Armor lack of effectiveness Devs should consider

Users who are viewing this thread

Armour absolutely needs to be more effective against arrows/bolts.

Bannerlord will keep being Call of Duty: Medieval Edition until it does.

There is basically no reason to have anything but a small token infantry force in your armies because all archers in Bannerlord are unrealistic armour piercing machine gunners.
 
From my point the system/calculation formula should work
in a exponential way. ( in a very specific curbe )


The step ups - of armour value effectiveness should be more steep.
10 value - decent armor , 20 - x4 that 10 , 30 x3 that 20 , 60 x12 that 30 or something. Upper tier armour should be very good = tank soldier.
Damage reduction for each specific bracket - to simulate - the effects of the expected tier.


Mitigation -
* slow speed in running for the very armoured & heavy soldier. ( we already have this )
* slower arm speed for the armoured troop- meaning the speed of arm swings decreases - do to the weight of overall armour. This way nibble and less armored soldiers can swing faster on average.

Cut damage only to be done - on cloth/gambeson and leather - mail and small plates receive not cut damage. ( 0 ) .

( And when i say cloth/leather - i mean cloth/leather body parts - not cloth general armour. )

All weapons do blunt damage ( even sword, arrows ) . All weapons will impact the majority of there blunt damage by there actual weight plus some specific value - as an addition - to balance some specifics.

Knives can only do cut damage as they have no mass or very little of.

New meshes for different body parts - with armours values and hit-boxes.
Head , eyes , face , neck , shoulders, upper arm, lower arm , body, groin, upper leg, lower leg. ( maybe arm pit )

Each hit-box will have armour attributed/matched to it.

Aim is to hit the less protected body parts - you see a face open - that is a kill shot [ or very damaging ] . You hit neck that has no mail or protection - kill shot.

Stamina system - that is very easy to refill for Player & NPC soldiers.
All actions on battlefield drain stamina - you move - you drain stamina, you stop - you get it back very fast 4 seconds. You swing arm - you drain stamina.
IF stamina is low/or zero = all actions are 60% slower. Just small respite that could be achieved by the player or NPC soldiers - gets back full stamina.
All stamina has 20% percent of being ignored. Even if you play with 0% stamina - you still can move a bit faster sometimes or swing at full speed.
Athletics perk - increase also the stamina bar.

All armours mapped on the mesh of the body part. Armour will no longer be visual & value but also have a function more close to there material.
Each armour will have a priority of damage type that NPC can do Ex: it someone has an opponent with open face + less armour legs + uncoverd neck + mail armour in the rest. It will prioriteze to hit the less armoured parts in the fight.


Damage to HP - has effect in stamina and speed. If injured [ HP at 30% ] you have less stamina.

Bleeding to HP : cut damage & pierce [ to a lesser extend pierce] but not Blunt - will bleed overtime. There will be an initial cut damage at the point of hit + some value manifesting that will be in the next minutes. [ like poison damage in RPG's ] . Soldiers will collapse on the battle field do to bleeding at some point.

AI to priorities Defence. The aim of the AI soldier is to not get hit. Fight will be longer and hits/swings will be less that now . Most of the fight will be shield blocking or running away . Shield up action - drains stamina. Swing action drain stamina more , the most . Poke/stab action will be more efficient from stamina. The fights will conclude when a soldier loses it stamina - gets sluggish - will will start to get hit. The worst stamina drain action is to move a lot and swing. The best stamina actions is to stay in one-place and block. Soldier fighting each other will approximate the other stamina.

Both system of what is already and a better/new systems should run in parallel . Meaning the code should ask question : old system or new system. That way it can be implemented for some armours and be WIP.

The Bannerlord system is an abstraction ( and more complex that warband ) but there could be improvements . If Taleworld does not want to do it in the Base game - maybe a DLC can be created - meaning a system that is more realistic and a way to getting it to the game - as a side project.

Arrows - should have different type of Pierce ( b ) - that works against cloth/gambeson , leather - the best. Mail - medium. ( An armour can be gamberson/padding + mail = combination on a body part , that add both values ) . And very little effect against plate. As many plate armour actualy are small plates for body + mail for the hands -> if hands or legs are hit by an arrow then damage is done. That way arrows are still effective at some extend but need to be hit with accuracy. NPC archers will priorities if distance is small - to hit specific body parts if not - just to hit something - body most likely.

[ Normal Pierce for Spears & Javelins and Sword Point - to be named = Stab damage / and new Damage called Pierce (b) - but to remain as Pierce Damage naming to be for Arrows / Crossbow bolt / Ballista Bolts / Couch Lance . Some entry level arrows = to be Stab based on arrow head and some higher level Spears /Javelin to be Pierce . ] [ Transition should be Cut -> Stab -> Pierce -> Blunt and each armour material to have some prevalence to some type . Gambeson & Leather is good against blunt but not against pierce. Mail and Brigandine/Scale is not so good againt Blunt but good againt pierce and cut. ]

Shield on Back should act as very very very high armour. So this way you can use in one in-hand shield + back shield to make you character and companions - immune to most arrows. That way crossbows troops/pavise ones can not be killed from the back - and will be in turtle mode. most of the time. There reload animation should also do a twist/circle in place. Meaning when they refill the crossbow they will do it with the backs to the enemy direction.
 
Last edited:
One can only hope... I wish there was any point in having infantry or normal cavalry, but all you need to win is archers and mounted archers
 
Yes but the internet [ free] resources at the developers disposal are phenomenal now.
Just 13 years a ago channels like this started - and there was little experiments and good information's to go around.
Now someone making a game - can have free data/real tests/as historical as possible - that budget wise would be a lot.
But now are free - and someone from there remote job - need to only watch a few movies per day and have what it takes to create a realistically behavior in the game. They can be 80% close to what would have been like. As Mount and Blade as a brand has as it core concept the early-medieval fights - this is important. They wore the pioneers - and they did a great job in the past ( for those times ). But now there is new data - that can increase the realism.

One of the most recent channels - that you may know about. I do not want to spam the forum - with movies like this - the internet is full of them.
But they all are doing real experiments that clarify for all the wide world - that was the real effects of the weapons' vs. armour.
We can no longer be in this territory of subjectivity and wrong balancing do to "our" lack of knowledge. We are getting closer to the truth and as such we should do something with this truth.

https://www.youtube.com/@tods_workshop






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvm_TiD5I-c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ds-Ev5msyzo
 
Last edited:
We can no longer be in this territory of subjectivity and wrong balancing do to "our" lack of knowledge. We are getting closer to the truth and as such we should do something with this truth.
The developers are aware, they just don't care. Armor is balanced the way it is deliberately, because they want arrows to be dangerous to players even when wearing end-game sets.
 
The developers are aware, they just don't care. Armor is balanced the way it is deliberately, because they want arrows to be dangerous to players even when wearing end-game sets.
And probably don't want to rejig their balance further on the disconnect of troop wage/cost vs armor costs.
 
From my point the system/calculation formula should work
in a exponential way. ( in a very specific curbe )


The step ups - of armour value effectiveness should be more steep.
10 value - decent armor , 20 - x4 that 10 , 30 x3 that 20 , 60 x12 that 30 or something. Upper tier armour should be very good = tank soldier.
Damage reduction for each specific bracket - to simulate - the effects of the expected tier.


Mitigation -
* slow speed in running for the very armoured & heavy soldier. ( we already have this )
* slower arm speed for the armoured troop- meaning the speed of arm swings decreases - do to the weight of overall armour. This way nibble and less armored soldiers can swing faster on average.

Cut damage only to be done - on cloth/gambeson and leather - mail and small plates receive not cut damage. ( 0 ) .

( And when i say cloth/leather - i mean cloth/leather body parts - not cloth general armour. )

All weapons do blunt damage ( even sword, arrows ) . All weapons will impact the majority of there blunt damage by there actual weight plus some specific value - as an addition - to balance some specifics.

Knives can only do cut damage as they have no mass or very little of.

New meshes for different body parts - with armours values and hit-boxes.
Head , eyes , face , neck , shoulders, upper arm, lower arm , body, groin, upper leg, lower leg. ( maybe arm pit )

Each hit-box will have armour attributed/matched to it.

Aim is to hit the less protected body parts - you see a face open - that is a kill shot [ or very damaging ] . You hit neck that has no mail or protection - kill shot.

Stamina system - that is very easy to refill for Player & NPC soldiers.
All actions on battlefield drain stamina - you move - you drain stamina, you stop - you get it back very fast 4 seconds. You swing arm - you drain stamina.
IF stamina is low/or zero = all actions are 60% slower. Just small respite that could be achieved by the player or NPC soldiers - gets back full stamina.
All stamina has 20% percent of being ignored. Even if you play with 0% stamina - you still can move a bit faster sometimes or swing at full speed.
Athletics perk - increase also the stamina bar.

All armours mapped on the mesh of the body part. Armour will no longer be visual & value but also have a function more close to there material.
Each armour will have a priority of damage type that NPC can do Ex: it someone has an opponent with open face + less armour legs + uncoverd neck + mail armour in the rest. It will prioriteze to hit the less armoured parts in the fight.


Damage to HP - has effect in stamina and speed. If injured [ HP at 30% ] you have less stamina.

Bleeding to HP : cut damage & pierce [ to a lesser extend pierce] but not Blunt - will bleed overtime. There will be an initial cut damage at the point of hit + some value manifesting that will be in the next minutes. [ like poison damage in RPG's ] . Soldiers will collapse on the battle field do to bleeding at some point.

AI to priorities Defence. The aim of the AI soldier is to not get hit. Fight will be longer and hits/swings will be less that now . Most of the fight will be shield blocking or running away . Shield up action - drains stamina. Swing action drain stamina more , the most . Poke/stab action will be more efficient from stamina. The fights will conclude when a soldier loses it stamina - gets sluggish - will will start to get hit. The worst stamina drain action is to move a lot and swing. The best stamina actions is to stay in one-place and block. Soldier fighting each other will approximate the other stamina.

Both system of what is already and a better/new systems should run in parallel . Meaning the code should ask question : old system or new system. That way it can be implemented for some armours and be WIP.

The Bannerlord system is an abstraction ( and more complex that warband ) but there could be improvements . If Taleworld does not want to do it in the Base game - maybe a DLC can be created - meaning a system that is more realistic and a way to getting it to the game - as a side project.

Arrows - should have different type of Pierce ( b ) - that works against cloth/gambeson , leather - the best. Mail - medium. ( An armour can be gamberson/padding + mail = combination on a body part , that add both values ) . And very little effect against plate. As many plate armour actualy are small plates for body + mail for the hands -> if hands or legs are hit by an arrow then damage is done. That way arrows are still effective at some extend but need to be hit with accuracy. NPC archers will priorities if distance is small - to hit specific body parts if not - just to hit something - body most likely.

[ Normal Pierce for Spears & Javelins and Sword Point - to be named = Stab damage / and new Damage called Pierce (b) - but to remain as Pierce Damage naming to be for Arrows / Crossbow bolt / Ballista Bolts / Couch Lance . Some entry level arrows = to be Stab based on arrow head and some higher level Spears /Javelin to be Pierce . ] [ Transition should be Cut -> Stab -> Pierce -> Blunt and each armour material to have some prevalence to some type . Gambeson & Leather is good against blunt but not against pierce. Mail and Brigandine/Scale is not so good againt Blunt but good againt pierce and cut. ]

Shield on Back should act as very very very high armour. So this way you can use in one in-hand shield + back shield to make you character and companions - immune to most arrows. That way crossbows troops/pavise ones can not be killed from the back - and will be in turtle mode. most of the time. There reload animation should also do a twist/circle in place. Meaning when they refill the crossbow they will do it with the backs to the enemy direction.


Bannerlord infantry battles are definitely too fast but adding stamina and exponential armour is a step too far in the other direction in my eyes, and it isn't realistic to have adult men get tired after swinging a 1kg sword 10 times and having to take a break. Just make the sword animations longer if that's the case.

Archers or crossbowmen should always be relevant in the campaign even if the player runs with a full army of heavy infantry, because infantry on infantry combat is typically boring as hell. If you want archers to do realistic damage you should also give them a realistic role where they fire hundreds of arrows each over hours and hours of battle.
 
Armor is in an ok spot for gameplay and how it is connected to the other game systems. If you want a 'non-subjective' realistic representation of armor in the game, you also need the other underlying 'realistic' aspects associated (cost added, time/training added, 'finite' resource, weight, stamina, length of battle, terrain, etc...). Otherwise, we're just making armor too OP (which it probably was RL, but there is a reason only the wealthy/trained use or why looting battles was important to salvage/reuse). Armor in game being not as effective as would be in RL is balancing those other factors out to what we have now. Is it perfect? No, but it's at a reasonable level of compromise right now with all those considered.
 
Armor is in an ok spot for gameplay and how it is connected to the other game systems. If you want a 'non-subjective' realistic representation of armor in the game, you also need the other underlying 'realistic' aspects associated (cost added, time/training added, 'finite' resource, weight, stamina, length of battle, terrain, etc...). Otherwise, we're just making armor too OP (which it probably was RL, but there is a reason only the wealthy/trained use or why looting battles was important to salvage/reuse). Armor in game being not as effective as would be in RL is balancing those other factors out to what we have now. Is it perfect? No, but it's at a reasonable level of compromise right now with all those considered.
Hardly. Even if you want to abstract stuff, the fact that elite troops die all too fast and ranged troops are still far too strong is not fun for the game.
 
Hardly. Even if you want to abstract stuff, the fact that elite troops die all too fast and ranged troops are still far too strong is not fun for the game.
I think it's too easy still to get the current elite troops; they last well enough and cheap enough to get that the player to steamrolls very quickly without gameplay effort (hence late game woes). It's hard to consider them as 'elite/noble', just the next tier of fodder - they haven't really felt (getting close though) the same as the knights, huscarls, sergeants, marksman in the kingdom specifics of WB.

With how effective shields are, ranged units are obsolete. With how effective horse armor is, near impossible (not worth ammo) to take down with range. With how they calculate aim, cavalry are extremely effective against them (as should be). Formation targeting can/will completely trivialize the other 'OPness' of ranged troops, once/if TW actually implements properly.

Making armor more effective is not the only way to counter/nerf the current (select few units) OP ranged troops. I haven't played WB in years but didn't they have friendly-fire? Have that or reduce their aim capabilities in melee frays so they have to be positioned to be effective. Have their rate of fire tweaked. Maybe don't give defenders infinite ammo. Maybe let's not give FC the best bow/arrow, best armor (faction spec), best weaponry, fast foot speed, etc...

IMO, the game needs more casualties (not just wounded)/attrition scaling, both in simulation and in battles.
 
Making armor more effective is not the only way to counter/nerf the current (select few units) OP ranged troops. I haven't played WB in years but didn't they have friendly-fire?

It didn't, and the aiming algorithm didn't work if there was sufficient height difference. The main difference is that cavalry in warband was actually dangerous to archers on the charge rather than just washing over them like a weak tide and having to do 10+ charges to wipe them out.
 
I think it's a design choice the devs made to try to compensate for the terrible ai in battles. The enemy either charges, making little to no use of their ranged troops, or climb a mountain and wait, but in the end it's aways a blob of infantry mashing together, cavalry running arround randomly, archers scratching their ***** behind the infantry blob and horse archers killing everybody(i don't even want to think about those reinforcement waves). If there was some kind of strategy behind battles they would last a lot longer, giving ranged troops a lot more time to cause damage. The ai should try to use all arrows and then join the infantry or flank.
 
It didn't, and the aiming algorithm didn't work if there was sufficient height difference. The main difference is that cavalry in warband was actually dangerous to archers on the charge rather than just washing over them like a weak tide and having to do 10+ charges to wipe them out.
That was probably what it was, as I do remember needing to use elevation more importantly in order for the range to actually shoot past melee fray in WB.
There were some decent fixes to cavalry aiming and with the logic for archers switching to melee better than WB at least there is some disruption going on stopping them. Though once you get to those 1k vs 1k battles, sort of just gets too chaotic.
I think it's a design choice the devs made to try to compensate for the terrible ai in battles. The enemy either charges, making little to no use of their ranged troops, or climb a mountain and wait, but in the end it's aways a blob of infantry mashing together, cavalry running arround randomly, archers scratching their ***** behind the infantry blob and horse archers killing everybody(i don't even want to think about those reinforcement waves). If there was some kind of strategy behind battles they would last a lot longer, giving ranged troops a lot more time to cause damage. The ai should try to use all arrows and then join the infantry or flank.
Yeah, most battles tend to end up like that. Some vids from Stratgaming Youtube has some pretty good tactics but it requires so much handholding, you can't really join the combat - and probably required tons of hours just figuring out the odd mechanics of the AI itself.
 
Armor is in an ok spot for gameplay and how it is connected to the other game systems. If you want a 'non-subjective' realistic representation of armor in the game, you also need the other underlying 'realistic' aspects associated (cost added, time/training added, 'finite' resource, weight, stamina, length of battle, terrain, etc...). Otherwise, we're just making armor too OP (which it probably was RL, but there is a reason only the wealthy/trained use or why looting battles was important to salvage/reuse). Armor in game being not as effective as would be in RL is balancing those other factors out to what we have now. Is it perfect? No, but it's at a reasonable level of compromise right now with all those considered.
Armour is not in an ok spot for gameplay, it's in a terrible spot - ranged troops are horribly OP. Using a bow from horseback or picking Khuzait/Battanian noble troops feels like cheating with how insanely effective it is even on hardest difficulty so I don't want to use that game content; there is basically no reason for me to upgrade to infantry except a small token force; my ranged troops often slaughter all enemies before my melee troops can get in range.

There is a very simple solution here: make armour 1.7x more effective against pierce damage, then buff the base damage of every piercing attack by 1.7x, except for arrows and bolts.
This will not make armour OP - it will make it balanced and make the currently OP ranged troops balanced.
The main difference is that cavalry in warband was actually dangerous to archers on the charge rather than just washing over them like a weak tide and having to do 10+ charges to wipe them out.
The other very big main difference was that armour actually worked and it took on average 10+ arrows to take someone wearing mail armour down, as opposed to the 5 arrows on average that it takes in Bannerlord. This meant even armies without any cavalry could compete against armies with many archers.

I am not even asking for Warband's level of armour back, but the depleted uranium bullet arrows we have in Bannerlord are ridiculous, and are the most obvious problem with balance.
 
Armour is not in an ok spot for gameplay, it's in a terrible spot - ranged troops are horribly OP. Using a bow from horseback or picking Khuzait/Battanian noble troops feels like cheating with how insanely effective it is even on hardest difficulty so I don't want to use that game content; there is basically no reason for me to upgrade to infantry except a small token force; my ranged troops often slaughter all enemies before my melee troops can get in range.

There is a very simple solution here: make armour 1.7x more effective against pierce damage, then buff the base damage of every piercing attack by 1.7x, except for arrows and bolts.
This will not make armour OP - it will make it balanced and make the currently OP ranged troops balanced.

The other very big main difference was that armour actually worked and it took on average 10+ arrows to take someone wearing mail armour down, as opposed to the 5 arrows on average that it takes in Bannerlord. This meant even armies without any cavalry could compete against armies with many archers.

I am not even asking for Warband's level of armour back, but the depleted uranium bullet arrows we have in Bannerlord are ridiculous, and are the most obvious problem with balance.
They are much better than before, imo enough where it's not as big a deal anymore; also basing on the formation targeting TW mentioned they will add in some form (and the barebones and not what what we were asking of nonsense that comes with it).

KG are OP because they have the best of all the worlds; top (cultural) armour, horse, bow, polearm (agree swing calc of polearm is just not right), combat skills. Fian's, same thing, but instead of the unreliability of HA aiming, shoot more accurately/consistently, and 'cheaper' less the horse.

Buffing armour, yes, can still change the KG loadout after that to tweak, but they could also just balance the current KGs/Fians without effecting the other troops entirely.

I know that armour, realistically, should be able to take/deflect a lot more arrows (based on some YT anecdotal tests). But if armour is made to be that effective, it should also be prohibitively more expensive, weight/stamina factoring, maybe even skill penalty etc...Shields are also too OP, still makes no sense why it can take 50+ arrows before breaking; not to mention javelin/throwing axes either.
There's also no way to account for 'caution'; even if you have a full bulletproof armour on, doesn't mean you want to just walk up against an enemy. AI can't care, so you lose that crowd control aspect too.

So unless they revamp the troop tier/upgrade costs accordingly, we're just making the armoured units exponentially longer lasting/steamroll easier within the current battle logics.

The closest (or extreme end) of that is from the popular mod RBM which tries to go for this but also ends up losing the 'rock>paper>scissors' aspect because it doesn't alter the upgrade/costs to reflect that end of the balancing.
 
Unpopular opinion, heh heh heh. :razz:

Buffing armor don't save anything. I've been there. RBM, INJ2 promos, etc. After some time, all are creating MMO feel, like cutting down 400k hp dragon boss and losing it's realism.

RBM tried to solve this with "tiredness" but it looked bad, imo. INJ2 looks like relies on massively buffed piercing damage and polearms/two-handers; well time will tell..

So, punching a sponge is not realistic most will agree on that. But also punching a rock creates MMO feel, decreasing realism.

What if we shouldn't punch at all ? That.. to me is more realistic...


Only middle point, to me is, adequate usage of feint-attack/lesser usage of block for low-mid tier units

And extreme usage of feint-attack/adequate block for higher tier units and lords.

And for arrows/bolts, AI will gonna use it's damn shield in 90+% effectiveness on any range, with a walk speed/ride speed penalty. Only solution for Archer-main players is will be:
-combined arms
-defeat in detail
-multiple side shooting

But this will not be accepted because it will be annoy relax gaming.

Just as turning sponge into rock...

-------------------------------------------------

Alas, no bad feel towards TW for this from me. This is a product, you earn moneh, you paying wages etc. Bigger player base is better most of the time. I would also choose this over that niche, instead i would hunt other niches. Precisely, i would hunt other niches definitely, game need those very badly.
 
Last edited:
They are much better than before, imo enough where it's not as big a deal anymore
Armor was NOT increased at all against pierce damage. It's been basically the same since launch.
KG are OP because they have the best of all the worlds; top (cultural) armour, horse, bow, polearm (agree swing calc of polearm is just not right), combat skills. Fian's, same thing, but instead of the unreliability of HA aiming, shoot more accurately/consistently, and 'cheaper' less the horse.
KG are insanely OP because ranged is overpowered *and* they have fantastic melee.

Fians are OP because ranged is overpowered and they are the best ranged unit.

Other ranged units are overpowered because ranged is overpowered.
but they could also just balance the current KGs/Fians without effecting the other troops entirely
All bow/crossbow troops are overpowered. When I have a choice between upgrading to infantry or to ranged, I will almost always pick ranged. I only have token infantry forces to act as a shield dropping distraction so my ranged troops can **** them up.
Shields are also too OP, still makes no sense why it can take 50+ arrows before breaking; not to mention javelin/throwing axes either.
Agreed. I would rework shields to the effect that most of them have their HP reduced by about 15%.
So unless they revamp the troop tier/upgrade costs accordingly, we're just making the armoured units exponentially longer lasting/steamroll easier within the current battle logics.
Literally just look at Warband. It had armour more than 2x more effective than BL, and yet ranged troops were still useful and viable. I'm asking for 1.7x more effective armour. What that will do will make ranged troops balanced.
Buffing armor don't save anything. I've been there. RBM, INJ2 promos, etc. After some time, all are creating MMO feel, like cutting down 400k hp dragon boss and losing it's realism.
Buffing armour saves anything. I've been there. It's called Mount & Blade: Warband.

Warband worked.
 
Armor was NOT increased at all against pierce damage. It's been basically the same since launch.
They are noticeably more effective, whether that was tweaking the damage, HP value, etc...I can take a few more arrow hits than EA release (assuming that's what you meant by 'launch' for most of us here).
KG are insanely OP because ranged is overpowered *and* they have fantastic melee.
It's not their range that makes them OP, it's everything in addition (which are also top of the line) that makes them so. Remove the weird damage/effectiveness of polearms on mounts (another discussion), make horses easier to fell (too tanky), tweak their armor set, etc...HA with just range alone is barely effective - they don't aim as well or slow (cancelling often), take longer time to kill others, etc..., even if we give them 2 quivers.
Fians are OP because ranged is overpowered and they are the best ranged unit.
Yes, Fians are stupidly OP - but to fix that, we should nerf them, not by make all other units' (armours) stronger. 'Cause now you have to deal with balancing all the other aspects of those updated troops for vs swords, vs blunts, vs polearms, vs throwing, vs cavs, and even vs map simulation/economy.
Ie. RBM also needed something like the posture thing to tone it down (though toggleable) and didn't mod any of the overworld systems from the consequence making the armoured troops 'OP/realistic'; which was needed to balance that aspect of it.
Other ranged units are overpowered because ranged is overpowered.
All bow/crossbow troops are overpowered. When I have a choice between upgrading to infantry or to ranged, I will almost always pick ranged. I only have token infantry forces to act as a shield dropping distraction so my ranged troops can **** them up.
I'd rather nerf the bows at this stage before doing another buff pass on armour. Or give a wider variety of mid-tier bows for troop loadouts; reserve the noble bows for, you know, nobles.
For both bow/xbow, still think their range + accuracy aren't a close representation to RL (even in Warband). From what I understand, summarily, xbow's tradeoff was distance accuracy/speed less for power/close range accuracy (can hold at draw); bows, tradeoff was damage for distance/mobility reliability (consistency).
Literally just look at Warband. It had armour more than 2x more effective than BL, and yet ranged troops were still useful and viable. I'm asking for 1.7x more effective armour. What that will do will make ranged troops balanced.

Buffing armour saves anything. I've been there. It's called Mount & Blade: Warband.

Warband worked.
As much as I had also favoured WB's over BL's current, their range was still king too. I can just use the same smattering of shields in front with rows and rows of VMarksman and RXbows; without even needing cavs. It's not as easy to do that as effectively in BL.
It was also was harder/slower to accumulate the top-tier armoured troops, rarer occurrence of large battles, shields were weaker/'realistic', more foot shots, horses died more easily to them, bows less accurate at distance (and slower velocity/different trajectory too?), and felt like they couldn't aim as well near friendlies (imo).
With the AI logic being better/more efficient in BL, that plays into it as well.
 
Last edited:
The closest (or extreme end) of that is from the popular mod RBM which tries to go for this but also ends up losing the 'rock>paper>scissors' aspect because it doesn't alter the upgrade/costs to reflect that end of the balancing.
There is one problem with this. Overhaul in troop costs would require overhaul in whole economy. There are / were some mods that increased upkeeps (for example based on gear) but they just bunkrupted the Strategic AI. So in order to do overhaul of unit prices, overhaul of AI spending and income needs to be done. At the moment we are increasing cost of cavalry for the player by making every tier require new horse / war horse (which coincidentally is historically accurate since knights and similiar warriors used 3-4 horses per long battle quite often).
 
They are noticeably more effective, whether that was tweaking the damage, HP value, etc...I can take a few more arrow hits than EA release (assuming that's what you meant by 'launch' for most of us here).

It's not their range that makes them OP, it's everything in addition (which are also top of the line) that makes them so. Remove the weird damage/effectiveness of polearms on mounts (another discussion), make horses easier to fell (too tanky), tweak their armor set, etc...HA with just range alone is barely effective - they don't aim as well or slow (cancelling often), take longer time to kill others, etc..., even if we give them 2 quivers.

Yes, Fians are stupidly OP - but to fix that, we should nerf them, not by make all other units' (armours) stronger. 'Cause now you have to deal with balancing all the other aspects of those updated troops for vs swords, vs blunts, vs polearms, vs throwing, vs cavs, and even vs map simulation/economy.
Ie. RBM also needed something like the posture thing to tone it down (though toggleable) and didn't mod any of the overworld systems from the consequence making the armoured troops 'OP/realistic'; which was needed to balance that aspect of it.


I'd rather nerf the bows at this stage before doing another buff pass on armour. Or give a wider variety of mid-tier bows for troop loadouts; reserve the noble bows for, you know, nobles.
For both bow/xbow, still think their range + accuracy aren't a close representation to RL (even in Warband). From what I understand, summarily, xbow's tradeoff was distance accuracy/speed less for power/close range accuracy (can hold at draw); bows, tradeoff was damage for distance/mobility reliability (consistency).

As much as I had also favoured WB's over BL's current, their range was still king too. I can just use the same smattering of shields in front with rows and rows of VMarksman and RXbows; without even needing cavs. It's not as easy to do that as effectively in BL.
It was also was harder/slower to accumulate the top-tier armoured troops, rarer occurrence of large battles, shields were weaker/'realistic', more foot shots, horses died more easily to them, bows less accurate at distance (and slower velocity/different trajectory too?), and felt like they couldn't aim as well near friendlies (imo).
With the AI logic being better/more efficient in BL, that plays into it as well.
Crossbows trade of (in this period and culture area) is that it can be used with relativelly short training and you can get relativelly accurate fast (gun like aiming plus adjusting for distance), you can also have it ready for prolonged time and ocassionally come out of cover to shoot. As far as pure DPS goes, they are same or generally even inferior to war bows in terms of damage, range and definitelly inferior in terms of reload speed. So technically bows are superior in almost all aspects but it takes long time to get there and the archer needs decent diet and to train at least few times a week in order to get into shape (and form) and stay there (talking from experience). Better armor penetration is pure AOE meme.
 
Back
Top Bottom