i think that the whole issue of cavalry charging has to be
re-adressed in the historical community.
f.e(1), a medieval horse would charge a shieldwall of spearmen,
and it is said and re-said by historians, that they actualy were.
but on a 2nd example it is well dommented that in the napoleonic era,
no horse no matter what, would never charge a square of infantry with bayonnets.
that is well researched and confirmed by historians.
this seems obscure to me, and i haven't reached anything that seems conclusive.
why would a horse charge a wall of spears, with spears 2, or 3 metters?
and not a relatively small range of sticks 1.5 meters?
if anybody knows something about that please share it.
However, The troop tree needs to rebalance anyway, there are countless mistakes for me to spend weeks fixing like Sturgian heavy spearman will randomly spawn "Nordic hauberk" instead of their "Sturgian cavalry armor" that shows in the troop tree. The Khuzait raider has a better bow than its horse archer, low tire soldiers like Sturgian woodsman and Battanian skirmishes randomly spawn their noble bracer and plated gloves. mercenary cavalry lost their shield because the shield is in the same slot with their spear so they can not spawn their shields and more.....
The troop tree looks and functions poorly than many nexus troop mods. TW should do something to improve the game experience, not the other way around.
I dont think the game does a good job of reflecting the cost of raising, supplying, and keeping a large army in the field. An army shouldn't just cost influence. It should cost denars.
In real life you have to keep an open supply line for an army. The army can't just re-supply itself.
This game doesn't account for the time and money it takes to supply the army with equipment, food, horse feed, lodging, and the economic impact of a country losing the majority of its work force.....
If you put a monetary cost on raising and keeping an army in the field, it would allow small defensive kingdoms to bank money while they aren't at war.
If you made that cost smaller for countries defending than countries deep in enemy territory, since its easier for them to re-supply and find lodging, it would naturally reflect the expense and difficulty of rapid expansion.
To me, armies are making too much money from war. Historically, armies at war bankrupted countries. In Bannerlord, its the easiest way to get rich aside from exploiting the broken smithing mechanic.
Raising armies should cost denars and influence. The larger the army, the more it should cost. The deeper you are in enemy territory, the more it should cost.
Right now the game tries to make up for the expense of raising armies by artificially inflating fief income and nerfing loot income. It isn't the loot or the fiefs that's the problem. The problem is armies aren't an expense, they're a limitless supply of money.
yeah exactly, its very long range , like 200 range, it swing and cut enemy lancer before they can poke me
I find lancer very difficult to use , in tornaments, I rarely wins with lancer.
dont you find long glaive is far far better than long lance?? I almost never use lance in battle
lance is very easy to miss target, you only poke on one spot, if the target is moving little , you are missing it
while swing a long glaive can barely miss it, even target is moving. one big swing, and KIA 80-90% chance, if you use lance, you probably on hit 30-40% chance