• The forum has been updated. For an explanation of some of the changes, head over here.

Search results

  1. Ichon

    Melee cavalry is underpowered at the moment (Suggestions updated)

    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 :wink: 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...

    IN the shieldwall... plenty of people can stand behind it- there is really no difference from sitting behind on a horse shooting arrows, using a crossbow and shield, poking with a spear, etc. I am saying as it stands players can't stand IN the shieldwall front rank or usually even the 2nd rank because the AI are suicidal and go for kills over self preservation and shields fall apart after a handful of hits so there is really no point in playing infantry like that.

    Already mentioned several ways to play infantry and your videos have shown those too- I am only making the point that in current M&B it is impossible to fight IN the front ranks if you want to last the battle. I've last pretty long by conserving attacks to the bare minimum and picking up the shields of those who fell and the situation is better than at launch when melee infantry could phase through each other so 4-6 attacks arrived at the same time instantly shattering the shield but M&B is still made to play as a 2nd or 3rd line fighter despite in history most of the skilled fighters fought on the front line because they had the best equipment and discipline.

    M&B is a game and without stamina and several other mechanics that are missing will never model historical fighting. Unfortunately, M&B has called behind- it was revolutionary at the beginning but not several other games are doing the fighting better and the only thing M&B has is the blend of RPG and action fps fighting- neither done very well. So all the talk about historical this or that- at its core M&B fails at the main focus of the game so unless that is fixed all the rest of the discussion based on history is pointless and TW should just focus on making it fun.
  2. Ichon

    Melee cavalry is underpowered at the moment (Suggestions updated)

    To add:
    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

    Unless you are playing on low damage I don't see how you can survive in the shieldwall as your shield will fall apart in less than 10 seconds from multiple hits. You should be able to kill a few enemy but you'll go down and lose the ability to command your troops. Stabbing with a spear over the shielwall is probably the best way if you want to remain static, otherwise posting on the flank and being careful you aren't flanked yourself it is usually possible to survive the entire battle.

    I haven't seen anyone post a video of them standing in the middle of the shieldwall and surviving a real fight vs mid to high tier units in equal numbers in more than a skirmish. Maybe someone out there can but that would require luck as well as skill.

    I do agree about agility (athletics in game) and fighting conservatively are primary attributes of surviving as infantry. I have rambo'd some bandit hideouts but it is rare you will fight more then 4-5 at a time in those and most experienced MB players with decent gear can handle that.
  3. Ichon

    Melee cavalry is underpowered at the moment (Suggestions updated)

    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)

    You can play as infantry but it is impossible to do it IN the shieldwall or the melee scrum for more than a few seconds. You have to flank, pick targets, etc. And athletics along with heavy armour are really the most important things. You can get good with any weapon in the game and there is not a huge difference between higher tier and lower tier weapons other than a few points of damage, where you hit and how fast is the most important when using weapons.

    Playing as cavalry your riding skill mostly replaces athletics (though you will get dismounted fairly often if you aren't playing exclusively a horse archer). It is not necessarily 'easier' to get kills as cavalry but it tends to be faster so in the same space of time you are likely to get a few more kill than when playing as infantry though it does depend on the battle quite a bit, certain battles with lots of tree/hill/streets it can be difficult to do damage riding vs receiving damage but that is appropriate.

    I do wish TW would make the initial story of your character more relevant for skills. I can't stand restarting and spending the first 3-4 hours just getting basic skills in 3-4 areas. Someone who grew up on the steppes should start with riding 3 while a knight's son would start with polearm, sword, and athletics in the 40s.

    The speeds of movement due to progression is also off but without stamina TW really has no choice. In most games athletics would increase speed only a small bit per through 100 levels but would let you run at full speed for 5-10x as long as you levelled up.

    Weapon proficiencies are also a bit lacklustre but I hope TW has a plan for those at least when all perks are implemented they can tweak the damage as the skill levels increase there is a small damage curve that increases base damage and ignores a certain % of armour since the weapon controls and armour is not precise enough to hit vulnerable areas other than the head.

    Cavalry as player is if only due to the speed and sharing the HP pool with the horse fairly strong in most circumstances. For the AI? It varies all over the place depending somewhat on loadout but a huge amount just just RNG rather than based on unit tier (higher tier have more armour so are more survivable and thus theoretically last longer to output more damage but they do damage at basically the same rate as lower tier cavalry).
  4. Ichon

    Melee cavalry is underpowered at the moment (Suggestions updated)

    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

    I don't think cavalry, especially heavy cavalry should have to think twice charging twice their number of archers in an open field with no obstructions and no cavalry or infantry protecting those archers. Even relatively light cavalry has a pretty good chance of running those archers down. Sure, the cavalry is likely to take some losses especially if lowly armoured but archers without polearm have to rely 100% on their bow/arrows which is much more difficult to use when people are trying to kill you in your face than shooting at some target on the range or even at some cavalry charging from 100 meters away.

    Of course, no games have even half realism but TW and Bannerlord is especially sold on being somewhat realistic and there are some things TW can do relatively simplistically to improve the realism.

    1. increase cost of heavy cavalry
    2. add formations that cavalry can take
    3. add command orders to target certain groups
    4. add a stun/slow when HP pool takes a significant hit- even if only for horses it will make a big difference in disrupting charge
    5. differentiate morale between cavalry a bit more and add morale damage onto charge damage for enemies within 30 meters of a charge
    6. have horses continue to move forward at 50% of their speed just like other thrown objects when they die rather than collapse as they do now with attendant charge damage/bowling over infantry
  5. Ichon

    Melee cavalry is underpowered at the moment (Suggestions updated)

    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... 🤷‍♂️

    I haven't tried the smithing since it is so boring but I think if people want to do that to make money it should be an option. I agree that the dmg value of the weapons 100% reflecting their price is BS. Hopefully, it is just a placeholder and we eventually get high tier weapons that also add some stats like management, morale, etc. 50% of most medieval income was spent on clothing and accessories to reflect social status and much of that stuff was overwhelmingly gaudy to modern eyes but having the gear to reflect a person's position was important and having even richer and more sumptuous gear could enhance people's perception of another's status.

    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.

    Yep, horses stopping from a charge to rearing up and horses falling dead straight away without bowling over a couple of infantry standing in front are things I hope TW fixes but I don't have high hopes. The extremely low cost of fielding heavy cavalry in Bannerlord are another problem that TW absolutely must address. Heavy cavalry was important on nearly every battlefield for 2000 years but was always in small quantities due to how difficult to train and equip. It is impossible to balance without reflecting that reality first and foremost. If heavy cavalry is easy to get in large numbers as it is currently in game... then yeah, cavalry probably should be less effective than in history.

    I do think you might be slightly over-estimating heavy cavalry. Sure a couple of these guys you are arguing with are just trolls and saying ridiculous things but it is important to remember who was chronicling the battles and who the audience was. There is a lot of time spent talking about charges and the strength of the heavy cavalry but we know from archaeology and plenty of surviving pay records that the majority of soldiers in those battles were not cavalry. I do think that many of the knights of the era believed in their own myths which is why French and other knights did some really stupid charges because in their minds only the enemy heavy cavalry mattered, things like building ditches, planting stakes, making embankments, etc didn't really happen that often until 13th century and even then it took the rise of professional soldier class that weren't nobles and the concurrent growth of taxes to pay for permanent armies that saw infantry and their commander taking seriously shaping the terrain of the battlefield to decrease the enemies heavy cavalry from the chance to act decisively.

    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

    How many archers can successfully hit a charging cavalry horse/rider in 10-15 seconds? Look at the profile of a charging horse from the front- cavalryman is protected by his helmet, armour, and shield but mostly by the body of the horse he is riding. The horse is unlikely to keel over and die from a single arrow. Even deer and much smaller animals are often hit with arrows in the side from less than 100 meters and still run away by just a slight miss with your aim if you've ever spent time hunting. Taking down a horse that is excited running with its herd with 1 or 2 arrows from the front is not likely. Not even sure what spot could stop a horse in its tracks, maybe thru the eye? But horses have the eyes slightly on the sides of their head, not facing forward. If an arrow stuck in an artery the horse might bleed out in a few minutes but it would be able to complete the charge and even participate some in a melee following the charge. Horses are not that vulnerable to instant death by arrows- they can definitely be hurt and killed but arrow is much smaller than a spear and horses have a lot of muscle and bone protecting them on the front.

    Main reason archers were effective against cavalry was they disrupted the formation as some horses did get bad wounds and broke formation but even more important they added a stand-off distance where cavalry waiting to charge or returning from a feint/false charge had to re-group to. Without archers, cavalry could stand just 30-40 meters away and charge at will whenever the infantry formation seemed to be wavering.When the cavalry has to stand 200-250 meters away that makes a big difference in how effective their charges can be. Bannerlord already has this or even more as archers are routinely killing from more than 200 meters. The main thing is that nothing in game reacts to their HP draining away. A horse or a warrior in the game fights at 100% capacity until HP pool is empty then immediately falls dead. That is not like real life at all. Without stamina the only ways TW could model this is to slow down/stun for 2-3 seconds models that take more than 10% total HP pool damage and have morale lower with damage. That would see some horses slowing and disrupting a charge as they take damage from arrows and especially light cavlary or low armoured units routing much more quickly as their morale decreases from damage taken.

    This would mean timing cavalry charges is really important as going full into a prepared enemy is going to take a lot of extra damage and your cavalry is likely to rout shortly after getting into melee vs charging when the enemy is distracted or being covered by terrain from taking much damage and the cavalry charge morale hit + the damage makes the infantry receiving the charge rout. The main value of heavy cavalry would be in taking less damage due to armour vs what they could dish out and having higher morale that is more likely to outlast the infantry they charged. Plus hopefully some special formations like wedge that adds morale damage to their charge that lower-tier cavalry can't use.

    A pike going into the chest of a charging horse, yeah- that will stop the horse. The press of eager and bloody-minded infantry behind the front line might deter the rider in command of the charge if he thinks they can't make it and in the battle accounts there are many mentions of cavalry charges turning away before going into the lines though that usually happened 30-50 meters out to give the horses time to slow/turn. Even later firearms battles in the Napoleonic wars saw horses that essentially were dead on their feet from taking 3-4 musket balls able to charge a further 30 meters before collapsing and that was a big part of the terror of the charge, this mass of cavalry are coming on and seem immune to your fire as an infantry on the frontline, only strict training and support of cannons and square formations stopped cavalry that was overall much less trained and of a lower quality than medieval warhorses and knights.

    Not even getting into cavalry charging in wedge or the various horse armours available since the 12 century.
  6. Ichon

    Melee cavalry is underpowered at the moment (Suggestions updated)

    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

    From 100 meters? The archers would be lucky to get 2 shots each, probably less since they would get in the way of each other and even if half the cavalry missed on their first attack that is 5 archers down vs maybe 1 cavalry wounded and then what do the archers do? They have cavalry right next to them just looking for a target standing still to hack down. Maybe 5 archers keep calm and take careful aim... some of the cavalry will notice and head right for those guys, maybe 2 of those archers get a good shot, one kills a rider and one kills a horse but 3 get hacked down, there are still 7 fully functional cavalry, 1 wounded, and 1 dismounted. The archers are now down 10-12 and really have not much they can do except run away.

    More likely veteran archers will start running as soon as they realize they are in the open and unprotected vs a cavalry charge. Archers behind bulwark, infantry, or cavalry are great and can punish cavalry charging toward them which then has to fight past the protecting cavalry or infantry AND still take arrows. Archers by themselves? Heavy cavalry should be able to run them down fairly easily. I don't think ALL cavalry should be able to defeat archers so easily. Lower tier cavalry should still have the morale impact and benefit from speed hits but also are more vulnerable due to lack of armour but should be more numerous and cheaper which offsets that so lower-tier cavalry could run over lower-tier archers but die to higher tier archers that shoot faster and harder as well don't die or rout from lightly damaged morale.

    Ideally only higher tier cavalry should be able to stay in formation/return to formation right after a charge. Less trained, low-tier cavalry would act like they do right now and be good for 1 charge and then scatter engaging 1 v 1 or running down routers. TW can accomplish that much even if the rest of the cav vs spear vs archers might not get balanced to mimic the real world very well.
  7. Ichon

    Melee cavalry is underpowered at the moment (Suggestions updated)

    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.

    This is fairly accurate summation- the game can't ever match real life but TW can establish good trade-offs to give cavalry some value without making it OP. Really the fact most of the horses aren't armoured and will eventually get shot out from underneath the riders rather quickly already makes foot archers more powerful than in Warband, cavalry also has really little to non-existent mass when hitting models straight on the horse often completely stops and does that rearing thing opening the rider to even more attacks by nearby enemies.

    I think models that are given a formation command and with some few seconds delay should get a bonus to mass so cavalry can't smash thru as they could in Warband- however when models are not in some sort of anti-cavalry formation (not every formation gets a mass bonus) they can be run over by the more powerful horses or riders with high even riding level (so random low tier light cavalry can't do it even vs models not in formation).

    Then all that light cavalry needs is a command to focus on archers, spawn area, or the models whose morale collapses and run away- they can harass some enemies but not full on charge. I think horses speeds and especially turn radius should vary more. Right now all the cavalry horses are really too similar in quality and without stamina or armour to differentiate more the various cavalries blend together and the gear of the riders establish the value way more than the type of horses.

    Eventually, there should be some formations available for cavalry but require certain tier of horse or riding level to perform the formation and get some mass bonus multiplier to charge bonus.
  8. Ichon

    Melee cavalry is underpowered at the moment (Suggestions updated)

    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.

    In an open field with no obstructions cavalry charge should be damn scary and it certainly worked in history as well. Of course, most people in history learned NOT to give such an easy target.

    The Battle of the Golden Spurs is a perfect example. The Flemish knew that a French counter-attack to their siege was likely and found a nice flat field... and proceeded to riddle it with ditches, drained nearby rivers to make marshland and even dug pit traps covered with branches and leaves. The French arrived to find the flat field they had expected crossed by several small streams and tried to put bundled branches over the streams to let the horses cross more easily but the Flemish were guarding against that and stopped the French attempts to fill in the streams.The French felt they HAD to give battle even in the unfavourable situation and lost badly.

    Agincourt the English constructed wooden barricades and earthworks as well as using the already existing marshy ground.

    At Crecy, the English were at the top of a ridge and again dug pits to slow or stop the French cavalry and had the unplanned extra benefit of a strong rainshower just before the French attack which led to heavy mud in the recently ploughed fields in front of the hill as well as small rivulets of water draining down the ridge making the French attempts to climb up the now slippery slope quite a bit more difficult.

    At Castillon, the battle which ended the English attempts to claim the French throne- the English attacked into the French prepared positions but it was the cavalry charge by the Bretons across a clear field with no English defences that sealed the victory.

    Bannerlord already has plenty of battlefield diversity which can break up cavalry charges. If an enemy deploys right in the middle of a field with no defences they should be overrun by cavalry if not screened by their own cavalry.

    As it stands melee cavalry are barely any threat even to unprotected low tier archers.
  9. Ichon

    Once and for all let's get workshops done

    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.

  10. Ichon

    Make the army compositions of some NPC lords more diverse and unique to add flavor and reduce monotony

    I actually don't like the idea of settlements changing culture.

    I do, it is natural progression assimilation but it should be capped at 50% as full change takes centuries but there are always a few people more willing to adapt and then some settlers from the conquering culture getting to 50% could happen in the span of a Bannerlord campaign.
  11. Ichon

    Viking Culture Must Return Back (Please)

    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.

    Pretty much this- but TW didn't really go far enough into Rus culture and military. Rus were nearly wiped out as the ruling class by the Mongols in 1200s but in 1080 which is supposedly Bannerlord "era" the Rus were quite strong and raiding into steppe lands and down into Persia via the Caspian.

    Crossbows and some of the armours in Bannerlord really call into question the 1080 time so I would say realistically TW should have made the era 1200 when Byzantines were still strong and just before the Mongols wiped out the Rus kingdoms.

    In 1080 the Vikings as a cultural group were mostly gone but their descendants were still sort of around but had ceased the massive raiding expeditions and were focused on defending/developing the lands they have settled within as well Christianity had a firm hold in Scandinavia but was still struggling around the Baltic and in eastern Europe so Sturgia being a prototypical Rus people with some strong Nordic influences is what TW was going for.

    I think TW somewhat missed the mark as the Rus bordering steppe lands took to horses quite well as mounted infantry while the Nords/Norse of historical Viking fame were mostly fighting as infantry and travelling long distances by sea or river with horses mostly used as pack animals or for farm work and very little for war. Without water travel as an option in Bannerlord TW should have used the later era Rus as the Sturgian prototype to balance the factions.

    IF and that is a big IF, TW really does introduce meaningful water movement with Sturgia getting a bonus equivalent to the steppe cavalry +20% then the current implementation might make sense.
  12. Ichon

    Faction Troop Trees - an analysis as of 1.5

    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.

    Sturgia is a mix of Rus and Baltic peoples which traditionally fought more on foot due to the swampy and forest geography but they lived nearby steppes and adopted horses quite readily. Several of Attila's Hunnic 'hordes' were Gothic tribes who fought mounted.

    The use of warhorses by Rus were relatively rare but they fought very commonly as mounted infantry, riding small sturdy horses on raids or to the site of the battle and then dismounting to fight. Sturgia really needs a strong infantry mounted on a weak charging horse which enters the battle already dismounted but can use the speed bonus and +20% auto-calc bonus.

    Noble Sturgians would fight on warhorses as in later eras the mounted infantry morphed into full-time medium cavalry in the Druzhina employing a mix of steppe and native tactics where most warriors learned the bow and how to ride but quality warhorses remained expansive and most men still fought on foot once reaching the battle but were capable as medium cavalry with bows and shields/lance/mace but did not have large formations of heavily armoured lance cavalry charging en masse.

    Crossbows were adopted very readily by Baltic peoples from the Knight Orders which stocked their castles and forts with massive quantities of crossbows and bolts. Crossbows were rare outside the Orders in the 14th century but were widespread in the later 15th century and seemed to have been used in great numbers and for longer than most other places in Europe aside from the Italian maritime states.

    I think Sturgia is the weakest roster because TW couldn't decide if they should commit to the 'Vikings/Norse' style or to the Rus/Baltic style and made it the worst of both.

    Having the final tier of Druzhina be a mounted medium cavalry with relatively weak archery but strong armour and no lances but long maces/swords while the highest tier non-noble line is a strong foot infantry but that gets horses for travel and the auto-calc bonus of cavalry would hugely help Sturgia.

    All the lower tiers having throwing javelins and the highest ranged tier being crossbowmen that have a two-handed spear + javelins (no shield) would make the most sense and they could use crossbows at range while devasting low armoured cavalry with throwing weapons and long reach two-handed spears fending of the charge but still picked apart at range by horse archers if not defended by a shieldwall.
  13. Ichon

    Campaign Map and Kingdom idea

    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

    Correct, except the idea that levies were all peasants. In fact, very few were peasants because of logistics. If you can only support 4,000 soldiers in an army it becomes much more important to have better soldiers than many cheap soldiers as the cost of going into enemy lands is more logistically than paying to train and equip decent soldiers. Garrisons would often be just a handful of knights, several sergeants and men at arms, and a bunch of lads hoping to become men at arms with minimal training or experience but capable of dropping rocks or knocking ladders away.

    Levies come from all levels of feudal society that matter- peasants don't matter in feudal society. King calls up Duke and Earls who call up Viscounts and Barons who call up Baronets and Knights who call up men at arms and squires. Often the men doing logistical duties are the sons of soldiers/knights and wounded men who aren't fully reliable in fight but understand the needs and are still able to fight brigands and locals who might see supply train of an invader as a tempting treasure to gain without having to break any laws or fight fully capable warriors.

    Border regions that saw lots of fighting/raiding usually developed irregular forces from locals that fought as skirmishers or scouts but were rarely relied upon in any open field battles. The closest to actual peasants aside from a few boys in garrisons or soldiers sons were probably townsmen with the wealth and idle time to afford arms and training as well something to defend if their town is captured even if they avoid the sack it isn't a good experience.

    Really in many areas it was expected for certain ranks to supply a certain number of men or pay in lieu of that obligation. Often knights showed up with their grooms and some herders from their manor given some old weapons rather than trained men at arms.
  14. Ichon

    Compound Formations and Designate Charge Points

    Charge a point would be ideal.

    Compound formation would ease up management in battle but a retreat to rally at point would also be very handy to use the ranged as skirmishers then fall back behind the infantry.
  15. Ichon

    To anyone who says "Buggy mess after 8 years"

    Dear OP. Are you trying to change someone's beliefs over the internet? Stop that. It's futile :wink:

    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. :smile:
    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.

    Finally a rational post.
  16. Ichon

    [Poll] Remove Streets of Syllianon or Create Map Preference System

    It just need a few more streets added or large terrain between the flags as it is when one team is well coordinated and play that map a few times it is the easiest win of any map but... mess up and even experienced team can lose fast.
  17. Ichon

    I think, with a little love, Captain mode would be the bread and butter of this game and keep people coming back.

    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.

    Or the 1-2 human players left on the horses knew actually how to lance and took down the enemy models 1 by 1 until they actually won. I have seen that quite a few times, especially when the last remaining models are Fians or something that ran out of ammo and has short weapons.

    Captain mode is fun, especially with people who know what they are doing but the balance of maps and factions is a bit off. Certain matchups go 90% of the time or more a certain way. TW could tweak the loadouts a bit to help adjust that- some factions will still win more often vs other factions but anything in the high 60% range or higher makes battles too deterministic based on what factions are rolled at the start.

    A lot of people simply quit when they see which factions are rolled.
  18. Ichon

    Armour. Why it doesn't work and how to make it work

    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.

  19. Ichon

    Armour. Why it doesn't work and how to make it work

    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.

    Great post. Linear functions are almost always the bane of games but simplify things for developers immensely.

    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.

    Yes- OP's post plus the addition of stamina in a 'soft' way would make this game much more fun and interesting. Soft implementation of stamina would be something like a meter where above 80% stamina movement speed, jumping height, and hit strength + resistance to interruption would be 100% as stamina falls below 80% all those things start to decrease to where stamina meter at 0 movement, hits, jumping, interruption etc is 50% vs normal. Stamina recovery should be 1% per second so you can do 20 seconds of sustained activity and stay above 80% but if you do 60 seconds your are at 40% stamina and moving at 75% speed, hitting at 75% strength etc. Still a lot of leeway but also something everyone would have to pay attention to.

    Heavier armour would simply start with stamina meter at 90% rather than 100% and slow stamina recovery by 50% (1 stamina recovered per 1.5 seconds) giving 10 seconds less time before strength/speed start to decrease- this would give light armour an actual advantage and for certain weapons/playstyles be meaningful. Heavy armour in a chokepoint where footwork isn't that useful would be quite powerful but in open spaces or sustained engagements armour is only an advantage for the first 20-30 seconds of a fight- still a pretty long time but with shields 1 v 1 duels often last close to that already.

    I think more people would gravitate to medium armour where stamina is 'normal' as described above while certain archers/javelin throwers might want to wear light armour to outrun/skirmish from lower weight equipment loads with the caveat they have limited ammunition and have to start scavenging ammo fairly quickly as if heavy armour worked as the OP describes, it might take 2-3 decent javelin throws for 1 kill vs heavy armour while the character in heavy armour might also have a javelin that can kill in a single throw vs moving target and still be able to wade in with melee weapon and ignore a good portion of non-lethal force enemy hits but could not ignore all hits- high damage hits would still hit with near full force. Just the dancing 'glancing' blows of opponents trying to skirmish would be ignored.
  20. Ichon

    The AI just spams attacks.

    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.

    Interesting article and makes sense from my own experience with martial arts when engaged without protective equipment the difference in pain and the ensuing caution from taking even a half-strength blow is huge. I have been staggered and nearly knocked out by glancing blows and have accidentally fractured bones and left gashes with pvc pipe staffs/swords.

    The first option in defence is to never take a blow using foot-work and positioning, attempting to counter an opponents weapon in motion with your own weapon in motion adds considerably to chances of miscalculation but that can be offset by a lot of training. People who swing wildly are usually down in 2-3 swings while people who dance around never attacking end up tiring themselves and telegraphing their attacks when they finally come.

    The most difficult opponents are people who wait calmly and watch for you to make a mistake and aggressively counter-attack but also understand it does not take much of a blow to end a fight if you hit in the right spot with even a blunt weapon so they never commit fully to any counter-attack being patient enough to wait for another opportunity.

    Even without broken bones or opened skin, the pain of a hit from an object other than a body part is substantial enough to stop most people from continuing the fight. Even getting kicked while braced hurts, I've been hit with a racquetball racquet so hard it broke and while I didn't receive any permanent wounds the pain of the hit was such it brought me to my knees temporarily and my eyes lost focus, in a fight that would have been the end if a real opponent wanted to finish me.
Top Bottom