7 new maps, Ranked and Battle mode, hundreds of balance changes

Users who are viewing this thread

Archers are literally the main force in every game I've played, to the point that this game may as well be a shooter
If you have a lot of newbies in your team(or you ignore the archer) this is true. You should try playing clan match against a decent clan as archer.
not to mention in this game is VERY easy to shoot uncovered areas with a shield (round shields are kinda useless at this point imo)
Heavy infantry shields' hitboxes are so big. If you know how to position the shield there is no way to shoot through shield. The round shields that you are talking about are peasant class shields(cheapest classes in the game). Also considering the speed of peasant classes you can still dodge arrows easily.

This game has clan matches(adding ranked now). That means this game is competitive. So it needs to be arcade and fun to play not realistic(at least multiplayer side). Since the speed buff to infantries the meta in the clan matches is 5inf-1cav or 4inf-2cav. I think that explains the situation.
 
If you have a lot of newbies in your team(or you ignore the archer) this is true. You should try playing clan match against a decent clan as archer.

Heavy infantry shields' hitboxes are so big. If you know how to position the shield there is no way to shoot through shield. The round shields that you are talking about are peasant class shields(cheapest classes in the game). Also considering the speed of peasant classes you can still dodge arrows easily.

This game has clan matches(adding ranked now). That means this game is competitive. So it needs to be arcade and fun to play not realistic(at least multiplayer side). Since the speed buff to infantries the meta in the clan matches is 5inf-1cav or 4inf-2cav. I think that explains the situation.
For the longest time, an all-archer team rarely ever needs to put any amount of efforts into their wins assuming that they're up against a team with a well-rounded mix of infantry, archers, and cavalry.

I've had cases where arrows and crossbow bolts shot through oval shields and similarly large shields, which is a minor inconvenience in a 1v1 context but in most Bannerlord games, there's going to be a lot more than just one archer shooting at your team. Heck, given the amount of archers at a given time, an all-archer team actually doesn't need to have good aim in order to do well. Rather, they simply need to practice a philosophy called "accuracy in volume", where if you fire off enough shots at your enemy's general direction, you're bound to hit something eventually.
 
For the longest time, an all-archer team rarely ever needs to put any amount of efforts into their wins assuming that they're up against a team with a well-rounded mix of infantry, archers, and cavalry.
For skirmish: Even if you have 2 archers in your team it is usually a lose against a decent team(more means quicker lose).
For clan matches:You can't even take more than 2 archers by the rules.
I've had cases where arrows and crossbow bolts shot through oval shields and similarly large shields, which is a minor inconvenience in a 1v1 context but in most Bannerlord games
As I said if you know how to hold your shield they can't shoot through. I can tell that majority of people don't realize they are holding the shield wrong.

As heavy infantry you can push enemy team easily while holding your shield even if they have archers. When you get close to archers and get into sword fight with them that turns into "strong+speedy infantry vs weak+slow infantry" fight.
 
Archers are literally the main force in every game I've played, to the point that this game may as well be a shooter. These changes to make infantry have a chance against archers are very welcomed, not to mention in this game is VERY easy to shoot uncovered areas with a shield (round shields are kinda useless at this point imo) which gives archer a load of advantage, so idk if archers have to run away at all anyways.
This just isn't true at all. On every server - skirmish, battle, siege, TDM - the top scoring are always Cav or inf. Maybe 1 archer up there if they're very good.
 
Archers are literally the main force in every game I've played, to the point that this game may as well be a shooter. These changes to make infantry have a chance against archers are very welcomed, not to mention in this game is VERY easy to shoot uncovered areas with a shield (round shields are kinda useless at this point imo) which gives archer a load of advantage, so idk if archers have to run away at all anyways.
Vlandian heavy archers might be even more immortal than they currently are due to the upcoming nerfs to blunt weapons.
 
@glave08 Ever consider that you're not the best archer in the game and there are some who are pretty amazing with a bow? People need to stop coming on the forum just to whine about balance every time a minor change is made to the game. Being a good archer is a different skill entirely than being a good infantryman, just like being a good cavalry player is entirely different from playing a foot soldier. If you're finding that you can't get any hits with an archer from range, maybe you are not meant to only play archer.
 
@glave08 Ever consider that you're not the best archer in the game and there are some who are pretty amazing with a bow?
So many people told me that I am pretty decent as an archer. I play this game's multiplayer since Warband released, I play as main archer since Bannerlord released and also I have played so many games in the e-sports level.
People need to stop coming on the forum just to whine about balance every time a minor change is made to the game.
I guess that's why the forum exists, right?
If you're finding that you can't get any hits with an archer from range, maybe you are not meant to only play archer.
Umm, it takes time for your arrow to reach its target(not a hitscan) and you also have a reaction time. There is no way to see the future so -no matter how good you are- there is always a luck factor there. In realistic perspective, yeah, that's ok but for multiplayer side this game aims to be a competitive game. Therefore, in this state there is no reason to play archer in the competitive scene. Instead of 3inf-1arch, you can just pick 4inf and that makes more sense. That's why I said this change is no different than deleting archers from the game. If you don't play clan matches regularly you won't understand what I mean.

I just wanted to learn the detailed reason behind this change and wanted to share my opinion. I am not demanding anything.
 
Last edited:
Considering all the different variations of Improved Armor and also the fact that no one reads the class balance threads, could we perhaps have this be in place for Recruit?

Footwork replaced with Reinforcements
  • Captain Mode: +3 models to your unit
  • Skirmish/TDM/Siege: Adds an AI companion that you can order around.
    • AI Recruit unconditionally has a Gladius, Leatherbound Kite Shield, and Javelin (4) regardless of your Perk 1 selection
    • Companion is bare-headed and equipped with the Sackcloth Tunic. This is to differentiate them from player-controlled Recruits since this clothing combination is actually impossible when customizing your character
    • AI companion deals 30% less ranged damage until player controlled
      • I think this should bring damage levels down to the pre-1.6.1 Light Javelin, but I don't think the player will wanna be tied down to actual Light Javelins when they take control of the AI recruit
    • AI companion deals 15% less melee damage until player controlled
    • (Skirmish only) AI Recruit deals an additional 50% less team damage with ranged attacks (calculation is multiplicative, min. 1)
    • (Skirmish only) AI Recruit deals no team damage with melee attacks
    • (TDM only) Killing a Recruit with the Reinforcements perk will only give you 10 points. To get the full 20, you must kill both the leader and companion recruits.
TaleWorlds seems insistent on keeping the recruit as weak as they are to adhere to the lore that the Calradian Empire is backed by an army of naked conscripts who rely on sheer force of numbers to win, rather than having actually servicable weapons for even the lowliest of grunts. Since it's unrealistic to expect Recruit weapons to actually be good, I think the best way to go about this would be to make recruits be numerous enough that their wimpy weapons can actually be a threat.

Shield Wall replaced with Will to Live
Proposed flavour text: As a conscript of a woefully underequipped army, the only thing you can count on is your refusal to die.
+5 Armor (Should be on par with other peasants)
+60% more accurate while moving
+5% Movement Speed

As of e1.7.1, the only perk 2 perk worth grabbing for the Recruit is Longer Sword, since the Gladius will only succeed in getting you killed because you missed your javelin throws, and you realistically won't ever live long enough to see your shield take more than 80 damage. My suggestion for "Will to Live" is to provide a version of Improved Armor that could still work well within the confines of Bannerlord's lore, and is arguably more lore-friendly than believing that a quartermaster can give a fresh recruit a decent weapon.

The idea of "Will to Live" is to be a combination of an armor perk and the admittedly worthless Footwork perk, which I think can be handwaved as the conscript's survival instincts kicking in.
 
Considering all the different variations of Improved Armor and also the fact that no one reads the class balance threads, could we perhaps have this be in place for Recruit?

Footwork replaced with Reinforcements
  • Captain Mode: +3 models to your unit
  • Skirmish/TDM/Siege: Adds an AI companion that you can order around.
    • AI Recruit unconditionally has a Gladius, Leatherbound Kite Shield, and Javelin (4) regardless of your Perk 1 selection
    • Companion is bare-headed and equipped with the Sackcloth Tunic. This is to differentiate them from player-controlled Recruits since this clothing combination is actually impossible when customizing your character
    • AI companion deals 30% less ranged damage until player controlled
      • I think this should bring damage levels down to the pre-1.6.1 Light Javelin, but I don't think the player will wanna be tied down to actual Light Javelins when they take control of the AI recruit
    • AI companion deals 15% less melee damage until player controlled
    • (Skirmish only) AI Recruit deals an additional 50% less team damage with ranged attacks (calculation is multiplicative, min. 1)
    • (Skirmish only) AI Recruit deals no team damage with melee attacks
    • (TDM only) Killing a Recruit with the Reinforcements perk will only give you 10 points. To get the full 20, you must kill both the leader and companion recruits.
Did you seriously write this? Do you even play the game or are you that silly to think this is a good idea, like adding a "super armor" to cav. Lmao.

Edit: watch your language please.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Did you seriously write this? Do you even play the game or are you that silly to think this is a good idea, like adding a "super armor" to cav. Lmao.

Edit: watch your language please.
The only purpose that the Recruit serves is to punish the Menavlion Infantry and Archer Militia for dying without scoring a kill. They are so laughably bad and as i've mentioned in the post you quoted, TaleWorlds insists that the Recruit is as weak as they are to adhere to the lore that the Empire has a hell of a lot more soldiers than they do the resources to adequately train and equip their new recruits, hoping that the extra numbers can compensate.

In a singleplayer context, that's perfectly fine because the weak weapons and lack of armor on the Imperial Recruits are compensated by their larger numbers. In a multiplayer standpoint, the game is balanced around 6v6, and the fact that the Recruit has remained terrible for so long has me believing that the fact that they're bad to the point of being unplayable is intentional. The only time I can remember the Recruit being playable if not decent as a pick for late joiners was when they had the Pugio. As it currently stands, Recruits will need to 5v1 a 110-130 cost unit if their wimpy weapons are to even be a threat.

Having Reinforcements be a thing in non-captain modes would allow the Imperial Recruit's wimpy weapons to be numerous enough to compensate for terribleness, because god forbid that their equipment is actually comparable to the peasants of other factions. If TaleWorlds insists that the Recruit should be so weak that they need to outnumber their enemies in order to bring an even battle, why not let them outnumber their enemies?
 
Last edited:
The only purpose that the Recruit serves is to punish the Menavlion Infantry and Archer Militia for dying without scoring a kill. They are so laughably bad and as i've mentioned in the post you quoted, TaleWorlds insists that the Recruit is as weak as they are to adhere to the lore that the Empire has a hell of a lot more soldiers than they do the resources to adequately train and equip their new recruits, hoping that the extra numbers can compensate.

In a singleplayer context, that's perfectly fine because the weak weapons and lack of armor on the Imperial Recruits are compensated by their larger numbers. In a multiplayer standpoint, the game is balanced around 6v6, and the fact that the Recruit has remained terrible for so long has me believing that the fact that they're bad to the point of being unplayable is intentional. The only time I can remember the Recruit being playable if not decent as a pick for late joiners was when they had the Pugio. As it currently stands, Recruits will need to 5v1 a 110-130 cost unit if their wimpy weapons are to even be a threat.

Having Reinforcements be a thing in non-captain modes would allow the Imperial Recruit's wimpy weapons to be numerous enough to compensate for terribleness, because god forbid that their equipment is actually comparable to the peasants of other factions. If TaleWorlds insists that the Recruit should be so weak that they need to outnumber their enemies in order to bring an even battle, why not let them outnumber their enemies?
Lol. Everything you typed is nonsense and not true. Recruit is better than sturgian, battanian warrior and vlandian peasant. You literally don't know anything about the game, I don't know why you're still typing paragraphs of nonsense that are not true and will never be implemented in the game. Adding an ai reinforcement maybe the dumbest idea I've ever heard, after adding 'super armor' to already broken cav. There is really no point of arguing with you because you just type nonsense out of nowhere and know nothing about the game. Have fun typing paragraphs about issues that don't exist and will never be implemented in the game.
 
@NIN3 one question before you leave, is there any changes to how much money/loot/denars you make per game you play? It takes ages to buy the most simple cosmetic in the game, and in my opinion there could be an even wider and bigger variation in the armours, also, any chance that Custom Servers are allowed to give loot after playing?
 
Umm, it takes time for your arrow to reach its target(not a hitscan) and you also have a reaction time. There is no way to see the future so -no matter how good you are- there is always a luck factor there. In realistic perspective, yeah, that's ok but for multiplayer side this game aims to be a competitive game. Therefore, in this state there is no reason to play archer in the competitive scene. Instead of 3inf-1arch, you can just pick 4inf and that makes more sense. That's why I said this change is no different than deleting archers from the game. If you don't play clan matches regularly you won't understand what I mean.
I think archers are still viable in competitive play. But it really depends on the map, on xauna and echerion archer is usually a detriment. An extra inf would be better. (You may not even want to play 2 cavs lol) I don't think archers need to be nerfed more, they are in a decent place (relative to other classes)

There are more fundamental issues with the game at the moment which I think need to be taken care of.
@badbuckle Message me if you have any questions, on TW or another platform.
Discord: Krisee#3031 Steam: Krisee, Although Chao's understanding is greater than my own

The only purpose that the Recruit serves is to punish the Menavlion Infantry and Archer Militia for dying without scoring a kill. They are so laughably bad and as i've mentioned in the post you quoted, TaleWorlds insists that the Recruit is as weak as they are to adhere to the lore that the Empire has a hell of a lot more soldiers than they do the resources to adequately train and equip their new recruits, hoping that the extra numbers can compensate.
Recruit isn't terrible for it's price. It has a decent shield size compared to other 100 gold unit, ignoring aserai 100 gold unit which is the best. Definitely better than sturgian and battanian 100 gold.
 
Last edited:
Recruit isn't terrible for it's price. It has a decent shield size compared to other 100 gold unit, ignoring aserai 100 gold unit which is the best. Definitely better than sturgian and battanian 100 gold.
I dunno about that.

-Woodsplitter Axe and Battanian Shortsword have the benefit of being attached to an extra 9 points of armor (I think it's 23 for Sturgian Warrior, 24 for Clan Warrior)
-The Targe is admittedly not all that great, though a Mace/Axe Clan Warrior can be one of the better duelists relative to other peasants thanks to having a faster axe than what the Tribal has, along with one of the best maces in the game, esp. considering that it's one of the few maces to dodge the universal blunt weapon nerf
-The Sturgian Warrior's basic shield admittedly has worse coverage than the Recruit's shield, but has greater durability and is still acceptable vs. arrows in a pinch, picking a weapon perk means you'll still have a bit more armor than the Recruit, as well as a much better melee weapon than the wimpy gladius
-Rabble costs less, and the Khuzait Sickle's probably one of the best peasant axes in the game. I'd argue that it's at least strong enough that you might feel ballsy enough to forego a basic shield or pike just to get a bit of extra gold in Skirmish. There's a reason why Captain players fear the Rabble Rush.
-I'm not too sure where the Vlandian Peasant Levy stands rn. I know people are annoyed about the fact that he costs 80 gold, though the points in favour of him include the one-handed sickle still being decently strong for a base weapon, and the Western Hammer being the fastest blunt weapon in the game. Doesn't help that the universal blunt weapon nerf barely scratched that thing at all, either so it might end up being the best blunt weapon in the game, too. Only downside of the Peasant Levy would be that the only perk that's ever worth taking would be Village Militia, and that's just for the 100HP shield.
-In cases where people are spawning as cavalry, the Recruit actually has the worst anti-cav weapon in the game out of all the peasants, not counting the Peasant Levy's complete lack thereof
--Peasant Levy: N/A
--Recruit: 154 one-handed (Also replaces the recruit's main source of damage with what'd better be a one-hit kill on throw)
--Warrior: 174 one-handed
--Tribal Warrior: 195 one-handed
--Rabble: 256 two-handed
--Clan Warrior: 274 two-handed

The only time I could make Recruit REMOTELY workable was by picking the Stronger Javelins/Spatha perk and even then, I felt like the Recruit's killing power is still noticably worse than what the peasants of other factions have. It takes 5 recruits to kill one voulgier from my experience with Bannerlord, but other peasants don't seem to have this problem.
 
Back
Top Bottom