redmark
Squire
I'm terrible at combat; but part of being terrible is that I accept I shouldn't be able to fire a bow accurately from a charging horse, too. I can play commander, stand still protected by troops and fire a bow at massed ranks, and swing wildly with a two hander while frantically backing away if I get caught up in melee. (Occasionally I'll forget I'm terrible, and charge with my borrowed troops to take out a band of looters, and get embarassingly knocked out while the raw recruits save me). The game shouldn't simplify combat mechanics to the point of pointlessness just to let me think I'm actually good at something I'm not - because that doesn't reward skill improvement (the ingame skill, or player coordination skill). Nothing puts people off a game more than feeling that the game isn't responding to your development and improvement.Remember guys. The base game kind of or sorta needs to accommodate the least common denominator. I have a friend who I thought would absolutely love this game because he is just as much into the middle ages warfare as I am yet he only played around 40 minutes before quitting the game for good. I asked him why and he said, "This game just requires too much twitch, hand eye coordination. I just didn't have any fun because I couldn't ever hit anything with my weapons."
Point is, make it too much "skilled based" and there are a lot of people who will bail and/or just not by the game.
Needing a break from Bannerlord, I looked through some unplayed Steam titles a couple of days ago, and tried Witcher 2 (again). I gave up after five minutes. That's a combat mechanic at which I'll never be remotely adequate.