Can we do something about the khuzaits?

[MFN Figue]

I have started about 12 different campaigns in bannerlord as different factions, different playstyles, etc. And it always seems that which factions are more powerful is kinda random, there are some that are usually stronger, like the vlandians, but there is a good variety when it comes to power, in one game the southern empire can be taken out in about 100 days, in others they are plowing trough aserai and the western empire like there's no tomorrow. But something that never changes, ever, is the khuzaits.

In all of my playtroughs, every single one, the khuzhaits always **** on everyone, in every campaign the kuzhaits take at least 2 cities and a handful of castles before i'm even able to join a faction, the AI can't do anything against them, except for the faction i decide to join, cause i'm there, if i leave my allies alone against the khuzaits they instantly lose every battle they fight. We all know how powerful horse archers are, well, how powerful ranged units in general are in the game, but that should't mean that an army of 500 of my allies gets defeated by 300 khuzaits just because i'm not present in the battle. Every time my faction goes to war with the khuzaits i have to be constantly fighting, wich is altomst impossible because thanks to their horse archers, and deceptively strong infantry i have to replenish about a third of my army after every single battle, and if i leave to do anything else i have to see the game log full of "someone from your faction has been taken prisioner by the khuzaits".
Every battle against them feels the same.
I mean, they are not even fun to play against in multiplayer.

 

[COOMER]

Can't beat them, join them.

 

[brognar]

doesn't help that cavalry get a 20% bonus just for being cavalry

 

[Owen Wulfson]

Especially in the eastern theater, the Khuzaits are the force to beat (unless you ride with them). Historically, it was such such tribes and cultural branches thereof that would challenge and defeat Imperial entities like the Romans of Constantinople. Even long after they established themselves as the self-styled inheritors of the Roman Legacy, the Ottomans still hoisted the horse-tailed banner at the start of fierce campaigns. So you're basically fighting history itself as you try to stem the tide of Khuzait victories.

But if you can beat the Khuzaits, you can probably beat any other faction in the game with ease by comparison. The biggest hassle is that even if you take their cities, the AI lords will not do a good job of holding on to them. My plan, if I ever get around to it, will be to try retaining ownership of Khuzaits cities for my own fiefdoms. Chaikland would be a very nice place for me to set up shop

 

[AfLIcTeD]

doesn't help that cavalry get a 20% bonus just for being cavalry

Don't forget the map speed as well.

 

[HumanCancer]

Siege them.

 

[MFN Figue]

Especially in the eastern theater, the Khuzaits are the force to beat (unless you ride with them). Historically, it was such such tribes and cultural branches thereof that would challenge and defeat Imperial entities like the Romans of Constantinople. Even long after they established themselves as the self-styled inheritors of the Roman Legacy, the Ottomans still hoisted the horse-tailed banner at the start of fierce campaigns. So you're basically fighting history itself as you try to stem the tide of Khuzait victories.

But if you can beat the Khuzaits, you can probably beat any other faction in the game with ease by comparison. The biggest hassle is that even if you take their cities, the AI lords will not do a good job of holding on to them. My plan, if I ever get around to it, will be to try retaining ownership of Khuzaits cities for my own fiefdoms. Chaikland would be a very nice place for me to set up shop

Oh yeah, i get the whole historic thing which i do admit is really cool, and i noticed it right away! But it just isn't fun that in every campaign i start after a few turns i look at the map to see how every faction is doing to see who is stronger and who is weaker, and go figure the kuzhaits already took Amprela and Myzea. The problem isn't that i have a hard time defeating them, i just charge my cav into their horse archer and most of the time that stops them from destroying my entire army, but doing that over and over and over again feels cheap and no matter how many times I defeat them my allies are still helpless, and the player can't be everywhere.

 

[Askorti]

I think TW could implement a quick band-aid solution(until they can focus on more nuanced balancing measures later) by giving cavalry units (horse archers in particular, if possible) a big malus to siege battles. Historically the mongols were a force to be reckoned with, but only as long as you didn't have good fortifications. The moment they reached central europe and good, stone castles and walled cities(and the defenders stopped foolishly trying to take them on in the field) their rampage started weakening pretty quickly.

 

[WarandPeace]

Well, they're clearly modeled after the mongols which conquered most of the world with their trained horse archers. I guess the best option is to make an army dominant with archers and horse archers. The imperial bucellarii are my favorite horse archers so far as they can snipe enemies from really long distances.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

I did something about them. I copped off all their heads. Just me, no faction, no army, all hardest settings, crushed them into the dirt and executed them on the spot.

You're the only one in the world that actually has brain, if you choose to use it no AI lord can ever match you.
I'm all for improvement to AI and units or mechanics that aren't working, as well as much needed skills/tools for the player and AI lords. well, but just expecting nerfs to be done because some things are working while other's aren't is ***backwards.

 

[bigbalzzz]

I think TW could implement a quick band-aid solution(until they can focus on more nuanced balancing measures later) by giving cavalry units (horse archers in particular, if possible) a big malus to siege battles. Historically the mongols were a force to be reckoned with, but only as long as you didn't have good fortifications. The moment they reached central europe and good, stone castles and walled cities(and the defenders stopped foolishly trying to take them on in the field) their rampage started weakening pretty quickly.

not true they actually were good at sieging and some western countries believed it was god or the castles that made mangools stop
its actually civil wars
they didnt only attack europe they also attack muslims and defeated them again and again until civil wars
mangols stopped mangools

 

[kweassa]

If faction traits are a thing, just add in demerits to faction traits to more ACCURATELY portray each faction's (pseudo-)historical strengths and weaknesses. For Khuzaits, it would be something like...

(1) longer siege camp/equipment build time
(2) unable to use any siege equipment except battering ram and ladders.
(3) higher casualty rate in siege battles


Problem solved.

 

[kweassa]

not true they actually were good at sieging and some western countries believed it was god or the castles that made mangools stop
its actually civil wars
they didnt only attack europe they also attack muslims and defeated them again and again until civil wars
mangols stopped mangools

Steppe people sucked in siege warfare. The only steppe people that became proficient in sieges were Mongols, and it was only after they've got their hands on trebuchet technology + years and years and years of experience to learn that they can't fight wars with cavalry alone, and need to raise significant number of infantry as well.

Before the Mongols learned that, it took them 44 YEARS to conquer Southern Song dynasty of China -- considered absolutely the WEAKEST of all Chinese empires in history, in terms of military power.

Siege warfare and fortified defense positions were THE most effective weapon against Steppe armies, and is the reason why in more than 2,000 years of steppe armies kicking arse, only ONE of them ever became prevalent in history as conquerors. Steppe people were awesome in battles, but they just didn't have what it took to be actual "conquerors" because they couldn't really conquer anything with their army composition. Raid and pillage? Yes. Set and organize methodical siege warfare? Nope.

With the exception of the Mongols, every other steppe people that invaded and conquered China, basically tipped over shallow husks of empires that were already mangled and inept from internal problems.

 

[Askorti]

not true they actually were good at sieging and some western countries believed it was god or the castles that made mangools stop
its actually civil wars
they didnt only attack europe they also attack muslims and defeated them again and again until civil wars
mangols stopped mangools

Well, their last invasion of Poland didn't simply stop, but was repelled after the mongols failed to take Cracow and several other fortified settlements, suffering heavy losses in the process. After that they decided to take what they looted from undefended villages and turn tail.

 

[quietresolve]

I think TW could implement a quick band-aid solution(until they can focus on more nuanced balancing measures later) by giving cavalry units (horse archers in particular, if possible) a big malus to siege battles. Historically the mongols were a force to be reckoned with, but only as long as you didn't have good fortifications. The moment they reached central europe and good, stone castles and walled cities(and the defenders stopped foolishly trying to take them on in the field) their rampage started weakening pretty quickly.

Pretty sure Mongols were good at siegecrafts (they have the best trebuchets at the time)

 

[quietresolve]

My prefered solution would be reducing the number of troops for the steppe faction. Historically steppe civilizations were good at raising experienced soldiers but their population were mostly at 1/10 ~1/100 of a farming civilization because their nomad lifestyle can only produce so much food to feed a small population

 

[kweassa]

Pretty sure Mongols were good at siegecrafts (they have the best trebuchets at the time)

The Mongols are an anomaly, and are not representative of how the steppe people fought and lived. That anomaly, made them conquerors, while the rest of "normal" cases, did not.

 

[Askorti]

Pretty sure Mongols were good at siegecrafts (they have the best trebuchets at the time)

"Good at siegecraft" is relative. They had no problem taking the poorly fortified Rus' towns and settlements, but weren't able to take the better fortified Polish or Hungarian towns and castles. Which means that they were good enough to siege in the east, but not quite good enough to do the same in the west. Also, just trebuchets alone won't get you anywhere, you need engineers to operate them, the supplies to build them and supply of boulders to fling at the enemy. It could be that in the latter stages of their raids on Europe they didn't have access to those anymore.
Fact remains that they were eventually repulsed, and as far as I'm aware, good fortifications were, in the end, the bane of them at that time and place.

 

[Hodor NOT]

Yeah this Khuzait snowballing needs a fix. On the campaign map and AI battles they benefit of three advantages:

• 20% Cav bonus: They are one of the winners of the 20% bonus to cav in simulated battles, as their troop tree and armies are heavily centered around cav.
• Cultural bonus for map speed: Due to their culture they move much quicker on the campaign map. Coupled with the speed bonus that cav gets anyway, they can always catch weaker lords and run away from bigger armies.
• Bow & arrow damage: Bows and arrows deal piercing damage which ignores a majority of armor. This means that even elite units can easily fall victim to arrows. Since Khuzaits have an abundance of horse archers, they are able to deal massive damage.

These three factors combined turn the Khuzaits into a power house.
What is missing in Bannerlord are balancing features that include internal politics. Currently there are no drawbacks to quick expansion. There are basically no rebellions. No internal conflicts among vassals. No civil wars.

The dominance of horse archers is a historical fact, and it is okay that the Khuzaits excell militraily. But a problem that tribal societies on the steppes had to deal with was the infighting. This was typically used by settled societies to sow discord among the tribes of the steppes. Keeping them from banding together and invading. Sometimes this worked, sometimes it did not.

But even if nomadic tribes were successful in forming confederations, they oftentimes could not endure long conflicts or establish empires due to a lack of discipline and bureaucracy. Even if leaders as Attila were able to conquer and subjugate large areas, the success was not long-lived.
Even if the nomads managed to establish themselves in an area, they usually lost their tribal/nomadic edge, e.g. Magyars or Bolgars. Even the Seljuks to some extent. Also note that the Mongols went to immense efforts to rotate their nomadic troops through territory in order to avoid them "softening up" to a sedentary lifestyle.

So yeah, we need some checks and balances in Bannerlord. Make it more difficult to actually hold on to conquered territory. Make vassal infighting a real issue. Introduce claimants to power. Rebellions and secessions. That Monchug manages to lead the Khuzaits on a conquest of the whole of the empire should be an exception rather than the rule.

 

[bigbalzzz]

pretty sure mangools most of the time didnt even try to siege or conquer as raiding was there method and wasnt really repelled and all the stories of mangool defeated-repelled have no proof but theories
as even some places they siege most of the time they left and didnt conquer not because they are bad sieging because they didnt want to conquer