Hi I just wanted to provide some feedback about this class in bannerlord, I think currently it's to op, the you can move easily and still shooting with a good accuracy very good damage and I think quite fast reload speed for the actual meta. If you play cav vs archers on captain mode archers destroy literally cav because of the dmg accuracy and survavilty, archers hit you and you can't release a hit counting that you've 7 cav and archers groups are about 12-15 it's very easy that you only land 1 or 2 hits of cav on the charge. In my opinion I think that class needs a nerf.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Archer class
- 主题发起人 Thexppkiller
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
MatijaN
Recruit
Archers are balanced.
They have low to no melee combat potential and cavalry charges straight into archers are reckless, but a coordinated assault can make them very vulnerable as they have no way of defending themselves.
Try flanking archers and not just straight up running into them with your cavalry. You have ground troops with shields that should lead open charges.
They have low to no melee combat potential and cavalry charges straight into archers are reckless, but a coordinated assault can make them very vulnerable as they have no way of defending themselves.
Try flanking archers and not just straight up running into them with your cavalry. You have ground troops with shields that should lead open charges.
Dude i don't know if we are playing the same game.MatijaN 说:
No they are not balanced. Cavalry gets slaughtered by them even heavy cav sees no chance. If they try to close in you loose 4-5 Units just in the first attempt. THE ONLY Chance cav has is if they come from cover , but if a good Archer Captain knows how to position himself you get slaughtered. I don't want to mention if a second archer unit covers the first.
If you try to close in on them with a Shieldwall you loose 2/3 of your inf and 1/2 of your health just to close the distance.
That's why 6 Archer Teams exist. Cav should be the natural counter to Archers (My opinion) , or a shieldwall should be a little bit more effective.
Keep in mind i don't say they shouldn't be good. They should be if used correctly. But right now they are simply the answer to everything not Archer related , and this should not be the case.
Teamplay ? Good Luck with that if you get 2-3 Teammates who don't even know how to use their keyboard.
I'm not going to pick sides on this one, because I can see both sides of the issue. I will just say that,
This statement is entirely true. I don't know if archers do more damage, the maps are bigger, or shields have less health. I mean, it's probably because archers are so much more accurate, but I'm trying to stay neutral in this. You see, in Warband, archers would be countered hard by shield infantry and you would never see them get obliterated by archers. That's why you would always keep some infantry back to protect your archers from those pesky things called swords and shields. It just doesn't feel the same in Bannerlord. Whether that's good or bad, I'm not sure. It doesn't help that I am probably just bad at the game, and never manage to flank archers successfully, but who has time to be good at games anymore?
This statement is entirely true. I don't know if archers do more damage, the maps are bigger, or shields have less health. I mean, it's probably because archers are so much more accurate, but I'm trying to stay neutral in this. You see, in Warband, archers would be countered hard by shield infantry and you would never see them get obliterated by archers. That's why you would always keep some infantry back to protect your archers from those pesky things called swords and shields. It just doesn't feel the same in Bannerlord. Whether that's good or bad, I'm not sure. It doesn't help that I am probably just bad at the game, and never manage to flank archers successfully, but who has time to be good at games anymore?
MatijaN 说:
Why flank them? Are they pikemen? When you circle around them you expose more time to their arrows. Flat terrain and direct charge Is the best scenario for cavalry.....on paper. If the game encourage to engage archers otherwise with cavalry It should be fixed.
klinGiii 说:
I agree with that.
While ago, there were 6 cav teams. And now there are 6 archer teams. But i think that cav's problem was that there were no counter against them (Spear AI did not work during that time).
And now i think that there are 6 archer teams not because that archers are so OP, but because archer's counter (cavalry) is so weak at the moment.
IMO, balancing archers does not require nerfing them, but buffing cav a bit, also buffind shields (for shields to cover legs). That would put some balance between classes. If archers will face nerf that cav faced before, then next time we will see 6 inf teams
This is no solution.
Shields covering the legs and anything more than its size is a no-no. Archers are strong, but it makes sense. They have one of the most modern weapon of their age, if not the. They hit you, it pierces, it hurts, you die after a few maybe. It is how it goes. Pressure Archers with other archers, I'd say. Bet a 5 arch 1 inf would win against 6 arch more often.
Archers are badass atm and require less skill to play then other classes, imo (in any gamemode)
Ideas:
- reduce damage caused to limbs to increase survavibility in general and leaving shield coverage as is
- increase horses trample damage (cataphract at full speed deals damage from 11% to 20% of health to lightly armored soldier is a joke)
- increase time to recover after being stomped to the ground by cavalry
Ideas:
- reduce damage caused to limbs to increase survavibility in general and leaving shield coverage as is
- increase horses trample damage (cataphract at full speed deals damage from 11% to 20% of health to lightly armored soldier is a joke)
- increase time to recover after being stomped to the ground by cavalry
fix the shields, archers are not broken. maybe add more deviation for arrows in the high arch shooting, that is enough.
Duchess_Lyceria 说:
The bow is one of the most primitive weapons in history, and the predominance of shield bearing infantry in real life suggests that bows weren't unstoppable killing machines- otherwise there would have been armies full of archers, and there weren't. Even the armies which were famous for good archery ultimately relied on melee to actually win battles (late medieval England, the Mongols and other steppe peoples).
Archers weren't countered with other archers in real life nor with cavalry, they were countered by infantry (preferably well armoured). At Hastings, the English shieldwall held for hours despite being periodically showered with Norman arrows, and it was only the shieldless peasantry at the rear who suffered. Archery is a harassment weapon, a secondary force to the melee weaponry in battle. It was never decisive.
MatijaN 说:
I can’t agree on this, just think on sarranids,
and mongols. Sarranids can be equipoed with a shield or spear they’ve good armor and a good 1h weapon, making them extremly good in my opinion , and mongols have the khan guard wich has good armor and comes equipped with a 2h weapon that works as a spear for anticav and deadly on mele. For me the biggest issue is that right now when I play that class I can run/jump with an insane accuracy making me feel like I’m playing with an M4.
And I want to add that yesterdat I felt like in the movie of 300 I was tanking seen arrows flying from 1 enemy unit to another and I felt like the sky was turning dark for the ammount of arrows that were flying in seconds.
Archer-centered armies existed in the past, but that's 3000-4000 years ago. Improvements in shields and armor rendered them far less effective, and a spear or sword in combination with a shield became the standard for the next 2000+ years, until firearms became reasonably effective. During MOST of the Middle Ages, archery was a fairly effective supporting arm, not the primary force of an army.
Cavalry was potentially overwhelming in Warband because the archers would shoot at where the riders were at the moment, not where they would be when the arrows arrived. An oblique course toward the archers would lead to 90% or more of the arrows flying harmlessly behind the horsemen, and then the riders would butcher the melee-deficient archers. If you stopped before contact, you got pin-cushioned. A single rider could distract most of the opposing archers, meaning that the enemy would waste its arrows instead of targeting the approaching infantry. Given the ability of an archer to lead a target with a great deal of precision, that horseman is now as good as dead. Archers SHOULD be able to lead a target, but doing so should significantly widen their target box, making occasional hits more likely than in Warband without giving them 21st Century computer-guided accuracy.
Shielded infantry was also potentially overwhelming against archers in Warband, unless the infantry was lured into facing away from the archers, or the weight of fire was sufficient to break the shields. Having the archers able to aim shots against shielded infantry with any precision in order to hit legs at a distance, or destroy shields with less arrows, seriously reduces the effectiveness of the infantry below its historical performance. Once again, the archers were there to take advantage of opportunities as they happened while the main melee forces clashed, not to utterly destroy an incoming charge by themselves.
Cavalry was potentially overwhelming in Warband because the archers would shoot at where the riders were at the moment, not where they would be when the arrows arrived. An oblique course toward the archers would lead to 90% or more of the arrows flying harmlessly behind the horsemen, and then the riders would butcher the melee-deficient archers. If you stopped before contact, you got pin-cushioned. A single rider could distract most of the opposing archers, meaning that the enemy would waste its arrows instead of targeting the approaching infantry. Given the ability of an archer to lead a target with a great deal of precision, that horseman is now as good as dead. Archers SHOULD be able to lead a target, but doing so should significantly widen their target box, making occasional hits more likely than in Warband without giving them 21st Century computer-guided accuracy.
Shielded infantry was also potentially overwhelming against archers in Warband, unless the infantry was lured into facing away from the archers, or the weight of fire was sufficient to break the shields. Having the archers able to aim shots against shielded infantry with any precision in order to hit legs at a distance, or destroy shields with less arrows, seriously reduces the effectiveness of the infantry below its historical performance. Once again, the archers were there to take advantage of opportunities as they happened while the main melee forces clashed, not to utterly destroy an incoming charge by themselves.
I think that old archer system towards the new blocking system would be balanced, because now the archers have more angles to hit as you’re not fully blocking from every directionHonved 说:
I think another easy solution would be to cut down the unit size of archers , Instead of giving me 16-15 just give me 10 that's 5-6 less arrows from every volley , which after a few volleys is exponentially fewer arrows and therefore less kills giving other units more time to close the distance. I think well armored units should take less damage from arrows but the unarmored units or leather wearing ones should be as easy to kill as they are. Just needs some tweaking but I think starting with a unit size reduction would be the easiest quick fix.
That does nothing to solve multiplayer balance, or to prevent the player from massing archers in his own party for an automatic "I WIN" button.Lord Vuhl 说:
Thexppkiller's suggestion to use the old aiming system with the new blocking system does nothing to address the previous unreasonable vulnerability to cavalry, where the archers couldn't hit a moving target at all. It's got to be solved at the archer end, giving them SLIGHTLY better tracking of moving targets, but nothing even remotely close to pinpoint aim at anything more than a few paces distance. The top-tier marksmen could be relatively deadly, but the low end skirmishers and bowmen should mainly be useful for showering an enemy formation with un-aimed fire, not for hitting exposed limbs at a distance.
Lord Vuhl 说:
Four months and we get single player early access. Some stuff like Fiann are nobles but militia archers can be mass recruited. Ideal balance should have small number for noble infantry, archers and cavalry, bigger number for non noble and biggest for tier 1 recruits.
Right now spammable medium cavalry has the same numbers of noble infantry and sounds really bad of implemented in single player.
