Archer cheese still alive and well in 2022?

[xdj1nn]

I does, or often it just risks making things really bland.

2% increased damage!!! Uhhhu NICE!!!

there's literally a 1% increase perk (coaching perk under tactics) - 1% increase... 1% increase for a 1 dmg spear

TOO OVERPOWERED!!!!!!
​

My take remains the same, Fians are the meta - KG's are OP but not the meta, yet will be used if you're power-gaming regardless.
The oddity about BL is that we currently have 2 meta strategies: auto-resolve or manual-battle - in one any cavalry t6 unit will take the cup, on the other Fians will take the cup.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

Fians are the meta

I will take your word for it.

It is my go to unit of choice for sure

 

[xdj1nn]

I will take your word for it.

It is my go to unit of choice for sure

Make sure to exploit it as much as you can, though:

Pick Battanian culture for PC

Perks:

• Combat Tips from Leadership
• Firebrand from Charm
• Frugal for you or your Steward of choice
• Renowed Archer from Bow (if you intend to use bows) for cheaper upgrades
• Strong from Athletics (extra speed from foot troops)

- worhty mention:

• Forest Kin from Scouting if you're mixing the Fians with canon fodder infantry - as long as you keep 10% melee infantry in the party it'll make you move even faster in forests

Than we have some pre-built wanderers to make captains which will increase the overall efficiency of Fians by "TOO MUCH!"
Those are:

• Battanian Ragged
• Frostbeard
• Wainwright
• Wastes
• Vlandian Black
• Accursed
• Alone
• Empire Hills
• Swift

Those specific wanderers carry high bow lvl + high 2h level -> best strategy for them is to focus on leveling their athletics first than moving on to level their bow and lastly their 2h -
Important note: it's crucial to pick Vandal perk from 2h because the amor penetration also applies to bows - making your comp a very deadly archer. - also put at least a single point in Crossbow and pick the Marksmen + Wind Winder for even faster bow reload speed.

You must also conquer at least a castle that carries 2 villages with noble slots once you join a faction or start your own kingdom - My preferred one is Uthelaim because I find it much easier to farm relations through quests and hideout purges nearby.

And that's about it - if you're rocking 1.9 it's good to try and find a archery dmg buff banner or ranged accuracy buff banner to oomph your doomstack even more. A side note is it's not a smart move to give said banners to horse archer formations because their carrier will charge in head-on and die almost instantly. Meaning KG's can't properly benefit from banner bonuses

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

- worhty mention:

• Forest Kin from Scouting if you're mixing the Fians with canon fodder infantry - as long as you keep 10% melee infantry in the party it'll make you move even faster in forests

I believe it is actually counted as 1 infantry per stack of non-infantry and companion.

You must also conquer at least a castle that carries 2 villages with noble slots once you join a faction or start your own kingdom - My preferred one is Uthelaim because I find it much easier to farm relations through quests and hideout purges nearby.

This is not really needed. With the culture, perks and just being in the same faction you unlock all but the last recruitment slot. If practical, it is probably more important to avoid any personal traits at character creation so you dont loose slots.

You can ofcourse set the castle to recruit and get a few extra that way.

 

[Apocal]

I will take your word for it.

It is my go to unit of choice for sure

Yeah, I don't even know how you can say Fians are meta when Fians are just KGs that can be run down whereas KGs can't as long as you're not completely asleep. It is totally possible to kite an enemy army three times your size, leading them around the battlefield like a dog on a leash.

 

[xdj1nn]

Yeah, I don't even know how you can say Fians are meta when Fians are just KGs that can be run down whereas KGs can't as long as you're not completely asleep. It is totally possible to kite an enemy army three times your size, leading them around the battlefield like a dog on a leash.

both are viable, fians do the job quicker, cost less and can be replenished faster virtually anywhere in the map (if you take the bandit conversion perks)

the difference here's that with fians you'll position them to prevent melee contact at all - which should take 5 minutes in battle mode at most (excluding the odd reinforcement spawns) for them to wipe an enemy army
Kiting with KGs on the other hand will take much longer due to lower DPS because AI accuracy on horse back isn't as good.

With 1.9 KGs received an extra disadvantage because they can't make proper use of banners - their carrier will often die fast if you give any attack commands - and buffing their accuracy doesn't do much due to movement. Fians since stationary the entire time do not risk their carrier and can use either accuracy or raw dmg banner buffs for even more kick

this video is a bit dated, but still valid - the most important difference being the ability to add buffs with banners (and he didn't test captains)

 

[Bluko88]

Well, against the poor AI we can make virtually anything work. How does one counter Horse Archers? By splitting Fians and making use of cicle & spread formations. The most effective being 4 stacks 2 circles and 2 spread out in square/retangle shapes - move the spread while AI skirmishes into advantageous terrain (can be even a small hill) making all of them unleveled (like a stair of fians) - place a circle where there's the highest degree of their rotation - meanwhile move the other 2 formations on the opposite side - place the circle on high ground and the spread blocking the path of the skirmishes - once the KG's try to flee through the center of both formations they'll be wiped.

I know splitting formations can achieve good results, but a lot of that is dependent on terrain and how the A.I. reacts/its battleplan. There's very few formation layouts that are consistently reliable especially in 1.9 here with cavalry being much more dangerous.


That said I'm pretty confident the "age of the archer" is mostly over, even if they hit a bit too hard generally. While you can still generally win with just archers, you're going to take losses in most cases. Especially with regular Archer lines.

First I decided to see how well I could defend against Fians with a balanced roster. Fairly well surprisingly, even if your infantry is guaranteed to mostly be gone. Also strangely regular Fians being mixed in didn't make a dramatic difference in results - I suppose they are close enough to Fian Champions.

隐藏: Defensive results against Fians

And then I decided to see how I would do with Fians against a balanced party; not going too crazy with odd formation tactics other than "loose" and charging appropriately. So you can win on an open field, but you're going to have losses. I know I would have fared better with cavalry or infantry as support at least.

隐藏: Offensive results as Fians

Also testing the Kevin Garnetts a little more, I really do think they'd be just fine without their glaive. Still the best horse archer, just can't defeat other high tier melee cavalry, which IMO they shouldn't. Horse Archers should exist to bully infantry either by firing at them safely out of harms way and or running them down. Since spearmen can't catch them generally (unless they're being stupid and running into spearmen) only real counter to them on battle map is melee cavalry.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

I don't know why you guys say "Meta" about a single player game where the AI doesn't even react or change it's behavior at all.
Youtube copy cat circle jerk maybe, but there's no "meta".

With 1.9 KGs received an extra disadvantage because they can't make proper use of banners - their carrier will often die fast if you give any attack commands - and buffing their accuracy doesn't do much due to movement.

I don't think you know how to use horse archers. It's all about positioning for ranged fire and hold-fire for melee rushes and this just got much better in 1.9. I've been using the -ranged damage flags because their damage is good enough, but cutting back on damage taken in ranged exchanges helps.

this video is a bit dated, but still valid

Nothing he's made has ever been valid.

Sorry for being grumpy. I'm not deleting my post, but I admit I'm being kind of grumpy because I can't play bannerlord tonight.

 

[five bucks]

Somewhere it was asked to "name 10 strategy games..." I'm gonna say ALL OF EM because every game has better units, most just have a opportunity or recourse expense to compensate, for instance You CAN defeat all units with only knights in a AOE type game it's just more expensive and wasteful. Khans guards also have required resources and opportunity over other units but I think we all agree to ignore this for Bannerlord because as a single player game against the AI we have all the opportunity and recourse gathering we need. That said, there are always players who can't manage to pay for their basic 50 man parties too.

The challenge was:
1: 3 tactics/strategy games
2: Published after 2010 (when it became more common for devs to release downloadable balance patches)
3: Unintentionally, (an oversight by the devs, not a deliberate game design decision like hero units for a scenario)
4: Twice as good as every other troop type in the game at EVERYTHING.

Let's say you're talking about AoE2: Definitive Edition, which has had balance patches, so it would qualify for (1) and (2).
Nothing in that game qualifies for (3) and (4), or else people would not still be playing AoE2 multiplayer if there was no tactics and it was just "click to spam knight button faster".

An all-knight army in AoE2 is weak to Pikemen, and Monks, and Camel Riders. As well as many special units. https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Knight_(Age_of_Empires_II) I would lose if I tried to use only Knights.

An all-Khan's Guard army in Bannerlord is weak to nothing. It can defeat everything with at least a 2:1 win ratio. I would win if I used only KGs.

---

Fun fact: I recently found out that in Bannerlord Online mod, using Khan's Guard armies only was the meta for every player until the mod devs finally changed the Khan's Guard glaive to a lance. That finally helped balance them out.
Pre nerf:

Post nerf:

Why can't we just do that in Bannerlord?

With 1.9, now, KGs are exceptionally expensive (and in RBM too) due to horse pricing and needing multiple horses on their upgrade path - fians skip all of that - that means you'll economize hundreds of thousands of denars on both wages + upgrades to reach a Fian doomstack, whereas with KG you might not even have enough buck to field them - delaying it and also expanding the amount of grind needed to achieve a very similar level of results.

The first horse comes for free at T2. You only need to buy a warhorse at T3-T4 to turn them into a Torguud.
You will need to buy some horses anyway for your Fian Champs to have something to ride on. Warmounts cost around 400d more than regular horses. However, you also pick some up for free from battle loot - for example, from 3 battles with low Roguery I managed to get 3 warmounts. You can also get them for free by capturing and converting Torguud prisoners.

As Ananda said, against the AI, we have all the opportunity and resource gathering we need. It is worth buying those extra horses you don't already get for free for the big boost in effectiveness in field battles that KGs have over FCs.

I agree that KGs are broken (they should have weaknesses, and they do not)

Yes!!!!

This leads to a sum of factiors that make lance/spear cav so bad in BL:

• Spear/Lances attack speed
• Spear/Lances length
• Spear/Lances dmg
• Spear/Lances off-set hitbox on horseback
• Push-away effect from cavalry over foot troops (moving them even further out of the attack)
• AI not maneuvering to reposition their stab to land (they only go for straight lines)

Again, fixing it is tricky as long as TW refuses to adjust all factors on a single strike, that because,in example, if they fix speed and later down the line fix the hitbox, spears will automatically become OP on horseback calling for further adjustments that will potentially create new issues and it becomes an endless domino effect.
My personal take on it is that they should fix the hit-boxes first - test, than adjust the AI. After that if it's still too weak or too OP, adjust the easier to modify things until hitting a sweet-spot (like length speed and dmg)

So it's entirely possible that by fixing cavalry issues in general, KG's will automatically become less OP too - which means nerfing them would be nonsensical.

I think you are correct that issues still exist for cavalry, but despite those issues they are mostly quite good now and pretty balanced. Now that they couch more often and their charges do powerful damage, and they don't get reared as much, they still get results even when their stabs miss.

Cavalry can pretty consistently get melee oneshots or twoshots now. And in the scenario where they get buffed to be more accurate, they will get melee oneshots often.

But even then Khan's Guard will still be better than all T6 units because they can still get consistent oneshots too while ALSO being the best horse archer in the game who doesn't have to risk melee combat AND the best infantry troop!!! No amount of changes to melee cavalry will stop Khan's Guard from being overpowered - they are a problem in and of themselves because they have no weaknesses and do well at everything. A good tactics game has units with specialties and weaknesses!

Lastly, the lack of t6 infantry unit's also hurting the game - I already said once and will insist on it: Make the druzhina into foot troops.... Bam, problem solved. - or at bare minimum make AI often use dismount command on them.... (try that for yourself and you'll see that they are already built for infantry roles, it's crazy)

This would be nice. Functioning as dismounted infantry is in line with the way the Scandinavians used cavalry. Would also make the armies more unique. Granted, Sturgia is meant to be more Rus' than Vikings, but there's similarities. I like the idea of Druzhina as a hybrid infantry/cavalry troop who fights much better in melee on foot than any other T6 cavalry unit, differentiating them in that way from cataphracts and knights.

that's my take because incessant nerfing eventually destroys choices. BL already suffers from it regarding economy.

It doesn't have to be that way though?

The faction balance changes were eventually successful - in patch 1.9 no faction snowballs too fast, but there is also a good level of activity in the world.
The nerfs to the old huge bonus cavalry used to get in autocalc were successful.
The caravan balance changes were successful - caravans no longer die so much and they make quite good profits, especially if played right.
The balance changes to melee/blunt damage against armor were successful - looters can no longer easily pelt me to death with stones, ****ty low level units take a lot of hits to kill me or my troops in high quality armor.
The recent balance changes to cavalry were successful too, or at the very least a huge step in the right direction; now a group of 10 Banner Knights can defeat a group of 60 Recruits, where they couldn't even kill 30 before.

As I say higher up in my post, Bannerlord Online has already demonstrated it is very easy to balance the Khan's Guard without "destroying choices". Just give them a less powerful melee weapon, as is appropriate for a horse archer. Then they will not be the best at EVERYTHING.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

Why can't we just do that in Bannerlord?

Because KG use glaives, it's their thing and it's not a MMO that needs little baby patches so darknights can DD good as rangers or any other thing MMO players cry about these days.

I would lose if I tried to use only Knights.

Not against bannerlord enemy AI though! They would field the same troops regardless of what you made.

The first horse comes for free at T2.

It's in the recruit price though.

Twice as good as every other troop type in the game at EVERYTHING.

They're not twice as good as a heavy Horse Archer. If you could choose 200 HHA or 100 KG, 200 HHA would still be big advantage, Thing is, you don't get to choose 100 or 200, you can make 80-100 troops as a baby clan so you need to make every one count. Later same thing, "I can fit 20 more troops, what to get? "I have 10 warhorses what to spend them on" and so on. Of course by rank 4 I'm hauling around everything and the kitchen sink. Also at a certain point you have enough fire power and things like cataphracts become very useful for being able to break up enemies and expose them where just more ranged wouldn't make a difference anymore.

 

[Apocal]

Kiting with KGs on the other hand will take much longer due to lower DPS because AI accuracy on horse back isn't as good.

Accuracy is the same (or close enough it doesn't matter) as long as you stay stationary. You only move them to reposition.

With 1.9 KGs received an extra disadvantage because they can't make proper use of banners - their carrier will often die fast if you give any attack commands - and buffing their accuracy doesn't do much due to movement. Fians since stationary the entire time do not risk their carrier and can use either accuracy or raw dmg banner buffs for even more kick

Then don't give them attack commands. Just sit them on a hill and let them loose arrows until (if) anyone gets close enough to trigger melee then move out on hold fire orders, set up somewhere else and let the arrows fly again.

An all-Khan's Guard army in Bannerlord is weak to nothing. It can defeat everything with at least a 2:1 win ratio. I would win if I used only KGs.

The battles aren't really difficult though, so you can win using almost any army composition.

You can basically beat the game while never using anything but tier 3 infantry. It is boring for reasons, but still doable.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

Yeah, I don't even know how you can say Fians are meta when Fians are just KGs that can be run down whereas KGs can't as long as you're not completely asleep. It is totally possible to kite an enemy army three times your size, leading them around the battlefield like a dog on a leash.

In fairness, fieldbattles are primarily important for a fairly short period of time in the game. Once you transition beyond the merc or lord hunting stage the advantages of KGs become alot less pronounced.

 

[xdj1nn]

Accuracy is the same (or close enough it doesn't matter) as long as you stay stationary. You only move them to reposition.

Then don't give them attack commands. Just sit them on a hill and let them loose arrows until (if) anyone gets close enough to trigger melee then move out on hold fire orders, set up somewhere else and let the arrows fly again.

The battles aren't really difficult though, so you can win using almost any army composition.

You can basically beat the game while never using anything but tier 3 infantry. It is boring for reasons, but still doable.

my point was that for the overall advantages - fians cover costs, accessibility and power - which's a point I was making to state that the issue with BL is bow dmg / lack of arrow dmg mitigation from armor. It's a chronic issue since the EA release and apparently TW's opting to keep it like that.
To me that's the major problem, as for the KG OPness it comes from glaives, yes, but not due to dmg or attack speed, it's because swingable polearms are OP - a gazillion times more effective than any stab only ones.

Than I mentioned the factors that I believe are making it this way:

• off-set aim for polearms stabs on horseback
• bad animation positioning for polearms on horseback
• polearm lengths being nonsensical (either too short for a lance, or too long for stabbing) - the best asnwer here would be to make all lances longer so that you can hit over your horse's head, and all spears shorter, so Infantry can use it effectively. To mitigate the lack of anti-cav spears by making them shorter slap in pike troops to all factions and the problem solves itself.

So I belive that if they fix thrust locked polearms by adjusting the "glitchy" nature of them, adjusting their sizes for their effective role, and maybe fixing the AI a bit, all cav units will be equal to KG on melee efficiency - even better due to increased range + couched abilities. - if done properly it'll raise overall cavalry key OPness.

That will cause another issue entirely, and to fix this new one all they need to do is to create and adjust melee inf to actually be effective against cavalry - that of course by placing specialty units to the troop trees and "fixing" the ones that should fill that role already.

Cavalry's going to be a bit OP most of the time due to how the game handles it's "simulation" - realistically cavalry would never be able to be that powerful, but that's an entirely different discussion.

So TDLR's simple: I don't like the idea of nerfing things - instead I'm much rather see major buffs across the table to level the game. And I still think that archery in general is the cheese, not a single unit

as for the real world counter for HA - ironically, that would be foot archery / crossbows, historically that's what was used to stop the mongolians multiple times and why they've adapted and started using more mixed armies.

 

[five bucks]

Because KG use glaives, it's their thing

Plenty of alternate options as well:

A - Nerf glaives when used on horseback. Because they should not be wielded twohanded slashing around from horseback, you would fall off your horse if you tried to do that IRL - and if they are, they shouldn't be doing 140 damage and killing men in armor in one hit. It's incredibly unrealistic.

B - Give it to the Khuzait Heavy Lancers, who are thoroughly uninteresting and overshadowed by the Khan's Guard. Their equivalent, the Khergit Lancer, used to have a glaive-like weapon in Warband (the Hafted Blade). Then you keep the identity within the Khuzait troop tree, but spread it out across more troops.

C - Nerf their armour significantly. They can be a combined mounted archer/shock troop/shock cavalry all in one, but they're glass cannons, you have to be careful how you use them, and if you want a tankier Khuzait cavalry unit you use their mainline cavalry.

With that said I don't even agree that it should be their defining thing at all. Their defining thing should be their bow - they're the best horse archers in the game! That's plenty of identity for one unit.
Either way I'm happy with whatever happens as long as they get balanced.

and it's not a MMO that needs little baby patches so darknights can DD good as rangers or any other thing MMO players cry about these days

It's not an MMO, but it is a tactics game. And what makes a good tactics game is one where the player has difficult decisions to make about what troops to use and who to use them against and how. KG's go against that by being the right answer in all situations and capable of doing everything. No thought required!

Not against bannerlord enemy AI though! They would field the same troops regardless of what you made.

The Bannerlord AI has a tendency to create varied parties with the templates thing. Not exactly sure what the point here is. What's important is the Knight has weaknesses in AoE2 against other troop types, the Khan's Guard doesn't.

It's in the recruit price though.

Fair call. However this is a difference of only 150d. Still definitely worth it IMO for how uncatchable they are in the field.

They're not twice as good as a heavy Horse Archer. If you could choose 200 HHA or 100 KG, 200 HHA would still be big advantage,

60 HHA vs 60 KG: KG win with only 2 casualties.
60 KG vs 120 HHA: KG win with only 14 casualties (I tested this twice as leader of each side).

More than twice as good!

Thing is, you don't get to choose 100 or 200, you can make 80-100 troops as a baby clan so you need to make every one count.

Yep, and with limited party sizes Khan's Guard are the best value for money you can possibly get.

Also at a certain point you have enough fire power and things like cataphracts become very useful for being able to break up enemies and expose them where just more ranged wouldn't make a difference anymore.

Can you give some battle results where you use breakup tactics, comparing with only KGs, and with a mix of KGs and Cataphracts?

 

[CrazyElf]

Now troops space themselves out better in patch 1.9, longer weapons perform better in close quarters. Besides the two-handed sword Fians use is not that much shorter than the Glaive anyway, and has worse damage.

The Glaives tend to get stuck against the walls. IMO an ideal weapon for sieges should be less than 1.4m in length, just to avoid that. Prison breaks I find with Khan's Guards to give an example are easy and the same problem occurs inside the main gate in sieges. The Glaive is awesome for field battles, but less practical for sieges. I'd say if you really want to nerf the Khan's Guard for field fights, give them a 2 handed sword, axe, or mace instead of a Glaive - they will do worse at field battles, but better at sieges.

Also, keep in mind that the Fian's Guard bow is much better.

That's a big deal in a siege. The better archer means that the enemy is likely to reach the walls when the Fian is defending and when attacking, the Fian is more likely to pick off the enemy from the walls.

 

[CrazyElf]

the retreat penalty will eventually come... We had it forever in Warband, no reason to not have it here too

This is one of those issues where it's best to get it done before launch.

Once it's launch, the reviews come out and the lack of polish tends to stick out.

 

[five bucks]

The Glaives tend to get stuck against the walls. IMO an ideal weapon for sieges should be less than 1.4m in length, just to avoid that. Prison breaks I find with Khan's Guards to give an example are easy and the same problem occurs inside the main gate in sieges. The Glaive is awesome for field battles, but less practical for sieges. Also, keep in mind that the Fian's Guard bow is much better.

I tested it, see further up in the thread; Khan's Guards do better than Fians in siege assaults.

That's a big deal in a siege. The better archer means that the enemy is likely to reach the walls when the Fian is defending and when attacking, the Fian is more likely to pick off the enemy from the walls.

Sure, Fian Champs' bow has +14 damage and +4 missile speed, but this is a game where everyone dies in like 4 arrows anyway because of ridiculous pierce damage to armor! Meanwhile, the KGs' Glaive has +48 damage, which makes a huge difference in melee fights.

I did 6 tests shooting an Elite Menavliaton:
* Fian Champ killed him in 2 bodyshots and 1 headshot, 2 bodyshots and 1 headshot, and 3 bodyshots.
* Khan's Guard killed him in 2 bodyshots and 1 headshot, 3 bodyshots, and 1 bodyshot and 1 headshot.

Pretty similar. Then I did 6 tests fighting a Legionary:
* Fian Champ killed him in 3/3/5 hits.
* Khan's Guard killed him in 1/2/2 hits.

As for defending, the player spends more time in field battles or siege assaults than they do in siege defenses. Partially because if you want to partake in a defensive siege you either need to already know the enemy is on their way and get there before they do, or you need to sacrifice men to break through. Or you've already intercepted them in the field anyway; or, you decide to let them get shredded by your defenses in autocalc while you go focus on attacking one of their fiefs in a real battle instead.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

60 HHA vs 60 KG: KG win with only 2 casualties.
60 KG vs 120 HHA: KG win with only 14 casualties (I tested this twice as leader of each side).

This means nothing, This why a laugh at anyone doing these kinds of tests. 200 t5 HA against "whatever hundreds or 1k+ the the AI has" is still going to be an advantage over 100 t6 KG because you can fire from two sides with more fire power or just a much wider fire. It's not a pitched battle in the actual game so things such as being able to unload more and more damage from a good position is useful.

See when you guys try to use custom battle to make your points it's BS because you're creating situation and objective that does not exist in the actual game. Then you're trying to use this to ask for balance but you're not asking for balance in your custom battle playtime session, you're asking for in an unrelated single player campaign with endless other conditions and considerations.

What's important is the Knight has weaknesses in AoE2 against other troop types, the Khan's Guard doesn't.

Knights can still kill spearmen 1 v1 though and anything can do perfect damage to a khans guards.

Either way I'm happy with whatever happens as long as they get balanced.

I think they should only increase the performance of other troops. Heavy infantry (t4+) and cavalry should have more defense to everything, not just arrows and this should be their strong point. KG and Fiann are fine, they're not too hard to kill. Ranged units should easily clear out t1-3 units but only the high tier ranged should be able to put a dent in high end infantry and cav.. a dent.

Can you give some battle results where you use breakup tactics, comparing with only KGs, and with a mix of KGs and Cataphracts?

Nope, that kind of stuff is BS for typing try hards and posers making fluffy filler videos. I would say 200 high end ranged is where you can usually cover all the good openings and you need about 30-50 Cav to break up a SW. Of course you can just use KG/HA to do this too if you wanted. But you will get access to many Cav prisoners in an actual game so it's good to put them to use and cut out the wasted campaign time of trying to go make more KG then you actually need.

 

[xdj1nn]

PEOPLE STOP ASKING FOR MORE NERFS! ASK FOR ACROSS THE BOARD BUFFS INSTEAD!!!! GOD!!!

if TW listens to you and actually nerfs more stuff, the game will become increasingly more boring and it's ALREADY BORING!

 

[five bucks]

This means nothing, This why a laugh at anyone doing these kinds of tests. 200 t5 HA against "whatever hundreds or 1k+ the the AI has" is still going to be an advantage over 100 t6 KG because you can fire from two sides with more fire power or just a much wider fire.

Okay, go ahead and test that yourself. Do the parameters however you like as long as they're the same for both KG and HHA. If you won't, then your imaginary scenario means less than nothing.

It's not a pitched battle in the actual game so things such as being able to unload more and more damage from a good position is useful. See when you guys try to use custom battle to make your points it's BS because you're creating situation and objective that does not exist in the actual game. Then you're trying to use this to ask for balance but you're not asking for balance in your custom battle playtime session, you're asking for in an unrelated single player campaign with endless other conditions and considerations.

I disagree the difference is so big between the custom battles and the normal game that there would be a massive difference in the way HHA and KG perform. What "endless other conditions and considerations?" Name them.

Knights can still kill spearmen 1 v1 though

Cataphracts, Elephants, Mamelukes, Teutonic Knights, Berserks, Tarkans, War Wagons, Kamayuks, Elephant Archers, Imperial Camel Riders, etc, etc, etc all defeat Knights 1v1
Again, AoE2de is not an example of a tactics game where a unit was left unbalanced to the point it is far better than everything else at everything. No point trying to argue that.

and anything can do perfect damage to a khans guards.

Every unit can be damaged yes. How is that meant to mean that Khan's Guards can still not easily beat every troop in the game 1v1?

I think they should only increase the performance of other troops. Heavy infantry (t4+) and cavalry should have more defense to everything, not just arrows and this should be their strong point. KG and Fiann are fine, they're not too hard to kill. Ranged units should easily clear out t1-3 units but only the high tier ranged should be able to put a dent in high end infantry and cav.. a dent.

OK so in your proposed version of the game, how many Glaive hits should a Druzhinik Champion be able to tank? How many arrows should he be able to tank? How many hits from a regular melee troop should he be able to tank?

Because if the Glaive is not changed, then a DC will only be able to kill infantry in 1-3 melee hits, while a Khan's Guard will be able to kill infantry in 1-2 melee hits AS WELL AS shoot a ranged weapon while on the move which can "easily clear out t1-3 units" without having to physically engage in melee or put himself at risk of being hit, unlike the DC. Making him still the much stronger unit because he is great at both melee and range while the cataphract is only great at melee.

Nope, that kind of stuff is BS for typing try hards and posers making fluffy filler videos.

My dude you make videos for in depth nerdy things all the time. "How to solo an entire siege over the course of 10 hours by retreating and finding a tiny gap in the back of the walls volume 2: jumping to your death naked edition". (No offense, your vids are charming and informative). I don't really believe you're not willing to put the effort in, I think you just actually know that Khan's Guard are way better than any other troop in the game but don't want them to be nerfed because you enjoy cheesing the AI.

Of course you can just use KG/HA to do this too if you wanted. But you will get access to many Cav prisoners in an actual game so it's good to put them to use and cut out the wasted campaign time of trying to go make more KG then you actually need.

Yes, you may as well use what you have. But when you have finite party space though, and you have the choice between KG and anything else, you're always going to pick KG. They take that whole decision making component out of the game when they're around, unless you force yourself not to use them.

PEOPLE STOP ASKING FOR MORE NERFS! ASK FOR ACROSS THE BOARD BUFFS INSTEAD!!!! GOD!!!

if TW listens to you and actually nerfs more stuff, the game will become increasingly more boring and it's ALREADY BORING!

What's boring is a single troop doing everything well with no weaknesses. If the Khan's Guard actually has weaknesses it will be a much more interesting part of the game. You would have to THINK about how you use them and when - because there would be a wrong answer, a failure state, which is what makes games fun. You would have to THINK about whether you even want them in your army at all, or whether your current campaign in a certain region would do better focusing on a different Tier 6 troop, based on the local forces.

There are "across the board buffs" which anyone who posts here can see me proposing all the time, such as buffing armor so it can resist 1.7x more arrow damage, buffing spear/pike speed/damage, fixing archer AI so that they can hit circling horse archers more accurately, and making the AI actually use spears and pike bracing properly.

But you can do all of these and Khan's Guard would STILL be the strongest troops in the game by a big margin. Because it is the best horse archer AND the best melee combat damage dealer who does not need to couch to do insane damage.

You would literally have to give other Tier 6 units ranged weapons - destroying their uniqueness and identity and making every T6 the same ranged-melee hybrid - or you would have to make them so incredibly tanky, that when fighting each other, every battle would take an enormously long time to resolve. And that would be additional work for Taleworlds, which they are unlikely to want to put in. And the more work Taleworlds has to do, the more likely they are to make mistakes.

With all of this in mind, the opposition to nerfing a single unit makes no logical sense. The most logical thing is to make a very simple change to the Khan's Guard inventory to give them a balanced, realistic melee weapon.

I am not arguing for nerfing the Khan's Guard for no reason, but because I genuinely think it will make the game more fun and challenging.