Archers need a nerf.

Arches OP?

  • Yes

    Votes: 81 27.6%
  • No

    Votes: 102 34.8%
  • Buff Armor instead

    Votes: 138 47.1%

  • Total voters
    293

Currently viewing this thread:

i think the problem is that in an arena match I'm chopping at that those elite cataphracts for 2-5 damage unless i hit them with the sweet spot since they are so armored up. but in a field battle, they get shot to death by 3 arrows. like i'm taking 75 dmg (realistic difficulty) from a headshot while wearing 50 armor helm from 70 meters away by a tier 3 archer like w.e
the only thing they need is to nerf the armor interaction with arrows. and maybe critical damage calculation, because hitting the head that's mostly covered by a helm shouldn't do much damage at all let alone this much. maybe the eyes or neck sure, but on my skull covered by plate helm? a freaking 50 cal sniper rifle can't even go through that.
 
as to the effect of cavalry charging power. i was playing around killing looters and a couple of times sent 70 heavy tier 4-6 cavs at 5-10 looters. what i expected was basically insta ko, by the second row of cavs colliding with them i'd have killed everyone. but that's not even close. they just pushed around the looters and it took 50+ of them to passthrough for me to see all the looters dead.
took 50 cavs to walk over 10 looters to kill them.. that's how strong the charge is... 5-10 trample damage is a joke. people falling from horses get crippled, what do you think happens when they get hit by a fully armored beast running at max speed? i think like the couch lance mechanism, after cavs reach a certain speed their trample damage should drastically increase to maybe 20-50. reduced vs armor and more so vs shield wall so its not op.
 
my goodness, I heard it that RL doesnt matter. xD Sure it really does.

Especially physics. Too high velocities, reduce them, then you might tweak some numbers, or increase number of arrows etc if deemed not so strong.
 

Locklave

Recruit
You can make an army 100% of archers and win battles against equal force sizes and ranks on max settings while in most cases taking nearly no losses.

Yet people argue they are balanced. It's funny that they choose to die on that hill, because the archers won't.
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
5-10 trample damage is a joke. people falling from horses get crippled, what do you think happens when they get hit by a fully armored beast running at max speed?

This:


You'll loose horse and the rider.
Just because you saw computer animated horses in Lord of the Rings trample over computer animated orcs does not mean that horses can do that in real life. Remember Newton's 3rd law of physic: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". Just because it does not exist in Hollywood films does not mean it does not exist at all.
 
This:


You'll loose horse and the rider.
Just because you saw computer animated horses in Lord of the Rings trample over computer animated orcs does not mean that horses can do that in real life. Remember Newton's 3rd law of physic: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". Just because it does not exist in Hollywood films does not mean it does not exist at all.
you are talking as if the person being hit is a brick wall. first the clip you showed is a race horse carrying a four foot 80 pound jocky, not a warhorse in full armor carrying an armored cataphract. the latter has easily double the mass and is much more resistant to crashing into a person. while we are talking about laws of physics, what do you think happens when a 1 ton object travelling at 60km/hour hits you? minor scratches and youll be able to get up moments after? you and the 3 guys behind you are dead upon impact regardless of what happens to the horse. the charge did it's job and destroyed the front lines.
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
you are talking as if the person being hit is a brick wall. first the clip you showed is a race horse carrying a four foot 80 pound jocky, not a warhorse in full armor carrying an armored cataphract.

And a feeble woman isn't angry viking in a mail shirt in a shield wall with the spear. So your point is?

the latter has easily double the mass and is

Which just makes things worst for the horse because added mass increases momentum while it makes his bones no less fragile.

much more resistant to crashing into a person.

How?

while we are talking about laws of physics, what do you think happens when a 1 ton object travelling at 60km/hour hits you? minor scratches and youll be able to get up moments after? you and the 3 guys behind you are dead upon impact regardless of what happens to the horse. the charge did it's job and destroyed the front lines.

So what? Since it destroyed the rider and horse as well, nobody cares.

And I am not even going to ask you how do you want to force horse to collide in to solid objects to begin with.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
you are talking as if the person being hit is a brick wall. first the clip you showed is a race horse carrying a four foot 80 pound jocky, not a warhorse in full armor carrying an armored cataphract. the latter has easily double the mass and is much more resistant to crashing into a person. while we are talking about laws of physics, what do you think happens when a 1 ton object travelling at 60km/hour hits you? minor scratches and youll be able to get up moments after? you and the 3 guys behind you are dead upon impact regardless of what happens to the horse. the charge did it's job and destroyed the front lines.

If you want to inject physics into your discussion of tactics, a 5lbs. spear braced by a 200lbs. man won't stop that 1 ton horse moving 60km/h (this is probably heavier and faster than an armored warhorse + armored rider but whatever) either. Yet we all agree that spears would've stopped a cavalry charge, right?

Nobody thought it was a good idea to go bowling with their horses.

Adding huge trample damage without the attendant risk of being thrown off and severely injured will do more to distort the tactics in Bannerlord than having slip-and-slide charges that do puffball damage. Because if you can easily and reliably trample infantry formations wholesale, then it becomes the go-to use for cavalry.

Just look at this ****:
 
Last edited:
And a feeble woman isn't angry viking in a mail shirt in a shield wall with the spear. So your point is?



Which just makes things worst for the horse because added mass increases momentum while it makes his bones no less fragile.



How?



So what? Since it destroyed the rider and horse as well, nobody cares.

And I am not even going to ask you how do you want to force horse to collide in to solid objects to begin with.
what do you think a war is? let's fight and hopefully all go home for dinner on time? it's piss **** blood dead bodies broken bones and trading a few horses for 10 enemy soldiers. horses were well trained for war and wear blinders to avoid being distracted. more importantly how are you gonna get angry drunk and high on mushrooms Vikings to stand there while horses charge them with the force of a tsunami. who do you think will chicken out first? the one that does loses, and if nobody does they collide and lots of people and horse die... that's war for ya.
 
If you want to inject physics into your discussion of tactics, a 5lbs. spear braced by a 200lbs. man won't stop that 1 ton horse moving 60km/h (this is probably heavier and faster than an armored warhorse + armored rider but whatever) either. Yet we all agree that spears would've stopped a cavalry charge, right?

Nobody thought it was a good idea to go bowling with their horses.

Adding huge trample damage without the attendant risk of being thrown off and severely injured will do more to distort the tactics in Bannerlord than having slip-and-slide charges that do puffball damage. Because if you can easily and reliably trample infantry formations wholesale, then it becomes the go-to use for cavalry.

Just look at this ****:
spears were never meant to stop a charge. they were a deterrent. you'd be stupid to charge into long spears but you still can and frankly some people did and still had moderate success
 
But you just said it would be worth it if it destroyed the infantry's front line. So how would it be a deterrent?
infantry doesn't automatically mean spears/pikes and even for spears they might not be ready for a charge at that exact moment and get caught by surprise without time to brace. also maybe the spear men get scared and rout after seeing the horses.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
infantry doesn't automatically mean spears/pikes and even for spears they might not be ready for a charge at that exact moment and get caught by surprise without time to brace. also maybe the spear men get scared and rout after seeing the horses.

That wasn't my question. How would spears ever deter a charge if cavalrymen were totally fine with just slamming their horses into them?

I'm asking the question because there is no weapon on a medieval battlefield capable of physically stopping a galloping horse. So if anyone cared enough to run down some footmen, they could have. They just didn't do it blithely in the face of all threats like you imply. Because it was suicidal (a rider probably be thrown off, likely severly injured and landing among the infantry they were just trying to run down), because it wasn't actually worth a horse to crush a few footmen and tactically, it wouldn't actually ensure you got enough of them to decide anything. Footmen outnumbered horsemen in most battles, usually by a lot.

It would also be terrible gameplay balance in Bannerlord since any ground flat enough to get your horse up to a gallop would be automatic death for infantry, regardless of their formation, their morale -- hell, even if they successfully rear the first few horses. There would be no point to fielding other unit types (to include archers) in open battle. There would be no point to even differentiating between types of cavalry; why give a **** about lances vs. swords vs. javelins vs. spears when the primary weapon is the horse itself? Nothing else would be relevant except, perhaps, charge damage at the margins.
 
Last edited:

hruza

Knight at Arms
what do you think a war is? let's fight and hopefully all go home for dinner on time? it's piss **** blood dead bodies broken bones and trading a few horses for 10 enemy soldiers.

Not really:

QEbdeaf.jpg



horses were well trained for war

For war may be, but not for colliding in to solid objects.

and wear blinders to avoid being distracted.

Blinders restricts field of vision, but they don't prevent horse to see where it's running.

more importantly how are you gonna get angry drunk and high on mushrooms Vikings to stand there while horses charge them with the force of a tsunami.

By telling them that horses are not suicidal and not going to collide in to them.

who do you think will chicken out first?

Horse. Unlike viking it has chicken instincts. Millions of years of horse evolution that taught it to run away from danger.

the one that does loses, and if nobody does they collide and lots of people and horse die... that's war for ya.

Even if you would make horses somehow suicide themselves like that, people were easier to replace then horses. It's a good exchange for the side using people and bad one for side using horses.
 
All this off topic talk about cavalry makes me want to see more devastating results from cavalry charges... for infantry and cavalry.

Let us steam roll spear infantry with cavalry, but also deal with all the lamed horses too. Each horse lost or injured has to be replaced.

Oh and the same thing for all the expensive riders too.
 
Top Bottom