Recent content by Neofd10

HalfMetalJacket said:

Because variety is more interesting, and I think absolute balance is not all that interesting. If almost everyone has archers, we'd have a lack of interesting options and tactical dynamics at play.

I don't see why lighter crossbows can't be nerfed either. Hell, just making weaker crossbowmen take significantly longer to reload. I don't think turning them into archers will help at all. They will still pump out damage safely from a distance, upgrade easily and amass very quickly.

I mean, if I had to do things a certain way, refer to my mod. Apart from the mounted crossbowmen (which I now regret), my Vlandians are still very much your strong, but inflexible troops that have to work together for combined arms tactics. What kind of buffs would you even give their infantry? I think giving them better armour is as far as I'd go.

Even then, turning Vlandia into some sort of lame all rounder faction without any special focuses is beyond boring. The Empire already has that covered, no need to do the same with Vlandia.

Click to expand...

Stonestool said:

Battania needs an archery tree, especially since they are woodlands people draped in animal furs.

I will say though that I personally appreciate the apparent lack of balance because it adds a certain depth.

• The Empire's well-rounded blend of units with a focus on front line tank infantry offers new players a way to "break into" the game
• The Khuts offer Dothraki open field superiority to freely run around and learn the different factions/map
• The Vlandia make it easy to enlist the best crossbows to garrison your first cities
• The Aserai are also decently well-rounded in units, conveniently offering two map choke-points that connect both sides of the world for players interested in trade exploration
• With Sterg and Battania being the obvious (more difficult) hard mode factions due to map proximity, snow/forest terrain, and unit selection

But... again... Battania's furry wood people NEED archers

Click to expand...

Aurex said:

A lot of good reads on the topic, thank you. I'll add my two dinars.

To answer the OP's question, I would definitely say Vlandia. The reason? While it's supposedly been 210 years from the times of Bannerlord in Warband, the Swadians are basically the *same* faction. When I heard talk about Vlandia I would have expected a proto-medieval realm, not a fully realized kingdom with knights and sergeants, crossbows (that shouldn't have existed if this is supposed to be 210 years before Warband, and in a setting that's based on our own history) and cities and castles which designs are virtually identical to those seen in Swadia two centuries later.

There are other issues I can see (all IMO) with the other factions.

Sturgia looks a lot like the Kingdom of Nords and is losing a lot of its slavic flavor with each and every update while also being underwhelming on the field *and* on the walls.

The Empire(s) does a good job in looking a lot like what you would have imagined a pseudo post-separation Eastern Roman Empire to look like. Still, while I don't think there should be that much difference between the sub-realms within the Empire, there should be at least some flavor to it: different mechanics, perhaps? Different approaches to military campaigning, troop composition, kind of missions provided to the player maybe? I also cannot imagine them using crossbows this early, they'd probably be using javelins and skirmish more instead, or rely on large amount of light cavalry.

Aserai. I haven't fought them (or alongside them) long enough to have a strong opinion one way or the other... having met them on the field so rarely and in such small numbers I genuinely have nothing to say about their faction, so I will refrain from commenting ?

The Khuzait are a little bit extreme considering the time period we're supposedly in (I realize this is not *our* world, but it should follow its history quite closely) when it comes to armor and troop composition. Either give them a throng of horse archers, skirmisher and riders with light armor and nimble yet fragile mounts while cracking down a little on just how well armored their horse archers can be or make it more difficult for the AI to recruit vast number of high-end riders. The mongols weren't mostly armored horse archers even at the height of their empire, their strength was in the mobility and the numbers.

I've seen some great posts about Battania, too... and they said more than I probably could. Still, I think that (especially when it comes to game balance) Battania has a troop roster that's a little... weird. Alright, so... only nobles use bows on the open field. But... why? If they're supposed to be a skirmishing faction with a lot of hit and run, then let them have better AI and better thrown weapons (which have been nerfed recently, too...) instead of making them a strange amalgamation of butt-naked pict warriors and welsh longbowmen with a peculiar taste in clothing.
Considering in such a difficult time for Calradia food would be scarce and a LOT of people would be poaching, it'd make a lot of sense that a lot of battanian peasants would know how to hunt, on top of owning a bow to hunt with, of course.

Speaking more broadly, I think every faction in general should be more lightly armed and armored (especially armored.) Perhaps adding some diversity to the leather (cuir bouilli for example) armor selection and some heavier clothing would help alleviate that issue, alongside weaponry that would better suit the time period the game is built on. More diversity in the peasants' clothing would be nice, they all look a little too prim and proper when they're just mere recruits from a pre-medieval society. Also, the game should have wildly different mechanics for each factions when it comes to battling enemies, managing logistics and handling intrigue and politics. Khuzait should be able to automatically "siphon" some food from the lands they're trying to take, having so much fast cavalry and generally employ horde tactics when in superior number while harassing and skirmishing before retreating when the battle is hopelessly against them. The Empire should have lower morale when fighting another Empire-based faction, they could also have unique formation (that really goes for all factions though) and a deeper intrigue system.

TL;DR=More diversity for light armor, less heavy armor, bows for Battania, more fragile HA, less advanced weaponry, more interesting game mechanics which could give the factions more flavor. Also, sorry about the post being messy, it's really late here.

Click to expand...

Terco_Viejo said:

I accept octopus as a pet , however I will gladly swap crossbows for slingshots ? ?.

Click to expand...

Terco_Viejo said:

Obviously these are opinions, you can agree with them or not. As an ass, everyone has one; I'm glad we have a similar one .

Click to expand...

HalfMetalJacket said:

Damn, hearing the dislike of more troops makes me insecure for my own mod.

That aside though, a new mod that was released today. Its basically less troops for a more streamlined progression. Nobles have like four tiers though.

De Re Militari

Click to expand...

Terco_Viejo said:

Water under the bridge, mate.

I swear no more derailing; let's get on with the main subject. Thank you.



IHMO the Bannerlord's Fiann are a total aberration, an attempt at pseudo-fantasy robinhood william wallace archetype; it would have been better to convert them into something similar to the Gallowglass archetype. The Bannerlord's Fiann has nothing to do with any "Celtic orbit" at all. Indeed, I think the crossbow should be implemented in the Battanian line by pure Pictish connection and have a line of archers that resemble Welsh archers archetype...but that is another debate.

The nobles of Battania, should go on horseback. Indeed, in ancient times the Gallic/Celtiberian cavalry was considered if not the best, among the best. A kind of middle-class cavalry that, when dismounted, performed like an infantry troop of the highest level. This should apply to the noble line of Sturgia as well; the Druzhina.

Click to expand...

Terco_Viejo said:

I open this space for debate by proposing the idea of a slight restructuring of the factions' troop tree. In my opinion there are quite a few units which have a redundant role in both equipment and performance. Also, the noble troop line seems to me to want to stretch the gum; Imean...I think that following the criteria of three tiers like with minor factions would be much more interesting and straightforward.

All this comes after my realizing that the Empire Tree is lacking one unit compared to the others and that Battania does not follow a criteria in my opinion that is appropriate for the noble line; the whole of it, ranged troops as opposed to the other factions with pure cavalry lines.

Well, here I have created this troops scheme with the help of mountandblade.fandom (There are some names that have not been updated but the structure is the same). As I said, I've reduced the noble line to 3 tiers and slightly altered the regular troop tree.

Original left, modified right:

Spoiler

​

Vlandia: Vanguard and Squire are two redundant units and therefore I would dispense with them. Also, and as a substitution of role, I would move Gallant as a regular troop in the cavalry branch.

Empire: Vigla Recruit is redundant, while Equite would be relocated as regular cavalry.

Sturgia: Warrior Son redundant and Vetaran Varyag may switch its equipment to Varyag, moving it to the regular infantry branch.

Khuzait: No change to the regular branch. However, Noble's Son and Qanqli would not fit into this 3-Tier system even though they don't contribute anything either as they are redundant (This faction already has enough cavalrymen).

Battania: I consider that the noble line should be exclusive to the cavalry (horse as a symbol of power) and therefore the current one should be absorbed by the regular branch. Highborn Youth and Highborn Warrior are two units that are too similar and contribute little to the ranged line; therefore, I would personally get rid of them. Fian and Fian Champion, on the other hand, in my opinion would fit much better in the regular branch as what they are, a specialized ranged swordman. After these changes, we would have a fairly complete tree with a combination of infantry, ranged, riders and skirmishers. The noble line would consist of Scout and Horseman, who would jump from the regular line directly to the noble line and as a complement a new unit need to be created (or transformed).

In my opinion, the Battania noble line should play a role as heavy skirmishers (archetype of Celtiberian - Gallic horsemen).

Aserai: No change in the regular branch. However, Youth and Tribal horseman would not fit into this three-tiered system even though they do not contribute anything, as they are redundant.

What do you think?

Do you think that the trees would need a revision? Could the noble line be simplified to three tiers? Are there redundant troops among the trees?

----

Analysis Expanded:​

Here I bring a little analysis that gathers what is commented in this thread. As I mentioned earlier I believe that in the Native there is redundancy of troops and I truly believe that there is an undefined system of strengths and weaknesses for each faction. In the regular troop tree each of the units should be well defined and framed within their role by function. Imo, only the noble troops should have "versatile" functions, which as I said, I would reduce to three units.
In the regular troop tree each of the units should be well defined and framed within their role by function. In my view, only the noble troops should have "versatile" functions, which as I said, I would reduce to three.

Melee

Missiles

At this point, a number of questions arise... For example:


Can (light-heavy) infantry be equipped with missiles? - throwable as pila or other type of spears when they do not exceed the pair of them, yes. Equipping an infantry unit with one or two bags of javelins would already be framing it in a role of which it does not belong; we would be turning it into a skirmisher.

What defines heavy cavalry in general lines? -essentially the horse's bard (and the type of horse) and the rider's panoply.

Should a ranged troop have high melee skills? The high tier would, however, never be more efficient than an average infantry tier; their function is what it is, role function ranged.

Can a shock troop have throwables? My answer is no because it would be performing a skirmisher function indirectly. This is where I put the focus on Fiann's units. High level ranged units which perform shock functions with high levels of efficiency in both melee and athletics; in my opinion they are a nonsense.

Do you see where I'm going?

So, here is a reformulation of the troop trees with defined function roles.

(Native troops - Native function - Function proposal)

Vlandia: Cavalry push. Function role lines defined in a missiles-infantry-cavalry balance. Weaknesses, they don't have skirmishers. The noble troops would be framed within the role of Cavalry complementing itself with a high performance in melee.

Sturgia: Pure muscle structure. Role lines of function that tend towards the branch of pure infantry. Weaknesses, low level of ranged troops. The noble troops would frame them within the role of heavy cavalry being complemented with a performance in good melee.

Khuzait: Mounted archers. Role lines of function that tend towards the branch of mounted archers, pure steppe tactics. Weaknesses; they have neither shock nor skirmishers. Noble troops would frame them within the role of mounted archers with the equipment of the heavy cavalry (bard+panoply).

Empire: All in one. All types of function roles are part of the tree in a balance of missiles-infantry-cavalry. Weaknesses; it has none, it is the Empire. The noble troops would frame them within the role of heavy cavalry complementing itself with a good performance in melee.

Battania: Hit and run. Role lines of function that tend towards the branch of infantry and missiles. Weaknesses: No heavy cavalry. The noble troops would frame them within the role of skirmishing cavalry complementing itself with a high performance in melee.

Aserai: Mobile force. Lines of role of function that tend towards the branch of skirmishers and missiles. Weaknesses; little presence of pure infantry or shock. The noble troops would frame them within the role of skirmishing cavalry with the equipment of the heavy cavalry (bard+panoply). With this restructuring there would be room for light cavalry camel units.

Click to expand...

Calabanar said:

They could always change the troop trees for a non-save compatible update.

Give the empires some love... their shared common troop tree is fine, but at least give them different noble troop trees along additional mercenary companies.

Click to expand...

Kyias said:

The strength of the Batannians is their skirmishers. They are some of the best in the game. If you pair them with oathsworn and Falxmen, you have a very powerful and flexible infantry.

they don’t get commoner archers because of this which is perfectly fine. They are meant to be close up, throwing weapons with powerful shock troops. You have their cavalry for harassment and again, another skirmisher

they are not the English

Click to expand...

HalfMetalJacket said:

Compatibility issues mostly. What happens to everyone's saves? What happens to the old troops? Changing equipment, skills and etc is easy enough, but the arrangement of troop trees? That's a lot more tricky sadly.

Click to expand...

HalfMetalJacket said:

Two forms of heavy infantry with very different functions though. The Gallowglass is specifically a shock infantry man with two hander and a very small shield. The new Oathsworn would just be a regular spear and shield infantry. There's a huge difference in the roles they, this is not at all a case of criticising myself. In comparison, your idea is effectively just two different types shock troops, which tbf isn't that bad. But still if we're going with variety, I think my approach satisfies that better.

Maybe, but we can't just transplant Picts, or even the Gaels 100% into Bannerlord without them looking out of place. Considering their regular exposure to Vlandians and the Empire, both of whom use crossbows, I would imagine the Battanians would come to appreciate crossbows as weapons of war. Even more so, seeing as crossbows have useful perks in ambush warfare. That, and I feel its way more unique anyway, and historical authenticity is secondary to feel and the 'cool factor'.

If I had my way, I wouldn't scrap them. I'd have two noble troop tree paths if anything. One to represent the Teulu/Riglach/Noble whatever cavalry, and another to represent a fun ranged heavy infantry unit. That being said, I'd make sure everyone else is a bit more opened up in terms of variety. And if I had to choose, I'd keep the Fians because I like them too much.

Who says they're meant to have two different shock troops? I don't believe we have to have 100% accuracy at all, especially when it makes little sense. And considering the enemies the Battanians face, there is no logic in them running around with so many shock troops, and not having some common archers.

I'll bring this up again, but from a tactical standpoint, Battania's whole military context is different to Brythonic Celts. Those Celts were not dealing with these well rounded combined arms forces like Battania is- it would not make sense for them to be fighting in the same manner just because 'historical inspiration'. Against well rounded, well equipped armies with a vested interest in taking you down, skirmisher tactics really won't cut it.

Access to T2 horse archers for the Khuzaits is reason why they dominate so much in autocalc. And no, its not even sensible either, considering the Khuzaits have become increasingly sedentary. I think tier 3 would be more reasonable, and that's at best. Still earlier access to horse archers than anyone else.

Maybe, but that sounds a lot harder to believe people are capable of firing a great big long bow that quickly, or that they would have that many nobles in a place. Common archers sound far more probable.

Variety maybe. But in practice, the composition of the forces would look way lopsided for infantry, varied or not. Fighting Battania would just be a matter of amassing a lot of archers, and winning. Unless you want shock troops to be arrow proof, they're going to die. Skirmisher cavalry be too few to do much. Fians will lose an archery duel against a greater force, which just leaves a few infantry with small shields. If they at least had more archers, fighting them would be a more different and complicated challenge.

Consistency in that every other faction has access to long ranged common troops, so in order to be consistent, Battania ought to have the same.

And go ahead and mod then, at least you aren't surprised your idea won't get much traction. Then again, I'm surprised I've come as far as I did with mine.

Click to expand...

five bucks said:

I can tell you the Battanians are based on the following Celtic groups.
North Welsh: Known for their spearmen (spear infantry).
South Welsh: Known for their elite longbowmen (elite ranged infantry).
Picts: Known for their wild lightly armored shock infantry charges with swords (shock infantry).
Gallowglasses (post-Viking Picts/Irish): Known for their Viking-style two-handed axes (shock infantry).
Irish: Known for the kern, light skirmisher infantry with shields, spears and javelins. Never used the bow in great numbers and didn't use it at all pre-Vikings.
Ancient Celts: Overall, not just the Dacians but all ancient Celts were known by the Romans for having long swords and charging wildly (shock infantry).

Dionysius said about the Celts: "their manner of fighting, being in large measure that of wild beasts and frenzied, was an erratic procedure, quite lacking in military science. Thus, at one moment they would raise their swords aloft and smite after the manner of wild boars, throwing the whole weight of their bodies into the blow like hewers of wood, and again they would deliver crosswise blows aimed at no target, as if they intended to cut to pieces the entire bodies of their adversaries, protective armour and all."

Blend all types of Celts together and what stands out the most commonly about them? Shock infantry.

All Celtic groups used cavalry to some extent, but in quite small numbers and primarily for skirmishing with javelins. The Ancient Celts were the Celts with the most developed cavalry forces, but even of them, Tacitus said: "the strength of the Celts is in their infantry." Medieval Celts lived in places with terrain unsuitable for heavy cavalry. So it makes no sense for Battania to be melee cavalry specialists. Their javelin cavalry troop should stay, but their melee cavalry troopline should go.

If Battania were to have elite archers and regular archers, that would make them entirely unrepresentative of the Celts as a whole, because Celts as a whole did not field bows in large numbers. So real life is an argument against regular archers in the troop tree, not for them.

Gallowglasses, Picts, and ALL sorts of Ancient Celts (not just Dacians) used sword or great axe-armed shock infantry extensively.

On top of that, you have Battania's culture description in the game literally saying that they charge into battle with great swords and great axes. Yet they don't have any greataxe unit in their actual faction right now.

Also, there is no shock infantry specialist faction in Bannerlord yet.

Finally, to give Battania regular archers like every other faction has would objectively make them less unique, and more like every other faction, when faction armies feeling too similar is already a problem for Bannerlord as it is.

So there are 3 good reasons for Battania to be the shock infantry faction; and -2 good reasons for them to have regular archers.

You're not being rude at all, don't worry. I am being passionate too because my motivation isn't only to portray history, but also to create well-varied gameplay.

Forest bandits aren't battanian peasants in Bannerlord. You're getting confused with something from Warband.
Wolfskins are fians, yes. That isn't a point for common archers though.
All factions in multiplayer have different names and equipment from the ones in singleplayer, because they have separate dev teams developing at different times, and MP devs mostly ignore SP lore so that they can have whatever troops the player wants to have in MP.
Companions have all sorts of unique equipment that doesn't in itself reflect what a common troop is "supposed" to have.
Neither living in the woods, nor hunting, nor ambushing people absolutely require a bow; much hunting is done with javelins, traps or spears, and ambushes are totally possible with melee weapons.

No it wasn't. Just ask the Irish (one of the main inspirations for Battania). The bow never really gained any sort of popularity there. Javelins were what they used, as did most Celts.

Javelins and spears are even easier to make and learn to use than a good bow and arrow.

Leaving aside that continuity between Warband and Bannerlord is an absolute mess (just look at Sargoth): That makes no sense at all. The Vaegirs' location in Warband is almost on the other side of the map from the Battanians' location in Bannerlord. A much more sensible explanation is that the Vaegirs learned archery from being invaded by the Khuzaits. (Similar to what happened in real life when the Mongols invaded the Kievan Rus). Or hell, maybe they just learned it on their own. Saying they "inherited" it is a massive stretch with no evidence.

There is no need for the Aserai to be near anybody to develop an archer culture on their own. The Sarranid Master Archers were some of the best archers in Warband. And the real-life culture the Aserai are based on, the Sassanids/early Caliphates, put high value on archery skill.

Aserai are said to be primarily based on the Sassanids and early Caliphates. These cultures did have famous elite heavy cavalry (the clibanarii), yes. But they also had javelineers, and famous archers. "The archers formed the elite of the Persian infantry. They were trained to deliver their arrows with extreme rapidity, and with an aim that was almost unerring. Sometimes the archers, instead of thus fighting in line, were intermixed with the heavy horse, with which it was not difficult for them to keep pace." This same article also says that Sassanian archers were considered above the rest of the infantry, and were only second to the elephants and heavy cavalry knights in the Sassanian army.
I also don't mean they should be just an "archer faction." Aserai should be a "ranged infantry" faction, with a dedicated javelineers branch (tweaking their existing Veteran Infantry) and a dedicated archers branch (Master Archer). This will make them the faction with the most dedicated ranged infantry units. They will still have plenty of cavalry, and also horse archers.

Shock infantry and Heavy infantry can be quite different.

Shock infantry wield two-hander axes or swords, and use less armor than normal. They charge wildly into battle to inflict morale shock. They counter heavy infantry (thanks to their ability to chop up shields and armor). They should be (when Cav AI starts working properly) countered by melee cavalry, as they cannot form a proper shieldwall or brace pikes for self-defense.

Heavy infantry wield one-handers with large shields, and use more armor than normal. They advance slowly behind a protective shieldwall. They counter foot archers (thanks to their better armor and shields) and are countered by shock infantry (whose weapons are designed to break shields and armor).

Dividing infantry into distinct sub-groups is a good thing for variation. Because there are 6 factions in the game. If you don't have at least two infantry factions, then you're going to have to have two cavalry factions, or two generalist factions, or two archer factions, etc.

If you divide infantry into three distinct groups, you can make factions distinct like so:
* Battania: 2hander shock infantry (veteran falxman, gallowglass-inspired unit)
* Sturgia: shielded heavy infantry (heavy spearman, heavy axeman)
* Empire: long spear infantry (legionary, menavliaton)
* Aserai: ranged infantry (master archer, veteran skirmisher)
* Khuzaits: ranged cavalry (noble horse archer, non-noble horse archer)
* Vlandia: melee cavalry (noble lancer, non-noble lancer)

The Battanians don't have "no foot archers." The Fians are foot archers.

Because Celts overall used spear infantry a lot and didn't use archers much.

Yes, but since (a) the Fians already exist and are an extremely well known Battanian unit, (b) it makes Battania VERY unique in gameplay terms to be the only faction with no noble cavalry (unlike every other faction) and no common archer (unlike every other faction), and (c) "noble" units (who are not literally nobles in the sense of landholders-- they're just elite troops) is the best way of representing that the South Welsh were amazing with bows but Celts as a whole were not; it is the best course of action when taking both gameplay and historical representation into account. The priority here goes something like this:
1- make factions vaguely represent their source material (high priority)
2- create the most unique faction troop trees possible (mid priority)
3- make factions accurately represent their source material (low priority)

Where? I have already responded to this. Battania's promo art shows *no* archers. Battania's culture description explicitly says they charge into battle with great two-handed axes/swords. There is no advertisement from Taleworlds anywhere saying "this is the faction who MUST have commoner archers." Just about any reference you can find to Battania having bows is just a reference to Fians.

The entire reason the idea of Battania having common archers ever came about is people not understanding the difference between "elite unit" and "predominant unit". There's nothing actually in the game to support it, and it's a bad idea from a gameplay perspective and unrepresentative of the historical inspiration.

I'm finished discussing this too, if people want to make the game's factions even more similar and repetitive than they already are and Taleworlds decides that's somehow a good idea, then I can always edit XMLs myself. Everyone can be happy in the end. I just like the thought of people getting a more varied, closer-to-history experience.

Click to expand...