SP - Player, NPCs & Troops Recruits should have shields

[LordKaien]

I also see some lot with 30 mens go after a 70 lord and this lord was running away. When the 30 one catch it, it loss hard.

Maybe we can also think about how give more importance of castle. Right now, with a 150 mens troups, and after lost half of them and go hire some levy man, I have half of my men with no good train. It is very hard to hunt looters and even when I catch them, they dont give a lot of XP (or the high lvl soldiers take all).
I would like go to a castle and stay there for 2 days for exemple and train them. And this train will mostly will be efficient for low lvl soldiers. The castle will be more alive (you dont feel them empty ?) and usefull. High lords can more rise a good army (yeah, IA need to improve). You can also catch a lord with a weak troups, but only if you behind the ennemy line and during the rise part of journey of a lord.

And for equipement, for tier 1 units, we should have a good variety of weapons. They take whatever they think they can use for war. Axe for tree, knifes, pieces of wood, fork, sticks. Not one generic equipements. They dont have yet the standard weapons.

 

[looy]

I don't get why people are arguing as if the idea of giving recruits shields and fixing the recruit spam problem are necessarily opposed.

Seems reasonable to give recruits shields unless they're going to make it less fiddley to split your shielded / unshield troops. Unshielded troops need to be in a seperate control group to use them effectively against something other than looters, so either that needs to be automatic or the majority of infantry should just have shields. Also, the AI is never going to be as good at commanding troops in battle as a human and protecting shieldless troops is one of the harder things to do so it'd make them a lot more dangerous without needing insanely smart AI. Plus it just makes sense, if the game let me I would personally pay 100 per soldier to kit them out with shields and any lord with a couple of towns or castles should be able to easily afford the same.

That doesn't mean we can't also fix the recruit-spam problem (without resorting to letting them cheat). Here's a bunch of ideas:
* Have notables train troops faster. This doesn't really benefit the player until they've gotten relations up higher to access the more valuable "recruitment slots", but most AI lords start with lots of good relationships with notables.
* Add passive XP gain based on leadership skill.
* Add passive XP gain based on the appropriate weapon skills of the party leader (some perks already do this, but could make it a universal feature).
* Add more ways to get large parties into fights. Throw some 100+ bandits armies in there (perhaps once rebellions are actually implemented this could help).

There's some bugs in there too that add to the recruit overload problem. For one thing, "simulated" battles tend to let inferior armies punch above their weight and do way more damange than they should. EG 50 Lancers and 50 Horse Archers vs 10 Mountain Bandits can result in 7 or 8 deaths somehow, whearas if you actually played the battle and just told everyone to charge those bandits would just immediately die in a hail of arrows. This is how the AI fights every battle so its no wonder they can't retain high tier troops.

 

[Maximum997]

I did some tests with this -- I got 100 men, ONLY archers. I didn't really differentiate between crossbow/bowman, but it must've been 90% normal bowmen, tiers 2-3. Didn't upgrade any above tier 3.

I made a save before taking on a 600(!!) man army. Suicide, one would think. I did 10 of these runs, and won (without me as the player firing one arrow or attacking once, just slightly micromanaging them, having them back up, having them spread out if enemy returns fire, etc.

I won 8/10 times. This should not have been the case, the ONLY way I should have been able to win that is just by far superior micro-managing, which is usually how I win my battles, but I did very little of that. I just told them to hold a location at the start (slightly high ground at least), then if infantry comes too close I tell them to back off, then if infantry runs off I have them hold the position again. That's pretty much all, only using the loose formation to avoid too many casualties from archers. Even with the enemy forming shield walls they got annihilated. I watched a T2 archer shoot an arrow up at 120 degrees, just for it to go perfectly between 2 shields and kill a guy with a headshot. Sure that's probably a 1/100 shot, or is it?

After seeing this, I tried more of this. After my 10 tests, I did the same, except 1v600, I manually killed the 6 cavalry they had (just to make the testing a bit more viable), and just watched where his arrows flew, mind you, this is a T2 archer(!!).

Even at practically max ranged range, he had a hit-rate of roughly 80%, about 30% headshot rate. AT MAX RANGE. Obviously I kept losing the battle because I'm bringing one troop against 600, but this test was purely designed to see its accuracy.

TLDR:

Archers, especially lower tier, need a massive accuracy nerf, Did testing, won 100v600 with JUST ARCHERS T2/T3 8/10 times. Watched a single archer unit (in a 1v600) have a 80% hitrate at max ranged range, 30% headshot rate (EVEN WITH SHIELD WALLS). They're broken.

Haha, some one noticed it really? You can win even 100 v 1000 i guess. You need just ride forward and agr all AI forces on you. Derp them around and watch your archers win the battle.

 

[JurgenJuggernaut]

+1, Hi all,
Recruits are newly hired peasants, who are supposed to be given basic equipment. Thus are not the same as peasants (as militia).

That's why there are 3 different things, recruit, peasant, militia.

In standardized armies they would be trained for a period of time, as Romans did.

Or others cultures were accustomed to train their sons for different porpouses, like raiding (Vikings), defending their homes (Scotland tribes), for their way of life (Mongols).

To further reinforce this, some last tier units that don't have shield are easy prey for archers even low tier archers, like menavlions.

 

[Nikolai Alexandre]

I don't care about the gameplay ramifications, I just think it looks ridiculous to have half the armies being composed of people in colorful shirts and one handed swords, weapons of the aristocracy, when they can't even afford some padded armor or crappy wooden shields. The game would be more immersive, and the armies look less ridiculous, if recruits had short spears, shields, gambesons/padded/leather armor, light helmets, and shields.

 

[kekkuli5]

I don't care about the gameplay ramifications, I just think it looks ridiculous to have half the armies being composed of people in colorful shirts and one handed swords, weapons of the aristocracy, when they can't even afford some padded armor or crappy wooden shields. The game would be more immersive, and the armies look less ridiculous, if recruits had short spears, shields, gambesons/padded/leather armor, light helmets, and shields.

Yup. And at the same time i see lot of people complaining that the game is too easy. Well, properly equipped militias would make it a bit harder.

 

[Pejot]

Just ended a test where i added basic shield to every recruit (basic troop) and guess what? It's a ****ty solution that made every battle worse.
1. Recruits were blocking attack animation of other units more often
2. Recruits when shot with arrows died as often as without shields
3. More higher tier units died cause of being blocked by recruits.
4. Fighting lord spamming You with army of shielded recruits didn't change and they are killed by archers with same rate and rout before they reach You in melee.
5. Autocalc seems to not take gear into account just pure skills so recruits with shields are not making any difference in autocalculated battles.

I did this test for peace of mind and the results are that this is not a solution even temporary cause literally it doesn't change enything. Porbably cause of shield blocking being tied to one handed skill and basic troops have around 30-40 in that.

Conclusion: No shields for them cause they are more problematic with shields than helpfull and it's not even close to a solution for snowballing and boring fights with lords.

 

[krimacantutul]

Well I don't know... maybe the whole ranged stuff should be nerfed? I mean, my veteran imperial footmen are always mowed down by bushwackers. BUSHWACKERS!

Maybe I just suck idk

 

[shmambo]

Just ended a test where i added basic shield to every recruit (basic troop) and guess what? It's a ****ty solution that made every battle worse.
1. Recruits were blocking attack animation of other units more often
2. Recruits when shot with arrows died as often as without shields
3. More higher tier units died cause of being blocked by recruits.
4. Fighting lord spamming You with army of shielded recruits didn't change and they are killed by archers with same rate and rout before they reach You in melee.
5. Autocalc seems to not take gear into account just pure skills so recruits with shields are not making any difference in autocalculated battles.

I did this test for peace of mind and the results are that this is not a solution even temporary cause literally it doesn't change enything. Porbably cause of shield blocking being tied to one handed skill and basic troops have around 30-40 in that.

Conclusion: No shields for them cause they are more problematic with shields than helpfull and it's not even close to a solution for snowballing and boring fights with lords.

Thank you for going through the trouble of testing it out. Then again, your findings are somewhat dissapointing since I had hoped shields to make things better.

The shieldless recruit seems to only be a problem in an environment where a recruit troop is a sizeable portion ai lords' party. Giving more opportunities for a lord to upgrade their troops diminshes the problem. It might not completely solve it, but it automatically makes things better. Less recruits in a battle, less bs, smaller problem.

This could be achieved in several ways without needing the ai to cheat. Having something akin to the trainer skill in warband, lords starting with higher relation towards allied fiefs and the high relation troops being higher in quality, training camps for troops, ability to recruit militia or any other similar solution suggested by the community. Some are perhaps more elegant than others, still I feel the core of the problem could be solved in one of these ways.

 

[Diavolo]

The problem is when a player defeated in battle and after that; creating his army no player rushes the battle with 80 tier1 and 20-30 tier 2-3 units. Player grinds his army to at least %50 is tier 4 5 6. AI lords cant do that.
Maybe giving tier 1 units a wooden shield at least give ai army to challenge player a little. Well those shileds can be broken in 3-4 arrow shots. Or 2-3 melee damage.

And that is the issue with the current recruitment system. Fiefs should give troops. (Not a gang leader, the lord of the castle should kill the gang leader)

the fief itself should have a pool of manpower (population) which grows steadily over time. This population can be recruited as tier1 units by only the owner of that fief (and it should be hundreds of potential recruits, maybe even thousands) By building training grounds one can be able to recruit higher tier units directly from the pool of trained units, but that is something that slowly grows over time where different buildings should limit the pace of training as well as the maximum amount. All the troops of tier 2 or higher will be part of the fief garrison and the lord must pay their wages (the tier 1 are not soldiers but farmers that can be recruited so they are free until they are recruited) the tax from even just one village should be so great that a lord should have no problems paying for their army and the training and garrison of the village with their taxes.

The player character should have a much harder time of recruiting before they get a fief themselves. The player should be forced to hire mercenaries and (reformed) bandits until they get a fief of their own.

With this system, armies and kingdoms will be balanced with the fiefs that they own.

 

[peenerz]

Just ended a test where i added basic shield to every recruit (basic troop) and guess what? It's a ****ty solution that made every battle worse.
1. Recruits were blocking attack animation of other units more often
2. Recruits when shot with arrows died as often as without shields
3. More higher tier units died cause of being blocked by recruits.
4. Fighting lord spamming You with army of shielded recruits didn't change and they are killed by archers with same rate and rout before they reach You in melee.
5. Autocalc seems to not take gear into account just pure skills so recruits with shields are not making any difference in autocalculated battles.

I did this test for peace of mind and the results are that this is not a solution even temporary cause literally it doesn't change enything. Porbably cause of shield blocking being tied to one handed skill and basic troops have around 30-40 in that.

Conclusion: No shields for them cause they are more problematic with shields than helpfull and it's not even close to a solution for snowballing and boring fights with lords.

Something that I noticed is that the AI doesn't seem to like to block with shields in Bannerlord, so I'm not surprised. If they fixed blocking like how the AI did in Warband you'd have totally different results. When you tell your units to go to shield wall and advance towards the enemy, recruits still die a bunch while tier 2 units with shields do not. Why? Because they're blocking with their shields at this point while the recruits don't have any. So in conclusion, if the AI knew how to use shields then they are very effective against archers. Your test does not take that into account.

Also the fact that recruits weren't slaughtered in melee though proves that shields are in fact a great addition because fights against recruits are less of a steamroll you guys seem to want to keep around.

 

[vahadar]

Just ended a test where i added basic shield to every recruit (basic troop) and guess what? It's a ****ty solution that made every battle worse.
1. Recruits were blocking attack animation of other units more often
2. Recruits when shot with arrows died as often as without shields
3. More higher tier units died cause of being blocked by recruits.
4. Fighting lord spamming You with army of shielded recruits didn't change and they are killed by archers with same rate and rout before they reach You in melee.
5. Autocalc seems to not take gear into account just pure skills so recruits with shields are not making any difference in autocalculated battles.

I did this test for peace of mind and the results are that this is not a solution even temporary cause literally it doesn't change enything. Porbably cause of shield blocking being tied to one handed skill and basic troops have around 30-40 in that.

Conclusion: No shields for them cause they are more problematic with shields than helpfull and it's not even close to a solution for snowballing and boring fights with lords.

+1

 

[peenerz]

Infantry in the Middle Ages - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Levies were very much equipped with shields. It was the cheapest form of "armor", even cheaper than a gambleson. Also your argument that "shields are only useful in formations or in the hands of skilled soldiers" is quite irrelevant too because soldiers fought in formations especially shield walls during this era, and an individual shield is very effective at stopping an arrow from piercing your heart @Pejot

"In the battles between the Anglo-Saxons and the Danes in England, most of the Saxon army would have consisted of the inexperienced Fyrd — a militia composed of free peasants. The shield-wall tactic suited such soldiers, as it did not require extraordinary skill, being essentially a shoving and fencing match with weapons."

 

[kekkuli5]

Just ended a test where i added basic shield to every recruit (basic troop) and guess what? It's a ****ty solution that made every battle worse.
1. Recruits were blocking attack animation of other units more often
2. Recruits when shot with arrows died as often as without shields
3. More higher tier units died cause of being blocked by recruits.
4. Fighting lord spamming You with army of shielded recruits didn't change and they are killed by archers with same rate and rout before they reach You in melee.
5. Autocalc seems to not take gear into account just pure skills so recruits with shields are not making any difference in autocalculated battles.

I did this test for peace of mind and the results are that this is not a solution even temporary cause literally it doesn't change enything. Porbably cause of shield blocking being tied to one handed skill and basic troops have around 30-40 in that.

Conclusion: No shields for them cause they are more problematic with shields than helpfull and it's not even close to a solution for snowballing and boring fights with lords.

1. So you are blaming the shields because combat mechanics atm suck, and hopefully get fixed at some point.
2. Again, the game is to blame. Troops barely hold up their shields when they are advancing, which is stupid. They blocked a lot more in warband.
3. See 1.
4. Archers are op, it's well known.

 

[Pejot]

Infantry in the Middle Ages - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Levies were very much equipped with shields. It was the cheapest form of "armor", even cheaper than a gambleson. Also your argument that "shields are only useful in formations or in the hands of skilled soldiers" is quite irrelevant too because soldiers fought in formations especially shield walls during this era, and an individual shield is very effective at stopping an arrow from piercing your heart @Pejot

"In the battles between the Anglo-Saxons and the Danes in England, most of the Saxon army would have consisted of the inexperienced Fyrd — a militia composed of free peasants. The shield-wall tactic suited such soldiers, as it did not require extraordinary skill, being essentially a shoving and fencing match with weapons."

Base your knowledge on wikipedia. Nice.

However there is a huge hole in your logic. Free peasant or tenant were not just any ordinary peasant of the period. They were minority and often ended as militia (basic training in formations like shieldwall) or regular soldiers. They were also not present in every little settlement. Regular peasants were as I described not common on battlefields and if someone brings them they had to either get equipment themselves which often was a decision between one part of equipment or another or rarely being equipped by the lord (who took back equipment after fight). That's why they chose to bring spears (cheap weapon) but not shields (not enough money to buy it). Not every human was capable of creating a shield especially those who weren't regular fighters.
Don't compare levy (regular peasants) with fyrd/militia (trained ones) cause those are two separate kinds of fighters.
I also described it that first to be recruited were craftsmen (who served as militia with basic training) and mercenaries.
Lack of equipment for basic soldiers wasn't some bad will of the people but it was caused by how little time they had to gather an army to defend (attackers usually were better prepared).
Whole concept of keeping regular soldiers was not common.

 

[Pejot]

1. So you are blaming the shields because combat mechanics atm suck, and hopefully get fixed at some point.
2. Again, the game is to blame. Troops barely hold up their shields when they are advancing, which is stupid. They blocked a lot more in warband.
3. See 1.
4. Archers are op, it's well known.

No I'm just pointing out that recruits with shields are not a solution because of other bugs.

 

[kekkuli5]

No I'm just pointing out that recruits with shields are not a solution because of other bugs.

Well i kinda agree with that. Formation combat atm is terrible, amongst other things.

 

[Ciderglove]

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.

What an absolutely absurd thing to say.

 

[kekkuli5]

What an absolutely absurd thing to say.

It is, but i'm not exactly sure if he means peasants or militias. Because yeah peasants would probably never have shield because their place is not on the battlefield in the first place. But militias would 100% use a shield unless they have a weapon that requires 2 hands to use.

 

[ἀποκάλυψις]

I recently added a suggestion that there should be a tier 1.5 unit upgraded with gold. Basically recruits with the same stats but given extra weapons and armour.

Great idea!