-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
正在查看此主题的用户
I don't think such isolated tests are of the greatest worth. In my experience top tier cavalry, if present in any relevant numbers, on an actual Bannerlord battlefield can relatively easily wreck archers, especially if shielded infantry also attacks and the archers share attention.
I'm against even stronger cavalry. The biggest problem here is the small nature of the battlefields in M+B. Anything happens much too fast and formations are borked to a certain degree. Usually in reality a cavalry charge against unprotected archers would destroy their formation and many of the archers and take them out of the battle. That's impossible to implement in Bannerlord however cause you cannot protect your archers. If heavy infantry is near they cannot shoot, if they can shoot infantry usually cannot protect them.
I think a good nerf for archers and crossbowmen would be to make them shoot at a slower rate.
I'm against even stronger cavalry. The biggest problem here is the small nature of the battlefields in M+B. Anything happens much too fast and formations are borked to a certain degree. Usually in reality a cavalry charge against unprotected archers would destroy their formation and many of the archers and take them out of the battle. That's impossible to implement in Bannerlord however cause you cannot protect your archers. If heavy infantry is near they cannot shoot, if they can shoot infantry usually cannot protect them.
I think a good nerf for archers and crossbowmen would be to make them shoot at a slower rate.
We have tests showing archers straight up beating cavalry and others showing cavalry slaughtering the archers. If you have two tests showing two wildly different results, that means there is something else going on.
flavior flavius
Recruit
Why? Cavalry were much more effective IRL then they are in Bannerlord, and I would like to see them become stronger and more valuable in relation to archers then they are currently.
Armor in this game also doesn't do enough. 500 infantry clashing on the frontlines dissolve in 30 seconds because armor doesn't do enough to mitgate damage across the board, including against arrows. As you said, formations are clunky and badly implemented too. I think these problems complicate discussions of balance because they are so blatant.
This I can agree with. Nothing too drastic, but a ~25% reduction in firing speed would work wonders IMO.
Saint Jiub
Sergeant
i have been convinced by videos of custom battles that don't resemble anything you would see in the actual game that its actually extremely good theres no reason to use anything except archers
So anyway, I finally figured out a way to get my potato to record at something better than 0.125 FPS.
If you don't feel like watching four and a half minutes:
Banner Knights beat Fian Champions
Druzhnik Champions beat Fian Champions
Fian Champions beat Khuzait Lancers
Imperial Heavy Horsemen beat Fian Champions
Vanguard Fursan beat Fian Champions
Khan's Guards beat Fian Champions
The only way I could get BFCs to win against equal numbers of cav was by sending mainline T4 cav at them. I assume T3 cav would would lose as well but i don't imagine anyone gives a ****.
最后编辑:
Dabos37
Sergeant Knight at Arms
So anyway, I finally figured out a way to get my potato to record at something better than 0.125 FPS.
If you don't feel like watching four and a half minutes:
Banner Knights beat Fian Champions
Druzhnik Champions beat Fian Champions
Fian Champions beat Khuzait Lancers
Imperial Heavy Horsemen beat Fian Champions
Vanguard Fursan beat Fian Champions
Khan's Guards beat Fian Champions
The only way I could get BFCs to win against equal numbers of cav was by sending mainline T4 cav at them. I assume T3 cav would would lose as well but i don't imagine anyone gives a ****.
How are you able to test these units? Are you using a mod to be able to test T7 units?
William7667
Regular
Agree the problem isnt archers who should decimate un armoured troops
The problem is that archers are also decimating heavily armored troops
If armour was significantly improved you might find archers need a slight buff
Nice job editing the video and good music choice Bronk the Raven
Recruit
Interesting test results. Great video, haha... @Apocal sorry maybe I missed it, what kind of formation are you using for the cav charging, and would you mind trying tests with these variables:
1. different formations selected before charging; I expect loose to be best and shield wall 2nd best
2. manual charging them with move order that sets them on a collision course; I can't tell for sure, but I think this helps the cav charges
My biggest gripes about archers currently:
1. If you get a successful hit on an AI archer, they can shoot you back before you can release another arrow. It doesn't make sense. The simplest fix I see (without implementing a new system of attack speed fatigue based on health missing) is to just increase the stagger from being hit with missiles. Another option would be to implement a system of removing arrows/javs/etc from your body, and give a movement and attack speed penalty if there any in you, but that's something beyond the scope of archer balance.
2. Movement speed at full draw is too fast. Force archers to make more use of the new mechanic of nocking an arrow vs always having to draw from quiver (warband) by penalizing movement speed on the draw.
3. Archers with polearms as a secondary. Really this is a broader concern of mine, but I personally find spears on the back distasteful. Firstly, it makes no sense. With 2h swords/axes, even if people didn't wear them like too often, at least you could. Same for bows held by wearing it (aka being squeezed by the draw weight). Secondly, the spear on the back gets in the way of the 3rd person camera. Thirdly, spears shouldn't be secondary weapons. If they aren't in your right hand, a spear should be in your left hand. If it's neither, it's most likely on the ground or something similar. Using a bow and a spear should involve dropping one of either, imo, especially since the AI can now interact with collectables. Of course, if spears were more useful, then spear-armed infantry (not swordsmen with spears) would be more useful and probably better at protecting archers from cav.
4. Switching between weapons is too fast. Just add an animation of sheathing the wielded weapon, and an adjustable gap of time between the end of the sheathing animation for the current weapon and the initiation of the unsheathing animation of the next weapon. Idk why it isn't already like this instead of weapons snapping from our hands to our bodies automatically as we reach for the next one. Obviously this will add more time to get to the "previous" weapon instead of the "next." Maybe I'm missing something that's already there, but I wish we could discretely select which weapon to wield instead of only cycling through them.
5. I think armor should be more effective than it is currently against cut damage. You can't effectively chop/drawcut through metal, at least through metal specifically designed to be resistant to it. That's why people went for the gaps (especially with thrusts), but of course, simulating gaps in armor and the tiny hitboxes that would require would be too much. And yes, certain armors can literally be penetrated or bent inward enough to be damaging. I think it's simply enough to have pierce damage do better against armor than a similar value of cut damage, but that only works if the difference is strong enough... I think the level of damage dealt from an arrow should mostly come from the bow (as currently), but the type of ALL the damage the arrow deals (including the value derived from the bow) should be based on the arrow type. I can't tell for sure if that's the way it is currently because armor is so poor at protecting against cut damage. Imo it should be such that you can have various broadheads, potentially some that deal quite a bit of damage to poorly armored opponents, but are ineffective against armor and "bodkin" type arrow heads that overall deal less damage, but are more effective against armor than the broadheads because of the damage type. Armor piercing shouldn't be derived primarily through increasing the damage value, as currently...
Extra:
"Hey Bronk, I like your point #5, but what about axes?"
In the case of axes, which deal cut damage yet are effective against armor, I think damage shouldn't be exclusive to one type; axes should deal blunt damage in addition to cut damage with the disparity between the value of cut damage and blunt damage based on the width of the axe head. Larger vs smaller axe heads should deal more cut vs more blunt damage, respectively. In lieu of adding multiple damage types with discrete damage values for a single attack to the game, I think axes could be balanced against a flat increase of armor protection of cut damage by adding an armor penetration value to weapons. Basically, instead of adding damage to the attack, the value would be subtracted from the armor before damage is applied. This would allow 2 different weapons with the same damage type and value to deliver the same damage to an unarmored opponent, yet behave differently with a heavily armored opponent. This could simulate the differences between axes and swords, blade edge type, blade width/geometry and any kind of relevant RPG element.
1. different formations selected before charging; I expect loose to be best and shield wall 2nd best
2. manual charging them with move order that sets them on a collision course; I can't tell for sure, but I think this helps the cav charges
My biggest gripes about archers currently:
1. If you get a successful hit on an AI archer, they can shoot you back before you can release another arrow. It doesn't make sense. The simplest fix I see (without implementing a new system of attack speed fatigue based on health missing) is to just increase the stagger from being hit with missiles. Another option would be to implement a system of removing arrows/javs/etc from your body, and give a movement and attack speed penalty if there any in you, but that's something beyond the scope of archer balance.
2. Movement speed at full draw is too fast. Force archers to make more use of the new mechanic of nocking an arrow vs always having to draw from quiver (warband) by penalizing movement speed on the draw.
3. Archers with polearms as a secondary. Really this is a broader concern of mine, but I personally find spears on the back distasteful. Firstly, it makes no sense. With 2h swords/axes, even if people didn't wear them like too often, at least you could. Same for bows held by wearing it (aka being squeezed by the draw weight). Secondly, the spear on the back gets in the way of the 3rd person camera. Thirdly, spears shouldn't be secondary weapons. If they aren't in your right hand, a spear should be in your left hand. If it's neither, it's most likely on the ground or something similar. Using a bow and a spear should involve dropping one of either, imo, especially since the AI can now interact with collectables. Of course, if spears were more useful, then spear-armed infantry (not swordsmen with spears) would be more useful and probably better at protecting archers from cav.
4. Switching between weapons is too fast. Just add an animation of sheathing the wielded weapon, and an adjustable gap of time between the end of the sheathing animation for the current weapon and the initiation of the unsheathing animation of the next weapon. Idk why it isn't already like this instead of weapons snapping from our hands to our bodies automatically as we reach for the next one. Obviously this will add more time to get to the "previous" weapon instead of the "next." Maybe I'm missing something that's already there, but I wish we could discretely select which weapon to wield instead of only cycling through them.
5. I think armor should be more effective than it is currently against cut damage. You can't effectively chop/drawcut through metal, at least through metal specifically designed to be resistant to it. That's why people went for the gaps (especially with thrusts), but of course, simulating gaps in armor and the tiny hitboxes that would require would be too much. And yes, certain armors can literally be penetrated or bent inward enough to be damaging. I think it's simply enough to have pierce damage do better against armor than a similar value of cut damage, but that only works if the difference is strong enough... I think the level of damage dealt from an arrow should mostly come from the bow (as currently), but the type of ALL the damage the arrow deals (including the value derived from the bow) should be based on the arrow type. I can't tell for sure if that's the way it is currently because armor is so poor at protecting against cut damage. Imo it should be such that you can have various broadheads, potentially some that deal quite a bit of damage to poorly armored opponents, but are ineffective against armor and "bodkin" type arrow heads that overall deal less damage, but are more effective against armor than the broadheads because of the damage type. Armor piercing shouldn't be derived primarily through increasing the damage value, as currently...
Extra:
"Hey Bronk, I like your point #5, but what about axes?"
In the case of axes, which deal cut damage yet are effective against armor, I think damage shouldn't be exclusive to one type; axes should deal blunt damage in addition to cut damage with the disparity between the value of cut damage and blunt damage based on the width of the axe head. Larger vs smaller axe heads should deal more cut vs more blunt damage, respectively. In lieu of adding multiple damage types with discrete damage values for a single attack to the game, I think axes could be balanced against a flat increase of armor protection of cut damage by adding an armor penetration value to weapons. Basically, instead of adding damage to the attack, the value would be subtracted from the armor before damage is applied. This would allow 2 different weapons with the same damage type and value to deliver the same damage to an unarmored opponent, yet behave differently with a heavily armored opponent. This could simulate the differences between axes and swords, blade edge type, blade width/geometry and any kind of relevant RPG element.
I changed nothing about the formations, only F1 F3 in most cases. For the Vanguard Faris and Khan's Guard, I had them hold fire as well.
To do those test, I need to rollback to 1.4.0 because the hotfix for 1.4.1 broke the selectable troops mod. I will say that in likelihood number 1 won't produce any differences, because any formations tend to break up once you give a charge command. Manually charging with a move order might work better though.
you LOVE to quote that grade 9 science stuff but doesn't seem like you understand what it means. especially in application.
lets say a person is 100kg and a horse is 200kg for the argument, of trying to augmenting a person's theretical damage to a horse, when in reality a horse is more likely 5-10 times the weight of a person. but for arguments sake, to attempt to prove your point as correct, i'm using a tiny horse of 200kg and a massive person of 100kg.
lets also assume, this person has above average atheletic abilities and can run as fast as a horse. (which of course we all know isn't possible). when both parties are running towards each other. the speed cancels out since they are equal. which leads to the forces. and we all know, F=Ma, meaning, the force delivered by the 100kg person is 100a and the force delieved by the horse is 200a. and do you know what the result of the collision is? a force of -100a in the direction the person is facing. aka he's pushed back while the horse kept going forward.
here's the fun part. damage recieved in collision is not from speed but the change in speed. which is why air bags work, because they slow down your face's movement towards the steering wheel so that when you slam into something and stop, the change in speed isn't so high you take significant damage.
now what has changed in the horse's speed? he's slowed down by 50% but is still going in the same direction. what about the person? he went from going forward at a certain pace, to going backwards the same pace, extreme change in speed from positive to negative... he has taken significant damage. while the horse hasn't...
now, lets sub in numbers closer to reality. like a 500kg warhorse + 80kg rider + 100kg horse armor + 30kg knight armor = a total weight of at least 700kgs vs a person who's maybe 80kgs + 20kgs of armor. and speeds like 45-60km/hour for the horse, and 10-15km/hour for the person.
you'll see that yes, the horse might "end up in the hosipital" but the person and 5 others behind him won't even recieve open casket funerals.
I think the Archer's vs Cav thing needs some kind of standard for experiments to have meaning. we are trying to figure out the max effectiveness rather than situational usefulness. there's a reason we aren't testing archers on lvl 3 walls vs dismounted cavs in sieges right?
archers need to be set up on high ground with loose formation. there should be little trees or uneven terrain. and cavs should spawn a good 300+m away.
also the numbers of units really make a difference. once you get more archers their collective effectiveness increases, and the opposite is true for cavalry due to collision. so what's a good test? 1v1? 10v10? 100v100? 1000vs1000?
what about ease of access? i can get an army of 200 archers up n running in 20 days with armed trader and mercenary guard recuitments and whatnot. but good luck getting even 20 cavs in 20 days. truth is, you'll never face an army with that many archers or cavs. (the highest ratio i've seen is about 110 cavs led by derthert in his 550 men army)
No it does not. Speed does not cancel anything. Force does. The net force of the system composed of two objects interacting with each other is zero. That's what Newton's 3rd law implication is. When two objects collide head on in the opposite direction, the exact same force will be applied on both of them and it will be sum of their individual forces. Which is why billiard ball thrown against the wall will bounce off, even if force of the wall is 0, because speed of the wall is 0.
Your calculation is completely wrong.
Again wrong. Damage received is equal to Work. Which is equal to Force x Displacement. And even then what actual structural damage received is, is determined by properties of the object, it's ability to absorb force. Turn it in to heat, sound through elasticity and other properties. Which is why rubber ball thrown against the wall will receive no damage while glass ball will shatter.
And I am not even going to mention fact, that horse and human are not single objects. Rather they are mechanical systems composed of many different objects that move at different speeds and with different masses. Like legs for example. Therefore you can't apply your simplistic logic to it, even if you would get the basics right. Which you don't.
最后编辑:
类似的主题
