Search results for query: *

Lord Irontoe said:

what if they added the weight of the javelins and arrows stuck in the shield?

Click to expand...

Brano said:

IMO javelin vs shield is not understood correctly by devs. Proper use would be:
1. As already mentioned, to penetrate the shield to an extent that would harm the shield user
2. To force shield user to drop it, as sticking javelin or two make it unweildy,unbalanced and heavy

Similar issue is with 2 handed axes, billhooks (wrong representation in game) and voulges. Idea that those weapons were used to mindlessly bash against enemy shield thinking it would disintegrate to shreds is...naive. Axe heads, particularly their pointy "beards" were used to hook the edge of enemy shield and either knock it off enemy hand or in better case to tear enemy down if he clings to the shield too much.

Click to expand...

geala said:

There is no proof for this theory of the pilum as anti-shield weapon. It's not backed up by results of material analyses of findings, for example.

I prefer the theory that the pilum was meant to penetrate deeply, through shields or armor. For penetration you need a stiff projectile, that contradicts the "bending as purpose" theory.

I think pila ahould.penetrate shields and apply a certain amount of damage.

Click to expand...

Bluko88 said:

You're sort of right

I'd say the issue is more how quickly Villages recover. Honestly I think villages should have to be manually "rebuilt", that way you have to decide more whether you want to stay offensive or defensive. Do you keep attacking your enemy with what you got or do you go back and repair your villages so you can get recruits later? Basically until a Lord rebuilds a village, it's going to remain a burnt crater or at least it should take an extremely long time to recover on it's own (like a year).

This could be something you, the player, do during peace time too. Since there's nothing to do really besides trade and arrange marriages, if that.

Also if some small band of mercenaries does eff up your villages and you get there a little too late, it's not a total waste to show up there like it is now. So annoying to just watch your villages smoke as it were for a couple days and not do anything about it, especially since you're encouraged to recruit from your villages.

Rebuilding villages could be good way to add some much needed way of gaining XP for Medicine and Engineering too.


I do recall being in a pretty long war with the Aserai once, where I got really fed up with my fellow vassals incompetence. So instead of trading fiefs back and forth with armies, I just took my well equipped party and went about raiding just about every single Aserai village. Needless to say the war dramatically shifted in my Kingdom's favor since the Aserai really weren't able to field many units after that.

So raiding is somewhat effective thing to do in-game, especially since defeating single Parties often does more good in the long run anyways. Also really hurts foreign invaders since it creates both Loyalty/Security debuffs to Towns I believe.


My biggest gripe with raiding is how little loot you get. In Warband raiding is very profitable, so yeah it's a bit heinous, but think of all the loot! In Bannerlord raiding just makes me feel like a petty ****. There's no real benefit to the player other then a kind of middle-finger to the would be owner.

Be nice if Bandits and such raided villages, rather than simply harass travelers.


Also be neat if you could "Sack" Town/Castles, i.e. instead of taking over a Town/Castle you run off with a ton of loot/gold and leave it a smoking ruin for your enemies to rebuild. Seems really odd to devastate a Town/Castle and then take it over when everyone should hate your guts for doing so. Then you could apply my aforementioned rebuilding mechanic to them as well (again more ways to get much needed Medicine/Engineering XP) and do something besides murdering all the common folk of Calradia all the time.

Heck you could actually do a true "good guy" Saint playthrough where you just go around rebuilding all the villages ruined by war. Make future Jeremus proud.

Click to expand...

anoddhermit said:

1. Battanian culture bonus (forest speed) which absolutely dwarfs the general utility and power of every other. It's subtle, but I'd still put it at the top.
2. Swinging vs. thrusting reach weapons on cav especially. Take 50 Khan's Guards, hold fire and F1+F3 vs. 100 Noble Cav(any) in a custom battle. This is the most obvious imbalance issue in the game currently.
3. Archer noble units get substantially more damage(more/better bows/arrows) and durability over T5s while Cav only get significantly more durability(about the same or even literally the same weapons as T5).
4. Mounted unit favorability in auto-calculations and for map speed. Mounted units cost more, I get it, but the advantage here is much too high such that if you're inclined to make liberal use of scouting and tactics, you can eventually just kind of point and click and take prisoners to effortlessly wipe out most enemy AI in the field, and then siege with nigh impunity. You can achieve superior results to manual battles with very little effort or strategy involved, granting it's a boring way to play that skips all the fun of real time battles. It also overly favors already strong factions due to their cav heavy parties - Vlandia, Khuzait, Aserai.
5. Shield durability. Despite archers being all the rage, a patient player can use shield squares to grind remarkable odds to death by kinda just sitting there. Anti-shield units do not work at all in this role - they almost always either kill the shield units before any substantial number - if any at all - are broken, or they die to the shield units in basic meat vs. meat combat due to more brute numerical superiority in non-shield related aspects. Archers will also rarely break most shields (T3 unit+ roughly) even firing at close ranges, emptying entire quivers.

I think all of these could be fixed (to the point of not being so major or so obvious anyway) without any big or complicated changes - just tweaks to some numbers here and there. That's my two cents, anyway. I have about 1500 hours played and these are what continues to stand out to me from beta to post-beta, aside from odd nitpicks.

Click to expand...

Antaeus said:

Top tier heavy cavalry are better pikemen than any pikemen. Not literally, but contextually.

They're good enough when dismounted at defending against other cavalry + you can mount them again and use them as cavalry. For this reason I never hire pikemen.



This is a good idea... there is no context for Sturgia to have horse archer generals, with no other horse archer troops.

Click to expand...

LordCnut said:

+1

I'd take it a step further: Recruiting from the notable pool should only be possible for the lord who owns the bound caste / town or the faction leader which the lord belongs to. These are his/her levies. Nothing makes me more mad than seeing random lords empty all MY villages of recruits.

Hostile / neutral lords still have the option of forcing villages to provide troops, which incurs a relationship penalty. Maybe add a new notable for "adventurer" troops who are volunteers and can be recruited by anyone, including the player as a neutral option. They should upgrade into merc soldiers.

So we'd mainly see faction specific troops + mercs in every army, which is far more immersive, until settlements start changing hands and notables provide troops for their new overlord.

Click to expand...

geala said:

Disagree. Craftable bows and crossbows would make modding them more difficult, it's annoying enough you have that with the other weapons. And for me it does not matter wether my bow/crossbow looks a bit differently or has tiny bits of other stats. Vanilla covers all the needs.

Generally, the game would be better without smithing at all.

Click to expand...

xdj1nn said:

spears no so much because that would depend on leverage and grip strength, which directly translates into technique and formation.
Piercing through an armored horse would be incredibly difficult in reality, so why did pikes work while other shorter spears didn't? because of leverage, technique and weight. If a light spear meets a horse at full speed (anywhere from 40kmph to 60kmph, not counting contemporary speed recordists) the spear would break and likely fail to penetrate, that if the hand of the person holding the spear didn't snap and it dropped to the ground. - With pikes it's an entirely different tale, in which their size and weight alone would already be enough to stop a horse just by placing the butt of the pike on the ground on a diagonal angle. Than there was technique + formation which guaranteed that no horse could go through formation gaps.

Keep in mind that real frontal charges were not at full speed at all and cavalry would skirmish on melee, not fight like infantry until dead or until defeating the enemy. It was a hit & run unit, not a "stomp" unit.

Now, I agree that pikes should instantly kill any horses when braced in-game, for both balancing reasons and for less delusional unrealistic absurdities for me to watch in-game... There are already too many of those (like swords going through armored opponents like butter - all weapons would bounce back when hitting armor - it should be like that, yet it isn't - even if we're talking about mail, if the weapon didn't bounce back it would get stuck)

Click to expand...

anoddhermit said:

Well, I think the deviation can be high if there's a legit reason to bring specialist units to the battlefield, but there isn't for the pikeman. Putting shield infantry in square formation is just better. Pikes don't seem to work well in square formation either so you can't combo them well with it. They are basically specifically for dealing with cav charges, but they're not even worth using for their singular purpose over other options.

Like if I'm bringing a good % of my infantry as pikemen, they better be pulling a lot of weight against cav charges considering how vulnerable they are to archers and other infantry.

As for cost offset for the player for noble units.... I think because it's more expensive to replace units than pay their wages, and because winning battles gets you way more loot and thus more money to pay wages, and because elite units tend to die less, and because archer units die less than infantry and cav.......... there's no way to balance this unless the cost in wages is way, way higher than it currently is. Like they could cost 5-10x the wage and doomstacking them would still be a good option for your main party. And even playing without intentionally stacking, over time if you simply keep the most effective units via prisoners and so on and integrate them into your army, you can still end up with a doomstack just sort of by doing whatever you find works.


Some players can do extremely well with lesser units using more complex strategies or just cheesing the AI, but it's not that much cheaper plus that can be time and/or micromanagement intensive.

Click to expand...

Blood Gryphon said:

Its something you are going to have to get used to with the new clans system. Each clan has multiple family members who can all lead a party when one of their members loses their parties, for each faction your going to have about 27 parties you have to actively fight and ~20 reinforcements that can start new parties when an active party goes down (and thats before each factions ~20 kids at the start of the game grow up, plus any newborns throughout the playthrough). Just have an understanding that the average army has maybe 5-10 parties in it, so you have to defeat 3-6 armies to get through the active parties, meanwhile reinforcements will start new parties when their family members get defeated and will take troops from their garrisons and start recruiting new troops often on their way to their next battle or army formation. So really your going to have to defeat 5-10+ armies to even start making a dent into their garrisons plus whatever they can recruit from villages. Bannerlord is slog of constant battles and a single large fight will make little difference.


If you actually pay attention to the story the empire hires other factions to help with their battles, like how they hired the aserai and vlandia to help against the battanians and sturgia. The aserai got slaughtered and the Vlandias decided not to help once they saw the battle start to go south. But the empire has always outsourced its fighters, so not sure what your point is there. Regardless of lore they are going to do their best to maintain their party levels whereever they are located, so if they are traveling through batannia to fight vlandia they are going to pick up some batannian troops.

Click to expand...