Bannerlord Armor System as a bottleneck for tactical gameplay

Users who are viewing this thread

Arkyll

Recruit
"Not enough" is not objective qualifier.

I have already told you that exact formulas of damage are out there and damage reduction by armor goes up to 80-90%. If 20% of damage of a rusty hatchet is "significant" then we may be using different definitions of what "significant" means.
Yes, arguing with you is totally fruitless.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
Armor is definitely a problem and 90% of players agree on this.
You can achieve the same effect from either direction, tbh.
I was using a scythe. Cutting damage lol.
I suppose that depends on your definition of "decent" then. The scythe shouldn't one-shot a cataphract unless there is a huge speed bonus applied, and one-shots are what I personally consider decent damage.
 

Arkyll

Recruit
You can achieve the same effect from either direction, tbh.
I dont understand people who enjoy dying from a random arrow and not being able to play the game.

And I dont understand people who watch their elite infantry get immediately torn to bits by practice bows and somehow say that armor doesnt suck in Bannerlord.

Having to face an elite troop early in the game doesnt mean anything ultimately. Just hit him more times than usual to kill him. No big deal.
Oh an elite cataphract. I better hit him extra hard with my rusty farming tool.

I implore you lot to try RBM mod if you havent. Its far from perfect, but armor is massively buffed without taking away the strategic importance or general usefulness of archers at all. Battles are much more fun than before.
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
Armor is definitely a problem and 90% of players agree on this.

I doubt that you have any evidence to support your statement, therefore it's just your opinion. My opinion is that 99% of players does not care.

I dont understand people who enjoy dying from a random arrow and not being able to play the game.

Kind of like Harold Godwinson, king of England who died when he was shoot in to the eye while wearing tier 8 noble armor.

I don't understand people who enjoy cheating invulnerability. What's the point playing if there is no challenge in it? Just go to a cheat console and cheat yourself in to victory in every battle.

Armor doesn't and shouldn't grant invulnerability and there always have to be possibility to get killed/downed. By arrows especially. People have used them in warfare through centuries for a reason.

[Edit:] And it's not just realism that would suffer. It's playability too. Let's imagine that some players don't want to play as knights plowing through everything with impunity, let's imagine some players want to play archers or horse archers. What is enjoyable on watching your bodkin arrows shoot from a 200lb war bow harmlessly bounce off some melee dude armor while his sword for some reason cuts through yours?

...total crap.
 
Last edited:

five bucks

Squire
and one-shots are what I personally consider decent damage.
Does that statement in itself not indicate to you that there's something wrong with Bannerlord's damage model? It's not healthy for weapon balance for oneshots to be easily attainable. This is even leaving aside the entire realism argument over armor, and the effect it has on how short battles are.

Don't take me as saying that other things can't contribute to the problem too. But armor definitely has to be fixed.
I doubt that you have any evidence to support your statement, therefore it's just your opinion. My opinion is that 99% of players does not care.
Just look at any discussion about armor on the forums.
Kind of like Harold Godwinson, king of England who died when he was shoot in to the eye while wearing tier 8 noble armor.
Dubious. https://www.historytoday.com/shot-through-eye-and-who’s-blame
Also more importantly, before you veer things off topic: Harold's armor isnot top tier armor by the standards of Bannerlord. Harold was most likely wearing mail and an open faced nasal helmet. This game's top tier armor extends to coat-of-plates and full mask helms.
I don't understand people who enjoy cheating invulnerability. What's the point playing if there is no challenge in it? Just go to a cheat console and cheat yourself in to victory in every battle. Armor doesn't and shouldn't grant invulnerability
Nobody is saying it should.
People have used them in warfare through centuries for a reason.
True. People used arrows to shoot unarmored soldiers (which comprised a large part of armies in the 600s-1100s) and horses; to attempt to break through low/medium-quality armor (with varying levels of success), and to attempt to break or shoot through the gaps of high-quality armor (without an actual "hit the gaps" mechanic, this is abstracted as general damage reduction), or maybe break a rib from repeated pelting (with low chance of success, but still worth doing).
However, this does not mean that arrows were depleted uranium armor piercing bullets like they are in Bannerlord.
The highest quality mail (double-linked with padding underneath) was close to arrow-proof, and coats of plates were even more effective.
Let's imagine that some players don't want to play as knights plowing through everything with impunity, let's imagine some players want to play archers or horse archers. What is enjoyable on watching your bodkin arrows shoot from a 200lb war bow harmlessly bounce off some melee dude armor while his sword for some reason cuts through yours?
For starters, I think armor should be buffed a little bit against melee weapons too, not just arrows.
But to answer your question, melee weapons should be more effective against armor than arrows because a melee fighter has to close the distance between themselves and the archer. If arrows and melee weapons did the same damage to armor, why would you ever bother hiring infantry, who have to close the gap before they can begin doing damage, and can't catch up to mounted units?
Also, it's very realistic for melee weapons to deal more damage to armor than arrows. You mention the draw weight behind a "200lb war bow", but fail to acknowledge the blunt force behind a sword hit; both these things are applications of force by a human arm.
 
Last edited:

Arkyll

Recruit
I don't understand people who enjoy cheating invulnerability. What's the point playing if there is no challenge in it? Just go to a cheat console and cheat yourself in to victory in every battle.
Implying that currently in-game spamming archers isnt an F1 to win.

You are saying all this about evidence in the face of player tests discovering that you can win pretty much any battle with a massive army of archers or horse archers. You are willingly in denial when so many players are reporting this and complaining about it. Ruthlessly citing realism and arguing in circles about how arrows historically heat-seeked to weakpoints in place of a fun, balanced experience is just silly.

Stroke your realism fantasy elsewhere. Bannerlord is not the video game for it.

And yes, I do like to become a tough target to down after dozens of hours of grinding and accumulating gold and going on excavations through foreign empires to find just crumbs of priceless noble armor sold in shops on the street. With the amount of effort it takes to find this armor, you ought to be rewarded for somehow managing to obtain it. But no, thats invulnerability, thats cheating. Use cheat mode for wanting to partake in battles for longer than 3 minutes.

Armor doesn't and shouldn't grant invulnerability and there always have to be possibility to get killed/downed. By arrows especially. People have used them in warfare through centuries for a reason.

People have also used armor through centuries. It took the popular use of firearms to fade armor out of use, not arrows shot by practice bows.

Armor is so underpowered at the moment, comparing wanting armor to be buffed to 'iNvUlnErAbilIty' is incredibly pretentious.

I ought to mention how subjectively (dear god) archery is one of the most boring aspects of the combat. Instead of getting stuck in, bashing people over the head, blocking, kicking, shield bashing, jumping, chamber blocking and swapping between weapons for different targets alongside many other troops, lets sit at the back of the map doing the same action over and over with the exact same result, taking away other peoples fun without earning it. Every attempt of mine at an archer character has always resorted to infantry or cavalry due to how boring and repetitive it is. Archery feels incredibly token in M&B.

[Edit:] And it's not just realism that would suffer. It's playability too. Let's imagine that some players don't want to play as knights plowing through everything with impunity, let's imagine some players want to play archers or horse archers. What is enjoyable on watching your bodkin arrows shoot from a 200lb war bow harmlessly bounce off some melee dude armor while his sword for some reason cuts through yours?
Swords absolutely shouldnt be cutting through armor, another reason to buff armor and/or nerf the impact of damage types, yes.

Im not asking for actual high quality bows to 'bounce' im literally asking for LOW quality bows to bounce, im asking for more dramatic differences in power between low and high tier units, and generally make units that wear armor more survivable and worth their asking price instead of banking every battle outcome on the quantity and quality of archers.
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
Implying that currently in-game spamming archers isnt an F1 to win.

I am not spamming archers, you are. Spamming archers is exploiting the AI. So yes, it's somewhat close to cheating, even if not quit the same.

You are saying all this about evidence in the face of player tests discovering that you can win pretty much any battle with a massive army of archers or horse archers.

Yet at the same time you can win against AI that have massive army of archers. Which just shows what I am saying since the beginning and you keep ignoring: it's problem of the AI and not armor or archers.

You are willingly in denial when so many players are reporting this and complaining about it.

How many?
Players complaining doesn't equal them been right. You still failed to bring single valid argument why armor should be more protective against arrow fire then against any other damage in the game.

Ruthlessly citing realism and arguing in circles about how arrows historically heat-seeked to weakpoints in place of a fun, balanced experience is just silly.

Funny because that's the argument you brought first. It's newer ending circle with you:

You: Arrows should bounce off armor because that's realistic.
Me: Arrows did not always bounce off armor.
You: Arguing about realism and history is place of fun, it's about game balance!
Me: Making arrows bounce off armor would unbalance gameplay for players playing archers and would make AI archers even weaker then they already are.
You: But arrows should bounce off armor because that's realistic.
...and so on.

Stroke your realism fantasy elsewhere. Bannerlord is not the video game for it.

You're not one deciding what Bannerlord is for.

And yes, I do like to become a tough target to down after dozens of hours of grinding and accumulating gold and going on excavations through foreign empires to find just crumbs of priceless noble armor sold in shops on the street. With the amount of effort it takes to find this armor, you ought to be rewarded for somehow managing to obtain it. But no, thats invulnerability, thats cheating. Use cheat mode for wanting to partake in battles for longer than 3 minutes.

May be you should change your priorities in the game then. May be it's not a best armor collecting game? Try to build your own feudal realm for example instead. Or number of other things.

People have also used armor through centuries. It took the popular use of firearms to fade armor out of use, not arrows shot by practice bows.

Armors are still in use.

Armor is so underpowered at the moment, comparing wanting armor to be buffed to 'iNvUlnErAbilIty' is incredibly pretentious.

I already told you, 80% damage reduction is far from underpowered. 80% damage reduction means that you will survive 5 x more hits then without it.

You keep bringing emotions: "I feel underpowered in my t5 armor because Batanian chamion can down me with 5 arrowhits, I want to be invulnerable to Battanian arrows and ride them down with my mighty spear that for some reason should jump off their t5 armors".

And I keep giving you facts in contrary.

And you keep ignoring them.

I ought to mention how subjectively (dear god) archery is one of the most boring aspects of the combat.

For you.

Swords absolutely shouldnt be cutting through armor, another reason to buff armor and/or nerf the impact of damage types, yes.

So high tier troops should what, kick one another to death?

Im not asking for actual high quality bows to 'bounce' im literally asking for LOW quality bows to bounce, im asking for more dramatic differences in power between low and high tier units, and generally make units that wear armor more survivable and worth their asking price instead of banking every battle outcome on the quantity and quality of archers.

Because LOW quality bows can't shoot knight in to the eye? Low tier bows already have low damage. So damage reduction is totally fair. 10 damage reduced by 80% will be 2. 100 damage reduced by 80% will be 20. What else do you need? 10 damage to be reduced to 0? Why?
 

five bucks

Squire
@Arkyll I'm with you man, as are most other players. I genuinely think at this point that hruza is just trolling; nobody could be this thickheaded. I would also chip in on your side of the argument that hruza is definitely wrong in calling armor being weak to arrows realistic. Realism is this: http://myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html and its overall conclusion doesn't support him at all.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
I dont understand people who enjoy dying from a random arrow and not being able to play the game.
I'm saying you can achieve the same thing by buffing armor or reducing damage.
I implore you lot to try RBM mod if you havent. Its far from perfect, but armor is massively buffed without taking away the strategic importance or general usefulness of archers at all. Battles are much more fun than before.
I've played with RBM.
Does that statement in itself not indicate to you that there's something wrong with Bannerlord's damage model?
No, because it was the same in Warband. I only used weapons that reliably one-shot opponents as a player. There were more exceptions and certainly the nobles weren't as reliably linked but regular troops had like 60% the HP and dropped like flies to masterwork 2H on horseback.

And then there were couched lances, for when you were like level six but wanted to solo sixty dudes.
 

Arkyll

Recruit
I am not spamming archers, you are. Spamming archers is exploiting the AI. So yes, it's somewhat close to cheating, even if not quit the same.

Yet at the same time you can win against AI that have massive army of archers. Which just shows what I am saying since the beginning and you keep ignoring: it's problem of the AI and not armor or archers.

How many?
Players complaining doesn't equal them been right. You still failed to bring single valid argument why armor should be more protective against arrow fire then against any other damage in the game.

Funny because that's the argument you brought first. It's newer ending circle with you:

You: Arrows should bounce off armor because that's realistic.
Me: Arrows did not always bounce off armor.
You: Arguing about realism and history is place of fun, it's about game balance!
Me: Making arrows bounce off armor would unbalance gameplay for players playing archers and would make AI archers even weaker then they already are.
You: But arrows should bounce off armor because that's realistic.
...and so on.

You're not one deciding what Bannerlord is for.

May be you should change your priorities in the game then. May be it's not a best armor collecting game? Try to build your own feudal realm for example instead. Or number of other things.

Armors are still in use.

I already told you, 80% damage reduction is far from underpowered. 80% damage reduction means that you will survive 5 x more hits then without it.

You keep bringing emotions: "I feel underpowered in my t5 armor because Batanian chamion can down me with 5 arrowhits, I want to be invulnerable to Battanian arrows and ride them down with my mighty spear that for some reason should jump off their t5 armors".

And I keep giving you facts in contrary.

And you keep ignoring them.

For you.

So high tier troops should what, kick one another to death?

Because LOW quality bows can't shoot knight in to the eye? Low tier bows already have low damage. So damage reduction is totally fair. 10 damage reduced by 80% will be 2. 100 damage reduced by 80% will be 20. What else do you need? 10 damage to be reduced to 0? Why?
This is getting ridiculous. All this quoting is completely filling up the page so I wont bother responding to each quote.

1) Troop compositions are screwed up enough that the AI will often have far more archers than they ought to. You dont need a massive archer army to see how overpowered they are dude.

2) Yes because the AI is incredibly bipolar. I never said they were invincible. There is alot of word-putting-in-mouth in this response.

3) I dont think I have tried to justify arrows doing less damage than equal melee force par from balancing. I might need to remind you that archers tend to fire from a distance, out of harms way, and thus shouldnt be entitled to the same amount of lethal force in my opinion.

4) Word-in-mouth, as I said earlier, I am not asking for bounces, I am asking for nerfs, particularly for low tier bows that genuinely wouldnt (and shouldnt) scratch a cataphract. Nerfing low tier bows would not ruin archery for archery players because there is always trash to shoot at, and actually earning something decent is part of the progression, part of the RPG experience. Low tier melee weaponry should be equally worthless against an uparmored high tier unit. If you are arguing that bows and melee weapons function around the same in doing damage, when then there is your equilibrium.

5) Dont tell me you are under the delusion that Bannerlord is realistic.

6) Yeah, dont bother collecting things. This isnt a collecting game. Play totally naked and punch people.

7) Battanian Fians 1-2 shot pretty much everything in the game. I was shocked how insanely overpowered they are. They can literally shoot in the general direction of an enemy 200m away and make the killfeed completely green in seconds. This sorta thing is why this whole debate is funny. I would be joyed to be 5 shotted by a fian tbh. That would be alright.

:cool: No they would have to hit eachother more than twice with a mace. Literally just take more hits to kill eachother. Its not complicated, I dont know why you are pretending that it is.

9) Yes, crappy bows should do very low amounts of damage.
 

Arkyll

Recruit
@Arkyll I'm with you man, as are most other players. I genuinely think at this point that hruza is just trolling; nobody could be this thickheaded. I would also chip in on your side of the argument that hruza is definitely wrong in calling armor being weak to arrows realistic. Realism is this: http://myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html and its overall conclusion doesn't support him at all.
The argument seems to be that the damage reduction is actually simulating the chances of hitting a weakspot so 80% reduction means 1 in 5 arrows do total damage. I dont really know where the game supports this. I always figured that damage reduction represents armor reducing the effects of the arrow upon impact, as in the arrow is only penetrating only a couple centimetres as opposed to a couple inches.

Powerful Warbows can penetrate good mail at reasonable ranges, but even powerful warbows and crossbows will have a hard time penetrating some of the plated armor seen in the game. They will have a hard time penetrating the weakspots even.
 

five bucks

Squire
No, because it was the same in Warband. I only used weapons that reliably one-shot opponents as a player. There were more exceptions and certainly the nobles weren't as reliably linked but regular troops had like 60% the HP and dropped like flies to masterwork 2H on horseback.
This discussion is about two things: what's considered "decent" damage, and oneshots being "easily attainable."

Needing both a horse's speed bonus and an endgame 10000 denar weapon against a regular troop isn't an easily attainable oneshot. Being able to couch a lance obviously was, but then again I didn't claim Warband's weapon balance was good. Couching aside, oneshots weren't easy to get in Warband against regular enemies. And Warband's damage model overall is definitely not "the same" as Bannerlord's.

Secondly, if your definition of "decent" means that a peasant with a scythe has to be oneshotting a cataphract to be considered doing decent damage, and anything less is not considered a "decent" outcome by the game's standards, it should be self-evident that something is wrong with the game's damage model, because any reasonable person would expect a peasant killing an elite enemy in five hits, let alone two, to be very decent.

You seem to have shifted the discussion to player damage, rather than damage a very low tier troop should be capable of dealing, which is what Arkyll was actually talking about. But even when it comes to the player, in typical game damage balancing, the oneshot on regular enemies is at the top end of the damage spectrum of viable options, not the average. There are options for oneshotting but they're not the best for other notable reasons. If you have weapons that oneshot and don't have meaningful downsides relative to other options that don't, then you instantly have a case of poor weapon balance on your hands. And also, you get issues with fights ending too quickly, if high damage is given to all combatants and not just the player (keeping in mind this discussion was, before you changed tack, about NPC weapons).

That is why it is obvious there is something wrong with Bannerlord's damage model.
 

Arkyll

Recruit
One thing about 'archer armies' - if you play a massive army battle, in time you will literally end up with an archer army the longer the battle goes on. Why? Because archers dont die at the rate infantry do, and so when you replenish you will have more and more archers and become more and more overpowered even if you arent trying to.

Im playing a battle here and my 120 division of archers has turned into 250!!!
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
You seem to have shifted the discussion to player damage, rather than damage a very low tier troop should be capable of dealing, which is what Arkyll was actually talking about.
Akyll was talking about himself, as player:
I was using a scythe. Cutting damage lol.
I replied what I felt, as a player, was decent damage, since he mentioned getting "decent" damage (as a player) against a high-tier troop. Some people would say getting 15 damage is decent because they'll reliably land 6 hits on a high-tier troop and kill them. Other players might think getting 60 damage is decent, which comes out to a two-shot.

Laying my own cards on the table, I said I considered one-shotting an enemy troop reliably as "decent" damage, as that is the point where I stop actively looking for a better weapon. Strictly my player-based preference. Also, those weapons weren't hard to get in native Warband. You could buy one within like 30 days of starting a playthrough, RNG depending. Or you could settle for a regular one and still get mostly the same effect. Bannerlord's big difference is that huge damage weapons were mostly restrained by equally huge mitigation of top-tier armor -- which is a point gone over earlier in this thread.

One thing about 'archer armies' - if you play a massive army battle, in time you will literally end up with an archer army the longer the battle goes on. Why? Because archers dont die at the rate infantry do, and so when you replenish you will have more and more archers and become more and more overpowered even if you arent trying to.

Im playing a battle here and my 120 division of archers has turned into 250!!!
It has been noticed, yes. It is hard not to. People figured it out like on day three of Early Access, maybe a day later diagnosed the problem and provided the remedy within a week or two. It isn't difficult or anything, TWs just doesn't want to do it.
 

five bucks

Squire
Akyll was talking about himself, as player: I replied what I felt, as a player, was decent damage, since he mentioned getting "decent" damage (as a player) against a high-tier troop.
Reread his post. He was using the RTS Camera mod to take control of a peasant AI troop.
Also, those weapons weren't hard to get in native Warband. You could buy one within like 30 days of starting a playthrough, RNG depending.
Yeah, "could": With extensive prior knowledge of what can be best exploited in the game to make money quickly, plus knowing how to fight effectively from horseback and being able to time your swings correctly to get the speed damage bonus. Not easily attainable from the perspective of a regular player who has basic knowledge and skill, is playing normally, maybe roleplaying a little, is also spending money on troops and armor (rather than running around naked and solo cheesing larger parties), and is at a middle stage of their game. I feel like burning yourself out on Warband has tainted your ability to discuss the game normally in every future discussion, instead you discuss it as if everyone else playing it is a speedrunner.
It isn't difficult or anything, TWs just doesn't want to do it.
I do wonder about this. Are they keeping SP and MP balance linked for convenience, and will split them apart closer to release? Or is someone doggedly dedicated to keeping SP and MP balance identical to make it easier to get into MP whether people like it or not, a similar mentality to the MP guy who defended classes over loadouts for reasons of accessibility? Maybe whoever deals with SP balance is at another task or just lazy? Do they have the mistaken conception that most players like the current situation? Thanks to a lack of communication all of these are possibilities.
 
Last edited:

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
Reread his post. He was using the RTS Camera mod to take control of a peasant AI troop.
And like I said, it is up to what he (the player) considers decent damage. I've never been one-shot (from full health, obviously) by a scythe while wearing good armor (25-30ish or more per location) unless I was riding towards it at a full gallop. So it depends
Yeah, "could": With extensive prior knowledge of what can be best exploited in the game to make money quickly, plus knowing how to fight effectively from horseback and being able to time your swings correctly to get the speed damage bonus. Not easily attainable from the perspective of a regular player who has basic knowledge and skill, is playing normally, maybe roleplaying a little, is also spending money on troops and armor (rather than running around naked and solo cheesing larger parties), and is at a middle stage of their game. I feel like burning yourself out on Warband has tainted your ability to discuss the game normally in every future discussion, instead you discuss it as if everyone else playing it is a speedrunner.
That's true that I'm not playing Mount and Blade like most players. But neither is anyone else on this forum. The majority of players who played Warband never gained a fief. They never married. They didn't read a book, form their own kingdom, duel a lord as a woman, complete a claimant war or any of a bunch of Warband's activities.

With that said, nothing about getting one-shot weapons in Warband was difficult or required much game knowledge beyond "Dyeworks in every town." Hell, Warband explicitly directed players towards couched lances during the tutorial and even the most terrible of those could blow anyone off their feet in the game.

Believe me, if I wanted act like my personal know-how regarding M&B (SP is knowledge-based, not skill-based) should be the point of balance, I wouldn't be arguing that armor doesn't do enough.
I do wonder about this. Are they keeping SP and MP balance linked for convenience, and will split them apart closer to release? Or is someone doggedly dedicated to keeping SP and MP balance identical to make it easier to get into MP whether people like it or not, a similar mentality to the MP guy who defended classes over loadouts for reasons of accessibility? Maybe whoever deals with SP balance is at another task or just lazy? Do they have the mistaken conception that most players like the current situation? Thanks to a lack of communication all of these are possibilities.
They are doing it to help onboard more people from SP to MP.
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
1) Troop compositions are screwed up enough that the AI will often have far more archers than they ought to. You dont need a massive archer army to see how overpowered they are dude.

AI archers are pretty pathetic. Not sure how you manage to feel overpowered by them. All these cries comes from players who spam t5 or even t6 archers.

2) Yes because the AI is incredibly bipolar. I never said they were invincible. There is alot of word-putting-in-mouth in this response.

Can you explain what is "incredibly bipolar AI"?

3) I dont think I have tried to justify arrows doing less damage than equal melee force par from balancing. I might need to remind you that archers tend to fire from a distance, out of harms way, and thus shouldnt be entitled to the same amount of lethal force in my opinion.

So in the first sentence you claim that you don't try to justify arrows doing less damage then other weapons and in the second you do exactly that. Can you choose one or the other?

Archers have no shields and no spears. Therefore their advantage in rage is balanced and fair.

4) Word-in-mouth, as I said earlier, I am not asking for bounces, I am asking for nerfs, particularly for low tier bows that genuinely wouldnt (and shouldnt) scratch a cataphract.

Any bow definitely could and should scratch a cataphract. Even cataphracts have weak spots in their armor.

Nerfing low tier bows would not ruin archery for archery players because there is always trash to shoot at, and actually earning something decent is part of the progression, part of the RPG experience.
Low tier melee weaponry should be equally worthless against an uparmored high tier unit. If you are arguing that bows and melee weapons function around the same in doing damage, when then there is your equilibrium.

Any weapon have to do at last some damage to any target otherwise game would be impossible to play. It would be frustrating for player at low levels to fight higher tier enemies and on high level player would become invulnerable.

Unit with 80% damage reduction is 5 times more durable then unit without armor. If you add difference in weapons and damage output, t5 unit is wort about 10 recruits. Not considering any tactical advantages like surrounding and so on. That's reasonable for me.

If 5 or more recruits could not down a t5 unit when they gang up on him, there would be something horribly wrong with the game balance.

5) Dont tell me you are under the delusion that Bannerlord is realistic.

No.

6) Yeah, dont bother collecting things. This isnt a collecting game. Play totally naked and punch people.

Don't exaggerate.

7) Battanian Fians 1-2 shot pretty much everything in the game. I was shocked how insanely overpowered they are. They can literally shoot in the general direction of an enemy 200m away and make the killfeed completely green in seconds. This sorta thing is why this whole debate is funny. I would be joyed to be 5 shotted by a fian tbh. That would be alright.

You have been arguing about "nerfing low tier bows". Fians don't use low tier bows. So what do you want?

This just show where the problem with this whole argument for nerfing bows-buffing armors lie: it's not about low tier archers destroying high tier units, no, it's about players spamming Battanian Fians and complaining about dominating AI armies that are composed of 40% recruits and t1 units without shields and NO ARMOR. Nerfing crappy bows or buffing armor isn't going to help with that at all.

Now try to spam t1 archers with "crappy bows" and tell us how overpowered that was.

9) Yes, crappy bows should do very low amounts of damage.

Battanian Fians don't use crappy bows.

When you show me battle where you have wiped out floor with equal or higher number of t5 AI units using low tier archer spam with "crappy bows", then I will agree that you have a point and there is something wrong with arrow/armor balance.
 
Last edited:

Arkyll

Recruit
AI archers are pretty pathetic. Not sure how you manage to feel overpowered by them. All these cries comes from players who spam t5 or even t6 archers.

Can you explain what is "incredibly bipolar AI"?

So in the first sentence you claim that you don't try to justify arrows doing less damage then other weapons and in the second you do exactly that. Can you choose one or the other?

Archers have no shields and no spears. Therefore their advantage in rage is balanced and fair.

Any bow definitely could and should scratch a cataphract. Even cataphracts have weak spots in their armor.

Any weapon have to do at last some damage to any target otherwise game would be impossible to play. It would be frustrating for player at low levels to fight higher tier enemies and on high level player would become invulnerable.

Unit with 80% damage reduction is 5 times more durable then unit without armor. If you add difference in weapons and damage output, t5 unit is wort about 10 recruits. Not considering any tactical advantages like surrounding and so on. That's reasonable for me.

If 5 or more recruits could not down a t5 unit when they gang up on him, there would be something horribly wrong with the game balance.

No.

Don't exaggerate.

You have been arguing about "nerfing low tier bows". Fians don't use low tier bows. So what do you want?

This just show where the problem with this whole argument for nerfing bows-buffing armors lie: it's not about low tier archers destroying high tier units, no, it's about players spamming Battanian Fians and complaining about dominating AI armies that are composed of 40% recruits and t1 units without shields and NO ARMOR. Nerfing crappy bows or buffing armor isn't going to help with that at all.

Now try to spam t1 archers with "crappy bows" and tell us how overpowered that was.

Battanian Fians don't use crappy bows.

When you show me battle where you have wiped out floor with equal or higher number of t5 AI units using low tier archer spam with "crappy bows", then I will agree that you have a point and there is something wrong with arrow/armor balance.
1) Bipolar ambigiously suggests that sometimes they work and sometimes they dont. The AI dont deploy archers properly most of the time, but even despite that they still shred infantry.

2) I literally said par from balance, what do you mean?

3) Archers not dying and thus accumulating into the hundreds shows that their survavability far surpasses infantry because they arent getting into fights or shot at enough to even need spears or shields most of the time. Infantry get **** on even if they have shields.

4) Have you actually seen the amount of armour that cataphracts have? Lamellar on top of scale on top of mail. Literally nothing conventional is going through that, and as I said, weakspots consist of mail armpits and small eyeslits I suppose. And considering that 95% of the time you are going to be hitting random heavy armoured ****, it isnt a stretch to expect them to take little to no damage from low tier weaponry including bows. From a balance perspective, how hard they are to actually obtain, somehow finding Viglas and then somehow ranking them all the way up, they should be extremely overpowered in the same vein that Fians are. You even admitted that Fians are overpowered in a roundabout fashion, yet a handful of tier 2 archers should be able to take out a cataphract with a few feather pokes apparently.

5) ? If you are low level you wont be fighting many high tier units and whats extra funny is that this crumbles your argument about 'muh challenge' earlier on to justify noble armor being trash. That point comes across as very null and void now that you are afraid that some targets might actually require some input to put down. Which is it? Challenge good or bad?

6) It can somehow take less than that though, and no I dont think its outrageous that 5 recruits will struggle to take down a tier 5. Consider the effort and time taken to obtain a tier 5 unit than literally 5 trash peasants. A few clicks vs constant battles, constant money, constantly not losing battles.

You arent looking at the larger picture and this is your problem.

7) You are right, in my ideal Bannerlord, armour would be buffed to the extent that Fians dont automatically delete everything they hit. But lower tier weaponry would be impacted more.

8.) Thats an outrageous comparison though. Im not under the belief that low tier archers can beat high tier infantry on an absolutely equal playing field, the imbalance doesnt have to be THAT stark for it to still be a problem worth addressing. You didnt tell me to match up t5 archers vs t5 infantry because you already know the outcome of that. :ROFLMAO:

9) What I still dont understand is why you are happy to use a scapegoat of player spamming archers as to why there isnt a problem when itself exposes issues. Why isnt player spamming infantry also overpowered as hell? Maybe there is a reason for that.

Hell, playing RBM where archers are massively nerfed they are STILL very powerful and a determining factor in victory. It just shocks me how people can defend archery in native Bannerlord, jesus christ.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom