and I'm saying that can simply be done making bows/archers weaker directly first (particularly the top tier archers). Even fixing the shield HP nonsense would make range significantly stronger; where one shield could immediately make up to 3 archers obsolete (and waste their time in the short 3-4 minute battles). Then, if it's not enough (without making archers completely useless), adjust the armor calcs accordingly.I'm not asking for 0-1 damage. Unless it's like a glancing leg shot from a low tier bow at 50m or something.
You're overcomplicating it - all that's necessary is to change the pierce damage modifier number; then increase the damage number on each pierce melee weapon so their damage remains the same as it was before, except spears which can be raised a bit more (which needs to happen anyway). Also reduce the HP number of shields a bit (which needs to happen anyway). None of this is super complex.
Range will still be useful at all levels. Because (a) it was in Warband with over 2x more powerful armour, and (b) I'm only asking for 1.7x more powerful armour, and (c) we agree shields should be weaker also.
Spears need to be fixed regardless; recent vid StratGaming did with those companions really highlights it yet again for TW.
Sieges need a lot of fixes/balancing of its own so I'm always hesitant using it for/against as a reference but archers should be the best, before the gates/walls are taken. Which is the case - especially with it being a lot easier for attackers vs that 1-ladder nonsense in WB. Even in BL, right now, it's still more advantageous taking only infantry unless you do the pull-back/chokepoint/infinite arrow tactic (exploit at this point with how dumb AI pathing is).Archers obviously counter archers. You could say that about anything overpowered.
Troops pushing the ram/tower tend to get shot and killed, and since the buffs to defending siege engines, rams/towers get destroyed more often too. And you also have the time to build on top of that, so you won't be able to field rams/towers in every siege.
Shielded troops can't use their shields when being shot in enfilade. Castles are designed so that archers can shoot someone on a ladder or tower from all angles. In real life, your armour would be your protection when being shot at from all sides.
WB, archers were significantly more OP because they could break shields better. In BL, 50 shield infantry can easily defeat 50 archers (same tier); their advantage only shines in mixed battles where they are not the primary target (and because you can't 'target' them anyways).You could steamroll with any top tier troop in Warband. It was a more balanced game than Bannerlord, where ranged top tier troops are much better than non-ranged top tier troops.
Not disagreeing that archers aren't OP; just the solution. You want to improve the armor values/effectiveness to make archers weaker; I'd rather just make the archers themselves weaker.Why should you use a ranged unit if their ranged attack does less damage than a melee attack? Because they can attack the enemy from a distance. They don't have to run all the way to the enemy to shoot them, meaning they can swap targets instantly. They don't have to risk fighting to kill people. They can't be blocked by melee weapons. They can shoot over the heads of your allies. If the enemy is standing still defensively and not coming to attack you, you can just bombard them with arrows. They can attack constantly during a siege, when melee troops can't due to the tower/ram/ladder not being ready yet. During a siege an archer can get 5 kills where a melee troop will get 0.
Surely you can agree this is sound logic.
TW probably doesn't see any solution is required at all.
Because all kingdoms now have the 'same' tier upgrades; WB didn't really iirc, only select kingdoms had an archer in the same tier as a Huscarl or Rhodok Sergeant. If this requires 'nerfing' some range troops down a tier (closer to what WB was like) and are cheaper as result, that's a balance in its own sense (ie needing 5 archers vs 3 infantry equivalent).Non noble archers are much more useful than non-noble infantry, and don't cost horses like cavalry do.