• If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
  • Please note that we've updated the Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord save file system which requires you to take certain steps in order for your save files to be compatible with e1.7.1 and any later updates. You can find the instructions here.

Can we do something about the khuzaits?

Users who are viewing this thread

pygc1

Sergeant at Arms
I am an historian, and you are simply a really not smart person. Over 200 years, pilgrims could visit Jerusalem, for over 500 years Constantinople endured and for almost 600 years people in Europe could live their lives without a big Muslim invasion.
are you actually a historian or just some guy who watched some youtube documentaries. Crusades failed, and that's a fact, i don't know what else to say. They did capture a tiny area but it was later recaptured and their goal was not achived.

Uhmn... no. The first crusade was the first crusade. the second the second. the third the third. there was no "bigger crusade". But to be fair, yes, their was an overarching goal of all crusades, which was "to check the spread of Islam, to retake control of the Holy Land in the eastern Mediterranean, to conquer pagan areas, and to recapture formerly Christian territories " (https://www.britannica.com/event/Crusades) and that failed in the end, at least until the end of the first world war. That doesnt mean that some of them acchieved what they wanted.
This is the first sentence from the wiki page on crusades, "The Crusades were a series of religious wars initiated, supported, and sometimes directed by the Latin Church in the medieval period. The term refers especially to the Eastern Mediterranean campaigns in the period between 1096 and 1271 that had the objective of recovering the Holy Land from Islamic rule." Now you still refuse to believe that crusades were a thing?
 

Gricken

Veteran
are you actually a historian or just some guy who watched some youtube documentaries. Crusades failed, and that's a fact, i don't know what else to say. They did capture a tiny area but it was later recaptured and their goal was not achived.


This is the first sentence from the wiki page on crusades, "The Crusades were a series of religious wars initiated, supported, and sometimes directed by the Latin Church in the medieval period. The term refers especially to the Eastern Mediterranean campaigns in the period between 1096 and 1271 that had the objective of recovering the Holy Land from Islamic rule." Now you still refuse to believe that crusades were a thing?

Just because there were multiple crusades in the middle east that had similar goals does not mean they were all part of one larger, united war. They were a series of wars. Not one long war. They were not linked to each other in any meaningful way beyond the goal of driving muslims out of the holy land. And even that goal only applies to a handful of crusades.
 

VanHoven

Veteran
Crusades certainly were a thing. THE crusade however was not. Oh well, I think this doesnt serve a purpose. Sorry for derailing the thread.
 

vota dc

Sergeant Knight at Arms
M&BWB
what is my opinon? the failure of crusade? sorry sir that is not an opinion but a fact. Go ask any historian and he will tell you the crusade failed miserably. And crusader states were quite tiny, I don't know why it made your day. It is rather funny to me that they swarmed into the holy land but only managed to capture that little area.
That little area was holy land. Crusades failed because they weren't able to keep It and after the success of the first one they never took back that land.
It was never about reconquering all former christian lands.
 

pygc1

Sergeant at Arms
Just because there were multiple crusades in the middle east that had similar goals does not mean they were all part of one larger, united war. They were a series of wars. Not one long war. They were not linked to each other in any meaningful way beyond the goal of driving muslims out of the holy land. And even that goal only applies to a handful of crusades.
The 1st crusade was a success, but overall the crusades ended in failure. Whether you see them as separate campaigns or one long continuous one doesnt matter. Also, if the 1st crusade was truly successful, there wouldn't need to be another crusade right?

That little area was holy land. Crusades failed because they weren't able to keep It and after the success of the first one they never took back that land.
It was never about reconquering all former christian lands.
I know that, that's why the crusades failed. They weren't able to hold that tiny area and they also burnt the biggest christian city at that time, istanble. Crusades were a joke really, and people like to make a big deal of it.
 

Gricken

Veteran
The 1st crusade was a success, but overall the crusades ended in failure. Whether you see them as separate campaigns or one long continuous one doesnt matter. Also, if the 1st crusade was truly successful, there wouldn't need to be another crusade right?

I wasn't making a point about the success or failure of the crusades. My point of contention was your insistence on seeing them all as part of the 'bigger crusade', and not as their own self contained conflicts loosely connected by religious and territorial concerns over the course of two centuries. I also find your criteria of "success" to be shaky. Following your logic, you could say the siege of Constantinople in 717 wasn't really a "success" for the Byzantines because Constantinople fell in 1453.

While we're at it, was the battle of Cannae really a defeat because Hannibal never took Rome? Did Cao Cao actually lose at Gaundu because he was halted at Chibi years later? Did Napoleon get defeated at Austerlitz since Waterloo happened?
 

pygc1

Sergeant at Arms
I wasn't making a point about the success or failure of the crusades. My point of contention was your insistence on seeing them all as part of the 'bigger crusade', and not as their own self contained conflicts loosely connected by religious and territorial concerns over the course of two centuries. I also find your criteria of "success" to be shaky. Following your logic, you could say the siege of Constantinople in 717 wasn't really a "success" for the Byzantines because Constantinople fell in 1453.

While we're at it, was the battle of Cannae really a defeat because Hannibal never took Rome? Did Cao Cao actually lose at Gaundu because he was halted at Chibi years later? Did Napoleon get defeated at Austerlitz since Waterloo happened?
Winning some battles does not equal to winning the war. Nazis won battle of france in ww2, but lost the war. There were some successful battles during the crusades, but the result was a failure.
 

Gricken

Veteran
Winning some battles does not equal to winning the war. Nazis won battle of france in ww2, but lost the war. There were some successful battles during the crusades, but the result was a failure.
Again. Not arguing over the failure or success of the crusader states. That is not my point here. My issue is in how you are insisting on viewing the crusades as part of one 'bigger crusade' Your view on this calls into question the validity of your general statements on horse archery and how they relate to this game.

"The crusades" are not analogous to WWII because unlike WWII they were not one war. They were multiple, independent conflicts stretched out over 200 years with varying levels of peace and violence between them.

I repeat. Was the 716 siege of Constantinople actually a byzantine defeat because the city would fall in 1453?
 

takatoo

Recruit
M&BWBNW
I repeat. Was the 716 siege of Constantinople actually a byzantine defeat because the city would fall in 1453?
Yes, just like Julius Caesar was defeated in 1830 when Belgium became an independent nation, despite the fact that he won some battles against the Belgae in 57BC.
 
Horses should have a penalty in sieges.
The autocalc works in case of cavalry that it ads HP and armor to stats of a rider from what I have read. So in case of a siege it would be too simple to give just some penalty. Also riders just dismounted and became normal infantry IRL so the autcalc should just exlude those stats of horse HP and amor of horse from a raider. Because riders have poor athletics and posibly heavier amor that would be their best precise "penalty". Seems like autocals should not have problem to do that.
 

Norseman13

Recruit
I know this is an old thread but I've had the same experience in all of my play through. The Khan dominates every faction.In my last play through before i could even start my first caravan and build an army they had taken all of the sturgian lands in the north. Also the valandians had taken everything in the southern portion of sturgia. I started a new play through thinking with the buff to sturgian troops at least the wont lose their cities and castles. Wrong. They were a defeated faction before i could join to help.
I am currently experimenting with a 50% archer, 10% Pikemen,Ulfhednar mixed into their formation(60%) and 15% Sturgian Veteran Warriors with 25% Valandian Cavalry army. I refuse to have to use Horse Archers because F()*&k them.
Problems i see so far is i can't seem to get my cavalry to prioritize attacking the enemy infantry and archers, they just follow the horse archers around the map and leave the infantry to fight the whole foot battle and taking the horse archer out of range of my archers.
I understand the historical aspect of the Khan Horse Archers but wow is it not fun. If only we could have some diplomacy and could unit all of the empire, Valandia, Sturgia, and Battania we might be able to stop them taking everything. Once the Khan is defeated we could go back to killing each other like normal.
 

pygc1

Sergeant at Arms
Again. Not arguing over the failure or success of the crusader states. That is not my point here. My issue is in how you are insisting on viewing the crusades as part of one 'bigger crusade' Your view on this calls into question the validity of your general statements on horse archery and how they relate to this game.

"The crusades" are not analogous to WWII because unlike WWII they were not one war. They were multiple, independent conflicts stretched out over 200 years with varying levels of peace and violence between them.

I repeat. Was the 716 siege of Constantinople actually a byzantine defeat because the city would fall in 1453?
i never said that the success of 1st crusade doesn't count because the crusades ended in failure. The siege of jerusalem in 1099 ended with a crusader victory.......yes, i never said otherwise. And their victory lasted from 1099 to 1187 when the men of salahadin conquered the place. So in the end, they lost. Their goal of recapturing the birthplace of jesus christ wasn't achieved. It's simple as that. What does that have anything to do with their initial success?

this article sums up the crusades pretty well. The templars were fairly successful initially, but all their gains were later recaptured.
Quote from the article "This was characteristic of the whole period – no other crusade would be as successful as the first."

Yes, just like Julius Caesar was defeated in 1830 when Belgium became an independent nation, despite the fact that he won some battles against the Belgae in 57BC.
i think you know that's not what i mean. I don't know how to answer that because that's not even relevant to my argument.
 
Last edited:

remorse

Sergeant
Horse archers being strong is fine. Infinite rapidly-respawning horse archers is not fine.
Khuzait settlements could be set to generate recruits more slowly to balance things out.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
I know this is an old thread but I've had the same experience in all of my play through. The Khan dominates every faction.In my last play through before i could even start my first caravan and build an army they had taken all of the sturgian lands in the north. Also the valandians had taken everything in the southern portion of sturgia. I started a new play through thinking with the buff to sturgian troops at least the wont lose their cities and castles. Wrong. They were a defeated faction before i could join to help.
I am currently experimenting with a 50% archer, 10% Pikemen,Ulfhednar mixed into their formation(60%) and 15% Sturgian Veteran Warriors with 25% Valandian Cavalry army. I refuse to have to use Horse Archers because F()*&k them.
Problems i see so far is i can't seem to get my cavalry to prioritize attacking the enemy infantry and archers, they just follow the horse archers around the map and leave the infantry to fight the whole foot battle and taking the horse archer out of range of my archers.
I understand the historical aspect of the Khan Horse Archers but wow is it not fun. If only we could have some diplomacy and could unit all of the empire, Valandia, Sturgia, and Battania we might be able to stop them taking everything. Once the Khan is defeated we could go back to killing each other like normal.

You have to lead the cavalry yourself or else they will scatter, sooner or later. Usually sooner.

And you should be using the cavalry to counter-charge the horse archers.
 

vota dc

Sergeant Knight at Arms
M&BWB
Horse archers being strong is fine. Infinite rapidly-respawning horse archers is not fine.
Khuzait settlements could be set to generate recruits more slowly to balance things out.
But then they would never use their foot soldiers.
 

al_dude

Recruit
As a diehard Strugia player, my tactic to fight horse archers is fight them by water or river. Their AI gets screwed once slowed in water or run into an invisible wall by sea.
 

Capillati

Banned
I am currently experimenting with a 50% archer, 10% Pikemen,Ulfhednar mixed into their formation(60%) and 15% Sturgian Veteran Warriors with 25% Valandian Cavalry army. I refuse to have to use Horse Archers because F()*&k them.
Problems i see so far is i can't seem to get my cavalry to prioritize attacking the enemy infantry and archers, they just follow the horse archers around the map and leave the infantry to fight the whole foot battle and taking the horse archer out of range of my archers.
I understand the historical aspect of the Khan Horse Archers but wow is it not fun. If only we could have some diplomacy and could unit all of the empire, Valandia, Sturgia, and Battania we might be able to stop them taking everything. Once the Khan is defeated we could go back to killing each other like normal.

I`m a sturgya (more like nords really) fan as well but it is just absolutely pointless at the moment to have any kind of army comprised solely of footmen. You`re basically shooting yourself in the foot multiple times. And the grind to actually make recruiting battanian fian noble lines from villages viable... it`s just not worth it in my opinion, not when you can get pallatine guard. But again, foot armies are a no no right now. I got like 200-220 horse arches with some 30-40 heavy cav, and I still get 6.2 - 6.6 speed, depending on how much food I carry or the number of sumpter horses. Make that army 250 foot soldiers only, and you`re gonna be in a world of pain (4.5 - maybe, if you bother with keeping 300 horses you get to a 5). Just no.
 

takatoo

Recruit
M&BWBNW
If you change the arrow damage from piercing to cutting, like with the "Armour does something" mod, the situation is improved remarkably.
It's not perfect, but given the absence of baggage trains and area of denial weapons like stakes and spear walls, it's a good compromise.
 
Top Bottom