Recent content by ClickForFreeBeer

Sir Frederic said:

this happens, albeit poorly. When you share traits with any hero, noble, landowner, or companion. For example, if you are merciful and the leader of a clan is cruel, your relationship will not exceed 98 points, since they have -2 for the opposite trait difference. I say poorly because I think that after introducing you to a noble who doesn't know you personally yet and share traits in common, they should win or lose relationship based on traits.

Click to expand...

Yeah, agree. Tbh I find it weird that every farmer from Vlandia to the Khanate knows I was a nice guy back in my town because of character creation and has an opinion on me even though I'm an unknown commoner who the lords won't even let hang out in their halls. Traits and the actions which give them should help build relations with similar minded lords and notables better than a measly +2.

Sir Frederic said:

But on the idea, not necessarily all traits will wear off or get so easily. Notorious acts like denying a plunder, ravaging a city, winning a big battle, fleeing a battle, giving freedom to a faction leader should have a strong and immediate impact on your features, but in turn over time people will forget of that. Some day you will have seen how on TV a firefighter was declared a hero for saving someone and today you could no longer tell me his name, where he lives, or if he is still alive.

Click to expand...

Because the firefighter would be the equivalent of clan 0, clan 1 at most. Heads of state though? Famous commanders in historical battles? Different story. They can be immortalised for particular deeds, which can even mask their other traits by its overpowering and lasting nature (e.g. Winston Churchill and the weird, racist stuff he said is remembered a lot less than his leadership of wartime Britain).

Soooo fine with the dynamic system IF the higher your clan tier, the effect of your deeds on your reputation will more meaningful and longer lasting, like in real life.

RJ_Sera said:

Vitality and Control should be the same as it involves muscles, swinging weapons, pulling bows and throwing

Click to expand...

Disagree. Don't take the words to literally, it's clearly quite a traditional divide between melee combat skills and ranged combat skills.

Sure it takes strength to pull back a bow, and the actual definition of vigor is more accurately represented by the Athletics skill, but Vigor is more representing the character's melee potential, their natural ability to parry and strike with speed and force - it's just difficult to adequately sum that up on in a single word so they probably just chose a trope RPG players are familiar with.

As for control, that's representing one's hand-eye-coordination and innate ability to accurately and reliably 'control' the path of a projectile. Sure strength is beneficial, but it's a more slow and controlled strength needed rather than the quick and unpredictable movements needed for melee fighting. Someone who is strong doesn't have equal opportunity to become an MMA fighter or an Olympic archer, for example.

Although I would be up for some attributes having minor cameos in the perks of skills governed by other attributes. For example, a one-handed or polearm perk that lets you throw any 1h axe or short polearm provided you have the requisite Control stat.

RJ_Sera said:

some perks that increase the team size that are in the battle tree should be in Steward, some of the perks that increase the hp that are in the battle tree that should be in the Atheletic and many perks that are not suitable, may I point out more... .

Click to expand...

Battle tree? I'm not sure whether you mean tactics or the combat skills but either way I disagree. It's nice having small bonuses in other trees so you're not completely forced to spec into a Steward and Athletics. They also normally make reasonable sense relative to Steward granting party size and Athletics HP. Medicine means you can keep healthier and therefore less likely to die on the battlefield, sure makes sense. Athletics gives you better cardio and conditioning so you don't collapse from exhaustion in a battle? Sure. A warrior using two-handed weapons with no shield has probably gotten conditioned to taking a few blows so reasonably might be more resistant to getting hit (assuming armour holds up) than their counterpart archer who doesn't often get into the melee but does a lot of running.

RJ_Sera said:

Having too many roles makes the perks useless, the team leader is useless to companions who don't want to lead the army but we have to take those perks as we progress trees...

Click to expand...

More often than not there's a corresponding 'Captain' perk if you just want them to lead a formation. There's plenty of 'governor' perks that are useless to the player as well, but that's why most perks have two effects. The perks could be cleaned up a little and improved but I don't get your point here as most of the perks only give party leader/clan leader/ army commander benefits are in the leadership tree, which makes complete and utter sense.

RJ_Sera said:

Tactics have to be something that affects the battlefield like ammo, troop movement speed... And I'm thinking of a strategist, someone who can help you strategize, bonus for troops.

Click to expand...

I actually agree with this that tactics could help more than just auto-resolve and some captain benefits. For example there's a perk in there that is Engineer/governor, who are the last roles I would focus on a high tactics skill for. Ammo sounds more in steward's domain, unless we're talking about simulating using different arrowheads, poisoning or barbing arrows etc. Could be represented by small damage increases against particular targets etc. Would be nice if tactics perks could make you specialise against specific enemies, like the first perk that forces you to prioritise dealing with enemy cav or enemy archers, and then next desert or forest terrain. Would really lend to master tactician roleplay, helping you exploit the terrain better if you can pick the battle location (e.g. a damage reduction for elevated infantry troops or a damage increase for elevated ranged troops).

As for the strategist, that is partially simulated when performing tactics actions, as it'll use the highest tactics skills of all the heroes in the army.

RJ_Sera said:

Smithing should be a mini game, a skill tree just for people to exploit and break the game, fitness will recover when moving

Click to expand...

Nah, there's nothing more suitable to replace it - especially this late into development - and some people like to do smithing playthroughs and also then there's the dedicated smithing companions. I would however like to see parts unlocked being more directly tied to smithing skill and also being not being shared amongst all heroes. I don't want to bother with the smithing mini-game but I still want my custom weapons dammit. If I hire a blacksmith companion then they should be able to make more than my warrior who smelted a few weapons one time. Like a lot of the perks in the smithing tree are single effect - you easily add in perks which unlock a load of crafting pieces, or at least increase your rate of discovering new pieces.

RJ_Sera said:

If I want 330 bows but don't want to forge, do I have to throw 10 points into control just for the bow? this is very uncomfortable

Click to expand...

Eh? Smithing is in Endurance, not Control? But also why is that so uncomfortable? If you want to have the best archery skill in the game, it'd make sense that you'd have to be the best in the governing attribute as well. If you wanted to have the highest trade skill but don't want leadership or charm then you'd still need the high social stat as trade still involves communicating well with other human beings. Same with intelligence: if you wanted to be the best engineer then you'd need to have a very good ability to study and learn information, which is the same attribute you'd need to become the best surgeon.

RJ_Sera said:

Athletic lvl25 - 50-75 ... each level will give % movement and hp

Click to expand...

It already gives movement speed and knockback resistance, which is fine and doesn't need the extra HP to make the skill OP. The perks are there to boost HP but they're very clearly an alternate to further increasing movement speed (take the first perk choice in Ath for example). You can choose to be tough or to be fast, which is honestly a nice touch.


The perks are still not perfect but they're so much better now than they were before. The skill system is clearly not meant to be like power-fantasy RPG's where the aim is to min-max but rather a reflection of playstyle becoming semi-realistic specialisms which subtly lend towards that playstyle. Sure it needs some tweaking to make perks more meaningful, correct points assigned in character creation to make more sense, give more attribute points, normalise skill gains etc. but a drastic overhaul at this stage of development that'd probably have just as many issues? No, thank you good sir

Sir Frederic said:

1- The monetary compensation for peace is temporary and not infinite, it will be a percentage of the wealth that the clan receives from its fiefdoms, it will prevent impoverishing kingdoms and clans without fiefdoms. In addition to creating ridiculously weak kingdoms militarily

Click to expand...

Good suggestion. Demanding tribute more than they could afford would be more likely to just continue the war. Although at the same time, peace is annoying between large and small factions where the larger faction should just destroy the smaller faction. I would actually like to see vassalisation in these cases, granted affinity between the two rulers is sufficient and destruction when it is not. Otherwise, I feel like this could use an initial lump sum payment paid to the winner to really feel that immediate impact without crippling the kingdom long-term. Either way, lets get rid of homeless kingdoms with chihuahua syndrome.

Sir Frederic said:

2- The kingdoms and the balance of war power will be calculated based on the war power of the parties in the kingdom. When they start losing parties and in the end they only have parties of level 1 soldiers, they will already be like defeated, they will not continue insisting.

Click to expand...

Agree, although I'd like some RNG based on ruler's traits. Would be cool if lords who suffered the most and had appropriate traits (-honour, -valor?) to sue for peace were more likely to rebel/defect when their more hard-headed leader wants to continue.

Sir Frederic said:

3-If a kingdom declares war, attack. If a kingdom has been declared at war, it must go 100% defensive. If the balance of power is reversed and the defender outmatches the attacker, then the war strategy is reversed.

Click to expand...

Strong agree. It's frustrating to watch the AI just besiege each other's castles, both besiegers win, then both armies immediately turn around to retake their own settlements.

Sir Frederic said:

4-If the attacker loses on the offensive and when he goes on the defensive, he loses fiefdoms and has a low attack power, he will seek peace.

5-If the defender fails to defend himself, he loses fiefdoms and loses power in the parties, he will seek peace.

Click to expand...

Sure but again I would like some RNG and consideration of the ruler's traits, as it'd be annoying to have wars always stop very shortly after starting. Also the peace shouldn't always be accepted, especially if the opposing faction hates them and has much to gain by continuing (e.g. like retaking fiefs of their culture). On that note, it irritates me that the Imperial factions are meant to be in a civil war but don't stay at war with each other... they just act like de facto states.

Sir Frederic said:

The kingdoms can make defensive pacts. A weak kingdom that is attacked can receive help from other kingdoms. The kingdoms that help in the war, will act defensively in the territory of the attacked kingdom. If the defensive kingdom becomes aggressive, the helping kingdoms will act as support, they cannot take fiefs from this war. The attacking kingdom will not attack the territory of the auxiliary kingdom since its war objective is the kingdom to which it declared war, if the attacked kingdom loses all its fiefdoms, the attacking kingdom will attack the territory of the auxiliary kingdoms, one by one, forcing them to abandon the war. The defensive kingdom, losing all its fiefdoms, will focus its forces on conquering ONE SINGLE OBJECTIVE, no massive looting. If he manages to reconquer a fiefdom, he will go defensive until the attacker loses power, or seek peace if he does not have the military power to even defend himself. All kingdoms participating in the war will go into truce upon completion, a multi-kingdom war in long games could cause extended periods of peace. By applying the defensive pact mechanic, the player could be at war against all other kingdoms, but objectively, it's just a war and not a multi-front war, where it is impossible for the player to even participate.

Click to expand...

You kinda lost me a bit here... seems a little too rigid and complicated imo. Defensive pacts would be nice but feel like they could be simpler than this. i.e. Kingdom A declares war on Kingdom B, who is in a defensive pact with Kingdom C. A is attacking while B is defending, but now C declares war on A and so C becomes an attacker and A a defender, reducing the manpower they can send to attack kingdom B. Perhaps Kingdom A might decide whether to focus on offensive or defensive strategy based on which Kingdom has the higher strength between B and C. The version you suggested sounds overly restrictive for the attackers and also would sometimes not make sense with the faction's borders (e.g. say Vlandia is in a defensive pact with the western empire and either one gets attacked by Battania - why would they go through or under Battania to get to each other's territory when they could just attack from the other side).

There's also the issue of how to forge and break defensive pacts in a fair, balanced way, as well as the issue of which factions are involved in the peace negotiations and whether peace is made individually or as a whole. For example Kingdom A might successfully sue for peace from Kingdom B, but Kingdom C is actually taking a few fiefs and doesn't want to hear about peace - is Kingdom B going to accept peace on Kingdom C's behalf or is Kingdom C going to continue the war on its own steam or even keep Kingdom B in the war despite its wishes just because 'no you can't quit on me now bro'?

I'd personally be in favour of the second option, as it better represents soveriegn kingdoms rather than client states imo, and gives incentive for the assisting Kingdom to actually participate in the war (oooh imagine there being a chance an allied kingdom won't respond to the triggering of the defensive pact, based on traits, relations and military strength, that'd be a cool AND immersive).

Sir Frederic said:

The fiefs that a kingdom seeks to conquer when it is in attack mode will always be objectives that are on its border lines and not a weakened fief in the middle of the enemy map, or on the other side of its border. Village pillages will be done when the attacker has no power to conquer a target without reducing his strength by starvation. The attacking kingdoms will plunder villages of the kingdoms that help in a war when they conquer the fiefdoms of the enemy that declared war, in order to force them to abandon the defensive pact, reducing the war force of the attacked kingdom, forcing it to surrender.

Click to expand...

Tbf this seems a fair bit better in the latest game versions. In my playthroughs, settlements on the border are constantly being besieged or changing hands (Epicrotea in particular), which is particularly chaotic when combined with the seperatism mod

I disagree with excluding raiding from the get go though, especially because it's also a viable distraction tactic by parties who aren't part of an army, although it would be nice to see the frequency of raiding in war to be tied to hero traits and also perhaps culture. For example, I'd expect frequent raiding and less large-scale besieging while fighting against Battanians but the inverse when fighting the Imperial factions.

Sir Frederic said:

8- change of sides. The clans that leave the kingdoms, will not do it for money, but affinity, with their King and clan leaders. If they have several fiefdoms scattered around the map, they will seek to keep the ones that are most united and will abandon the distant ones. If his fiefdoms border a kingdom he likes, he will switch sides, if his fiefdoms do not border a kingdom he likes, he will declare independence. Deserters cannot switch sides if there is a truce between the realm they are in with the realm they want to go to, nor can they switch sides to a realm that is at war with their current realm by defensive pact, or vice versa. They can switch sides to the kingdom they are currently at war with. They can take advantage of their current kingdom being in a war to leave the kingdom independently. The changes of kingdoms and independences will be automatic declarations of war, as long as the vassal takes fiefs. The clans that become independent will seek peace, the kingdoms at war that lose a vassal by independence will seek peace, with the kingdom that is at war or with the deserting vassal. Kingdoms that are assisting in a defensive pact will abandon the pact if they suffer an independence intent at that time. Independent clans can become vassals when they border a sympathetic kingdom. And the kingdom can declare war on an independent clan when it is on its border, the independent clan can receive help from a sympathetic kingdom following the defensive pact mechanic.

Click to expand...

Agree, but again RNG, traits and culture should also be considered to make it less robotic and more human/chaotic. Vlandians and Sturgians should be fairly rebellious, Imperial clans should be able to more freely switch between the Imperial factions, as should any clan with the same culture as the faction they're defecting to (e.g. a player kingdom trying to absorb the former kingdom of that culture).

I'd be against this given the current state of the traits and how inconsistent some of the actions/quest outcomes can be with trait development.

If traits are your character's fame, then two merciful deeds shouldn't really give them that repuatation with everyone in Calradia; this could be better reflected with relation gains with relevant NPCs and multipliers based on the nature of the act and the NPC's traits (i.e. an honourable NPC is gonna be more pissed you stole the herd you were meant to deliver than a dishonourable NPC who admits they likely would have done the same). The best in-game example is the pillage mechanic and cruel/merciful lords... the friends you keep and the enemies you make would be sufficient for my own roleplaying, dunno about you.

On a tangent though, clan tier should really be considered in context of traits and act as a multiplier to the trait points gained/lost. Sure an early-game character should be forgotten easily unless they keep up the good work, but a late-game king or powerful vassal shouldn't lose traits through inaction and would have to purposefully commit opposing deeds. I mean, we still talk about the personalities of historical figures today, so an important clan shouldn't be forgotten about just because they've spent a few weeks managing their fiefs.

Flesson19 said:

this has been mentioned a lot or for the 1,000th time please put noble troop availability back to where it was. They are like candy and what makes them so noble. Even if you wanted a bit more change the power level of the notable slightly higher, but the way they are now is insane, its way too easy to get them and have no idea why this was done, this is a terrible mistake to make, example hey lets fight a Khzuait 1,500 man army that contains 800 cav/archers, even the empire is now cav heavy at times. I am not sure who is responsible so I apologize if @Duh_TaleWorlds your not the one but not sure who would know. This is why I talked about sliders for almost a year now giving us options to customize the game, this change has been an awful mistake, please discuss with the team about it, lets make noble troops special, right now just generic candy that anyone can get.

Click to expand...

+1

I don't want the old percentages persay, but I feel like the latest versions they're way to easy to obtain. Might be nice for AI armies but for the player there's not much reason to even use common troops.

My take is that the issue might be due to the fact notables who can offer those units will pretty much only offer those units even at low relation. Noble units should require decent relations with the right notables, making it much easier for the owner lord or a friend of the village to receive noble troops, but harder for foriegn powers and ruthless conquerors.

Plenty of the common troops end up serving in armies of other factions, so it'd also be nice to only really see the noble units when fighting against a faction with their culture, as the lower classes of nobility should be far more loyal than they currently are...

I have this same exact problem. Seems to happen around late-afternoon. Happened to me in the plains above jalmarys in summer most recently. The morning fog can be a bit overly bright with winter/snow terrains as well, so it seems probable that the fog's having an impact but obviously we can't see if there's any fog... or anything at all for that matter

anoddhermit said:

Choose your Character's Culture screen - There is a huge amount of unused space here that could be used for better information. For example, if I click on Battania, it tells me nothing that would suggest I can find the strongest foot archers in this faction - this is one of the main reasons players choose Battania. It should also include how many towns and castles each faction has - this is useful to consider. The culture bonuses also list a variety of terms players won't be familiar with, which could be elaborated upon - allow us to click or hover over these terms for descriptions.

Click to expand...

True, Battania doesn't even sound like they have cities by the description of them lol.

anoddhermit said:

Family and Story Background screens - We should be able to reroll our parents' and brother's appearance from this screen. I also think Sandbox mode should include the same starting family, minus the quest elements of course.

Click to expand...

Agree but with the caveat of the sandbox family being an option, as I imagine that could be annoying to some players.

anoddhermit said:

Suggestion for a screen between story background and review - Equipment selection screen. This would give us basic options within certain limits to adjust equipment keeping to a rough exchange value. Sometimes the starting stats you want aren't really matched well with what kinds of equipment your character will use early on.

Click to expand...

I don't care too much about being able to precisely select your equipment but the screen where you choose your military background needs changing for quite a few cultures (e.g. the garrison option gives crossbow focus but equips the player with a bow).

Speaking of Vlandia actually, the family options are absolute trash unless you're running a crossbow build because only two don't spec you into crossbows... like damn, we get it taleworlds, Vlandia likes crossbows...

HalfMetalJacket said:

Eh, I think Caladog is established as a dude that upsets the 'old ways' and has no issue turning enemy inventions on them.

As for why use the crossbow over the longbow, it would just be because training is a lot easier, simple.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but doubt the Battanians would use them all up and down the country just because Caladog likes them, given the anarchic nature of Battanian society. Could just as easily justify a semi-feudal Yeoman type unit to mimic English/Welsh longbowmen by the same logic.

HalfMetalJacket said:

I don't believe the whole Saxon force was all housecarls, that would be a bit absurd. I imagine the shield wall was mostly some manner of spear wielding fyrd.

And even somehow they were all housecarl, holding the high ground tends to neuter the potency of any cavalry charge...

Click to expand...

I never said it was, but it was housecarls and their dane axes that were repeatedly mentioned as being especially effective at beating off the charge, I think there's even axes killing horses in the Bayeux Tapestry. They also notably served in the Varangian Guard at the Battle of Dyrrachium, under Alexios Komnenos, and were specifically positioned to the front to absorb the Norman cavalry charge, which they did splendidly apparently. Interestingly, they made the exact same mistake they made at Hastings, getting carried away and pursuing the fleeing Normans who then flanked and routed them.

Basically the housecarls and specifically their axes are mentioned as being good at dealing with cavalry, but I feel like that might just be a dual-purpose sort of thing, like the dane axes are meant for fighting infantry but hey it's long and powerful, could probably be decent against horse compared to an arming sword. It's a little bit of a tangent though, as housecarls would be elite units also carrying a shield, etc. so in Bannerlord I would hope that they give a decent effort against cavalry. Falxmen and line breakers though? Agree they should become instant kebabs when taking a cavalry charge.

HalfMetalJacket said:

Ah that. Well I hate that, and I think its stupid to make nobles that common. But oh well, people seem to like spamming elites, so I dunno if TW cares to change that.

And yeah, I am mostly concerned about how AI parties fight. Players will just spam fians and do fine.

Click to expand...

Yeah, a lot of people just roam around with armies of fians, cataphracts and khan's guard, then they're just untouchable. Seems boring.

HalfMetalJacket said:

I don't think all troops in an army should compliment them in all fields, otherwise that just makes them OP. Sturgia needs a weakness- that and someone in this game needs to be **** at ranged combat. And should Sturgia get the best of everything? If they already have the 'best' melee infantry and impressive cavalry, they should not get archers that are good at being archers. Again, all factions need a weakness.

Click to expand...

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying they should complement each other in raw power, but rather the role they're focused on fits with the use of the other units. So Sturgian archers can still be paltry compared to other faction's archers, but keep their ammunition and enough skill to do their job which is defend the shield wall. They don't need to outduel other archers because they have a shield wall infantry for protection, and Sturgians seem to have an in-game reputation for endurance in battle (mainly Sturgian lords describing Pendraic shield wall fighting) and having an archer which can't last in its role for long seems ill-fitting for how the other troops are designed.

HalfMetalJacket said:

Sturgian archers don't have to be second rate melee troops either- ideally they would be terrific in a siege. And not having to worry about them in melee is a fair bonus too

Click to expand...

I see the logic but I find the game never really plays to shielded archers well, even with AI mods. They'll take some arrows yeah but then when they switch to their bows they just get outshot anyway, unless the player is doing some fancy stuff but even then you're just effectively reducing the amount of bowmen who can fire if half have their shields up. Also siege defenders will never run out of ammo so can't kite them that way. The shields are nice for conserving ammo and closing the distance safely, but archer fights are so one-dimensional that their true usefulness would be in melee.

HalfMetalJacket said:

I only worry about Battania's ranged problem because their infantry and cavalry are just... not great

Click to expand...

I get what you mean, but that's the idea behind bolstering their infantry to compensate for this. If Sturgia is the best at pushing the shield wall then their troops should revolve around supporting that shield wall. Battania is meant to be an ambush/guerilla warfare specialist so they should be great at launching sudden and deadly charges, and the troop tree should reflect this. An opponent keeping good distance between them, skirmishing and not giving battle should be the best way to defeat them (as you said, all factions need a weakness) it's just that it's way too easy to do this in the game atm due to high ranged damage, AI's ability to shoot through trees and fog accurately with no problem, enemy formations always being aware of nearby formations without any LOS, how easily ranged troops can kite with F1-F4. It's difficulty to play an ambush specialist faction when the enemy always knows exactly where you are lol.

HalfMetalJacket said:

For my goofy idea of a glass cannon archer, I can't see how giving them a targe would help their general... squishiness. And since Fians are so damn good at close combat anyway, there's no need for Battanian common archers do be good there too. I wouldn't be opposed to giving it to them anyway, just to dilute the kit and give the army a more 'chaotic' Battanian vibe. I could see something like random 1/3 come with targes, 1/3 come with greataxes and 1/3 come with a second quiver being fun and flavoursome.

Click to expand...

It's just a small concession to bolster them in melee combat, but not to the extant of becoming lightly-armoured shock troops. If they're fast and have powerful 2H weapons, then they'll do better in melee than they really should just because the AI uses the 2H weapons better in melee combat than the 1H and the extra oomph can really make up for the armour difference. I'm actually opting for 1H over 2H because it's worse in the melee, and gives them a bit more difference from fians so they're not just budget fians.

Funnily enough I made a common archer line yesterday and did leave it up to like a 1/3, 1/2 chance to spawn with a targe instead of extra arrows. I mainly didn't do full targes because this common line was straight up replacing the Fians as the de facto ranged unit and I didn't want to limit their ammo as much as I would if they had fians in their ranks. Worked decently and the ones with targes will even protect those behind without any shield, but they purposefully don't have the protection of the vlandian sharpshooters, but are somewhat intermediary which I like.

HalfMetalJacket said:

Same, would not mind Battania getting an extra minor faction in their midst. Make them a nod to norse-gael relations. But if so, that means you can't just put more gallowglasses in the Battanian tree, so why not archers instead?

Click to expand...

I've actually been trying it this way around but have replaced the Fian Champions with the New Improved Gallowglass line.

Took the throwing weapons away from my modified falxmen (gave them a normal falx, boosted athletics, if you didn't read in one of the posts above), gave a set of javelins to a two-handed axeman/swordsman (I made a more claymore size two-hander in the weapons.xml) with good armour and high athletics. The unit seems works really well in the elite role, being the king of all other shock units but slightly lacking in that speed and ranged defence (although the good armour helps). I much prefer this way around with the commoner archers (from tier 3) and elite shock infantry and Battania's performing a lot better against the Khuzait than they did with fians + commoner Gallowglass. Works a lot better because now how many elite units the army has just bolsters Battania's strength rather than dictate whether they can use ranged tactics or not.

HalfMetalJacket said:

A crossbow would not be a terrible choice for an ambush though. Like bows, you can actually take time to pick your target and hide in cover. And while real life Picts did not seem to use crossbows for warfare, you can justify it in BL due to very close proximity of Vlandia and the Empire. Crossbows are going to absolutely come into their hands.

But mostly Pict crossbowman is an established historical trope that I just really enjoy. I just want Pictish Elite Skirmishers from Viking Conquest dammit

Click to expand...

haha fair, but I'd still be against it because it just doesn't suit their flavour, and also the Battanians are meant to be proud and stubborn highlanders who won't deviate from the old ways... would be strange to me to then see them using the Vlandian/Imperial invention rather than the battanian longbow.

HalfMetalJacket said:

I just think that letting shock cavalry actually murder anything without a spear on charge would be the best way to solve it imo. They should not be allowed to survive being ran over by knights. At best, they could help kill them in a melee mire, but otherwise get actually hard countered by cavalry.

Click to expand...

Yeah, mounted spearmen are pretty inaccurate sometimes and just don't have that punch. Although the English housecarls were famed for their ability to fend off the Norman cavalry at Hastings and Dyrrachium, although it seems they used their kite shields like pavises.

HalfMetalJacket said:

I mean regular ranged warfare alongside javelins. Sure, fians will outshoot everyone, but I don't see AI armies ever getting enough to make a serious difference. They will not kill your archers fast enough to kill off all the shieldless Battanian infantry, thinning them out a lot more than they could thin you out.

Click to expand...

I mean the later version have had a few villages which churn out nothing but fians while others have zero. Some of the lords go to those villages and have loads of fians (normally the player aha) and then the other lords have none. It's easy enough as the player to manage, it's just the AI that manages it poorly due to not distinguishing between shock troops and shield troops - they're all just infantry to the AI.

HalfMetalJacket said:

I don't mind them myself, I'm just saying that them alone being one of two non melee infantry troops in battania would result in rather... samey armies.

Click to expand...

Ahh I get what you mean but on the other hand it's not like the Khuzait have more than one melee infantry line, the Sturgians have more than one bowman, Vlandia has melee infantry and then basically hybrid melee infantry with the crossbowmen, then two types of melee cav. I find the fians being the only archer annoying because you can't base tactics around archers unless you have quite a few, and once you have that critical mass of fians, there's absolutely no point in bothering with tactics because the fians will just kill anything in the general vicinity. If ranged damage was nerfed slightly, so the fians' ability to charge into the melee was utilised more, then maybe it'd feel fun; as of now, it's just a game of collecting fians when playing Battania. Honestly it'd be good to be able to recruit militia units too, because then fians would have the rank-padding they need without overdoing it.

HalfMetalJacket said:

I think its not as hard as you might expect tbh. With just common ranged archers alone, you can get the following dynamic:

Aserai: Best at actual archery, but you only get them at t4 meaning you don't have very many of them. The best if not for Fian Champs.
Battania: Longbows and the potential to spawn with greataxes, but very lightly armoured. Fast glass cannons.
Empire: The most heavily armoured, but otherwise unimpressive. More well rounded than expected, and can outduel other archers.
Khuzait: Pure baseline foot archer that everyone else compares to.
Sturgia: Mediocre at range, but all carry shields, good melee weapons and have good melee skills. Worst 'archer'... but are very good infantry
Vlandia: The easiest to train and amass, and relatively versatile thanks to shields. I wish pavises worked like they did IRL.

Click to expand...

It's a difficult balancing act of translating the concept into gameplay. For example, you have the same concept for the Aserai that Taleworlds had for the Fian and Battania - really good but not many. There's also the fact that they need to complement other troops in the tree well, for example, your proposed Sturgian archers make sense for Sturgia thematically but I'd much rather have a bow-line with more ammo as Sturgia's already got plenty of good shielded troops but needs the ranged support. I suggested a targe and sidearm for a Battanian common archer as I only wanted to give them a small stack of arrows (to fit the ambush theme and not amplify the already great Fians), and it made sense to balance their low ammunition and relatively light armour by giving them a little more melee survivability (so they function like a skirmisher), like the Wolfskins (honestly if Battanians could just recruit Wolfskins, I guess maybe some lords would and some wouldn't, it'd be a moot point). Sturgian archers would just become second-rate melee troops at the cost of sacrificing their ranged potential, which is something you were worried about with Battania, and honestly it'd be worse with Sturgia because they have less javelineers.

Also I agree about pavises, because they're only good for letting the enemy waste their ammo rn... they should remain upright when you drop them and then you can pick them back up when you want to move... shouldn't be too hard to teach the AI to drop it infront of them before they start shooting hopefully...

five bucks said:

Well if it comes down to javelins Battania has plenty to answer back with! And if armour is buffed well, ranged skirmish strategies will not be abuse so much as a legitimate playstyle with merely good but not broken results, balanced by inaccuracy, ammo, and damage low enough that many of the shock troops should live long enough to be able to fight once the ammo runs out.

Plus Battania's shield troop line can absorb plenty of shots, and their jav cav can rush down the archers, and their noble troops can fire a volume of arrows comparable to that of all the enemy's non noble troops!

Click to expand...

Tbf from my testing, I noticed that the AI simply just doesn't utilise the strengths of the new Battanian tree well, especially skirmisher and unshielded units. It'd be nice to see some culture specific tactics from the AI once the troop trees are all settled in. Would really give flavour of fighting a particular faction besides the troop types (not that any late-game army is anywhere near homogenous).

five bucks said:

This is really interesting! I'm very glad to see you actually tested the idea, it sounds quite fun to play.

Click to expand...

It is good fun, I'm going to run a campaign using them and see how Battania fares in the auto-resolve and in-person battles. Interested to see how the AI will handle it. If that doesn't work then I might try repurposing them as a noble units and make the fians into the commoner archers I suggested early. Definitely gonna keep them around though, even if it's just as an extra mercenary unit (which would be fitting).

HalfMetalJacket said:

Because I think its fun imagery and would not look any weirder than say, falxes do on 'celts'. And because I think Battania could use more ranged bulk, which you are against.

Click to expand...

Crossbows would be weirder than the falx, even I think that and I find the falx jarring on Gaels. The falx at least fits thematically, given Battania's relationship to the pseudo-roman empire, and makes sense with what we know about Battania's style of warfare (I'm also guessing it's the lower class choice for a two-handed sword, due to its complete absence amongst lords or fians). A crossbow would be at odds with their barbarian style and cultural malus to construction,

I agree that archer dilution could help with Battania either not having enough archers to effectively execute a strategy with them or having too many fians that they end up murdering anything in a 200m radius. I personally do not like the idea of them doubling up as shock troops however, and prefer them to only have one stack of arrows as otherwise there wouldn't really be any reason to run anything but 100% archers when doing a Battania run through, as the player can reasonably counter every other unit type (shielded = use axes, skirmish with arrows to flank or wear down shields if needed; shock = kite with arrows; cavalry = deep ranks and switch to axes to take the charge; HA = well just outshoot them with good positioning, although the light armour could present an issue with better horse archers, alas this is probably the unit type they're least likely to fight in West Calradia.

five bucks said:

ou say they have no melee cav and no horse archers. This is ignoring javelin cavalry, who fill roles of both horse archers and melee cav. My proposal would have Battanian jav cav start at T4 rather than T5 (in exchange for losing the dedicated melee cavalry).

Click to expand...

A lot of horse upgrade investment for a relatively weaker cavalry unit... although those Battanian ponies gotta be used somehow I suppose haha

HalfMetalJacket said:

But I don't even really want shock troops themselves to be that strong. They shouldn't get hopelessly owned like they do, but at the same time I think archers ought to be a counter to them, second to horse archers. But I've said this before I think.

Click to expand...

Yeah I'd only be fine with a shock troop countering archers if it was a noble troop. Although the Galloglaigh I made, with equal numbers and spread out, will reach a line of Palatine guards over open terrain to get a few kills in before their morale finally breaks and they get shot in the back while running away.

HalfMetalJacket said:

I mean in the sense that you don't play that game at all, and just abuse Battanians with a ranged skirmishing force. Or hell just troops with javelins. That sort of thing would make Battania miserable.

Click to expand...

Battania's got way too many throwing weapons to get bullied by javelins. The problem is the AI doesn't do well at dealing with archers due to not recognising the difference between infantry types (look above for an example of some lazy commanding against a 45% horse archer army using Battania's two shock units). Wildlings could be good counters to archers if you could goddamn seperate them from the Oathsworn in the new Order of Battle UI haha (I also boost their athletics and throwing, debuff 1H and give them medium armour to give them more identity), plus also Fians outshoot every other archer so you'd need to bring slightly more archers to deal with them.

HalfMetalJacket said:

1. Javelin cavalry are not a great substitute for both roles, but I suppose actually increasing the amount of them is not a bad idea.

Click to expand...

The AI doesn't use them well, but they're actually a great multi-purpose unit when used right. Sure, they're not going to be perfect in either role but that wouldn't be balanced if they were and Battania has plenty of good options for countering cavalry in their infantry lines. I never really bothered upgrading to the Scout line in any of my Battanian playthrough because they were just a lackluster version of what other cultures have so the attrition rate was awful. Mounted skirmishers are needed mainly to harass enemy archers (foot and horse) which their shields, good longswords (no spears to compete with against most archers), moderate armour, and javelins (I give them two stacks coz c'mon that's just a Sturgian raider who left his spear at home otherwise) allow them to do. The potential's there, it just needs refining rather than bulking out with an inferior version of what everyone else has, and plus the two basic cav combo was messing with the Auto-resolve too.

HalfMetalJacket said:

Maybe, but I think you would end up with troops running around with falxes and great axes as if they were bastard swords, which might not be the best idea.

Click to expand...

Yeah, they do, which made them play like inferior wildlings as the AI doesn't know to put the shield away for melee. Honestly, a 2H and a shield and a throwing weapon is a bit of an OP combo that I'd only want to see on noble units or lords. My last Battanian playthrough used a bastard sword, shield and two stacks of javelins... was ready for anything on foot or horseback.

HalfMetalJacket said:

Again, I don't see everyone having similar troop types to be a bad thing within reason. My idea of variety is what each troops within their categories do to stand out from their peers

Click to expand...

I think I'm of a similar mind to you here; however, there is only so much you can do to differentiate them so having a logical gap or two is good thing. It'd be nice to see auxilliary units such as mercenaries filling the niche roles in their culture, as was common historically. I think this would honestly be great for gameplay and immersion because your culture will have a weak spot that will either require you to go to distant lands for recruitment or hire more expensive mercenaries.

Speaking of which, it'd be great if mercenaries were a bit more useful and less generic. Maybe we could see more Eletheroi lancers as mercenaries in Imperial towns, to fill their lack of medium/lancer cavalry; Vlandian crossbowmen in Battanian towns to bolster their ranged formations; Sturgian infantry for hire in Khuzait lands; pikemen in Aserai lands etc. Party templates could encourage particular lords to hire more mercenaries, and the prevalence of a particular mercenary in their faction's territory would naturally skew troop type composition for certain parties in a way which doesn't reduce their cultural identity, balances itself by increased recruitment and upkeep costs, and actually gives the mercenary troops a reason to exist.

Hello again, I've been editing Battania's troop tree to add in the Gallowglass shock trooper alongside the falxman and testing the results in custom battle.

The new unit is a 'Galloglaigh which is T5 upgrade option for the picked warrior, and I've deleted the spear cavalry line. I've balanced the tree in other regards, such as lighter armour for the wildling, low-tier axes for the raider unit, throwing axes for the T4 falx etc, but I'll focus mainly on the T5 Veteran falxmen that I was concerned about redundancy with.

Basically I've tried to distinguish the two shock lines by giving the Galloglaigh heavy armour, decent 2h skill, and the largest axes I could find; whereas the Vet Falxman is still light-medium armour with the Rhomphalia replaced by the normal falx (I tried to keep it but it was too terrible) and also given a single pack of woodland javelins, their skills were also tweaked to prioritise athletics so they'd be a fast unit. I did try to give them targes to make a true shock-skirmisher hybrid but it made them too close to the wildlings and the AI will use the falx one-handed if doing that.

My tests found that they did have seperate roles and while both viable shock troops, they were used in different ways which when used together, in two seperate formations, made for incredibly capable shock infantry. I should also mention these used the RBM AI module but not the Combat module, so as close to how I feel vanilla combat should be.

The Galloglaigh was slow but heavy, and would get slightly better K/D when against shielded infantry. They also performed better against archers and cavalry due to their high armour. They'll actually beat equal numbers of T5 cavalry when in a deep formation (used the Vanguard for test) but will take more casualties while doing so than anti-cav units such as the Oathsworn. They still are weak against archers but less so than other shock units due to their high armour allowing them to weather the storm a bit better. They're hard-countered by javelins however, the wildlings and Vet falxmen completely decimate them due to early casualties.

The Veteran Falxmen is a speedy boi with javelins, and were quite fun and Battanian-feeling to play with, as you could kite and harass with the javelins pretty well and then give the charge command. They're still good shock troops against shield formations and perform better against skirmisher units than the Galloglaigh due to being able to throw their own javelins to keep the enemy's shields raised, they will take more casualties in the melee however just due to their weaker armour. Interestingly, where they really shine is countering other shock troops, as the javelins really let them whittle down the enemy and their falxes give them good reach and power. They're hard countered by archers and melee cavalry though.

Using them together yielded the most efficient shock trooper strategy of any faction, as the Falxmen can reposition quickly, hit exposed targets with javelins or just wear down the shield wall for the Galloglaigh, whereas the Galloglaigh give the falxmen a solid foothold to retreat to.

HalfMetalJacket said:

You will have to tell me how your proposed gallowglass is going to be any different to an Aserai Palace Guard then. If I recall correctly, they get heavy armour and an axe... and maybe some hand axes? If these guys are just going to be better or no different to Palace Guard, I do not see the point of them.

Click to expand...

You raise a good point. I tested the Galloglaigh against the Palace Guard and the Palace guard lost as their armour isn't actually that great. The Sturgian heroic linebreaker has better armour than the palace guard and also has throwing axes, so I would say the sturgian and aserai units actually are more similar to each other than the Galloglaigh I made. The Galloglaigh is much slower and better armoured, sort of like a juggernaut unit, and has zero ranged ability.

Alternatively, these Galloglaigh could easily replace the Fians with a little buffing, and swap out their place in the tree to give the common archers I've suggested above. I feel like a shield would be needed if making a noble infantry unit, but this could be paired up with javelins (I read that the Galloglaigh used throwing darts) or perhaps a back-up 1H sword to make them a shield-shock infantry hybrid. I made similar noble units (Housecarls) for a custom Anglo-Saxon culture and they were actually quite tough and fun to use, although the slow speed would really be needed to stop them steamrolling everything.

EDIT: Just tested a 300v300 battle (Battania v Sturgia) and let the AI take the reins (I was a formationless sergeant). Tried to keep the campaign availability of each troop type in mind when picking ratios (80%, 10%, 10% inf, archers, cav for Batts; then 60% 25%, 15% Sturgia). Battania narrowly won the battle with 34 left who were nearly all fians and mounted skirmishers. The Battanians charged in fairly quickly without too much bother from the sturgian archers, then met the Sturgian shield wall. It was decently even but the Battanian shock troopers and skirmishers made a big difference in the melee so the Battanians started to win out, routed the enemy infantry but were then met by heavy arrow fire and quite a few panicked and fled. The Fians then were able to mop up Sturgia's archers pretty quickly after that, who'd been harrassed quite well by the mounted skirmishers. The mounted skirmishers were actually a decent cavalry option for Battania here... having that second stack of javelins really helps, the only annoying thing is they quite like using the melee mode of the javelins rather than their swords.

EDIT #2: Tested against a Khuzait army that was mostly HA and cav. Letting the AI take the wheel resulted in a slaughter of the Battanians, as they just charged and by the time they had got to the enemy inf and finished them off, they didn't have the fians nor morale left to finish off the small number of khuzait foot archers. They took out half of the Khuzaits before being defeated though. Tried again but took command myself and it was the other way around, mostly holding up on a slight slope to protect the and unshielded troops. The mounted skirmishers could respond quite well to encroaching horse archers, although they kept trying to fight the Khuzait cav who they were not a match for; the shield inf could protect from the front against lancers and archers; the falx and Galloglaigh sat spread out behind the shieldwall to finish off slow cav, and would rotate to either flank to protect the fians from side attacks.

Quite different battles but both winnable with the same troop composition which was 80% infantry. Still quite important to keep those fians safe though. Lancer cav can definitely go though, as mounted skirmisher fits Battania's needs much better as a counter to horse archers and their infantry fills the anti-cav role much better.

five bucks said:

You're right in the sense the Greeks used it as a generalization for "everyone north of us who isn't Greek and we don't feel rude enough to call a barbarian", but you're wrong in the sense that Insular Celts are an ethnicity (a group that identifies with each other based on birth and shared attributes) and language group, who the Ancient Celts sort of get glommed onto.

Click to expand...

TBF this is more of a nitpick...I meant Celt wasn't an ethnicity but rather a collection of ethnicities which were linked through related-languages and shared elements of culture/religion. Ancient Britons apparently didn't much see themselves as belonging to the greater Celtic-sphere, neither did invaders such as the Romans (although I believe they remarked on similarities with the Gallia Belgae, which makes sense). Of course it changed over time, especially after the Romans, Saxons, Danes and then Normans, but it shows that well before contact with the Romans that they were a separate people who then went on eventually to split again into Scottish, Welsh, English, etc.

five bucks said:

The problem is that swinging polearms *and* stabbing polearms both need to be fixed. With the underpoweredness of melee cavalry who can't hit their targets, and the crappiness of stabbing polearms both statistically and due to poor AI, there's little point to using any pikemen at all in the current state of Bannerlord. So I am happy that you would try it but simeltaneously I feel like enough of the game that needs to be fixed hasn't been fixed yet that it would give you the results I'd hope you would see.

Click to expand...

Yeah, true. Recently I charged into at least 100 strugian cavalry alone on horseback, with a dane axe, and clever turning and timed swings meant I killed dozens of them before they finally killed me... an axe on horseback is way more useful than a spear sometimes because the damage is so god damn low and the thrust so slow (tbf I rarely put points into that skill lol). Much easier to just clothesline the AI haha

Tbf I used to have shock troops/voulgiers just behind them, as the pikes can stop the cavalry charge but then they'll just walk right through the pikemen after without the voulgiers, hacking away. I'm playing with realistic battle AI mod and the pikeman are actually pretty good against cavalry, absolutely wrecking an equal number of charging banner knights, killing multiple riders and horses with the pike brace, then dogpiling the knights who fell.

Wheem said:

It may also be somewhat dependent on difficulty settings, with things below "Bannerlord" (what setting do Custom Battles use?) not having these sorts of sniper shots happen as often.

Click to expand...

Custom battles definitely use realistic. Are you on the latest versions? Because I seem to remember it being like that but I feel like the last few times of been playing it's actually been reasonable and I'm rarely getting hit unless I get within 100m and run in a straight line.

Just look up archery against moving targets, an experienced archer can lead shots pretty well even against fast targets, and considering bows were also frequently used to hunt, theoretically they'd be used to hitting a running target at similar speeds to a horse.