yes they did lol
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Can we do something about the khuzaits?
- Thread starter MFN Figue
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
yes they did lol
Neptune08640
Sergeant
i would love to see more depth of factions, not simple unit and art diversity.
Maybe adifferent focus for every faction, Imperial factions should focus on infrastructure and managing cities and gold.
Vladia a more feudal faction with huge diversity from noble and common class.
Khuzait and Sturgia more like raiding and sacking factions.
Aserai I don’t know maybe trading and more advanced culture (medicine ecc)
Maybe adifferent focus for every faction, Imperial factions should focus on infrastructure and managing cities and gold.
Vladia a more feudal faction with huge diversity from noble and common class.
Khuzait and Sturgia more like raiding and sacking factions.
Aserai I don’t know maybe trading and more advanced culture (medicine ecc)
Dabos37
Sergeant Knight at Arms
IMO all cav should lose any advantage (and perhaps even get disadvantage) when sieging or when the terrain is all forests/villages. this should definitely slow them down.
I hate how whenever someone sees a horse archer, mongols are literally the only society they can think of.
Horse archer societies were not magically unbeatable. The Mongols' success was due to more than they utilized a lot of horse archers.
Khergit is the clan that promote expansion to west. We know that in warband east of Calradia there is Geroia so that state could have conquered Khuzait eastern lands.
Last edited:
Steppe tribes*
Urbanski
Regular
Most cultures borrow heavily on what has gone before...the Romans borrowed heavily from the Greeks in many aspects of their culture and then advanced it further.
The Mongols didn't have the cultural benefits or access to technology that other cultures did. So they did what all smart people do and borrowed that technology to further their own goals.
I don't think that lessens their achievements in the slightest, in fact the opposite, they adapted and overcame their challenges. The fact that a largely uneducated, tribal and nomadic people united to conquer half the known world is an astonishing achievement. You can argue round in circles about those achievements and how they were accomplished all you want but the facts remain.
Anyway...not sure what any of this has to do with the game. The Khuzaits are largely fine, may need a small tweak here or there but horse archers are a powerful field unit as 12th century china, middle east and Europe found out.
The Mongols didn't have the cultural benefits or access to technology that other cultures did. So they did what all smart people do and borrowed that technology to further their own goals.
I don't think that lessens their achievements in the slightest, in fact the opposite, they adapted and overcame their challenges. The fact that a largely uneducated, tribal and nomadic people united to conquer half the known world is an astonishing achievement. You can argue round in circles about those achievements and how they were accomplished all you want but the facts remain.
Anyway...not sure what any of this has to do with the game. The Khuzaits are largely fine, may need a small tweak here or there but horse archers are a powerful field unit as 12th century china, middle east and Europe found out.
Grenn2384
Recruit
This. Their animal husbandry and bow-crafting skills were also a factor.
Sounds like it's time to call a crusade, OP. You need to ally with the imperial remnants and Vlandians and then march east. Take the cities, do not fight them in the field. Deus vult! Gloria en belli!
Horse archers were kind of ancient type of unit already (even before Scythians for example) unlike coushed lancering, mass crossbow fire (beside China though not same xbows ofc). What Mongols did was not something unique about horse archers but about combined arms, mobility and communication* on battlefield plus some tech like petards, siege equipment from Chinese, etc.
*(Even Soviet II WW tanks were using those flags for communication as Mongols centuries before them did until finally they got radios to tanks and Germans lost their advantage but were on defensive so attackers naturally still got bigger losses).
When Mongols first time were engaging Europeans they were totally underestimated. Just look how Kievan Rus heavy cavalry abandoned infantry and with overconfidence pursued those "steppe beggars" * for many days in feigned retreat, or how Hungarian nobles more feared strong King than Mongols were trying to strip their king of more power he got when he allied with Cumans recently.
* (later for example Hungarians were shocked to see Mongolian brigandines which many Europeans copied and used more than plate armors - though today many ppl think that plate armor was best)
Second Mongol invasion shows that Euroepans learned their lesson well, very well. Probably in turn now Mongols underestimated those sedentary "spoiled fools" for previous victories were so easy. Something similar we can see in Crusades, Spanish medieval history or in history in general. It is not about units but their use much more. It is same with today military units ppl proclaming they have best troops, tanks, planes, etc - just funny
until really used what nobody normal wishes and politicians talking about nuclear war as an option should be sent to psychic sanatoriums pronto.
*(Even Soviet II WW tanks were using those flags for communication as Mongols centuries before them did until finally they got radios to tanks and Germans lost their advantage but were on defensive so attackers naturally still got bigger losses).
When Mongols first time were engaging Europeans they were totally underestimated. Just look how Kievan Rus heavy cavalry abandoned infantry and with overconfidence pursued those "steppe beggars" * for many days in feigned retreat, or how Hungarian nobles more feared strong King than Mongols were trying to strip their king of more power he got when he allied with Cumans recently.
* (later for example Hungarians were shocked to see Mongolian brigandines which many Europeans copied and used more than plate armors - though today many ppl think that plate armor was best)
Second Mongol invasion shows that Euroepans learned their lesson well, very well. Probably in turn now Mongols underestimated those sedentary "spoiled fools" for previous victories were so easy. Something similar we can see in Crusades, Spanish medieval history or in history in general. It is not about units but their use much more. It is same with today military units ppl proclaming they have best troops, tanks, planes, etc - just funny
until really used what nobody normal wishes and politicians talking about nuclear war as an option should be sent to psychic sanatoriums pronto.
Last edited:
At the risk of going off-topic, wait... what?!
Of course a suit of armor made from homogeneous plates is better than a collection of small plates with multiple points of failure and potential penetration. People "think" that plate armor was the best because it WAS the best technology at the time had to offer.
Last edited:
Cost effectiveness made brigandine better choice to plate armor and also it was usable to some degree for civic use - fashion but dont want to spoil the thread. (another use was if plate armor was damaged beyond repair it was cut to and remade as brigandine so recyckling)
I meant it was more used than pure plate armor so from that perspective it was better - wanted to wake some ppl who do not read/watch about history just follow old myths. (Like Tiger tank was better to allied tank but quantity has its own quality so a tiger was better against one tank of allies but many their tanks were better than few tigers)
This is what Khuzait supposed to be good at - one horse archer is not a match for imperial crossbowman but half an army with their Great mobility will do much more than static half army of Empire crossbowmen in the open but if at siege than it should be vice-versa.
I meant it was more used than pure plate armor so from that perspective it was better - wanted to wake some ppl who do not read/watch about history just follow old myths. (Like Tiger tank was better to allied tank but quantity has its own quality
so a tiger was better against one tank of allies but many their tanks were better than few tigers)This is what Khuzait supposed to be good at - one horse archer is not a match for imperial crossbowman but half an army with their Great mobility will do much more than static half army of Empire crossbowmen in the open but if at siege than it should be vice-versa.
Last edited:
xbows can never compete with composite bows, the only advantage that it has is easier to use, so a horse archer is going to be better unit on open field and siege, xbow units should be faster to level up I guess, and heavy horse archer can fulfill the role of heavy cav as well, so I don't see how a xbow is going to win against a horse archer.Cost effectiveness made brigandine better choice to plate armor and also it was usable to some degree for civic use - fashion but dont want to spoil the thread. (another use was if plate armor was damaged beyond repair it was cut to and remade as brigandine so recyckling)
I meant it was more used than pure plate armor so from that perspective it was better - wanted to wake some ppl who do not read/watch about history just follow old myths. (Like Tiger tank was better to allied tank but quantity has its own quality
This is what Khuzait supposed to be good at - one horse archer is not a match for imperial crossbowman but half an army with their Great mobility will do much more than static half army of Empire crossbowmen in the open but if at siege than it should be vice-versa.
I was talking from history view not from the game´s perspective. For example Kingdom of Hungary after distaster with 1st Mongolian invasion learned that crossbows were very effective against their horse archers for they had good amor against bow but that time there was not any good armor against those beside 3mm plate which was very scarce that time even in Western Europe. That was the reason why pope prohibited them only against infidels but not that many cared for they were really effective. From game´s perspective though if xbowman had pavise in front of him while shooting that would be fun against horse archers with those great composite bows I guess
Only their chance would be to go for melee.
Last edited:
Medieval 2 was a game with:
1. Completely asymmetric factions
2. A much greater focus on statebuilding and far more tools to offset the imbalance in power
3. The Mongols arrive so late in the game that most players have already established themselves
Also there were a lot of complaints about the Mongols in medieval 2. It's an idea that sounds cool to an average player but in practice they're just this silly predictable annoyance you have to prepare for. They make the Turks and Russians annoying to play because you know that you'll eventually have to spend a few turns in the midgame fighting these spammy doomstacks. They're not hard or challenging to deal with, just kind of obnoxious after the first time you see them. They also have the potential to ruin your campaign if you aren't there to stop them straight away, since they can spam free armies and fill the entire map with trash that slows your game down.
The khuzaits aren't nearly that bad, but bannerlord is a game with symmetrical factions and very few ways to offset a numbers disadvantage. Them being unbalanced just means they'll paint the map more.
Maahes
Recruit
I'm not sure anyone should treat the Warband map as "canon" anymore, even more so since it changed the original M&B map to include the Sarranids.
i am talking about historical perspective, and xbows can not compete with composite bows. Composite bows have longer effective range, higher accuracy, and much higher rate of fire than xbows. The Southern Song dynasty had xbows with super high drawweight, and they were defeated by mongolians. The only weakness of horse archer army is naval warfare and that's how Japan beat the Mongolians. The only reason Mongolians didn't advance further into Europe was because their king died or something.I was talking from history view not from the game´s perspective. For example Kingdom of Hungary after distaster with 1st Mongolian invasion learned that crossbows were very effective against their horse archers for they had good amor against bow but that time there was not any good armor against those beside 3mm plate which was very scarce that time even in Western Europe. That was the reason why pope prohibited them only against infidels but not that many cared for they were really effective. From game´s perspective though if xbowman had pavise in front of him while shooting that would be fun against horse archers with those great composite bows I guess
Speaking of my favorite faction I thought I'd sign up for some merc work in a new beta game and.....
Lol wtf? I mean I'll have plenty of work but that's a bit confident of them. I hope they lose some good towns so I can get them later! I mean I will take Chaikand one way or another.... double grain
Lol wtf? I mean I'll have plenty of work but that's a bit confident of them. I hope they lose some good towns so I can get them later! I mean I will take Chaikand one way or another.... double grain
Similar threads
