Current state of game enforces unfun gameplay.

[NordicWill]

@Smug_Alpaca

The 2h spam is there thats a fact, and most of them swing their weapon mindless around until they hit something, they prove it every match.
Maybe you are one of them, who knows.
Most of them arent that good, If you block them once you can kill them easy, they just hope to make a lucky kill.
But, I saw today more archers than usual, so probably more peope are annoyed by it.

Agreed. I feel my first time playing MP was more diverse in troop selection than now. Now, in siege, its 80% archers early portion. 2H spam once first flag is taken. Then 70/30 Cav and 2H on final flags. I can understand the archers part in siege and the game being the era its following. The game needs to focus on importance of shields, archers, and team work. The cav and 2H spamming is killing MP for me. I can see the archer arrow nerf on metal armor added, but archers are not the problem IMO.

 

[Caps]

Agreed. I feel my first time playing MP was more diverse in troop selection than now. Now, in siege, its 80% archers early portion. 2H spam once first flag is taken. Then 70/30 Cav and 2H on final flags. I can understand the archers part in siege and the game being the era its following. The game needs to focus on importance of shields, archers, and team work. The cav and 2H spamming is killing MP for me. I can see the archer arrow nerf on metal armor added, but archers are not the problem IMO.

thats usually good if it forces people to swap to different classes

 

[EasyGhost]

Agreed. I feel my first time playing MP was more diverse in troop selection than now. Now, in siege, its 80% archers early portion. 2H spam once first flag is taken. Then 70/30 Cav and 2H on final flags. I can understand the archers part in siege and the game being the era its following. The game needs to focus on importance of shields, archers, and team work. The cav and 2H spamming is killing MP for me. I can see the archer arrow nerf on metal armor added, but archers are not the problem IMO.

I'd allow only 1 cav spawn/player til the main gate is broken. After that cavalary and 2Handed is understandable imo. You need to push through somehow if they are defending somewhat intelligently.

 

[NordicWill]

I'd allow only 1 cav spawn/player til the main gate is broken. After that cavalary and 2Handed is understandable imo. You need to push through somehow if they are defending somewhat intelligently.

Yeah i can understand the shift of troops as the walls are broken and now different troops can now enter as archers are no longer kept at the main wall. I feel they should have a limit or higher cost. The cav on siege imo really does. too many are sallying out early and too many are at the end flag.

 

[High Risx]

As someone wrote, the problem with archers is that their damage pierces through armour. Chainmail was already hard enough to penetrate at all and required specialized arrowheads or a longbow to do so at all. A person outfitted in proper plate armour would basically be impervious to arrows. What would have been the point historically to outfit yourself in ridiculously expensive steel if any Joe with strong arms could just gun you down with their hunting bow?

So right now, the game versus reality:
Vlandian sergeant gets shot in the head by an Aserai archer:
- Game: the arrow does 70 damage and the Vlandian sergeant is almost dead.
- Reality: the arrow bounces off the Vlandian Sergeant's helmet and he is practically unharmed.

This is why almost every knight carried a blunt weapon. The armour was almost indestructible, so they had to resort to beating the person up through his armour.

Accuracy and speed are not the problems, and bows can honestly be both more accurate and faster to reload. Note that in the historical period Bannerlord tries to emulate, crossbows were actually significantly less powerful than the bows used in that period. The argument thus applies to crossbows as well.

tl;dr arrows should not be Armour piercing, and damage reduction from Armour to arrows should be increased dramatically.

Reality:
Xbows could penetrate plate/mail, helmets and even shields.
Turkish crossbows were 3 times more powerful then western ones due to the use of goats bladders instead of twine.
Archers were very well trained, for years, they could shoot you in the eye at 100m and they did aim for legs all the time.

In game:
Archers have limited arrows, you can run out very quickly and stop being an archer fast. (very difficult to reload in battle)
Archers have to deal with OTHER archers
Archers are usually priorities over other enemies.
Archers get tunnel vision and often get taken by surprise.
Shields make archers weep, and so does missing and being blocked by "allies"

2-handed users are taking a risk, they are giving up defense to have more offence.
when you give up defense you often pay the price.

In every form of combat in the world, The optimal fighting method is to be able to defend and attack.
Hence whey shields and swords/spears where the most effective combo in the world and still is today.

Imagine saying, "no i don't need to use cover to protect myself " , "I'll just get a big ****ing gun and charge"

You pay the price for using a 2 handed weapon, pay the price and stop wining or get a sheild.

 

[Kripaz]

XBOW could penetrate shields and plate. so...

Yeah real crossbows. Not these puny light crossbows that Bannerlord is full of.

 

[Smug_Alpaca]

@Smug_Alpaca

I disagree with all you wrote.
My experience with the combat system is here not the point and its not your concern either, cheap try to dismiss my statement.

The 2h spam is there thats a fact, and most of them swing their weapon mindless around until they hit something, they prove it every match.
Maybe you are one of them, who knows.
Most of them arent that good, If you block them once you can kill them easy, they just hope to make a lucky kill.
But, I saw today more archers than usual, so probably more peope are annoyed by it.

Well I doubt all players share this view.
In my opinion they even break too fast, so they are probably fine as they are hm?

In comparison with Warband the archers are already a bit nerfed and bows really dont draw fast, the strong bow always needs some time.
Serious, bows were faster and more accurate in Warband.
But do you know what really helps against archers...a shield.

2h has a NOTABLE disadvantage in a fight to 1h, if by spam you mean "idiotically running around swinging their weapons" then yeah, i agree with you - but that means easy kills for players with any BASIC combat skill and understanding of the system. More playing archer is not a phenomena to bannerlord - people tend to do it when there are a significant number of archers, skirmishers, or cav on a server, I HIGHLY doubt it's due to 2h spam.

And probably not with shields, I am OKAY with high level units having strong shields that are difficult to break, but to turtle behind a shield for over a minute of slapping against it means there is probably some balance in orders. Some tests pre-release put them at 25-35 hits to kill if the shield user is block in the correct direction - this is a bit too strong.

I don't remember how fast bows were in warband, but I find BL archers to be MUCH more accurate and can hold their draw for a subsantially longer period of time and STILL be accurate.

And I am dismissing your statement, not cheaply, because you come across as COMPLETELY ignorant of the combat system or the mechanics of the game. That's not a personal slight, but me telling you that your opinions and viewpoints on it may not be relevant.

 

[dealman]

Regarding shields, maybe make it so if you block in the wrong direction it suffers additional damage? Whereas if you block in the right direction of the incoming blow, it's smaller - or even negated?

This would make shields less tanky but also raise the skill ceiling for using shields. Just a thought

 

[RCC_God]

Regarding shields, maybe make it so if you block in the wrong direction it suffers additional damage? Whereas if you block in the right direction of the incoming blow, it's smaller - or even negated?

This would make shields less tanky but also raise the skill ceiling for using shields. Just a thought

From the video I watched on gibbys channel I think that’s how it is already. Cheers!

 

[Lornsteyn]

Regarding shields, maybe make it so if you block in the wrong direction it suffers additional damage? Whereas if you block in the right direction of the incoming blow, it's smaller - or even negated?

This is a really interesting idea.

@Smug_Alpaca

but to turtle behind a shield for over a minute of slapping against it means there is probably some balance in orders.

You are not supposed to turtle around and smash your enemies shield until it breaks, I mean yes you can do that, but timing is also important.
Also a minute is not really long, it really sounds you want an opportunity to just onehit someone and move to the next target.

And I am dismissing your statement, not cheaply, because you come across as COMPLETELY ignorant of the combat system or the mechanics of the game. That's not a personal slight, but me telling you that your opinions and viewpoints on it may not be relevant.

Well thats your opinion, but if you really dont see my viewpoint as relevant, then please ignore my posts entirely.
Still I completly disagree with your stance on this matter, but it would be pointless, if we discuss any further.
This would help us both, thanks.

 

[TheJimbo]

Archers are fine, we need a class limit in place like on warband tbh

 

[Caps]

Archers are fine, we need a class limit in place like on warband tbh

so 2 people are forced to play trash classes then? or each class has class limited to 3 players? With class limits you need to have a role picker in the queue.

 

[부부를 넘어서 가자]

class limits are a terrible solution that only limit people. Fixing balance so every class is viable and has counterplay is the way to go.

 

[Lord Bryggan]

I thought the archers were worse in WarBand. But I do find they seem to do much more damage in Bannerlord. I have always agreed that arrows shouldn't penetrate steel so easily, especially helmets since they were rounded and should be deflected. Archers should be aiming for the legs and arms, and any troop without good armour should have a shield.

But I find the real problem is the slow combat. With directional shields, killing a turtler should be much easier than in Warband. Spam, spam, spam, feint, stab. But even the noobiest noob can see where the next swing is coming and can easily adjust in time. And yes, as a previous post said, shielders move to slow. Footwork is a shielder's best friend, but you just don't have that here. I don't mind turtling up in a shield wall to let my 2Hers and Polearms get the kills, but sometimes I like to fight too.

Another problem with the slow, slow combat is the cav. They can walk through ten enemies easily as some notice too late, others get their swings blocked by comrades, and others get blocked or just scratch the horse. In Warband a cav that let itself get surrounded was spammed to death instantly. Here he can just force his horse through since all the inf only have one turn each to hit.

I think if we sped up combat a lot of these problems would be solved. Taking turns hacking at an enemy is just an invitation for an arrow in the back. Speeding up footwork would help shielders defeat 2 handers, while the directional shields would help 2 handers defeat shielders.

 

[Watly]

Reality:
Xbows could penetrate plate/mail, helmets and even shields.
...

Modern crossbows, probably. The tiny crossbows in this game, however? They would be lucky to even leave a dent, let alone think about penetrating it sufficiently far to harm the wearer. Heavy medieval crossbows might just barely penetrate a good plate armour when shot at close range, and even then the impact is reduced so drastically that the wearer underneath would be practically unharmed.

The reality is that nobility didn't spend a chunk of their fortune on armour that any average Joe with a hunting crossbow could penetrate. The game should reflect that, and be balanced around that.

 

[Caps]

Modern crossbows, probably. The tiny crossbows in this game, however? They would be lucky to even leave a dent, let alone think about penetrating it sufficiently far to harm the wearer. Heavy medieval crossbows might just barely penetrate a good plate armour when shot at close range, and even then the impact is reduced so drastically that the wearer underneath would be practically unharmed.

The reality is that nobility didn't spend a chunk of their fortune on armour that any average Joe with a hunting crossbow could penetrate. The game should reflect that, and be balanced around that.

Depends which crossbows, and good archers might just shoot them in the eyes or other softspots (and then when being so closed they would get killed). Medival battles were just farmfests, where knights mowed down peasants, who ran from the battlefield. Then again who cares about reality.
Infantry in its state is the most cancerous thing to play. They took the native blueprint and just made it even worse on all edges. Paired with the ****tiest matchmaking balance you can imagine. Wasnt wbmm open source??

 

[Smug_Alpaca]

This is a really interesting idea.

@Smug_Alpaca

You are not supposed to turtle around and smash your enemies shield until it breaks, I mean yes you can do that, but timing is also important.
Also a minute is not really long, it really sounds you want an opportunity to just onehit someone and move to the next target.

Well thats your opinion, but if you really dont see my viewpoint as relevant, then please ignore my posts entirely.
Still I completly disagree with your stance on this matter, but it would be pointless, if we discuss any further.
This would help us both, thanks.

I am not concerned with 1 hitting someone and moving on, I am concerned that people can turtle for long periods of time without penalty. A minute is an INCREDIBLE amount of time, either having a heavy shield needs to have less health, needs to slow you down further, or needs to make you more suspceptible to taking angles. Also, timing completely ignores the idea that combat has ANY rhythm whatsoever - something it does. If I have a shield, I can swing, and then hold block until you decide to hit me, also, I am agile enough to counter your footwork. Yes. This is an issue.

 

[Gambles]

Reality:
Xbows could penetrate plate/mail, helmets and even shields.
Turkish crossbows were 3 times more powerful then western ones due to the use of goats bladders instead of twine.
Archers were very well trained, for years, they could shoot you in the eye at 100m and they did aim for legs all the time.

In game:
Archers have limited arrows, you can run out very quickly and stop being an archer fast. (very difficult to reload in battle)
Archers have to deal with OTHER archers
Archers are usually priorities over other enemies.
Archers get tunnel vision and often get taken by surprise.
Shields make archers weep, and so does missing and being blocked by "allies"

2-handed users are taking a risk, they are giving up defense to have more offence.
when you give up defense you often pay the price.

In every form of combat in the world, The optimal fighting method is to be able to defend and attack.
Hence whey shields and swords/spears where the most effective combo in the world and still is today.

Imagine saying, "no i don't need to use cover to protect myself " , "I'll just get a big ****ing gun and charge"

You pay the price for using a 2 handed weapon, pay the price and stop wining or get a sheild.

Luckily all this **** your claiming has been tested. Even a 15th century 1000 pound crossbow is ineffective against even older plate armor, and even at ridiculously close range. Sorry.

 

[Caps]

Luckily all this **** your claiming has been tested. Even a 15th century 1000 pound crossbow is ineffective against even older plate armor, and even at ridiculously close range. Sorry.

good that there is so much plate in the game

 

[Gambles]

good that there is so much plate in the game

Well there isn't many breastplates at all, lots of lamellar armor though which also serves very well even against even close ranged high power shots. The point is the guy was speaking in a very matter of fact way about what crossbows could pierce, directly out of his ass. But you didn't really need a video to know that, plate and lamellar faired well against arrows and crossbows, even mail could be fairly effective, thus it's use. Of course not every person was wealthy enough to even have mail let alone plate and the like. But a shield was a must, arrows can **** **** up.

Edit: Also on youtube there are lots of arrow vs chain mail etc. they're all very interesting and you quickly learn how great a lot of it was for protection against arrows (and everything else). It was used for a reason. I highly recommend just googling it up, it's all there.