Archers need a nerf.

[William7667]

I played with realistc battle mod originally then for a while ( about a week or so ) without realistic battle mod now I'm playing with it again.

It seems to put archery and armour in a good place it seems to make archery slightly stronger at close range and slightly worse at long range
Its pretty effective on un armoured and lightly armoured guys might just be perception but seems more effective than the original
but struggles as it should on heavy armour. Though your still not running into a line of archers no matter how heavy your armour is you can shrug off the random arrow or two and if your using the bow you tend to seek out the lighter armored enemy for more effect.

The only other thing I need now is a mod which makes armoured troops much more expensive to buy/ less availiable for me and the ai and it'll be the best combination to my mind.
I was doing well supervising my troops mopping up and ignoring the odd random arrow cos of my heavy armour when a guy with a big pike appeared in front of me, he lopped half my life off in one strike which is as it should be. I held back and let my infantry deal with him rather than risk attacking him myself as i'm sure he'd have done me in.

 

[Maximum997]

Rather, a simple trend of writing down HOW MANY ARCHERS YOU HAD in comparison to HOW MANY ARCHERS THEY HAD in the general order of battle would probably very simply display just how ridiculous and meaningless these "Archers are OP" opinions are.

What a joke.

"Archers not OP. if you have no archers in army"

good point XD

 

[hruza]

Because mount and blade is ultimately a game, not a medieval combat simulator.

That's not what my question was. My question was, why does MB needs mechanic of a top down strategic game if it is not top down strategic game. Yes, it's a game. But not top down strategic one.

Archers in game are of course much stronger than in reality despite what some claim in this thread simply because the game doesnt model gambeson resistance to projectile and armour resistance to projectile are not well modelled ( any angle of the arrow penetrates, arrows never bounce, arrows never fail/break) .

All units are much stronger then in reality. When we are saying that archers are not OP, we are comparing them to other game units, not real life.

Real battles lasted for hours and sometimes days. And when they ended, casualties were between 0-15% on average. No player have time to play game where single battle will take hours and nobody dies at the end. Every weapon in game is way more effective then in real life. It have to be to make battles and combat in general reasonably fast and decisive.

BTW.: that goes for damage and armor penetration as well. All weapons deal unrealistic damage against armor, not just bows.

 

[flavior flavius]

That's not what my question was. My question was, why does MB needs mechanic of a top down strategic game if it is not top down strategic game. Yes, it's a game. But not top down strategic one.

But it is still a game. The rock/paper/scissors of spearmen/archers/cavalry is a hallmark of pretty much every game set in the medieval era, not just top down strategic ones. It's what people expect, and frankly it is a good mechanic to allow every type of unit to be relevant. If things stay as they are now, you might as well delete spearmen from the game for how useless they are and how little players actually use them.

All units are much stronger then in reality. When we are saying that archers are not OP, we are comparing them to other game units, not real life.

Real battles lasted for hours and sometimes days. And when they ended, casualties were between 0-15% on average. No player have time to play game where single battle will take hours and nobody dies at the end. Every weapon in game is way more effective then in real life. It have to be to make battles and combat in general reasonably fast and decisive.

Actually battles in the game probably should be slowed down a lot. I hate seeing a 500 man infantry line dissolve in 30 seconds... not even enough time to move my cavalry around to flank. Nothing crazy mind you, but battles could be a good three times longer then they are currently.

Slower battles would mean maneuvering after contact, terrain, and morale are more important then they are currently which is a good thing IMO. All of this (including the overperformance of archers) points to the fact that armor currently doesn't do enough in the game and needs its effects increased.

 

[Gelimer]

Good points Flavior Flavius , I agree with you and also on slower battles and morale, that would be great indeed.

I think that there is no need to touch the archers right now but rather to increase the damage of spear thrusts and horse colliding at speed with humans because as it is now, the cavalry is a bit underpowered as a counter to ranged units, especially when controlled by the AI.

Also agree there is quite some work to do to improve the armor implementation, i think it is the heart of the issue with spears units being underpowered mounted or not.

Because with an improved armor implementation, I can imagine that spears and polearms would become more important since they have good armor penetration potential ( against gambeson, chainmail especially ) axes and maces would retain their potential, swords would be weaker in general, archers would not be as deadly at range ( would still be deadly at close range ) and spear cavalry would be more dangerous to ranged and infantry units ( 2 handers in particular if they can be one shot by spear thrusts or knocked out by the charge because currently guys with 2 handedaxes are some of the best anti cavalry unit i have found in the game and it is not realistic, mainly because the ai has issues to hit from their horse with a spear and get bogged down quickly instead of retreating for another charge) .

On the other hand, not all cavalry units are underpowered for instance this video shows the higher tier cavalry units work well as intended ( they dont use spear though but a polearm) :

 

[hruza]

Actually battles in the game probably should be slowed down a lot. I hate seeing a 500 man infantry line dissolve in 30 seconds... not even enough time to move my cavalry around to flank. Nothing crazy mind you, but battles could be a good three times longer then they are currently.

I don't know if by "a lot" but I wouldn't be against bit slower battles, yes. But that's for different discussion. Point is that while bows in the game are more effective then in real life, the same is true for all weapons. One needs to look at things like rate of fire or penetration from the perspective of the overall balance, and not purely from point of realism. Fact that bows in the game are more deadly then in the real life does not make archers automatically overpowered in the context of other units in the game.

 

[Apocal]

Okay, you got me. I have no idea why your custom battles seem to be so disconnected from my experiences in campaign. Straight up, that is the opposite to my experiences of archers mowing down pretty much everything that moves in their sight range (even cavalry), and then being pretty good in melee to boot. I run completely vanilla btw, no mods.

If you saw my early posts in this thread, I said the same thing. Someone else clued me in that the Fian Champions lost their noble bows, and that explains some of the loss of effectiveness but nowhere near as much as in custom battles.

I notice in your videos that the archers are seeming to run forward rather than to sit back and fire as the cavalry approaches them. Would you mind running a test where you control the archers on flat ground, put them in loose formation and have them stand in a straight line facing the oncoming cavalry?

2020-06-11 01-56-58

Watch "2020-06-11 01-56-58" on Streamable.

streamable.com

They do a lot better, 29 kills but still aren't coming close to winning.

 

[Gelimer]

I think one detail that would be great in this game and realistic is if they add different kind of arrows and bolts, meaning depending on the type of arrowhead, it will do more damage against specific type of protections and less against others like in real life.

This interesting video shows well what i mean :

 

[hruza]

I think one detail that would be great in this game and realistic is if they add different kind of arrows and bolts, meaning depending on the type of arrowhead, it will do more damage against specific type of protections and less against others like in real life.

This interesting video shows well what i mean :

Problem is how would you incorporate it in to the game that uses one arrow type per stack mechanics. In real life one archer would have different types of arrows and choose one most appropriate for the target and situation. If you would implement your idea in to the game, then one type of archers would be effective only against certain type of targets.

 

[Gelimer]

You are right, it would affect the balance since the idea would be to give lower tier archers units arrowhead types ( broadcutting) that are very effective against gambesons and other light armour types but not good against better protections (would bounce or break on impact most of the time against good armour).

Then higher tier archers with the kind of piercing arrows we have (bodkin and piercing types) that would be good against chainmail and better against armour but these types of arrowheads perform okay but still clearly worse against lower tier units who wear gambesons and padded armour than the broadcutter arrowheads types, especially at mid-long range.

That would add a layer of "tactical" choice when choosing your archers and would somewhat nerf their current ability to dominate any type of unit but on the other hand it would slightly buff their effectiveness against the type of targets they are effective against.

It would also make it more difficult for lower tier archers to beat higher tier archers who have better armour in "archers fights" and would require high tier foot archers units to beat elite horse archers.

To make a parralel with other kind of games, it is like AP ammo vs HE ammo basically or Full metal jacket vs Hollow point ammo.

 

[William7667]

Problem is how would you incorporate it in to the game that uses one arrow type per stack mechanics. In real life one archer would have different types of arrows and choose one most appropriate for the target and situation. If you would implement your idea in to the game, then one type of archers would be effective only against certain type of targets.

One way to impliment it would be fire what the archer has, if the archer has 2 quivers with different arrows automatically fire the one that would do most damage depending on the target aimed at. If he has run out of one type he has only one type to fire
mind you that means making the choice once the arrow is leaving the bow but a computer will be able to handle it. It would mean archers would probably all carry at least 2 quivers maybe 3 so would have less space for other weapons.
All arrows would work against any target its just some types would work better. Different factions could have different set ups. I'm sure someone will make a mod eventually

Or let the commander switch types with a command like the way you hold fire with f4
only it would be fire armour piercing or fire standard.. it would rely on archers having each type mind you or individual archers could just fire standard if they dont have the correct type

 

[Because]

I think one detail that would be great in this game and realistic is if they add different kind of arrows and bolts, meaning depending on the type of arrowhead, it will do more damage against specific type of protections and less against others like in real life.

This interesting video shows well what i mean :

Thanks for the video, was interesting viewing and made me change my vote.

From looking at it the thing that and then a few others the thing that stood out to me was just how much of a difference armour made with full plate being nigh on arrow proof at least on the chest and helmet. While I like the idea of having troops switch arrows, it seems like either something they should do themselves (in which case it would make no difference unless you are going to give them specific numbers of each arrow type and count their usage) or an extra layer of micromanagement that wouldn't be fun to do in real time when you can't be certain what enemy the archers would actually be shooting and even if you could I wouldn't want the hassle of babysitting a unit to that level.

Therefore to me it makes more sense just to up the effectiveness of armour, but especially the higher tier elements and if they ever introduce full plate make it so all but the most powerful arrows bounce off for minimum damage and even more powerful ones could only do decent damage to limbs.

I'd also even restrict troops access to the best armour or if not make the highest tier troops with such effective armour much harder to acquire/ expensive to keep so that it is unlikely that you would face or field a large army of purely elite troops in top of the line armour. Or so that even if you took the time and money to develop such an army as you took casualties it would be harder to replace.

Lastly if you are going to have top armour let it be in shops and let it be a non insane amount of money (20k) and let it be lootable (even if what you find is always damaged it should be there). This is so you are not in the situation where you are employing soldiers in better gear than you are ever able to find or afford. That and add a Legendary/Lordly versions in as well as shop only hugely expensive options and Lord only (non lootable) gear to make Lords and rich players truly formidable.

 

[hruza]

Therefore to me it makes more sense just to up the effectiveness of armour, but especially the higher tier elements and if they ever introduce full plate make it so all but the most powerful arrows bounce off for minimum damage and even more powerful ones could only do decent damage to limbs.

What weapon can go through full plate?
This is the problem with the "up the armor effectiveness" suggestion. If you up the effectiveness of armor for arrows, you should up it for other weapons as well, because same logic apply to arrow as does to a spear. But then top tier troops becomes untouchable, because everything bounces off their armor for a minimum damage.

 

[Because]

What weapon can go through full plate?
This is the problem with the "up the armor effectiveness" suggestion. If you up the effectiveness of armor for arrows, you should up it for other weapons as well, because same logic apply to arrow as does to a spear. But then top tier troops becomes untouchable, because everything bounces off their armor for a minimum damage.

From my limited understanding for the truly top tier plate armour (not in this setting currently) you were looking at weapons that delivered concussive force (like warhammers and polearms) and even then the armour would hold it was just enough force would get through to still mess up the wearer. We don't have that level of armour in this game, but I have no trouble making top tier armour, especially for Lords hard to get through.

Other than Lords/players in Lordly gear damage above the minimum would still get through on top tier soldiers they would just take less of it and so require a few more hits. It would make elite versus elite fights would go on longer, as they would still do the same damage with a sword that they did before. Great weapons could still mess them up as well which would give two handers more of a role. Lastly if Lordly armour which should be the best of the best only takes minimum damage from standard hits if it was a minimum of say 5 on body 10 on head they would be well protected against attackers but if they fell after 20 or so hits they wouldn't be able to solo armies as they would still get smacked up if outnumbered.

Does make top tier good, but they should be. At an abstract level if we base it on a standard hit from a tier 2 1 handed weapon if each level could roughly take a hit per level (to a minimum of 2 hits on both 1 & 2) then I'd be happy with that. A tier 6 would steam roller all but their armour means that they would last longer than a tier 5 but only by 20%. Currently I feel armour doesn't provide enough protection to work this way.

 

[hruza]

From my limited understanding for the truly top tier plate armour (not in this setting currently) you were looking at weapons that delivered concussive force (like warhammers and polearms) and even then the armour would hold it was just enough force would get through to still mess up the wearer. We don't have that level of armour in this game, but I have no trouble making top tier armour, especially for Lords hard to get through.

Concussive damage would do nothing against plate. First off all, plate wouldn't be worn over naked body, it was worn over padding of one sort or another. But more importantly plate distributes impacting force over large area and more often then not, it would have been shaped in such a way, that it wouldn't even touch vulnerable parts of the body that it protects (see funny "bulged" shapes of plate armors). So no, "blunt damage" was not very effective against plate.

You can also see it on the shapes of arrows used against plate (see video posted above). They are not meant to do blunt damage, they are not meant to pierce, they are actually designed to "cut" through the plate.

The point of the weapons like polehammers was to beat "knight" off his feet/horse and finish him on the ground with something pointy. Which is why weapons like polehammers or goedendags have often spike on top or on the other side. Or one could draw rondel type of dagger out (basically a long spike) and use it to strike in between the plates and in to the visors of a helpless knight.

This is of course something that is difficult to simulate in the computer combat like MB one. Which is why in computer games % of the damage "goes through". Another method often used in the computer games to simulate this sort of combat is with "critical" damage or hits. But combat mechanics in MB doesn't have that.

 

[Gelimer]

Good posts guys, it is true that concussive damage from blunt weapon was mostly effective against full plate by attacking the head/helmet hoping to deal brain/skull damage.

Like Hruza said the main way to defeat them was to get them on the ground then finish them off with a dagger in the gaps of the armor, because gambeson+plate was/is so resilient.

This said in Bannerlord, it looks like the devs tried to depict the period before plate armour became a thing, so the best armour we have are scale/laminated i think which is much weaker than the 15th-16th century state of the art full plate armours.

I also agree that with an improved armour implementation they would have to rebalance the damage of spears and polearms because there is a reason why they were so prevalent in armies, the main one being less training required and usually cheaper to equip troops with ( for spears i mean) but another reason was that spears are incredibly powerful weapons on the thrust even against troops with decent protection or horses with armour, whereas in the game their damage is comparable to a short sword thrust( i mean on average because higher tier spears are still deadly) maybe it should be looked at like for instance increasing their damage significantly when they are used with 2 hands.

 

[Dabos37]

So, I have installed the custom battle mod to check how archers are performing, and the result was...









Archers >>>>>>>>>>> Cavalry in this game without any doubt.

Maybe part of the problem is that cavalry charges are not great in this game, but then you realize that cavalry is able to kill infantry pretty handy. So I think that it is pretty clear that archers are performing too good in this game without any doubt and all you need is archers in mass to masacre everything.

(Squires were even close to lose against Empire Archers if not for morale)

 

[KSHMR]

Archers are basically highly accurate super snipers with the damage of a .50cal sniper rifle.

 

[KSHMR]

And cav are basically super horses riding at 200mph with unlimited couching and 2000dmg without recharge needed. Ooh and even at 200mph they can rotate 180degrees super ez

 

[geala]

...

Archers >>>>>>>>>>> Cavalry in this game without any doubt.

Maybe part of the problem is that cavalry charges are not great in this game, but then you realize that cavalry is able to kill infantry pretty handy. So I think that it is pretty clear that archers are performing too good in this game without any doubt and all you need is archers in mass to masacre everything.

(Squires were even close to lose against Empire Archers if not for morale)

What? Archers are helpless against shielded infantry for example. Cavalry is bad against archers only under certain circumstances and with certain numbers, as it should be. The weak point of cavalry mostly were the horses. There is a reason that a lot of battles of the second half of the 14th c. and the 15th c. AD of European warfare saw most men-at-arms on foot when there were lots of missile weapons around.

In this game we have a pathetic overabundance of well armored units. In addition most high tier cavalry has armored horses, something very seldomly seen in medieval reality, These armored horses are not slower than unarmored variants and never ever get exhausted. This is imbalance. Maybe many players like it because they play with top tier armored cavalry + horse archers + twohanded-from-behind-slaughter and don't like interfering archery. But I think there has to be a counter. I would prefer reduced armor spread and few elite units but that goes directly against the weird M+B recruitment and training system, so it will not happen.