Archers need a nerf.

[hruza]

No, the game knows how to deploy the unit in shield wall at the start of the battle and leave them there...

I am pretty sure I can turn on off shield wall on my AI soldiers anytime I please. So yes, AI knows.

or are you too stupid to see the difference?

Watch your tongue.

Apart from your mangling of anything remotely resembling proper syntax... (lol using assignment operator for boolean operation, no semicolons at the end of statements, no scope control, and calling an object like a function and then using a pointer access operator).

Proper syntax of what? That's a pseudo code, it's not supposed to be syntax of anything.

Simply turning on shield wall if archers are present in the enemy army is not "using shield wall properly" it's mindless, and allows players to potentially exploit the mechanic... It also reduces the effectiveness of infantry in melee, and their speed. There are going to be times when the AI will need to not be in shield wall even if the enemy force has archers. A player is capable of toggling when needed, the AI can't.

Every AI can be exploited and no AI have mind.

And now they are overpowered.

That's just your opinion.

Pointless distinction. You are using semantics and strawmanning to troll,

Things other people say or write are not becoming pointless just because you decide to misquote them.

I don't know why you haven't gotten a ban yet.

Because I am not insulting people around?

1.1 Trolling, Flaming, and Harassment
This is an open, friendly community, that is the central point for those seeking information or assistance for our games. We will not tolerate any forms of flaming, trolling, or harassment. This includes, but is not limited to, deliberately trying to provoke an argument (flame-baiting), personal insults, and verbal attacks.

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?help/forum-rules/

Should we ask mods if this statement is personal insult or not?:

or are you too stupid to see the difference?

The AI will likely never be able to use shield wall up to the standards of a human. More then that, it may even be an intentional design choice that the AI CAN'T. To balance archers around assuming it will happen at some point is idiotic.

Moot point. AI will likely never be able to use anything up to the standards of a human.

 

[Sidhwen_Khorest]

I've never had a problem slaughtering archers, you just can't charge at the infantry guarding the archers in a clear open field and expect good results. the terrain is your friend.

I think the AI could definitely be improved, like in sieges there will be many non-ranged units just fumbling about getting shot by archers before the gate is broken, they really should be hiding somewhere.

Shield wall should probably work better, and I think thats on their radar.

But yeah, I pretty much either ride around the back of the archers for a flank, or I set up some sort of trap with infantry or horses if they are advancing toward me. There isn't much strategy in this game but the little that is there can be exploited pretty easy to kill their archers.

 

[flavior flavius]

Proper syntax of what? That's a pseudo code, it's not supposed to be syntax of anything.

You don't use language-specific operators in pseudocode, moreover the "pseudocode" you attempted to use wasn't even internally consistent. You attempted to show that you have knowledge in an area where you have none and made a fool out of yourself.

That's just your opinion.

An opinion backed up by video evidence. Unless you seriously believe archers should be able to fight an equal number of cavalry on flat terrain and win handily. Because there are plenty of videos of that happening in this thread.

Things other people say or write are not becoming pointless just because you decide to misquote them.

I didn't misquote you. You are disingenuously trying to backpedal on what you said. Calling archers "almost harmless" makes the point you are arguing quite clear... just because I left out the "almost" in my rebuttal does not mean I am misrepresenting what you are saying. Especially when you said this a few posts earlier:

It's painfully obvious how harmless archers are against the player. Degrading them further would only make things worst.

That is taken direct from you and not paraphrased or edited in any way. Notice there is no "almost".

1.1 Trolling, Flaming, and Harassment
This is an open, friendly community, that is the central point for those seeking information or assistance for our games. We will not tolerate any forms of flaming, trolling, or harassment. This includes, but is not limited to, deliberately trying to provoke an argument (flame-baiting), personal insults, and verbal attacks.

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?help/forum-rules/

Should we ask mods if this statement is personal insult or not?:

Go ahead. Pretty sure your strawmanning, symantics based arguments, needless contrarianism, and claiming you didn't say things you did actually say fall into the definition of "trolling".

 

[eddiemccandless]

You don't use language-specific operators in pseudocode, moreover the "pseudocode" you attempted to use wasn't even internally consistent. You attempted to show that you have knowledge in an area where you have none and made a fool out of yourself.


An opinion backed up by video evidence. Unless you seriously believe archers should be able to fight an equal number of cavalry on flat terrain and win handily. Because there are plenty of videos of that happening in this thread.


I didn't misquote you. You are disingenuously trying to backpedal on what you said. Calling archers "almost harmless" makes the point you are arguing quite clear... just because I left out the "almost" in my rebuttal does not mean I am misrepresenting what you are saying. Especially when you said this a few posts earlier:

That is taken direct from you and not paraphrased or edited in any way. Notice there is no "almost".


Go ahead. Pretty sure your strawmanning, symantics based arguments, needless contrarianism, and claiming you didn't say things you did actually say fall into the definition of "trolling".

Why are you getting so worked up about this though? @hruza is just stating an opinion and I don't see him going ad hominem against you. And I think you are missing the point of what he is saying. The code to have the AI being in a shieldwall is already in the game. All that is needed is a trigger to make it activate whenever there's archers firing at them. I.e., if there are archers firing and no enemies in melee area infantry stay in the shieldwall, when you reach melee charge. It's not even AI really. And I am sure that the developers would be able to implement this easily enough, assuming that their software architecture is semi-decent.

That said, I don't really agree with the fact that archers are fine as they are myself. I think that Warband had a good model in the fact that low level archers should be useless against armored units while high level archers would still decimate shieldless units. Here it seems that all you get from higher level units is better armor and perhaps a little bit of damage and accuracy. And if armor is not that important of a factor, what is even the point of having armor? These two things along kill the sense of progression a bit for me.

 

[Gelimer]

I agree with you, that is why I thought that the addition of a new arrowhead type ( broadcutter) would be interesting as it would create 2 classes of archers and it could be made more interesting by giving longbows more power but less rate of fire than most recurve except the heaviest ones and this would be balanced if they nerf AI crossbow reload time a bit because currently AI can fire way too fast with them.

But i dont think they will do that ( probably mods will ) so IMO this game combat system needs the following easy short term tweaks :

1) Have armour slightly more protective against projectiles and cutting/slashing damage so that battles last a bit longer for tactics to be more effective. Slashing damage should still be effective vs face and limbs and when dealt from heavy 2 handed weapons due to additional blunt damage.

2) boost horse collision damage with humans at full speed, especially when they are armored.

3) boost spear thrust damage , especially when two handed because it is way too weak currently compared to reality and this coupled with armor being more protective against slash damage means maces and spears especially ( because polearms are fine ) will be attractive again as primary weapons against well armored units like in real life.

 

[Hairy Yahoo]

Well apperantly something wrong either lack of shields of troops, troop compoaition of enemy armies, behaviour of AI, lack of glancing off of armor or simply being damage of bows too high or maybe all of them. When I form an army of horse archers no enemy army stands a chance.

 

[IceNoVa]

This is a friendly one-off reminder to keep your discussion civil and polite.

 

[KingEroc1st]

After participating in this discussion for a while and making some reflections while playing the game more, i've realized a few things.
Since this discussion began some 2 months ago, the game has undergone constant changes and patches. and many things have not been the same. any testing done before any major patch is basically useless data since the game is still evolving.

with that said there's a few things i've noticed:
-infantry troops have had an shield overhaul. many units have upgraded shield size, level and durability
-Ai drop shield to give free shots occur much less frequently and for shorter durations
-Archer units have had bow overhaul, higher tier troops with better bows and lower tier with worse, their damage has been balanced.
-Arrows do less damage to my character in high tier6 armor, compared to 2 months ago there's a huge difference.
-Cavalry ai have been improved, they hit harder and are more accurate, their ability to stay grouped improved

after all these changes, archer's effectiveness has been hampered greatly and even if they were op before they aren't anymore.

But with all that in mind, i'd like to briefly talk about the whole notion of "archers being op". fact is, in real life, they are OP, because Range > Melee

-Ever since the dawn of time, prehistoric hunter gatherers have been using stick and stones and later spears and arrows to hunt animals that are much bigger, faster, deadlier than us. ranged attacks has always been the counter to powerful melee. that fact that our ancestors drove powerful predators like the sabertooth tigers into extinction says enough about the effectiveness of range vs speed/agility/power
-armor Evolved throughout the ages in order to adept to projectiles, and melee weapons evolved in order to adept to armor.
-archers in battles used volleying as a tactic allowing their range to improve upto 500m, they would be covering an area in arrows rather than aiming at anything in particular, this allowed gradual wearing down of the advancing forces from multiple battalions of archers at different angles
-the widespread use of firearms cause soldiers to give up completely on armor and even infantrymen and cavalry started using guns.
-the english longbow were accurate at upto 200m, even the mongol horse archers had accuracies of 50-100m while moving, guns at best had an average accuracy of 100m, but the firepower is on another level.
-heavy cavalry stopped being effective due to guns ability to penetrate even plate armor, but the unarmored light cavs still proved effective with their amazing mobility utilizing shock tactics even in the age of rifles and cannons
-when the firepower of machine guns improved in WW1, all cavalry faded out of history. with technology one man can output as much damage as 300 seasoned marksmen... hahaha

The above information came from years of interest in the topics of historic warfare, there shouldn't be inaccuracies but if you can site credible sources disputing my point, you are welcome to point it out.
from analysing above data, we can conclude:
projectiles has always been a concern for cavalry, hence the need for armor and it's constant upgrades and sufficient firepower will take out cavalry, even from existing in the first place since they get countered so damn hard.

of course now, we have been using cover rather than armor and shields. but since guns have generally stopped improving in the damage they do, body armor tech has been an ongoing process post WW2. some of them damn near impervious but quite expensive.

on a side note regarding the toxic behavior, i guess some people resort to emotions and outrage when their logic is proven false and they cannot admit defeat in a discussion with grace...

 

[Sidhwen_Khorest]

I think @KingEroc1st makes good points above, I think archers are in a good place right now and yes, they were OP when used correctly in history, so I think the amount of manuevering and tactics one has to do to beat them in mount&blade is accurate.

Only thing that isn't so accurate is arrows piercing full plate armor in the game, where the arrow does partial damage. should really be full damage where plate isn't present, but I mean, it is a game after all...

 

[hruza]

Only thing that isn't so accurate is arrows piercing full plate armor in the game, where the arrow does partial damage.

What weapon can pierce full plate armor?

 

[Sidhwen_Khorest]

What weapon can pierce full plate armor?

Would have to be crushing weapons or more realistically two guys in full plate whacking each other until they pass out and one guy stabs the other one in the armpit.

Thats what im saying, piercing full plate isn't realistic but in this case realism would be not much fun.

 

[hruza]

Would have to be crushing weapons or more realistically two guys in full plate whacking each other until they pass out and one guy stabs the other one in the armpit.

Thats what im saying, piercing full plate isn't realistic but in this case realism would be not much fun.

Indeed, which is why I find it strange that people complain about arrows piercing plate but not about swords cutting through it.

Therefore allow me few notes:

1. Arrows could pierce full plate. Depends what plate, at what part of the armor (different parts of plate armor had different thickness), from what bow, with what type of arrowhead, what distance, angle and so on and so fort. Notion that arrows can't penetrate full plate armor is outright not true.

2. Full plate armor does not exist in the game anyway.

3. Damage model does not distinguish between different parts of armor, it only distinguish between major parts of the body like head, torso, legs, etc. It does not distinguish what part of torso or arm is covered by individual scale or ring and which part isn't. Armor itself as you see it in the game have only aesthetic role. Damage model is abstraction, it's not simulation of real damage. Damage that "gets through" represents cases when hits gets through armor, either because they managed to penetrate armor itself or because they have landed on parts not covered by armor. Damage model simplify it all in to % of damage that gets reduced by the armor. When arrow hits your armor and does damage, it does not mean that it have penetrated plate.

4. There can't be more realistic and complex damage model without loosing performance. So it's either players getting realistic damage or playing epic battles with hundreds of soldiers on the battlefield. One can't have both at the same time.

 

[Apocal]

After participating in this discussion for a while and making some reflections while playing the game more, i've realized a few things.
Since this discussion began some 2 months ago, the game has undergone constant changes and patches. and many things have not been the same. any testing done before any major patch is basically useless data since the game is still evolving.

with that said there's a few things i've noticed:
-infantry troops have had an shield overhaul. many units have upgraded shield size, level and durability
-Ai drop shield to give free shots occur much less frequently and for shorter durations
-Archer units have had bow overhaul, higher tier troops with better bows and lower tier with worse, their damage has been balanced.
-Arrows do less damage to my character in high tier6 armor, compared to 2 months ago there's a huge difference.
-Cavalry ai have been improved, they hit harder and are more accurate, their ability to stay grouped improved

after all these changes, archer's effectiveness has been hampered greatly and even if they were op before they aren't anymore.

Staying grouped doesn't really help the cavalry. Pre-1.4.1, their scattershot approach meant archers had to pick out individual targets, which hurt their accuracy quite a bit. They also spent more time in melee-mode, with swords drawn, due to one or two cavalry constantly riding by. It also means that cavalry in the second and third ranks don't have as much opportunity to land a thrust or couched lance, due to length vs. space consideration.

I can't say I've noticed much change in the shield raising behavior, but I admit I haven't been paying close attention at any point.

But with all that in mind, i'd like to briefly talk about the whole notion of "archers being op". fact is, in real life, they are OP, because Range > Melee
...
-archers in battles used volleying as a tactic allowing their range to improve upto 500m, they would be covering an area in arrows rather than aiming at anything in particular, this allowed gradual wearing down of the advancing forces from multiple battalions of archers at different angles
-the english longbow were accurate at upto 200m, even the mongol horse archers had accuracies of 50-100m while moving, guns at best had an average accuracy of 100m, but the firepower is on another level.
-heavy cavalry stopped being effective due to guns ability to penetrate even plate armor, but the unarmored light cavs still proved effective with their amazing mobility utilizing shock tactics even in the age of rifles and cannons

The above information came from years of interest in the topics of historic warfare, there shouldn't be inaccuracies but if you can site credible sources disputing my point, you are welcome to point it out.
from analysing above data, we can conclude:
projectiles has always been a concern for cavalry, hence the need for armor and it's constant upgrades and sufficient firepower will take out cavalry, even from existing in the first place since they get countered so damn hard.

1. Volley firing was probably atypical in the Middle Ages, as near as anyone can tell. What makes it stand out more prominently than sources support is that there were a few battles, fought by one kingdom, where it figured into the outcome. And those battles were/are assumed to be typical when they were anything but. Also, 500 meters is extreme range for a medieval English warbow. Current champion shooters don't get that far using specialized flight arrows.

2. Handheld firearms, past early types, were considered more accurate, longer-ranged and more lethal than bows by fighting men of the 15th and 16th centuries. That was the reason for the pike-and-shot era coming about and existing for as long as it did, while there was never really an equivalent attempt with crossbows in Europe. In China massed crossbows experienced a lot of waxes and wanes as far field battles were concerned, each time being overcome by more mobile cavalry tactics, and never reached the ascendance of pike-and-shot combined arms in the European mold.

3. Heavy cavalry as in "armored" did decline once contemporary firearms could reliably punch through something like munitions plate, but heavy cavalry as in "shock action" stayed a relevant battlefield arm for centuries after shedding most of their armor. It took several generations of innovation, both technical and tactical, before you saw up with complete firepower dominance of the battlefield, close to four hundred years after the Middle Ages.

If you look to contemporary 14th century sources such as Froissart, the impression the English made wasn't just using longbows but also their lances, afoot. When a bunch of HYW veterans started marauding all over Italy as the White Company, one of the best observations noted thusly:
Azario: They had very large lances with very long iron tips. Mostly two, sometimes three of them, handled a single lance so heavy and big that there was nothing it would not penetrate. Behind them, toward the posterior of the formation, were the archers, with great bows which they held from their head to the ground and from which they shot great and long arrows.

Essentially, the English deployed as pikemen, using lances with armor-piercing tips, and archers to the rear. This was not a new innovation either and, if you can do a little reading between the lines of Froissart, readily noticeable in prior accounts of the English tactical system. But just as it didn't start with the English (it was the Scottish schiltron being assisted by Welsh yew longbow archery), it didn't end with them either. The Swiss started hiring out cantons of trained and drilled pikemen, which led to devastating results on a battlefield where drilled professional soldiers were a scarce military resource. As the Middle Ages ended, it was pikemen who were dominant over the European battlefield -- sometimes supported by firearms, but also sometimes not. Gunpowder was fantastically expensive in that era, while bows and crossbows were increasingly ineffective against common issue armor of the day.

But everyone wanted Swiss or German mercenaries, drilled in the use of pikes, when they went to war in Europe.

All this to say that medieval combined-arms were far from "Ranged > Melee."

 

[KingEroc1st]

I can't believe Apocal is back for more...

Volley firing was probably atypical in the Middle Ages

Volleying is arguably the de facto mode of attack when employing archers without clear elevation advantage and fortifications. it allowed them to shoot over obstacles much like artillery, the lack of aiming required and the efficient 45 degree firing angle allowed arrows fired by English warbows to reach 500-800m range.the point is to hit an area with arrows not precision targeting an enemy. literally the #1 used strategy in archery combat

Handheld firearms, past early types, were considered more accurate, longer-ranged and more lethal

by an infantry that's had 6 months of military training, sure. but by an english longbowmen who's had 5 generations of archery in his blood? by a hunter who put food on his family's table with his bow? not even close. modern riflemen only have upto 100 range of arrucate fire, of course guns can hit farther, but you can't expect your troops to all be elite snipers. there are ranger units with better riflemen and sniper units with guys that can hit up to 1000m, but the typical infantry using modern AR15 or something? 50-100m, which is the range that mongol horse archers had while riding (hence their utter domination of the Eurasian continent)

but heavy cavalry as in "shock action" stayed a relevant battlefield arm for centuries after shedding most of their armor.

without heavy armor can you still classify them as "heavy cavalry?" i literally said earlier that light cavs were still used because they relied more on mobility and tactics rather than armor and defense. and considering the padded cotton/wool uniforms they wore since the 1700s, they are not even armored.

Then you go on 2 paragraphs explaining how people utilized pikes to fortify archer formations and polearms were used to counter cavalry as if to say "since people used melee to counter cavalry, your argument of range > melee doesn't stand". while it is true that more pikes were available and utilized against cavalry than firearms at the beginning(due to technology being expansive and human lives not so much), it is not more effective or efficient, since it required more training on the pikemen to be fit and disciplined (holding your position against charging horsemen? they need to squat 200kg to be able to lift their giant weighty balls) compared to a 2 week crash course required to learn how to load a musket, light it up and point at a guy to blow his torso open. yes, at one point armor was too tough for arrows that's exactly why they improved the fire rate accuracy reload speed and power of firearms significantly the next hundred years to the point where armor became obsolete. remember in the arms race, armor and cavalry both lost to ranged, it's been a back n forth struggle but they both gave up completely in the end, and that fact in itself suggests that ranged has had the advantage over armor and cavalry the entire time and they are tired of catching up and losing.

you can't look at the result of a battle and say hey this guy won so his troops are better. maybe he had better morale, better strategy, more food... maybe his opponent's general got sick or was depressed due to losing his son and couldn't command the army properly. there are too many reasons for the outcome of a battle than strict unit effectiveness. you have to break down and fine comb the details, how did they win? what events transpired during the battle? how many men were kia? what were the commanders orders? how were the logistics? what about morale? what social and cultural events happened during that time period? are there particular weather patterns and diseases to know about? ... ... ... ... ...

 

[hruza]

without heavy armor can you still classify them as "heavy cavalry?"

Heavy and light in the case of historical cavalry and infantry does not refer to armor. It refers to the way of fighting. Heavy refers to cavalry or infantry that fights in close quarters and prefers attacks head on in compact formations. Light refers to skirmish and indirect type of fighting.

Armor, especially heavy one is helpful for the direct, close quarters fighting while less useful or outright detrimental to skirmishing, where mobility is more important. Therefore heavy units usually had lot of armor while light units did not. But it was not rule.

 

[Apocal]

I can't believe Apocal is back for more...

I never left. You just never replied when I gave the examples you asked for.

Volleying is arguably the de facto mode of attack when employing archers without clear elevation advantage and fortifications. it allowed them to shoot over obstacles much like artillery, the lack of aiming required and the efficient 45 degree firing angle allowed arrows fired by English warbows to reach 500-800m range.the point is to hit an area with arrows not precision targeting an enemy. literally the #1 used strategy in archery combat

Who says it is de facto in a medieval context? Remember that most archers weren't using English warbows, they possibly weren't even massed in a manner that allowed for volley fire. It is hard to make your voice commands carry over the sound of everything else if you have archers spread along a whole frontage.

The reason I think I say it is probably atypical is because -- outside of focus on famous English longbow battles -- volley fire (loosed as ordered) is mostly absent from descriptions of battles, compared to much common descriptions of arrows falling 'like rain,' which suggests individual loosing of arrows. The ERE military manual Strategikon stresses at length the need for arrows to be as loosed as rapidly as possibly to have any effect, a practice apparently adopted from the Persians they faced. Likewise accounts of the archery culture of Sicilian Saracens (a largely forgotten one, even though in its day it was seen as a peerless martial elite) contains no references to firing in (ordered) volleys, to my knowledge. Mamluks, probably the best trained soldiers of the medieval era and also renowned for their archery, did not make much (if any) use of volleys. Nor did the Mongols, who preferred a caracole from what was close range with heavy armor-piercing arrows.

by an infantry that's had 6 months of military training, sure. but by an english longbowmen who's had 5 generations of archery in his blood? by a hunter who put food on his family's table with his bow? not even close. modern riflemen only have upto 100 range of arrucate fire, of course guns can hit farther, but you can't expect your troops to all be elite snipers. there are ranger units with better riflemen and sniper units with guys that can hit up to 1000m, but the typical infantry using modern AR15 or something? 50-100m, which is the range that mongol horse archers had while riding (hence their utter domination of the Eurasian continent)

Yes, I'm saying that in the 15th to mid-16th centuries, firearms were considered more accurate than bows on the battlefield, in the opinion of those who had experience with both, during wartime. Modern rifles have no bearing on this because a modern rifleman is firing at effectively smaller point targets; nobody stands packed together upright on the battlefield nowadays.

without heavy armor can you still classify them as "heavy cavalry?" i literally said earlier that light cavs were still used because they relied more on mobility and tactics rather than armor and defense. and considering the padded cotton/wool uniforms they wore since the 1700s, they are not even armored.

Then you go on 2 paragraphs explaining how people utilized pikes to fortify archer formations and polearms were used to counter cavalry as if to say "since people used melee to counter cavalry, your argument of range > melee doesn't stand".

My point, in case it wasn't clear enough: even with objectively superior ranged weapons (early gunpowder firearms) on the field, pikes were the dominant arm (during field battles) of the last years of the medieval era. Ranged weapons, even in the case of the exceptional English longbow tactics, did not demonstrate dominance over melee in that period.

Bannerlord, being a game about medieval battle, should reflect the more general relationships between arms, in which archery was typically a supporting role, with the arms of decision being either shock cavalry or polearm-equipped infantry, winning in the melee.

 

[hruza]

Bannerlord, being a game about medieval battle, should reflect the more general relationships between arms, in which archery was typically a supporting role, with the arms of decision being either shock cavalry or polearm-equipped infantry, winning in the melee.

Archers in Bannerlord do play supporting role. They can be decisive only when player decides to pull Edvard III on French and recruit 1/3 or more of his army as Battanian Fians. When you do that, they should be decisive as they historically were when competent archers were assembled in sufficient numbers and used properly. And examples does not include just English in the 100 Year's War.

Problem with archery in the Middle Ages, and not just Middle Ages was that competent archers able to use sufficiently powerful war bows were difficult to train and thus hard to find and also because archery and ranged combat in general was considered "cowardly" and unworthy of a proper warrior. And that resonated a lot with European nobility, which became dominant force on the Medieval European battlefield thanks to social and economical changes.

"We prohibit under anathema that murderous art of crossbowmen and archers, which is hateful to God, to be employed against Christians and Catholics from now on."
...Second Council of the Lateran, 1139 AD

"Arrow would indeed be worth a lot, if it could pick out only the brave."
...unknown Spartan after the battle of Sphacteria, 425 BC

 

[Apocal]

Archers in Bannerlord do play supporting role. They can be decisive only when player decides to pull Edvard III on French and recruit 1/3 or more of his army as Battanian Fians. When you do that, they should be decisive as they historically were when competent archers were assembled in sufficient numbers and used properly. And examples does not include just English in the 100 Year's War.

You won't find many examples of whole armies broken solely by archery, but that is doable with almost any T4/T5 archer in-game currently, with minimal support. Part of that is on the AI being really dumb about deploying its forces, refusing to stand in place and weather the arrows until they run out. If you kill even two or three guys with archery, they'll break ranks and rush your archers, then take even more losses than they would have. Partly it is because the AI parties wipe often, so they never have a good mix of units.

But mostly it is arrows having far more killing power than they demonstrated, even in the 11th century, when doubled-mail over a gambeson was about state-of-the-art in terms of protection.

Problem with archery in the Middle Ages, and not just Middle Ages was that competent archers able to use sufficiently powerful war bows were difficult to train and thus hard to find and also because archery and ranged combat in general was considered "cowardly" and unworthy of a proper warrior. And that resonated a lot with European nobility, which became dominant force on the Medieval European battlefield thanks to social and economical changes.

Unworthy of a proper warrior? Mercenary crossbowmen and archers were well-paid for their services and sought out by (almost) everyone. Even when their actual battlefield performance was, um, let's just say "mixed" to be nice about it. As for the Second Council of the Lateran, it also said:
14. We entirely forbid, moreover, those abominable jousts and tournaments in which knights come together by agreement and rashly engage in showing off their physical prowess and daring, and which often result in human deaths and danger to souls. If any of them dies on these occasions, although penance and viaticum are not to be denied him when he requests them, he is to be deprived of a church burial.

Everyone ignored it because they didn't give a ****, hiring Saracen archers and Italian crossbowmen to fill out the ranks of their armies, jousting and holding tournaments. It carried all the weight of most anti-war proclamations in that era, which generally received the reply (paraphrasing): "Can you make me? No? Then get ****ed."

edit: It is correct that no one in western Europe went as far as the English did in building a complete tactical system out of archery. But their also had to curb their own power in the course of developing their archery tradition. That was a fact that didn't escape the notice of other powers, who looked at what they would be giving up compared to what would be gained and decided that archery wasn't that good.

Outside of national mythmaking, they were right: the English lost their French holdings once their tactics were countered -- and not by more or better archers.

 

[hruza]

You won't find many examples of whole armies broken solely by archery, but that is doable with almost any T4/T5 archer in-game currently, with minimal support.

You also wouldn't find Medieval armies made of nothing but archers, much less archers of the equivalent of the T4/T5 archers in the game. If such armies existed, you would most likely find many more examples.

Part of that is on the AI being really dumb about deploying its forces, refusing to stand in place and weather the arrows until they run out. If you kill even two or three guys with archery, they'll break ranks and rush your archers, then take even more losses than they would have. Partly it is because the AI parties wipe often, so they never have a good mix of units.

Yes, that's what I have been arguing all along. When you put mostly low level AI army that won't use shields or other proper tactics against your army of high tier archers, result you get isn't all that unrealistic.

Archers in real life under same or similar conditions would be as effective.

But mostly it is arrows having far more killing power than they demonstrated, even in the 11th century, when doubled-mail over a gambeson was about state-of-the-art in terms of protection.

Everything have far more killing power then demonstrated in the real life. All weapons and combat in general in Bannerlord is far more lethal then in the real life. But that's done for the gameplay reasons. It does not make archers overpowered in the context of the game.

Unworthy of a proper warrior? Mercenary crossbowmen and archers were well-paid for their services and sought out by (almost) everyone.

Yes, proper warrior. You won't find nobles among crossbowmen and archers they hired. Just like you won't find Spartans among Cretan archers they regularly hired. And it's not like European nobles or Spartans did not know how to use a bow or crossbow. They used it happily for hunting. But when they went to war, they left their bows and crossbows at home.

As for the Second Council of the Lateran, it also said:
14. We entirely forbid, moreover, those abominable jousts and tournaments in which knights come together by agreement and rashly engage in showing off their physical prowess and daring, and which often result in human deaths and danger to souls. If any of them dies on these occasions, although penance and viaticum are not to be denied him when he requests them, he is to be deprived of a church burial.

Yes, but that's ban on tournaments, not on use of the spear or lance in the battle. Use of bows and crossbows on the other hand was regarded as unsporting. Unless against heathens of course.

Everyone ignored it because they didn't give a ****, hiring Saracen archers and Italian crossbowmen to fill out the ranks of their armies, jousting and holding tournaments. It carried all the weight of most anti-war proclamations in that era, which generally received the reply (paraphrasing): "Can you make me? No? Then get ****ed."

It does however demonstrates general attitude to archery. Lying or adultery was also practiced, even if it was forbidden as a mortal sin. But nobody, not even those conducting it considered it normal or acceptable behavior. At last not publicly.

edit: It is correct that no one in western Europe went as far as the English did in building a complete tactical system out of archery. But their also had to curb their own power in the course of developing their archery tradition. That was a fact that didn't escape the notice of other powers, who looked at what they would be giving up compared to what would be gained and decided that archery wasn't that good.

Not been worth and not been good are two different things. Something can be very good and not worth it's price at the same time. As you yourself said elsewhere, everybody were all too happy to pay a premium for competent archers or crossbowmen when they were available. Problem was that creating system that would make especially competent archers available in mass and on regular basis was simply not worth it. English were lucky because they inherited the system in form of a long tradition. Yet even they eventually found it too expensive (in several different ways) to maintain. And the price was in that longbowmen were almost exclusively been recruited from middle class -free farmers and petty craftsmen. And feudalism was eating that class up, turning as many free farmers in to serfs as possible. So English had to choose between been able to raise large contingents of longbowmen or having lot of serfs plowing their fields and filling coffins.

In the societies where archery was part of the culture, tradition or way of life and thus supply of competent archers was readily available, bow played prominent role in warfare. From Persian armies that have conquered Asia Minor and Egypt to Mongols.

Outside of national mythmaking, they were right: the English lost their French holdings once their tactics were countered -- and not by more or better archers.

English lost their French holdings because England is on the island and their French holdings were in France. Note that while English lost the war, they did not lost any holdings in England.

 

[Apocal]

You also wouldn't find Medieval armies made of nothing but archers, much less archers of the equivalent of the T4/T5 archers in the game. If such armies existed, you would most likely find many more examples.

The 13th century Mongols were approximately that close and even they used archery to provoke, disrupt, demoralize and goad their opponents into doing things that were dumb, as a part of a whole package tactical system. And their archery was considered exceptionally good, even among steppe peoples who were noted archers themselves. All of them had bows and knew how to use them, but there are no accounts of battles (again, to my knowledge) where Mongol archery alone sufficed to break their opponents the way we break ours in Bannerlord.

That's why for every three dedicated horse archers, the tumen had two men equipped with lances in addition to their bows, along with heavier armor, to close with and finish the enemy off.

Everything have far more killing power then demonstrated in the real life. All weapons and combat in general in Bannerlord is far more lethal then in the real life. But that's done for the gameplay reasons. It does not make archers overpowered in the context of the game.

Of course. But in proportion to their historical abilities, they are way out of line, which leads to tactical distortions that make the game resemble a kind of funhouse mirror version of pike-and-shot. That's my main concern.

It is easy to fix: nerf the overall damage of arrows and/or increase the effectiveness of armor. Boom, done. Archers will still probably kill a lot of troops, especially at lower-tiers, but not utterly wipe the floor against anything approaching on foot and unshielded.

Yes, I'm aware it will probably put even more stress on other unbalanced aspects of Banerlord combat -- things die too quickly in the melee, for starters. The fact that troops will continuously dive in right in until they go past their breaking point and rout means formations don't actually matter except to have everything look nice. There is no point to keeping a reserve when morale failure only happens at extreme losses and is unrecoverable.

I know there are still other things wrong, but this is the thread about archery, so that's why I'm focusing on archery.

Yes, proper warrior. You won't find nobles among crossbowmen and archers they hired.

So? They were hired as fighting men, for their abilities (or allegations thereof) on the battlefield. They were described as such in contemporary writing and given similar compensation (horsemen were paid more because horses cost more, obviously) to match. That nobles literally had better things to do with their time should be taken as an indication of two things:
1. That learning to ride well and use weapons effectively from horseback was just as much a lifelong skill as archery.
2. That cavalry was seen as the more decisive arm.

That also applies primarily to western and central Europe. Outside of that geographical region, in Eastern Rome, you weren't considered a complete warrior (as a noble) unless you could use a bow well, even from horseback while sending arrows in every direction. The Kievan Rus' boyars were (sorta) nobles and fielded as (mounted) archers.

Yes, but that's ban on tournaments, not on use of the spear or lance in the battle. Use of bows and crossbows on the other hand was regarded as unsporting. Unless against heathens of course.

It does however demonstrates general attitude to archery. Lying or adultery was also practiced, even if it was forbidden as a mortal sin. But nobody, not even those conducting it considered it normal or acceptable behavior. At last not publicly.

It didn't reflect the general attitude towards archery (or tournaments). That's why pretty much everyone ignored him on those matters and got away with it.

In the societies where archery was part of the culture, tradition or way of life and thus supply of competent archers was readily available, bow played prominent role in warfare. From Persian armies that have conquered Asia Minor and Egypt to Mongols.

I don't believe I am arguing otherwise.