Not sure what situation youre talking about here but if i got you right i have provided pleanty of times support behind an shield wall while my AI friends have been holding them off even against higher Tier soldiers. Sure sometimes they break thru but its usually no biggie because of your second line soldiers or archers. Sure flanks can be good to since you have more space to fight as well as stabbing them in the back or in the sides while they are busy...However then youre also open against archers and sneaking cav which you are anyways at all times Its situational in my meaning. Are you a lot surrounded keep behind the wall in my opinion then support flanks if needed
Or did i get you wrong here ? Shields can still tank pretty well at highest diff setting...
If you have a long spear you can stab over the shield wall..A sword and a shield you can stay in front no problem. But you need to know when to attack and when to fall back. Also that youre a soldier like the rest but with more maneuverability and hit harder at times. Its also possible to do heavy infantry early on but then you must play more conservatively since you are slow because of the weight. And if you get surrounded and not saved by an cav man or an miracle from the greek gods
When you choose your character you can tailor that in the beginning to along with the story. You get pretty much skills on the tailored you choose. However you cant be alot at once if you want to be really good at it
i tried and it feels bull****, but not against cavalerie allone. First, you are to slow under 100 and to fast over 100 athletics and i write that number because, it has just to proof my point. (In reality i think between 80 and 120 feels nice.)
Second, everything is in my way. walls, friendly troops, enemy troops, everything! And thirt, i hit more often some crap around me, then the enemy in front of me. Thats boring.
So i decided to stay as archer. sometimes with and sometimes without a horse. I do not care about friendly fire. I would love to have friendly fire with my big axe. So nobody blocks my attacks anymore. (more or less)
Im not saying it would stop them but i would most def think twice by charging straight in front of 20 archers and if they didnt hit them all which is very unlikely since they are 10 against 20 it would still be an fight. If an arrow hits and sticks in to an horse, sure the horse would most prob have the adrenaline to stay up depending on the hit, but would be bleeding out after some time.... But since were talking about this game anyways 10 cavs against 20 archers isnt that much of a problem even if they can hit the horses at times and take them down with couple of shots depending on the armor. But i mean i see no games that have the realism by far anyways not even Arma or Flight Sims so idk why we keep bringing this **** up
The best money making machine tactic is to just spam focus into smithing, farm for parts until you get certain special parts, and craft weapons with ridiculous costs like 100k+. Since I always lose patience with the grind, I generally just do that.
What kills me is that the crafting system only takes account of dmg value, everything else is borderline ignored, when in fact that level of detail and complexity of a weapon along with raw materials should be the pricing factor...
The horse charge video posted by five bucks shows the situation quite well. The horses that broke through the lines continued relatively unscathed, while those that were stopped ended up being surrounded by infantry. The medieval cavalry charge depended on passing successfully THROUGH the enemy line, not crashing into it and then engaging in melee. The infantry were well aware of their vulnerability, so the only way to survive it was to not panic and stand firm in multiple lines to stop the horses, knowing full well that many of your group were about to die or suffer injury, whether the charge succeeded or failed. Too often, someone did panic, which resulted in a "devil take the hindmost" rush to escape, and a totally successful cavalry charge.
In M&B (in all its versions), a spear will stop a horse dead in its tracks, so any horse that contacts a spear does no damage to the infantry, rather than being impaled and then crashing into the spear-holder and anyone else unfortunate enough to be standing next to him. Realistically the horse would be mortally wounded, and the rider would fall and probably get hacked down, but the infantry line's cohesion is going to get demolished, with several men crushed or trampled by the dying horse, in addition to anyone who got lanced by the rider before the horse dropped. That doesn't happen in M&B: either the spear misses and the horseman gets to make his attack, or else the horse gets stopped with zero repercussions to the infantry. M&B is too lenient toward the horses that get wounded, but even more lenient toward the infantry who get charged.
Cavalry attacks wouldn't have been made in battle after battle if they weren't successful MOST of the time. The point is, there were failures, and plenty of them, but cavalry charges remained the primary form of attack for several hundred years. Since cavalry usually consisted of the nobility, there certainly would have been changes in tactics if those nobles EXPECTED to fail and die anywhere near as often as not. The counter was either your own cavalry, or hoping that your infantry line was deep enough and determined enough to absorb both the shock of impact and the steep casualties that a charge would inevitably inflict, without routing in panic.
Making horses cheap and readily available, and knights only moderately more costly than various militia and peasant levies means that you can afford to field them in unusually high proportions compared to the number of infantry on the battlefield. The ratio isn't sufficient to allow the infantry to form in 4-8 ranks; it rarely forms more than one or two deep, so cavalry charges should almost always succeed on reasonably level and open dry ground.
Nah im talking about predicting where the cavs are gonna go not how they shoot. Since they are humans after all and will not just stand there waiting for the cavs to run them down but they sure have time to fire one or two salvos to at least try before they are in danger which is an risk the cavalry would be facing especially their horses since they are bigger mass if they are charging in a straight line but not that much though since its heads forward. But these things are just speculations and who knows what the situation would bring. 20 men wouldnt be in the way of each other if they where all ready prepared on a line but yeah maybe. Im just saying it would be stupid for 10 cavalry men to charge straight against 20 archers
You guys live in an fantasy world yet you talk history facts xD So you think 10 Cavalry men in real life rode in from lets say 100 meter against 20-30 archers without any problems then swoop em all down in one swing.,...got it, The old saying theories is just theories when you sit behind those books until you hit the real battlefield. then life strikes you to the face
Gameplay trumps realism. Although I much prefer when gameplay is inspired by reality the root of the issue of Bannerlord cavalry is that it serves no gameplay purpose right now.
Cav units are expensive to train but provide very little value. There is nothing that they do that other units don't do better, save perhaps helping you win more by running down fleeing units.
I have covered this in other threads but real life use for cavalry are simply not able to be replicated in Bannerlord where even the largest battles are all small skirmishes (compared to real life), even sieges.
So, please let's drop using real battles as any justification for cavalry in Bannerlord, what we should be trying to do is give TW ideas of what do to with the cav units based on gameplay value.
IMO, what cav needs is the ability to issue commands to target specific enemy formations (such as targeting archers or enemy cav) as well as the ability to target reinforcement by camping respawn to help prevent it joining the main force. Those would all help make cav formation a lot more helpful.
That's delusion French knights had at Crecy, Agincourt and Golden Spurs. Then the real "real" life kicked in.
Devastating charges happened in the real life much less often then in the Hollywood movies.
Making cavalry more realistic in Warband is one of the best changes done to the series. I don't want Warband's heavy cav spam that can roll over everything.
I think what they need to do is make it so workshops have different buying prices. You can't exactly jack up the market prices on those items that give low profit. Some items will never have a high price. So the workshops need to be cheaper to balance. That 50 gold a day from your wood workshop wouldn't be as bad if it only cost you 5k to buy.
I actually don't like the idea of settlements changing culture.
Sea Raiders, Skoldabrotva and to some extent the Lake Rats are the Nords. Build an army out of those and roleplay your own Nordic invasion.
I think of Sturgia as super early Kievan Rus, back when Scandinavian influences are still strong. Hence round shields and Ulfhednar. I still think they could be more distinct and have more Kievan Rus esque helmets.
i'm not sure when exactly crossbows were used in scandinavia and eastern europe, and i don't think that would really make much of a difference to their effectiveness anyways. but maybe crossbows for their ranged milita could be an option.
No, soldiers in his armies, the thing was in medieval era, was the levy. The royal guard were retinues and very expensive ones. Most armies back in Early and Middle ages were levies.. High middle ages and so on weere relied more on the mercenaries or condittieres
Dear OP. Are you trying to change someone's beliefs over the internet? Stop that. It's futile
Your post is interesting, but to tell you the truth, no one really cares what are the cultural or buissness condidtions of game dev, just as hardly anyone cares about working condidtions of workers in some korean car factory when they run into petty problems with their newly purchased vehicle. You buy a product/service. If it doesn't do what you expected, you are going to be pissed.
Having said that, I notice some people expected too much. I laugh my ass off every time I read something like "this game sucks, I paid 50 euros for it and only got 120 hours with it". That's great value for money, considering some other entertaiment avenues. People here have been demanding game in any shape or form ASAP for few years. I kinda knew that when devs do that, other groups will rise and complain about state of the product. Well, life I guess.
People got sooooo emotional recently... We should all just chill. Warband was not masterpiece either, it had buggs and holes, but patches made it better. What I did was play Warband extensivly for two weeks, get bored and stopped for half a year and more. And when I got a feeling to ride on virtual stead and kill see riders again, I got back and always found fresh quest, new gameplay mechanic or something I did not do before. Also, rekindled sense of entertaiment.
I plan to do exactly same thing with Bannerlord.
Game is not perfect, but I will find enjoyment in it for quite some time. If others won't, tough titties. There is no point in changing their opinions.
Auto win wouldn't be a good solution. I won games, where the enemy had many units and my team just one guy, but we won, because the enemy team was ignoring the flags. People who intentionally stretch time to annoy everyone should get kicked out by voting.
All armor should have two ratings: one for its ability to deflect, the other for its ability to absorb. The first, deflection, is mostly important against cutting weapons and to some degree against piercing, where it stops all cutting damage below some threshold, stops piercing damage below some lower threshold, and reduces damage from both cutting and piercing weapons by some percentage rate. The second rating, absorption, is important against blunt weapons, and again stops all blunt damage below its threshold, and reduces blunt and piercing damage by some percentage. Piercing attacks that exceed the threshold would be affected by both armor types, and therefore deal reduced damage (as in half) ABOVE the thresholds, so while it would excel at doing SOME damage in almost any situation, it would potentially do less total damage, particularly against lightly armored targets. A cutting sword is likely to slide across the armor without doing damage, unless it hits with sufficient force to cut the armor, in which case it inflicts serious injury by slicing skin and muscle. A thrown rock is still going to bounce off of a suit of thick plate armor, unless thrown by someone with a lot of strength (using bigger rocks), in which case it dents and crushes the armor into the skin and muscle beneath. An arrow or spear point is more likely than a rock to pierce a suit of armor, but deals further injury only in a single narrow point.
Fighting lightly armored or unarmored bandits and peasants? Use cutting weapons like sabers and rapiers to inflict maximum damage above the low or absent threshold. Fighting heavily armored knights with your strong companions? Switch to maces and hammers, because those sabers won't have nearly as much effect. Spears, short swords, and arrows would be reasonably effective in the hands of the regular troops for damaging heavily armored targets as well as bandits, but not for killing quickly.
There should be a lot more to choosing a suit of armor than just a larger single protection rating. As I noted, having two different effects gives some reason to use different tools and tactics, and having a percentage of coverage (along with less weight for pieces not covering fully) would depict things like open-faced helmets, armored cuirasses without pauldrons, or other "partial armor" situations. As it stands, all armor covers 100% of the upper body (except the head), and the helmet and greaves/boots/smelly socks cover 100% of their respective locations. Real armor COULD cover close to 100% (aside from eye slits), but was too unwieldy, heavy, and expensive for most troops to use. A small reduction in movement speed for higher encumbrance should make lightly armored skirmishers viable, so they can run and maintain their range from heavily armored troops. In M&B, Nord foot troops (and Sea Raiders) with heavy chain mail typically outpaced light troops, and could almost keep up with the slower breeds of horses, which is just silly.
It's undoubtedly too late to change this for Bannerlord, but the ideas for a more realistic and complex armor system should be debated well BEFORE the next installment in the series. Note that "complexity" under the hood can be used to make things more realistic and intuitive, as opposed to being more "complicated" for the player and LESS intuitive, which in my opinion is the worst of both worlds (reality and fantasy). Things that behave as you expect that they would in reality can be "fun", where things that behave other than how one expects (without some reason behind that behavior) often seem unrealistic and just plain stupid. The one exception is "magic", where one obviously does not want it to behave "realistically", but it is not included in the M&B games.
"Fun > Realism" is inaccurate; more like "Realism - Tedium = Fun". Adding in things like bathroom breaks is just "tedium", and does not make "realism" enjoyable. People call for things like dismemberment as an example of "Fun > Realism", yet shooting a bandit with a BB gun in Bethesda's Fallout 3 and having body parts fly off was not "realism" in the least, was so stupid that it ceased to be "funny" after the first time it happened, then became annoyingly immersion-breaking every time it happened from there on. Adding the little nuances that make things behave rationally adds to enjoyment, in my opinion.
How the Damage Model can be made better
A good armour damage model needs to achieve several things:
-Armour needs to feel like armour and not cardboard. High quality historical armour provided a huge amount of protection from most strikes and the gameplay needs to reflect that.
-Incidental, weak blows should do zero damage.
-A lone armoured combatant should be brought down by dozens of peasants/looters. In real life, a lone knight would be wrestled to the ground by the peasantry and knifed through eyeslits/armpits or had their armour undone before being killed. We don't have that in M&B, so it's important that such attacks from low-tier fighters still do ~1-2 damage so that lone knights who lose their horse amongst peasants can eventually be killed.
-It's important that the armour doesn't absorb too much damage from super heavy attacks - like trebuchet rocks or a lance to the face from maximum velocity.
-There should be a meaningful gameplay distinction between using Cutting, Piercing and Blunt weapons. The player should find themselves in situations where they have to weigh up the pros and cons of which item type to equip. There sort of already is a distinction between cutting and the other damage types, but ideally there should be a distinction between piercing and blunt too.
These goals can't be achieved by either an integer damage reduction or percentage absorption system.
Instead I propose a piecewise function - something that absorbs all damage from small attacks, lets some damage through for medium attacks, and allows lots of damage to get through from heavy attacks.
One way of doing this is with three joined linear functions - a flat damage reduction up to some value (let's say armour/2), a small amount of damage leakage (say ~25%) up to the armour value and full damage for higher values.
Another way is to join a curved function (such as a parabola) with a line. You just match the two up where the curve's slope becomes 1. A more aggressively curved function like a cubic or exponential could be used to further reduce the damage at low levels.
This gives more room for mixing and matching models to make pierce and blunt damage a bit more distinct. For instance, armour could be more effective at absorbing very low damage pierce attacks vs blunt attacks, but less effective at moderate damage levels.
Alternatively, blunt damage could be more effective at interrupting attacks. Currently all damage types will interrupt an attack if the damage dealt is over 5. If the threshold for blunt damage is lower, it allows blunt weapons to be more threatening to armoured opponents without necessarily having to be completely armour piercing.
That's an awesome analysis and some good proposals.
However, I cannot totally agree with the enthusiasm to make armor so much better. The reason is that the game lacks almost any negatives which come along with armor. Making armor too good leads to big imbalance therefore.
You know the story of the death of the Earl of Shrewsbury in 1098? When the fleet of Magnus Barefoot (or Bareleg, as others call him) was near his lands, the earl rode to the shore with his force, and two archers from the ships shot at him, one arrow hit the nasal of the helmet and deflected, the other hit through the eye and killed the heavily armored knight immediately. Such total failure of armor was not extremely seldom, because most armor had gaps.
So we needed a percentage for when armor was applied and for when it was of no use at all (like in Kenshi). If we had closed helmets we needed, for example, negatives to Athletics (cause breathing is strongly affected by closed helmets), perhaps restricted vision. We needed exhaustion from the weight and heat (or cold) coupled with the wearing of armor. We have nothing of this, no negatives (except weight on foot), armor protects all the time, so it must not protect as much as it would in reality if hit.
Thanks to a video posted by abc123456 I found this article about that topic The best defense is a good offense... really? . Very interesting how the best duellists from all times recommended the same. Priority number one self preservation with a good defense. Priotity number two if there is an opening to attack you must know how to counter attack quickly and with safety.