Am I the only one who doesn't like the huge battles?

Users who are viewing this thread

Distracting the enemy archers and pulling big chunks of their infantry along for the ride, so that your infantry are given really favorable many-on-few matchups. If you're fighting Aserai or Khuzaits, scattering their horse archers with a countercharge.
Thanks. Figured someone else with a different playstyle might know the answer. So I am assuming you try to time it to where you are not long before the infantry engagement but long enough for the infantry split to create some distance? Do you try to stay just out of reach to keep them busy or do multiple passes where you get close and then move out of range?
 
Maybe its just me, but I much prefer the smaller, let's say 150 vs 150 battles, where I'm in charge of all the soldiers and I can actually do stuff. I'm rarely excited for the very big fights. Am I the only one?
I can confirm it's definitely not just you, I also enjoy smaller fights much, much more than the chaotic (and absurdly quick) 1000 vs 1000 fights.
 
I expect larger battles to be more realistic - ie fight in phases - (1) skirmishers / archers fire, (2) Hastati releasing a hail of pila then charge, (3) Princeps advance as Hastati retire, (4) Princeps rinse and repeat, (5) Then Triarii ... while on the wings cavalry fight..

In bannerlord, the larger the battle, the less realistic.
you do realize you can do everything you just described right?
 
This should have been an obvious choice by the Devs -why they didnt even try something close to this just shows they dont have a clear vision of the game. Its a very arcade answer for what should have been a somewhat tactical decision

You should be able to see a war camp or something on each side of the map as part of the "skybox" and reinforcement march into map from there.
 
Thanks. Figured someone else with a different playstyle might know the answer. So I am assuming you try to time it to where you are not long before the infantry engagement but long enough for the infantry split to create some distance? Do you try to stay just out of reach to keep them busy or do multiple passes where you get close and then move out of range?
Yeah, timing is important, positioning too. You want to come in as the archers are forward so all the arrows and bolts hit your infantry mainline. I personally just do one pass and try to drag as many as possible with me by riding slow but I've seen guys stay in the pocket at full speed with a dozen infantry, just slaughtering them all and rolling a flank solo.
 
Yeah, timing is important, positioning too. You want to come in as the archers are forward so all the arrows and bolts hit your infantry mainline. I personally just do one pass and try to drag as many as possible with me by riding slow but I've seen guys stay in the pocket at full speed with a dozen infantry, just slaughtering them all and rolling a flank solo.
I may have to play around with this. Thanks for the replies.
 


This is why I hate long drawn out battles. Boring trickling waves of enemies coming to the meat grinder, that will never succeed and just kill more troops.
 
This is so true!
However, this is their answer to a snowballing problem they had before. I hope it is a placeholder till they find another solution. I want these battles to be meaningful and more impactful. Like after a battle like that both sides will be less willing to fight for a while or something of the sort, so your armies will have to be capped at a certain limit (Winners get a slightly larger cap)
It's really a ****ty bandaid, snowballing would be easily solved by features that make the factions more dynamic like coalitions against super powers (like the mainquest has but dynamic this time), internal politics that would lead to civil wars like, the bigger the faction, the more infighting it would have and huge chunks could split off and start a bloody civil war for independence or to replace the monarch.

They made one step in the right direction with the city rebellion system but it's still too little cause one independent city is just an annoyance at best, now if lords were pissed with the monarch and rebelled taking 1/3 or 1/2 of the realm with them that would be a real problem that would stop the snowballing faction right on it's tracks.

Just today i was besieging a city from the W. Empire as Vlandia, we had basically double their manpower, had already defeated 2 armies of them at the start of the war and in the duration of one single siege i was attacked by 3 more armies and one big mob of separated lords that were flocking to defend the city, i defeated them all (total 5 armies and a big mob of lords) but i was thinking all the time "wtf how do these guys keep trowing bodies at me like this in just a few in-game days?"
 
It's really a ****ty bandaid, snowballing would be easily solved by features that make the factions more dynamic like coalitions against super powers (like the mainquest has but dynamic this time), internal politics that would lead to civil wars like, the bigger the faction, the more infighting it would have and huge chunks could split off and start a bloody civil war for independence or to replace the monarch.
That's why i play with the diplomacy mod, it has these features :smile:
But yeah they should be included in the game.
Just today i was besieging a city from the W. Empire as Vlandia, we had basically double their manpower, had already defeated 2 armies of them at the start of the war and in the duration of one single siege i was attacked by 3 more armies and one big mob of separated lords that were flocking to defend the city, i defeated them all (total 5 armies and a big mob of lords) but i was thinking all the time "wtf how do these guys keep trowing bodies at me like this in just a few in-game days?"
I hate it when that happens, i tend to take my time with sieges to level up my engineer and i don't like to field 1k army. As it is right now, you are kind of forced to have a giga army to fight off waves of armies that recover during a single siege. Like i said, i hope this is temporary till they flesh out other aspects of the game that might solve that problem.
 
They made one step in the right direction with the city rebellion system but it's still too little cause one independent city is just an annoyance at best, now if lords were pissed with the monarch and rebelled taking 1/3 or 1/2 of the realm with them that would be a real problem that would stop the snowballing faction right on it's tracks.
I always see the rebelling city to join the kingdom of its culture.
 
Combat is such just a poor catastroph at the moment. Problem is that it's one of the main purposes of the game... :smile:

It shows a serious lack of professionalism.
 
Just today i was besieging a city from the W. Empire as Vlandia, we had basically double their manpower, had already defeated 2 armies of them at the start of the war and in the duration of one single siege i was attacked by 3 more armies and one big mob of separated lords that were flocking to defend the city, i defeated them all (total 5 armies and a big mob of lords) but i was thinking all the time "wtf how do these guys keep trowing bodies at me like this in just a few in-game days?"
Yeah, the game would be better if putting an army in the field meant that most of a factions garrisons had to be half-drained but that isn't the case in Bannerlord. Even a small faction can recover like 80-120 men per day -- or even more if there are neutral settlements nearby. It means you really gotta grind on them for awhile before their strength falls. And even then, it isn't like the numbers fall much, just the quality.

If their numbers fall, they just hire all the mercs to boost them back up again.
 
Yeah, the game would be better if putting an army in the field meant that most of a factions garrisons had to be half-drained but that isn't the case in Bannerlord. Even a small faction can recover like 80-120 men per day -- or even more if there are neutral settlements nearby. It means you really gotta grind on them for awhile before their strength falls. And even then, it isn't like the numbers fall much, just the quality.

If their numbers fall, they just hire all the mercs to boost them back up again.
While that would be more realistic, I don't see it working very well without a better system in place for new faction emergence. Wars would be over relatively quickly and once smaller, factions would get steamrolled.
 
I think it looks cool when two armies fight in an epic 1000 vs 1000 battle, but I command such a small part of the army, that bothering to do any strategies is almost always pretty insignificant, so I just delegate command to AI and watch.

Maybe its just me, but I much prefer the smaller, let's say 150 vs 150 battles, where I'm in charge of all the soldiers and I can actually do stuff. I'm rarely excited for the very big fights. Am I the only one?

Try showing up to the party late.

Get a solid group of tropps and only jump into the big battles AFTER they've started, as a single party jumping in to help.

That aay, you'll be in full command of your own troops.

In large chaotic battles, where it devolves into pockets of random troops fighting on one side's spawn site... until you come down off your hill 7 minutes into the battle with an organized force of 100+ troops to change the entire course of battle.

:smile:
 
As it is right now, you are kind of forced to have a giga army to fight off waves of armies that recover during a single siege. Like i said, i hope this is temporary till they flesh out other aspects of the game that might solve that problem.
yes , and we can see the "casualties of war" In the diplomacy menu , after just few days (in game) there are usually dozen of thousand, like wtf , we need a population system , where just throwing thousand of men to the grinder would not be "free"
 
yes , and we can see the "casualties of war" In the diplomacy menu , after just few days (in game) there are usually dozen of thousand, like wtf , we need a population system , where just throwing thousand of men to the grinder would not be "free"

Yes, we need populations divided into classes - rich, merchant, poor, slave etc etc and different troop types from each. Exterminating a large number from any class has it's consequences - riots etc.

But would the AI handle pops / classes ... errrr .. probably not so ..

.
 
Back
Top Bottom