1.7 - Too many noble troops available

Users who are viewing this thread

I find melee cavalry is actually useful, to counter horsearchers and archers, for example. I have to admit that it strains the cavalry a lot in heavy fights (high casualty rate) and that they need a backup from a solid shieldwall and from archers. I had a battle lately with a 130 stack (25 cavalry, 35 archers 75 melee infantry (about 30% of the infantry were T1 or T2, but all T1 in my game have shields; as I recruit mostly from prisoners, the cavalry were a wild mix of high tier, cataphracts, banner knights, vanguards, faris, some T6 from Customs Spawns and some unarmored T4 from my modded tribal troop tree) against Khuzaits with about 165 troops with 55 horsearchers and 30 mostly heavy melee cavalry, and they wrecked me several times (I reloaded) till I attacked the horsearchers early and dispersed them and the other cavalry in a chaotic horse fight. I had only 5 cavalry left after the victory or so. I use RBM AI module however, so maybe it may differ in vanilla.

To the noble spawn, it should be toned town considerably, it is not immersive to have so many of them. I hope after release there will be also mods which offer a certain max percentage division of the party, to avoid all elite armies.
This is more a case of "among the blind the one-eyed is king" rather than a testement to the usefulness of cavalry (blind = infantry).

That said, cavalry, in limited numbers, can have a use as support for foot archers; it mainly depends on where you are fighting/which is easier to replace.
 
Ideally I do think it would've been better if Noble units came strictly from Castles. But that's too much work for TW I guess. Castles kind of suck as fiefs, other then being a cheap place to store troops. Also for people and "Veteran's Respect"... seriously basing a whole character/playthrough around a single perk is just dumb and asking for disappointment. You should in general want to focus on the Skill as a whole, not just one or two uber perks. You definitely should not have to "grind" them, especially in what's a singelplayer game of all things.

Unfortunately TW's non-existent planning/number checking and inability to add actual features (besides every 6 months) has doomed this game to be an unbalanced mess. The sooner folks accept that and steer TW to the essential small fixes, the better off we'll be when this game is finally released.

Totally agree the game is an unbalanced mess. It's been many months since EA and it's still a ****ty game aside from combat.
 
The number one rule in Bannerlord. Dont fight battles that will cost you any significant number of elites!
This isn't a rule at all. If you're playing the game normally and efficiently then you quite often have to take significant casualties to progress. It's much quicker towards the goal of conquering Calradia to siege a weak fief with your 200 man party, take on the 200 guys that show up to defend it, and lose 40 men, than it is to just abandon the siege camp every time a party shows up that you can't beat easily.

Obviously players don't like taking losses, especially from random bull**** like looters in autocalc, but there is such a thing as acceptable losses, see Geala's post where he only had 5 cav left.

With the exception of KG and Fians, which as we established will be fixed by balance changes, all other T6 in the game aren't incredibly powerful demigods that are totally indispensable. They're just a small upgrade over their T5 counterparts.
And again, they will just be substitutes for the real thing.
Even if this is true, it's not really relevant. The point I was laboriously making to you with that entire gameplay scenario is that despite not being as good in theory, in practice, if the extra notable gives regular troops instead of elites, it saves you a huge amount of travel time (and thus party wages, food, and not missing opportunities to attack or defend something during war) to just upgrade to Vanguards to fill out half of your cavalry.
In any case, It's not noble problem but rather make normal troop easier to upgrade more than noble do
That sort of solves one issue of Vanguards being comparatively useless but doesn't solve the other issues people have of:

* elites not feeling special at all when they're available at a nearly 40:60 ratio to normal troops
* immersion being damaged
* the perk to upgrade bandits to elite recruits being pretty useless when they're just sitting around in villages in large amounts
* the lack in variety caused by so much of your army being made up of a troop that has a linear upgrade path, so it actually works against the player having a balanced army composition when you go to a village to recruit and three out of four notables only offer recruits that all upgrade to the same thing
* the disadvantage the player is put at if they want an interesting army composition and are forced to leave recruits there which the AI would just take because the AI (and NPC's in general :wink:) don't care about having an interesting game

I find melee cavalry is actually useful, to counter horsearchers and archers, for example. I have to admit that it strains the cavalry a lot in heavy fights (high casualty rate) and that they need a backup from a solid shieldwall and from archers. I had only 5 cavalry left after the victory or so. I use RBM AI module however, so maybe it may differ in vanilla.
Yep, it differs hugely in vanilla. In vanilla they still have an even higher casualty rate, but without countering horse archers or archers like they do in RBM. Melee cavalry are the least cost efficient unit type in the vanilla game.
To the noble spawn, it should be toned town considerably, it is not immersive to have so many of them
Agreed.
 
Last edited:
You can literally win any field battle with just KGs. Even 100 vs 1000.
What formation and order do you give them if fighting such a huge army? Loose and charge? Do you turn their ranged off so they're forced to melee or do you let them skirmish at will until they are out of arrows?
 
This isn't a rule at all. If you're playing the game normally and efficiently then you quite often have to take significant casualties to progress. It's much quicker towards the goal of conquering Calradia to siege a weak fief with your 200 man party, take on the 200 guys that show up to defend it, and lose 40 men, than it is to just abandon the siege camp every time a party shows up that you can't beat easily.
The quickest way to conquer Calradia is to not lose men and thus not having to spend unnecessary time recruiting new soldiers.
*elites not feeling special at all when they're available at a nearly 40:60 ratio to normal troops
Hyberbole, normal troops can be recruited from towns, all villages attached to towns, and one notable from each village attached to a castle.
* the perk to upgrade bandits to elite recruits being pretty useless when they're just sitting around in villages in large amounts
Instead you can pursue other perks that allow you to recruit more troops and it gives you an incentive(small) to actually do quests for villages.
 
Last edited:
I always thought that scarcity of noble troops was intended. Have just came back into the game from a 10-month break. Was quite surprised with the current availability of noble recruits.

But grinding stupid village/city quests in order to have a powerful squadron of 5 cataphracts??? Nah, thanks. It's much worse.
If you are annoyed with the availability of noble troops, just set the recruitment difficulty to realistic or don't recruit them at all.
Also often a notable get a whole line of nobles, you don't even need high relation.
 
What formation and order do you give them if fighting such a huge army? Loose and charge? Do you turn their ranged off so they're forced to melee or do you let them skirmish at will until they are out of arrows?
You tell them to follow you, then ride in very wide circles around the enemy army, with a shield if you have one. You do this until the KG finally run out of arrows, then try and draw out the enemy army (if they are charging) thinly over a wide area so that the KG don't get bogged down and swarmed, then send them in to charge.
The quickest way to conquer Calradia is to not lose men and thus not having to spend unnecessary time recruiting new soldiers.
It is much quicker to lose some men and finish a siege and then recruit more men in the course of travel afterwards, than to abandon your siege camp every time someone turns up.
Hyperbole.normal troops can be recruited from towns, all villages attached to towns, and one notable from each village attached to a castle.
Take into account that castle fiefs (and thus their linked villages) outnumber towns, and I wasn't too far off.

Town: 4 normal notables * 3 slots = 12 normal troops
There are about 54 towns, so 54*12 = 648 normal
Town village A: 4 normal notables * 3 = 12 normal troops
*54 = 648 normal
Town village B: "" = 12 normal troops
*54 = 648 normal
Town village C: "" = 12 normal troops
*54 = 648 normal
Castle village A: 3 elite notables = 9 elite troops, 1 normal notable = 3 normal troops
*64 = 576 elite, 182 normal
Castle village B: 3 elite notables = 9 elite troops, 1 normal notable = 3 normal troops
*64 = 576 elite, 182 normal

576+576 = 1,152 elite
648+648+648+648+182+182 = 2,956 normal

So a 30:70 ratio. 3 in 10 troops available for recruiting will be """"""""""""elite""''"""""""" troops. In other words, they don't feel uncommon or special.
Instead you can pursue other perks that allow you to recruit more troops and it gives you an incentive(small) to actually do quests for villages.
I don't think this really addresses the issue rather than handwaving it though, the perk is severely lessened in usefulness by the overproliferation of elite recruits and that's a bad thing. It's not a good thing for game content to be near-useless.
 
You tell them to follow you, then ride in very wide circles around the enemy army, with a shield if you have one. You do this until the KG finally run out of arrows, then try and draw out the enemy army (if they are charging) thinly over a wide area so that the KG don't get bogged down and swarmed, then send them in to charge.

It is much quicker to lose some men and finish a siege and then recruit more men in the course of travel afterwards, than to abandon your siege camp every time someone turns up.
Its much quicker to bring an actual army and just take the place. Much higher siegespeed and very few losses.
Take into account that castle fiefs (and thus their linked villages) outnumber towns, and I wasn't too far off.

Town: 4 normal notables * 3 slots = 12 normal troops
There are about 54 towns, so 54*12 = 648 normal
Town village A: 4 normal notables * 3 = 12 normal troops
*54 = 648 normal
Town village B: "" = 12 normal troops
*54 = 648 normal
Town village C: "" = 12 normal troops
*54 = 648 normal
Castle village A: 3 elite notables = 9 elite troops, 1 normal notable = 3 normal troops
*64 = 576 elite, 182 normal
Castle village B: 3 elite notables = 9 elite troops, 1 normal notable = 3 normal troops
*64 = 576 elite, 182 normal

576+576 = 1,152 elite
648+648+648+648+182+182 = 2,956 normal

So a 30:70 ratio. 3 in 10 troops available for recruiting will be """"""""""""elite""''"""""""" troops. In other words, they don't feel uncommon or special.
Congratulation, you have just made the assumption that every castle village in the world has 500+ hearth. In your games perhaps, not in mine...

(so.. no 40:60 ratio or 30:70 ratio, sorry)
I don't think this really addresses the issue rather than handwaving it though, the perk is severely lessened in usefulness by the overproliferation of elite recruits and that's a bad thing. It's not a good thing for game content to be near-useless.
That perk was dumb to begin with.
 
Last edited:
What formation and order do you give them if fighting such a huge army? Loose and charge? Do you turn their ranged off so they're forced to melee or do you let them skirmish at will until they are out of arrows?
Shoot. Retreat. Shoot. Retreat.

I have 2 groups. I move them around so one group is always shooting the rear but even if you don't split them, you can just shoot and retreat. Pretty much what the mongols did.
 
Its much quicker to bring an actual army and just take the place. Much higher siegespeed and very few losses.
In many instances you either won't have the ability to tell armies where to go or won't have vassals for an army (merc/very early kingdom phase when you are just starting to siege places), or you won't be in control of your troops within the army if you stick with it (they'll be delegated to a formation - and if you don't join the army you don't get full loot/prisoners), or even if you are in control of an army, the fight can be close enough that you have to commit all men, rather than treating your cav as something indispensable.
Congratulation, you have just made the assumption that every castle village in the world has 500+ hearth. In your games perhaps, not in mine...
Well if you want more numbers here you go.

There are 54 towns in the game with an average of 3.92 (4) notables each.
216 normal notables * 3 slots = 648 normal troops.
There are 135 town villages with an average of 2.4 (2) notables each.
270 normal notables * 3 slots = 810 normal troops.
There are 128 castle villages with an average of 2.71 (3) notables each.
128 normal notables * 3 slots = 384 normal troops.
256 elite notables * 3 slots = 768 elite troops.

That equals 768 elite troops to 1812 normal troops.

So 30:70 is accurate.
That perk was dumb to begin with.
Screw players who bought this game for bandit king gameplay, amirite?
 
Last edited:
Thats just the problem, it has nothing to do with bandits. The only way you are going to get to 150 leadership is through leading armies.
Obviously there needs to be more ways of getting leadership in the early game, I have recommended TW do this in the past.
 
In short, there is a whole lot of things that need to be in place before it really makes sense to change the access to nobles.
The multiple other issues mentioned with the overproliferation of nobles means it makes just as much sense to change the access now as later.
 
The multiple other issues mentioned with the overproliferation of nobles means it makes just as much sense to change the access now as later.
No it doesnt. Changing it now will just lead to a return to the bad old days.

As the game is now there is just no compelling reason not to aim for a full elite army. There is just no other goal that would provide the same bang for the buck. You might slow the process or make it convoluted, but you cant change that.
 
Obviously there needs to be more ways of getting leadership in the early game, I have recommended TW do this in the past.
Easy and logical change : make it so that Leadership provides training to troops, and said training gives xp to leadership.
Two annoyances fixed in one go.
 
No it doesnt. Changing it now will just lead to a return to the bad old days.
What precisely are you referring to?
As the game is now there is just no compelling reason not to aim for a full elite army. There is just no other goal that would provide the same bang for the buck. You might slow the process or make it convoluted, but you cant change that.
Which is EXACTLY why we should limit the amount of elite troop-providing notables. So the reason not to aim for a full elite army is that it takes you more time looking for troops to recruit, than a normal army which is 15-20% elites would. Seems pretty straightforward!
Easy and logical change : make it so that Leadership provides training to troops, and said training gives xp to leadership.
Two annoyances fixed in one go.
Sounds like a good idea.
 
Last edited:
What precisely are you referring to?
Convoluted recruitment tactics.
Which is EXACTLY why we should limit the amount of elite troop-providing notables. So the reason not to aim for a full elite army is that it takes you more time looking for troops to recruit. Seems pretty straightforward!
As I say, there is no other goal as worthwhile as creating an elite force.

To put things into perspective, in my current campaign I can see that I had 113 Fians by day 82. By day 120 I still had 111 left.

What rate of recruitment do you think would be low enough to say "nahh, its not worth it"?

As things stand, an elite force is the way to go and all a change in recruitment will manage to accomplish is 1) potentially switch recruitment methods back to the annoying old ways 2) hurt those poor buggers that dont go super ranged heavy.
 
To put things into perspective, in my current campaign I can see that I had 113 Fians by day 82. By day 120 I still had 111 left.

What rate of recruitment do you think would be low enough to say "nahh, its not worth it"?
But that's mainly due to how overpowered ranged is, which itself is in large part due to how useless armor is.
 
But that's mainly due to how overpowered ranged is, which itself is in large part due to how useless armor is.
I have no argument with that. Armor needs to be better and you also need to be able to acquire high tier gear for you and your companions early.

But, until that happens you best course of action is to conjure up a lordkiller army ASAP and go on an endless hunt for lords.
 
Back
Top Bottom