I don't think that Sturgia has a real cav disatvantage as of the latest version of the game. It's Khuzaits vs everyone else now really. Sturgia and Aserai were at a disatvantage due to cav bonuses when lords respawned with more units and the composition of those troops was different for different factions. Sturgia would get almost no cav at all while Vlandia they start the game at war with would get loads of cav. With a significant amount of troops often being those initial parties lords spawned with, Sturgian were set up for failure in the long run.
It's still 30% advantage applied to the dying chance (which is kind of backwards since you would expect survival but whatever). Infantry is 30% more likely to die than cav. How large that is depends on how high the damage is in the first place.
You know you can check the files in the game folder without third party links, right? These values aren't in the game NPC files. Units have appearance, upgrade paths, skills and equipment sets. They don't have armor values. I guess the guy running the site pulls the values for armor from spitems.xml and adds them to the json file for your convinience. They could be hardcoded somewhere outside the xml files but then you wouldn't be able to add new units to the game just by editing the files, which you can do.
If that was the case then changing armor in the equipment sets would do nothing. It very much does.
I did some tests in custom battles and as far as shock infantry fighting other shock infantry goes it's Menavliatons > Shock Troops = Voulgiers.
Forming a bulwark against the enemy is their main function. Infantry simply can not do as much damage as ranged units, at least the way the game currently is. Staying power allows them to kill more enemies in bigger battles if you really care about that.
Sergeants have a chance to spawn with a 2h billhook, some of them are closer to shock infantry than to heavy infantry. That gives them an advantage in melee. They win both against Legionaries and Veteran Warriors if the latter don't have a particularly good javelin volley. In a shield wall they are not great though. If units in formations hid units without shields behind the ones with shields they would work a lot better but then you would be able to mix heavy inf and shock inf in a single formation and they still would be the odd unit with blurred specialization.
If you have them in your party you can fight them in spear and shield duel rounds in Khuzait and Sturgian towns. Joy.
Sturgian and Vlandian armors are already mostly the same.
It's not that they dismounted for battle. Much like other historic heavy cavalry, they were expected to fulfill whatever role was required from them as the men with the best training and equipment available. E.g. Rus' princes often lead river and sea expeditions that did not present a lot of opportunities for cavalry charges. That didn't mean their retinue got to stay home because they couldn't bring horses. They were also (and at times mostly) expected to be proficient in horse archery as Rus' had conflicts with steppe tribes ever since its foundation.
You are technically right, the main word being technically. +2 to missile speed isn't going to change things in a noticable way. I was addressing you saying that you need high tier archers to use bows with fairly impressive stats. Only fians and mamelukes use those, other archers use mid tier bows even at the highest tiers. Imperials get the same bow at the tier 3 they and Sturgians will have until tier 5 and the bow used by high tier Khuzaits is 5% better at best. Imperial trained archer is a fairly low tier unit, you see tons of those in campaign.
11%. It's +0.11% damage and 0.09% accuracy per skill level. Skill should also improve AI according to developers.
No, that's the case with all of them except fians and mamelukes. Evolution from first tier to the next is great but from mid tier to high tier it's mostly cosmetic for anyone but fians.
High tier archers use the same bows as mid tier ones. Consider Imperials (tier 2 hunting bow => tier 3 composite bow => tier 3 composite bow => tier 3 composite bow), Khuzaits (tier 2 steppe bow => tier 3 steppe heavy bow => tier 3 composite steppe bow), Sturgians (tier 2 mountain hunting bow => tier 3 nordic shortbow => tier 3 composite bow) and Aserai (tier 3 composite bow => tier 3 composite steppe bow). Even Khuzait noble line doesn't seem to progress at all (tier 2 steppe bow => tier 2 steppe bow => tier 3 steppe heavy bow => tier 3 composite steppe bow => tier 3 composite steppe bow). Composite steppe bow is better than the rest but only slightly. Only fians, mameluke heavy cavalry, minor factions and forest bandits get tier 4 and 5 bows at the moment.
Druzhinniks used to have higher one handed skill but that was fixed in 1.3.0. Now they are just knights with worse equipment. I did some tests in custom battles and they are way worse on horses, most likely due to short lances and swords, and are about equal on foot. Elite cataphracts destroy both knights and druzhinniks dismounted. All dismounted T6 heavy cav is significantly worse than T5 heavy infantry (tested against legionaries, veteran warriors and sergeants).
Could it be related to the reduced effects of goods on prosperity? Sturgia has a lot of fur villages that don't seem to be much of boon in 1.3.0. Almost every town in Sturgia also seem to have a brewery that turns local grain into beer which isn't counted as food for towns. If I understand correctly, those good are supposed to be traded and trade should have a positive effect on prosperity but that doesn't seem to be the case in the game.
Last time I checked 25 + 5 still wasn't 12.
They have one in three chance to spawn with a tiny cavalry shield and mid tier Khuzait helmet on top of that. Changelogs mentioned that all Sturgian units should get round shields but I guess not.
84 is 5% higher than 80. It's literally 0 at the moment since snow penalty isn't a thing though.
Dnin of Nevyansk castle produces horses. Vlandia also only has a single horse village but at least they get another one at the beginning of the game. Good for them I guess.
You will if a faction loses a big battle. If a Vlandian army gets defeated they come back a day later with more than a dozen tier 3-5 cav units. Sturgian or Aserai will come back with mostly low and mid tier infantry. It matters a lot when Vlandia, Khuzaits and Battanians start to snowball and respawning Sturgians and Aserai can't do anything about it. If you play as a Sturgian vassal you have to carry your entire faction because they can't do it by themselves against Vlandians and Khuzaits. Them starting at war with Vlandia in the beginning of the game doesn't help.
I don't want Strugia to be Nords. That's why I'm complaining about the so called infantry focus. If they don't get Nord huscalrs then they shouldn't be getting useless Nord archers either. If we continue to pretend that their infantry is good enough to justify it being called "infantry focus" then they should be geting something like Nord huscarls. I'd prefer them to have a more balanced roster resembling Vaegirs but Nord archers and no Nord huscarls is just a joke.
I said maybe. Additional rate of fire and accuracy might be enough for them to shoot peasants without me wishing to go and hire some forest bandits instead. They are still worse than even Khuzait foot archers even at shooting peasants because the bow and arrows Khuzaits get are better.
Yes. Except everyone else's ranged units are better at it. Which is my original point. You've got yourself a shield wall that might (or might not) be slightly better than Vlandian and Imperial counterparts if you only have tier 5 units. That's great, what are you going to do with it? You can play defensively as Sturgia but even Khuzaits on foot are better at it because ranged is a lot more important than infantry for defensive playstyle.
Barely. Nobody tests voulgiers nearly as extensively becuase infantry isn't supposed to be Vlandia's selling point. They destroy knights 1 for 1 too. Heavy cav isn't all that good on its own in Bannerlord and swing polearms are just ridiculously powerful. You will never encounter a situation where polearm infantry fights heavy cav on its own outside of custom battles though. They will just get destroyed by ranged if left alone without directions in a normal battle.
Shock troops have a shield and a 2h weapon. AI can't deal with that. When enemies come close they start whipping out their warrazors and die to missiles quickly if you put them in a shield wall with the rest. They have to be placed behind a hill or other units and at that point why even have a shield?
Vlandians are not the best ranged units but they can shoot across half the map with their crossbows. Their armor is also a bit better and they have massive shields. If veteran bowmen were this good I would have no complaints.
partyTemplates.xml as of 1.3.0. That's the parties they spawn with after being released or running away.
It's 30%.
See, here's the problem. They don't get significantly better infantry. They get more or less what Vlandia and Empire get in infantry and cav. You don't get anything like Nord huscarls.
Sturgian archers seem to have been updated in 1.3.0 so they might be more okayish now. They still have bad arrows and armor though. At this point I'm pretty sure that Northern lamellar armor being that bad is some sort of a mistake because some units that get it actually get a protection downgrade nad I just saw Raganvad wearing the same armor in a tournament.
I'm not sure about elite menavliatons since I didn't use them but Vlandian voulgiers in 1.2.0 weren't much worse than Sturgian shock troops. Shock troops would be better if they actually knew how to use their shields but they don't. You have to babysit any shock infantry behind heavy infantry shield wall and then there is little difference between different flavors of it because all the swing polearms are overpowered.
I said they are hardly better than legionaries and sergeants. Meaning the difference is marginal if there is any. A veteran warrior will win against a sergeant in one on one or even 100 on 100 because veteran warriors have javelins instead spears but that also bites them in the ass during a cavalry charge. But none of that will matter in an average battle because the way things work now most damage is being done by ranged units and sometimes cavalry while infantry only acts as a sponge that allows the archers to continue shooting uninterrupted. What's the point of having a slightly better meat shield (if that)?
Not in every case. Palatine guards or fians would wipe out knights unless the latter dismount. They are also a lot more useful in proper battles with all kinds of units. Heavy cav can't mow down recruits so fast they break way before reaching your line. Fians can. They don't even take any casualties in most battles. You can have an entire 100% palatine guard or fian army, they can deal with any situation. Palatine guards aren't even a noble unit. It's a boring way to play but it just works.
You were the one talking about unfair advatange players of other factions would have to deal with. I believe that none of this matters because AI is too dumb to deal with the player no matter what he fields. It's not a reason to give Sturgians a weak roster. With improved archers they will mostly be equal to Vlandia so that's good but the party templates still need to be worked on. I won't talk about economy because it's all over the place and not only in Sturgia.
I'd imagine that promoting toops faster is all the more useful if most of them are low tier. AI lords do promote their troops after battles and they do need to earn XP.
As far as AI battling each other go, "simulated" battles consider unit levels and whether units are mounted (a flat multiplier to level based strength of the unit card). Thus factions with a lot of cav and nobles get advantage in AI wars. Let's look at party templates.