• If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
  • Please note that we've updated the Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord save file system which requires you to take certain steps in order for your save files to be compatible with e1.7.1 and any later updates. You can find the instructions here.

Archers need a nerf.

Arches OP?

  • Yes

    Votes: 82 27.9%
  • No

    Votes: 102 34.7%
  • Buff Armor instead

    Votes: 139 47.3%

  • Total voters
    294

Users who are viewing this thread

Sheepify

Regular
Archers are very effective IF you keep enemy cavalry and infantry away from them and allow them uninterupted line of fire at the enemy. And there is nothing OP about it. It's expected.
Will you just go away?

The point is that archers of any specific tier are much more effective at infliciting casualties on the generic enemy than any other unit type, including units of higher tier and much more expensive equipment. Much less cavalry itself. That's unbalanced even before we see any granularity in unit upkeep cost reflecting their armament quality, much less access to a mount.
Now if you put your archers and archers only against combined force of the enemy that matches your in size and their, your archer army will likely get mauled. And that's not even taking in to account that AI does not use shield wall on their infantry. Archer only army against competent player is dead.
We're not discussing MP. Archers overperform against AI, even before you do things like splitting them in half and positioning to ensure at least one group shoots at enemy's unshielded flanks.
Field battles consist of player armies full of t4-t6 units facing AI armies made mostly of t1-t2 units. Raising armor resistance would make those battles even more quick paced and one sided.
"Lowering DPS would make battles even more quick paced."
I'm done attempting to communicate with you, you live in your own reality and refuse to acknowledge anywhere outside of it.
Archers will absolutely still win in this scenario. Where have you been this entire thread? People have posted VIDEOS of this happening, with no strategic trickery and on flat terrain no less. This is the entire basis of the argument that archers are overperforming.
You can see how he treats direct evidence in the other exchange we've been having. It's basically pidgeon chess.
 

Tercero

Sergeant Knight
WBM&B
Archers will absolutely still win in this scenario. Where have you been this entire thread? People have posted VIDEOS of this happening, with no strategic trickery and on flat terrain no less. This is the entire basis of the argument that archers are overperforming.


It's a trope of almost all games featuring medieval era combat, strategic or otherwise. A good example that is very close to Mount and Blade (albeit with fantasy elements and a hack and slash combat model) would be Kingdom Under Fire: Crusaders. Your strange notion that only "strategic" medieval games play to this trope and that this somehow "separates" Mount and Blade from the genre (and the tropes that go along with it) is both ridiculous and perplexing. There is also the fact that Mount and Blade on some level IS a "strategic-tactical" game, with mechanics that include: mustering armies, army upkeep, and commanding forces in battle.

I never found appealing the argument that if others have been doing it incorrectly, we should just keep doing it this way because it is the way it has always been. Having said that, I think the debate is more complex than that.
 

Sheepify

Regular
if sufficient numbers, will be an archer slaughterhouse
The very issue is that this does not happen - look at the video earlier on.

Sure, a lot of this has to do with how derpy cavalry behaves (charge once, trot off a LONG distance away, all the while eating arrows/bolts, and try to charge again, probably not hitting anything), and - for whatever reason - how mounted troops tend to miss their targets with weapons even when perfectly lined up behind fleeing enemies, but arrows being effective against pretty much all but the very best troop armor is very much an issue as well. Especially when you're talking about some mid-tier ranged unit shooting at T4 or in some cases T5 and still ganking them before contact.

Shielded infantry will work, but not because of armor, but the arrow-catcher in front of them - and that assumes there are no AI-distractions to swivel those shields away from that pew-pew formation. That alone happens more often than I'd care to see even when it's not the result of player's intentional actions to force such behavior.

As soon as comparable cavalry formation, no matter their armor, hits that archer line, and they aren't some T5 or noble line units, those archers should melt, or at least lose enough troops to the charge alone that makes the follow-up exchange a foregone conclusion without intervention by any other force.

That doesn't happen at all - in fact, those archers end up actually winning the engagement.
 
I never found appealing the argument that if others have been doing it incorrectly, we should just keep doing it this way because it is the way it has always been. Having said that, I think the debate is more complex than that.
True. But the whole archers>spearmen>cavalry>archers isn't exactly "wrong". Sure, it is WAY overexaggerated compared to IRL, and perhaps even tiresome for some. But, the fact remains that different unit types need niches and uses within the game in order to have a place, otherwise players will just find the mathematically most efficient unit and spam them. The combat system in the game is far too simplistic to model the true-to-life uses for these actual units, and so reality must make a few concessions. This usually means units have strengths, but also "counters". Game design 101.

Arguments of realism aside, this is a GAME. Cavalry charging an equal number of archers on flat, open terrain should win the fight 99 times out of 100 (it isn't happening at the moment). Anyone who believes otherwise needs to just leave this thread, because their opinions are so far divorced from the collective mean that there is no common ground on which to have a discussion.
 

Alescor

Regular
What else can submarine sink at sea except ships? And sonar is an equipment, not a unit. It can be equipped on anything, even submarine itself.

The submarine thing is just an easy example to understand. I think it is easy to see for what purpose it was made. I really didn't expect an answer on that topic.
sonar is an equipment I know, but in ww1 warships did not have sonar and there were ships that only carried sonar. It is true that later it began to be implemented but at first there was none.
a current equipment may have been a unit before, it all depends on the point of view. but this is out of the question and as I say it was just an example
I would like to know your point of view in this question. What kills you the depth charge or the sonar that detects you? It is just out of curiosity

Units are designed against units, that's true, but they are not designed to counter one unit and one unit only
you are answering me with my answer
in that you are wrong,
Each unit is designed and perfected to do a different task, and that has been done in the past, is done now and will be done in the future.
I don't mean that they can't do anything else but they are not made for that

so are you agreeing with me?

Pillum was certainly designed to kill all right. That it was designed to bend when struck in to the shield or gorund to prevent it from been thrown back is another matter
Or APCs, bunkers, armored trains

What of the Roman pillum depends on who you ask if you ask an engineer or a historian, I have friends on both sides and I am more in favor of the engineering version and not only me but many historians too, but when all the friends stay the speeches after 4 or 5 beers are funny, you really can't know for sure it would be different if there were any living Roman to ask him.
sorry but no, the bazooka was designed exclusively to destroy tanks, another thing is that it can be used for other purposes, if you want you can see some book or some source of information
unlike the Roman pillum of this if there is evidence

Game does differentiate between damage type and type of armor. It does not differentiate between arrow and a spear

I wasn't exactly referring to that. it's a translation problem What he meant was that the armor does not have multiple parameters depending on the type of weapon. example impeial scale armor body 50 leg 20 arm 20 At no point does it tell you the resistance to, cut, perforation or forceful the safest thing is that you take those parameters for everything. if they put some variables it could be fixed without much effort but they don't
 
Last edited:

hruza

Knight at Arms
I never wrote the Hussite Wars were started by peasants.

I newer wrote that you wrote they were started by peasants. Word peasant isn't nowhere in the quote you took from me.

The Flemish PEASANT REVOLT certainly did.

So what? What does have revolting peasants to do with feudal levy?

Go sodding read about it a bit - even the bloody wikipedia page will tell you that much.
Peasants had major presence in Hussite armies, especially earlier on. A lot of them went on to become professional soldiers, to the point where Hussite mercenaries were present in other European countries even after the whole thing fell apart.
You're just bending words around the fact that majority of Hussite armies WERE low-class former civilians. And a lot of them were straight-up farmers.

Farmer is not peasant, I have already provided you with the definition of the word. And all feudal levies were composed of majority of civilians. That's a definition of a levy.

WTF are you on about? I pointed out the flail was symbolic of the Hussites in the same way that the longbow was symbolic of the English forces in the 100 years war.

Flail wasn't symbolic of the Hussites and longbow wasn't symbolic of the English forces in the 100 years war.

These are banners used by the Hussite, apart from general symbols of the Bohemian Kingdom or emblems of the cities. I don't see any flails on them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussites#Factions/Groups

You are free to show me English banners, heraldic symbols or shield symbols with longbow of 100 Years War. There are none.

Doesn't discount the presence of any other type of armament or troop type, but that they had notable and influential presence of the battlefield.

So did handguns, crossbows, swords, spears, pikes, war wagons. So what?

You're starting to seriously annoy me, because I hate purposeful disingenuity.

The whole bloody point is that the Asseize lists people WITHOUT WEALTH OR LAND as being required to be armed. That is what the last line is about.

I don't care whom Asseize lists as required to be armed. We are talking about those who were required to serve in the army.

And I told you that contemporary laws in that respect did not look at class sub-division, but wealth of a person.

Exactly. Which is why you can't find peasants in those laws listed in the levy. Only people with wealth were required to serve.

Are you seriously quoting an uncited wiki at me? Should I go and retort with some uncited questionable claim from another blog or whatnot? Oh, you know, let me use the same "wiki" you just threw at me:
That's the type of a person who has no wealth, and qualifies to bring just bows and arrows when summoned, as per the Asseize.

There is no such person in the Assize.

*Citation needed. Because as far as I recall a detailed study of the 100 years war (wish I could recall and find it right now), at least in the earlier decades majority of the longbowmen were villains that saw enlistment as a way to raise their economic status (and were far less disruptive to local economy to let go than richer peasants).

Tough luck. Feel free to come back once you recall.

No, you're just repeating something you apparently read elsewhere, and didn't bother to research on your own. And by now are repeating it against direct evidence of their presence you yourself provided... so why do I even bother anymore.

That's just your assumption.

So, the levy did not exist, or miraculously came into existence when the lord called from twigs and leaves?

Levy is military force raised in the particular manner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levy

It does not exist until it's raised. By a lord in the medieval case.

Where the hell do you think the mass formation of poor infantry, reported in next to every conteporary account of battles whenever they focus on army composition, came from? PFI Depot?

I don't know, given "poor infantry" is not mentioned in the next to every contemporary account of battles. I think you made it up yourself.

Stop.

No it does not. "People who live in the woods" have no "land of property."

Said who?

And they were the most numerous element of rural population - as per even your own greatly-unsourced article linked above.

People living in the woods were hardly most numerous element of rural population. People living on the fields and pastures were.

The Asseize alone makes it clear even people with no wealth whatsoever were expected to be armed, and respond to call to arms. On top of all the other sources that make it clear medieval warfare (at least in the early periods) was not just domain of professionals. Your continued argument to the contarry is inane, at best.

False:

At the same time, the Assize of Arms of Henry III makes it very clear that unarmed serfs were not expected to leave the fields and fall into ranks.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/227qb2/how_often_were_peasant_levies_used_in_medieval/
 
Last edited:

hruza

Knight at Arms
Will you just go away?

Or what?

The point is that archers of any specific tier are much more effective at infliciting casualties on the generic enemy than any other unit type, including units of higher tier and much more expensive equipment.

Only if you can keep enemy away from archers. Which is logical. Units that specialize in ranged combat are supposed to be more effective when fighting at a distance.

Much less cavalry itself. That's unbalanced even before we see any granularity in unit upkeep cost reflecting their armament quality, much less access to a mount.

Cavalry is perfectly effective and I have no problem with it. Neither do many other players judging by the replies here. May be problem is in the way you use cavalry?

We're not discussing MP. Archers overperform against AI, even before you do things like splitting them in half and positioning to ensure at least one group shoots at enemy's unshielded flanks.

Everything overperforms against AI.

"Lowering DPS would make battles even more quick paced."
I'm done attempting to communicate with you, you live in your own reality and refuse to acknowledge anywhere outside of it.
You can see how he treats direct evidence in the other exchange we've been having. It's basically pidgeon chess.

Can you show me part where I said "Lowering DPS would make battles even more quick paced." Deliberate misquoting someone is not just unethical, it's against rules of this forum.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
Finally, I found the rock-paper-scissor approach of archers>spears>cav always funny, because at the end of the day, what is the role of normal infantry?

Historically? Niche specialist roles, if anything at all. Most infantry fought with either a ranged weapon of some kind or a polearm.
 

Tercero

Sergeant Knight
WBM&B
True. But the whole archers>spearmen>cavalry>archers isn't exactly "wrong". Sure, it is WAY overexaggerated compared to IRL, and perhaps even tiresome for some. But, the fact remains that different unit types need niches and uses within the game in order to have a place, otherwise players will just find the mathematically most efficient unit and spam them. The combat system in the game is far too simplistic to model the true-to-life uses for these actual units, and so reality must make a few concessions. This usually means units have strengths, but also "counters". Game design 101.

Arguments of realism aside, this is a GAME. Cavalry charging an equal number of archers on flat, open terrain should win the fight 99 times out of 100 (it isn't happening at the moment). Anyone who believes otherwise needs to just leave this thread, because their opinions are so far divorced from the collective mean that there is no common ground on which to have a discussion.

But I do believe you nail the issue which is that the AI is not capable of countering an all archer army because they dont know how to play against it effectively, so I still think the key is improving AI responses to certain unit spams
 
But I do believe you nail the issue which is that the AI is not capable of countering an all archer army because they dont know how to play against it effectively, so I still think the key is improving AI responses to certain unit spams
That is part of the problem. The other part of the problem is that cavalry are so hilariously bad. I've seen a cavalry charge of 25+ horsemen get zero kills on LOOTERS.

But, most likely, the AI is NOT going to change in any appreciable way at any point in the future. What do you do now? How do you balance the game without being able to rely on the crutch of simply saying "just fix the AI"?

The answer is playing with the weapons and armor numbers until you start getting desirable behavior in battles. IMO this means buffs to thrusting spears and armor in general, among other things. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see formation cavalry charges, cavalry not missing their hits, and infantry that use shield wall correctly. It would be a whole different game then! But, it's most likely a pipe dream because I highly doubt Taleworlds wants to rewrite large portions of their AI code at this stage in development.

Deliberate misquoting someone is not just unethical, it's against rules of this forum.
As opposed to disingenuously strawmanning peoples' arguments like how you do it? I've read all your comments, especially your conversations with Sheepify and Alescor... you're a contrarian troll.

Seriously... Arguing that impoverished woods people aren't the functional equivalent of peasants simply because "hey, you don't know if they owned land or not" was pretty rich. Also, "farmers aren't peasants" was pretty laughable too, especially when we are talking about the middle ages.
 
Last edited:

hruza

Knight at Arms
As opposed to disingenuously strawmanning peoples' arguments like how you do it? I've read all your comments, especially your conversations with Sheepify and Alescor... you're a contrarian troll.

Bla, bla, bla...
Show me part where I said "Lowering DPS would make battles even more quick paced", will you or not?

Seriously... Arguing that impoverished woods people aren't the functional equivalent of peasants

Who are "woods people"? Where in the text is mentioned that they are "impoverished" and how are they "functional equivalent of peasants"?

You are just making things up.

simply because "hey, you don't know if they owned land or not" was pretty rich.

You don't. Wood is landscape feature dominated by trees. It's not social class. You should visit one and see for yourself.

Also, "farmers aren't peasants" was pretty laughable too, especially when we are talking about the middle ages.

Especially when we talk about middle ages. Because there was huge difference between serf or slave bound to and working on a land that he did not own for a landlord and unable to leave and free farmer that owned or rented his own land and owed no service to anybody and was free to move or do what he wanted.

You may look at medieval law codes and see how much they charged for killing a serf or slave and free person.

So yes, there was indeed huge difference.
 
Last edited:

Tercero

Sergeant Knight
WBM&B
That is part of the problem. The other part of the problem is that cavalry are so hilariously bad. I've seen a cavalry charge of 25+ horsemen get zero kills on LOOTERS.

But, most likely, the AI is NOT going to change in any appreciable way at any point in the future. What do you do now? How do you balance the game without being able to rely on the crutch of simply saying "just fix the AI"?

The answer is playing with the weapons and armor numbers until you start getting desirable behavior in battles. IMO this means buffs to thrusting spears and armor in general, among other things. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see formation cavalry charges, cavalry not missing their hits, and infantry that use shield wall correctly. It would be a whole different game then! But, it's most likely a pipe dream because I highly doubt Taleworlds wants to rewrite large portions of their AI code at this stage in development.


As opposed to disingenuously strawmanning peoples' arguments like how you do it? I've read all your comments, especially your conversations with Sheepify and Alescor... you're a contrarian troll.

Seriously... Arguing that impoverished woods people aren't the functional equivalent of peasants simply because "hey, you don't know if they owned land or not" was pretty rich. Also, "farmers aren't peasants" was pretty laughable too, especially when we are talking about the middle ages.

Well, given that we dont have a final product yet, time would be much better spent improving the AI than tweaking numbers so we get the results that we want
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see formation cavalry charges, cavalry not missing their hits, and infantry that use shield wall correctly. It would be a whole different game then! But, it's most likely a pipe dream because I highly doubt Taleworlds wants to rewrite large portions of their AI code at this stage in development.

It shouldn't require a rewrite to at least get troops to use shieldwalls. The AI already has an internal meter for judging the ranged power of a party/army it is facing on the battlefield, it already uses an Advance command that mostly keeps formation while approaching the enemy and it already understands outflanking (you grind up Tactics skill for outflanking units). People have already come up with tetsudo and shieldwall mods that work.

And one of the developers mentioned that the early implementation of spears was literally too good and apparently made cavalry not particularly fun to play.

edit: I just know people are going to say I'm full of **** about the last sentence, so here it is.
About infantry vs Cav. We are still trying to find the right balance. We did have -at one- point unbreakable wall of spears and quickly decided to make the infantry act more foolish. Otherwise Cav vs Inf is not fun at all. In real life no Cav formation charges directly to the infantry. They did get into charge numerous times just to turn back at the last moment. It was a battle of nerves. The infantry "died" many times before finally that last cav charge is real this time. (The cav charge becomes real when the cav commander decides the inf formation has lost its nerve and about to break.) since we cannot simulate this in the game it is somewhat OK to make inf act a bit goofy.
 
Also, "farmers aren't peasants" was pretty laughable too, especially when we are talking about the middle ages.
Especially when we talk about middle ages. Because there was huge difference between serf or slave bound to and working on a land that he did not own for a landlord and unable to leave and free farmer that owned or rented his own land and owed no service to anybody and was free to move or do what he wanted.
There you go strawmanning again. I am aware of the differences between a peasants/serf and a freeman. That is totally beside the point. A large amount of the farmers in the middle ages WERE peasants/serfs.

Show me part where I said "Lowering DPS would make battles even more quick paced", will you or not?
Right here.
Field battles consist of player armies full of t4-t6 units facing AI armies made mostly of t1-t2 units. Raising armor resistance would make those battles even more quick paced and one sided.
"Raising armor resistance" is functionally equivalent to lowering DPS across the board, because even t1-t2 units wear armor (crappy armor but still armor). If damage resistance is raised on a per armor point basis, the proportionality of damage resistance between low tier toops and high tier troops will be maintained. The only effect will be to slow combat down. It may have the effect of making heavily armored troops stronger then they are currently, but I think that is a good thing: There isn't enough of a performance difference between a t2 unit and a t5 one right now.

It shouldn't require a rewrite to at least get troops to use shieldwalls...
You don't know how the AI is coded, it very well could. I also seem to remember the devs talking about the AI being able to use shieldwall at one point but they purposely took it out because it made archers useless against shielded infantry... I do not have a direct quote though. It may very well be that the AI not being able to use shieldwall is an intentional design decision. If that is true, the solution to archers overperforming is never going to involve the AI using shieldwall. What then?

If Taleworlds does intend to give the AI the ability to use shieldwall then this entire discussion is moot because it will shake up balance so badly everything will need to be re-evaluated. However, we do not know when this will happen, or even IF it will happen. Thus, I proceed in this discussion making the assumption that it never will happen because to do otherwise renders the discussion moot. Is that not reasonable?
 
Last edited:

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
You don't know how the AI is coded, it very well could.

I swear there are already working shieldwall mods for the AI.

I also seem to remember the devs talking about the AI being able to use shieldwall at one point but they purposely took it out because it made archers useless against shielded infantry... I do not have a direct quote though. It may very well be that the AI not being able to use shieldwall is an intentional design decision. If that is true, the solution to archers overperforming is never going to involve the AI using shieldwall. What then?

Then you move on and increase the effectiveness of armor against arrows -- either by reducing armor-piercing ability of arrows, directly increasing the impact of high-tier armor or some other way.

Reducing accuracy won't really have as much of an impact because past a certain point, the formations you're shooting at are going to be so big, and the arrows in flight so numerous, that they'll get hits regardless of what that accuracy stat says. Rate of fire I could see having a larger effect. But unless you're talking truly drastic nerfs to the rate of fire of bows the number of archers you'll need to add to make up for the lost rate of fire is still going to be a fractional number and not really a workable point of balance.
 

William7667

Regular
I use the 'realistic battle mod' which appears to sort most of the issues
though those looters still have the throwing arms of professional baseball players

Heavy armour is better it's especially noticable against arrows
battles seem to take a little longer as it takes a bit longer to kill off troops with heavy armour
Cavalry seem to perform a bit better
Archers are still good but you wouldn't want only archers in your army as they would struggle with the heaviest armour
troops seem to use their shields better
Spears dont seem as useless as they were

As an archer you tend to prioritise the lighter armoured targets as you do more damage, your bow seems to be slightly better at short distance and slightly worse at long range than the vanilla.
If your are wearing heavy armour you shrug off a couple of random arrows but you wouldn't ride solo at a line of archers it doesn't end well I've tried it.

You can still die pretty quick if you were to say run into the middle of a bunch of troops even with heavy armour I still die just not as quickly or as often.
On a horse you tend to avoid thise two arm spear guys as they can take you down pretty quickly solo


Its all a bit subjective but the mod appears to have improved battles overall I'm not sure exactly what they changed but it seems to work
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
There you go strawmanning again. I am aware of the differences between a peasants/serf and a freeman. That is totally beside the point. A large amount of the farmers in the middle ages WERE peasants/serfs.

No, it's you who go strawmanning again. Moreover you deliberately take my words out of their context. Yes, large amount of farmers were indeed peasants, but not all of them, and that does not make peasant equal to a farmer:

Go sodding read about it a bit - even the bloody wikipedia page will tell you that much.
Peasants had major presence in Hussite armies, especially earlier on. A lot of them went on to become professional soldiers, to the point where Hussite mercenaries were present in other European countries even after the whole thing fell apart.
You're just bending words around the fact that majority of Hussite armies WERE low-class former civilians. And a lot of them were straight-up farmers.

Farmers had major presence in Hussite armies. Peasants did not.

Farmers who were levied in to medieval armies were almost exclusively freemen. As attested by the fact that all law codes list them having to enlist with their own weapons and armor based on the land or equivalent in property they own. Moreover those law codes does not even make distinction between farmers and not farmers, what matters is wealth and it does not matter if it's held in land or other property. Which is why those codes always lists value in both land and equivalent property. It's economic standing that matters, not profession.

Right here.
"Raising armor resistance" is functionally equivalent to lowering DPS across the board, because even t1-t2 units wear armor (crappy armor but still armor). If damage resistance is raised on a per armor point basis, the proportionality of damage resistance between low tier toops and high tier troops will be maintained. The only effect will be to slow combat down. It may have the effect of making heavily armored troops stronger then they are currently, but I think that is a good thing: There isn't enough of a performance difference between a t2 unit and a t5 one right now.

Proportionally raising damage resistance of armor will disproportionately favor player armies, because they have disproportionately larger number of units with high armor ratings. The effect it will have and you ignore is that it will drastically decrease damage that AI armies can inflict on player units, reducing their casualties. But will have little effect on damage player armies do to AI units with next o no armor anyway. More alive/un-wounded player units will just slaughter AI units faster. Battles will be even more one sided then they already are.
 
Last edited:

Alescor

Regular
Proportionally raising damage resistance of armor will disproportionately favor player armies, because they have disproportionately larger number of units with high armor ratings. The effect it will have and you ignore is that it will drastically decrease damage that AI armies can inflict on player units, reducing their casualties. But will have little effect on damage player armies do to AI units with next o no armor anyway. More alive/un-wounded player units will just slaughter AI units faster. Battles will be even more one sided then they already are.

I do not agree, if the price of leveling up the units and the maintenance were also changed, I do not think it would have any problem, since I see a bit strange that my armor costs me 60k and a soldier with all the equipment costs me 500 That for me is one of the biggest problems there is, if players had to pay 80k for each t6 unit and a maintenance accordingly, I do not think they had many
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
I do not agree, if the price of leveling up the units and the maintenance were also changed, I do not think it would have any problem, since I see a bit strange that my armor costs me 60k and a soldier with all the equipment costs me 500 That for me is one of the biggest problems there is, if players had to pay 80k for each t6 unit and a maintenance accordingly, I do not think they had many

That might be the case, but currently cost and maintenance of the high tier units is as it is. And while may be more realistic, raising it would upset overall game balance in that player would not be able to dominate game as he does. Creating your own kingdom or even protecting your fiefs as a vassal would became extremely hard.

Player is indirectly supposed to be exceptional and do great deeds in the game, like raising through the ranks from lowly commoner to becoming powerful noble of the kingdom or even creating his own kingdom. If you take that out and make him just another NPC that can't afford to level most of his units beyond t2 and looses every other battle, you would remove most of the fun from the game.

Bannerlord is a RPG in it's heart, not a tactical game and player have to be "exceptional", otherwise game would not be very playable.
 

Tercero

Sergeant Knight
WBM&B
There you go strawmanning again. I am aware of the differences between a peasants/serf and a freeman. That is totally beside the point. A large amount of the farmers in the middle ages WERE peasants/serfs.


Right here.

"Raising armor resistance" is functionally equivalent to lowering DPS across the board, because even t1-t2 units wear armor (crappy armor but still armor). If damage resistance is raised on a per armor point basis, the proportionality of damage resistance between low tier toops and high tier troops will be maintained. The only effect will be to slow combat down. It may have the effect of making heavily armored troops stronger then they are currently, but I think that is a good thing: There isn't enough of a performance difference between a t2 unit and a t5 one right now.


You don't know how the AI is coded, it very well could. I also seem to remember the devs talking about the AI being able to use shieldwall at one point but they purposely took it out because it made archers useless against shielded infantry... I do not have a direct quote though. It may very well be that the AI not being able to use shieldwall is an intentional design decision. If that is true, the solution to archers overperforming is never going to involve the AI using shieldwall. What then?

If Taleworlds does intend to give the AI the ability to use shieldwall then this entire discussion is moot because it will shake up balance so badly everything will need to be re-evaluated. However, we do not know when this will happen, or even IF it will happen. Thus, I proceed in this discussion making the assumption that it never will happen because to do otherwise renders the discussion moot. Is that not reasonable?

I dont think it is a great or reasonable assumption that a game in Early Access/testing/beta phase is not going to change. I think at this stage we should ask for mechanics to change or features to be introduced for better not just quick fix to fit our desired outcome (I think)
 
Top Bottom