Balance for Archers and Cav

[Brandis.]

Overall, it's better to buff infantry rather than trying to figure out how to nerf archers+cav. Arrow fire rate is already slow to the point where it's non-intuitive.

Shields are too strong in infantry vs infantry for the current attack and block speeds. TTK for infantry vs infantry has to be 30+ seconds if not more. Almost all of the kills you get on infantry is when you outnumber the enemy infantry rather than an actual skill based matchup. Giving infantry stronger shields ironically makes them worse at getting kills.

I also said in one of the first months of Beta that infantry should gain an armor bonus against projectiles, and that still makes sense.

What I would do with some rough estimate figures:

• Shield HP lowered by 20%
• Axe bonus damage against shields increased by 15%
• Armor bonus against projectile weapons increased by 30% for Infantry (Light Infantry, Heavy Infantry, Shock Infantry)
• On that note, headshots increased from 1.7 to 2.3 to put headshot damage noticeably higher than regular shots, but just a little higher (~10%) than current damage

 

[Tajl]

Yeah. Fair. But what does that have to do with this guy saying spears are not a counter to cav.

Spears are not counter for cavalry because only thing you can do with spears is stop cavalry charge and that you can do only when cavalry decides to charge you. When you stop cavalry charge you do little damage to horse, then cavalry rides away and charges someone else. After few failed charges cavalry guy can dismount and continue fight as infantry.

Spears would be counter for cavalry if spearmen would be able to hunt cavalry so that they would first catch them and then kill them, but that is not going to happen. Only cavalry can hunt and kill cavalry and archers can kill cavalry when cavalry is in their range. Infantry can only kill cavalry when cavalry chooses to engage them.

 

[Ichon]

Which kind of multiplayer are we talking? I have experience with TDM and Skirmish, never having touched Siege and Captain. What I have seen so far is that, in terms of frags, TDM is dominated by two-handed cav and infantry, which is logical, given that TDM has a generally low organization and skill ceiling, so the equation here is pretty simple: with everyone flailing around wildly, the battle is more likely to be won by those who can kill the enemy with fewer hits. Archers? Yes, two-handers are obviously annoyed by them, but you will rarely see an archer who's got the most kills by the end of the match, and I consider such people to be quite skilled at what they do.

In Skirmish, the situation is slightly more complicated, as we also have to consider flags. In this environment, archers are, indeed, a very potent defensive tool that simultaneously provides anti-cav protection, infantry support, and area denial. They are especially dangerous when they can work unassailed, either thanks to cover or to support from other classes. Splitting the opponents and catching them in a crossfire is a solid path to winning the day.

That said, archers are also not very strong if they have to maintain an offensive, namely grab the flags held by the enemy. Whenever they have to be on the move, they're exposed to the enemy's cav and counter-sniping archers. Finally, if the infantry can muster a determined rush and disable the archers' ability to shoot, it will put them at a serious disadvantage, since they have weaker shields or no shields whatsoever. How the ensuing fight is going to end is determined entirely by the players' personall skill, as can be expected in a match between small teams.

Overall, the place that archers are at right now are not much different from what I saw in Warband. Personally, I don't mind that shooting has become easier: archery in Warband took a longer time to train, so, maybe, the veteran archers in this game will meet some more challenge from newer players. What I think might help the balance is making archers' movement a tad slower and lowering their proficiency at melee weapons so that they're more vulnerable at close range, having to choose their positioning more carefully.

I wish the game showed how much damage each class put out- not only kills because that would be far more indicative of the balance. I know for Skirmish/Siege as an archer I bleed the enemy team huge amount of damage but get relatively few kills compared to hits landed. I am usually 1.5 : 1 kill : death ration but land 5 : 1 hits. The game only gives assist if the player hit is killed within a certain timeframe.

With how prevalent shields are and that most maps have quite a lot of cover and not even headshots are automatic kill (if there is no speed modifier) getting kills as an archer is a good challenge. I get more kills (over the typical 3-4 matches per game in skirmish) as infantry or cavalry and if I get 7 kills 4 deaths as an archer, playing as an infantry it will usually be more likely to be 8 : 6 and as a cavalry 9 : 3. Archers are far more important in organized match between equally skilled teams due to the bleed damage than they are in random brawls.

Organized team have an easier time stopping enemy cavalry because of blocking and the cavalry have to commit from further away to get speed bonus from an attack, riding away their back is exposed to ranged and it is much harder to coordinate cavalry to charge in sequence from multiple directions than it is to coordinate defence from solo charges.

The cavalry due to bonus speed damage can get quite a bit of damage as well and sometimes infantry if you can spear a passing rider the damage is like 200 but overall damage I am positive I put out more damage as an archer because doing 20-30 damage every other shot with the occasionally 60+ with a headshot or with speed bonus.

 

[Rangah]

i always assume that all the players play rational and on the same level.

You shouldn't assume things like that when balance is in mind. Have you yet had the (dis)pleasure of meeting archers that hit around 90% of their shots like Maximou? Or Pacemaker who deletes you with a crossbow HS across the map every time you are in his sights?

Ranged classes are insane in the hands of competent players in Bannerlord, and a nerf in some form has to happen or upper tier gameplay will be completely dominated by ranged.

An easy first (or perhaps even only) step would be to get rid of the goddamn 3rd person crosshair having virtually no arrow drop except for very long ranges. Why is it even a thing is absolutely beyond me, and is a key problem i m o

 

[Caps]

You shouldn't assume things like that when balance is in mind. Have you yet had the (dis)pleasure of meeting archers that hit around 90% of their shots like Maximou? Or Pacemaker who deletes you with a crossbow HS across the map every time you are in his sights?

Ranged classes are insane in the hands of competent players in Bannerlord, and a nerf in some form has to happen or upper tier gameplay will be completely dominated by ranged.

An easy first (or perhaps even only) step would be to get rid of the goddamn 3rd person crosshair having virtually no arrow drop except for very long ranges. Why is it even a thing is absolutely beyond me, and is a key problem i m o

??? you didnt seem to get it, im assuming that everyone is playin on comp level. Im probably the one who likes archers and cav to be nerfed into the ground the most.

 

[Rangah]

you're sending really mixed signals, my bad tho bruh

 

[NeoRussia]

Spears are not counter for cavalry because only thing you can do with spears is stop cavalry charge and that you can do only when cavalry decides to charge you. When you stop cavalry charge you do little damage to horse, then cavalry rides away and charges someone else. After few failed charges cavalry guy can dismount and continue fight as infantry.

Spears would be counter for cavalry if spearmen would be able to hunt cavalry so that they would first catch them and then kill them, but that is not going to happen. Only cavalry can hunt and kill cavalry and archers can kill cavalry when cavalry is in their range. Infantry can only kill cavalry when cavalry chooses to engage them.

You can hit the rider before the rider can hit you unless you let him maneuver to be a certain distance from you. The foot soldier has a range advantage and being able to maneuver faster than a horse. You can also use pikes which cannot be used on horseback, and have even more range. Like I've said, it's all about objectives. If you take the objective, cavalry has no choice but to engage you.

 

[Tajl]

You can hit the rider before the rider can hit you unless you let him maneuver to be a certain distance from you. The foot soldier has a range advantage and being able to maneuver faster than a horse. You can also use pikes which cannot be used on horseback, and have even more range. Like I've said, it's all about objectives. If you take the objective, cavalry has no choice but to engage you.

Last time I checked lances had better reach than spears. With spear you can hit horse before lancer can hit you, but if you try to hit guy you die. With pikes it is of course possible, but only idiot would charge against pike and idiot probably wouldn't do much damage anyway. Another problem is risk and reward. When cavalry charges against infantry risk is quite small. If spearman knows what he is doing he can stop the horse. Make little damage to horse, but that doesn't matter much as horse have plenty of hitpoint and if it dies cavalry guy can continue fight as infantry. If spearman fails he dies instantly.

You can take objective as infantry and then cavalry can choose if he likes to engage you with horse or by foot. Spear damage without speed bonus is tiny compared to polearms cavalry have, so spearman needs ~5 hits and dies for one or two. I think that is hardly counter. Or if cavalryman have weak or wounded horse he can just dismount and for heavy cavalry melee gear is just as good as with infantry or even better as shielded infantry rarely good 2h weapons.

And of course that only works when there is only one objective left. If there is many spear squad have to divide their forces and because of their mobility cavalry squad can outnumber and kill those smaller groups. Good luck for fight with one spear against 2 cavalry guys with glaives.

 

[King Yngvar]

Cavalry is not OP right now because they can be blocked, crushthrough is not strong enough and the damage bonus works both ways. Archers are undeniably broken. There is no reason why a ranged weapon in a medieval/ancient age setting should ever be as accurate and as damaging against armour as bows and crossbows are and even worse they are for balance than realism. These weapons currently are just reskinned guns, even more pronounced by shields not being as safe against them as in warband. In single player I nerfed them by giving them cutting and more than doubling some armour values. Result is archers, especially fians, still end up being able to take armoured infantry unsupported. In multiplayer, not as big of an issue in smaller maps obviously, but they still dominate. Horse archery I refuse to play since it's downright cheating.

Cavalry is OP as long as spears do not properly work against horses, also horses in this game are just reskinned cars, they seem to be void of the survival instinct. As for setting arrows to cut and increasing armor values, I agree, I do that myself as well. I also increase all pierce factors in crafting_pieces but it is kind of hard to work with as it also make all throwing weapons even more deadly, guess I have to figure out exactly which values belong to throwing weapons to not increase those too much. I don't bother with multiplayer since combat is so unrealistic and the lack of an MP campaign makes it boring in the long run anyway.

 

[King Yngvar]

i hope you guys never get to balance a mp game

I hope you never get to take part in producing anything history related, game, movie, series or whatever. We don't need more garbage combat inspired by hollywood.

 

[Caps]

I hope you never get to take part in producing anything history related, game, movie, series or whatever. We don't need more garbage combat inspired by hollywood.

I want to play a balanced game, not one thats historical correct. I can give u the reasons why their opionion isnt good for the game.

 

[EbdanianAdmiral]

I hope you never get to take part in producing anything history related, game, movie, series or whatever. We don't need more garbage combat inspired by hollywood.

Sorry we want our skill based fantasy video game to be skill based. If you want historical accuracy stare at a painting. Calradia isnt real

 

[MiguelSnake]

or archers (both are by far better than infantry). The headshot pierce increase was pretty good for them aswell.

Main problem here

My two main concerns are:
-Too accurate bows (in hands of competent players is like being surrounded by a lot of Legolas).
- Unstoppable horses, I really like the horse killing difficulty compared with warband, but stopping them on skirmish is a nightmare. We end up spamming javelins or throwing spears because is much more efficient to kill the horses with throwing weapons spam, and miss one or two players due to couched lances, than a team full of spears.

 

[RCC_God]

Realism and historical accuracy ruins any game that isn’t Arma

 

[Percival!!]

Being able to shoot charging horsemen was in Warband and should absolutely stay in Bannerlord.