• If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
  • We'll be making a number of structural changes to the forums on Wednesday, 06.12.2023. No downtime is expected. Read more here.

1.7 - Too many noble troops available

Users who are viewing this thread

Convoluted recruitment tactics. all a change in recruitment will manage to accomplish is 1) potentially switch recruitment methods back to the annoying old ways
We went over this before twice so please listen. Removing one elite notable from each castle village, still leaves at least one elite notable per castle village.

It is not going to make getting the lv100 leadership perk to train up bandits or slowly recruiting prisoners the fastest way of getting elite troops. They will just be supplementary, optional ways of getting more elites. The fastest way will still be village recruitment, popping into a castle village and picking them up instantly without having to wait. You can stop worrying about that.
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.

2) hurt those poor buggers that dont go super ranged heavy.
Most elites are not so immune to attrition. Most T6 elites are just a bit better than T5 units.

Armour being fixed, something Taleworlds is working on at present, will make Fians and KG of similar viability to other T6 elites.

And the current excess of elite troops barely makes any difference to "those poor buggers that dont go super ranged heavy", it is still incredibly underpowered regardless and will be until armour is fixed.
What rate of recruitment do you think would be low enough to say "nahh, its not worth it"?
Currently 30% of available recruits are elites and 70% are normals.

Turning one elite notable into a normal notable would make ~15% of available recruits elites, and ~85% normals.
As things stand, an elite force is the way to go and all a change in recruitment will manage to accomplish is:
1) Make elite troops feel more special, as they are more rare.
2) Improve immersion.
3) Make the perk to upgrade bandits to elite recruits comparatively more useful as a supplementary way of getting elite recruits.
4) Make the Vlandian Vanguard and Khuzait Heavy Horse Archer more viable compared to the Banner Knight and Khan's Guard, as the BKs and KGs require more recruitment time, which in addition to the existing higher wage cost and TW's upcoming changes to armor, will completely remove the issue of BKs and KGs making normal troops useless.
5) Increase the variety in the game. Instead of 30% of your army being the same troop with the same linear upgrade path, instead it will be 15%.
6) Reduce the issue of the player being at a disadvantage from not stacking elite recruits. Combined with changes to armor, will completely remove the issue.

So there are lots of good reasons to reduce the amount of elite recruit notables, and no real good reasons not to do it.
 
It is not going to make getting the lv100 leadership perk to train up bandits or slowly recruiting prisoners the fastest way of getting elite troops.
Its at lvl 150 and it was never worth getting in the first place. Recruiting prisoners and freeing prisoners++
And the current excess of elite troops barely makes any difference to "those poor buggers that dont go super ranged heavy", it is still incredibly underpowered regardless and will be until armour is fixed.
Then what are you complaining about.
Currently 30% of available recruits are elites and 70% are normals.
No it is not. Your math is off. It is 25%
Turning one elite notable into a normal notable would make ~15% of available recruits elites, and ~85% normals.
Again, your math is off.
1) Make elite troops feel more special, as they are more rare.
2) Improve immersion.
3) Make the perk to upgrade bandits to elite recruits comparatively more useful as a supplementary way of getting elite recruits.
4) Make the Vlandian Vanguard and Khuzait Heavy Horse Archer more viable compared to the Banner Knight and Khan's Guard, as the BKs and KGs require more recruitment time, which in addition to the existing higher wage cost and TW's upcoming changes to armor, will completely remove the issue of BKs and KGs making normal troops useless.
5) Increase the variety in the game. Instead of 30% of your army being the same troop with the same linear upgrade path, instead it will be 15%.
6) Reduce the issue of the player being at a disadvantage from not stacking elite recruits. Combined with changes to armor, will completely remove the issue.

So there are lots of good reasons to reduce the amount of elite recruit notables, and no real good reasons not to do it.
I am sure that is all great. But, whether I have to spend 30 days, 60 days or even 90 days to get an elite force does not matter. It is currently the only worthwhile goal/tool in the game.

You can embrace it, learn to live with it or you can keep complaining about it. I do not believe this is going to change in any fundamental way.

If you really want a significant change then make armor worthless and archers useless. That will make every battle a slaughter and you will have to rely on whatever you can conjure up.
 
Last edited:
Its at lvl 150 and it was never worth getting in the first place. Recruiting prisoners and freeing prisoners++
What are you trying to say here? Of course it was worth getting when elite recruits were very rare. Now they're very common it's not worth getting and going through the upgrade process. And if elite recruits were halved (without becoming very rare), it would have a purpose again.
Then what are you complaining about.
You must be a bit confused. That was your complaint, not mine.
No it is not. Your math is off. It is 25%

Again, your math is off.
Lolwhat? Follow this link. I tried two different calculator websites to make sure there weren't errors.


I am sure that is all great. But, whether I have to spend 30 days, 60 days or even 90 days to get an elite force does not matter. It is currently the only worthwhile goal/tool in the game
The generally agreed "goal" of the game is conquering Calradia. Therefore, effectiveness of different strategies is measured in how quickly they help you accomplish that. If you have to spend 90 days to get an all- elite force of 100% T6, you could have spent that 90 days instead getting a mixed force of 85% T5 and 15% T6 which is nearly just as effective due to only being one tier lower, and conquering a bunch of castles in the same period of time. Getting you to your goal of conquering Calradia quicker.
 
Last edited:
Lolwhat? Follow this link. I tried two different calculator websites to make sure there weren't errors.

It helps absolutely nothing when the number you use are incorrect.
The generally agreed "goal" of the game is conquering Calradia. Therefore, effectiveness of different strategies is measured in how quickly they help you accomplish that. If you have to spend 90 days to get an all- elite force of 100% T6, you could have spent that 90 days instead getting a mixed force of 85% T5 and 15% T6 which is nearly just as effective due to only being one tier lower, and conquering a bunch of castles in the same period of time. Getting you to your goal of conquering Calradia quicker.
All that it means is that you either have to fight for or fight against (more likely both) whichever faction has the type of elite unit you want. Reduce the availability and you will just have fight for or against that particular faction for a bit longer. Unless you just nerf T6 to the point where they are essentially worth the same as a T5 then the party you are going to end up with is going to be 100% T6.

What you are hoping for is unrealistic and its just not going to happen.
 
It helps absolutely nothing when the number you use are incorrect.
I thought you said there was an issue with the "math"s, not the figures. But anyway, how are the numbers incorrect? Explain.
All that it means is that you either have to fight for or fight against (more likely both) whichever faction has the type of elite unit you want. Reduce the availability and you will just have fight for or against that particular faction for a bit longer.
Why do you have to spend 90 days getting a party of all T6, when a mixed party of T5 and T6 will be close to it in effectiveness and you get to spend those 90 days conquering fiefs?
Unless you just nerf T6 to the point where they are essentially worth the same as a T5 then the party you are going to end up with is going to be 100% T6.

What you are hoping for is unrealistic and its just not going to happen.
Your point of view is excessively binary. You think there is no such thing as a middle state between "100% T6 is always the best option no matter how much " and "T5 and T6 are basically the same."

There is a middle point. The majority of elite T6 units in the game- B. Knights, Druzhina C., V. Faris, E. Cataphracts- are already a reasonable upgrade from T5 normal units. They are not just the same as T5, and they aren't massively better either.
 
I thought you said there was an issue with the "math"s, not the figures. But anyway, how are the numbers incorrect? Explain.
I already did, you are making the assumption that all castle villages have the max number of notables 4 rather than a realistic number of 3 (or lower but that would also apply to town linked villages)
Why do you have to spend 90 days getting a party of all T6, when a mixed party of T5 and T6 will be close to it in effectiveness and you get to spend those 90 days conquering fiefs?
how many fiefs have you conquered by day 90?
Your point of view is excessively binary. You think there is no such thing as a middle state between "100% T6 is always the best option no matter how much " and "T5 and T6 are basically the same."

There is a middle point. The majority of elite T6 units in the game- B. Knights, Druzhina C., V. Faris, E. Cataphracts- are already a reasonable upgrade from T5 normal units. They are not just the same as T5, and they aren't massively better either.
I doubt there is going to be a middle point. There will enough people who are going to complain just as verhemently if the quality difference between T6 and T5 is too low.
 
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?
I don't think they are that OP, but yes they can easily win in 3 to 1 odds. Maybe some 5 to 1 situations if you can do enough horse archer "kiting".

Just switch them to melee mode thoughand they will absolutely destroy everything with their Glaives.

They do however kind of suck offensively in Sieges since they only have a Glaive as a melee weapon. It's funny 100 Khan's Guard can defeat 250 Banner Knights on an open field, but in a siege 100 Banner Knights will win handily in defense against 100 Khan Guards. Of course if you're clever maybe you could switch them use their bows, but they do at least have 1 shortcoming.

Total potential haul from visiting 10 castle villages: 39 elites and 30 normal troops.

If it was changed so that the third notable in a castle village always offered normal troops, it would instead be somewhere around 27 elites and 42 noble troops.

Does that sound reasonable?

Yeah some more prosperous villages attached to Castles can get a little ridiculous. A bit too many elite troops, also doesn't help I think noble lines start at Tier 2, so it's not unusual to be able to get Tier 4 troops right off the bat. It'd bother me a little less if Recruits didn't make up so damn of Towns and their Villages.

I have 0 tolerance for training up Recruits, they just die too easily without shields and lack any kind of skills - that's even with them staying behind more veteran troops in shield walls.

But yes I agree something like a third or half of Castle villages being Noble troops would probably be better. Think it's two-thirds or three-quarters currently.
 
I already did, you are making the assumption that all castle villages have the max number of notables 4 rather than a realistic number of 3 (or lower but that would also apply to town linked villages)
No, I am not making that assumption. I counted all the villages and towns in the game by type, counted their notables, and averaged them with an averages calculator. You probably missed my earlier post, to be fair, as I hit "send" by accident before it was done, and had to edit the rest in. Let me quote it for you:

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.

As you can see, 30:70 ratio. A lot of towns actually have 2 bound villages instead of 3.

how many fiefs have you conquered by day 90?
Never sat and counted how many fiefs I can take in 90 days. Let's look at someone speedrunning the campaign. Starts in Summer 20 1085, takes Epicrotea, Diathma, Argoron, Amitatys, nearly takes Rhotae (peace declared), Poros, Saneopa, and nearly Myzea (peace declared), until Autumn 10 1086.
I doubt there is going to be a middle point. There will enough people who are going to complain just as verhemently if the quality difference between T6 and T5 is too low.
I just said there already is a middle point. The melee cavalry elite T6s are a small improvement from T5 melee troops, rather than being way better or just the same. There's no need to doubt it, it exists right now.
Yeah some more prosperous villages attached to Castles can get a little ridiculous. A bit too many elite troops, also doesn't help I think noble lines start at Tier 2, so it's not unusual to be able to get Tier 4 troops right off the bat. It'd bother me a little less if Recruits didn't make up so damn of Towns and their Villages.
That's an issue too, yeah.
 
But that's mainly due to how overpowered ranged is, which itself is in large part due to how useless armor is.
I don't think that armor is the main problem and the main solution. I use a mod which improves armor through modifiers, so armor is much better than vanilla in my game (up to twice as effective). I also regularly change ranged weapons in my game to make them slower, less accurate and having less missile speed. I always restrict myself to a maximum of 1/3 ranged in my party and I never use horse archers. I use a mod which makes units block with their shields much more and better than in vanilla (necessary because I play with custom troops which have very few armor, also greatly helps Sturgia). All recruits except those of the Khuzaits have shields in my game.

Nevertheless I see "unhistorical" ranged superiority to a certain degree when fighting enemy armies with a high ratio of ranged (happens quite often). My nightmare are Vlandian sharpshooters btw. The reasons I see for this are the damage and moral system coupled with the stupid AI behavior (which I can admire a lot after getting knocked out) plus the ratio of distances, ranged range and movement speed on the battlefield.

It is above all very difficult to scatter massive ranged formations by cavalry charges. Hardly can cavalry kill enough archers/crossbowmen with a charge, neither can it hinder the ranged to shoot at them or the melee, except you have a huge amount of cavalry and let them stay among the archers. I usually micromanage my cavalry, first by trying to destroy the enemy cavalry, than by attacking the archers from the flank with follow and column command, so the cavalry hit the ranged lines in a massive way. If you don't do this, nothing (except numbers) can stop the (nerfed) ranged to destroy the (upgraded) melee infantry or cavalry because they don't care about the ranged. If they do care, the melee guys slowly walk towards them, even if ordered to attack in line, to offer them a better target.

The problem is that this problem cannot be easily solved given the game mechanics. Making ranged too fragile would also unbalance the game a lot. I don't have a solution currently.

BTW better armor also greatly supports ranged troops, above all T5 or T6, because they mostly are quite well armored and also quite capable in melee (hello Fians and Sharpshooters ...). You also see with mods like the RBM combat module (which I don't use any longer) that better armor does not make ranged less problematic. I had the feeling that with RBM combat module ranged sometimes are even stronger than in vanilla.

A word to Khan Guards: the problem here for me is the damage of the polearm coupled with the fact that the AI can put it to good work easily, other than lances or spears for example. Despite cut damage in my game is very much nerfed against armor, those glaives are still not balanced. I will take care of them in general after the release.
 
Last edited:
No, I am not making that assumption. I counted all the villages and towns in the game by type, counted their notables, and averaged them with an averages calculator. You probably missed my earlier post, to be fair, as I hit "send" by accident before it was done, and had to edit the rest in. Let me quote it for you:



As you can see, 30:70 ratio. A lot of towns actually have 2 bound villages instead of 3.
No, using your actual numbers you get a ratio of 24,7%

Normal notables
Towns. 54 * 3,92 = 212
Town villages 135 * 2,4 = 324
Castle villages 128 * 1 = 128
Total: 664

Castles notables
Castle villages 128 * 1,7 = 218

218 / ( 664+218 ) * 100 = 24,7

Never sat and counted how many fiefs I can take in 90 days. Let's look at someone speedrunning the campaign. Starts in Summer 20 1085, takes Epicrotea, Diathma, Argoron, Amitatys, nearly takes Rhotae (peace declared), Poros, Saneopa, and nearly Myzea (peace declared), until Autumn 10 1086.

Ehh, using a video where exploits are actively and aggressively used hardly qualify as evidence for anything. Maybe you should be more concerned with closing down that instead.
I just said there already is a middle point. The melee cavalry elite T6s are a small improvement from T5 melee troops, rather than being way better or just the same. There's no need to doubt it, it exists right now.
Here is what I think, particularly about changing armor balance.


Many, no doubt, dream of fielding an army of legionaers or perhaps a revival of the north huscarls.

Perhaps even more are dreaming of reviving the army of the Swadian knights.

Some might just want a combination of the two.


What I do not believe is that people are thinking

"wouldnt it be nice if T6 units wherent all that great so I could just run around with T5 or less instead".

This is entirely a personal belief, you are welcome believe otherwise or even make a poll to prove me wrong.
 
Last edited:
Castle villages 128 * 1,7 = 218
Like I said, rounding. There is no such thing as 0.7 of a notable, as each notable either exists and offers 3 troop slots or they don't exist at all. So you round the average to the nearest whole number. Therefore it is 2 elite notables, not 1.7.

Averaging was just done because I didn't want to manually enter every value into a calculator and add them up and potentially lose track (in hindsight there's probably a calculator that would do it just as easily as the averaging one).
Ehh, using a video where exploits are actively and aggressively used hardly qualify as evidence for anything
Exploits are used to build up to the point where he can start sieging obviously, but past that point in that 90 day period, no exploits are used in the capture of the fiefs from what I can see - correct me if I am wrong. It looks like he's just leading a medium sized army, building trebuchets to destroy the fortifications, then autoresolving.

So basically, any player is capable of capturing close to that number of fiefs in a 90 day period without exploits. Do you disagree?
What I do not believe is that people are thinking

"wouldnt it be nice if T6 units wherent all that great so I could just run around with T5 or less instead".
What people are thinkng is "man I wish T6 wasn't literally everywhere so they felt more special and I could have a more interesting army." That is why this thread exists, you can see multiple people saying it right here. Seems entirely reasonable.
 
Like I said, rounding. There is no such thing as 0.7 of a notable, as each notable either exists and offers 3 troop slots or they don't exist at all. So you round the average to the nearest whole number. Therefore it is 2 elite notables, not 1.7.
Thats not how you use averages.

And I dont know why you keep bring up 3 troop slots; its only on the very easy setting that you automatically have that.
Averaging was just done because I didn't want to manually enter every value into a calculator and add them up and potentially lose track (in hindsight there's probably a calculator that would do it just as easily as the averaging one).
You went through all the trouble finding those actual numbers but then couldnt be bothered to manually enter the the number in a calculator... I dont even know what to say.
Exploits are used to build up to the point where he can start sieging obviously, but past that point in that 90 day period, no exploits are used in the capture of the fiefs from what I can see - correct me if I am wrong. It looks like he's just leading a medium sized army, building trebuchets to destroy the fortifications, then autoresolving.

So basically, any player is capable of capturing close to that number of fiefs in a 90 day period without exploits. Do you disagree?
Sure, if they have access to infinite resources, unlimited influence and have managed to bankrupt every faction, thus wiping out all armies and garrisons, before starting. The rest of us need to build those resources first and have to contend with a bit more resistence.
What people are thinkng is "man I wish T6 wasn't literally everywhere so they felt more special and I could have a more interesting army." That is why this thread exists, you can see multiple people saying it right here. Seems entirely reasonable.
I am going to go with "we shall see" on this one.
 
Last edited:
They're just better ranged units, they don't give you map speed, they can't be quickly re-positioned and they can't quickly move-stomp into things like the khan's guard can.
Its true. Going fian do have some mitigating advantages though.

- Battania and its surroundings is a much more densely populated area to fight in and around (and ofcourse recruit from).
- The Battanian culture bonus is better; though Khans do come with a natural speed advantage.
- Its still a fairly short window in which fieldbattles are the primary concern.
 
Fian Champions are really good too.
Its true. Going fian do have some mitigating advantages though.
Let me say first, it's fine if you think Fian's are equal or better, or situationally better, I'm just explaining what I meant when I say "Only khan's guard are really good."
Battania and its surroundings is a much more densely populated area to fight in and around (and ofcourse recruit from).
Yes and you can also much more easily load up on forest bandits then steppe bandits too, for making fians even if you're not around the Battanian area. That's not really about the fians utility though, you can easily pile up on vlandian recruits and make xbow men or so on and on.
The Battanian culture bonus is better; though Khans do come with a natural speed advantage.
This isn't a consideration, I always start as a battanian and still make khan's guard party to start out. Unless you're saying the troops get some speed bonus from it which is news to me, AFAIK only a party leader can use it.
Its still a fairly short window in which fieldbattles are the primary concern.
I don't know what you mean but with 150-200 Khan's guard I can run down every party and army and capture every lord easily while my vassals just ravage everything and siege on their own. I of course can also take any fief with that force or even a much lesser one but YMMV. That's not to say fians wouldn't be good too or a mixture of both, but I flat out reject any idea that Khan's guard are bad in siege. They're "too good" for a conventional siege, but they perform excellently.
 
Last edited:
Let me say first, it's fine if you think Fian's are equal or better, or situationally better, I'm just explaining what I meant when I say "Only khan's guard are really good."
I dont, Khans rule in fieldbattles and have the speed advantage.
Yes and you can also much more easily load up on forest bandits then steppe bandits too, for making fians even if you're not around the Battanian area. That's not really about the fians utility though, you can easily pile up on vlandian recruits and make xbow men or so on and on.
I wouldnt exactly compare fians to vlandian recruits. And again, its the difference between spending time gathering men in a **** hole vs. the best place in the world.
This isn't a consideration, I always start as a battanian and still make khan's guard party to start out. Unless you're saying the troops get some speed bonus from it which is news to me, AFAIK only a party leader can use it.
You get the recruitment bonus advantage from your own culture.
I don't know what you mean but with 150-200 Khan's guard I can run down every party and army and capture every lord easily while my vassals just ravage everything and siege on their own. I of course can also take any fief with that force or even a much lesser one but YMMV. That's not to say fians wouldn't be good too or a mixture of both, but I flat out reject any idea that Khan's guard are bad in siege. They're "too good" for a conventional siege, but they perform excellently.
I would take Fians over Khans for sieges myself. I have tried just keeping the land clear of enemies and hoping that your vassals would take care of the rest, but it isnt worth it. You are better of just stacking as much as you can and just take it all from one end to the other. (If you are spending most of your time in a siegecamps the speed advantage also becomes mute)
 
Last edited:
Khan's guard is kind of master of all, if one want to take over whole kingdom, Fian is little more of tense and more risk, getting, training, and lost or got killed, start over again while Khan's guard line had all horse and shooting archer without enter melee, making almost zero risk losing them, easier training, only issues is second rank of khan's guard line is had to find warhorse to upgrade.
 
I should say glancing through this thread I find myself agreeing with five bucks. We definitely need the elites dialed back. They're my favorite troops, but I want them to stay special not be the default units for a player.
 
Thats not how you use averages
Already explained this.
And I dont know why you keep bring up 3 troop slots; its only on the very easy setting that you automatically have that.
That's what it gives you by default. Either way, it's not a big deal.
You went through all the trouble finding those actual numbers but then couldnt be bothered to manually enter the the number in a calculator... I dont even know what to say.
I didn't want to lose track of the numbers, and as I said the smarter option didn't occur to me at the time. Considering you didn't go to any trouble, maybe save the criticism.
Sure, if they have access to infinite resources, unlimited influence and have managed to bankrupt every faction, thus wiping out all armies and garrisons, before starting. The rest of us need to build those resources first and have to contend with a bit more resistence.
The point was that you can be capturing lots of fiefs once you have gotten to that stage of building yourself up. The garrisons part is a good point though. At any rate, chasing elite recruits only would take away from the time you would need to gather resources, influence, and do stuff similar to bankrupting factions. So it all comes down to a matter of campaign time.
I am going to go with "we shall see" on this one.
Fair enough.
 
Back
Top Bottom