Why is balance a thing for singleplayer?

[Viranto]

I understand that its important for multiplayer, but why is it a thing for the singleplayer?
If every faction is the same, only the visual armor is changing, this destroy the replayability for me.
Because at the end, no faction is unique. It makes absolutly no difference which faction i serve, because every faction is the same except visually.
Okay, maybe Khuazit a little bit difference and the only one which is right in my eyes. You can fear them because of there much riders and horse archers.
But what is with the rest of the faction? Why no difference Politics, difference in tactics, difference in how they handle there people, manpower, etc. and why is armor balance a thing in the game?

Should it not be like this:
The Empire has a lower amount of manpower but the best armors in the world. Tribes like Battania have weak armors, but to compress that, they have nearly the double amount of soldiers, they fight without big tactics, with heavy weapons and at the same time, the empire fight only with tactical formations. Because of the amazing armor and tactics of the empire, they can even win a fight sometimes, when they are face a larger amount of enemys. But in the game, the battles are more or less balanced except the khuazit. This one are the only one which have there own system. But the factions should have there own unique formations (like shildwall sturgia, turtle empire, circle khuazit) in battle, too.

And this need other factions, too.So that its still balanced from the system, because nobody like khuazit snowballing everything (even if it were right (golden horde).
But a solution for that would be a thing like: the Khuazit are difficult to fight, but politically they are so weak that their empires can break apart again and again into small clans due to rebels or the dead of the clan leader. They need something like in ck with tribes, clans, feudal, imperial and such things.
So we have replayability and not the feeling that every soldier is the same one, with the same stats, same tactics but in other skins.

 

[Abyssos]

Exactly...no idea why ppl complain so much in a single player game..uhh cavalry is to strong...archers are to powerfull etc etc...just play the game and shut up lol..i feel sorry for the devs who listen to all this and try to keep everyone happy..this will ruin game..

 

[Oloof22]

I understand that its important for multiplayer, but why is it a thing for the singleplayer?
If every faction is the same, only the visual armor is changing, this destroy the replayability for me.
Because at the end, no faction is unique. It makes absolutly no difference which faction i serve, because every faction is the same except visually.
Okay, maybe Khuazit a little bit difference and the only one which is right in my eyes. You can fear them because of there much riders and horse archers.
But what is with the rest of the faction? Why no difference Politics, difference in tactics, difference in how they handle there people, manpower, etc. and why is armor balance a thing in the game?

Should it not be like this:
The Empire has a lower amount of manpower but the best armors in the world. Tribes like Battania have weak armors, but to compress that, they have nearly the double amount of soldiers, they fight without big tactics, with heavy weapons and at the same time, the empire fight only with tactical formations. Because of the amazing armor and tactics of the empire, they can even win a fight sometimes, when they are face a larger amount of enemys. But in the game, the battles are more or less balanced except the khuazit. This one are the only one which have there own system and unique formations (like shildwall sturgia, turtle empire, circle khuazit) in battle.

And this need other factions, too.So that its still balanced from the system, because nobody like khuazit snowballing everything (even if it were right (golden horde).
But a solution for that would be a thing like: the Khuazit are difficult to fight, but politically they are so weak that their empires can break apart again and again into small clans due to rebels or the dead of the clan leader. They need something like in ck with tribes, clans, feudal, imperial and such things.
So we have replayability and not the feeling that every soldier is the same one, with the same stats, same tactics but in other skins.

Stupid question.

Let's take it to extreme and make it unbalanced by letting one faction to use tanks. In one month everything is conquered and there is no point in playing. That should answer that question.

But your post is not about balance but about factions not being unique. They are unique, but they feel the same because lack of balance.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

Exactly...no idea why ppl complain so much in a single player game..uhh cavalry is to strong...archers are to powerfull etc etc...just play the game and shut up lol..i feel sorry for the devs who listen to all this and try to keep everyone happy..this will ruin game..

This is a useless comment. Do you seriously think that spamming nothing but archers or horse archers is actually good for gameplay? That spear infantry don't even do their jobs well?

If only happy clapper feedback was allowed, this game would never improve.

I understand that its important for multiplayer, but why is it a thing for the singleplayer?
If every faction is the same, only the visual armor is changing, this destroy the replayability for me.
Because at the end, no faction is unique. It makes absolutly no difference which faction i serve, because every faction is the same except visually.
Okay, maybe Khuazit a little bit difference and the only one which is right in my eyes. You can fear them because of there much riders and horse archers.
But what is with the rest of the faction? Why no difference Politics, difference in tactics, difference in how they handle there people, manpower, etc. and why is armor balance a thing in the game?

Should it not be like this:
The Empire has a lower amount of manpower but the best armors in the world. Tribes like Battania have weak armors, but to compress that, they have nearly the double amount of soldiers, they fight without big tactics, with heavy weapons and at the same time, the empire fight only with tactical formations. Because of the amazing armor and tactics of the empire, they can even win a fight sometimes, when they are face a larger amount of enemys. But in the game, the battles are more or less balanced except the khuazit. This one are the only one which have there own system and unique formations (like shildwall sturgia, turtle empire, circle khuazit) in battle.

And this need other factions, too.So that its still balanced from the system, because nobody like khuazit snowballing everything (even if it were right (golden horde).
But a solution for that would be a thing like: the Khuazit are difficult to fight, but politically they are so weak that their empires can break apart again and again into small clans due to rebels or the dead of the clan leader. They need something like in ck with tribes, clans, feudal, imperial and such things.
So we have replayability and not the feeling that every soldier is the same one, with the same stats, same tactics but in other skins.

I don't suppose you somehow think that Battania's lack of common archers is actually a good thing?

But yeah, it would not hurt if factions were more unique outside the battlefield.

 

[black_bulldog]

OP I see very few people saying that they want factions to be exactly the same. It's more that they want to start up a game and join a faction and not always feel like they've joined the "underdogs" or the "winning" faction. If the games progress the same every time then there's no reason to play through more than once or twice. Having no replay ability in a sandbox has pretty much doomed that game.

Exactly...no idea why ppl complain so much in a single player game..uhh cavalry is to strong...archers are to powerfull etc etc...just play the game and shut up lol..i feel sorry for the devs who listen to all this and try to keep everyone happy..this will ruin game..

I absolutely hate this kind of comment, it's condescending and tries to dismiss people that have issues with the game. If you have nothing of value to add and are please with the game as is then why are you here? Go play the game and be happy. But for those of us that have legitimate issues the only way to get TW to look into it is to complain.

 

[Dreed89]

Balance can be achieved by symmetrical or asymmetrical means.

OP tell balance is not important. I want to rephrase this as "symmetrical balance" is not important. Factions should not be copies of each other only differing in textures.

Factions should be asymmetrically balanced. Their troops, war tactics, and numbers etc. should vary but at the end there should be compensation for each disadvantage they have so that they stay more or less competent.

 

[Yertyl]

I understand that its important for multiplayer, but why is it a thing for the singleplayer?
If every faction is the same, only the visual armor is changing, this destroy the replayability for me.
Because at the end, no faction is unique. It makes absolutly no difference which faction i serve, because every faction is the same except visually.
Okay, maybe Khuazit a little bit difference and the only one which is right in my eyes. You can fear them because of there much riders and horse archers.
But what is with the rest of the faction? Why no difference Politics, difference in tactics, difference in how they handle there people, manpower, etc. and why is armor balance a thing in the game?

Should it not be like this:
The Empire has a lower amount of manpower but the best armors in the world. Tribes like Battania have weak armors, but to compress that, they have nearly the double amount of soldiers, they fight without big tactics, with heavy weapons and at the same time, the empire fight only with tactical formations. Because of the amazing armor and tactics of the empire, they can even win a fight sometimes, when they are face a larger amount of enemys. But in the game, the battles are more or less balanced except the khuazit. This one are the only one which have there own system. But the factions should have there own unique formations (like shildwall sturgia, turtle empire, circle khuazit) in battle, too.

And this need other factions, too.So that its still balanced from the system, because nobody like khuazit snowballing everything (even if it were right (golden horde).
But a solution for that would be a thing like: the Khuazit are difficult to fight, but politically they are so weak that their empires can break apart again and again into small clans due to rebels or the dead of the clan leader. They need something like in ck with tribes, clans, feudal, imperial and such things.
So we have replayability and not the feeling that every soldier is the same one, with the same stats, same tactics but in other skins.

I find it kind of ironic that "balance" to you seems to me "make everyone the same", when in my book, it should be the opposite.
For example: I am pretty sure that the increase in Battanian cavalry percentage is a result of cavalry currently being objectively stronger than infantry. It might fit Battania thematically to have almost no cavalry, but because of the current imbalances, they have to be made similar to other factions so they are not too weak.

Another example: The current ineffectiveness of polearms make the sturgian heavy spearman and especially the vlandian pikeman non-options for an experienced player, because they both have direct competitors in the same upgrade line that are better in every way (voulgier and heavy axeman).
As long as some options are much stronger than others, most players will tend towards using those, which effectively limits diversity in play styles.

 

[Stromming]

Ever heard of asymmetrical balance?

Balance =/= factions being similar

What we want is factions that have different strengths and weaknesses, like one faction has best archers, another has best infantry, another has best melee cavalry, another has best horse archers etc etc.

The balance is important to make sure that the same faction doesnt always win.

 

[Abyssos]

OP I see very few people saying that they want factions to be exactly the same. It's more that they want to start up a game and join a faction and not always feel like they've joined the "underdogs" or the "winning" faction. If the games progress the same every time then there's no reason to play through more than once or twice. Having no replay ability in a sandbox has pretty much doomed that game.


I absolutely hate this kind of comment, it's condescending and tries to dismiss people that have issues with the game. If you have nothing of value to add and are please with the game as is then why are you here? Go play the game and be happy. But for those of us that have legitimate issues the only way to get TW to look into it is to complain.

thats exactly what i do...play the game and im happy..thats the game intention and not complain that the archers are to op, or cavalry have horses and are to strong...im here cause some ppl work hard in a game, so ppl can enjoy it and all i see is whining ppl ...generations these days cant enjoy what are given..they want allways more, and are never satisfied...

This is a useless comment. Do you seriously think that spamming nothing but archers or horse archers is actually good for gameplay? That spear infantry don't even do their jobs well?

If only happy clapper feedback was allowed, this game would never improve.


I don't suppose you somehow think that Battania's lack of common archers is actually a good thing?

But yeah, it would not hurt if factions were more unique outside the battlefield.

dude...its my game, i play as i want---today i spamm archers..tomorrow cavalry, the day after god knows what...thats the beauty of the game..if you cant adapt to struggles is not my fault...and fyi battania have archers...

 

[black_bulldog]

thats exactly what i do...play the game and im happy..thats the game intention and not complain that the archers are to op, or cavalry have horses and are to strong...im here cause some ppl work hard in a game, so ppl can enjoy it and all i see is whining ppl ...generations these days cant enjoy what are given..they want allways more, and are never satisfied...

Dude if people don't report problem how the **** are they suppose to get addressed? This is ea and input (good and bad) is not only accepted but encouraged by the company. If they don't want anymore they can say so or they can shut the forums down. It's not your place to tell people what is and what is not ok in the game. This has nothing to do with how hard people are working, it's about trying to help TW put out the best product they can if you can't understand that then your not worth the time to talk to.

 

[Abyssos]

sadly for some ppl Everything is a problem...

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

I don't like to call it balance, it's more just making units do their basic roles. They don't do them now and it makes the game annoying and frustrating.
It's also about making recruits and troop trees not "strictly worse" then each other. For instance the Empire archers were nerfed to have only 1 stack of arrows, WHY? Now they're just strictly worse then other archers and their own Xbow units.

As far as faction power/flavor, I think they need to add something a little extra to everyone's (but khuzait) troop trees to spice them up and of course fix AI/armor/ unit tier power and on and on.
Khuzait is okay and they're really the only consistently difficult ones to fight, mostly because of how fast they get their t2 HA, coupled with bugs that make it now more difficult to shoot them down with ranged units as they approach. Aseria is actually harder(in top shape), however if they have taken losses they don't come back with as much HA/Cav as soon as the khuzaits, I want Camel troops!. Vlandia and Batania are both dependent on being in top shape to be a threat, if they don't have enough high tier ranged to back them up, they're no threat. Sturgia and the Empires are very easy to deal with in battle.

I want a special Female troop line for each faction!

 

[niekdegrijze]

I understand that its important for multiplayer, but why is it a thing for the singleplayer?
If every faction is the same, only the visual armor is changing, this destroy the replayability for me.
Because at the end, no faction is unique. It makes absolutly no difference which faction i serve, because every faction is the same except visually.
Okay, maybe Khuazit a little bit difference and the only one which is right in my eyes. You can fear them because of there much riders and horse archers.
But what is with the rest of the faction? Why no difference Politics, difference in tactics, difference in how they handle there people, manpower, etc. and why is armor balance a thing in the game?

Should it not be like this:
The Empire has a lower amount of manpower but the best armors in the world. Tribes like Battania have weak armors, but to compress that, they have nearly the double amount of soldiers, they fight without big tactics, with heavy weapons and at the same time, the empire fight only with tactical formations. Because of the amazing armor and tactics of the empire, they can even win a fight sometimes, when they are face a larger amount of enemys. But in the game, the battles are more or less balanced except the khuazit. This one are the only one which have there own system. But the factions should have there own unique formations (like shildwall sturgia, turtle empire, circle khuazit) in battle, too.

And this need other factions, too.So that its still balanced from the system, because nobody like khuazit snowballing everything (even if it were right (golden horde).
But a solution for that would be a thing like: the Khuazit are difficult to fight, but politically they are so weak that their empires can break apart again and again into small clans due to rebels or the dead of the clan leader. They need something like in ck with tribes, clans, feudal, imperial and such things.
So we have replayability and not the feeling that every soldier is the same one, with the same stats, same tactics but in other skins.

I agree, I want to fight different enemies, every new war should be exciting because you would face different army builds, forcing you to change your party composition. I 100% support the balancing effort to stop snowballing, but only through campaign mechanics. Army’s and tactics should be as distinct as possible

 

[black_bulldog]

I agree, I want to fight different enemies, every new war should be exciting because you would face different army builds, forcing you to change your party composition. I 100% support the balancing effort to stop snowballing, but only through campaign mechanics. Army’s and tactics should be as distinct as possible

Even you don't change your party it should force you to change tactics.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

thats exactly what i do...play the game and im happy..thats the game intention and not complain that the archers are to op, or cavalry have horses and are to strong...im here cause some ppl work hard in a game, so ppl can enjoy it and all i see is whining ppl ...generations these days cant enjoy what are given..they want allways more, and are never satisfied...


dude...its my game, i play as i want---today i spamm archers..tomorrow cavalry, the day after god knows what...thats the beauty of the game..if you cant adapt to struggles is not my fault...and fyi battania have archers...

This comment makes me grateful for the existence of MostBlunted.

 

[Antaeus]

Balance requirements occur because of the need for factions to be noticeably different.

When they are different, there's a chance that one might be better, and repeat gameplay predictable. The balance process intends to keep factions different and preserve replayability by removing predictability.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Ever heard of asymmetrical balance?

Balance =/= factions being similar

What we want is factions that have different strengths and weaknesses, like one faction has best archers, another has best infantry, another has best melee cavalry, another has best horse archers etc etc.

The balance is important to make sure that the same faction doesnt always win.

I don't think this kind of balance is any good either. One faction just having the best archers is only marginally less boring than having them all be the same. In some ways it's worse, because it forces your armies to be less interesting to be more effective. No good strategy game is designed like this.

Asymmetric faction design should be built around playstyles and situations. There should be no "best archer" in a well designed game. In Rome 2 total war the best skirmisher in a 1v1 fight is actually the crappiest, lowest damage germanic slinger, because it has a good shield that absorbs most incoming fire. The "best" skirmisher stats wise is only rarely used in competitive MP because of how many cheap units you have to kill to make it worth it. In competitive games you often see armies comprised about 50% of the lowest tier crappiest units with only 1-2 elite units. Pretty much every unit in the game gets used, every top tier player has their own meta, and new strategies are devised constantly.

The trouble is, this is only possible when there are dynamic game mechanics that favour situational fights rather than just stats. Positioning, timing and overall strategy should matter way more than just stats. But currently Bannerlord has almost none of that because of how boring combat is. There is no way to gain a decisive advantage using tactics and pre-battle strategy is nonexistent, so every battle is basically the same thing, the meta never changes, and all that really matters is stats.

 

[Midnitewolf]

Another factor in the whole balance equation is that I bet 95% of the people who play this game will end up adding a mod that customizes troops which will throw off any sort of native balance there ever way. Further, there are dozens of mods that change up the balance of this game from custom troops, to balancing overhauls, to changes in how weapons and army work, to changes in how AI works, all of which negate any sort of balance that might have existed in Native. This consequently lets the player determine what balance feels right for them anyway.

I guess the balancing makes sense if you like at the Native game as the hook that gets people interested in the game and willing to download mod for it. I mean you would need the Native experience to be at least "good enough" to encourage people to seek out mods so it does make sense that the Native experience has to be at least decent.

 

[VineFynn]

I understand that its important for multiplayer, but why is it a thing for the singleplayer?
If every faction is the same, only the visual armor is changing, this destroy the replayability for me.
Because at the end, no faction is unique. It makes absolutly no difference which faction i serve, because every faction is the same except visually.
Okay, maybe Khuazit a little bit difference and the only one which is right in my eyes. You can fear them because of there much riders and horse archers.
But what is with the rest of the faction? Why no difference Politics, difference in tactics, difference in how they handle there people, manpower, etc. and why is armor balance a thing in the game?

Should it not be like this:
The Empire has a lower amount of manpower but the best armors in the world. Tribes like Battania have weak armors, but to compress that, they have nearly the double amount of soldiers, they fight without big tactics, with heavy weapons and at the same time, the empire fight only with tactical formations. Because of the amazing armor and tactics of the empire, they can even win a fight sometimes, when they are face a larger amount of enemys. But in the game, the battles are more or less balanced except the khuazit. This one are the only one which have there own system. But the factions should have there own unique formations (like shildwall sturgia, turtle empire, circle khuazit) in battle, too.

And this need other factions, too.So that its still balanced from the system, because nobody like khuazit snowballing everything (even if it were right (golden horde).
But a solution for that would be a thing like: the Khuazit are difficult to fight, but politically they are so weak that their empires can break apart again and again into small clans due to rebels or the dead of the clan leader. They need something like in ck with tribes, clans, feudal, imperial and such things.
So we have replayability and not the feeling that every soldier is the same one, with the same stats, same tactics but in other skins.

You are literally describing balance. Asymmetrical balance.

 

[kweassa]

Not everyone likes to just open the final chapter to see whodunnit when reading a mystery novel. As a matter of fact, I would argue this is actually the prevalent case when people actually buy books and read them.

Same with a game. Even playing for yourself. A game is a set of rules and challenges the player follows, whose goal becomes winning at it with those given rules. When that standard rules and challenges bend easily, then there's no point in playing the game at all. Removing the sense of balance on grounds of "single player" is literally self-denial of something being a game at all.

The developers of a game come to a certain standard of what they want the players to face as a challenge. If you want to disregard that, that's what mods are for. (which, ironically means most mods actually make the game 'worse,' in that many of them arbitrarily changes balance to personal liking without a strong standard of where to put the balance at)