Calvary in Bannerlord

[Silen]

God, people. I've played with cavalry clans and regiments for well over 5 years. I have led them, trained them, and played them to literal permanent exhaustion, plus over 6k hours on warband, of which only 100 are SP. I'm no pro, but I know what I'm talking about - Cavalry is fine as is in warband, even if not realistic (the shield thing, which can be avoided btw, might not be very realistic, but neither is being able to jump like a ninja and loop off the rider's head). It does NOT look fine in Bannerlord.

Someone has even argued a pike is innefective because you might get distracted and caught from behind by the rider. That's literally how cavalry is meant to be played, what the actual ****?

Not only it 'might not be realisitc', it IS NOT realistic. The fact it can be avoided doesn't mean anything, it happens and it should not, end of the story. Since you played cavalry for so long you know that jumping to kill an experienced horseman is more ineffective than anything. Only a newbie would get killed by that move. I still believe from what we've seen cavalry is fine in Bannerlord.

 

[VVyrd]

God, people. I've played with cavalry clans and regiments for well over 5 years. I have led them, trained them, and played them to literal permanent exhaustion, plus over 6k hours on warband, of which only 100 are SP. I'm no pro, but I know what I'm talking about - Cavalry is fine as is in warband, even if not realistic (the shield thing, which can be avoided btw, might not be very realistic, but neither is being able to jump like a ninja and loop off the rider's head). It does NOT look fine in Bannerlord.

Someone has even argued a pike is innefective because you might get distracted and caught from behind by the rider. That's literally how cavalry is meant to be played, what the actual ****?

Not only it 'might not be realisitc', it IS NOT realistic. The fact it can be avoided doesn't mean anything, it happens and it should not, end of the story. Since you played cavalry for so long you know that jumping to kill an experienced horseman is more ineffective than anything. Only a newbie would get killed by that move. I still believe from what we've seen cavalry is fine in Bannerlord.

As unrealistic as a lone spear instantly stopping a fully armoured stallion at full gallop, without the spearman suffering any kind of damage. But, gameplay wise, it makes sense - Only that in Bannerlord the horse seems to instantly die as well, while in Warband a single spear would struggle, only able to stop the horse for a team mate to profit and kill the rider with some luck.

Arguably the shield bull**** is more of a bug happening sometimes than a feature, a simple collision bug, suppose it's been fixed by long in Bannerlord. I'm not really arguing about that, but the fact that cavalry seems too weak and bland in Bannerlord. Then again, I am sure balance patches will come.

 

[Orion]

Didn't they say somewhere that in captains mode the players have their damage and health buffed so they can kill AI easier? I think I saw that somewhere, and the most recent cav I've seen in videos has been in captains mode. I think some of this outrage might be blown out of proportion.

Besides, TaleWorlds has a very good track record of fine-tuning balance with community feedback once they're in public testing. If there is a glaring issue it's sure to be resolved quickly.

 

[PanzerDan86]

You misspelled cavalry.....and instead said calvary which is the name of the hill where Jesus was crucified outside of Jerusalem. Very common mistake but one worth correcting. Cheers!

 

[Harmi]

Didn't they say somewhere that in captains mode the players have their damage and health buffed so they can kill AI easier? I think I saw that somewhere, and the most recent cav I've seen in videos has been in captains mode. I think some of this outrage might be blown out of proportion.

Besides, TaleWorlds has a very good track record of fine-tuning balance with community feedback once they're in public testing. If there is a glaring issue it's sure to be resolved quickly.

So how come cavalry in Warband is so unbalanced after all of these years of fixing?

 

[578]

I don't think that there is any point discussing why TW has not fixed warband. Let's be honest here, warband was made by 2 people if I recall correctly, they never expected it to sell over 6 million copies let alone to be popular or form a very hardcore competitive community. There is no point in looking back, so let's keep the discussion for Bannerlord, we got the time to discuss the potential problems from both sides and give ideas to the devs. In order to make things easier, I will post my own suggestions about cavalry problems, this is my opinion only and is based more on multiplayer rather than single player:


- 180 shield: Simply fixing the the hitbox coverage of the shield and removing invisible barriers would fix this.
- Horse head invincibility: Again, fixing the coverage of the shield would fix this.
- Very low speed bump: This can be categorized as a gameplay mechanic, increasing the speed needed to bump someone would fix this.
- Horses without rider run around the field and can bump enemies: Let the horses run away if they dont have a rider and there's a fight nearby.
- Lance: I have seen people suggesting that lances should break after 1 hit. I am not sure, I think we go way too close to realism and would potential ruin the fun factor of playing cavalry. Either give lances 1-3 charges depending on how expensive the lance is, or increase the speed needed to make a full damage lance hit.
- Way too tanky horses: I disagree on having the horses armor reduced by a big value, instead what I would suggest is that whenever the horse gets hit and it's static or in very slow speed, the horse would slow down in speed due to open wounds. This will allow infantry to be effective against horses when the horsemen do the mistake and get caught in an enemy group while still having chances of escape.
- Exploiting the multiple hitbox hit in bannerlord(aka weapons can strike multiple enemies/hitboxes): My suggestion in this is that each individual leg of a horse has its own hitbox. This will allow horsemen who do the mistake of getting way too close to an enemy to be punished if their enemy actually hits more than 1 leg of a horse, with the potential loss of the horse if you hit 3-4 legs.

 

[John_M]

Agreed with practically all those points. I'm alright with Warband tank horses as long as the shield is fixed, as in Warband your choice is to break the shield or the horse, but they both take forever. If we can maneuver around and stab the horseman in the back I'd be happy.

I'm kinda in favour of keeping riderless horses having personal vendettas against the unaware

 

[Harmi]

In the medieval times everyone knew that horses are too expensive. Also, everyone loved horses. The wounded horses can do many unexpected manoeuvres that might've been very hard to control. Those are the reasons why I think they mostly tried to spare the lives of horses and kill only the drivers.

I think one aspect in Warband is also that the horses are too good controlled by the drivers. The horse never does anything that was not ordered by the driver. If you ride to the tree with full speed, the horse will do that even tho that would kill the horse. In real life the horse, of course, would not do that.

Also, it was not very easy to make the horse running towards of spears. Many times the horses stopped running before and the driver was killed from behind because of that.

 

[lolbash]

In the medieval times everyone knew that horses are too expensive. Also, everyone loved horses. The wounded horses can do many unexpected manoeuvres that might've been very hard to control. Those are the reasons why I think they mostly tried to spare the lives of horses and kill only the drivers.

I think one aspect in Warband is also that the horses are too good controlled by the drivers. The horse never does anything that was not ordered by the driver. If you ride to the tree with full speed, the horse will do that even tho that would kill the horse. In real life the horse, of course, would not do that.

Also, it was not very easy to make the horse running towards of spears. Many times the horses stopped running before and the driver was killed from behind because of that.

I would agree with you if we were talking singleplayer, but I asummed that multiplayer was the topic here.

What you're saying is you want to introduce random calvary behavior in the game. This could help make the game funner, but it wont make the game good for competitive play at all.

You ever been in the competitive smash melee scene? They almost always disable random item drops and stuff like that so the focus is on kill only and not that a pokeball spawned an explosion that randomly killed player 2

 

[Harmi]

I think it would not be a problem. It just requires from the driver to know how the different horses are acting. That increases a little bit the skills needed to drive horses good. When you learn the different horse manoeuvres, you can be a very pro and use them and benefit from them. (if the horse AI is programmed well)

I really think that different horses should act differently. For example, expensive armoured horse = almost fearless, but maybe not so fast.
Light cheap horse taken from a farm can get scared easily and is slow. So when you try to attack with it, it can change it's course too easily and driver needs to do more corrective movements.  It's just a collection of all the bad manoeuvres you could possibly have in one horse.

This should be one level of different tactics in a war game. They never said that mount & blade should be an easy game.

 

[Rice lover]

I think it would not be a problem. It just requires from the driver to know how the different horses are acting. That increases a little bit the skills needed to drive horses good. When you learn the different horse manoeuvres, you can be a very pro and use them and benefit from them. (if the horse AI is programmed well)

I really think that different horses should act differently. For example, expensive armoured horse = almost fearless, but maybe not so fast.
Light cheap horse taken from a farm can get scared easily and is slow. So when you try to attack with it, it can change it's course too easily and driver needs to do more corrective movements.  It's just a collection of all the bad manoeuvres you could possibly have in one horse.

This should be one level of different tactics in a war game. They never said that mount & blade should be an easy game.

Maybe also something like experience for the horses in singleplayer.

 

[Orion]

So how come cavalry in Warband is so unbalanced after all of these years of fixing?

Says who? How & why? What's the consensus among competitive players? According to your previous posts, you seem to think cav is OP right now. Why don't competitive teams run lopsided compositions with lots of cav most or all of the time if cav is OP? The contrapositive is also unclear: if cav is underpowered then why do teams still use it consistently? Maybe our definitions of over- and under-powered differ, but--to my mind--for something to be overpowered it must be obviously dominant, rendering alternatives obsolete. However, balanced team compositions still win out in practice. So, explain to me why cav is not overused if cav is overpowered. Logic dictates that would happen, because something that is overpowered often becomes the best or only way to remain competitive.

Moving on.

Introducing random or unpredictable horse behavior is moronic. What if I said you should have a chance to randomly drop your weapon when you hit someone's shield with it? Maybe your helmet should have a chance to fall off when you get knocked down. If you get shot in the leg you should have a chance to lose your ability to run. If someone hits you in the face and you live then you should have a chance for your screen to become blurry and out of focus. When you block with a spear, your spear should have a chance to break. If you're walking up a hill you should have a chance to slip and fall.

None of that sounds fun though, huh? Taking control away from the player and attaching it to a dice roll is frustrating and runs counter to developing a game with a high skill ceiling that fosters competitive play. It's realistic to hobble someone by shooting them in the leg, or for your vision to become unfocused after getting hit in the head, or for a spear to be broken, or for horses to move on their own, but what do any of those actually add to the game other than unpredictable frustration? The game should not hold anyone back with artificial limitations.

 

[Harmi]

So how come cavalry in Warband is so unbalanced after all of these years of fixing?

Says who? How & why? What's the consensus among competitive players? According to your previous posts, you seem to think cav is OP right now. Why don't competitive teams run lopsided compositions with lots of cav most or all of the time if cav is OP? The contrapositive is also unclear: if cav is underpowered then why do teams still use it consistently? Maybe our definitions of over- and under-powered differ, but--to my mind--for something to be overpowered it must be obviously dominant, rendering alternatives obsolete. However, balanced team compositions still win out in practice. So, explain to me why cav is not overused if cav is overpowered. Logic dictates that would happen, because something that is overpowered often becomes the best or only way to remain competitive.

Says me? Competitive players are not gods. They are something like 0,1% of the players who will end up playing Bannerlord when it's released. Why would their opinion be more important than the rest of the population who will play the game? The HC tactics are completely different than the tactics that are used on "noob servers", that still does not mean that the "noob servers" don't have any weight of how they think the game should be played.

Most people on the servers I play on says that they just hate how the cav is now working. That's because you don't need so many skills when you are playing as cav. It just is fact. Cav is currently easiest class. The shield is one of the bugs with the unnatural huge 180 hitboxes, but then with other hitboxes and speed bonuses, there are things that could be balanced. Cav is a collection of all the features in the game that makes them too OP. They have superior speed, they have superior reach with lances (or bows) and they can push people down and they can be armored like tanks. Riding horses should not be a similar thing as driving a car.

The game should not hold anyone back with artificial limitations.

Says who? All games are always computer programs that add artificial limitations to the user and that are the thing that makes the program fun. It's a challenge to tackle those limitations.

 

[Orion]

So your argument for cav being OP is that bad players don't know how to deal with it, and that the opinions of good players should be ignored because they're a minority?

Well in that case, git gud. There will always be bad players *****ing about something or other being OP because they're bad and won't figure out how to beat it. I say won't, because they can but choose not to. This is pretty much the only time I can say L2P in earnest.

The game should not hold anyone back with artificial limitations.

Says who? All games are always computer programs that add artificial limitations to the user and that are the thing that makes the program fun. It's a challenge to tackle those limitations.

We have different ideas of what an arbitrary limitation is. You don't get to tackle a limitation, it's a hard stop. It's forced. The best you can do is work around it, but if it's random then you're at the mercy of a dice roll. You can't do anything about it. Sometimes it just happens and you have to suffer the consequences of something that isn't your fault. It's not fun, it's not competitive, and it's not remotely fair. All you've told me so far is that bad players lose to cav a lot, but I have news for you: bad players lose to everything a lot. They're bad. Cav just has enough mobility and damage to capitalize on it more effectively, but cav's purpose is to punish players who aren't paying attention. The class is working as intended.

I'd hate to see what would be said if a top tier archer came into your favorite server. I remember all the bads complaining about archers being OP in 2011-2013.

 

[OurGloriousLeader]

Why don't competitive teams run lopsided compositions with lots of cav most or all of the time if cav is OP?

Yeah if cav was OP they would totally do thi...

https://youtu.be/ZZIq0xgv0v4?t=2560

oh

 

[Harmi]

So your argument for cav being OP is that bad players don't know how to deal with it, and that the opinions of good players should be ignored because they're a minority?

Well in that case, git gud. There will always be bad players *****ing about something or other being OP because they're bad and won't figure out how to beat it. I say won't, because they can but choose not to. This is pretty much the only time I can say L2P in earnest.

We have different ideas of what an arbitrary limitation is. You don't get to tackle a limitation, it's a hard stop. It's forced. The best you can do is work around it, but if it's random then you're at the mercy of a dice roll. You can't do anything about it. Sometimes it just happens and you have to suffer the consequences of something that isn't your fault. It's not fun, it's not competitive, and it's not remotely fair. All you've told me so far is that bad players lose to cav a lot, but I have news for you: bad players lose to everything a lot. They're bad. Cav just has enough mobility and damage to capitalize on it more effectively, but cav's purpose is to punish players who aren't paying attention. The class is working as intended.

I'd hate to see what would be said if a top tier archer came into your favorite server. I remember all the bads complaining about archers being OP in 2011-2013.

I don't speak about dice rolling. I am talking about that the horses should also have an AI. They are not players and players are not horses. They also are not MC:s. You can control them with some slight limitations. It is how it should work because they are animals. A Very good horse is very well controlled by the rider. You should also learn to know what obstacles cause what kind of reactions to the horse and then you can live with it. It should not be very random. The variables should be something about the angles from where you ride the horse to the obstacle and what type of obstacle it is and maybe speed. With that kind of tricks and knowledge, you should be able to control what will the horse do and how to avoid bad reactions in the horse. It would look like random, but when you play the game, you will start understanding the actions and the "personality" of the horse.

There are already very good players on the servers I play. It's not a rare situation that someone is almost impossible to kill by anyone who is trying. Usually, they are mobile campers who are aware of their surroundings and can kill also with a sword.

 

[578]

Why don't competitive teams run lopsided compositions with lots of cav most or all of the time if cav is OP?

Yeah if cav was OP they would totally do thi...

https://youtu.be/ZZIq0xgv0v4?t=2560

oh

That was painful to watch.

 

[FBohler]

The major problem of horses having actual will is that it's going to add a lot of frustration to gameplay with barely any reward. I can see it working in SP, with the already mentioned "horse XP". When your horse is low level, you're going to have problems riding it, and as it leves up, it becomes perfectly rideable like Warband's horses. This would make you think twice before charging through enemy infantry, leveling up a new horse should be a pain in the ***.

Now, to end the "is cav OP" debate: if you think cavalry isn't OP, I'm afraid you're one of the exploiters. Simple as that.

If you like to ride god-like tank horses just stick with Warband, because Bannerlord seems to have mortal horses that can be put down with "just a single spear strike at full speed".

To make things clearer, I think TW should rename the game to Foot&Spear as opposed to Mount&Blade.

 

[578]

The major problem of horses having actual will is that it's going to add a lot of frustration to gameplay with barely any reward. I can see it working in SP, with the already mentioned "horse XP". When your horse is low level, you're going to have problems riding it, and as it leves up, it becomes perfectly rideable like Warband's horses. This would make you think twice before charging through enemy infantry, leveling up a new horse should be a pain in the ***.

Now, to end the "is cav OP" debate: if you think cavalry isn't OP, I'm afraid you're one of the exploiters. Simple as that.

If you like to ride god-like tank horses just stick with Warband, because Bannerlord seems to have mortal horses that can be put down with "just a single spear strike at full speed".

To make things clearer, I think TW should rename the game to Foot&Spear as opposed to Mount&Blade.

I'm sorry but how exactly can anyone be abused as an exploiter? This is what we explain all long, cavalry is overpowered in the literal sense of the word and not in the cry-for-nerfs kind of context because it boosts your instinct play, you do NOT need to exploit nor can be accused of exploiting.

1) 180 Shielding, this literally covers 180 degrees of angle but can you accuse someone of exploiting? Absolutely not because when you see someone attacking you from the right side your instict screams ''DUDE, BLOCK RIGHT'' even though you blocked and the visual geometry is not on point with the attacker's weapon, you still manage to block through an invisible block force. But is it exploiting? No it's not, because its pure instict reaction. Geometry is flawed though and it does the job for you.

2) Horse head shielding, again, can you accuse people of exploiting? No, because when you see someone attacking from the front, you block. It's instinct, its your survival instinct telling you ''DONT DIE''. Is it the player's exploit and fault? No, it's the game's geometry and hitbox fault.

3) Bumping everyone when you get caught in a zerg. Again, your instinct screams ''dude, move and get out of the zerg''. Is it your fault you bumb anyone at minimal speed like you are some kind of 10 ton metal? No, you do what nature taught you, move away so you can survive. It's the game's fault that you can bumb anyone out of the way while moving in the speed of a turtle.


I don't think half people here realize the point of the discussion. We dont call people exploiters and cheaters. We discuss of how easy is cavalry on an medium-advanced+ tier of gameplay. Therefore, no, I am not an exploiter when I say cavalry has it easier. Because it does, without needing to do anything extraordinary. Of course, I do not mean to say it takes no skill to play and all cavalry players are EZ mode. We discuss this in the sake of future balance.


On the previous discussion, I heavily disagree with giving horses AI. We dont want to go super realistic, Kingdom Come does that realistic kind of thing and let me tell you, it's by far the most boring medieval game I have ever played.

 

[FBohler]

It's fine if you're using cavalry and are aware of its super powers.
I'm actually tackling people that are saying that cavalry is fine balanced and should stay as it is.

Cavalry is OP, period. Anyone who states the opposite is likely to (intentionally or not) be exploiting the lack of balance.