2h units are useless unless archers get nerfed

[TomaSkTemplar]

title should be, bow damage needs nerfing, not enough energy drop over distance.

depending on armor, archery depending on bow, arrow, skill, should have less effective range vs armor, in general, reducing missile speed. Armor is also not strong enough.I think an excess of 50 should be a thing. You can easily do much more. Harpoons from horses are ballistae as well. Headshots in excess of 400 damage, normal vs looters up to 300.

However bows have more range and more ammo.

 

[TrashMan]

I think combat should run like an rts, warhammer for example. Mounted archers should be lightly armored. and ground archers should be more accurate against them since they are on horse, shock cav should be armored because they are melee units, which is why spearmen are needed to protect your archers. and you need 2h infantry if you want to shred the enemies front line and make them break, but also archers are the main source of your armies dmg but they are weak and vulnerable. Where this becomes more about tactics and where you place your units to deal with specific threats, but as it stands theres no reason to do anything other than an army of khans guard because they are lethal and armored and do well in melee.

Rock-Paper-Scissors bonuses mechancs?

No. A thousand times no.
Fake. Artificial. Stupid.

 

[Ruler of Calradia]

Imo, not counting militias and such, 2 handed weapons should only be given to units that are heavily enough armored to withstand missile fire. Units that use 2 handed weapons tend to be and should be more crack troops that can be used for example to lead an assault. I don't want my crack assault troops to be glass cannons, that would be stupid. I would never leave my better troops without shields if they would die to first arrow that they see. Units that use 2 handed weapons should be able to withstand roughly as much fire as units you upgrade them from. Not sure if there are some units in game where this does not apply to, not yet familiar with them all.

Otherwise balance of the game seems great atm. Horse archers don't seem overpowered, archers can be deadly but they are not machine guns, shields provide infantry protection they should have. Cavalry is great but does not automatically win everything. Besides units that use 2 handed weapons being glass cannons, so far it looks like Taleworlds did brilliant job But i need to play more to be sure. Especially not sure if some of my opponets are underpowered, but it seems that everything i have tried is useful and there are no useless unit types.

Altough recruits that are armed with nothing but swords are in front lines too much atm. They should always form behind units with shields. Its unrealistic to send anyone into battle armed with nothing but 1 handed sword, but i actually sort of like that so i don't mind.

 

[Morderian]

i think its a general problem with Unit behaviour in formations most evidently the Shieldwall were the Shields despite our Character Yelling "Shields forward" are often staying back because some Pikemen or recruit decided to stay in the first row and die,

as for 2 H units in general if they get in melee they are extremely deadly and feel alright at the moment (except for some no sense progressions like Ulfheds throwing aways their Armor)

and the Archers well they need a rework cause on one Hand you have the rather balanced Crossbowmen (scarce Ammo but deadly) on the other Hand you have Battanian Fians (aka Bowgods incaranate with lots of Ammo) and inbetween you have medium usefull regular Archers with a lack of Flavor and questionable effefiency against anything not beign a Peasant army

 

[High chief Kieran]

Imo, not counting militias and such, 2 handed weapons should only be given to units that are heavily enough armored to withstand missile fire. Units that use 2 handed weapons tend to be and should be more crack troops that can be used for example to lead an assault. I don't want my crack assault troops to be glass cannons, that would be stupid. I would never leave my better troops without shields if they would die to first arrow that they see. Units that use 2 handed weapons should be able to withstand roughly as much fire as units you upgrade them from. Not sure if there are some units in game where this does not apply to, not yet familiar with them all.

so basicly you want an op assault force? the 2h weapons units are very powerfull once melee starts, they are weak to arrow fire true, but without that weakness there would no longer be a reason to pick shielded units at all.

use them as they are supposed to be used and they will take down a lot of enemies. your units with shields need a lot of hits to take down more armored units, the 2h people do not, they are a force to be reckoned with. like i said before, use the shields untill melee starts than flank with the 2h units.

 

[Gremgoblin]

Haha, even the "lore" of the battle of Pendraic keeps this in account;

Neretzes didn't send any archers with the vanguard, so when the falxmen came running out of the woods, they could descend upon the arrow riddled enemy. I think the problem is more than currently, archers even with 50 bow skill, can hit a target from really far away.

 

[Ruler of Calradia]

so basicly you want an op assault force? the 2h weapons units are very powerfull once melee starts, they are weak to arrow fire true, but without that weakness there would no longer be a reason to pick shielded units at all.

use them as they are supposed to be used and they will take down a lot of enemies. your units with shields need a lot of hits to take down more armored units, the 2h people do not, they are a force to be reckoned with. like i said before, use the shields untill melee starts than flank with the 2h units.

Don't be silly, ofc i don't want OP forces... They would be stronger than units on lower tiers, nothing wrong with that, you don't want to upgrade to inferior unit. On same tier, shielded units would still be better protected against any attacks or missiles, have more staying power and depending on what 2h unit we are talking about other differences. 2h swordsmen would not be great at holding the line (though i don't know how that works in this game). Pikemen would suffer in 1vs1 combat and halberd-like weapons are mix of 2. They would not be overpowered, they just would not be quite as voulnerable to arrows as they are atm. If necessary you can adjust other stats to compensate.


Altough i would prefer if units without shields would be tier or even two higher than others so they could be given insanely strong armor that is almost as good as lower tier shield + armor combination and beastly stats as well, though ofc nothing stronger than best units that have existed real life (think best Huscarl-type bodyguards). It would ofc take so long to train them that any losses are are hard to replace, so your armies would still mostly be made up of lower tier troops.

 

[D_Axe]

The 2 handed troops too weak against archer... Indeed they are, I see no problem there, it is realistic.

And you have trees, landforms, dunes, rocks, cliffs and I suppose a brain, so you put them to cover.
You can also use cavalry to distract the archers to make a room for your unprotected troops to go end them.

You need to adapt yourself in war, that's what makes difference.

 

[mangalore]

The 2 handed troops too weak against archer... Indeed they are, I see no problem there, it is realistic.

I think the main issue is that you'd need proper formations, e.g. shield guys going in front until melee. A bit the issue is also not just what the player does but also the AI. There is a reason why in Warband people loved Rhodok death squads, the AI could not cope with it.

 

[D_Axe]

I think the main issue is that you'd need proper formations, e.g. shield guys going in front until melee. A bit the issue is also not just what the player does but also the AI. There is a reason why in Warband people loved Rhodok death squads, the AI could not cope with it.

I agree, the should make that in a any "all-units" formations, the shield infantry first(a logic thing)

But what I really miss from Warband, is the editable units groups, Like all Pikemen in Pikemen, Swordmen with Swordmen, etc....

 

[High chief Kieran]

I agree, the should make that in a any "all-units" formations, the shield infantry first(a logic thing)

But what I really miss from Warband, is the editable units groups, Like all Pikemen in Pikemen, Swordmen with Swordmen, etc....

i dont understand what you mean? you can still edit unit groups? in the party select screen click on the small banner

 

[Clanker]

Wow its almost as if flying pointy objects to the face and chest are bad for your health. Use the terrain to your advantage.

 

[Maximum997]

Problem with 2handers - that they die instantly even against low tier archers.

 

[High chief Kieran]

Problem with 2handers - that they die instantly even against low tier archers.

low tier archers should have less accuracy but once they hit they should kill the 2h, they have very little defences against arrows.

 

[LEEKING2005]

Problem with 2handers - that they die instantly even against low tier archers.

Well, you got 4 slots in reality and 2 handed just take 2 slots, so if you don't bring a shield / bow/ any shielded unit you only have yourself to blame. Cause even the AI in this game is really bad somehow you still beat them with your brain. Kudos XD

 

[Soulcharger]

2H infantry from what i have seen are just fine. How you use them determines their usefulness and survival. Use a shield wall, have your 2h back and to the side. As enemy approach steadily move them so your troops form ___| formation. Once their troops smash into the shield wall you have your 2hs flank them. Meanwhile you use cavalry to flank the archers. Every single unit in this game has very good uses, 2h being great for flanking infantry units as the AI are really good with melee blocking unlike humans.

 

[Maximum997]

low tier archers should have less accuracy but once they hit they should kill the 2h, they have very little defences against arrows.

Will poopy pesant with axe from his farrm beat elite shield warror? Nope. So why poopy pesant with hunting bow should kill elite 2 hander ezpz?
And they are even not as good in melee combat. Really not much difference betwween them and guys with 1h+shield.

Well, you got 4 slots in reality and 2 handed just take 2 slots, so if you don't bring a shield / bow/ any shielded unit you only have yourself to blame. Cause even the AI in this game is really bad somehow you still beat them with your brain. Kudos XD

May be use your barin. And may be, just may be you will understand that we are talking about troops. "Gitgud" kids on forums became even more stupid with time

 

[High chief Kieran]

Will poopy pesant with axe from his farrm beat elite shield warror? Nope. So why poopy pesant with hunting bow should kill elite 2 hander ezpz?
And they are even not as good in melee combat. Really not much difference betwween them and guys with 1h+shield.

read what i said, IF it hits it should kill, an arrow is an arrow, once it hits it makes little difference who shot it?
arrow trough the hearth = dead, no matter who shot it, the master archer does have a bigger chance to hit
or are you telling me that if a peasant shoots an arrow trough my hearth i will survive because it was a peasant that shot it and hit his target because of luck?
or will the armor ignore a shot or let it trough depending on who shot it? a lot of peasants also hunted because they needed the food and there were times where they had little to do because there was nothing to do at the farm so could affort to go away to hunt for extra income/supplies

 

[pmn1990]

Had no idea that was even there, they don't make it very obvious.

Shielded infantry by default should be in the front stack of formations rather than have to manually do it. I like extra groups but in heat of battle it gets annoying to micromanage for instance i always forget to charge or advance my archers behind my infantry and they sit back on a hill out of range

 

[Soulcharger]

As your pointing out pmn1990 its more of a failure in formations of AI not the individual units failure. I love playing RTS and micromanaging so for me this was never a problem. But based on reading your post i can completely understand what your talking about and support that it is a failure of ai formations to behave right. In regards to low tier vs high tier archers, low tier have much shorter range then high tier and additionally much lower accuracy. Dieing to them is more of bad luck then their skill level, as usually they were not even aiming at you.