2h units are useless unless archers get nerfed

[High chief Kieran]

Last time I checked on the encyclopedia, Falxmen (Empire or Vlandians? I don't remember which faction they're in.) were a lot better than them and they're a Tier lower. I just stopped upgrading my berserkers when I found that out.

falxman are battanian

 

[Orkmann]

2h units are useless, but that's I am kind of OK with (realism and whatnot). The issue is archers massacre even the shielden infantry. The rate of fire and accuracy on long range is pretty unrealistic imho.

 

[Jokerozan]

The issue being, if they nerf archers to the point that they can barely kill 2h soldiers, they're going to be absolutely useless against soldiers with shields.

What they need to do is allow us to put units in custom selection groups like we could in WB. That way you can effectively keep the 2H's behind the shields and not just a single infantry bunch that it is now.

that's it

 

[Soulcharger]

2h units are useless, but that's I am kind of OK with (realism and whatnot). The issue is archers massacre even the shielden infantry. The rate of fire and accuracy on long range is pretty unrealistic imho.

Not useless at all. I use them in my armies once i get a cap around 100 i keep about 10 of them, 10 horses, 30 archers, and 50 infantry. With this set up I can claim victory over any faction.

Formation as follows:

Infantry are the center and heart set to shield wall hold fire (incase any have throwing weapons).

Archers will be behind and to the left about 225*

Cavalry will be at left 270* this should create a slot between infantry and horses for archers to shoot between.

2h will be on the right at 130* this keeps them back enough that enemy archers do not engage them over the infantry.

Once enemy infantry collides with shield wall you move archers to 270* facing inwards. Meanwhile you move 2h to 90* then charge.

Cavalry will also have been moved to flank archers just prior to infantry coliding with shield wall.

Easy day.

 

[Neat]

I disagree with OP - Two-handed shieldless units have no business charging archers from the front line. If they do that's a bad strategy and they should get wiped out. I would advise against making 2 handed heavies in the early game.

Hell, that's what archers are for. if they can't take out a bloke charging them without a shield then they're completely and utterly useless.

Just like how cavalry shouldn't charge head-on into a spear wall. Or into a zombie army of a million in the middle of the night with the weapons that don't kill them.

Anyway. Unless we want to turn M&B into another of those Rock/Paper/Scissors casual games then some weapon/armor combinations will always be better than others in certain situations. That's just how it was and that's how it should be imho.

 

[Soulcharger]

Your profile pic @Neat is priceless in this conversation except that he always used a shield when possible.

 

[Neat]

Your profile pic @Neat is priceless in this conversation except that he always used a shield when possible.

HA! didn't even think about that. His shield broke

 

[Soulcharger]

Next time he should not play hero and leave the shield wall......dam Frodo running off and screwing the formation line, bet he is the same guy that runs around during siege and opens the gates to sally out meanwhile leaves the gate open.

 

[Dampfnudel]

Archers should not be able to pierce higher level amor. And should not be able to pierce medium level amor on high range.

 

[Soulcharger]

So, if this were true why did Knights with heavy plate armor on horses still use shields to block arrows if they were perfectly safe from missiles?

 

[Neat]

Archers should not be able to pierce higher level amor. And should not be able to pierce medium level amor on high range.

In the time period this is based on the full plate armor was not yet a thing so archers were pretty darn deadly. And even when it became a thing we still had Agincourt.

 

[Orkmann]

@Soulcharger ok, 2h are not completely useless. This is a game, so I am sure you can find some use case if you enjoy using them. But it is still just an inferior unit type.

@Neat on the comment that one type will always be the best - the problem is that currently ranged weapons are absurdly powerful. Just try a custom battle 100 archer vs 100 infantry. Usually the infantry does not even reach the line, just runs away after losing 50-60 men. The worst thing is that the only infantry which performs OK in that situation is the Khuzait, but not because of their melee prowess, but because they have javis , which they start throwing from 70 yard...

 

[Soulcharger]

How are they inferior, they have crazy kill speed as a flanking unit, hence why i use them. They kill about 2-3 times faster then archers so when used right they are a force multiplyer. The other thing i am still playing with is if they also demoralize units faster as i notice the flank they attack breaks and flees much sooner then the archery side. But this is not yet proven.

 

[Dampfnudel]

In the time period this is based on the full plate armor was not yet a thing so archers were pretty darn deadly. And even when it became a thing we still had Agincourt.

What is the timeframe of Bannerlord? Early medieval?

During the crusades, the Arabs did not manage to pierce the European armor (mail+gambeson) with their curved bows.
Only hit in arms and legs were the armor was thinner have a CHANCE to pierce at CLOSE (less than 100m) range.

Agincourt is about the terrain and weather. Arrows were still not able to pierce the armor.

 

[Neat]

@Soulcharger ok, 2h are not completely useless. This is a game, so I am sure you can find some use case if you enjoy using them. But it is still just an inferior unit type.

@Neat on the comment that one type will always be the best - the problem is that currently ranged weapons are absurdly powerful. Just try a custom battle 100 archer vs 100 infantry. Usually the infantry does not even reach the line, just runs away after losing 50-60 men. The worst thing is that the only infantry which performs OK in that situation is the Khuzait, but not because of their melee prowess, but because they have javis , which they start throwing from 70 yard...

Maybe they could nerf the low-end bows a bit - to be fair hunting bows shouldn't be able to take out heavily armored guys. But Longbows and Composite bows created a whole era in history because they were so dominant on the battlefield.

 

[Jhaerik]

Wouldn't have been an issue if they picked literally ANY other time period.
They just based the game in that awkward "fall of rome" time period where equipment and tactics just generally sucked.

 

[Soulcharger]

@Jhaerik nailed it on the head, bad era of tactics.

 

[Jhaerik]

@Jhaerik nailed it on the head, bad era of tactics.

I mean if they'd have just gone a couple hundred years earlier or later with it there would had been so much more cool stuff AND better game balance.

It's like basing a Railroad Tycoon game during the start of the Great Depression.

 

[wideeyenow01]

Thats why Greeks and Alexander with heavy infantry beated the crap out of Persians? And then Romans with heavy infantry beats a crap out of them.

Sphacteria was a greek general.......................................................................................................................... who demonstrated...................................................... that archers DO have an advantage.................................................. over heavy infantry........................................
^is called a fact, use a dictionary to find out what "fact" means...
Persians used cheap arrows, not good iron or lesser steel in their bladed tips (alexander used cavalry rush tactics)
And roman archers (and ballistas) are widely known to have been the key to their victory...
BEYOND THE FACT they both used what's called a shield wall, WHICH IS WHY THIS POST EVEN EXISTS
SHIELD WALL > ARCHERS
The post reads "why are my heavy infantry without shields getting killed by archers, must I use shielded units?"
the answer is yes....

 

[mamastoast]

I think 2 handers serve a pretty functional role... In my experience they deal really well with shielded infantry... Obviously someone without a shield is extremely exposed to ranged attacks, that's why hold them back a bit ... Or have enough to close the distance ^^