Accuracy doesn't matter when you have 100 archers sending 2000+ arrows downrange at a mass of infantry. Any reasonable angular error still results in a hit (the men on either side) and even range errors have a decent tolerance in that case (both head to toe for the target and the depth of the formation in general), so it is just a question of putting enough steel in the box to let randomness do the work for you.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Archers in Bannerlord Versus Archers in Warband
- Thread starter Thistle
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Accuracy doesn't matter when you have 100 archers sending 2000+ arrows downrange at a mass of infantry. Any reasonable angular error still results in a hit (the men on either side) and even range errors have a decent tolerance in that case (both head to toe for the target and the depth of the formation in general), so it is just a question of putting enough steel in the box to let randomness do the work for you.
Thistle
Veteran
Thanks, I totally agree
If you match 500 battanians heroes vs 500 whatever infantry with shields and just order the infantry stay idle in shield wall position, you will lose <100 guys before the heres run out of arrows, I dont see how archery is OP... it is another debate if heroes should be beasts in melee but i dont think that is the point if this conversation
HalfMetalJacket
Knight
Lets dive into that, seeing as we have come to a conclusion on archery already.
Generally archers shouldn't be as good in melee as they are in range, but Battanian nobles should be one exception. They are a premium archer after all, and besides that its not like they can seriously replace dedicated melee units. Two handed swords and medium armour doesn't quite cut it.
They can definitely replace dedicated melee infantry though.
Shielded infantry: In Bannerlord currently, the primary utility of a shield is protection against ranged attacks. Fians already counter ranged units by virtue of being hands down superior ranged attackers. I think you can agree that is a better form of protection.
Spear infantry: Two-handed weapons are also better at killing cavalry than spears. As a bonus, the best formation for two-handed anti-cav is also the best formation for archery duels -- loose formation.
Shock infantry: The shock infantry niche is a valid one, but there currently is more than one type of shock infantry in the game with less armor than a fian champion, so advantage fian champion there.
The only reason players don't send them screaming into melee is that they'll lose a few more often than having them hang back and murder everything with their bows. They certainly perform well enough.
HalfMetalJacket
Knight
I admit that its only really fine in an ideal, working BL. Aside from the shield and shock infantry, everything else you mention is more the fault of how combat works, and I really hope they address it. Right now archers are definitely strong, and Fian champs stand well on top.
I also hope they do something about plentiful fian champions. Its not very hard to turn them into your standard archers, which really misses the point of what a noble troop is supposed to be. To be as effective as they are, and be relatively easy to access is a bit much. I prefer scarcity over the huge nerfs that they've been given. I know stats don't matter, but they're really not feeling so deluxe anymore.
Well, there are many issues there as you pointed out besides the individual outperformance of a troop from an isolated perspective in something which is not supposed to be their primary role (melee).
I completely agree, and it is one of my main points in these “archers are op” threads that before getting into a conclusion on overall performance of archers, AI should be fixed in terms of formations in general, usage of shields, cavalry should be fixed when fighting against loose formations, etc.
Having said that, one thing that the game creators could start thinking about is the fact that the game gets to a point where you can afford any amount of any troop (so full fian army is theoretically not impossible to have as long as you can recruit the noble line). From a personal perspective, I would make getting the best troops of all the game more expensive so things balances out a bit and you would only see 10-20% of an army being the best troops (that is why they are elite I guess...)
I completely agree, and it is one of my main points in these “archers are op” threads that before getting into a conclusion on overall performance of archers, AI should be fixed in terms of formations in general, usage of shields, cavalry should be fixed when fighting against loose formations, etc.
Having said that, one thing that the game creators could start thinking about is the fact that the game gets to a point where you can afford any amount of any troop (so full fian army is theoretically not impossible to have as long as you can recruit the noble line). From a personal perspective, I would make getting the best troops of all the game more expensive so things balances out a bit and you would only see 10-20% of an army being the best troops (that is why they are elite I guess...)
It's basically the repetition of the same bullshi* arguments already debunked to death in previous debate threads where countless people have shown these claims are based on completely arbitrary standards.
For one thing, I DARE anyone to come up with any solid evidence behind the very first (and central) bullshi* of the thread, "200 archers shouldn't be defeating 200 infantry."
Is that so? According to whom? Based on what evidence?
These questions were asked in the last thread that went 17+ pages, and remained unanswered then. So why does anyone expect we'll get an actual criteria now?
For one thing, I DARE anyone to come up with any solid evidence behind the very first (and central) bullshi* of the thread, "200 archers shouldn't be defeating 200 infantry."
Is that so? According to whom? Based on what evidence?
These questions were asked in the last thread that went 17+ pages, and remained unanswered then. So why does anyone expect we'll get an actual criteria now?
Those nerfs have hit all archers. I actually preferred the solution upon release, wherein archers at night had severely limited vision and reduced accuracy. It worked, it made sense and it gave plenty of reason to not simply stack 80% archers in your army. Unfortunately, people apparently kept bug reporting it.
The player gets to the point where they don't care about money, but the AI still occasionally struggles. Any upward change in troop prices means more and more AI parties are going to go broke.
That's a pretty easy one to answer: once ranged weapons were good enough to consistently defeat infantry, the use melee weapons by footmen declined to specialist roles. That only happened well after (about 160 years) the bow had become obsolete.
Not saying you wouldnt need to balance other things
Yes, but since TW (deliberately) created a system where the AI is playing by the same rules as the player, they need to balance around the AI, not the player.
It would be better to instead limit the player's explosive income growth.
musashii89
Banned
archers arent too accurate its just melee in this game are **cking horrid, the auto perma block and random tit for tat damage means your losses are much greater, want to win with almost no losses? Javelin/sheild inf + all the archers of the highest tier you can. Find a hill spread archers, sheild wall Inf wait for win.
Problem is the AI is too dumb to fight proper and TW keep throwing fat kids at a see saw to attempt balance
Problem is the AI is too dumb to fight proper and TW keep throwing fat kids at a see saw to attempt balance
Marksmen and sharphooters: k
Notice I said archers. Rhodok Sharpshooters are GOAT ranged units, period -better than marksmen. Never leave home (castle) without them.
Still wrong in the assessment :p
FarmingIce
Recruit
No way, apples are way better
Thistle
Veteran
Too crunchyNo way, apples are way better
musashii89
Banned
I don't think blanket statements one way or the other are accurate or helpful. I also don't think custom battle tests are a very good measure of what you would see in a regular campaign battle. People are going to see what they want to see from these tests and their own experiences.
Archers have strengths and weaknesses, just like every other troop. They are at their best when they're on a flat open map (or on a hill) with unobstructed sightlines. They're great vs unshielded troops and less so vs shielded infantry. However, in my experience, foot and horse archers output damage like nothing else, and are extremely strong (if not overpowered) against most enemy party compositions the game will throw at you. They also have the advantage of always forcing the enemy to engage you, as well as causing steep morale losses during the enemy's approach.
The optimal party composition is probably not 100% archers, but archers will still probably be the heavy majority in whatever the strongest party looks like. There aren't many scenarios where they perform much worse than another type of troop. You're also more likely to be able to maintain large numbers of top tier archers better than other troop types because they usually end an engagement without getting into prolonged melee combat and suffering many losses.
The differences between the various faction troops and enemy party compositions will obviously have an affect on the outcomes you'll see as well.
Here are some tests from a regular singleplayer campaign. I used console commands to add troops to my party and cheat mode to lift the fog of war and teleport around to find battles. I used 126 troops in my own party just because that was my party capacity at the time. These tests aren't meant to be totally conclusive, just show how powerful archers are with respect to typical party compositions. Everything is on max difficulty.
All of the above battles are the outcomes of just one try a piece. Archers were put on loose formation and told to face the main enemy force. I charged them if the enemy got into melee range.
Here is the first party I wasn't able to beat with just T3 Imperial Trained Archers, so I bumped up the tier to match what the enemy had. I also tried the same battle with Imperial Legionaries as a contrast. I was only able to win one time out of about 7 or 8 tries with the Legionaries (so what you see is their best performance), but won first try with the Palantine Guards.
Here's another party I was just barely unable to beat with T3 archers, but beat with T4 archers. I also tried with T3, T4 and T5 Imperial infantry. As it turns out, Triarii are really strong T4 infantry.
I didn't try any Vlandian or Khuzait battles simply because I wasn't at war with them at the time. Vlandia probably wouldn't be much different from the results you see above, but Khuzait would proably give you a much harder time due to the high percentage of cav archers they carry. If you're going to do tests I would suggest doing them this way, as they're a more true-to-life representation of the game than custom battles with uniform enemy troops.
yeah if versing AI all this shows is how bad their code is. AI programming is razor thin, frontal charge or take the high ground and defensive, with the slightest variants.
pre sure TW has given up on single player, how do you release a sandbox with such atrocious balance? Must pay their devs for sh*t if they care so little about their work.
