Archers need a nerf.

[durbal]

There are multiple problems with cavalry vs. archers:

- horses can't really trample -- they tend to just make archers slide out of the way when they collide and take 3 charging damage
- quickly moving a bow -- even so much that the archer's feet need to shuffle -- has zero impact on accuracy
- bows do too much damage
- bows fire 2-3x faster than archers did in reality (aiming is wayyyyyy too fast)

 

[TheShermanator]

There are multiple problems with cavalry vs. archers:

- horses can't really trample -- they tend to just make archers slide out of the way when they collide and take 3 charging damage
- quickly moving a bow -- even so much that the archer's feet need to shuffle -- has zero impact on accuracy
- bows do too much damage
- bows fire 2-3x faster than archers did in reality (aiming is wayyyyyy too fast)

For what it's worth, I'm fine with most of those facts - but the first one about the lack of decent cavalry trample damage presents itself as the biggest issue. That is to say, I'd be fine if they left archers the way they are more or less (no nerf at all, or a very slight tune-down to AI accuracy), but cavalry should be better, such that it could be a better counter to archers. And higher trample damage + a higher chance of knocking down enemies upon collision has always seemed to me like a clear way to achieve that.

It should be possible to drag down cavalry in sustained melee, such that they trade badly if you leave them in. But if the commander puts in the time to micromanage them - cycle charge them wisely - that micromanagement should be rewarded.

I speculate that the reason trample damage is as low it is for player experience balancing vs. field command tactics balancing reasons. E.g. it would feel too easy if the player could just inflict 50 damage or whatever w/out hitting an enemy with the weapon. Which, yeah, that's understandable. But it's more and more limiting the later you get in the game, as the players own killing power matters less and less per battle.

 

[Apocal]

For what it's worth, I'm fine with most of those facts - but the first one about the lack of decent cavalry trample damage presents itself as the biggest issue. That is to say, I'd be fine if they left archers the way they are more or less (no nerf at all, or a very slight tune-down to AI accuracy), but cavalry should be better, such that it could be a better counter to archers. And higher trample damage + a higher chance of knocking down enemies upon collision has always seemed to me like a clear way to achieve that.

It should be possible to drag down cavalry in sustained melee, such that they trade badly if you leave them in. But if the commander puts in the time to micromanage them - cycle charge them wisely - that micromanagement should be rewarded.

I speculate that the reason trample damage is as low it is for player experience balancing vs. field command tactics balancing reasons. E.g. it would feel too easy if the player could just inflict 50 damage or whatever w/out hitting an enemy with the weapon. Which, yeah, that's understandable. But it's more and more limiting the later you get in the game, as the players own killing power matters less and less per battle.

Even doing something like 25-30 trample damage consistently will allow players to mash-out anything on foot by charging at the head of their cavalry. And it is pretty gamey; horses don't come with seatbelts and there is no airbag to cushion the impact when you take a tumble to the ground.

 

[hruza]

- horses can't really trample -- they tend to just make archers slide out of the way when they collide and take 3 charging damage

They can trample all right. You must be talking about glancing hits when horse does not collide in to the footman and instead just glances him to the side.

As for collision damage, you forgot Newton's 3rd law of physic: For every action there is equal and opposite reaction. It's not just footman who takes the damage.

I don't want to see cavalry unrealistically plowing over the fields of footmen as it could in Warband. Cavalry in Bannerlord is overpowered enough already without it.

I don't know why some players expect that their cavalry should be untouchable. If you send your 10 knights strait against 50 marksmen, then you will end up like French at Crecy. Seems fair to me.

 

[TheShermanator]

They can trample all right. You must be talking about glancing hits when horse does not collide in to the footman and instead just glances him to the side.

As for collision damage, you forgot Newton's 3 law of physic: For every action there is equal and opposite reaction. It's not just footman who takes the damage.

I don't want to see cavalry unrealistically plowing over the fields of footmen as it could in Warband. Cavalry in Bannerlord is overpowered enough already without it.

I don't know why some players expect that their cavalry should be untouchable. If you send your 10 knights strait against 50 marksmen, then you will end up like French at Crecy. Seems fair to me.

I'll believe you if you say you've experienced that, but I have not seen cavalry perform that well on the charge in Bannerlord. Sometimes I'll see an enemy cavalry formation charging at my infantry and I'll think 'oh no... brace yourself bois!' ... and then almost nothing happens (and then the cavalry eventually get dragged down trading 1 for 1 at worst). I like cavalry as a sweeper utility unit, but in that capacity, I find them useful only really for their mobility, not because they are especially good at killing stuff.

Bringing that back to archers: I feel like I can position them with impunity more or less because I am not really afraid of cavalry charges. So in some cases, instead of keeping them close to infantry masses, I'll put them out wide to get the ideal firing enfilade going.

 

[King Yngvar]

Aside from buffing armor, cavalry needs to be a more effective counter to archers. Perhaps setting arrow damage as a separate category would help, making it like cut when it comes to armor but also less effective than cut at dealing damage when hitting arms, legs and a head with a helmet. A separate "face" hitbox could be useful here as well for what would be the actual "headshot" when hitting someone wearing an open face helmet with an arrow or a stab. In addition, arrows could be made less lethal to horses while other pierce damage (javelins and spears) becomes more deadly to horses. Charge damage for horses could be increased while on the other hand making them stop up completely when running into spears or shield walls (to prevent them just sliding through the shield walls), this would make cavalry more effective against archers while making them less OP against tight infantry formations.

 

[Ishtarin]

I'll believe you if you say you've experienced that, but I have not seen cavalry perform that well on the charge in Bannerlord. Sometimes I'll see an enemy cavalry formation charging at my infantry and I'll think 'oh no... brace yourself bois!' ... and then almost nothing happens (and then the cavalry eventually get dragged down trading 1 for 1 at worst). I like cavalry as a sweeper utility unit, but in that capacity, I find them useful only really for their mobility, not because they are especially good at killing stuff.

Bringing that back to archers: I feel like I can position them with impunity more or less because I am not really afraid of cavalry charges. So in some cases, instead of keeping them close to infantry masses, I'll put them out wide to get the ideal firing enfilade going.

Cavalry is garbage because spears are garbage. If they don't have couchable lances and they run into imperial infantry or even archers, at best they stab for 60 damage even at full speed.

 

[Apocal]

Cavalry is garbage because spears are garbage. If they don't have couchable lances and they run into imperial infantry or even archers, at best they stab for 60 damage even at full speed.

I'm almost positive they get speed bonuses when thrusting with spears.

 

[Ishtarin]

I'm almost positive they get speed bonuses when thrusting with spears.

Yes, but the speed bonus isn't enough. The base damage of a spear is pathetic and speed can only take it so far before armor just takes a dump on the concept.

 

[hruza]

I'll believe you if you say you've experienced that, but I have not seen cavalry perform that well on the charge in Bannerlord.

If you put equal number and equal tier cavalry against equal number and tier archers, then archers will lose. The only way players can lose their cavalry against archers is if they use inferior numbers and/or inferior quality. But given AI does not use armies full of t5 units, it's likely the first case.

Also people don't realize it, but you can order your cavalry in to shieldwall and then tell them to charge. They will attack and keep their shields up which will protect them against head on shoots. Might prevent them from couching lance but that's something I did not test yet.

Sometimes I'll see an enemy cavalry formation charging at my infantry and I'll think 'oh no... brace yourself bois!' ... and then almost nothing happens (and then the cavalry eventually get dragged down trading 1 for 1 at worst). I like cavalry as a sweeper utility unit, but in that capacity, I find them useful only really for their mobility, not because they are especially good at killing stuff.

Cavalry shouldn't be able to roll over formed infantry. That's why I don't want to see Warband cavalry. Fact that in Bannerlord cavalry can push through any infantry formation and will not get stuck is already large advantage. But I can live with that given it compensates for simplistic AI.

Bringing that back to archers: I feel like I can position them with impunity more or less because I am not really afraid of cavalry charges. So in some cases, instead of keeping them close to infantry masses, I'll put them out wide to get the ideal firing enfilade going.

You can do that only if enemy have inferior cavalry or your own cavalry can keep them busy. Depending on the order, cavalry in Bannerlord is programmed to target certain units in certain order. If I remember right, heavy cavalry will target horse archers first, then other cavalry, then archers, then infantry last.

If AI have cavalry superiority, they will mess up your archers. And not just by directly attacking them, they will also mess their aim, because your archers will be shooting at the cavalry instead of what you want them to shoot at. And archers have a hard time hitting cavalry due to fast speed.

Of course if player brings army of Battanian fian champions against AI that is mostly made of t3-t4 cavalry, then that's not exactly fair comparison.

I'm almost positive they get speed bonuses when thrusting with spears.

100%

 

[Ishtarin]

If you put equal number and equal tier cavalry against equal number and tier archers, then archers will lose. The only way players can lose their cavalry against archers is if they use inferior numbers and/or inferior quality. But given AI does not use armies full of t5 units, it's likely the first case.

Also people don't realize it, but you can order your cavalry in to shieldwall and then tell them to charge. They will attack and keep their shields up which will protect them against head on shoots. Might prevent them from couching lance but that's something I did not test yet.



Cavalry shouldn't be able to roll over formed infantry. That's why I don't want to see Warband cavalry. Fact that in Bannerlord cavalry can push through any infantry formation and will not get stuck is already large advantage. But I can live with that given it compensates for simplistic AI.



You can do that only if enemy have inferior cavalry or your own cavalry can keep them busy. Depending on the order, cavalry in Bannerlord is programmed to target certain units in certain order. If I remember right, heavy cavalry will target horse archers first, then other cavalry, then archers, then infantry last.

If AI have cavalry superiority, they will mess up your archers. And not just by directly attacking them, they will also mess their aim, because your archers will be shooting at the cavalry instead of what you want them to shoot at. And archers have a hard time hitting cavalry due to fast speed.

Of course if player brings army of Battanian fian champions against AI that is mostly made of t3-t4 cavalry, then that's not exactly fair comparison.



100%

Does it count if I set them to hold fire?

 

[hruza]

Does it count if I set them to hold fire?

Nope. You did not had any cavalry in that fight and enemy AI did not had any archers.

 

[Ishtarin]

Nope. You did not had any cavalry in that fight and enemy AI did not had any archers.

The archers didn't even get a full volley off because of terrain

 

[TheShermanator]

The archers didn't even get a full volley off because of terrain

Now, this is harder to determine, but can I ask: what proportion of those 145 kills for the lancers happened on the charge vs. as they stayed in melee?

 

[Ishtarin]

Now, this is harder to determine, but can I ask: what proportion of those 145 kills for the lancers happened on the charge vs. as they stayed in melee?

About half and half I'd say, the initial charge netted like 3 kills but the skirmishing in the middle and end phases got a lot more. I'd say it was pretty even with more charge kills as the number went down.

 

[TheShermanator]

Thanks! Yeah, even if we accept that this is anecdotal, it's still interesting to consider those numbers. 3 initial charge kills seems like way too few for 300 lancers charging into 300 archers. 'Cause we have to consider how that plays out on the battlefield: Even if the archers would win, most players worth their salt, in a combined arms battle, are not going to just leave their archers to fend for themselves against equal #s of cav indefinitely, right? So the cav catching the archers, and their killing power in those early moments, is especially important. If they only have a marginal chance to get significant kills on impact ... that's not enough to make me respect that threat against my archers (and the same for the would-be mind of the AI enemy with regard to my cav and his archers.)

 

[Lord Irontoe]

I don't think its a problem with the spears. They're plenty powerful with the speed bonus on horses. If they can land a hit at full charge, its likely to be a one-shot, but the problem is they miss an awful lot. I've watched cavalry chasing down fleeing soldiers and they just keep making passes and missing each time. Its kind of pathetic

 

[Ishtarin]

Thanks! Yeah, even if we accept that this is anecdotal, it's still interesting to consider those numbers. 3 initial charge kills seems like way too few for 300 lancers charging into 300 archers. 'Cause we have to consider how that plays out on the battlefield: Even if the archers would win, most players worth their salt, in a combined arms battle, are not going to just leave their archers to fend for themselves against equal #s of cav indefinitely, right? So the cav catching the archers, and their killing power in those early moments, is especially important. If they only have a marginal chance to get significant kills on impact ... that's not enough to make me respect that threat against my archers (and the same for the would-be mind of the AI enemy with regard to my cav and his archers.)

It's party because the lancers often home in on a single target instead of attacking the wider formation and partly because spears are garbage. Couching the lance definitely nets kills but AI prefers to thrust instead which would maybe hit a soldier as well armored as a Palatine guard for 40-50 damage at full speed, leaving the archers just as effective as before in blocking the charge of the men behind the initial lancer wave.

 

[hruza]

The archers didn't even get a full volley off because of terrain

The archers did get full volley off:

 

[TheShermanator]

So... what tactics are y’all using? ? must be a little different from each other