except that archers all have the same 1h and athletic skills as the shield troops so they have no disadvantage in melee. and those Fians with their 2h actually wreck everything in melee
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Just nerf ranged damage by 30%
- Thread starter Yertyl
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Dabos37
Sergeant Knight at Arms
While this is true, I think it won’t change the fact about ranged units killing everything from distance with easy. I mean, even if you nerf ranged units melee stats, the player will continue being able to wreck the AI with easy if spamming ranged units, because the AI won’t have any change to engage the player’s range units in melee before getting totally wrecked.
Bows aren't guns. That's the whole point. The reason why firearms replaced bow. Shooting a strong war bow is almost like doing 1-handed pull ups, few people could do it, people got tired going this very quickly. And the reason people wore armor was that it protected you against enemy attacks, including arrows.
in my earlier post i wrote some suggestions
-reducing the damage and accuracy of ranged units at distance. for example from 50m-100m and 100m-150m having damage/accuracy modifyers giving a bigger penalty (ai ranged attacks currently seem to function differently than player)
-introducing glancing hits in terms of more hit boxes that take reduced damage, eg getting shot in the finger and getting shot in the bicep are completely different things but in game does same damage
-improve shield soldier combat ability and increase cavalry charge effects to offer stronger troop type counter to archers.
-increase effectiveness of armor especially helmet vs ranged
the point of these are to
-introduce some rock paper scissors type of unit interaction if use correctly. instead of ranged > melee as we have now.
-allows melee units to survive better while closing in especially if they are far away. and allow them to have greater advantage over archers in actual melee.
-allow a cavalry charge of their archer formation to disrupt it more
Emax
Recruit
Dude, if ranged units are making the game too easy for you, then play an all melee army. I've done it (sturgian no less). Git gud already
But utilizing the most powerful tactic in the setting then complaining that it makes things too easy is way too shortsighted to be calling for nerfs.
If mount and blade players wanted some wacky fantasy environment where they have to nerf ranged damage in order to compensate for melees range deficit, then they wouldnt be mount and blade players. They would play wow or any number of korean published medieval mmo clones.
lolwut? Few people could do it? Looks like you don't know anything about history.
EVERYBODY did it. The bow was a peasants weapon. Used for hunting and warfare, and practiced constantly. Archeological findings show that their upper bodies were extremely developed as a result.
Just because YOU cant do a pull up does not mean that the average medieval archer couldnt work a bow to great effect.
OK, at this point you are just trolling or completely ignorant.
Peasants didn't hunt. They worked fields. Hunting was typically a noble privilege. And hunting bows were useless against padded jack and up. Archeological findings show that most non-nobility people in the middle ages were fairly unhealthy by modern standards, due to nutrient-poor diets. Protein-poor diets do not help in growing muscle.
Bows were replaced by crossbow in states which states which had the economic power to do so, precisely because they were not as good.
The average medieval archer was just not very effective against amored enemies. Hence why armored cavalry ruled the battlefields for centuries.
Dabos37
Sergeant Knight at Arms
It is not about exploiting the game with 100% archers armies, it is about playing with balanced armies, and archers performing much better than infantry or cavalry, so you feel like you are using a suboptimal army because you are recruiting weaker units just for making the game artificially harder.
Saying that I should not use ranged units if I want a bigger challenge, just confirms that archers are OP. It is similar than saying that people should not use smithing because it is OP. If something is OP, it should be balanced instead of discouraging the players for using it, just for making the game artificially harder for themselves.
Ranged units are unrealistically OP in this game, their damage against armored units is too high and their rate of fire excessively high compared to historical evidence.
Emax
Recruit
ROFL. Love it when an ignoramus thinks hes the smartest guy in the room!
Only large game like deer and elk were a noble privilege. Small game like rabbits, squirrels, forest fowl, foxes, wolves, badgers and hares were free for anyone. They also ate beef and mutton, as well as fish. While there was a spectrum of conditions depending on location and social status, generally speaking, the concept that non-nobility in the middle ages were weak and malnourished from eating slop is nothing more than fantasy perpetuated by movies. In reality, most medieval peasants had a healthier diet than the average mcdonalds guzzling slave does today.
You are wildly incorrect on your other two points as well but I am just going to stop here. Im not getting paid to teach you anything and I have other things to do at the moment.
And also....
Git gud
You could also specialize your ammunition.
While broader heads deal increased CUT-damage, something like a bodkin could deal less damage. So additionally to nerfing, buffing, balancing whatsoever, you could make an arrow for every type of enemy which lacks punch against a mismatch.
So we would have
- lesser damage for bows and more damaging arrows and
- higher cut-damage arrows against pesky peasants, looters and similar rabble,
- inferior (damage-wise) piercing arrows against the mid-tier-leathers,
- inferior, but nearly everything piercing bolts to strike down insufferable nobles.
Might not be enough for the most players, but imo easier to implement since there are about maybe 20 arrows in the game. Well, and aprox. 20 ranged weapons? Maybe not easier but i think, still a valid point.
While broader heads deal increased CUT-damage, something like a bodkin could deal less damage. So additionally to nerfing, buffing, balancing whatsoever, you could make an arrow for every type of enemy which lacks punch against a mismatch.
So we would have
- lesser damage for bows and more damaging arrows and
- higher cut-damage arrows against pesky peasants, looters and similar rabble,
- inferior (damage-wise) piercing arrows against the mid-tier-leathers,
- inferior, but nearly everything piercing bolts to strike down insufferable nobles.
Might not be enough for the most players, but imo easier to implement since there are about maybe 20 arrows in the game. Well, and aprox. 20 ranged weapons? Maybe not easier but i think, still a valid point.
you only think the Archers are doing better because they got more kills and died less.
omfg ur infantry did their job tanking the hits and your cavalry did their job distracting the enemies...
Antaeus
Squire
Fians are noble line... and they are rare on a battlefield. They're supposed to be OP.
Don't look at individual units stats, look at how parties in the game deploy them. A Battanian party will have maybe 5 or 8 Fians relative to 50 or 60 mid tier infantry. They're the equivalent of the noble's household bodyguard or veterans. They should be OP.
Now if there was an AI party that had 40 or 50 Fians... then I'd think it was problematic. But that's not now how they're intended to be deployed - Only the player does that. And my inkling is that the changes to noble recruitment that came in a coupe of iterations back have allowed for the player to obtain too many Fians - the unit isn't the problem, the supply is.
five bucks
Knight at Arms
Yeah, Emax definitely seems like a pretty blatant troll.
perhaps i chose the wrong example seeing how there is no noble infantry unit in the game. so there's no fair comparison.
what about Khans Guards that can absolutely wreck the other 3 types of melee heavy cavalry noble units in melee combat being a horse archer because how strong 2h swing weapons are? u can't be ranged and be better at melee. that's just straight up unbalanced.
Dabos37
Sergeant Knight at Arms
I do not only think about archers are doing better because they got more kills and died less, this is totally wrong and this is only your assumption. What actually happens is that when you have a balanced army, people start noticing that ranged units are simply much superior and actually do not need support because they are able to do the work by themselves, so why just do not bring more ranged units? This is exactly what happens in Warband with Swadian Knights… Why to upgrade units to infantry or crossbowmen if swadian Knights cost the same, and they are just able to do it much better?
Plus, ranged footman units are cheaper and easier to get if we compare them to cav units. There is no simply any incentive for the player for recruiting anything different to ranged units, except if the player wants to make the game artificially harder for himself, which actually confirms that ranged units are OP.
It is not only related to Fians… Any T5 archers or Crossbowmen unit is OP to a degree. Sharpshooters are pretty deadly and make any other Vlandian units feels simply unnecessary to bring to the battle. Test the same battles using sharpshooters, and then Banner Knights, are you are rapidly going to see that there is a balancing problem.
Antaeus
Squire
That's exactly the same situation... a noble line that is supposed to be OP, and rare.
And there's nothing wrong with a soldier training in both ranged and hand to hand weapons? Particularly a noble soldier who can afford the best tutors. Again, if there is a problem with them, it's with them being too easy for the player to source, rather than the unit itself - few Kuzait armies have more than a handful of them - certainly they don't recruit enough to change the course of a battle. Rather Kuzait armies are packed with low tier HAs which are poor archers and are toast when they stray into infantry, or get caught by cavalry.
By and large, AI armies are fairly well balanced. Vlandia has good access to crossbows early on, but some of them will be nerfed when the devs get around to fixing crossbow bolts.
Otherwise, the issues are with the propensity for human players to recruit high numbers of OP missile units that aren't designed to be used in those quantities. A solution to that might be to limit the availability of noble units to only players with high relationships with those villages - so that the player has to work for them, and otherwise has to settle with lesser troop types.
Dabos37
Sergeant Knight at Arms
Limiting noble line won’t fix anything. As said before, you are going to get similar results if recruiting 100 sharpshooters, master archers, heavy cavalry, etc.
The problem here is that the AI is simply not able to deal with the player spamming ranged units (any ranged unit, not just noble ranged units). And it is actually not a totally AI issue, it is actually mostly related to ranged units having and overtuned damage output.
The problem here is that the AI is simply not able to deal with the player spamming ranged units (any ranged unit, not just noble ranged units). And it is actually not a totally AI issue, it is actually mostly related to ranged units having and overtuned damage output.
The correct solution would be to balance them so that they are not that OP. Of course most players will just tend to use the most OP units but don´t limit the player because of that. The long term solution would be a better overall balance.
Why should I use infantary troops when ranged troops are mostly as good in melee fights and have the range advantage?
That´s why a lot of players use the realistic battlefield mod.
Last edited:
Antaeus
Squire
You've missed the points of the most recent posts... they are purposely OP because they are rare noble units. If they are rare and expensive, the player wont be able to recruit as many of them. Which is how they are treated by the AI.
I haven´t missed it, I just think that this is the wrong way to balance it, as I have written in my previous reply...
Also the realistic battle mod proves that it is just a balance thing. While archers are still strong they are by far not that op. But this is also related to the cav in the mod, they aren´t useless like in vanilla.
Similar threads
