Search results for query: *

It's neither impossible nor impractical.

In a bit of abstraction on the general military situation of the game, on default, a kingdom, at the start of the game, on average, has around 6~7 towns + around 9~12 castles + 9-10 clans. At the very start the troop numbers are low and is not at the full potential of what those territories and clans may achieve, but in a few years all kingdoms arrive at around:

* Total force 6,000~7,000-ish
* Around 30% of total force tied up as garrison = 1,800 - 2,000-ish
* Around 70% of total force as fielded troops = 4,000 - 5,000-ish
* Field troops led by 40-50 lords from those 10 clans = average size of parties 100~120-ish

In a typical war, not all parties in the kingdom show up at the same time. Usually the ones that may potentially gain land from the war, is the most likely to take part in the war, but about a quarter of the lords and their parties seem to never show up, and just do their own thing. Also, logistical differences such as relative distance, different army mustering locations and etc.. give out a staggered advance of enemy forces into your kingdom.

And thus, in an average war, of the 4,000 - 5,000 fielded troops an enemy kingdom has, the expected total invasion force is around 3,500 soldiers at the max. And due to reasons stated above they always come in staggered waves of armies consisting of anywhere between 800~1,500. It is very rare to see an AI enemy army that musters more than 1,500, and stuff like 1,700~2,000 are pretty rare.

So they usually come in at either 4 waves of 800-ish, or 3 waves 1,300-ish, consisting of around 30 parties.

Which means the following:

(1) You don't necessarily have to permanently keep anyone prisoner. At any given time, if you can maintain the current number of prisoners to over 25, ideally around 30, then effectively the enemy's fielded troop force is annihilated.

(2) Even if the lords escape in large enough number to form a new army, the overall size and quality of the army is severely diminished, with something like more than 1/3rd of their force being recruits or t1~2, making it super-easy to just crush them again and take them back as prisoner.

(3) With all of the above information, the best strategy in a war becomes to...
(a) wait for each of the 3~4 waves of enemy armies to wade into your territory
(b) when the incoming army initiates a siege, either gather a bigger a force right next to them, or get yourself involved in siege defense to destroy the army and hold all lords prisoner
(c) repeat the process about 3 times and effectively you've taken in most of the enemy lords that can fight at the moment.
(d) from this point on, is where you start a counter-offensive and hit out at enemy fiefs, because there is no enemy left to really challenge your own armies any more.


Usually, this strategy works well enough without even any of the escape chance related perks. Once around total 3,000 enemy soldiers are annihilated, from that point on you can leisurely lay siege, build 4x trebuchets to bring down the walls each time, and then repeat this about 3 times to take 3 enemy towns.... at which point the war will come to an end with them paying tribute.

You've spent 2,600 hours in the game, and still haven't thought of obvious solutions like:

(1) Sabotaging those countries from the within
(2) Act as mercs frequently switching kingdoms to help with suppressing a kingdom that becomes too strong
(3) Act as mercs to help out kingdoms dying out, and help them rebuild lost ground
(4) Starting out with eliminating those factions before anyone else

... etc etc?


Frankly speaking, what you're saying here sounds like someone who played the game for less than 260 hours, much less 2,600.

BlueRiddle said:

I recommend using the Spear Rework mod on Bannerlord Nexus. Really old, but still works on 1.2.9.

The no extra damage version makes spears actual useful weapons in melee combat, while the extra damage version makes them flat out dominate, to the point that spear-armed Vlandian Sergeants will rip straight through Legionnaries.

If you can convince them to pull the spears out in the first place...

Click to expand...

This is a very good point. I think a real "fix" to the spears, would probably need to involve fixes in AI behavioral patterns in general.

The 'problem' imo, is simply it's too easy for the player to get access to T4-T6 troops, and even worse, spam a certain unit type.

Frankly speaking the efficacy of T1-T3 troops need to be brought up a bit, while at the same time making it vastly more difficult to get access to T4-T6 troops, particularly early on in the game.

LDominating said:

The difference between Horse Archers and freaking Knight/Druzhinik and Cataphracts is way too low,don't you see?
More to the point,they are Horse Archers and not Lancers!

Click to expand...

The "difference" you think is completely arbitrary without reason. Heavy horse archers and heavy lancers are the equivalent to the elite of the Mongol forces which would constitute around 20~30% of an expeditionary army at any given time, and there's nothing saying that they were poorly armored.

If you're thinking vaguely "oh horse archers were generally poorly armored" -- try compare it with the T2-T3 horse archers, instead of comparing with a T5-T6.

LDominating said:

And altough they had used armored cavalry before Europe,they weren't using them as much or on the same par.

Click to expand...

According to whom?

The East ALWAYS used way more heavy cavalry in ANY given moment of history. From the first moment large-scale clashes would happen between the Roman Republic with the Parthians and their cataphracts, to the bit*ch-slapping the Imperial Romans received from Sassanid cataphracts, all the way to Medieval armies of the Arabian Caliphates and Seljuk Turks, and latter-day Ottomans.

What, you think only the West were relying on elite cavalry forces?

LDominating said:

The entirety of Western and South Western Asia were using light cavalry mostly with a few elite heavy armored lancers users.

Click to expand...

Demonstrably false.

LDominating said:

And don't compare the European Cataphracts/Knights with Middle Easterners or Steppe Lancers.
We all know how Saladin won these battles,and it's not by direct confrontation because everytime a Middle Easterner met an European or Byzantine Cavalry in Heavy vs Heavy it was a one way massacre in favour of the Europeans.

Click to expand...

You mean like at Horns of Hattin?
How about the Fall of Acre?
The disasters of 5th and 7th Crusades?
How about Ager Sanguinis?
Forbie?

What? The Crusaders didn't have any knights in the above instances?

Or how about we extend the period to the latter times, instead of just remaining at the earlier exploits of heroic Crusaders, and say, to a time when the times of Mamluk Sultans and Ottoman Sultans would start to appear? They don't count?

See, you think it was a "one-sided massacre" because this narrative you're familiar with is one of a giant confirmation bias which simply leaves out major humiliating defeats of Crusaders, and remembers only the handful few humiliating situations for the regional Muslim factions. So you remember just Dorylaeum and Jaffa, or the heroic exploits of just a few hundred capable knights routing thousands of soldiers of the armies of the amirs, and yet, just simply leave out all the MAJORITY of instances where similarly-sized armies of similar composition of HEAVY cavalry fought, with some victories going to the Crusaders, others going to the Muslim factions.

LDominating said:

BUT!
This isn't about historical accuracy,but balance of troops and how they feel in game.
And IT FEELS AWFUL!
Knights and Druzhinik ESPECIALLY feel so light compared to Khan;s and Vanguards,EVEN in sieges!

Click to expand...

If this isn't about comparative historical accuracy, your entire argument has no basis at all, and falls apart.

Who says a totally fictional army of horse archers or lancers, have to be necessarily less-armored (which, they ALREADY ARE. Have you seen the leg armor on the Khan's Guard?) than knights?

El. Catph: Body 64
Druz.Chmp: Body 57
Bann.Kni: Body 54
Van.Far: Body 67
H.Lanc.: Body 51
Kh.Gua: Body 52
H.HA: Body 48

The Khuzait cavalry in-game are universally lesser armored than Vlandian, Sturgian and Imperial cavalry.

And I dunno why you're assuming Faris should be lighter armored than other cavalry, because historically the ancient Middle Eastern factions were using heavily armored cavalry long before the Romans adopted the practice for themselves, as well as Medieval Middle Eastern cavalry were every-bit as well armored as Western cavalry. As a matter of fact, both the pre-Turk Caliphate cavalry, AND the later Seljuk Turk cavalry were formidably armored.

The complete overtaking of Western armor quality over Middle Eastern, happens when the transitional period ends and full-body plate protection begin to arrive -- and that's after the Medieval era has ended, in the 15th~16th centuries.

Sorry, but I've never had any problems before 1.2, because I never expected all of them to curl up into a ball and instantly become peaceful roaming butterflies so you can go talk to them and pick up easily as new lords.

In every war of conquest, historically speaking, winning the war is only half the way. The hard part is always what comes after the war, in stabilizing the new territories, pacifying the people, and suppressing resistance. If you were ready for this, it was never too hard.

Like said above, it's at most maybe 5 years, in a strict policy of repression to regularly destroy the larger-sized parties, and NEVER just giving them tribute, so their coffers are finally exhausted. At which point, whether the supposed "war" keeps on going or not doesn't even matter, because they all shrivel into teeney weeney parties that get even smaller than most villager parties.

There is no "fix" to the situation. There's only prevention.

The possible "preventive" measure is to protect the villages and stop it from getting destroyed by raids. So long as the villages are not harmed, no castle in the game just suddenly meets a food problem it cannot get out of.

If that castle is so low on food situation, then the only "fix" is to just keep to a minimum garrison, or no garrison, until the castle's economic situation naturally returns to stability.

clock4orange said:

read a bit of history mate

there are countries disappear from world map for years (100+), but nation survive with language and culture just because, so called 'lords', do not raid places they use to own... if it comes to rebel, how to you think, where those rebels came from? raided villages or those be loyal to kingdom with no land?

Click to expand...

Yeah, I suggest you do read up on some history, because its littered with instances of "freedom fighters" eventually starting to oppress, steal, raid their "own populace" when their resistance attempts eventually start to falter.

Ever heard of the Yellow Turbans?

BlueRiddle said:

Presumably they had these silly things like land, and an income.

We don't see Bruce walking around Scotland raiding Scottish villages forever despite controlling no fiefs that would actually allow him to survive, let alone garner a following.

Click to expand...

"Forever?" More like at most 5 years or so until the landless roaming bands of lord parties become spent in money, making them unable to even upkeep the base soldiers they respawn with, shrinking down to something like 20 soldiers per party, also losing enough influence to become incapable of forming armies -- as a result can't even raid a well-maintained village that's got over 50 militia.

People couldn't tolerate just 5 years or so, in a game that gives you something like average 40-year time span per a player character.

Sounds like a "they" problem, not a "game" problem.

BlueRiddle said:

Actually, when Britain was conquered by the Normans after the invasion, the Angles tribe never surrendered, all the lords survived and are still going around raiding random villages in the UK to this day.

Duh, everyone knows that.

Click to expand...

Want me to tell you about these places called "Wales" "Ireland" and "Scotland" next to England, and how long their lords fought against the English whether or not they were subjugated for a lil' while, in some cases the fight lasting until 2005 in the modern UK?

Everyone should know that.

1. The base damage of swinging pole arms need to be lowered drastically
2. The effective hit box for swinging pole arms that count as weapon head, need to be VERY strict
3. The penalties for handling need to be increased greatly
4. The delay time (to return to neutral stance, or accept inputs for next move) for all 2h polearms and 2h weapons which are not swords, need to be increased
5. Very simply, the glaive itself, needs to be removed from Khan's Guards, and be given to Darkans

SadMoney said:

Executions became completely useless with the introduction of kingdom destruction. Now it's way more convenient to just conquer all enemy fiefs (which you're going to do anyway) instead of chasing down 60+ enemy nobles.

So executions now is just another of many, many worthless mechanics that do not affect the gameplay in any meaningful manner.

Click to expand...

Again, it's a good thing.

Every game, needs a player on the other side of the board. When you start assassinating the other players to just deny them the competition on the board without severe consequences, there's no point to playing the game at all.

Count Talbar said:

It would be nice if at the very least if stabs wouldn't be blocked by characters and objects behind you. That alone makes spear formations useless.

Click to expand...

I never understood the logic behind that one. None of the other swinging weapons are blocked from activation by having a person or a wall behind you, so why just spears?

Pitting an extreme penalty to executions is a good thing.

But imo there should have been a "justification" mechanic which involves special circumstances in which you could execute certain people but the rest of the world would see it as justified action.

And while we're at it, I'd like to see similar line of changes with ALL weapons and their thrusts.

Don't you just hate it when ppl recommend "oh give your companions just swing-exclusive 2h swords.. it's better if they don't get to use thrusts at all" ...??!

Tabard's are just tired....

Diavolo said:

I'll just post this good classic Lindybeige video showing exactly how powerful the spear is. Keep in mind the people in this video were very experienced with fighting with swords, but were completely beginners at spears.

As for making the power of the spear apparent in mount & blade I am not sure how it can be done without altering the mechanics completely. The main issue of hand-eye-coordination not being that great in a 3rd person game as in real life will always be an issue. However, my proposed changes is to just triple (maybe quintuple) the thrust damage of all spears and double the speed of spear thrust attacks when used 2-handed.

Click to expand...

I'd pick out the speed problem as being the most urgent.

Speed of thrust needs to be faster. Using the current metrics of speed measurement, infantry short spears of under 1.8m length are usually around 85~95 in speed. Long spears usually used by cavalry are slower, something like 80~85, and super-long pikes and lances are slower. Thrusts are usually the fastest motions of any elongated weapon and yet, it's the slowest attack in this game.

For example, when I see an opening in enemy defense (moments when I evade an attack, or they wiff the attack), a sword with "95 speed" will connect reliably with a swinging attack -- and yet, a spear with same "95 speed" fails almost every time. Both are same "95 speed" but this is clearly not an objective indicator of speed that applies to different weapons equally.

So, under this standard, shorter infantry spears should be increased to something like 120~150 speed. It already has only two attack directions, so as counter-balance, the attack itself should actually be fast enough that you have to react almost immediately with the opponent's up/down stance change to block properly. Otherwise, if you're even a little bit late, you'll be hit.

Now, this will make even AI enemies with spears extremely lethal if you have no shield -- especially if the enemy AI is at a level that uses feints. You already have to react immediately to attack motion, so even a slight confusion with feints will be very lethal. So, if even the AI can be so threatening, what would you do? You'd try to stay away from it. Remember how in 1vs1 fights you usually stand your ground, but when it becomes many vs 1 you keep on backing away? That's basically what you should be doing if you're facing a spear without a shield. Back up, try to find an opening, find a chance and then attempt to attack, and then get back out of range.

Currently, you know how to stay invincible against spears? Just walk laterally. No spear-wielder in game can hit you if you just walk right. True story. Try it. See someone with spear in a tournament? Keep walking right while facing him (resulting in circular movement). There's no way the guy hits you. That's how stupidly slow the current spears are, so I would rather have a hard time against AI with spears, than have them be that stupid.

Some may ask: "But what if there are multiple spearmen?? They have long weapons, they attack fast, so even the 'kill one by one running away' wouldn't work easily against that. It would be much more difficult than fighting multiple enemies with short weapons."

Gee, that's great. That's EXACTLY what spears are supposed to do, and why spearmen are the staple, and why shields were important. Look at the linked video in above post in how effective a shield is, against a spear.. and then, look at how even that dynamic changes when the fight becomes a group vs. group. That's spears. It needs to be fast. If it's the slowest weapon as it is now, there's no point, like, at all.

anoddhermit said:

What's hilarious is how absurdly strong swinging polearms are, as the Khan's Guard especially makes obvious, yet somehow regular old spear thrusts being faster would be overpowered ?

There are certain things I've stopped hoping will change though. We've had a long time of patently obvious troop imbalances and the culture bonus disparity where Battania was way better than everything else and yet still for some reason got buffed while Sturgia got nerfed lol. Plus, smithing, which seems to resist being brought down to earth as an income source.

Click to expand...

Overpowered AND ahistoric. Swinging polearms are exceptionally rare in history, in that it involves upper torso movement in directions that are not aligned with the direction of horse's travel, where the problem of torque becomes way more prevalent than using a spear, or a 1h sword. This is the reason why you rarely -- if ever -- see other long weapons upon horseback as well. Like, why were there no greatswords or zweihaenders on horseback? Same thing.

At speed, this translates into a dismounting hazard. Even the standard spears or lances, when the attack isn't timed right, or lands at incorrect angles, the rider must release his weapon lest consequentially, the rider can fall off, or at extremes it can even topple the horse along with the rider if the rider is well-fastened through stirrups, and the resulting force tilts the horse along with the falling rider.

So, swinging polearms itself were very rare, and the few isolated usages we see popping up in history first come from the Mongols, and even among Mongols it was rare. Most Mongol elite, heavy cavalry were armed similar to any European knight -- lance + sword/saber.

The only historical army that saw SOME use of swinging polearms in SOME numbers, were the late 16th-early 17th century Chinese Ming army, and only in the cavalry troops stationed at northern borders fighting against nomadic invaders. And if you see the resources, those glaives on horseback were way shorter, held in a grip almost in the dead center to minimize torque problems -- not like how the Khan's Guard in this game where they hold it in the bottom 1/3rd position and take long, wide swings off to the side. If someone swings a polearm like that on top of horseback, it may cause leverage effect that's big enough to force the rider to fall off.

All the Khan's Guard, should just be armed with lances, as a souped-up version of heavy lancers. Not frickin' horde of mythical Guan Yu.