Archers need a nerf.

[Zeloraz]

nah. they need to buff armours. highest tier armour at the very least needs a huge a buff.

in warband, you could stand in a sea of looters and get 0 and 1 damages done to you then slaughter them all. this needs to be brought back.

This times 100x. Its just not as fun as Warband and this game took 8 years so far to make. devs need alot of balancing to make it up to par. units should not be taking 10 damage by looters by end game how silly.

 

[AfLIcTeD]

I'd be happy with just an accuracy nerf. Have accuracy based off of skill level. A peasant shouldn't be as accurate as a master marksman. Not just for bows either, crossbows and thrown weapons are way too accurate. When units are throwing axes across the map and hitting moving horses, it is rediculous.

 

[BuckleUpBones]

If you don’t have variations you end up with a game of sword fighting only, more variations the greater the scope of tactics there are, this would mean for an example, making archers even more stronger.

But there still has to be the counter, for archers it’s shield-wall and cavalry, buff shield-wall to resist archers (maybe even 'shield-wall advance' movement), nerf archers armour against cavalry so while archers are strong they are very weak in self-defence and need protection etc... (so many tactics/options thereafter, too many to list). So instead of brute force and/or a numbers game, we now a game of tactics galore, way better.

 

[Bob Gnarly]

Agreed on buffing armor.

I've been playing with the 'Armor Does Something' mod lately and it's made battles more enjoyable overall. Arrows still hurt, but are not as strong and javelins while being powerful against shields, no longer one hit you when you're wearing top tier gear.

 

[Mindstrip]

Agreed on buffing armor.

I've been playing with the 'Armor Does Something' mod lately and it's made battles more enjoyable overall. Arrows still hurt, but are not as strong and javelins while being powerful against shields, no longer one hit you when you're wearing top tier gear.

And in turn making the battles last longer i take it?
If i may ask, what version are you playing with this mod? Is it working well?
I've been keeping a watchful eye on this mod since this is a mod that does one of the major things i deem important for me to jump back into bannerlord.
I read that the mod author did find one or two kinks in it when it comes to 1.4.1


In general i feel that the aforementioned mod is sorta a solution to what this thread is about.
Making arrows more realistic, making armor actually work.
Pierce damage is kinda the culprit when it comes to projectiles being OP. As far as i can tell at least.
The damage type itself seems flawed/insufficiently considered and tweaked by TW, an oversight if you will.

 

[Zeloraz]

Am going to change the poll and add a new question as buffing armor seems to be better then just a straight nerf.

 

[Bob Gnarly]

And in turn making the battles last longer i take it?
If i may ask, what version are you playing with this mod? Is it working well?
I've been keeping a watchful eye on this mod since this is a mod that does one of the major things i deem important for me to jump back into bannerlord.
I read that the mod author did find one or two kinks in it when it comes to 1.4.1


In general i feel that the aforementioned mod is sorta a solution to what this thread is about.
Making arrows more realistic, making armor actually work.
Pierce damage is kinda the culprit when it comes to projectiles being OP. As far as i can tell at least.
The damage type itself seems flawed/insufficiently considered and tweaked by TW, an oversight if you will.

I'm not too deep into my new campaign as yet, so haven't done any big battles, but it's a definite improvement so far.

I'm playing on the latest beta which is 1.4.1 and haven't noticed any issues.

 

[Yangbang]

You need more options in your poll OP, as I don't think archers need to do less damage. But all archery is way to accurate. I can understand high tier archers getting a good shot at a charging knight, it really is suicide if you think you can charging at archers taking aim at you. But too many times I've been sniped by far off archers.

Its funny to think about the gamey, archers vs infantry biz. And how archers are the infantry bane, but not entirely. Unshielded infantry yes, shield no. A marching shield wall is the bane to archers. And with that, a proper flanking cavalry is the bane to all. Cavalry in the back is not just a...'its over Anakin, I have the (flanking) ground"

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

Archers don't do too much damage. Archers don't have too much accuracy or range.
Armor is crappy yes. It still takes multiple normal shots to die and long range shots have reduced damage. If you're charging at the archers and take speed boosted damage that's on you and is something they might look into as I feel the damage bonus is a bit generous.
Infantry will always be a liability in open battle because of slow speed and little or no ranged weapons, but they need AI improved and to hold shield up. Yhe constantly lower them even after you just shot them. If the AI chooses to stand there and get slowly shot death then that's an AI issue.

I do agree the 360 turn and shoot needs to go though. I understand AI doesn't 'see' anything and just know where you are but it's very immersion breaking and annoying for AI to spin around and shoot you. They need to lower weapons while turning around or just not do so unless they've taken damage.

Cavalry is just awful. Even the best ones that can tank a few shots still ride up, miss their attacks and then hang out for awhile taking hits or dying.
I personally hate all mounted weapons except the long horizontal swinging polearms, maybe the AI hates their weapons too or just isn't programmed to know how to hit with them. I've asked ever since I first played MP beta for 1 and 2 handed to swing more diagonally on horseback..... but I guess that's just not gonna happen.

 

[kweassa]

I don't want to start historical discussion here, because it's far beyond the scope of this thread but this popular belief have very little evidence behind it. The way archery was used in battle might not be what you see in Hollywood movies and some computer games.

See this for bit more info (I have saved position so that you don't have to watch full video):

Except nothing laid out in the vid contradicts what I've described.

In-game, the archers start high-angle fire from around 150m, and certainly does not attempt to shoot from over 400. Certain crossbowmen begin shooting from a bit further out, like from right under 200, and some archers with longer range, like fians or forest bandits start shooting from slightly over 150. All of the shots the archers from that distance are high-angle fire and within effective range, but none of them are lethal. Not only is it extremely unlike to get hit by it, but also the damage is typically under 30, even if you do get hit.

The distances, in-game, where people complain "archers are too powerful" -- just as an experiment, press left ALT and check just how far they are out. Those shots come from within 100 range, typically between 40~60. That's when the casualties really ramp up, and that's well within direct-targeted, straight-shot range, that can penetrate armor.

The 'armors don't do anything" and "archers are too accurate" is the biggest myth in the game currently.

 

[kweassa]

I get its blunt but how does STONE being thrown by the worst unit is able to deal a good chunk of damage against armored units let alone heavily armoured ones? Its silly.

As for me charging straight at them, am not they just turn and get really lucky shots in.In the Original warband they would deal little damage or no damage (in regards to peasents throwing rocks) which is more then fine they shouldt be able to. Lowly troops being able to deal good damage against top tier troops is absurd.

They do little damage in the current game as well. Even with low~medium grade armor a hit does what.. something like 10~15. The real "problem" with looters is not the range, damage, or accuracy, but the speed of repetition.

It's not that the rocks are too strong or too accurate -- it's that the speed at they repeatedly throw a good-sized chunk of rock, is way too fast. Press L_Shift to zoom in to observe their behavior, and a looter throws one rock, and as soon as the rock is thrown, it already goes into the next wind-up. Unlike bows or crossbows, rocks have no "reload" portion of animation. They just flick, flick, flick, flick. It's this AMOUNT of rocks that makes it feel so lethal.

(ps) I think in this instance, some of the community suggestions regarding concept of "stamina" makes sense, because unlike using a tool of mechanics, throwing something by hand is no easy task.

 

[Yangbang]

Except nothing laid out in the vid contradicts what I've described. I

In-game, the archers start high-angle fire from around 150m, and certainly does not attempt to shoot from over 400. Certain crossbowmen begin shooting from a bit further out, like from right under 200, and some archers with longer range, like fians or forest bandits start shooting from slightly over 150. All of the shots the archers from that distance are high-angle fire and within effective range, but none of them are lethal. Not only is it extremely unlike to get hit by it, but also the damage is typically under 30, even if you do get hit.

The distances, in-game, where people complain "archers are too powerful" -- just as an experiment, press left ALT and check just how far they are out. Those shots come from within 100 range, typically between 40~60. That's when the casualties really ramp up, and that's well within direct-targeted, straight-shot range, that can penetrate armor.

The 'armors don't do anything" and "archers are too accurate" is the biggest myth in the game currently.

I'm gonna agree that under 100 especially under 60 is the archers play pin. But come again about this "can penetrate armor" bit you are saying?

 

[kweassa]

I'm gonna agree that under 100 especially under 60 is the archers play pin. But come again about this "can penetrate armor" bit you are saying?

Mind you, in the time period the game currently draws inspiration from, an average, plain soldier on the battlefield would not be wearing the latest developments in Genoese or Milanese gothic plate of the 15th, 16th centuries. A large amount of soldiers would be wearing anything from, gambeson, gamebeson reinforced with leather parts, mail, and a variety of mix of such parts. A straight shot from 50m distance can penetrate them. A very tightly-packed, high-grade scale or lamellar could often deflect arrows even at closer distances, but some of the bows the higher-tier archers use (...which would be equivalent to the most powerful real life war-grade longbows...) would certainly penetrate even lamellar or scale -- especially if it received repeated attacks to have the important linkages weakened or damage.

If the game chooses to make a simplified, "nope, high tier armor will just deflect anything" as a rule, then it presents a problem with balance, because currently, the game does not enforce any kind of balance in regards to how the players form their party. (except costs.. but really, after the mid-game does anyone care about the costs?)

The devs could have very easily implemented all sorts of balance tools to limit you from making something like an all-legionary army, or all-cataphract army and etc... but they didn't. They just let that freedom to the players, and I sort of consider the current armor-vs-arrows scheme a result of that. It lets the players just form whatever army they want. And under this scheme, armor straight-up deflecting arrows would mean the player can just easily trivialize any enemy resistance involving ranged fire and march onward with an "arrow-immune" troops.

It's a balance problem more than anything, IMO.

 

[hruza]

In-game, the archers start high-angle fire from around 150m, and certainly does not attempt to shoot from over 400.

Point of the video is, that 150 is a long range for a battlefield use of the bow and shooting at that range that you were talking about might not have been as common as people tend to think based on popular culture. In fact it might have been exception.

The 'armors don't do anything" and "archers are too accurate" is the biggest myth in the game currently.

I agree, although I find accuracy too good on very low levels of the skill. But that's mostly related to the player and some NPCs, not to dedicated archer units.

 

[vota dc]

Archers don't do too much damage. Archers don't have too much accuracy or range.

When you hit there is the distance of the arrows written in the damage formula and it isn't much, the problem is seeing range that is even inferior to best bows range.

 

[kweassa]

Point of the video is, that 150 is a long range for a battlefield use of the bow and shooting at that range that you were talking about might not have been as common as people tend to think based on popular culture. In fact it might have been exception.

Manuals and records already exist of typical ranges archers fired from, and how exactly they did it, down to at which point the controlled volley fire order would be changed to "fire at will." What the video is mentioning, is that people tend to think that range to be much further than it actually was. The specific reason why the person mentions "400 yards" in his example is because that number, "400 yards" is the one that is very widely thrown around. (it's sort of a 'famous number')

As he says, "150m is a long range." Firing commenced from around that range. In timed intervals. IMO his intent is to mention that stories of "shots fired from longbows that fly like 400 yards to skewer both horse and the rider", is either a freak incident or plain exaggeration. Like he said, 150m is a long range during the time, and that's about the point where long ranger volume fire would begin, and then as the distance closed, the archers would maneuver into a better position/formation to allow for individual targeted straight-shooting.

I agree, although I find accuracy too good on very low levels of the skill. But that's mostly related to the player and some NPCs, not to dedicated archer units.

I think I remember someone mentioning that some parameter related with the archer accuracy is "too generous," although I don't remember just what parameter it was. It was a number that supposes the probability of the shooter landing a hit within an X amount of area from Y distance or something like that... but probably the modders would know more about the specifics.

Maybe that parameter could be further toned down or something...?


(ps) You'll be probably hearing that "400" a LOT among people who are really, really in love with the English longbow... it's like, whenever you ask them "so how far they shoot" they'll tell you "oh it would go about 400 yards" (heehee)

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

When you hit there is the distance of the arrows written in the damage formula and it isn't much, the problem is seeing range that is even inferior to best bows range.

I don't understand what you're saying, but I'll say more about what I was saying.
With a Noble bow, shooting at much farther then elevated troops will shoot, my arrows hit for 20 something damage. AT about the max distance of a troop they hit for 40 something. At a closer optimal range they do 80 something. Against lords and heavy armored tier units, the optimal distance shots do a little less, like 60 something, but at longer ranges the damage difference is so small it barely matters.

 

[geala]

I'm on version 1.4.0 and using the mods "Range Refine" ("Cut" instead of "Pierce" damage for bows/crossbows), "Real Armor" and "Custom Damage", with several changes by me (f.e. I changed high grade bows and crossbows back to "Pierce" damage), which give me a good feeling of battlefield mechanics but make it probably a bit difficult to say much about vanilla archers.

However: I'm currently playing with a custom faction with a tribal background and mostly near-naked unarmored warriors (so the cut damage of the T1 to T3 bows is no disadvantage), and I don't have problems to destroy big bandit groups with lots of archers in it with my mainly cavalry based small warband. It's quite easy if you have a small infantry detachment, put them in shieldwall and attack, then crush the archers with a cavalry flank attack. Without infantry (I need speed on the map when hunting steppe bandits) I use some horse archers to distract the foot archers first, then charge them with the main melee cavalry group. Guys without spears are helpless against cavalry, armored or not.

 

[Apocal]

Manuals and records already exist of typical ranges archers fired from, and how exactly they did it, down to at which point the controlled volley fire order would be changed to "fire at will."

What are they?

 

[Waybook]

Every melee infantry troop with one-handed weapon should have a shield. That's what I modded with my game and it's a lot better. This is the nerf to archers we need.
And AI needs to use shield wall smarter in battle. Often the enemy troops don't raise their shields when in archer range, but instead raise their shields when getting close to my infantry.