Armor lack of effectiveness Devs should consider

[five bucks]

What if archers are not op? What if the problem was/is and will always be the AI?
Cataphracts pull out their 2 handed polearm and sit in an arrow volley. Infantry puts shields up but then starts running left and right and expose flanks and back. You can see this in every battle.

Well the answer's simple. The problem is not the AI. The AI contributes to the issue. However even if you made the AI perfect, archers would still be capable of mowing down shieldless infantry before they reach melee range, and still capable of mowing down shielded infantry as soon as they have to engage in melee combat. Even when the AI performs perfectly, ranged troops still outperform other troops by a big margin.

This is for a simple reason: archers do comparable damage to melee troops, but at a distance. This will always give them a huge advantage.

Put up a shieldwall that holds the line and all of a sudden Archers do nothing.

As soon as a shield wall enters melee combat, it has to drop its shields to fight, which means the archers in the back will absolutely **** them up, since they can attack over the heads of their allies.

This happens often and means archers regularly rack up the most casualties, since:

A- they are an obvious hard counter to anyone without a shield and will slaughter them 2:1.
B - they can easily kill anyone with a shield who is distracted.
C - ranged troops are the only troop type who can reliably kill cavalry when they are moving.
D- they are the only troop who can attack all the time without needing to get in melee range first.
E- they cannot be blocked by melee weapons by the AI like melee troops can.

I don´t say this is the only solution, but you can see what happens when you increase the armor a lot with the RBM mod. It turns noble cavalrie units into immortal tanks. If that´s what you want, go ahead. But i wouldn´t consider that balanced

Three things.

1: I am not asking for armour to be as powerful as it is in RBM. I am asking for it to be inbetween how it is now, and how it was in Warband.
2: The player has to invest significant sums of money and time and warhorses to get noble cavalry. For that reason, they are meant to be better than regular line infantry units. Not "immortal" better, but there should certainly be an advantage for a T6 Druzhina Champion over a T5 Heavy Axeman.
3: Bannerlord already has a tool for balancing cavalry: braced polearms. Pikes can shut down heavy cavalry. This would lead to some actual tactical gameplay in Bannerlord. The only problem is that not enough troop trees use braced pikes. Changing the troop trees to have more braced pikes in that way would keep tanky cavalry balanced, and have the added benefit of making factions feel more distinct.
4: Making armour more effective against arrows/bolts specifically, without reducing the damage of anything else, will not make infantry less effective vs cavalry than they are now. It will only make archers and crossbowmen weaker against cavalry.

If I don't harrass their edges, shielded infantry can always reach melee. Always. Twenty legionaires will reach 100 Vet archers, every time.

You just told us you don't play "laboratory settings". So in an actual battle it wouldn't be 20 legionaries vs 100 vet archers, it would be, say:

Player doing "infantry playthrough": 50 infantry of assorted ranks, mostly with shields.
AI lord with "archer focus" recruiting: 40 archers of assorted ranks, 10 random trash infantry.

The AI will most likely camp on a hill. You send troops to attack in shieldwall formation. They fight the trash infantry and have to drop their shields while fighting; this leaves them open for the AI archers to begin filling them with arrows.

Alternately, if you have horse archers, they ride around the shield infantry in circles and will inevitably land some shots on their backs.

They really aren't. Skill issue. Take a handful of cavalry around your left flank, strafe through the archers. They will not be able to focus while your infantry approach. Six horsemen are capable of neutralizing 50 archers.

The AI being stupid should be fixed, not used as an excuse for balance problems.

Bannerlord should be an immersive, challenging game where you use simple realistic tactics, plus your own combat skill, to win with the lowest casualties possible.

Not a game where archers are unrealistic machine gunners and the only way to beat them with acceptable casualties is to exploit their AI's stupidity.

Maybe you should learn how armor works better if you don't understand.

It's your job to make your argument, not mine. If you come in and say nonsense then refuse to elaborate, that simply isn't an argument.

I'm absolutely NOT against changing armor in vacuu. But after all the prerelease tweaks I've seen, used, and made, the armor change that TW did for release, which you already praise, is working fine. Archers are DANGEROUS. Not unbeatable.

"Not unbeatable" and "balanced" aren't the same ****ing thing. Archers are heavily imbalanced. Ranged troops are by far the best strategy used to the point I see no reason in ever upgrading to infantry because they're only good as a trash distraction in small numbers and you pick those up anyway. Or you just go all Khan's Guard, move around the map at lightspeed and defeat everything with almost no casualties.

This creates great problems with the challenge, variety, and immersion of the game. This is why games try and be balanced.

This is why blunt damage was changed and, as you agree, improved the game. Therefore, changing pierce damage in a similar way will improve the game further.

It worked in Warband just fine. Anyone who played that game should be able to see there is no reason to be irrationally afraid of armour working slightly better against arrows.

You act like you're not just stating an opinion, when you are.

You can pull that semantic bull**** on anything. I could say black being white is someone's opinion because everyone perceives colour differently. Your post is an opinion too. "Well that's just, like, your opinion, man" adds nothing to the argument.

 

[nyarlathotep1975]

However even if you made the AI perfect, archers would still be capable of mowing down shieldless infantry before they reach melee range, and still capable of mowing down shielded infantry as soon as they have to engage in melee combat. Even when the AI performs perfectly, ranged troops still outperform other troops by a big margin.

So you want shieldless infantry run into archers and wreck them? What would be the point in having such useless units in any army if they are not even capable to take down units that are defensless against them?
Yes, archers are a very strong units, and a small nerf to their damage would probably be fine or a slight increase in armor, but I can already tell you a small increase in armor would not be enough to make Falxman run into them and delete them.
However, i appreciate your detailed answer and apologise for keeping mine so short, but i think you are really exaggerating. I do understand that you consider archer as the biggest thread for your gameplay, but making them useless is not the answer.

 

[five bucks]

So you want shieldless infantry run into archers and wreck them?

No I don't want that.

I want shieldless infantry to run into archers and have a roughly even fight with them. The archers injure them on the way there but do not kill them outright, then it is a fight between a (wounded) melee fighter and (a less skilled in melee) archer.

What would be the point in having such useless units in any army if they are not even capable to take down units that are defensless against them?

Archers weren't useless in Warband despite that game's armour being much more effective against arrows.

The use of archers would still be:
* Being the only troop that can hit moving cavalry. In real life, archers and crossbowmen were one of the best counters to horse archers.
* Being the only troop that can hit fleeing enemies
* Being the only troop that can contribute damage before the fight has even started and continuously attack while other troops have to maneuver into position. This is actually extremely important from a tactical perspective.
* Being extremely effective in sieges or weird terrain like bridge battles.

In addition, I often suggest that TW should make shields a little bit realistically weaker (like they were in WB) so that archers can take them down more often.

Yes, archers are a very strong units, and a small nerf to their damage would probably be fine or a slight increase in armor, but I can already tell you a small increase in armor would not be enough to make Falxman run into them and delete them.

That's fine. I would prefer a T4 Falxman vs any other T4 archer to be a fairly even fight. And if the falxmen are distracted by the archer's allies they should die, of course.

However, i appreciate your detailed answer and apologise for keeping mine so short, but i think you are really exaggerating. I do understand that you consider archer as the biggest thread for your gameplay, but making them useless is not the answer.

I don't want to make them useless. I want to make them balanced.

 

[nyarlathotep1975]

I want shieldless infantry to run into archers and have a roughly even fight with them. The archers injure them on the way there but do not kill them outright, then it is a fight between a (wounded) melee fighter and (a less skilled in melee) archer.

So basicly the same as crossbowman but with less damage. Can´t say I like that, but I see where you coming from.
I´m afraid we will never agree as you would like to have another infantry unit with some range abilities and I don´t want to rob archers of their unique fighting style (strong on range, weak in melee).
But i guess your idea could work as it already does with skirmish units. except for sieges. if archers deal less damage to all units, you can´t really consider them highly effectiv

 

[five bucks]

I´m afraid we will never agree as you would like to have another infantry unit with some range abilities

No, I don't want that. I just want archers to be balanced, like they were in Warband.

If they take ~7 hits to kill instead of ~4, they will still be a ranged unit and will still do most of their damage and killing at range. They will just be less lethal than they were. That's all.

and I don´t want to rob archers of their unique fighting style (strong on range, weak in melee).

Neither do I. But there's a difference between insanely strong at range (4 hits to kill) and sensibly strong at range (7 hits to kill).

Because attacking from long range is better than attacking from close range. So, it should do significantly worse damage. It's common sense.

If you have a long range attacker and a close range attacker, and both can kill in 4 hits, but the long range attacker can do it from a distance, in addition to being able to still somewhat fight at close range... Why bother with close range attackers?

If armour is fixed, archers will still be the strongest ranged attackers, will still do most of their damage at range, will still be able to kill people at range if there's any sort of distraction or the enemy is lower tier, and will still be weak in melee.

if archers deal less damage to all units, you can´t really consider them highly effective

If archers kill same tier units in ~7 hits instead of ~4 hits, they will still be highly effective in sieges because they are the only ones (barring artillery) who can shoot people pushing/climbing ladders, people running across the walls, people pushing rams and towers, and people who are waiting to go up the walls.

So you will still absolutely need archers in sieges because they are the best at that role. Just like they were in Warband.

 

[JunKeteer]

No I don't want that.

I want shieldless infantry to run into archers and have a roughly even fight with them. The archers injure them on the way there but do not kill them outright, then it is a fight between a (wounded) melee fighter and (a less skilled in melee) archer.

Melee fights have their own issues too, most cases it's really just whichever AI happens to trigger attack first, then losing on timing due to the flinch mechanic and less due to their AI/skill level.
It is annoying being in a melee fray and being hit by pinpoint accurate archers - maybe they should reduce their accuracy, implement friendly fire (I haven't witnessed yet), and/or make their aim tolerances 'zones' tighter if a friendly is nearby. So archers can only really shoot at the frays where maybe one side overextends their lines to flank. Or it forces them to then change focus to cavalry who are typically not in the melee or, if they are, be the main target given they are elevated and 'available' to shoot at.

Archers weren't useless in Warband despite that game's armour being much more effective against arrows.

The use of archers would still be:
* Being the only troop that can hit moving cavalry. In real life, archers and crossbowmen were one of the best counters to horse archers.

Agree, I think horse armor is way too strong in BL. Even for the player - it's a complete waste to shoot at horses where in WB, sometimes it's applicable or useful.

 

[nyarlathotep1975]

Just like they were in Warband.

But they won´t. TW made it painfully clear, they don´t want to make things like they were in Warband. And if you look at the mechanics in Bannerlord (like the speed bonus to damage) just a small increase in armor will not get you there.
I am not argueing that units need more balance. They absolutly do. But I don´t think just more armor will solve that issue. All it does is get you to what RBM already does. Units deal less damage and fights take more time. I could be wrong, but from what I see until now, TW wants fights to be more arcade like. Quick and easy. Wether you like it or not.
And a general increase in armor won´t just affect archers, but all units. So even when you get archers to be as weak as you want, all other units will also suffer from it. Then you need to put up their damage. But what units? And how much?
And a decrease from 4 to 7 hits is not small. That´s massiv.
Then you have the problem child called Fians. They are too strong without a doubt, but if they get a massiv nerf, they will just reflect what they are in auto resolve already. Garbage. And instead of more diverse armies even the player will start to sport the same units as the AI and you get to the point where every battle looks and feels the same.What they already do, more then I like.
As for spear brace, it´s in the game, but how often do you see it? Most units are not equipped to do it.

 

[mujadaddy]

archers are unrealistic machine gunners

It's your job to make your argument, not mine.

Ah, I see. Your outrageous claims don't need evidence, but your ignorance of how damage works puts a burden on me to explain it to you.

 

[five bucks]

But they won´t. TW made it painfully clear, they don´t want to make things like they were in Warband.

TW has never said that they are against making armour closer to Warband levels of protection.

And if you look at the mechanics in Bannerlord (like the speed bonus to damage) just a small increase in armor will not get you there.

A rework worked for blunt damage, it can work for pierce damage.

But I don´t think just more armor will solve that issue. All it does is get you to what RBM already does. Units deal less damage and fights take more time. I could be wrong, but from what I see until now, TW wants fights to be more arcade like. Quick and easy. Wether you like it or not.

This is not the same thing as RBM. That mod makes a lot of different changes to all fighters, both melee and ranged. It pretty much nerfs everyone's damage, adds a stamina system, and all sorts of other things resulting in longer battles. Whereas my suggestion is simply:

* Increase armour protection against pierce by 1.7x (so arrow/bolt goes from 4 hits to kill, to 7 hits to kill)
* Increase the base damage of other piercing weapons by 1.7x (so they have the same damage as before) except spears, by 2x (because their damage is too low and they could do with a buff).
* Reduce the HP of shields across the board by 15%, or fully rework them if TW has time.
* Make archers better at targeting circling horse archers.

That's totally different from RBM. It wouldn't make battles significantly longer, since only one change would make people tankier, while the other changes would make people die quicker.

What it would do is make the casualties more evenly distributed between archers and melee troops.

And a general increase in armor won´t just affect archers, but all units. So even when you get archers to be as weak as you want, all other units will also suffer from it. Then you need to put up their damage. But what units? And how much?

I've already addressed this in previous discussions though I'm not sure if you were part of those, but you can see the answer above.

And a decrease from 4 to 7 hits is not small. That´s massiv.

Right now archers can slaughter a group of melee infantry 2x their size, often before they even get in melee range. Therefore, reducing their damage output by 1.7x should be an appropriate and proportionate nerf.

And instead of more diverse armies even the player will start to sport the same units as the AI and you get to the point where every battle looks and feels the same.What they already do, more then I like.

Right now the best strategy is to upgrade only to archers or horse archers, never upgrading to infantry. Fixing archers so they are balanced will incentivise the player to use a much wider range of troops.

As for spear brace, it´s in the game, but how often do you see it? Most units are not equipped to do it.

Yes! More units should be equipped to do it.

Ah, I see. Your outrageous claims don't need evidence, but your ignorance of how damage works puts a burden on me to explain it to you.

You are intentionally misunderstanding a figure of speech, focusing on an irrelevant part and ignoring the entire rest of the argument, which makes it apparent, as other people have claimed before, that you're just here to troll. I'm not giving any more responses to any of your posts that don't make make a sincere and relevant argument.

 

[mujadaddy]

I'm not giving any more responses to any of your posts that don't make make a sincere and relevant argument.

Since you're the one who is asking for something to be changed, that means I have won. Thanks for playing, we have some lovely parting gifts.

 

[nyarlathotep1975]

A rework worked for blunt damage, it can work for pierce damage.

Arrows are not the only one that deal pierce damage. So do swords and spears. And I really don´t want spears to be even weaker. If you nerf anything it has to be Archers themself.
And in terms of killing infantry in masses, that would only work if said infantry has no shields. Otherwise it would be hard to kill even one as shields don´t break from arrows.

 

[nyarlathotep1975]

Right now the best strategy is to upgrade only to archers or horse archers, never upgrading to infantry. Fixing archers so they are balanced will incentivise the player to use a much wider range of troops.

unfortunatly no. the strongest units are noble units and they are available everywhere (part of the problem). so if fians and khans guard are no longer an option, noble cav is the next obvious choice. even if you would just unmount them and use as infantry

 

[Orion]

Arrows are not the only one that deal pierce damage. So do swords and spears. And I really don´t want spears to be even weaker. If you nerf anything it has to be Archers themself.

He has said this many times now, consistently, since this thread was created:

* Increase the base damage of other piercing weapons by 1.7x (so they have the same damage as before) except spears, by 2x (because their damage is too low and they could do with a buff)

Personally, I think archers of a given tier should have a 50% kill rate before being engaged by an equally-sized group of same-tier shock infantry without shields. This is controllable through multiple factors, though the biggest factor right now is actually the worst method available. Currently, archery skill level determines maximum engagement range, which is further reduced by adverse conditions like darkness at night. What we see in ideal conditions is archer dominance as soon as they begin opening fire en masse, because their maximum engagement range is almost always within their effective range for accuracy & damage.

Oddly enough, a useful method of nerfing archers might be to boost their engagement range so they will use some of their ammo less efficiently. Fians actually display this because their archery skill is so high. If left to fire at will at their maximum engagement range, even against stationary targets they are much less efficient with their ammunition. So, step one, increase engagement distance.

Next, a nerf to damage is called for, but in particular I think it should be an alteration to the calculation itself and not the values on weapons/armor. Damage drop off with distance needs to be more considerable. A headshot against a mid-tier helmet from a bow at 100 meters should be comparable in damage to a body shot at point blank. Currently, it is usually lethal or nearly so. Body shots should have similar fall-off, which compounds with the increased engagement range to make archers less efficient with their ammo overall.

The final step is one that saw support as a solution to archer efficacy in Warband native MP, which is a reduction in rate of fire. Bows mostly require multiple hits to kill, and landing those hits faster increases the probability of killing before getting into melee. We want to reduce that probability, so reduce their rate of fire. Unfortunately we only saw nerfs in melee stats, gear, and movement speed in Warband MP, so the whining about ranged damage continued regardless.

The goal, as I said at the onset, is for archers of a given tier to kill about 50% of a same-sized group of shieldless shock infantry of equal tier before they reach them in melee. My rationale for this is simple: archers are supposed to be a counter to them, they should have a significant advantage in this scenario. As it is now, that kill rate is probably in excess of 75%, which will rout the remaining infantry easily. What we will see with the above changes, however, is the archers that survive the melee will have a bit less ammo remaining to further impact the battle (because they start shooting sooner), and will do so at a lower rate (both in damage per shot and shots per minute). It's a common occurence now for archers to shoot continuously through entire battles unless engaged in melee even with their high rate of fire, because their engagement range is short enough that there is little wastage. It's OK for them to fire continuously if their efficiency is reduced, though, and these changes would accomplish that.

 

[nyarlathotep1975]

He has said this many times now, consistently, since this thread was created:

so i missed a post in a 7 pages long thread? how could i? now i feel so ashamed i have to quit. thanks for ending the conversation. what a pleasure to have people like you around who´s only contribution into conversations is this

 

[JunKeteer]

so i missed a post in a 7 pages long thread? how could i? now i feel so ashamed i have to quit. thanks for ending the conversation. what a pleasure to have people like you around who´s only contribution into conversations is this

He was only correcting the excerpts now pulled context from to context it's a broken telephone.
TW tweaked the 'blunt' damage/armor factors recently, therefore, it should be possible/reasonable they could do so with 'piercing' - then readdress the armor values (that @five bucks advocates for) from the imbalance implicated with said changes so melee TTK is the 'same' (besides spears), but archers need a few more hits.

 

[Orion]

so i missed a post in a 7 pages long thread? how could i? now i feel so ashamed i have to quit. thanks for ending the conversation. what a pleasure to have people like you around who´s only contribution into conversations is this

I mean, it wasn't the only contribution, but I did edit in the rest later. It's slow going, typing on a phone.

Anyway, it's a direct quote from his latest post in the thread, not just on the same page but only 2 posts above your reply that I quoted. He directly addressed your concern, but you must have missed it. Surely you wouldn't be participating in a long-form discussion on an entirely written medium and choose not to read, right?

 

[nyarlathotep1975]

I mean, it wasn't the only contribution, but I did edit in the rest later. It's slow going, typing on a phone.

Anyway, it's a direct quote from his latest post in the thread, not just on the same page but only 2 posts above your reply that I quoted. He directly addressed your concern, but you must have missed it. Surely you wouldn't be participating in a long-form discussion on an entirely written medium and choose not to read, right?

Obviously I would and will probably miss out on quotes in the future as well. So what? I am not unable to apologise. Especially when both paticipants agree on the same topic.
And I´m certain @five bucks is absolutly capable to point me out on a mistake i made.
We are having a respectful, civilised conversation so why don´t you mind your own buisness? I´m sure you have better things to do then browsing convesations looking out for people who made a simple, unproblematic mistake.

 

[Orion]

Obviously I would and will probably miss out on quotes in the future as well. So what? I am not unable to apologise. Especially when both paticipants agree on the same topic.
And I´m certain @five bucks is absolutly capable to point me out on a mistake i made.
We are having a respectful, civilised conversation so why don´t you mind your own buisness? I´m sure you have better things to do then browsing convesations looking out for people who made a simple, unproblematic mistake.

I'm a member of this forum and can participate in that capacity when I feel inclined to do so. That includes posting my opinion in topics about the game. You don't get to dictate to anyone where & how they engage on this forum, though you can certainly influence how people engage with you if you maintain that attitude.

 

[JunKeteer]

Obviously I would and will probably miss out on quotes in the future as well. So what? I am not unable to apologise. Especially when both paticipants agree on the same topic.
And I´m certain @five bucks is absolutly capable to point me out on a mistake i made.
We are having a respectful, civilised conversation so why don´t you mind your own buisness? I´m sure you have better things to do then browsing convesations looking out for people who made a simple, unproblematic mistake.

I guess we should leave this thread and shut up as this is a private conversation b/w you and @five bucks, apparently.

 

[nyarlathotep1975]

I guess we should leave this thread and shut up as this is a private conversation b/w you and @five bucks, apparently.

If you have anything constructiv to add to the convesation, you are more then welcome to participate.

I'm a member of this forum and can participate in that capacity when I feel inclined to do so. That includes posting my opinion in topics about the game. You don't get to dictate to anyone where & how they engage on this forum, though you can certainly influence how people engage with you if you maintain that attitude.

I´m not dictating anything, but I can very well tell you if your interruption is wanted or needed, if you fail to notice it yourself. And of course you can always disagree with my opinion. But it won´t stop me from speaking my mind. What shouldn´t be a problem for you as long as I show the same level of respect as you do