'About infantry vs Cav.' - toughts about recent dev input - UPDATED with poll

[pRaX]

This isn't Total War though where you can effectively micromanage units in a battle. There needs to be some level of autonomy to troops in M&B, meaning cavalry should know to flank before charging. Horse archers know to circle and skirmish without input. Cavalry should know to approach in a sort of arc and charge their flanks. At the very least it should be a command option. Hit Their Flanks or Hit Their Rear or something.

If we had an overhead view of the battlefield autonomy wouldn't be necessary but the way M&B is you can't micro everyone. Troops have to have some amount of autonomy.

I have yet to fight a single battle where I wasn't able to to position myself to get a good overview over the battlefield and direct my troops like I do in TW.
So I don't what you are talking about there mate.

I mean, if you can't do it, sure. But that's a you problem.

That doesn't mean I disagree with the AI having better autonomy especially for people who can't keep up with it for whatever reason that is. I'm totally with you on that regard. Especially because I'm way less involved in battles with my own character when I do what I do. I just don't have the time to partake because of how intensive the micro is when I do my thing.

Which makes the absence of the option to just be a soldier in a Lord's army even more frustrating... (like the Freelancer mods for Warband).

 

[bigbalzzz]

That is one part, another is that i don't like when counters are too extreme, and also for historical reasons. In middle ages cavalry dominated. Spearmen were not pikemen and everyone switched to pikemen because they were actually effective against even heaviest of cavalry.

EDIT: and also, i want to enjoy fighting too, not only leading all the time. So i don't want too much micro.

Total wars (without mods) are too fast paced for me to enjoy them. Really not fan of games where clicking fast is so important. I want more slow paced battles where you have time to think. They also tend to be ones with most strategy involved since they last longer and you and enemy have time to react to each others.

Spearmen should be stronger in melee, but only if they can withstand initial charge ->my first post.

your initial post and poll would suggest that you intended to say you want a full on hard counter...

 

[ZydrateTheSmoothCriminal]

I'm also a cavalry man but at the same time seeing completely disorganized cavalry break into dense lines of spearmen completely ruins my immersion. Pike/spearmen need to be reworked.

 

[Ted Striker]

That is one part, another is that i don't like when counters are too extreme, and also for historical reasons. In middle ages cavalry dominated. Spearmen were not pikemen and everyone switched to pikemen because they were actually effective against even heaviest of cavalry.

EDIT: and also, i want to enjoy fighting too, not only leading all the time. So i don't want too much micro.

Total wars (without mods) are too fast paced for me to enjoy them. Really not fan of games where clicking fast is so important. I want more slow paced battles where you have time to think. They also tend to be ones with most strategy involved since they last longer and you and enemy have time to react to each others.

Spearmen should be stronger in melee, but only if they can withstand initial charge ->my first post.

Yeah I can't do micro intensive games either. Total War is just on the edge of what I can tolerate, and I don't use much cavalry in those games because they require too much micro. Games like Age Of Empires II are a perfect balance of it for me

 

[pRaX]

Yeah I can't do micro intensive games either. Total War is just on the edge of what I can tolerate, and I don't use much cavalry in those games because they require too much micro. Games like Age Of Empires II are a perfect balance of it for me

I can understand that. I hope you didn't get my last post wrong. I'm not trying to be condescending.

AI autonomy is much needed. Especially when we put ourselves into the shoes of someone who comes purely from the previous games and has certain expectations.

Right now battles are either completely braindead with almost RNG outcomes in equal battles or absolutely uninvolved, not Mount&Blade like, if you're occupied with the heavy micro. (I'm not getting into all the cheesy stuff that is possible currently due to the out of whack general balance and AI problems.)

Certainly not a fan either of barely getting my character into action.

 

[Ted Striker]

I will say that at time this game is based on cavalry ruled the battlefield. The pike and bow (and soon pike and musket) formation that came to dominate was not in use yet (swiss mercenaries were famous for it). Cavalry either skirmished along the flanks or the more expensive and rare heavy cavalry were trained to charge in tight formation. That charge was devastating.

Their dominance on the battlefield was relatively short lived but in the time of Bannerlord that dominance was at its peak.

 

[durbal]

You know, if you make the best possible AI in a game, no human can win. The game becomes unplayable. It is mandatory to find the right level for the AI. So lowering it is not a lazy solution.

Wut. I guess if you define 'best possible' as 'undefeatable', then yeah, but that's just a tautology...

 

[Ted Striker]

I can understand that. I hope you didn't get my last post wrong. I'm not trying to be condescending.

AI autonomy is much needed. Especially when we put ourselves into the shoes of someone who comes purely from the previous games and has certain expectations.

Right now battles are either completely braindead with almost RNG outcomes in equal battles or absolutely uninvolved, not Mount&Blade like, if you're occupied with the heavy micro. (I'm not getting into all the cheesy stuff that is possible currently due to the out of whack general balance and AI problems.)

Certainly not a fan either of barely getting my character into action.

It's why I want these as orders. Proper micromanagement IMO is not possible in this game and is not realistic. A commander issuing orders is. So why not have cavalry-specific commands like this, right? You don't have to stand on top of a hill and click to tell them where to go, you issue commands and they go do it to the best of their ability. Much like real life. Win-win.

 

[Flet]

cavalry really should not be good charging into spears, thats like the one thing that cavalry is supposed to be bad at. The difference between pikemen and spearmen is that pikemen should be able to simply negate the cavalry entirely whereas spearmen are able to be charged but should more or less trade kills with the cavalry.

The main advantage of cavalry is its mobility. This is even present in this game on a strategic level as it makes your map movement faster. In battle it can run over archers and against dense infantry formations its job is to rear charge or flank, its like having a second infantry unit that can move faster for good positioning.
What they do need to do in my opinion is make heavier cavalry that is bogged down in melee more combat effective in general. Depending on the unit they can become quite useless after the initial charge, and i know you can keep cycle charging but they aught to be able to take their swords out and start fighting too whereas some units have a hard time even reaching anything. Cavalry historically tended to have longer swords than infantry.

 

[pRaX]

You don't have to stand on top of a hill and click to tell them where to go, you issue commands and they go do it to the best of their ability. Much like real life. Win-win.

I agree. While standing on a hill being jealous of the AI having all the fun

 

[bigbalzzz]

cavalry really should not be good charging into spears, thats like the one thing that cavalry is supposed to be bad at. The difference between pikemen and spearmen is that pikemen should be able to simply negate the cavalry entirely whereas spearmen are able to be charged but should more or less trade kills with the cavalry.

i disagree if you dont trade its stupid
pikemen should be trading and not deleting
only thing truly deleted cavs was guns

 

[pRaX]

Yeah but, can't we leave the historical/realism/sim stuff to mods after the game was released?

I want my Brytenwalda and Anno Domini as much as the next guy but I'd never expect Native to be historical or super realistic. But at the same time not silly and arcady either. Just a decent and grounded base.

I don't know. Maybe that's just me.

 

[hruza]

source:
arabs and persian days (book)
arabs in ignorance (book)
1001 nights (book)
the cursade wars (book)
the dirty war (book)
the cursade wars in east and west (book)
jihad al mamaleek aginst mangools and crusaders (book)
the mangools and the tattar between expanding and breaking (book)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
edit more books
islams in the age of mangools(book)
the full historic collection of the cursade wars(book)
cursade wars on their effect on muslim nations (book)
the cursade wars in north of africa (book)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With citations please.

Arabs didnt moan their soldiers but those who died old or sick
they gave more care to their horses than their own wives and kids to train them all day everyday
they would charge into spears hoping to die

I have already addressed this before, but I'll repeat -charge is military maneuver, not act of impaling yourself on a spear.

"A charge is a maneuver in battle in which combatants advance towards their enemy at their best speed in an attempt to engage in close combat, most commonly a melee."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_(warfare)

 

[bigbalzzz]

With citations please.



I have already addressed this before, but I'll repeat -charge is military maneuver, not act of impaling yourself on a spear.

"A charge is a maneuver in battle in which combatants advance towards their enemy at their best speed in an attempt to engage in close combat, most commonly a melee."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_(warfare)

and you changing the subject? you asked for evidence of horses trained to go charge into spears and people who did and when the dev said arabs did it vs the french in year 700 you said its bs and wanted evidence here is your evidence admit your wrong and move on
clips of horses being gunned down happened 1000 year after the battle the dev described

 

[hruza]

and you changing the subject? you asked for evidence of horses trained to go charge into spears

No I did not. I asked for evidence for horses been trained to collide in to spears.

and people who did and when the dev said arabs did it vs the french in year 700 you said its bs and wanted evidence here is your evidence admit your wrong and move on

Where is the evidence? Aqain, citation please with the source.

clips of horses being gunned down happened 1000 year after the battle the dev described

I did not post any clips of horses been gunned down.

 

[Bannerman Man]

What they do need to do in my opinion is make heavier cavalry that is bogged down in melee more combat effective in general. Depending on the unit they can become quite useless after the initial charge, and i know you can keep cycle charging but they aught to be able to take their swords out and start fighting too whereas some units have a hard time even reaching anything. Cavalry historically tended to have longer swords than infantry.

I don't know if I'm seeing the same results as you in combat. Cavalry units seem to be able to slowly swim through densely packed infantry without much risk. The hafts and pommels seem to make contact with the horses first so that their swings are absorbed and do minimal damage. As a result, cavalry seem to demolish infantry without many casualties unless you bring bows into the equation, making archers the better anti-cav than spears atm. Mounted AI can be a bit wonky though when trying to hit individual units though. That's just my point of view.

 

[Rakean]

Please, don't Nerf even the cavarly! OMG!

What's that, s Nerf caravan post 2.0???

 

[Bannerman Man]

here is your evidence

Citing a dozen books is not how you properly cite things. You must cite the passages that support your claim. Nobody is going to read a dozen books and try to guess which parts you're talking about.

 

[Schoulayer]

I liked the idea of cav taking up 2 spots in your party. So you could have 2 infantry or 1 cav unit.

 

[pRaX]

I don't know if I'm seeing the same results as you in combat. Cavalry units seem to be able to slowly swim through densely packed infantry without much risk. The hafts and pommels seem to make contact with the horses first so that their swings are absorbed and do minimal damage. As a result, cavalry seem to demolish infantry without many casualties unless you bring bows into the equation, making archers the better anti-cav than spears atm. Mounted AI can be a bit wonky though when trying to hit individual units though. That's just my point of view.

Archers are anti-everything right now though