Archers need a nerf.

[KingEroc1st]

Completely irrelevant. The AI cannot utilize shieldwall formation.

are you saying that one of the best tactical counter to archers in both history and in game is irrelevant in the discussion of whether archers are over powered because the AI is not programmed to use it in an early release game yet? because it sure seems like that's what you are saying.

the whole discussion on whether something is OP OR NOT does not lie in whether it can be effective when utilized correctly in favorable conditions but whether or not it has counters and weaknesses. and currently there is a clear hard counters to ranged weapons in this game and it's the shield. whether you like it or not. and soft counters such as ammo. which is exploited in the little durability lost when taking ranged attacks with a shield compared to melee. and line of sight, which is exploited by fighting on flatland or in forests.

As stated in my other posts, I believe the cause lies in the massive ineffectiveness of the hard counter to archers (cavalry)

Cavalry is not the hard counters to archers, at least not historically. since archers were used in ambushes, with high ground advantage or volleying behind infantry, they almost never face cavalry in direct combat. when they did, it was more of a tactical mistake/outplay rather than troop counter. in fact archers and crossbowmen have always been the counter to cavalry, since aside from charging your cavs at your opponent's for an even fight, you will always be at a disadvantage when meleeing against people charging fast at you with huge momentum and mass, so the only other way is to attack from range. (when the French favored heavy cavalry, the English answered with their Longbowmen) Pike lines are there to discourage a cavalry charge, and they used LOOOOOOOOOOOONG pikes, not 2.5 meter ones in this game. Cavalry is most effective against light infantry without long weapons. due to the horses ability to break the formation of even the most disciplined troops and trample them. in addition Cavalry has a crazy mobility advantage (this makes them situational counters to everything) that's more apparent over large areas, but the game's battle fields aren't nearly big enough to truly showcase that at all, in fact collision size and tight areas are the major weakness of the cavalry class in this game currently.

People are complaining that PLAYER CONTROLLED pure archer armies (or armies with a large amount of archers, like >50%) are way too powerful currently and outperform every other composition under pretty much every circumstance to a ridiculous degree

there are many reasons for this:
-the primary one is the AI's inability to use shields properly. not even talking about shieldwall, they literally drop their shields every so often to give free shots. there's the realistic shield mod for that before the devs learn to program that into the game.
-the AI armies have lots of infantry which should naturally counter an ranged heavy composition, but because they cycle their troops frequently (losing battles and donating to garrison) and don't fight nearly as much as the player (no upgrades for troops) they end up with tons of shieldless recruits that get butchered by archers.
-AI "stupidity", currently the AI has 2 modes in field battles: attack or defend. they either advance at you at the beginning or wait for you to attack them, of course they'll abandon their defensive plans if you harass them enough from range anyways. so either way you can get them to attack your defensive position. and under the same circumstances the person attacking has the disadvantage. if you happen to occupy high ground and have lots of archers, that disadvantage is maximized to the point that any composition is getting crushed. high ground is really OP, and counters cavalry and infantry alike. but more so cavalry since they rely more on mobility and have a high penalty when climbing (as far as i know, the only things capable of countering high ground are planes and artillery)
-player cheese, i mean obviously players will always find the most cost effective way to fight against an pre programmed ai that's not adapting. it doesn't matter what patch it is or what troops are op. players will mass that and dominate.

if you think this game is too easy using "Meta" strats such as a heavy archer focused line up, or horse archers (the actual OP class). DONT. go around with an all cav small army (small since you can't find enough recruitment) and complain in treads such as "are cavalry underpowered in this game" about them not being strong enough. or you can ONLY fight AIs with bigger armies(in terms of both number and power level), you'll soon realize that the problem becomes archers not having enough arrows to continue shooting and have to be sent in to melee and have severe weaknesses under the best conditions. when the enemy mobs you with 400 infantry it doesn't matter how many archers you have lol.

 

[rektasaurus]

are you saying that one of the best tactical counter to archers in both history and in game is irrelevant in the discussion of whether archers are over powered because the AI is not programmed to use it in an early release game yet? because it sure seems like that's what you are saying.

the whole discussion on whether something is OP OR NOT does not lie in whether it can be effective when utilized correctly in favorable conditions but whether or not it has counters and weaknesses. and currently there is a clear hard counters to ranged weapons in this game and it's the shield. whether you like it or not. and soft counters such as ammo. which is exploited in the little durability lost when taking ranged attacks with a shield compared to melee. and line of sight, which is exploited by fighting on flatland or in forests.


Cavalry is not the hard counters to archers, at least not historically. since archers were used in ambushes, with high ground advantage or volleying behind infantry, they almost never face cavalry in direct combat. when they did, it was more of a tactical mistake/outplay rather than troop counter. in fact archers and crossbowmen have always been the counter to cavalry, since aside from charging your cavs at your opponent's for an even fight, you will always be at a disadvantage when meleeing against people charging fast at you with huge momentum and mass, so the only other way is to attack from range. (when the French favored heavy cavalry, the English answered with their Longbowmen) Pike lines are there to discourage a cavalry charge, and they used LOOOOOOOOOOOONG pikes, not 2.5 meter ones in this game. Cavalry is most effective against light infantry without long weapons. due to the horses ability to break the formation of even the most disciplined troops and trample them. in addition Cavalry has a crazy mobility advantage (this makes them situational counters to everything) that's more apparent over large areas, but the game's battle fields aren't nearly big enough to truly showcase that at all, in fact collision size and tight areas are the major weakness of the cavalry class in this game currently.



there are many reasons for this:
-the primary one is the AI's inability to use shields properly. not even talking about shieldwall, they literally drop their shields every so often to give free shots. there's the realistic shield mod for that before the devs learn to program that into the game.
-the AI armies have lots of infantry which should naturally counter an ranged heavy composition, but because they cycle their troops frequently (losing battles and donating to garrison) and don't fight nearly as much as the player (no upgrades for troops) they end up with tons of shieldless recruits that get butchered by archers.
-AI "stupidity", currently the AI has 2 modes in field battles: attack or defend. they either advance at you at the beginning or wait for you to attack them, of course they'll abandon their defensive plans if you harass them enough from range anyways. so either way you can get them to attack your defensive position. and under the same circumstances the person attacking has the disadvantage. if you happen to occupy high ground and have lots of archers, that disadvantage is maximized to the point that any composition is getting crushed. high ground is really OP, and counters cavalry and infantry alike. but more so cavalry since they rely more on mobility and have a high penalty when climbing (as far as i know, the only things capable of countering high ground are planes and artillery)
-player cheese, i mean obviously players will always find the most cost effective way to fight against an pre programmed ai that's not adapting. it doesn't matter what patch it is or what troops are op. players will mass that and dominate.

if you think this game is too easy using "Meta" strats such as a heavy archer focused line up, or horse archers (the actual OP class). DONT. go around with a all cav small army (small since you can't find enough recruitment) and complain in treads such as "are cavalry underpowered in this game" about them not being strong enough. or you can ONLY fight AIs with a bigger armies, you'll soon realize that the problem becomes archers not having enough arrows to continue shooting and have to be sent in to melee and have severe weaknesses under the best conditions. when the enemy mobs you with 400 infantry it doesn't matter how many archers you have lol.

Very well written. I hope the devs read and consider this.

In fact the points you lay out are exactly why I think the class system should be removed from mp. I think if the game is done right pvp fights will mirror historical loadouts and results and I think we all would love to be able to try it. I don’t see why it’s impossible to have 6v6 with 20 units of whatever they want within a certain budget or something on a huuuuge map with some hills and other terrain features.

Like pvp should be where we can go to test army composition against human opponents, with equipment, weapons, and ratios of troop type.

 

[KingEroc1st]

Like pvp should be where we can go to test army composition against human opponents, with equipment, weapons, and ratios of troop type.

my ideal pvp scenario in this game would be a 5v5 field battle. each team has a commander and 4 squad leaders and each person commands up to 100 troops of equal tier. each player gets to choose his troops and we'll have a glorious 1000 man field battle in a battle field 5-10 times the normal size featuring different terrain. each side has like 3-5 minutes to form up before the battle begins and they can only move within a certain area of the battlefield during that time for example. so people can talk strategy etc

 

[rektasaurus]

my ideal pvp scenario in this game would be a 5v5 field battle. each team has a commander and 4 squad leaders and each person commands up to 100 troops of equal tier. each player gets to choose his troops and we'll have a glorious 1000 man field battle in a battle field 5-10 times the normal size featuring different terrain. each side has like 3-5 minutes to form up before the battle begins and they can only move within a certain area of the battlefield during that time for example. so people can talk strategy etc

Oh dude I would play that game. I would play that game so hard. I’d play it all night long.

 

[Gelimer]

That would be awesome indeed

 

[Apocal]

Cavalry is not the hard counters to archers, at least not historically. since archers were used in ambushes, with high ground advantage or volleying behind infantry, they almost never face cavalry in direct combat. when they did, it was more of a tactical mistake/outplay rather than troop counter. in fact archers and crossbowmen have always been the counter to cavalry, since aside from charging your cavs at your opponent's for an even fight, you will always be at a disadvantage when meleeing against people charging fast at you with huge momentum and mass, so the only other way is to attack from range.

Well that's a pretty heavy set of claims. Where did you learn this?

 

[KingEroc1st]

Oh dude I would play that game. I would play that game so hard. I’d play it all night long.

me too man, me too. i think that would push this game into the next level of player base and longevity for sure.
they can add different battle modes:
-skirmish: a chance encounter of 2 armies and neither commander want to pass the chance to defeat their enemy
-king of the kill: a contest to capture and hold a central strategic location
-invasion: the defender wants to prevent the capture of their village granary while the attacker's goal is to destroy it

frankly if the devs won't i think we should find a team and make a mod for that.

 

[KingEroc1st]

Well that's a pretty heavy set of claims. Where did you learn this?

Archers took much much more time and effort to train (compared to infantry) and are relatively lightly armored (due to the range of motion required to shoot a bow and the utter exhaustion from shooting, not to mention the obviously lacking shield). it makes 0 sense for a commander to put them in position where they would encounter the enemy vanguard in direct melee combat. some of the strongest and highest paid soldiers in history were longbowmen. any 150-160 cm short skinny guy can hold a 2kg spear and stab you with it, but good lucky pulling a 80kg longbow if you aren't jacked and well trained for decades. commanders would rather send 500-1000 footmen to die so he can save 100-200 elite archers.
Range is a hard advantage, and being able to kill from 50-100 meters is a HUGE deal strategically. nobody will gimp themselves by letting their archers be in any danger like that. even in scenarios archery won't be effective such as in dense forests or at night in fog etc, they'd be on reserve instead of in the melee.

People think cavalry are the counter to archers because they move fast and have more armor compared to the infantry so they assume they are harder to hit and take less damage. while it is true they can close a decent distance in a short time. but when a line of cavalry is charging, hitting them is like hitting a wall, if you miss against your target you might hit the horse, someone beside them or behind them. when the front row of horsemen take a hit, the downed horses will start ruining their own formation as they trip over bodies. charging a well defended position with frontline infantry backed by archers is a very dangerous situation. i'm not even talking about the defenders digging trenches with traps and utilizing logs as fortifications or having pikemen using 10+meter sticks pointed in the general direction. there are tactics where the pikemen lay their weapons down, hidden in the grass, till the horses are 50 meters away and at full gallop too fast to stop, then they suddenly raise the long sticks and enjoy horse meat kebabs later that night. if an army is holding a certain position for a while, a commander would never charge his cavalry in there, even peasants can dig holes and put straw on top to hide them in the night and ruin your charge.

Truth is, the cavalry charge is a shock tactic. meaning its used to surprise the opponent from their undefended flank utilizing the mobility of mounted troops taking advantage of opponent's lack of information. soldiers didn't have instant messaging or radio, information and mobility is very important. cavalry can essentially move faster than the messages are transferred between divisions (the messenger needs to ride to the commander then come back, 2x distance assuming he's not intercepted) and assault enemy at their least defended positions, and that's what they excelled at. Cavalry did mostly backstabbing work, the only frontal assaults they encountered were cav vs cav battles.

Frankly a lot of the situations cavalry crushed aren't even in the game. such as
--when an army is marching (usually in a line). getting hit in the middle by cav charges would devastate the marching forces, cutting them into sections unable to help each other or pass down command.
--when the cavalry is used to raid/destroy enemy supply lines that are always slow moving (no food = no army)
--when one side force marches a bunch of horsemen all the way around the enemy army (we are talking days over distances thought to be "inconceivable") only to appear behind them for the surprise butt sex.

 

[rektasaurus]

me too man, me too. i think that would push this game into the next level of player base and longevity for sure.
they can add different battle modes:
-skirmish: a chance encounter of 2 armies and neither commander want to pass the chance to defeat their enemy
-king of the kill: a contest to capture and hold a central strategic location
-invasion: the defender wants to prevent the capture of their village granary while the attacker's goal is to destroy it

frankly if the devs won't i think we should find a team and make a mod for that.

I could help with the mod.

Good ideas. I think there should basically be two ideas incorporated. Capture and hold 1 single point. And straight elimination.

In the case of a granary, or castle for that matter, if there is an enemy army nearby the goal would always be to either evade it or destroy it and game modes should revolve around that decision. Like a fight over a granary between two armies wouldn’t necessarily take place with a pile of hay or the mill in the literal middle of the formations and that should be modeled.

 

[Apocal]

snip

I understood what you meant. I was wondering where you had learned it. Again: what is your source for these, here, specifically?
1. since archers were used in ambushes, with high ground advantage or volleying behind infantry, they almost never face cavalry in direct combat.

2. archers and crossbowmen have always been the counter to cavalry

 

[KingEroc1st]

In the case of a granary, or castle for that matter, if there is an enemy army nearby the goal would always be to either evade it or destroy it and game modes should revolve around that decision. Like a fight over a granary between two armies wouldn’t necessarily take place with a pile of hay or the mill in the literal middle of the formations and that should be modeled.

i was going more for the defenders are in front of the granary to guard it. so the attacker has to eliminate the defenders or distract them enough to create an opening for a tactical stealth attack around them. a field battle take of the siege situation in terms of attack and defend. could also be a camp or something but no castle/fortification or it would be too similar to a siege

so my ideas so far 3 different scenarios of fighting, skirmish being death match (the battle can happen anywhere and everywhere), koth being contesting the middle (battle over the key location) or one side defend the other attack (battle happening on the defenders side)

 

[KingEroc1st]

Again: what is your source for these, here, specifically?
1. since archers were used in ambushes, with high ground advantage or volleying behind infantry, they almost never face cavalry in direct combat.

2. archers and crossbowmen have always been the counter to cavalry

if your only argument is that i'm not providing sources then perhaps you can go do your own research, arrive at your own conclusion, then formulate your own counter argument against mine, source them and debate me then. i'll have your sources by that time.
perhaps you can also provide the definition of "counter" just so we are on the same page, and historical accounts of how archers were used in battles as well as actual incidents of cavalry charging archer formations decimating their ranks, cause surely such hard counters would have made it's mark in the history books.

 

[rektasaurus]

if your only argument is that i'm not providing sources then perhaps you can go do your own research, arrive at your own conclusion, then formulate your own counter argument against mine, source them and debate me then. i'll have your sources by that time.
perhaps you can also provide the definition of "counter" just so we are on the same page, and historical accounts of how archers were used in battles as well as actual incidents of cavalry charging archer formations decimating their ranks, cause surely such hard counters would have made it's mark in the history books.

He could be inquisitive instead of doubtful.

I understood what you meant. I was wondering where you had learned it. Again: what is your source for these, here, specifically?
1. since archers were used in ambushes, with high ground advantage or volleying behind infantry, they almost never face cavalry in direct combat.

2. archers and crossbowmen have always been the counter to cavalry

Archers were primarily used in ambush or at range. Efforts were always taken to ensure they couldn’t be flanked by cavalry even if they sometimes were.

Archers and crossbowmen were a counter to cav like artillery was a counter to cav. Just because knights counter archers in aoe2 doesn’t mean they were as effective against them irl. It was different. Frontal assaults like the charge of the light brigade were rarely made. Check this out, the answers describe mounted and unmounted knights meeting longbows.

How effective were longbow archers against plate-armored infantry?

It is quite common knowledge that longbows most likely did not penetrate the plate armor worn by the French chevaliers at Poitiers and Agincourt. However, how effective were these longbows in hampe...

history.stackexchange.com

 

[KingEroc1st]

it's going to take more time to compile a source list and proper citations on a subject this nuanced than it would to write a long essay. frankly this should be based on common sense and logical consistency. just google it.

while i cannot deny the effectiveness of plate armor against arrows and even bolts. it is worth noting the time period of Bannerlord is a few hundred years before the use of plate armor. and the speed cavalry moved worked against them boosting the velocity of arrows when hitting them much like in the game.
it is obvious in that ranged counters melee, and projectile has always evolved a step ahead of armor, when the plate became widespread, musket came onto the scene. and since then we've pretty much given up on wearing any armor. (although body armor has made a resurgence in the last few decades due to the continued need to mitigate ballistic damage while guns have stopped evolving for many decades)
whether it's the chariot, the horsemen, the cataphract, or the knights in plate. they are all melee units, that had height, mass and speed advantage over other melee units.they could knock down the strongest of men, trample them and shatter formations. but against ranged it's a different story. reach is the ultimate advantage

 

[Gelimer]

I think it is important to distinguish between heavy cavalry like the type used by the house of Normandy or like Byzantine Cataphracts for instance and regular sergeant cavalry and lighter ones.

Because the former were famous for charging head on in a disciplined way to break the enemy frontline formation before their own infantry following their charge made contact with the disorganized lines ( usually heavily armoured knights on foot )

This tactic worked for a long time, they conquered until Sicily with this, their heavy cavalry was nearly unstoppable and feared. They were not flanking with it, they were too slow for that, with their powerful armoured horses and their own heavy armour. Sergeant cavalry ( medium cav to light cav ) would do the flanking.

Since loyalty was an issue , if you put archers commoners undefended on an open field, without anything protecting them, chances are they would flee at the sight of a charging mass of heavily armoured knights, without shooting many arrows. That is probably why in most battles where archers shined, they were usually behind fortifications or on higher ground with infantry protection.

 

[KingEroc1st]

Because the former were famous for charging head on in a disciplined way to break the enemy frontline formation

charging in a disciplined way is important, even if your horses died on impact due to arrows or pikes their sheer mass and momentum would still crush the enemy frontlines. frontal assaults are all about discipline if one side chickens out first it's over for them

put archers commoners undefended on an open field, without anything protecting them

commanders with this level of talent usually paid with their own lives that very day to learn many valuable lessons they'll never need again.

frankly the only reason archers weren't actually massed was because it took a lot more time and resources to train them compared to infantry. and those with higher ranking and social status tended to favor becoming cavalrymen due to the honour, glory and prestige.

 

[Apocal]

if your only argument is that i'm not providing sources then perhaps you can go do your own research, arrive at your own conclusion, then formulate your own counter argument against mine, source them and debate me then. i'll have your sources by that time.

My only argument is that this represents a pretty severe departure from established military history which held archers generally to be vulnerable to cavalry for the same reason any infantry, in relatively loose formation and without polearms was vulnerable. But it wouldn't be the first time an established historical truth was overturned by more recent scholarship, so I'm curious.

perhaps you can also provide the definition of "counter" just so we are on the same page, and historical accounts of how archers were used in battles as well as actual incidents of cavalry charging archer formations decimating their ranks, cause surely such hard counters would have made it's mark in the history books.

The definition of a "counter" when talking combined arms? A particular arm that will, absent other factors, defeat another arm reliably, usually (but not always) without significant damage in turn. To use an analogy, the "natural predator." As for historical accounts of archers being wrecked by cavalry:

Battle of Falkirk, 1298: English knights in a disorganized charge, rolling up the archers along the Scottish flanks, checked only by Scottish pikemen.
Battle of Bannockburn, 1314: English longbowmen are deployed to flank a Scottish advance but run down by Scottish cavalry, effectively shattered and leading to English defeat.
Battle of Patay, 1429: English longbowmen are spotted in cover, French rush over mounted forces and launch into an assault before their stakes are fully emplaced, leading to a complete rout of the English.

I focus on the rough century of the English (via Wales) longbow, even though it is out of era for Bannerlord, because that seems to be what most people focus on. If people are thinking that archers in BL should blow out cavalry, this thread is a bit pointless for the most part.

 

[rektasaurus]

My only argument is that this represents a pretty severe departure from established military history which held archers generally to be vulnerable to cavalry for the same reason any infantry, in relatively loose formation and without polearms was vulnerable. But it wouldn't be the first time an established historical truth was overturned by more recent scholarship, so I'm curious.



The definition of a "counter" when talking combined arms? A particular arm that will, absent other factors, defeat another arm reliably, usually (but not always) without significant damage in turn. To use an analogy, the "natural predator." As for historical accounts of archers being wrecked by cavalry:

Battle of Falkirk, 1298: English knights in a disorganized charge, rolling up the archers along the Scottish flanks, checked only by Scottish pikemen.
Battle of Bannockburn, 1314: English longbowmen are deployed to flank a Scottish advance but run down by Scottish cavalry, effectively shattered and leading to English defeat.
Battle of Patay, 1429: English longbowmen are spotted in cover, French rush over mounted forces and launch into an assault before their stakes are fully emplaced, leading to a complete route of the English.

I focus on the rough century of the English (via Wales) longbow, even though it is out of era for Bannerlord, because that seems to be what most people focus on. If people are thinking that archers in BL should blow out cavalry, this thread is a bit pointless for the most part.

OPs issue is that archers should be nerfed because I suspect he ran into a few javelins being thrown at him and thought they were arrows. I don’t think archers should be nerfed but I do think javelins need to be changed a bit.

Cavalry charging a flank or unprepared troops is where they counter other units. Charging squares, the front, or fortified positions, is where they don’t do so well. Usually they fought other cavalry units to make sure enemy cavalry didn’t flank them or punch a hole in a line. See the Norman invasion and the use of mounted knights at the battle of Hastings. The Norman cav couldn’t punch a hole in their shield wall and had to get them to give chase.

This has an excellent description of mounted knights fighting ahead of infantry and shows a situation where one might want archers in range, raining arrows down on the horses of the enemy cav before another charge.

Reddit - Dive into anything

www.reddit.com

 

[hruza]

Archers and crossbowmen were a counter to cav like artillery was a counter to cav. Just because knights counter archers in aoe2 doesn’t mean they were as effective against them irl. It was different. Frontal assaults like the charge of the light brigade were rarely made. Check this out, the answers describe mounted and unmounted knights meeting longbows.

There is no such thing as a "counter unit" in real life. Archers were not counter to cavalry and cavalry was not counter to archers. That's a computer game stuff.

In real life there is only tactic and counter tactic. Archers may deploy stakes or behind an obstacle to counter cavalry and cavalry can flank archer position to counter them. It's about playing to advantages of your equipment and a fighting stile while against that of the opponent. Archers are at advantage when fighting at range while on disadvantage when fighting hand in hand. Therefore goal of archers when facing cavalry is to prevent cavalry from closing in easily. And vice versa: goal of cavalry is to get close and personal with archers as soon as possible, ideally while denying them the line of sight/shoot.

Archers are not counter to cavalry and cavalry is not counter to archers on their own. It's how they are used that matters. And Bannerlord does this rather well, although in simplified form.

 

[Apocal]

I seriously doubt the OP mistook arrows for javelins and even if he had, it wouldn't matter because at least half (probably more) of this thread had the same complaint in reverse: massed archers in their own party (where they most assuredly are not mistaking archers for javelineers) are too effective against everything.

Cavalry charging a flank or unprepared troops is where they counter other units. Charging squares, the front, or fortified positions, is where they don’t do so well.

Well, the counter rests on the fact that archers can't really fight effectively as a square -- the generally accepted historical counter to a cavalry charge was close-order infantry with polearms for that reason, among others. And even then it (packed rank infantry with polearms) wasn't as hard a counter as usually depicted; as often as not, infantry ranks would come apart during a charge. Sometimes at only the threat of a charge. Quoting Keegan's A History of Warfare: "...the effect of a cavalry charge had always depended more on the moral frailty of those receiving it than on the objective power of horse and rider."

That's a step too far for Bannerlord, probably. But it also means that the typical impact of archery on the medieval battlefield -- forcing close-roder infantry into thinning out or into a purely protective posture to enable other arms -- gets lost and instead you need them to be more directly lethal than (AFAICT) was historical. And that leads to arrows that act more like bullets when it comes to stopping cavalry charges cold.

Usually they fought other cavalry units to make sure enemy cavalry didn’t flank them or punch a hole in a line. See the Norman invasion and the use of mounted knights at the battle of Hastings. The Norman cav couldn’t punch a hole in their shield wall and had to get them to give chase.

Yes, but that shield wall was armored huscarls and fyrds, not archers.

There is no such thing as a "counter unit" in real life. Archers were not counter to cavalry and cavalry was not counter to archers. That's a computer game stuff.

In real life there is only tactic and counter tactic.

I'm not going to write out "lance-and-sword armed cavalry of the Frankish pattern, employed as the shock-arm of a late medieval feudal army with a preferred modus operandi of gallop charging and close pursuit" over and over. I trust people have the general idea of the tactics involved with their use when I say they should counter archers. In the context of Bannerlord, it isn't that complicated.