Can we do something about the khuzaits?

[Sheepify]

Aside from an actual working autocalc (which for some reason is not on the priority work list, despite being a cause of a lot of balancing issues), I think the problem is unit upkeep being so cookie-cutter.

Cavalry units should be significantly more expensive to recruit and maintain than some infantry grunt, especially at lower tiers. Right now the upkeep is the same for every unit and just depends on unit tier alone - obviously that will be modified (so I hope, anyway) to better reflect factional strengths and/or quality of their equipment.

Hell, I wouldn't be against making Khuzait Tribal Warrior cost as much as a T4 infantry unit with average (for its tier) armor.. Make ANY cavalry get +2 tier cost on their upkeep, see what happens. Better yet, add internal coding so that lords know their cavalry will require more expenses and try to get a somewhat balanced mix of units.

Won't ultimately stop the player from going all horsey-pew-pew party if they are dead set on it, but might help with AI fights and general strategic state of the map.

 

[Delinard]

Just remember to always blame autoresolve and map balance, not the actual units in battles, thats a whole different thing and has nothing to do with how AI fights each other on the campaign map.

 

[Neptune08640]

Cavalry should have an advantage in the fields but in sieges they should not have an advantage maybe also a disadvantage.
If it’s possible a first solution should be divide auto resolve in the fields and in the sieges.
Maybe even give a penalty to all the khuzait like more time to build sige camp and equipment.

 

[Ruler of Calradia]

No way cavalry should get arbitary penalties for siege battles. They just should be way more expensive to maintain, both in gold and food. Cavalry in history was always more or less elite force. Less elite for nomads, but even nomads had heavy cavalry which was elite. And heavily armored cavalry were well trained in melee even if they were primarily using bows. They were formidable opponets even when dismounted - and dismounting cavalry was far more common than people realize. European knights are known for their couched lance charges, yet it was common for them to dismount and instead assault or defend on foot. Depending on era and place, many of them also had bows.

Heavily armored cavalry were generally from richer families and/or nobility. They had more servants and underlings to do work for them, which meant they could spend more time training. And figuratively and literally, even best of horsemen are born with 2 legs and 2 hands.

You should avoid using cavalry in siege battles because they consume more supplies and money and are more rare. But if you do use them, they should be just as good as they are currently.

 

[Meraun]

Can't beat them, join them.

Better Red than Dead

 

[Neptune08640]

No way cavalry should get arbitary penalties for siege battles. They just should be way more expensive to maintain, both in gold and food. Cavalry in history was always more or less elite force. Less elite for nomads, but even nomads had heavy cavalry which was elite. And heavily armored cavalry were well trained in melee even if they were primarily using bows. They were formidable opponets even when dismounted - and dismounting cavalry was far more common than people realize. European knights are known for their couched lance charges, yet it was common for them to dismount and instead assault or defend on foot. Depending on era and place, many of them also had bows.

Heavily armored cavalry were generally from richer families and/or nobility. They had more servants and underlings to do work for them, which meant they could spend more time training. And figuratively and literally, even best of horsemen are born with 2 legs and 2 hands.

You should avoid using cavalry in siege battles because they consume more supplies and money and are more rare. But if you do use them, they should be just as good as they are currently.

Ok but then they are just elite infantrymen so they should be treated likewise so they should lose their 1.2 multiplier

 

[Maximum997]

Any faction that has a lot of cavalry in spawn will be da best.

Becouse
a) They are faster. AI doesnt use horses to speed up footman. And speed is everything. They are stronger - you cant escape. They are weaker - you cant catch them.

b) They are better in autoresolve, becouse 20% bonus for cav.

Vlandia and Khuzaits have most cavalry in spawns. Thats why Vlandia is very strong offten, and Khuzaits are very strong always.

 

[Ruler of Calradia]

Ok but then they are just elite infantrymen so they should be treated likewise so they should lose their 1.2 multiplier

Agreed. The entire auto-resolve/simulate battles system needs lot of improvements.

 

[Aerational]

I just wish I could do something about my emotionally withdrawn wife who I cannot get to leave her party and keeps attacking me....

 

[Sheepify]

Just remember to always blame autoresolve and map balance, not the actual units in battles, thats a whole different thing and has nothing to do with how AI fights each other on the campaign map.

You don't think that unit availability (upkeep costs) and survivability (autocalc being what it is) drives what units appear in field battles?

They are faster. AI doesnt use horses to speed up footman.

This should absolutely also be implemented.

I really dislike how many elements in Bannerlord go against the "you're playing with the same basic mechanics as AI characters" in Warband ("cheating" help for dumb AI aside).

 

[Apocal]

I really dislike how many elements in Bannerlord go against the "you're playing with the same basic mechanics as AI characters" in Warband ("cheating" help for dumb AI aside).

The AI does it. Go to barter with a lord and odds are he has about 8-24 horses to trade. The only issue is that they don't lean into it the way players do. The AI will never make a point of buying enough horses that all their footmen are mounted. A developer already commented that he could add "unsellable" horses to a caravan to help speed them up.

 

[Sheepify]

The AI does it. Go to barter with a lord and odds are he has about 8-24 horses to trade. The only issue is that they don't lean into it the way players do. The AI will never make a point of buying enough horses that all their footmen are mounted. A developer already commented that he could add "unsellable" horses to a caravan to help speed them up.

Or... and I know this is a really wild idea... they could implement it so that the lord "knows" the value of the horses he's selling, and if this impacts his party's mobility will either demand significantly higher price for them, or refuse the sale altogether.

They could as well have not just "I is AI, gib horses nao trolo" code in there, but actually require going around purchasing them from villages and towns (just like they do with recruitment) when they are reforming their party. Something that would have a notable effect on the economy (seriously, horses are so underpriced right now it's laughable), be more intuitive for the player, and prevent overwhelming cavalry presence if horse production if balanced well enough.

I am not fond of all these abstract fixes, especially considering the custom-made engine Bannerlord runs on. I don't expect Dwarf Fortress-level simulation, but they could at least consider expanding on mechanics first. Not everything is possible, but a lot of them would enrich gameplay experience.

 

[HeIsHephaestion]

At least in my playthrough (my culture is khuzait fyi), once khuzaits began taking imperial fiefs and khuzait lords were defeated at least once I rarely see them with anything other then imperial recruits or archers VERY FEW khuzait spearmen and definitely no khuzait faction horseman. If the primary beef is that they are too powerful with autoresolve idk what to add to this other than maybe give players a configurable option to take away cavalry bonus but certainly don't remove it altogether. They are clearly supposed to be a massive threat growing in the east (as the xiongnu, huns or mongols would have been)

 

[Apocal]

Or... and I know this is a really wild idea... they could implement it so that the lord "knows" the value of the horses he's selling, and if this impacts his party's mobility will either demand significantly higher price for them, or refuse the sale altogether.

They already overcharge significantly for their horses. I was using the barter menu example because it is the only way to see a lord's inventory.

They could as well have not just "I is AI, gib horses nao trolo" code in there, but actually require going around purchasing them from villages and towns (just like they do with recruitment) when they are reforming their party. Something that would have a notable effect on the economy (seriously, horses are so underpriced right now it's laughable), be more intuitive for the player, and prevent overwhelming cavalry presence if horse production if balanced well enough.

As far as I can tell, they do buy the horses. I've seen lords with more horses after entering a town than they had before and we already know they purchase food -- just watch them starve out their own population and garrison when they come with an entire hungry army then wipe out the food market.

 

[Sheepify]

They already overcharge significantly for their horses. I was using the barter menu example because it is the only way to see a lord's inventory.

Can't say I have much experience on that part. If I can't get the horses I need ganking enemy lords, I just hit a village circle (something I'll do to get fresh troops anyway).

Probably missing a lot of sweet charm points going about it this way, too, to think of it

we already know they purchase food -- just watch them starve out their own population and garrison when they come with an entire hungry army then wipe out the food market.

That's... actually pretty "realistic." I got nothing

 

[Billy Peach]

Compare the bannerlord map to warband. Over 200 years the Asserai have pushed up north and the Khuzait have taken most of the map and pushed all other factions closer to the coast.

The Khuzait should be OP AF. Not just because of the warband map but also when compared to real history. I'm just disappointed that the Empire doesn't fall due to a constant civil war between the three factions.

 

[kthebored]

Remember the Mongol invasion in Total war Medieval II? The way they kicked every faction's butt, including the player's. The player should face the game's challenges IMHO. No one asked to nerf those 10-star full-stack ass-kicker mongol armies back then. It's way easier in bannerlord, so I see no problem with khuzaits.

 

[TurtleFactz]

One of the weaknesses that the Khuzait have are how easy it is to raid their villages, the battle maps are nice, flat open spaces where you can annihilate militia openly with arrows or cavalry. If you find Khuzait snowballing and they're at war, take advantage and set their home territory on fire. Does wonders to weaken their finances.

 

[AfLIcTeD]

Remember the Mongol invasion in Total war Medieval II? The way they kicked every faction's butt, including the player's. The player should face the game's challenges IMHO. No one asked to nerf those 10-star full-stack ass-kicker mongol armies back then. It's way easier in bannerlord, so I see no problem with khuzaits.

So you think it is ok for the Khuzaits to dominate the map every game? So you have 2 options. Join the Khuzaits and snowball, or join another and get snowballed.
It's not the player having the issue it is the other factions.

One of the weaknesses that the Khuzait have are how easy it is to raid their villages, the battle maps are nice, flat open spaces where you can annihilate militia openly with arrows or cavalry. If you find Khuzait snowballing and they're at war, take advantage and set their home territory on fire. Does wonders to weaken their finances.

If the Khuzaits are snowballing I'm sure burning a few villages isn't going to put a dent in their finances.

 

[pygc1]

if the game has naval warfare, the khuzaits(mongolians) would suck at it, just look at their attempted invasion of Japan
but I don't think they should suck at sieges, because mongolians hired siege engineers from many advanced societies that they managed to conquer