SP - Player, NPCs & Troops Recruits should have shields

[Footlong]

I agree, at the moment due to the stupidity of infantry shield wall, recruits in my combined armies are slaughtered. A workaround I use against this is to have 1 recruit in my army that I assign to another formation so that all recruits sit at the rear while the real soldiers fight.

 

[Pejot]

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.

That's best idea here I think. This way You have another thing to do with all the money and it's kinda realistic too. You're a wealthy person than even bottom soldiers in your army are well equipped.

 

[Ciderglove]

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.

The soldiers you recruit from villages are not peasants. They are recruits.

 

[ἀποκάλυψις]

Separate the skill progression from the equipment progression for troop units. Interesting but not technically feasible beyond a small middle tier.

As fun as it would be for units to become asymmetrical—Imperial Legionary of the same equipment but different skill.

That, however, would add even more memory requirements and too much record keeping to save I think.

You could also create a mid-tier at the other extreme with some small effort. Deserters and survivors... highly skilled, but no good gear.

 

[ShadInqu]

Peple seem to be discussing several different problems simultaneously, which leads to confusion. The issues that lead the the current bad situation with battles are separate:

1. All ranged combat is overwhemingly OP. The talk about looter stones, Imperial crossbowmen last week, forest bandits etc. are all symptoms of a much larger problem. I played Warband&mods in the couple of weeks before the release, and the difference is staggering.
   • Create a character in Warband with no ranged skills and try to hit something beyond 20m away, let alone land a headshot. Yeah, that's what I thought. In Bannerlord, a character with 0 skill, whether player or companion can pick up a ranged weapon and start chaining headshots like nothing. Starting with near perfect accuracy is OP.
   • Warband you needed a heavy skill investement into power throw/draw and horse archery to actually do damage. A novice with a hunter's bow could land headshots on a heavily armored knight and do virtually no damage. Bannerlord, ranged gamage starts massive from the get go, skills only slightly increase it. And also for some bizzare reason, blunt weapons like stones do tonnes of damage to heavy armor.
   • Crossbows had a low-ish skill requirement in Warband, but you still needed Strength and reloading was slow. Also, if you wanted horse archery, you were locked out of the most powerfuld bows crossbows. Bannerlord has an early perk that lets you shoot anything from horseback.
   • Overall ranged combat needs an major look at. Low skilled bow/thrown weapons need to do far less damage against armored opponents. Low skilled ranged weapons need to be far less accurate
2. The second issue is fantasy recruits with swords and shirts. And nothing else. It's odd, it has no historical parallels anywhere. I don't understand why people say "meat on legs", that wasn't a thing either. If a lord went to the trouble of recruiting manpower, they usually expected them to at least not dieinstantly. Shields were one of the most basic ways of protection so there's no reason why most troops shouldn't start with one.
   • So yeah, recruits need a more varied weapon selection (far fewer swords, more spears/clubs/axes/throwables) and they absolutely should have some kind of basic shield.
3. The third issue is campaign behaviour. There's 2 parts to it:
   • First is overzealoous lords who raise and army and promptly rush into battle again with 2/3 of their army being raw recruits. This is clearly unitntended behaviour and needs a fix.
   • The second is game mechanics. "Let's make my recruits into trained troops by chasing some bandits" said no lord in history ever. Troops even have names like "Trained Footman". Chasing looters is not training. Aand even for the player, after a while it feels like busywork, keeping you from the "fun" activities. Castles and towns need some kind of "training grounds", where troops could be trained (spending time and money), rather than rely on notables in settlements to roll what you need.
   • Another part of the issue is bandit behaviour. The bands <10 men are usually too fast and not worth chasing for most lord armies (or the player for that matter, outside very early game). Bandits needs some kind of consolidatiom mechanic, where if a band hasn't had a successful attack on villagers/caravans in a while, they try to merge with another bandit party in the vicinity, or failing that, go to the hideout and merge there.
4. Then there's battle AI issues but these are minor in comparison.

 

[Demoulius]

Peple seem to be discussing several different problems simultaneously, which leads to confusion. The issues that lead the the current bad situation with battles are separate:

1. All ranged combat is overwhemingly OP. The talk about looter stones, Imperial crossbowmen last week, forest bandits etc. are all symptoms of a much larger problem. I played Warband&mods in the couple of weeks before the release, and the difference is staggering.
   • Create a character in Warband with no ranged skills and try to hit something beyond 20m away, let alone land a headshot. Yeah, that's what I thought. In Bannerlord, a character with 0 skill, whether player or companion can pick up a ranged weapon and start chaining headshots like nothing. Starting with near perfect accuracy is OP.
   • Warband you needed a heavy skill investement into power throw/draw and horse archery to actually do damage. A novice with a hunter's bow could land headshots on a heavily armored knight and do virtually no damage. Bannerlord, ranged gamage starts massive from the get go, skills only slightly increase it. And also for some bizzare reason, blunt weapons like stones do tonnes of damage to heavy armor.
   • Crossbows had a low-ish skill requirement in Warband, but you still needed Strength and reloading was slow. Also, if you wanted horse archery, you were locked out of the most powerfuld bows crossbows. Bannerlord has an early perk that lets you shoot anything from horseback.
   • Overall ranged combat needs an major look at. Low skilled bow/thrown weapons need to do far less damage against armored opponents. Low skilled ranged weapons need to be far less accurate
2. The second issue is fantasy recruits with swords and shirts. And nothing else. It's odd, it has no historical parallels anywhere. I don't understand why people say "meat on legs", that wasn't a thing either. If a lord went to the trouble of recruiting manpower, they usually expected them to at least not dieinstantly. Shields were one of the most basic ways of protection so there's no reason why most troops shouldn't start with one.
   • So yeah, recruits need a more varied weapon selection (far fewer swords, more spears/clubs/axes/throwables) and they absolutely should have some kind of basic shield.
3. The third issue is campaign behaviour. There's 2 parts to it:
   • First is overzealoous lords who raise and army and promptly rush into battle again with 2/3 of their army being raw recruits. This is clearly unitntended behaviour and needs a fix.
   • The second is game mechanics. "Let's make my recruits into trained troops by chasing some bandits" said no lord in history ever. Troops even have names like "Trained Footman". Chasing looters is not training. Aand even for the player, after a while it feels like busywork, keeping you from the "fun" activities. Castles and towns need some kind of "training grounds", where troops could be trained (spending time and money), rather than rely on notables in settlements to roll what you need.
   • Another part of the issue is bandit behaviour. The bands <10 men are usually too fast and not worth chasing for most lord armies (or the player for that matter, outside very early game). Bandits needs some kind of consolidatiom mechanic, where if a band hasn't had a successful attack on villagers/caravans in a while, they try to merge with another bandit party in the vicinity, or failing that, go to the hideout and merge there.
4. Then there's battle AI issues but these are minor in comparison.

Good post! +1

 

[kekkuli5]

A great sum-up. I guess they wanted for players to not feel so weak at the beginning and made weapons do almost their full potential damage, be it melee or ranged, from the get go. A thing i greatly dislike about the game.

 

[ShadInqu]

A great sum-up. I guess they wanted for players to not feel so weak at the beginning and made weapons do almost their full potential damage, be it melee or ranged, from the get go. A thing i greatly dislike about the game.

I'm personally hoping this is "testing build"/alpha leftover, and pending a skill perk overhaul.

 

[SmattlePattle]

Peple seem to be discussing several different problems simultaneously, which leads to confusion. The issues that lead the the current bad situation with battles are separate:

1. All ranged combat is overwhemingly OP. The talk about looter stones, Imperial crossbowmen last week, forest bandits etc. are all symptoms of a much larger problem. I played Warband&mods in the couple of weeks before the release, and the difference is staggering.
   • Create a character in Warband with no ranged skills and try to hit something beyond 20m away, let alone land a headshot. Yeah, that's what I thought. In Bannerlord, a character with 0 skill, whether player or companion can pick up a ranged weapon and start chaining headshots like nothing. Starting with near perfect accuracy is OP.
   • Warband you needed a heavy skill investement into power throw/draw and horse archery to actually do damage. A novice with a hunter's bow could land headshots on a heavily armored knight and do virtually no damage. Bannerlord, ranged gamage starts massive from the get go, skills only slightly increase it. And also for some bizzare reason, blunt weapons like stones do tonnes of damage to heavy armor.
   • Crossbows had a low-ish skill requirement in Warband, but you still needed Strength and reloading was slow. Also, if you wanted horse archery, you were locked out of the most powerfuld bows crossbows. Bannerlord has an early perk that lets you shoot anything from horseback.
   • Overall ranged combat needs an major look at. Low skilled bow/thrown weapons need to do far less damage against armored opponents. Low skilled ranged weapons need to be far less accurate
2. The second issue is fantasy recruits with swords and shirts. And nothing else. It's odd, it has no historical parallels anywhere. I don't understand why people say "meat on legs", that wasn't a thing either. If a lord went to the trouble of recruiting manpower, they usually expected them to at least not dieinstantly. Shields were one of the most basic ways of protection so there's no reason why most troops shouldn't start with one.
   • So yeah, recruits need a more varied weapon selection (far fewer swords, more spears/clubs/axes/throwables) and they absolutely should have some kind of basic shield.
3. The third issue is campaign behaviour. There's 2 parts to it:
   • First is overzealoous lords who raise and army and promptly rush into battle again with 2/3 of their army being raw recruits. This is clearly unitntended behaviour and needs a fix.
   • The second is game mechanics. "Let's make my recruits into trained troops by chasing some bandits" said no lord in history ever. Troops even have names like "Trained Footman". Chasing looters is not training. Aand even for the player, after a while it feels like busywork, keeping you from the "fun" activities. Castles and towns need some kind of "training grounds", where troops could be trained (spending time and money), rather than rely on notables in settlements to roll what you need.
   • Another part of the issue is bandit behaviour. The bands <10 men are usually too fast and not worth chasing for most lord armies (or the player for that matter, outside very early game). Bandits needs some kind of consolidatiom mechanic, where if a band hasn't had a successful attack on villagers/caravans in a while, they try to merge with another bandit party in the vicinity, or failing that, go to the hideout and merge there.
4. Then there's battle AI issues but these are minor in comparison.

You pretty much nailed this thread. If there is a dev reading, this is the post they should take away from this dumpster fire.

 

[radiant9000]

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.

Why do you want to buff recruits so much? I mean they are supposed to be weak. Devs should be increasing lord's troop quality instead of buffing weaker units imo.

 

[Karl_Magnus]

Make it a payable upgrade to add a shield on recruits, like 10d for something that has 50-75 hit points. This way you can choose, but you still need to pay/smith the shield if you want to have it on recruits.

 

[Ciderglove]

Peple seem to be discussing several different problems simultaneously, which leads to confusion. The issues that lead the the current bad situation with battles are separate:

1. All ranged combat is overwhemingly OP. The talk about looter stones, Imperial crossbowmen last week, forest bandits etc. are all symptoms of a much larger problem. I played Warband&mods in the couple of weeks before the release, and the difference is staggering.
   • Create a character in Warband with no ranged skills and try to hit something beyond 20m away, let alone land a headshot. Yeah, that's what I thought. In Bannerlord, a character with 0 skill, whether player or companion can pick up a ranged weapon and start chaining headshots like nothing. Starting with near perfect accuracy is OP.
   • Warband you needed a heavy skill investement into power throw/draw and horse archery to actually do damage. A novice with a hunter's bow could land headshots on a heavily armored knight and do virtually no damage. Bannerlord, ranged gamage starts massive from the get go, skills only slightly increase it. And also for some bizzare reason, blunt weapons like stones do tonnes of damage to heavy armor.
   • Crossbows had a low-ish skill requirement in Warband, but you still needed Strength and reloading was slow. Also, if you wanted horse archery, you were locked out of the most powerfuld bows crossbows. Bannerlord has an early perk that lets you shoot anything from horseback.
   • Overall ranged combat needs an major look at. Low skilled bow/thrown weapons need to do far less damage against armored opponents. Low skilled ranged weapons need to be far less accurate
2. The second issue is fantasy recruits with swords and shirts. And nothing else. It's odd, it has no historical parallels anywhere. I don't understand why people say "meat on legs", that wasn't a thing either. If a lord went to the trouble of recruiting manpower, they usually expected them to at least not dieinstantly. Shields were one of the most basic ways of protection so there's no reason why most troops shouldn't start with one.
   • So yeah, recruits need a more varied weapon selection (far fewer swords, more spears/clubs/axes/throwables) and they absolutely should have some kind of basic shield.
3. The third issue is campaign behaviour. There's 2 parts to it:
   • First is overzealoous lords who raise and army and promptly rush into battle again with 2/3 of their army being raw recruits. This is clearly unitntended behaviour and needs a fix.
   • The second is game mechanics. "Let's make my recruits into trained troops by chasing some bandits" said no lord in history ever. Troops even have names like "Trained Footman". Chasing looters is not training. Aand even for the player, after a while it feels like busywork, keeping you from the "fun" activities. Castles and towns need some kind of "training grounds", where troops could be trained (spending time and money), rather than rely on notables in settlements to roll what you need.
   • Another part of the issue is bandit behaviour. The bands <10 men are usually too fast and not worth chasing for most lord armies (or the player for that matter, outside very early game). Bandits needs some kind of consolidatiom mechanic, where if a band hasn't had a successful attack on villagers/caravans in a while, they try to merge with another bandit party in the vicinity, or failing that, go to the hideout and merge there.
4. Then there's battle AI issues but these are minor in comparison.

This is a superb post. Everyone needs to read it.

 

[ἀποκάλυψις]

The second is game mechanics. "Let's make my recruits into trained troops by chasing some bandits" said no lord in history ever.

Good thoughts all, but this point is actually not true. In fact, in places you don’t want to visit today, gaining combat experience on “looters” is still the thing. Training on “live tissue“ is whole other thing in even darker holes. Even now, very few militaries have the ability to project power.

Most military forces in history focused on and gained real combat experience on conducting internal defense—the full range of measures taken by a government to protect itself from subversion, lawlessness, and insurgency. Looters could be just a placeholder for any civil disobedience, etc. The idea of a professional civil police force is a new thing.

Spoiler: Aside

Finally, you mention many core issues. I would argue a core issue with the campaign map and all the parties there is a lack of a “detection signature” component and better defined movement techniques for all parties. Seems that speed is the only factor now. It’s like everything is the fellowship’s marathon to rohirrim at the moment—your speed may vary. Small, fleeing parties shouldn’t be getting found as often if they are trying to avoid contact and detection.

 

[Waybook]

I modded my game and gave all tier1 recruits the same shields and spears that tier2 militia spearmen have. Shields buff against archers and spears buff against cavalry. Now enemy infantry can at least reach my frontline. Before this, they got mowed down by archers before they had any chance to fight. It does feel like a step in the right direction, but I think I'm also going to buff their stats a little.

 

[Tim-Ab]

I completely agree. The shield is a basic piece of protective equipment, and it's crazy to go into battle without it.

 

[Castanietzsche]

+1

 

[Nordmann]

I completely agree. The shield is a basic piece of protective equipment, and it's crazy to go into battle without it.

Agreed. No classical or medieval army in their right mind would ever send infantry into battle without such a basic piece of kit.

 

[enemy_man]

Peple seem to be discussing several different problems simultaneously, which leads to confusion. The issues that lead the the current bad situation with battles are separate:

1. All ranged combat is overwhemingly OP. The talk about looter stones, Imperial crossbowmen last week, forest bandits etc. are all symptoms of a much larger problem. I played Warband&mods in the couple of weeks before the release, and the difference is staggering.
   • Create a character in Warband with no ranged skills and try to hit something beyond 20m away, let alone land a headshot. Yeah, that's what I thought. In Bannerlord, a character with 0 skill, whether player or companion can pick up a ranged weapon and start chaining headshots like nothing. Starting with near perfect accuracy is OP.
   • Warband you needed a heavy skill investement into power throw/draw and horse archery to actually do damage. A novice with a hunter's bow could land headshots on a heavily armored knight and do virtually no damage. Bannerlord, ranged gamage starts massive from the get go, skills only slightly increase it. And also for some bizzare reason, blunt weapons like stones do tonnes of damage to heavy armor.
   • Crossbows had a low-ish skill requirement in Warband, but you still needed Strength and reloading was slow. Also, if you wanted horse archery, you were locked out of the most powerfuld bows crossbows. Bannerlord has an early perk that lets you shoot anything from horseback.
   • Overall ranged combat needs an major look at. Low skilled bow/thrown weapons need to do far less damage against armored opponents. Low skilled ranged weapons need to be far less accurate
2. The second issue is fantasy recruits with swords and shirts. And nothing else. It's odd, it has no historical parallels anywhere. I don't understand why people say "meat on legs", that wasn't a thing either. If a lord went to the trouble of recruiting manpower, they usually expected them to at least not dieinstantly. Shields were one of the most basic ways of protection so there's no reason why most troops shouldn't start with one.
   • So yeah, recruits need a more varied weapon selection (far fewer swords, more spears/clubs/axes/throwables) and they absolutely should have some kind of basic shield.
3. The third issue is campaign behaviour. There's 2 parts to it:
   • First is overzealoous lords who raise and army and promptly rush into battle again with 2/3 of their army being raw recruits. This is clearly unitntended behaviour and needs a fix.
   • The second is game mechanics. "Let's make my recruits into trained troops by chasing some bandits" said no lord in history ever. Troops even have names like "Trained Footman". Chasing looters is not training. Aand even for the player, after a while it feels like busywork, keeping you from the "fun" activities. Castles and towns need some kind of "training grounds", where troops could be trained (spending time and money), rather than rely on notables in settlements to roll what you need.
   • Another part of the issue is bandit behaviour. The bands <10 men are usually too fast and not worth chasing for most lord armies (or the player for that matter, outside very early game). Bandits needs some kind of consolidatiom mechanic, where if a band hasn't had a successful attack on villagers/caravans in a while, they try to merge with another bandit party in the vicinity, or failing that, go to the hideout and merge there.
4. Then there's battle AI issues but these are minor in comparison.

I agree with this.

 

[Stromming]

Peple seem to be discussing several different problems simultaneously, which leads to confusion. The issues that lead the the current bad situation with battles are separate:

1. All ranged combat is overwhemingly OP. The talk about looter stones, Imperial crossbowmen last week, forest bandits etc. are all symptoms of a much larger problem. I played Warband&mods in the couple of weeks before the release, and the difference is staggering.
   • Create a character in Warband with no ranged skills and try to hit something beyond 20m away, let alone land a headshot. Yeah, that's what I thought. In Bannerlord, a character with 0 skill, whether player or companion can pick up a ranged weapon and start chaining headshots like nothing. Starting with near perfect accuracy is OP.
   • Warband you needed a heavy skill investement into power throw/draw and horse archery to actually do damage. A novice with a hunter's bow could land headshots on a heavily armored knight and do virtually no damage. Bannerlord, ranged gamage starts massive from the get go, skills only slightly increase it. And also for some bizzare reason, blunt weapons like stones do tonnes of damage to heavy armor.
   • Crossbows had a low-ish skill requirement in Warband, but you still needed Strength and reloading was slow. Also, if you wanted horse archery, you were locked out of the most powerfuld bows crossbows. Bannerlord has an early perk that lets you shoot anything from horseback.
   • Overall ranged combat needs an major look at. Low skilled bow/thrown weapons need to do far less damage against armored opponents. Low skilled ranged weapons need to be far less accurate
2. The second issue is fantasy recruits with swords and shirts. And nothing else. It's odd, it has no historical parallels anywhere. I don't understand why people say "meat on legs", that wasn't a thing either. If a lord went to the trouble of recruiting manpower, they usually expected them to at least not dieinstantly. Shields were one of the most basic ways of protection so there's no reason why most troops shouldn't start with one.
   • So yeah, recruits need a more varied weapon selection (far fewer swords, more spears/clubs/axes/throwables) and they absolutely should have some kind of basic shield.
3. The third issue is campaign behaviour. There's 2 parts to it:
   • First is overzealoous lords who raise and army and promptly rush into battle again with 2/3 of their army being raw recruits. This is clearly unitntended behaviour and needs a fix.
   • The second is game mechanics. "Let's make my recruits into trained troops by chasing some bandits" said no lord in history ever. Troops even have names like "Trained Footman". Chasing looters is not training. Aand even for the player, after a while it feels like busywork, keeping you from the "fun" activities. Castles and towns need some kind of "training grounds", where troops could be trained (spending time and money), rather than rely on notables in settlements to roll what you need.
   • Another part of the issue is bandit behaviour. The bands <10 men are usually too fast and not worth chasing for most lord armies (or the player for that matter, outside very early game). Bandits needs some kind of consolidatiom mechanic, where if a band hasn't had a successful attack on villagers/caravans in a while, they try to merge with another bandit party in the vicinity, or failing that, go to the hideout and merge there.
4. Then there's battle AI issues but these are minor in comparison.

Excellent sum up.

And I also agree with being able to pay for equipment upgrade to recruits, even at the same skill level.

 

[MeleeSlaaneshFnE]

Agreed. And make spears more common for lower tier units than swords.

+1