As of 1.8.0, What Do You Think is Needed to Fix Bannerlord's End-Game?

[JunKeteer]

Fair points, yes, we don't want to make infantry OP.
Here's T5 archers slaughtering T5 infantry.

It seems they mostly start getting hit within the 50m mark. Most of them are dead or at very low health by the time they reach melee range. So decreasing accuracy past 50m wouldn't change much.

But increasing armour protection from 4-5 hits to kill, to 7-8 hits to kill, would mean those Voulgiers reach melee range at 30-50% health instead of 0-20% health! Rather than losing 20-80, they might win or lose 50-50. Balanced.

With this, plus fixing archer accuracy against horse archers, and cavalry accuracy in melee, and every troop type will be useful:
* Ranged Cavalry are strong against Pike Infantry and Shock Infantry (balanced by cavalry's higher cost and uncommonness).
* Pike Infantry are strong against Melee Cavalry.
* Melee Cavalry are strong against Shock Infantry and Ranged Infantry (balanced by cavalry's higher cost and uncommonness).
* Shock Infantry are strong against Shield Infantry.
* Shield Infantry are strong against Ranged Infantry.
* Ranged Infantry are strong against Ranged Cavalry due to better accuracy, range and damage shooting on foot. They are also useful in sieges, where they get much more time to shoot the enemy before they reach melee range. And in group battles where they have allies protecting them, they can constantly shoot without getting attacked in melee.

I don't disagree with this, adding a more 'impactful' rock>paper>scissors elements for the game would be better.

Well if we have historical examples of armoured men getting hit by 10 arrows and those arrows not finding gaps, then I think taking 7 hits and the 8th one "hitting the gap" is quite reasonable. I'm actually asking for less survivability than real life.
As for realistic balance factors that are missing: Yes, infantry don't get tired by heavy armour, but neither do archers get tired from drawing bows at super high speed, or (as you said) have to worry about friendly fire, or horses getting tired. The lack of stamina for all parties balances that out.

Why not though? Making armour more effective against arrows would solve the problem and be more realistic.

I recognize that voulgiers (and those troop types) in game are more situational than the others based on the fact they are too vulnerable to archers. And as a player, playing that type of foot infantry is no fun at all especially with the death mechanics and that you are stuck spectating rest of the battle.

I'm still on the opinion of reducing archer accuracy first before increasing armor effectiveness further; besides also tweaking the AI party compositions with it.
Even so, I personally don't mind armor getting stronger as it makes the option of playing foot infantry more compelling/fun (and buying those top tier armors), but if they do go this route, they have to fix the melee range/spacing issue with it to make it worthwhile. Otherwise we're stuck with these mini tanks vibrating their way to victory as I've seen in so many cases already, especially in sieges, by the ladders, or where there's one guy left and no one can kill him 'cause everyone and their mothers are in that single staircase tower trying to hit him.

 

[Apocal]

I don't disagree with this, adding a more 'impactful' rock>paper>scissors elements for the game would be better.

I recognize that voulgiers (and those troop types) in game are more situational than the others based on the fact they are too vulnerable to archers. And as a player, playing that type of foot infantry is no fun at all especially with the death mechanics and that you are stuck spectating rest of the battle.

I'm still on the opinion of reducing archer accuracy first before increasing armor effectiveness further; besides also tweaking the AI party compositions with it.
Even so, I personally don't mind armor getting stronger as it makes the option of playing foot infantry more compelling/fun (and buying those top tier armors), but if they do go this route, they have to fix the melee range/spacing issue with it to make it worthwhile. Otherwise we're stuck with these mini tanks vibrating their way to victory as I've seen in so many cases already, especially in sieges, by the ladders, or where there's one guy left and no one can kill him 'cause everyone and their mothers are in that single staircase tower trying to hit him.

Last time I tested reducing archer accuracy, it didn't do much because the formations are packed together so tightly that even misses are hits. The other guy testing, I think Dabos37, came to the same conclusion. It does affect the range they start loosing arrows though.

On a more fundamental level, I don't think quibbles about which troops do best in tactical battles or adjustments to their abilities are going to have an effect on how enjoyable the endgame is. By time I'm worried about endgame (by which I mean map conquest), I shouldn't still be concerned with troop type composition except in very broadstrokes. The battles feature upwards of 2000 troops on the field at once and the player isn't in control of the composition of most of them. It is bound to be a "slurry" in tactical terms -- one or two gimmicks (archer backline, HAs, heavy metal front, etc.), supported by a bunch of randoms to pad out the numbers.

What I want to be thinking about at endgame is the wider strategy: which targets to hit, how many resources (primarily party leaders/armies, influence and time) to devote to each one, how to sustain such acts, etc. rather than if I have enough line infantry to be optimal for my specific party composition. Otherwise, the only campaign progression possible is "optimal and maximized party composition" and then replaying the same ****ing sieges dozens of times.

The game still isn't that difficult, assuming you've played through a few times before, and TW has made it even easier to gather good troops so getting the optimized party comp is trivial. Maximizing is less trivial but still just a question of grinding long enough to hit extra Clan tiers and certain perks.

 

[Earth Dragon]

Last time I tested reducing archer accuracy, it didn't do much because the formations are packed together so tightly that even misses are hits. The other guy testing, I think Dabos37, came to the same conclusion. It does affect the range they start loosing arrows though.

And all things considered, I’d rather the option to start pickling the enemy start sooner rather then later.

I don’t know, this isn’t easy. Much of the discussion of armor protection from arrows is during and post crusades: this is pre-crusades. While there were measures, it wasn’t fully developed yet, and certainly the vast majority of combatants weren’t equipped with the best armor. Lower the AI’s access to high end units after mitigating the effects of missile fire and players just start stream rolling with your choice of tier 5 infantry. Some of you guys seem to think the player “should” be a de facto power player with little effort, but I’d hate to see that the case

 

[Apocal]

And all things considered, I’d rather the option to start pickling the enemy start sooner rather then later.

I don’t know, this isn’t easy. Much of the discussion of armor protection from arrows is during and post crusades: this is pre-crusades. While there were measures, it wasn’t fully developed yet, and certainly the vast majority of combatants weren’t equipped with the best armor. Lower the AI’s access to high end units after mitigating the effects of missile fire and players just start stream rolling with your choice of tier 5 infantry. Some of you guys seem to think the player “should” be a de facto power player with little effort, but I’d hate to see that the case

I look at it from the perspective of what makes a fun game: either BL archers keep their damage and a player can easily avoid ever having to enter melee or they nerf damage so melee soldiers have some actual tactical niche to fill that isn't just RPing.

Being ahistorical is less important than the fact it makes for a boring game.

 

[Gregorysan]

I don't play 1.8.0 for now but reducing the damage is not the best way to balance archers in my eyes. The accuracy is better way, right now even the lower thier archers are shooting way to accurate. On the other hand the crossbow is doing very high damage and is quite quick to reload. And there is a good YT channel that compare arrow damage on different targets Tod's Workshop is the name.

Yes he is using a crossbow but it supposed to be equivalent of warbow in term of arrow speed.

 

[Earth Dragon]

I look at it from the perspective of what makes a fun game: either BL archers keep their damage and a player can easily avoid ever having to enter melee or they nerf damage so melee soldiers have some actual tactical niche to fill that isn't just RPing.

Being ahistorical is less important than the fact it makes for a boring game.

Yes and no: Infantry were the mainstay of many armies at the time, even though bows and arrows were as easy to come by as a hand weapon and wooden shield.

There’s a reason for that.

The biggest culprit in this is really the archers ability to fire into the fray and not hit your own soldiers. But that goes into accuracy and how that operates

 

[Apocal]

Yes and no: Infantry were the mainstay of many armies at the time, even though bows and arrows were as easy to come by as a hand weapon and wooden shield.

There’s a reason for that.

I wasn't arguing history there, I was saying archers doing too much damage in Bannerlord means a player can avoid the melee entirely.

 

[Apocal]

I don't play 1.8.0 for now but reducing the damage is not the best way to balance archers in my eyes. The accuracy is better way, right now even the lower thier archers are shooting way to accurate.

I already did this two years ago, but it is easy to crank down the archer accuracy: go into Mount & Blade II Bannerlord\Modules\SandBoxCore\ModuleData\items and open up weapons.xml. Ctrl+F "accuracy" and adjust all the bows and crossbows from 91-100 down to whatever number suits your fancy. I went down to 60 (IIRC). It didn't really change anything because shooting at a block of troops, it is very hard to actually miss unless you give them comical amounts of inaccuracy.

 

[JunKeteer]

I already did this two years ago, but it is easy to crank down the archer accuracy: go into Mount & Blade II Bannerlord\Modules\SandBoxCore\ModuleData\items and open up weapons.xml. Ctrl+F "accuracy" and adjust all the bows and crossbows from 91-100 down to whatever number suits your fancy. I went down to 60 (IIRC). It didn't really change anything because shooting at a block of troops, it is very hard to actually miss unless you give them comical amounts of inaccuracy.

Well, it would help, as mentioned earlier, with shortening the range when they start shooting? The reason I rather prefer accuracy being toned down is partially also because of sieges and how easily they can snipe defenders through arrow loops, etc...Siege attacks are much easier now with these recent patches/changes so that change back should help give the defenders that extra bit of fighting chance.

Between more armor vs worse accuracy - ultimately, it boils down to, how many potential T5 units can a Fian kill with their 30 (60?) arrows? As of now, using that 4-5 hits example and their accuracy, that's ~6-7 kills per unit; when it should maybe be 3-4 kills per.
Whether that's done by further buffing armor or reducing archer hit%, we're not the TW dev. My only issue with buffing armor, though it makes melee playthroughs viable, also doesn't jive with how AI melee is currently acting.

 

[Gregorysan]

Don't forget that this game also have a MP and there the accuracy will have bigger impact.

 

[five bucks]

Reducing the damage is not the best way to balance archers in my eyes. The accuracy is better way, right now even the lower thier archers are shooting way to accurate. On the other hand the crossbow is doing very high damage and is quite quick to reload. And there is a good YT channel that compare arrow damage on different targets for example:

Yes he is using a crossbow but it supposed to be equivalent of warbow in term of arrow speed.

Rewatch the second half of the video where he actually puts the mail on the outside of the gambeson. The arrows only went, at most, an inch through. If I stabbed you 4 times with an inch-long knife blade, would you die on the spot?

In Tod's words, "barely touching the body underneath."

Plus, the 120-pound crossbow he used is not representative of the short bows used by 90% of archers in Bannerlord, which would have much lower poundage.

So that video, if anything, shows that mail over gambeson would give good protection against the bows we see in Bannerlord.

I don't disagree with this, adding a more 'impactful' rock>paper>scissors elements for the game would be better.

I recognize that voulgiers (and those troop types) in game are more situational than the others based on the fact they are too vulnerable to archers. And as a player, playing that type of foot infantry is no fun at all especially with the death mechanics and that you are stuck spectating rest of the battle.

I'm still on the opinion of reducing archer accuracy first before increasing armor effectiveness further; besides also tweaking the AI party compositions with it.
Even so, I personally don't mind armor getting stronger as it makes the option of playing foot infantry more compelling/fun (and buying those top tier armors),

Well I'm glad about where we do agree.

but if they do go this route, they have to fix the melee range/spacing issue with it to make it worthwhile.

Yes! I strongly agree that this also needs fixing.

I don’t know, this isn’t easy. Much of the discussion of armor protection from arrows is during and post crusades: this is pre-crusades.

Bannerlord's stated 600-1100 time period encompasses the First Crusade (1096), and even the Second, if you consider that mail and bow technology would not have massively changed in 47 years.

Lower the AI’s access to high end units after mitigating the effects of missile fire and players just start stream rolling with your choice of tier 5 infantry. Some of you guys seem to think the player “should” be a de facto power player with little effort, but I’d hate to see that the case

Don't misrepresent me. What I think is that right now, I can make an army of all horse archers, or a token force of infantry with the rest being a stack of archers, and absolutely stomp mixed AI parties.

Reducing the damage which arrows do to armour will fix this very easy method of cheesing the AI, and make infantry actually have a purpose as mainline fighters, rather than just bait who you only need a small number of in your army.

Don't forget that this game also have a MP and there the accuracy will have bigger impact.

MP and SP are balanced separately IIRC, if I'm not misunderstanding what you're trying to say; so changing armour protection from arrows in SP shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Gregorysan]

The thing whit arrows is that they don't have to drop you on a spot. Try to move or fight whit few sharp objects in your body even if they are +-2 cm in, not to mention the arrows shaft that stick out. The in game bows from what I see can be of high draw weight. The Fian long bow and some of khuzait and empire bows ( high tier) looks like bows from later periods when armor was thicker and more common.
MP an SP have separate balance (even in different game mode) from what I know, but the damage formula works for both I think.
And in the end of day this is a game and some simplify solutions for balance are needed.

BTW Tod have few more videos about this subject (arrow vs different armor) and they are quite interesting.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

But do the historical accounts detail the strength/poundage of the specific bows and type of arrowheads/velocity used in those examples? I'm not a historian, but are these 10+arrowed 'hedgehog' knights embedded with arrows due to long range barrage of arrows from 150m+, what range, etc...?

In the source/one of the sources he's talking about, the crusaders were being bombarded for days along the coast as they marched, so it would have been at maximum range for a composite bow, but those bows were made for long range engagements anyway. I can't think of a single example in crusader sources where foot archers (not crossbowmen) shoot infantry at point blank, and in a real battle there would have been very few opportunities for that anyway.

The bigger problem in bannerlord is that every battle is what would historically have been the final phase, with infantry facing off against each other. Archers tended to have a smaller role in this phase, so like most games they make archers as effective as modern riflemen to compensate. In some games, like total war, they make it work by giving archers low damage frontally and high damage in the rear, but in bannerlord the enemy almost always faces you directly so you don't get a chance to do that. I don't think you can make realistic/believable archers in a game where everyone is poiting a shield at your archers all the time.

 

[Goyyyio]

Actual gameplay that is not the same repetitive loop over and over until your character dies.

 

[five bucks]

The thing whit arrows is that they don't have to drop you on a spot. Try to move or fight whit few sharp objects in your body even if they are +-2 cm in, not to mention the arrows shaft that stick out.

The historical examples already given of guys continuing to fight with 10+ arrows sticking out of their armour show that this is, in fact, possible.

In Bannerlord, four arrows WILL drop you on the spot. That's the issue here.

The in game bows from what I see can be of high draw weight. The Fian long bow and some of khuzait and empire bows ( high tier) looks like bows from later periods when armor was thicker and more common.

On what basis do you say that? Even if that was true, those few top tier bows are matched by a few top-tier armors that are from later periods too. If you have a T6 archer (Fian Champion) facing a T6 Banner Knight, he will be wearing a Coat of Plates, which is from the late 1100s and provides better protection against arrows than mail.

See also this, a metal prod crossbow (Bannerlord crossbows are wooden prod) against a thin lamellar:

And in the end of day this is a game and some simplify solutions for balance are needed.

Increasing armour arrow resistance from 4-5 hits to kill to 7-8 hits to kill is indeed a simple solution. It worked just fine in Warband.

BTW Tod have few more videos about this subject (arrow vs different armor) and they are quite interesting.

Yeah, it's a good channel.

 

[Gregorysan]

Well the xbows that Skall was using was not of very high draw weight so plate armor is not a target for it and even then a good plate can stop a bullet from early firearm. And yes we have in game crossbows whit metal bow in them ( arbalest in MP ).
On what basis I'm thinking that Fian bow can have a high draw waight? Well just by looking at the thickness of it, it looks like bows whit 100 + pounds draw weight. Also what I don't like about " historical" evidences is that they can be exaggerated to sound more epic, but who knows. And keep in mind that if one guy can ran like a hedgehog whit arrows in him that doesn't mean everyone can.
So I think that that chasing historical accuracy to much is not the best thing to do in game.
In MP (didn't check in SP) archers are slower on foot then heavy inf, so when TW nerfs the damage even more there maybe no use for them in mid/short range.

 

[MostBlunted]

Gameplay over realism in this case!

Something needs to be done with archers.

 

[five bucks]

Well the xbows that Skall was using was not of very high draw weight so plate armor is not a target for it and even then a good plate can stop a bullet from early firearm.

The first crossbow was a 300lb draw weight crossbow, which translated to bow terms is 150lb. That's high draw weight.
Watch the second part of the video, where he shoots lamellar armor with the crossbow. That's what I'm talking about, not the plate.

And yes we have in game crossbows whit metal bow in them ( arbalest in MP ).
In MP (didn't check in SP) archers are slower on foot then heavy inf, so when TW nerfs the damage even more there maybe no use for them in mid/short range.

This is a discussion about SP though. That's why the thread title is late game.
I don't think MP has the same damage formula as SP because the recent changes to armor for blunt damage aren't listed under the "both" section in the patch notes. So MP is not really relevant here, no offense.

On what basis I'm thinking that Fian bow can have a high draw waight? Well just by looking at the thickness of it, it looks like bows whit 100 + pounds draw weight.

100 pounds, sure, I'll agree with that. Which is lower than the 120 pounds of Tod's crossbow, which is my point: the Fian bow would penetrate mail less than that crossbow would. And the other top bows in Bannerlord would be somewhere below 100.

Also what I don't like about " historical" evidences is that they can be exaggerated to sound more epic, but who knows. And keep in mind that if one guy can ran like a hedgehog whit arrows in him that doesn't mean everyone can.

There are many of these accounts, coming from various different time periods, and from both those wearing and those attacking the armor.
Also it's just common sense. If mail could not stop arrows, nobody would have worn it, and everyone would have carried a bow at all times.

So I think that that chasing historical accuracy to much is not the best thing to do in game.

Well as I have already said, this isn't just for historical accuracy, it's also for gameplay reasons. You already agreed that archers need balancing. So why not do it in a way that is realistic? As Apocal has already shown, decreasing accuracy won't make a difference, but making armor provide good protection will.
It worked in Warband.

Gameplay over realism in this case!

Something needs to be done with archers.

Yes! And both from a gameplay point of view and a realism point of view, the best way to achieve that would be to make armor give more protection.

 

[niekdegrijze]

if cavalry would be more effective at hitting targets and had an different order to charge ranged units, they could better counter archers.
If infantry with spears are more effective against cavalry,
This way each troop type would have a good counter.

While this all is an important issue to improve, for me this is unrelated to the original topic.
things that improve the engame would be:
- better kingdom management
- improved importance to relations
- subterfuge options
- better generational playtime
- Custom guards/troop trees, with upgrade functions. This would be a good time and money sink
- an invasion force.
- diplomacy options + marrying into other kingdoms so you can have an claim in the succession.

 

[Earth Dragon]

if cavalry would be more effective at hitting targets and had an different order to charge ranged units, they could better counter archers.
If infantry with spears are more effective against cavalry,
This way each troop type would have a good counter.

While this all is an important issue to improve, for me this is unrelated to the original topic.
things that improve the engame would be:
- better kingdom management
- improved importance to relations
- subterfuge options
- better generational playtime
- Custom guards/troop trees, with upgrade functions. This would be a good time and money sink
- an invasion force.
- diplomacy options + marrying into other kingdoms so you can have an claim in the succession.

Invasion forces could essentially just be the minor clans stirring obnoxious amount of followers for a few years and burning down designated areas:

The Jawwal try to sack the 5 central Aserai Cities, the Ben Zilal from Hubyar to Husn Fulq, and the Ghulan the 3 western cities.

Give all minor clans a region like this. They do it when 1/3 or more of the map is the same kingdom (even if the PC) and part of their “raze” area belongs to the power player. Different sub triggers and the like.

The flamers in Imperial region could explode in Number if 1/2 or more of the Imperial fiefs are controlled by a Kingdom with a Imperial ruler.

There’s definitely already things in game that could spice things up, and also assist with these super cities that max up their upgrades and then just sit there for the rest of time doing repeatables