Archers need a nerf.

[Zeloraz]

Nerf archers holy snap. cavalry chargers against an unprotected flank and charging into arches is suicide now. cavalry units also get demolished by the, regular archers. Looters being able to 360 noscope and deal 10 damage is insane when I have one of the best armor in the game. In warband and really any medieval strat game like total war this is a viable strategy but arches are just able to destroy anything in there path. I made an account just for this and I hope the devs see this and fans see this as well. DO NOT BALANCE THE GAME AROUND MP. Also normal cavalry needs better reach or something they have a hard time hitting stuff.

 

[Zeloraz]

Or maybe just buff armor values better yet. I feel as if am taking waaay to much damage from everything.

 

[kweassa]

Or maybe just buff armor values better yet. I feel as if am taking waaay to much damage from everything.

Buffing armor needs to come with overall reduction of troops in high quality armor. Those two cannot be separated.

Yes, the,archers are stronger and more proficient than real life. But at the same time, the numbers of troops with high quality armor are also padded way higher than in real life.

In other words, it's already balanced well enough.

 

[Apocal]

Buffing armor needs to come with overall reduction of troops in high quality armor.

Why?

Battles other than sieges can already end in under a minute of actual fighting due to how quickly men are killed once they meet. A lot of the time flanking is redundant because the extra seconds (and I do mean seconds) spent maneuvering means they kill fewer men than the press of bodies in the middle or the shooting gallery of archers from the back.

 

[hruza]

Do no, but I don't have problem with archers, certainly not charging them with cavalry. Archers have pretty hard time hitting fast moving cavalry, unless it moves in a strait line towards the archer. Moreover AI archers start repositioning when charged by cavalry and they become even less effective.

Can you explain more in detail, what difficulties are you facing and what exactly are you doing in battles?

One tip: you can order your cavalry in to a shieldwall and then tell them to charge. They will keep their shields up and that will protect them from shoots from the front when charging (works with infantry as well). Do no if that works also with F6.

 

[kweassa]

Why?

Battles other than sieges can already end in under a minute of actual fighting due to how quickly men are killed once they meet.

That's a separate issue totally, and has no bearing on the current discussion IMO. The battle AI fights like amateur gangs, instead of trained men in formations. It's an AI issue, not an armor-vs-bows issue.

A lot of the time flanking is redundant because the extra seconds (and I do mean seconds) spent maneuvering means they kill fewer men than the press of bodies in the middle or the shooting gallery of archers from the back.

This is also largely irrelevant, because it's a behavioral problem (if there is one.)


The armor already has significant defensive effect in battle, against arrows. Compared to reality, the archers already let loose from shorter distances than in real life, and while high-angle shooting behavior is introduced in game, they don't use volley fire. The "AoE carpet bombing" is already weaker than it actually is in real life, not to mention the distance causes a significant drop off in damage. Unless you are using the strongest of bows, even the nearly unarmored looters take more than 2 shots kill when the distance is far enough (unless a lucky head shot.) You can test this out yourself -- how many are you able to kill with a single arrow at a distance of over 150? You'd be hard pressed to even hit the target, unless using some sort of cheat or trainer to correct aiming.

The distances where the archers, and their arrows become really threatening, is as you approach under 100 distance in game. And particularly going under 70~80 the archers fire direct targeted shots. Under 50, each shot become significantly lethal. And under those distances, arrows are known to penetrate most armor of the era, barring the highest quality steel lamellar or scale.

There really isn't any grounds to say archers are OP in the first place. Yes, the damage system (in all practicality) does not allow for "failed to penetrate" shots from happening, which is unrealistic, but at the same time, none of the arrows hinder a troops capability to fight, whereas in real life a single penetrated shot to the torso is almost guaranteed to either kill on impact, or at least immobilize immediately. So the relative balance is pretty even.

If you want the armor to be strengthened to realistic standards and have high-grade armor literally deflect arrows with 0 damage, without any counterbalancing for the bows/arrows, then all that is going to do is just make ranged fire useless in the game -- because players don't build realistic armies. Players just hoard t4-5-6 troops, which means all of them will be just immune to arrow fire.

 

[kweassa]

1. If you want medium-grade armor to deflect (0~1 damage) average arrows at long distances, and want high-grade armors to protect from direct fire at closer ranges, like in real life, then the arrows need to one-shot kill or immediately knock out targets upon successful penetration, like in real life.

2. If you want only a small number of enemies to be wielding super-strong weapons (steppe war bow ~ noble/noble long bow). and have the gross average of archers have normal, average bows, like in real life, then the number of elite troops in a regular sized army needs to be limited, like in real life. Most NPC lords have these kind of armies, but the player just hoards all-elite army, which is as much unrealistic as enemies all wielding super high level weapons.


Currently, the game chooses neither 1 or 2 above. Players are free to make whatever kind of armies with whatever ration of highest quality armors for their troops. Also, none of them flinch even when arrows penetrate, and they can be receiving 3~4 shots and still fight normally. Hence, the archers, get to fire shots that always penetrate, but vary in damage. This is just fair.

 

[remorse]

Archers have to be laser gunners right now because there's not much else they can do to be useful in Bannerlord's rudimentary tactical combat.
Real-life archers are complicated, finicky things that aren't suited for this kind of frantic 2-minute bloodbowl moshpit.

 

[hruza]

Compared to reality, the archers already let loose from shorter distances than in real life, and while high-angle shooting behavior is introduced in game, they don't use volley fire. The "AoE carpet bombing" is already weaker than it actually is in real life

I don't want to start historical discussion here, because it's far beyond the scope of this thread but this popular belief have very little evidence behind it. The way archery was used in battle might not be what you see in Hollywood movies and some computer games.

See this for bit more info (I have saved position so that you don't have to watch full video):

 

[blackdoggie]

assuming you are asking for singelplayer since you are posting here.
why ask for nerfs when you can do it yourself ?

really just open spitems.xlm in notepad and change some numbers, voila new balance in 2 minutes.

 

[Brodie]

I see them balanced in army battles, even a littler underpowered when the army numbers goes up. The killing capabilities are limited to the number of arrows and the luck hitting enemies charging to you. In big numbers infantry decides battles. Cavalry helps but you can't destroy a big wall of infantry with a bunch of horses.

I have to test different strategies but I feel the battles satisfying. Archers are a concern in small skirmishes because the killing capabiliy of 20 forest bandits is way bigger the 35 man (with 8 horses?) they need to kill.

 

[Lesbosisles]

Or maybe just buff armor values better yet. I feel as if am taking waaay to much damage from everything.

Hell yeah, I die way too much in the game, having that Battaninan Lord armour on me and the best Vlandian Helm and Boots, along with the good (32 armour) Imperial mittels.

Was riding a horse on the battle, got arrow in the shoulder and got minus half HP in one shot. Javelin hit - say good bye to 60-70 HP. Looks like I have to play the way I play Mordhau - wearing no amour (for speed) and running around with the most OP two-handed sword in the game. Because armour does nothing.

Funny thing is that when it comes to enemy soldiers, it looks like they have either very thick skin or an armour which was forged in Heaven's Forge itself. Hit Elite Cataphract - and he'll get only 12-30 damage. Hit any 3-4 tier soldier - well, you're a lucky if he gets 30-35 damage. And no, I'm not using some rusty sword I've found on the battlefield, I bought in an Imperial city for a good sum of money. It has ~80 cut damage.

 

[Apocal]

That's a separate issue totally, and has no bearing on the current discussion IMO. The battle AI fights like amateur gangs, instead of trained men in formations. It's an AI issue, not an armor-vs-bows issue.

It is perfectly relevant. The reason fights are so short and formations largely don't matter is because most weapons kill in four hits or less, even against heavy armor. Putting them into formations wouldn't change anything, except make it look orderly. Archers aren't exempt from this except when you're talking about the highest-tier armors vs. low-tier bows.

There really isn't any grounds to say archers are OP in the first place. Yes, the damage system (in all practicality) does not allow for "failed to penetrate" shots from happening, which is unrealistic, but at the same time, none of the arrows hinder a troops capability to fight, whereas in real life a single penetrated shot to the torso is almost guaranteed to either kill on impact, or at least immobilize immediately. So the relative balance is pretty even.

They can stop a cavalry charge, cold. Not a replay of Crecy or Agincourt, but more like the final battle scene in The Last Samurai. That's not something that should happen. It devalues combined arms and makes for a rather stale tactical 'puzzle' to battles when massed archers can wreck any force they are likely to encounter.

If you want the armor to be strengthened to realistic standards and have high-grade armor literally deflect arrows with 0 damage, without any counterbalancing for the bows/arrows, then all that is going to do is just make ranged fire useless in the game -- because players don't build realistic armies. Players just hoard t4-5-6 troops, which means all of them will be just immune to arrow fire.

Oh, I agree morale doesn't really mean **** in this game. But turning bows into firearms is much further from reality than bows doing shockingly little to anyone wearing good armor.

 

[Badcritter]

frantic 2-minute bloodbowl moshpit

There is an art to expressing something so accurately and concisely.

 

[vota dc]

I think they should nerf
-foot base speed but buff athletics effect a little
-ranged weapons range while buff seeing range since most causalties are projectiles from nowhere
-horse armor

 

[Zeloraz]

Saying arches should be stronger or fine as is because "its realistic" is silly in a game thats hardly realistic at all. Its just plain not fun and unbalanced how cavalry cant charge into archers without taking massive casualties.

Do no, but I don't have problem with archers, certainly not charging them with cavalry. Archers have pretty hard time hitting fast moving cavalry, unless it moves in a strait line towards the archer. Moreover AI archers start repositioning when charged by cavalry and they become even less effective.

Can you explain more in detail, what difficulties are you facing and what exactly are you doing in battles?

One tip: you can order your cavalry in to a shieldwall and then tell them to charge. They will keep their shields up and that will protect them from shoots from the front when charging (works with infantry as well). Do no if that works also with F6.

a cavalry charge into archers is basically suicide. And if there in shield wall I dont think they can attack can they?


Looters can deal like, 10 or 20 damage on me when I have one of the better armors in game. its just absurd how arrows do so much with heavy armor.

Low quaility archers should NOT be able to deal so much damage. Warband had it for the most part right and more fun. Archers needed a bit more of a buff sure but now there I cant really charge into them without my horse dieing or several of my cavalry units losing their horses. There is nothing cavarly can do other then picking off stranglers here and there. Once again using the "realistic" argument is absurd in a game like this.Its not balanced.

 

[hruza]

a cavalry charge into archers is basically suicide. And if there in shield wall I dont think they can attack can they?

They can.

Looters can deal like, 10 or 20 damage on me when I have one of the better armors in game. its just absurd how arrows do so much with heavy armor.

Stones looters use deal blunt damage, that is good against armor. So is piercing damage arrows do, although less so. Still, damage drops significantly over distance. Of course if you gallop on a horse towards the arrow, then your speed adds to the damage arrow will make.

Low quaility archers should NOT be able to deal so much damage. Warband had it for the most part right and more fun. Archers needed a bit more of a buff sure but now there I cant really charge into them without my horse dieing or several of my cavalry units losing their horses. There is nothing cavalry can do other then picking off stranglers here and there. Once again using the "realistic" argument is absurd in a game like this.

From what you have described I take it that you charge archers with cavalry strait on. If that is so, then you are playing in to their strengths. Try flanking. You can also divide your cavalry in to two or more groups and send them from the different flanks. Select your cavalry, press F7 and choose how many and to which group to split.

Of course the most effective approach is to use "combined arms". If you put your infantry in to shield wall and send them forward, enemy archers will target it and deal very little damage. Meanwhile send your cavalry around to the flanks and then charge them. You shouldn't have much problems with archers if you do so.

 

[D0c1]

nah. they need to buff armours. highest tier armour at the very least needs a huge a buff.

in warband, you could stand in a sea of looters and get 0 and 1 damages done to you then slaughter them all. this needs to be brought back.

you shouldn't attack archers head on and suffer no to little casualties. they should be flanked or attacked with a shieldwall formation.

 

[Nummer90]

Yes, please! I want Battles, not Hollywood Moshpit Brawls.

 

[Zeloraz]

They can.



Stones looters use deal blunt damage, that is good against armor. So is piercing damage arrows do, although less so. Still, damage drops significantly over distance. Of course if you gallop on a horse towards the arrow, then your speed adds to the damage arrow will make.

I get its blunt but how does STONE being thrown by the worst unit is able to deal a good chunk of damage against armored units let alone heavily armoured ones? Its silly.

As for me charging straight at them, am not they just turn and get really lucky shots in.In the Original warband they would deal little damage or no damage (in regards to peasents throwing rocks) which is more then fine they shouldt be able to. Lowly troops being able to deal good damage against top tier troops is absurd.