces of wood together with a cloth or leather strap. Is that a good shield? No, but it beats nothing - particularly for thrown/pelted/ranged weapons.

That all said: From a gameplay perspective the only relevant question is would it substantially improve battles? If so, just do it.

Considering IG such a high proportion of armies field recruits, I am of the opinion either recruits need to add more to battlefield dynamics or need to be easier to just quickly upgrade so they're not such a high percentage of fielded units.

 

[Matisse]

Historical precedence doesn't matter when you have Lee Harvey Oswald Battanian snipers.

Shields would mitigate this nonsense of 1/3 of the army being dead before reaching the infantry line, and the other 2/3 breaking almost immediately after a brief tussle.

Reduce the damage of arrows beyond a certain distance (unless it's a longbow), decrease NPC accuracy with them (especially fian), and give bog-standard infantry a wood/wicker shield.

The whole point of archers was amassed fire to *hopefully* hit something, not shoot the hair off a fleas ass at 100 yards.

 

[Pejot]

So basically you're saying that let's say a helmet, would only be useful for someone who knows how to fight? And clearly you know nothing of shields if you think it's such a burden to carry on your back or on your belt. It's true some shields were heavier than others but most were not nearly as heavy as people think. And the last sentence is just stupid. Shield is exactly one of the things you would give to a person who can't afford armor or you cannot afford it for him. I think there's a reason spear+shield was the most commonly used combination of arms throughout the history.

Real world was not like rome total war where you'd throw your peasants in battle with nothing but a knife in their hands. I'm not saying m&b is realistic anyways but still this would make it more immersive to me.

Shield+Spear was common but closer to ancient times than medieval. It was also used by people who trained to use this combo so they knew what were they doing.

Medieval peasant (if ever recruited to army cause it wasn't so common) had 2 ways to get equipment, bring it (get it himself) or get it from whoever recruited (if he provided it). Most common equipment was gambeson (cloth armor) and spear. This was the cheapest combo and that's why it was most common. Of course some people were bringing better equipment if they had the chance and money to get it but they were the minority of all.

I'm not seeking M&B to be the most realising of games cause then only good soldiers should be professionals (only in later part of medieval age), mercaneries and town craftsmen. These were the folks that were recruited first cause they had skills and equipment.
Since in M&B we recruit from wherever we want I assume that most of the folks would represent peasants and since they represent peasants they should have the basic equipment. Shield is not basic equipment even if it's easy to craft and use.

The only point in this is that giving better gear to base troops is not a fix but workaround to the game balancing problems.

First they should fix Lords recruitment and troop training what would lead to better armies (and game experience). Second they should fix the AI calculation regarding the decision to attack some parties. I did some tests using companions to create parties and watching their behaviour. For example they decide to attack any party that is smaller in number then them even if they have worse troops.
I created a party with 30 vlandian recruits and saw that the AI decided it was enough to fight 23 sea raiders. When I putted 30 sergeants the AI also decided to attack those raiders. The outcome of those 2 fights was obviously different but the AI lords have the same behaviour which leads to them easily being beaten by looters or other bandits.

 

[Antoine42]

Shields would mitigate this nonsense of 1/3 of the army being dead before reaching the infantry line, and the other 2/3 breaking almost immediately after a brief tussle.

No, having the army not being 75% recruits would mitigate the nonsense of having armies made of 75% recruits

And yes, ranged AI needs a nerf

 

[SirStart]

I would like to see if there's any historical evidence for if hastily assembled levies carried shields. I imagine it varies time/place/culture though.

I mean, making a basic/poor quality shield is a pretty easily thing to do, you'd think if you were being levied and your life was on the line you wouldn't think twice about throwing a few scrap pieces of wood together with a cloth or leather strap. Is that a good shield? No, but it beats nothing - particularly for thrown/pelted/ranged weapons.

That all said: From a gameplay perspective the only relevant question is would it substantially improve battles? If so, just do it.

Considering IG such a high proportion of armies field recruits, I am of the opinion either recruits need to add more to battlefield dynamics or need to be easier to just quickly upgrade so they're not such a high percentage of fielded units.

well i guess some people thought about it surely, but i dont think everyone did and mostly used wha ever they could lay their hands on, mauls, scytes, spears, bow, etc, peasant equipment more or less.

but as ye mention the biggest problem is lords with armies consistent mostly o recruits, i fer one think nobles could be able to use influence to raise the levels o their soldiers, so the inflation o influence would lower a bit in all factions. might actually help with the snowballing to i guess.

 

[Matisse]

They are not mutually exclusive concepts.

 

[SirStart]

I created a party with 30 vlandian recruits and saw that the AI decided it was enough to fight 23 sea raiders. When I putted 30 sergeants the AI also decided to attack those raiders. The outcome of those 2 fights was obviously different but the AI lords have the same behaviour which leads to them easily being beaten by looters or other bandits.

if this is the behaviour o the AI they need to fix it asap, i guess this is one o the biggest reason fer snowballing in the game if the lords attacks everything with smaller numbers and dont react to the quality o the troops as they did in warband.

 

[Pejot]

if this is the behaviour o the AI they need to fix it asap, i guess this is one o the biggest reason fer snowballing in the game if the lords attacks everything with smaller numbers and dont react to the quality o the troops as they did in warband.

Yep. There were also cases that made me think is AI taking into account that it have only wounded soldiers. Cause I saw AI lord happily raiding to attack looters while he was alone with 70 wounded soldiers.

 

[John Shepard]

Two cents:
Majority of levies would most likely be in auxiliary roles, although that would depend on the king's orders and how town commissions would go about the distribution of responsibilities for the king's army. In whatever capacity those levies would serve they would often be equipped with:

helmet or head protection
Shield (cheapest form of whole body protection)
Short Spear (Swords were more time consuming and required more material to make.

Rather than blast a wall of text, it can be summed up to:
Ease of training and intuitive use and expenses.
Those 3 pieces of gear would take precedent over everything else.

 

[Ifrain fen Criochan]

I think recruits should use spears and shields- or even axes in the case of Sturgia and Battania, maybe Aserai too? Recruits having swords just doesn't make sense, only first tier nobles should have swords.

 

[Matisse]

if this is the behaviour o the AI they need to fix it asap, i guess this is one o the biggest reason fer snowballing in the game if the lords attacks everything with smaller numbers and dont react to the quality o the troops as they did in warband.

It's one of many issues. In particular, medicine needs a rework or some kind of overhaul as a military supply with the ability to recruit healers/surgeons as passive, non-combatant troops. A lord running around with a party of 0 + 200 wounded is really sad and pathetic. Do lords actually go bed-to-bed healing their troops in the field and on the move? In Bannerlord they do I guess.