For what reason?
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Users who are viewing this thread
For what reason?
I just tested it and found it is purely a function of their bows; given the longer-ranged steppe recurve bows, the bow that HHAs use, Tribal Warriors won't ride into looters. It (edit: appears that) isn't their Riding skill changing their behavior but the interaction between target selection (picking out a looter closer to the middle) and their weapon's effective range. That's also why you only see it against a large batch of looters. A smaller group doesn't have as much width so they don't have to choose (I know the AI isn't choosing really, just bear with me) between hitting their target or staying out of range.
Last edited:
William7667
Regular
I think archers are actually fine the lower tier ones could have range/ accuracy restricted a little the high tier ones need a slight buff actually to accuracy and probably damage at shorter ranges ( thirty yards or less ) the highest tier archers should rarely miss a stationary or straight on target and should hit even moving side on ones around 50% of the time at this range.
But they need to be restricted to light or no armour I thnik giving archers heavy tier armour isnt cool that goes for horse archers too if they insist on giving some archers heavy armour their rate of fire should be reduced significantly. I'd also give them more arrows, archers should carry two full quivers worth of arrows as standard. Crossbow men should be able to wear armour but crossbows should only perform the same as arrows with the excepion maybe of the highest tier ones with a much slower reload than archers of course but be inherantly more accurate at range.
Its armour and spears that under perform medium armours should stop most arrows except at short range ( 30 yards or less )
Heavy armours should stop most arrows even at short range with only the odd one getting through.
Then again there are far too many well armoured troops in the game the heaviest armour should be a lot rarer and much more expensive to buy, as well as a horse for heavy armoured cavalry you should have to buy the armour 10k doesnt seem excessive for the horse armour and then another 10k for the trooper maybe get it back if he dies and you win, lose it obviously if you lose the battle and he dies or gets captured. For heavily armoured melee the same around 10k for the higher tier armours.
Cavalry should also get an extra eqipment slot so they can carry an an axe / mace as well as a sword/ spear/ javelin but lose access to the slot if unhorsed oops I left my sword / axe / mace javelin on the horse, they cant carry everything.
Couched spears, Maces, axes and hammers of course need to be fairly effective against heavy armour as few other things will be and should be in fairly widespread use.
Spears apart from when couched are poor and definitley need something to improve them.
But they need to be restricted to light or no armour I thnik giving archers heavy tier armour isnt cool that goes for horse archers too if they insist on giving some archers heavy armour their rate of fire should be reduced significantly. I'd also give them more arrows, archers should carry two full quivers worth of arrows as standard. Crossbow men should be able to wear armour but crossbows should only perform the same as arrows with the excepion maybe of the highest tier ones with a much slower reload than archers of course but be inherantly more accurate at range.
Its armour and spears that under perform medium armours should stop most arrows except at short range ( 30 yards or less )
Heavy armours should stop most arrows even at short range with only the odd one getting through.
Then again there are far too many well armoured troops in the game the heaviest armour should be a lot rarer and much more expensive to buy, as well as a horse for heavy armoured cavalry you should have to buy the armour 10k doesnt seem excessive for the horse armour and then another 10k for the trooper maybe get it back if he dies and you win, lose it obviously if you lose the battle and he dies or gets captured. For heavily armoured melee the same around 10k for the higher tier armours.
Cavalry should also get an extra eqipment slot so they can carry an an axe / mace as well as a sword/ spear/ javelin but lose access to the slot if unhorsed oops I left my sword / axe / mace javelin on the horse, they cant carry everything.
Couched spears, Maces, axes and hammers of course need to be fairly effective against heavy armour as few other things will be and should be in fairly widespread use.
Spears apart from when couched are poor and definitley need something to improve them.
William7667
Regular
Probably for the reason that proper anti cavalry spears are between twelve and twenty five feet long so are a bit unwieldy to be using for anything else and if you have to lug around a twenty foot pike you wont be carrying much else.
If you make the standard spearman into an outright pikeman, they are going to die in droves to archers and set things back to square one.
Sarisa, 15-20 feet long spear used against infantry. Carried along with the shield:
not gonna bother "quoting" your entire post. but i love your confidence in the choice of words "not really". and how you've chosen to list a few historical battles that support your point, bravo. why didn't you choose to show records of battles that after the end the victor slaughtered not only all the pow but all the civilians by the hundreds of thousands? probably because according to people like you, if something doesn't fit your view of the world, it doesn't exist at all.
how little physics and practical world experience do you have when it comes to collisions? do you know what it feels like to collide? a horse will die when charging into a man? are you serious? i played running back on my high school football team, being about 80KGs i was built but a smaller player on the team. when i collide into a guy who's 120kgs and running almost as fast as me, it feels like i'm about to die, i get sent flying. that's physics and practical collision. now imagine it instead of another guy who's only 50% heavier than me but an armored horse that's 500% my weight, do you know what happens to pedestrians after they get hit by cars? there's google, it will offer a more first person experience if you search the crash site images.
might be easy to convince someone like you to stand in a shieldwall in front of a charge, but for a warrior who's been through battle a few times... lol he'll probably kill you and take over leadership so the men don't get sent to their deaths for nothing.
except you are using tier 4 units against tier 2 units. clearly a fair experiment. i bet you put the archers on flat land facing away from the cavs on hold fire as well lolExcept it's not.
yes yes, people also used to throw rocks and smack others with wooden clubs. but i guess when it comes to warfare only the most efficient and effective weapons stand the test of time while others are discarded and forgotten due to their lack of practical use.Sarisa, 15-20 feet long spear used against infantry. Carried along with the shield:
And what would be point of doing that? We were talking about what was going on during the battle, not after.
That's a loaded question and therefore no reason for me to bother answering.
Another meaningless question.
Third meaningless question.
"Feel" is not a physic variable.
I don't need to search anything. Answer is that anything and nothing can happen.
I don't think any warrior had shared his thoughts with you about that.
How hard is it to determine from that picture that archers were under AI control and I could not put them anywhere?
And your point is?
flavior flavius
Recruit
Because spearmen are dedicated units in this game, and if you give all infantry spears it defeats the purpose of having dedicated spear units because general infantry will always be better. You can see that at play right now, who in their right mind takes Vlandian pikemen, Battanian oathsworn, or Imperial menavliatons? They aren't as good in a general melee as their heavy infantry counterparts, but if they were your ONLY source of anti-cav ability then at least taking them would be a tactical choice to sacrifice infantry fighting capability for anti-cav capability.
Remember, the objective is to give a purpose to both heavy infantry AND spearmen in an army so that not one or the other is spammed.
The point of dedicated spear/polearm infantry is that they are better then other units when using spear. They are armed with spears that are longer and/or doing higher damage then spears that general infantry have.
flavior flavius
Recruit
And? Currently there are no mechanics to hold formations of infantry at bay with spears, and as far as I know there are no plans to. The spear and sword function identically in battle at the moment (except being even more garbage at short distances), and the only thing that really differentiates them is that spears tend to have lower DPS in exchange for being able to make horses stop dead in their tracks.
So why take a dedicated spear unit when general infantry also have spears, are roughly as good as the spearmen with those spears, and have a higher close combat killing potential on top of that?
Last edited:
First of all removing spears from heavy infantry isn't going to change that. That's matter of combat mechanics.
Second, against cavalry length of the spear matters as does the damage. Dedicated pike/spear infantry is more effective against cavalry then general purpose one.
Btw.: in AI on AI combat, spears do benefit from reach advantage, because AI can't close the distance purposefully the way player does (you can observe that in the arena fights most easily). And while it's been countered by relative lack of damage of spears, if you combine spear units with short weapon units, you can get some interesting results.
They're not as good. Dedicated units simply generally have better spears.
HalfMetalJacket
Knight
Menavliatons do not belong in that discussion. They're the same as Voulgiers, Vet Falxmen and Shock Troops in terms of use. And unlike spearmen, they're really damn good at killing cavalry. They can and will defeat an equal number consisting of pure cavalry.
The reason spearmen don't see use is because they suck at everything, period. The popular choices for heavy infantry noticeably don't use spears at all- if anything their lack of spear is what puts them at an edge. Spears and the AI themselves need fixing, they are completely lacking.
flavior flavius
Recruit
Spearmen in their current incarnation are not better enough against cavalry to make them worth taking over heavy infantry. Which means they are not good enough.
I don't know how you can argue this. Go ahead and take Battanian Oathsworn or Vlandian Pikemen if you want, I'm just going to roll over you with Sergeants and take maybe 10% more casualties against an all cavalry force than I would if I took an equal amount of spearmen.
No, the best heavy infantry have spears. Notably Sturgian Veterans, Vlandian Sergeants, Imperial Legionaries, and Khuzait Darkhans. They switch to spears to deal with cavalry and switch to swords to deal with infantry. A lot of lower level infantry have spears as well, I know for a fact the entire Vlandian line all have spears as secondary weapons from peasants all the way to sergeants.
The spear's only purpose right now is to stunlock horses, they are inferior to swords in every other way.
...which brings all of us back to a full circle: the problem of non-existent formation mechanics in the game.
The units in M&B, both in previous games and this one, are essentially a group of individuals that mimics standing in formation, and are not a true "unit" of men fighting as a group. All of their combat behavior is based on basic 1v1 AI. All of them disregard formation during combat unless forced by F3 Shieldwall, and has no concept of mutual support.
Add to that the utter lack of fear, hesitation + tendency to disregard own safety and just go out in berserk zombie-charge mob attack until they either; (1) kill, (2) be killed, or (3) morale threshold is breached and rout...
My belief is that it is behind more than 90% of the "oddities" we see in game.
Doesn't matter if the spear sucks as a 1v1 weapon currently. If the AI is scripted well enough, we should be seeing soldiers keep to formation, so when one person's spear is blocked/evaded, the soldier next to him would cover for him to prevent the opponent from trying to make use of the opening and rush in the game. We don't have this kind of behavior, or any kind of behavior in any infantry that should sufficiently portray the relative strengths/weaknesses of the troops.
All we really have is:
(1) mimicking a formation by having the soldiers confine their movement inside a certain overall, rectangular box
(2) shield-up command that locks all soldiers in their designated position within that box
(3) not too shabby envelop maneuvering script for ranged cavalry
All the rest, is just a bunch of soldiers grouped up to look like a formation and just fighting individually. IMO more than anything, this is currently the biggest weakness in Mount and Blade, despite the pretty fleshed-out combat aspect of the game. This is the one element that has not progressed at all since previous games. This, deserves fair criticism on part of the devs, IMO.
The units in M&B, both in previous games and this one, are essentially a group of individuals that mimics standing in formation, and are not a true "unit" of men fighting as a group. All of their combat behavior is based on basic 1v1 AI. All of them disregard formation during combat unless forced by F3 Shieldwall, and has no concept of mutual support.
Add to that the utter lack of fear, hesitation + tendency to disregard own safety and just go out in berserk zombie-charge mob attack until they either; (1) kill, (2) be killed, or (3) morale threshold is breached and rout...
My belief is that it is behind more than 90% of the "oddities" we see in game.
Doesn't matter if the spear sucks as a 1v1 weapon currently. If the AI is scripted well enough, we should be seeing soldiers keep to formation, so when one person's spear is blocked/evaded, the soldier next to him would cover for him to prevent the opponent from trying to make use of the opening and rush in the game. We don't have this kind of behavior, or any kind of behavior in any infantry that should sufficiently portray the relative strengths/weaknesses of the troops.
All we really have is:
(1) mimicking a formation by having the soldiers confine their movement inside a certain overall, rectangular box
(2) shield-up command that locks all soldiers in their designated position within that box
(3) not too shabby envelop maneuvering script for ranged cavalry
All the rest, is just a bunch of soldiers grouped up to look like a formation and just fighting individually. IMO more than anything, this is currently the biggest weakness in Mount and Blade, despite the pretty fleshed-out combat aspect of the game. This is the one element that has not progressed at all since previous games. This, deserves fair criticism on part of the devs, IMO.
HalfMetalJacket
Knight
Sturgian Veteran Warriors do not have spears, check them again. They run around with axes/swords, javelins and heavy round shields. The fact that they do not use spears allows them to outperform all those other infantries you mentioned, save for Legionaries. Legionaries themselves are weird- they have pila which can be used as spears, but more often than not they're going to throw them as javelins. It makes them very strong, and stops them from messing around with weak ass spears.
Vlandian Sergeants are strong because of their occasional habit of spawning with short bills, which gives them quite the edge. Darkhans are strong because they have javelins and very heavy armour. Otherwise they both fall behind Veteran Warriors and Legionaries.
A spear can only stunlock cavalry, and nothing else yes. They can't fight cavalry or infantry for ****, and have a hard time fighting archers in melee. They're supremely weak, so weak that they can pretty much ruin a unit. The only infantry capable of actually countering cavalry head on are vet falxmen, elite menavliatons, shock troops and voulgiers. I imagine dismounted khan's guard can too, thanks to their glaive.
flavior flavius
Recruit
My bad, I was thinking of Sturgian shock troops.
No it doesn't, the short bill is arguably the weakest loadout for sergeants because they cannot use their shields and the bill at the same time so they get wrecked by archers. Although I will admit their DPS is higher with the short bill, I'd rather they lose that loadout altogether.
You do realize that infantry with a spear as a secondary weapon will ONLY use it when fighting cavalry correct? They switch to their sword at all other times. How does that make them worse then infantry with no spear? It gives them more options. Spears suck atm, but they are still marginally better than swords at fighting cavalry because of the stunlock mechanic and the longer reach.
HalfMetalJacket
Knight
You can put troops shield wall as they advance, then go back to their normal formation when they hit the lines. Archers won't shoot enemies when their own troops are in the way.
I dunno, I see spear men run around with spears against other troops every now and then- and then die in the process. Its true that they do pull out short weapons more often than not though.
