搜索结果: *

IngoB 说:

Well, as someone new to the M&B franchise, I appreciate that this may be the grown culture. But it is not something I'm used to from other games, and I honestly think that this has to change if you want to keep new incoming players. Not that mods should disappear, of course not! Mods are great to extend a game in scope and replayability. However, I don't see why the base game that I paid good money for should not be perfectly playable and enjoyable in vanilla?!

点击展开...

It is and can be, but once you mod once you never go back. Plus if you dive into the dev blogs and check out the game architecture you'll see that BL was created from the ground up to be incredibly friendly for modders. Taleworlds knows where the game's bread and butter is going to be. Warband wasn't successful because of the base game, the mods carried it over the past decade or so.

You need mods. Mount and Blade titles without mods are mac and cheese without the mac or the cheese.

Badcritter 说:

Depends how tight the formation is. In this test, shieldwalls weren't used for example so spear troops did fairly well.

That said I got my thinking backwards on Sturgian Vets vs Shock Troops. I was thinking it was the Vets who had spears and that may have contributed to them doing better, but it is the other way around.

点击展开...

There's almost a unanimous consensus among the forums and players that spears dont work in vanilla when its infantry vs infantry. The collision is way too tight and the thrust mechanics are broken. Spear infantry quickly switch to sidearms and then use the overhead attack to clip through the collision.

Badcritter 说:

Yes, they will block and strike more effectively with higher skill. Very important in a duel, less important on the battlefield.

On the battlefield it is more about suitability of gear. Spears tend to do better for example because their strikes are less likely to be disrupted by nearby units in formation.

点击展开...

Spears? Do better? All spear strikes get disrupted in formation in the current version of the game.

Skills improve the ai, not necessarily the performance of the specific action. So a unit with 130 in polearms, wielding a polearm will act smarter than a unit with 80. At least thats what TW claims.

Chaosreaper187 说:

Because modders can focus on small fixes without regards to the bigger picture and future content.
Have you ever tried loading up the game with 10 different mods that make different fixes. It very likely will cause issues if it loads at all, because those mods are not compatible with each other, overlap and contradict each other.

点击展开...

10 mods load better together than the base game does alone. Don't talk about something you've clearly never tried.

You also forget in the base game cavalry gets a 30% advantage at their tier for auto calc. So by khuzaits sheer horse numbers they're fighting with a 30% advantage ALL THE TIME.

JustinTime49 说:

Personally, I really do like the mod but what you say is true. Arrows or archers, in general, would be efficient in killing en mass when a rout ensued. I terms of combat, an example would be the battle of Agincourt where arrows would actually not be arched but fired with incredible kinetic energy directly at the heavily armored knights, so you can only imagine how it would play out in earlier periods with less armor and 'weaker' bows.

点击展开...

You do know the archers only won in agincourt because the tired french knights were basically drowning in the mud and the archers just stabbed them in the joints with daggers? The arrows mostly injured the horses and forced the french to walk fully enclosed in their suits at a faster pace so nobody accidentally took an arrow to the neck or something. Tiring them out during a hot summer day. Then they got bogged down fighting in the mud with the british men at arms and the lightly armored archers walked all over them.

xdj1nn 说:

No, that's just some weird gamer consensus along with some history channel "specialists" who can't understand how to add 1 with 1. Historically arrows were used to kill, what some of the most educated into ancient warfare say is that for the most part, archers would mingle with the infantry and shoot at mid-range... Long range would be ineffective, bows only started being used at "arch" group shots with longbows in later periods. Also, the armor to stop arrows depend on material of the armor, material and shape of the arrow tip and the force of the bow.

There's too much into it, and I'm lacking the patience to give a class about the subject, I've researched it long time ago out of curiosity, but you are falling into misconception there.

点击展开...

Yeah, shoot to harass from within the infantry line. Same as how 6th to 11th century warfare involved two battle lines throwing crap at one another prior to the clash of infantry. Theyre not dedicated skirmishers but they also don't expect to kill anyone with it. Law of combat says the more **** you sling down range the numbers will be on your side. Repeat after me, nobody realistically expected their arrows to kill heavily armored line infantry at any range, it was a harassment technique.

xdj1nn 说:

This is a fantasy century warfare, Khuzaits are king (like Khergit in Warband), unbalanced bows or not. This mod makes arrows fly at slow motion.

点击展开...

In warband, heavily armored infantry could withstand arrow fire. Bannerlord is absolute nonsense. Plus bannerlord is historical fiction, theyve based everything off real life history so there is an expectation of it being grounded in reality of how armor works and physics. They have a physics engine in game for a reason. And now say it with me for the last and only time: no arrow in the history of human powered archery could laser through a heavily armored dude.

Arrows were primarily used to harrass, force enemy soldiers to slow down and bunker up, and injure people. Arrow wont shoot a great helm but getting one stuck between a joint in your armor or a gap in the eyes will put you out of the fight before the fight starts.

xdj1nn 说:

Realistic Battle destroys ranged combat.. Basically very unbalanced. The other changes do please me (and "realistic battle" doesn't have much realism to it tbh, due to their ranged weap changes, an arrow to the central area of the chest of an unarmed peasant should be an insta-kill, for instance. Sure, it would be more of a bleedout kill irl, but this game has no bleeding)

点击展开...

Have you even used realistic battle mod? I have the game open right now with cheat mode, gave myself a noble shortbow and piercing arrows and proceeded to one shot looters. Ranged combat will clear out enemy chaff and unarmored horses just like intended. And if you want to put the hurt on heavy infantry you aim for the head or flank your ranged to get around them. Every part of the army needs to support one another. Balanced is not having one group of archers machine gunning everything down. This is 6th-11th century warfare, infantry is king.

Anyone who says that cav only armies dominate on the field of battle needs to sit down and study some history. Mongol armies were strategically, logistically and tactically well ahead of their time. But when it came down to the actual battle, mongols could not break western european heavy infantry/cavalry formations unless they had days worth of outflanking/harassing etc.

The khuzait racial trait and their cav only armies emulate the advantage of having 5-6 ponies per soldier. The autoresolve giving a flat 30% advantage to all cavalry does not do it justice and basically lets all tiers of khuzait have the advantage AI vs AI. The fact that armor is useless and range is incredibly strong in BL their horse archers just become murder machines. So yes, the khuzaits need to be toned done, the autoresolve system revamped, and armor made useful.

My game has been spawning more wanderers with massive chins, including the ladies. Like chins wider than forehead. Also a lot of the afros on most of the wanderers.

bigbalzzz 说:

i linked you historical documents
if you read books made by only one culture and dont bother with the rest
then dont complain about realism because the game has a variety of cultures
get educated and read outside of your box read before you speak
because nothing can be worse than an ill educated man

点击展开...

No you see the problem with linking me things in arabic is that I can't read them. Plus this has nothing to do with culture. Every "warrior" culture that values masculinity is going to write about how their warriors were the hottest thing since sliced bread. News flash, they usually werent anything special. The arab horsemen weren't anything special, they just had a really good string of commanders and a perfect power vacuum to inherit their lands.

I'm done talking with you, it's going to quickly devolve into some ethno-nationalistic nonsense about the noble arab horsemen and their ability to blindly charge into death.

bigbalzzz 说:

they had thier backs to the tank bruh defeats your own point

点击展开...

No, it shows the value of training and discipline in an actual professional combat unit. Soviet extras fleeing the scene in waterloo should not be an example of how trained infantry fight. Tier 4-5 infantry should hold their guard similar to the dutch soldiers who were told "stand here and you'll be fine."

bigbalzzz 说:

also i gave u over 10 historical books that show you eveidence you asked for on page 4 of this thread

点击展开...

You linked a bunch of books in arabic, then "referenced" a bunch of titles that nobody can reasonably google and find what the hell you're talking about and then quoted waleed. IE you basically linked nothing worthwhile for actual historical documents. It should be noted the majority of Arab wins during that time period against seriously depleted empires were through masterful flanking/penetration maneuvers and not steam rolling through the enemy lines. It was same with the mongols centuries later, if you check the historics mongol lancers couldnt penetrate european infantry formations at all. They used flanking manuevers/harassing techniques and feints to force the enemy army to break open to allow mongol riders in.

Kentucky James VII 说:

During the filming of Waterloo (1970) which featured thousands of trained extras (who were actual soldiers), the cavalry charges caused the infantry to rout time and time again despite there being no threat of the horses actually colliding with them, and the scene had to be scrapped. No matter how little danger you are actually in, the cavalry charge itself is enough to cause infantry to break up. And yes, infantrymen would sometimes stand their ground, and in that case the infantry would often retreat. This is why images like this:

隐藏

are so ridiculous, because that would be a worst case scenario for both sides and only a robot would commit to a charge like that.

Multiplayer matches can never hope to simulate morale like that, so trying to make cavalry more realistic is already missing the main component for that.

点击展开...

Those extras in Waterloo were Soviet conscripts. Dont even think that their discipline surpasses "stand still during peace time while another 2000 soviet horsemen run around them aggressively and feign charges". I've seen videos where Dutch and German professional soldiers stand still on a road while a Leopard tank burns through a corner at 60kph and hits the brakes only to skid to a stop right before hitting the soldiers. That's the reasonable expectation of discipline you should expect from tier 4-5 infantry.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Also why isn't anyone really discussing the effectiveness of horse armor. Cataphracts, historically, had the absolute expectation of being able to wade into the thick of a formation and duke it out, the horse were basically invulnerable but they were slow, ridiculously slow. The parthian cataphracts vs the roman legions in the deserts of syria as an example, The phracts would wade into infantry formations (notice i said wade, not charge) and duke it out with the romans after they'd been softened up by archers. And the phracts would wade back out once they got tired.

Lancers on the other hand had faster horses and much less armor, preferably used to run down routers and puncture holes in weak spots. The super heavy armor of a phract and the speed/shock of a lancer did not really combine until the advent of plate armor, which is after this time period. I can't really think off the top of my head where shock cavalry were the primary focus of an engagement between the 6th to 12th century. Generally it only comes up as "amazingly/through gods grace/through masterful timing the infantry formation broke and the cav dominated" or "commander goofed and his beautiful nobility got run down by men wearing flannel togas holding sharpened sticks in the bogs of scotland"

How does this translate in game? Make horse armor ridiculous. Ridiculously strong and ridiculously heavy at higher levels and make it effect movement speed of the horse. Then give us a cataphract AI that will walk into a formation and duke it out and stay there/cycle charge. They should be expected to kill enemy infantry with one handed weapons and sheer blunt damage from the fact that 3000 pounds of horse and metal just thumped them. Then change the lancer AI to not want to charge unless enemy facing is in a direction away from them. If we can give a formation command that says face the enemy I expect your AI can tell if someone is facing them.

Michael Bolton 说:

Augh, you're right, I'm an idiot. The track is a kilometer, not a mile. Apologies, I lapsed into American measurements for a moment. Thanks for calling me out, but again, this wasn't even the argument. The argument was top speed between human and horse, not how long that speed can be maintained. No horse should gallop as slow as a human can sprint, even for only five seconds.

Even short-legged samurai horses could, with good breeding, could run 100 ken in the span of 27 byo. This equates to just about 29 MPH, and this was with a rider in full lamellar kit, plus tack, plus armor, on its back. There's no way Khuzait horse archers are galloping at 20 MPH.

点击展开...

Could and what actually happens are two completely different things. The in game steppe horses are pretty slow compared to other horses first off. Secondly youre moving over uneven terrain and your man is trying to shoot off the back of the horse. Just like how you're not hitting anything at max speed off the back of a horse in game unless youre lucky and just chucking things into an infantry blob, neither is the AI.

And yeah, horses may need to be a little faster. Or not. Doesn't matter. Won't change the fact that malnourished looters should be first round draft picks in the next MLB season or have their throwing velocity adjusted.

Michael Bolton 说:

Not so fast, my friend. Let's assume you're wearing enough armor that the stone just bounces off. We'll say you're wearing a gambeson 2cm thick, so it moves your outer armor layer two centimeters and then just bounces off.

Let's also assume that OP's statements being logical, as they are, we dial back the velocity considerably. Let's say they're throwing 120 gram stones (lighter than a softball, which weighs in around 173 grams) at, I don't know... 4 meters per second. Less than 10 MPH.

Kinetic Energy = 0.5 x 0.12 kg x 4 meters per second ^ 2. Divide that by 0.002 m, the distance the armor moved...

We come up with 480 Newtons or 105.6 pounds of force being transferred into the armor. If even 3/4 that shock is absorbed by the armor itself, you're talking about over 25 pounds of force smacking into your chest. Put in perspective, there are bowling balls as light as 13 pounds.

点击展开...

I'm not talking about a thick gambeson. the 30+ armors are the mail/lamellar sets. Which in real life consist of 2-4 layers of armor including the mail, leather and a gambeson. I'm no math genius but i have experience wearing modern body armor for work. And someone could pitch a relatively hefty rock straight at modern body without ceramic or steel rifle plates, which is not designed for blunt force trauma, and you'll be fine.

Michael Bolton 说:

Let's not forget that our characters are trained warriors in excellent shape. The average kid in my junior high class can run a mile in about four and a half minutes if they push themselves. The thing to note is that the horses were galloping, so they should be at their max speed. Cardio isn't the question. The top speed of the average human is around 15 MPH. Olympic sprinters can run as fast as 23 MPH. If these horses are galloping barely faster than the average human is capable of sprinting, something is screwy.

点击展开...

Hard no, go look up average run times. 4 minute miles are competition tier speeds at upper division high school track. Sub-4 minutes is olympic/college tier mile times. The current world record for a mile is 3:26. Nobody in your Jr. High is running a 4 minute mile.

Michael Bolton 说:

Okay, the enemy's horse archers just went from a distance of 215 to 35 (180 meters) in 20 seconds.

Extrapolating, this comes out to 9 meters per second or 20 MPH.

Zebras, who run for stamina rather than speed, top out around 35 MPH.

Meanwhile the average healthy human is meant to run at 15 MPH, and should be able to sprint at about 20 MPH.

Given that my unarmored sprint doesn't even come close to the gallop speed of a horse in Bannerlord, I think it's safe to say that either the speed or distance calculations are screwy as a result of condensing the battlefield for gameplay and performance concerns.

点击展开...

Horses do move between 20-30mph so that works. But to assume the average human is running 15mph is wild. Thats a 4:minute mile time. The cardio you have to have to run a 4 minute mile is insane. Even most military and police expect their soldiers/officers to max their run times at or around 6-7 minutes per mile or 10mph the fastest. This is also without any sort of weight on them other than workout clothes and shoes on a prepared track. Overland carrying 25kg/60ish pounds of gear (I think the weight of gear is measured in kg in game) nobody is running 10mph unless its a very very short sprint.