Philozoraptor
Sergeant
This.
-
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
Sergeant
Philozoraptor
Sergeant
There are different "mini tactics" for each formation like are we gonna charge or wait, are we gonna do some semi-scripted movement or whatever. But yeah tactics currently are limitied, most variation comes from map and from unit composition, both of these things affect behaviour. Main problem is that you either need like 30 different tactics or few that fit every situation, if you fail at this you end up with situations when AI does not react to player or other AI etc.
Yep what I meant that there a lack of some general tactic. Like sending cav around so they hit from the back and general attacking weak spots. All battles are frontal attack with everything and outcome is based mostly on number of troops and in some way on tier.
It would be not only a tactic for group/type of units but more a tactic based on cooperation between available groups/types.
caledoni
Sergeant
I prefer the battles on RBM but I do think it goes a bit far in the opposite direction regarding Armour strength. Maybe this is down to it trying to maximize realism rather than play-ability.
Couple of examples from a play through I started yesterday:
Extortion by deserters quest. my 55 or so men take over 10mins to kill 4 troops. namely the T6 Aseri noble Cav. I have a few merc xbow men and a load of T3 cav as well as a stack of infantry T1-T3. Chasing these guys around the map for 10-15mins wasn't great.
Find Daughter quest. I put 15-20 AP arrows into the guy and hit him with my sword a couple of times and he still didn't die. he 2 shotted me in the end.
I Played a longer playthrough with the mod few months back and really enjoyed the battles but found that once I had a stack of legionaries then it was game over. The file has been added to improve Lord troop quality so that will help with this I guess.
Overall I much prefer the battles in RBM but find that heavy Armour is just a bit OP for my liking even if that is realistic. It seems obvious to most that Vanilla battles are way too fast paced, amour is pathetic and archery is OP. For me the balance is somewhere between vanilla and RBM.
I'm currently still using RBM's troop overhaul and AI module.
Since it's been mentioned I was also a big total war player. Played most of the older titles extensively and preferred longer battles for sure. In recent years I have mainly played Rome 2 with DEI which makes for quite long battles.
I agree also with those saying that big battles should be rarer and more meaningful and thus them lasting longer also makes sense.
Couple of examples from a play through I started yesterday:
Extortion by deserters quest. my 55 or so men take over 10mins to kill 4 troops. namely the T6 Aseri noble Cav. I have a few merc xbow men and a load of T3 cav as well as a stack of infantry T1-T3. Chasing these guys around the map for 10-15mins wasn't great.
Find Daughter quest. I put 15-20 AP arrows into the guy and hit him with my sword a couple of times and he still didn't die. he 2 shotted me in the end.
I Played a longer playthrough with the mod few months back and really enjoyed the battles but found that once I had a stack of legionaries then it was game over. The file has been added to improve Lord troop quality so that will help with this I guess.
Overall I much prefer the battles in RBM but find that heavy Armour is just a bit OP for my liking even if that is realistic. It seems obvious to most that Vanilla battles are way too fast paced, amour is pathetic and archery is OP. For me the balance is somewhere between vanilla and RBM.
I'm currently still using RBM's troop overhaul and AI module.
Since it's been mentioned I was also a big total war player. Played most of the older titles extensively and preferred longer battles for sure. In recent years I have mainly played Rome 2 with DEI which makes for quite long battles.
I agree also with those saying that big battles should be rarer and more meaningful and thus them lasting longer also makes sense.
RBM is pretty much the best mod for the game
Yup.
Of course the attackers have to come forward. Bannerlord has a few different types of approaches but you're just hard-pressed to notice a difference for a variety of reasons, mainly because the given a certain player party composition the same few tend to fire over and over but also because some of them are basically just RPing because they are actively bad.
Yes, I'm aware that it doesn't affect the AI simulated battles. What I'm referring is to actual implementation of effectiveness of armor to the game.
Armor being effective on field combat is good, however, if armor effectiveness is not a factor in simulated battles, then it simply lose the essence of implementing it.
If they will ever implement RBM or similar option to make armor effective, it should be optional. A campaign options that can be change anytime and you can choose the level of armor effectiveness, for example:
Option #1: 25% armor more effective
Option #2: 50% armor more effective
Option #3: 75% armor more effective
Option #4: 100% armor more effective
So in this idea, players have a free will to use it or not. I posted a similar suggestion like this before: post
five bucks
Knight at Arms
While it's good to give players options, maybe too many options sliders is a bad thing? After all, TW has limited time to work on these things. And we have heaps of sliders on the main menu which could be pretty confusing for new players. Perhaps sliders/checkboxes should be saved for very controversial things, but I think the vast majority of players want to see armor just get fixed.
Kreu2009
Sergeant
Well here are my 2 cent.
In my experience most of these mods don't really make the battles more interresting.
Sure they now take longer but are 6mins of mindless slashing really bether than 3mins?
The main problems of battles is the lack of tactics, mechanics and challenge.
Lets imagine a Situation.
I plan an campaign. I have 3000 gold and can decide if i want to spend them on light or heavy infantry.
I decide to go with the light infantry because of the terrain that i expect. I believe to be able to lay an ambush and meet my enemy unorganized, giving my supperior numbers the abillity to split up my enemys and surround them, granting me victory in the end.
Why does the game not work like that?
1. You can't make a choice what troops you get in the first place... You always get mostly recruits at the start expect of a very few mercenaries.
2. If you can get high tier units then you always will take those instead of the low Tier units. Low Tier units have no advantages because in my experience Money is never a problem and doesn't play a role in your decision making. (If you had a choice in the first place).
Low Tier units should beat high Tier units in terms of cost efficiency (cost efficiency = Same amount of gold invested on both sides.).
Sounds weird but that is actually how it works in most games. Why? Because that gives tacticall choices = more interresting gameplay.
Each unit type should have pros and cons. The pros of light infantry:
- They can beat heavy infantry (with the same amount of gold is invested) if they can make their numbers mather (Surround the enemy, split them up).
Cons:
- They are weaker against archers.
- They loose against heavy infantry if ther can't make their numbers count.
This gives tactical choices. None of this is something we have in the game right now.
You can't lay ambushes, maps don't really have chocepoints that help you to not get surrounded etc.
The game currenlty is just a grind. A grind throug endless meaningless battles.
All the mod does is that once you have gone throug the grind one time, it is less likely that you have to start again because you loose less troops.
Thats also the reason why the mod is enjoyable.
Less grind...
What i try to say with this post is:
I don't think it makes sense to suggest Taleworlds to rebalance armor. There are way to many mechanics wrong or missing to make combat/battles actually enjoyable. Those mechanics need to be implemented first. Then you can balance armour stats.
(I also don't really mind if armor values get changed now. But i don't think it changes the core problem)
Almost forgot:
In general i agree that armor is not efficient enough. But even units without armor die to fast. Not saying that the damage values are wrong. Units simply are to careless and bad at defending themself. If i see a guy getting hit, i would expect him to back of and concentrate more on defending. Let an comrade step up. That would also already extend battles. Instsead even half dead units still charge forward mindlesly taking their deathblow right in the next second.
Here. I even made a video about that. Quite old already though...
In my experience most of these mods don't really make the battles more interresting.
Sure they now take longer but are 6mins of mindless slashing really bether than 3mins?
The main problems of battles is the lack of tactics, mechanics and challenge.
Lets imagine a Situation.
I plan an campaign. I have 3000 gold and can decide if i want to spend them on light or heavy infantry.
I decide to go with the light infantry because of the terrain that i expect. I believe to be able to lay an ambush and meet my enemy unorganized, giving my supperior numbers the abillity to split up my enemys and surround them, granting me victory in the end.
Why does the game not work like that?
1. You can't make a choice what troops you get in the first place... You always get mostly recruits at the start expect of a very few mercenaries.
2. If you can get high tier units then you always will take those instead of the low Tier units. Low Tier units have no advantages because in my experience Money is never a problem and doesn't play a role in your decision making. (If you had a choice in the first place).
Low Tier units should beat high Tier units in terms of cost efficiency (cost efficiency = Same amount of gold invested on both sides.).
Sounds weird but that is actually how it works in most games. Why? Because that gives tacticall choices = more interresting gameplay.
Each unit type should have pros and cons. The pros of light infantry:
- They can beat heavy infantry (with the same amount of gold is invested) if they can make their numbers mather (Surround the enemy, split them up).
Cons:
- They are weaker against archers.
- They loose against heavy infantry if ther can't make their numbers count.
This gives tactical choices. None of this is something we have in the game right now.
You can't lay ambushes, maps don't really have chocepoints that help you to not get surrounded etc.
The game currenlty is just a grind. A grind throug endless meaningless battles.
All the mod does is that once you have gone throug the grind one time, it is less likely that you have to start again because you loose less troops.
Thats also the reason why the mod is enjoyable.
Less grind...
What i try to say with this post is:
I don't think it makes sense to suggest Taleworlds to rebalance armor. There are way to many mechanics wrong or missing to make combat/battles actually enjoyable. Those mechanics need to be implemented first. Then you can balance armour stats.
(I also don't really mind if armor values get changed now. But i don't think it changes the core problem)
Almost forgot:
In general i agree that armor is not efficient enough. But even units without armor die to fast. Not saying that the damage values are wrong. Units simply are to careless and bad at defending themself. If i see a guy getting hit, i would expect him to back of and concentrate more on defending. Let an comrade step up. That would also already extend battles. Instsead even half dead units still charge forward mindlesly taking their deathblow right in the next second.
Here. I even made a video about that. Quite old already though...
Last edited:
It does work like that though, as long as those light troops have the basics (decent weapon + shield) they'll probably win.
They already do. That's the basis for many of the complaints about armor.
Kreu2009
Sergeant
Well no it doesn't really work like that. I mean of course if you have enough light troops they will beat heavy troops. But if you don't put any numbers on that than you can't really discuss if it is well balanced. Does light infantry beat heavy infantry cost efficiently? Thats the question.
And at the same time its not the question, because to make this question mather in the first place you would actually need to have a choice between light or heavy troops.
People complain because there heavily grinded army with hight tier units doesn't perform well enough. I can understand that. But at what point to numbers mather more than quality? Nobody gives any numbers. Do they have to be 3 times as much? 4 times? Or just when they have the same price? I argue if they have the same price.
But my entire post was more about the fundamental lack of mechanics which are the core of the problem why battles are so boring.
Changing armor values won't change that.
My example that you quoting is not about "does light infantry beat heavy". Without any numbers you can't discuss that anyway. Its about what mechanics are missing for example to make the gameplay actually interresting. A choice what units i want to recruit would be important. The Player should actually have to face tough finacial decisions. You can't make ambushes. There aren't even roads that you could camp. There are no real scouting mechanics. Maps don't offer any chokepoint 95% of the time. You can't really choose the battle map. You can't make suprise attacks on camps etc. Changing armous values won't make the game bether. It just extends 3mins of mindles bashing to 6mins. At least you have to grind less often though.
Not to be rude, but you put a number on it, implicitly, when you said that light infantry should be more cost-effective, i.e. 500 denars of light infantry beating 500 denars of heavy infantry. Or 1000 or 2000. I said that they already do (edit: in native), once they have basic weapons and shields. It just doesn't scale endlessly because of the party size cap and other soft factors that discourage massive sizes. But cheap troops already outperform expensive ones on per-cost basis.
I didn't say anything about it because I agree with it and TW has not once suggested or implied they were going to add more than that, so it isn't like anyone was mislead.
Kreu2009
Sergeant
How do you know that? Im honestly not sure on how cost efficient light troops perform against hight tier units. It his hard to compare if high tier units can't really be purchased. Also you won't really get into money problems as long as you hunt weaker partys often enough and sell their loot. So does cost efficiency even mather right now?
In the threads that i read so far, nobody did really put numbers on it. So i did it to allow an discussion on how the numbers should be.
You are not rude. No worries. I hope im not rude either.
Yeah thats true. The main purpose of my post was to find out if others are actually annoyed with the few mechanics the game has, or if they like the grind how it is. I was expecting replies like
"High Tier units are the reward for the grind and should heavily outperform low tier units. They should beat low Tier units in cost efficiency. If i want low or hight Tier units should not be the choice. I don't think the game has an overall problem (At least in this regard). I enjoy the grind. The problem is fixed with changing armor values"
or the opposite
"Its true fixing the armor values won't change the core problem. It could be a short term solution till the core Problem (not enough mechanics is fixed).
In my opinion the balancing should be done ... (numbers) ... The purpose of lightly armoured cheaper units should be ... "
Depending on the answers I get I could find out if there is a problem with the game and solutions need to be discussed (what features would make the gameplay more interresting) or if the game is just not meant for me (Im not the target audience).
five bucks
Knight at Arms
That's something that can be solved by the morale systems being better. Unless they have a leader present to offset the morale loss (such as the player), then troops- even if they're T6 - who are outnumbered by nearly 14x should be... "tactically retreating" from the battlefield.
That way the player won't have to chase around tiny numbers of elite troops for ages.
I would say that the game lacks mechanics. For example light infantry means low tier and not separate tree where You can get t6 light inf so you really don't heave a choice.
I think that heavy infantry should show up on t3 being a separate tree than light inf and high tier units should be like 1 out of 20 soldiers.
I don't like the system where it's all about grinding to have pure t6 army otherwise You cannot be effective.
There's no tactic or strategy. Map is wide open everywhere. There's no chokepoints or any reason to keep a castle. Battles are mostly about which group to charge first (and its either range or inf).
There's also the whole system where You cannot lose cause it means you'll stat from 0.
There should be an option for tactical retreat.
I like RMB only because it allows to fight more tactical in some way even if in the end its just endless hitting enemys in heavy armor.
I think that heavy infantry should show up on t3 being a separate tree than light inf and high tier units should be like 1 out of 20 soldiers.
I don't like the system where it's all about grinding to have pure t6 army otherwise You cannot be effective.
There's no tactic or strategy. Map is wide open everywhere. There's no chokepoints or any reason to keep a castle. Battles are mostly about which group to charge first (and its either range or inf).
There's also the whole system where You cannot lose cause it means you'll stat from 0.
There should be an option for tactical retreat.
I like RMB only because it allows to fight more tactical in some way even if in the end its just endless hitting enemys in heavy armor.
I just play the game a lot, but if you want to see a test, here is one I just threw together in Custom battle.
300 Imperial Recruits (600 denars in wages) vs. 50 Imperial Legionaries (600 denars).
And yeah, you're right that you can't purchase high tier units directly. I also don't account for costs like extra food (every 20 soldiers eat 1 unit of food per day) or upgrades. So it is a pretty simple analysis but it also matches my gameplay experience running around with a party filled with relatively low-tier troops.
RBM flips the script on this though, which is why a lot of players enjoy the mod: high-tier infantry just crush lower tier troops.
