It's more realistic, tier 1 units don't have stronger weapons that can penetrate higher tier armours, it was like that in warband.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
A few "points" on why combat(armour) is more satisfying when using realistic combat mod compared to vanilla
- Thread starter DennyWiseau
- Start date
-
- Tags
- combat
Users who are viewing this thread
five bucks
Knight at Arms
Like I already said, I agree 0 damage shouldn't be happening at all (did you read the edit Philozoraptor, the mod's author, made to his post? He talks about 0/1 damage attacks)?
Although I do think that weakling looters throwing pebbles at the best armor in the game should be doing 1 damage per hit. 1 damage should also occur in the case of weak long-distance ranged attacks.
Melee attacks shouldn't be doing 1 damage unless it's a negative-speed blow, or from someone with very low combat skill and a bad weapon, against really good armor.
How is it fun to see low tier units do very low damage to high tier units? Well, it's fun to see your higher tier units actually be worth the time and effort you put into them; seeing elite melee units go down to a small handful of ****ty peasants and the other weakest enemies in the game, on the other hand, is anti-fun. The current state of armor makes infantry very weak by comparison to ranged units which makes tactics really shallow, the game could be more fun tactically if a wider variety of troops were viable choices without feeling like you're gimping yourself. Also, because troops die so quickly, you don't have time to do any meaningful tactics and battles end in like 3 minutes, so better armor = more opportunity to savor a good battle = more fun. And a lot of people find increased realism more immersive = more fun.
Last edited:
I wouldn't know; I usually don't run RBM and when I do, I use the same tactics and it just takes longer for the battle to finish.
What is lacking in my opinion is tactic and strategy during battles. They are all the same cause it's either one side defending one charging (with all they have) or both charging (with all they have) there's no use of formations, no tactical approach like flanking or trying to break enemy line.
Right now the game seems more like hack and slash with poor background called battle.
Except of stats of armors and units the pace could be slowed down by proper order of battle and breaking troops into more groups. This would be specially beneficial for large battles.
Right now the game seems more like hack and slash with poor background called battle.
Except of stats of armors and units the pace could be slowed down by proper order of battle and breaking troops into more groups. This would be specially beneficial for large battles.
Philozoraptor
Sergeant
8 formation in a game (4 are taken by default by each unit type).....
HalfMetalJacket
Knight
Because I like the idea of my badass elites feeling like they really are badass elites.
I've only seen AI using line (almost every battle) and square (when they are outnumbered).
And even if they use more it's hard to see cause they just stupidly charge with everything.
Amazing how some people find the idea of armor working like armor absurd.
chillsing
Recruit
Your higher tier units are already more badass then lower ones in the current game. Realistic mode just further push it to exaggerated levels. The moment your opponent faction start losing they come back with their army compromised mostly of recruits from this point you can just f1 f3 a couple of tier 5 units, alt tab, watch youtube, tab back in with an ensured victory with 0 unit losses. If that sort of game play is enjoyable for you there's already campaign options to reduce damage taken from your units.
I still think higher health values for higher tier units preferable to complete invincibility. Also a minor nerf to projectile damage.
Another point for different health value would be giving a reason to actually spend some focus points in combat skills because currently you can already 1-hit most units as a player.
I find it weird how the idea of losing units is inacceptable when there so easily replaceable plus we've received a new way to quickly gain experience from discarding items. I know it is a single player and it's alright to enjoy having an easier time but like I said, the options are already there in the menu.
I still think higher health values for higher tier units preferable to complete invincibility. Also a minor nerf to projectile damage.
Another point for different health value would be giving a reason to actually spend some focus points in combat skills because currently you can already 1-hit most units as a player.
I find it weird how the idea of losing units is inacceptable when there so easily replaceable plus we've received a new way to quickly gain experience from discarding items. I know it is a single player and it's alright to enjoy having an easier time but like I said, the options are already there in the menu.
Last edited:
It's one of the essential, must-have mods IMO. Untrained dudes in loin cloths shouldn't be able to compete against a real militia/army, and it gets better/more complicated at higher tier battles.
The problem here is exactly what You mentioned. How easy it is to build full tier 6 army.
With and without this mod it works the same and You can easily get invincible army.
I like this mod because it makes battles longer (not much but still better than vanilla).
The only addition is that I need to restrict myself from making full elite army cause it breaks the game in both vanilla and RBM and AI never do it. Even if they win a lot they never have more than 40% of army composed of elites and usually it's a lot lower.
I'm also using Jus ad bellum together with this cause it makes recruitment much better and the whole game more challenging.
I think that up to t3 it should be easy to train troops, t4 a little harder and anything higher should be a lot harder to get.
Elites should only be the ones that survived a ton of battles with You or AI and I don't mind if some armies wouldn't have them at all.
There are a lot of possibilities to make it better and more challenging than just adjusting stats or equipment. And there are always sliders for those who don't like to hard gameplay. They could change XP needed for higher tier troops and add sliders to difficulty setting if someone wants it to be faster.
chillsing
Recruit
Experience gains being massively lowered for higher tier units is also a sound idea also elite units being super rare and more akin to battle hardened veterans too. Anything to give us more challenges. I want AI to matter, strategies to matter, formations to matters, different unit types to matter. Not invincible units for the sake of making battles longer. We have no way increase the difficulty of the game right now other than going out our way and refuse to use some implemented features & units and that is a problem.
https://www.nexusmods.com/mountandblade2bannerlord/mods/3085?tab=posts found what you were talking about, sounds nice but I'm too burned to play another campaign right now I'll give a try next patch.
https://www.nexusmods.com/mountandblade2bannerlord/mods/3085?tab=posts found what you were talking about, sounds nice but I'm too burned to play another campaign right now I'll give a try next patch.
Ulfhedinn_
Sergeant at Arms
This would make the battle much more interesting: https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/poll-unit-behaviour-by-class.444163/
I like RBM and personally use it. However, the main issue with super effective armors is snowballing. If one faction has managed to build an army with high tier troops (obviously with effective armors), it will easily overtake the whole map because the opposing faction will only have low tier troops, mostly just recruits.
five bucks
Knight at Arms
I wouldn't call it anywhere near "badass" that a T5 Legionary has a 50% chance of dying to as few as two T1 Vlandian Recruits. Or that a literal peasant with a rusty scythe is able to oneshot a charging T6 Imerial Cataphract, who will probably fail to time his attack correctly.
Also take into account that people want armor to be stronger so that the enemy troops aren't so easy to kill. It's unsatisfying for all your "big scary high tier" enemies, like T6s, nobles, and even kings to be pretty easy to oneshot if you have a slashing polearm, a javelin to yeet or a mid-tier bow.
Nobody said complete invincibility. RMB doesn't make you completely invincible either.
IMO the best way would be a mix of: lower fire rate for lower-tier ranged infantry, armor which is significantly more useful against ranged attacks and a medium amount better against melee attacks, and perhaps some small health buff for high-tier units too, as you said. To avoid making archers too weak, compensate for this by reducing the amount of shields in the faction troop trees.
I think RBM doesn't do any changes to autocalc so AI vs AI battles are not affected by it. In autocalc armor and weapon doesn't matter. Only tier and if its mounted or not.
Philozoraptor
Sergeant
There are like 8 tactics in the game and some 3-4 of them are broken so we had to remove them. So you end up with skirmish (before charging) with cav on flanks, assault with cav on flanks, defend with cav on flanks, asault with cav in front. Attacker can do only attacker tactics, defender can do both defender and attacker tactics.
Philozoraptor
Sergeant
Thats why we recommend using volunteer uptier and lord retinue uptier for more challange.
What You mentioned is just positioning. Attacker is only marching forward with everything while defender is either waiting or also marching with everything. So there's no tactic at all.
