Current state of game enforces unfun gameplay.

[Gambles]

Depends which crossbows, and good archers might just shoot them in the eyes or other softspots (and then when being so closed they would get killed). Medival battles were just farmfests, where knights mowed down peasants, who ran from the battlefield. Then again who cares about reality.
Infantry in its state is the most cancerous thing to play. They took the native blueprint and just made it even worse on all edges. Paired with the ****tiest matchmaking balance you can imagine. Wasnt wbmm open source??

What? I don't know how much you know or how much interest you have in medieval combat but that's pretty much all wrong.

Archers were used in lines firing volleys of arrows most effectively, they didn't "aim" for the eyes in most cases, that's robin hood movie ****. The battle of agincourt is a good example of archers being used ridiculously effectively. in line, behind stakes, volley after volley after volley eventually messes **** up. This also happens to be the battle that solidified the need for archers on the battle field.

As for knights chasing down peasants lol no. Cavalry was used most effectively in the medieval ages as shock cavalry, they were particularly effective when enemies would break ranks for any reason but could be equally effective against any force not properly equipped to deal with them. You can look at the battle of hastings in 1066 that really showed how valuable cavalry were on the battlefield and why they would be a staple of medieval warfare going forward

 

[Caps]

What? I don't know how much you know or how much interest you have in medieval combat but that's pretty much all wrong.

Archers were used in lines firing volleys of arrows most effectively, they didn't "aim" for the eyes in most cases, that's robin hood movie ****. The battle of agincourt is a good example of archers being used ridiculously effectively. in line, behind stakes, volley after volley after volley eventually messes **** up. This also happens to be the battle that solidified the need for archers on the battle field.

As for knights chasing down peasants lol no. Cavalry was used most effectively in the medieval ages as shock cavalry, they were particularly effective when enemies would break ranks for any reason but could be equally effective against any force not properly equipped to deal with them. You can look at the battle of hastings in 1066 that really showed how valuable cavalry were on the battlefield and why they would be a staple of medieval warfare going forward

Wait so nations employed professional infantry during medival times? This has nothing to do with the game aswell.

 

[부부를 넘어서 가자]

Noone that wants the game to be good really cares about realism.

 

[Gambles]

Wait so nations employed professional infantry during medival times? This has nothing to do with the game aswell.

What? is that legitimate question? Depends on what point in history and who you're talking about. For instance the french during the battle of agincourt did not raise 'professional' infantry. The king raised the support of his nobles which then brought people from their territories to fight (somewhat like clans in games I guess). Henry though, the king of England, began paying and training his men which would be a thing going forward in the late middle ages.

And as for the battle of hastings,Vlandia in game is supposedly inspired heavily by the Normans, which I can see.

The point is, if you're going to talk like you know history you could at least, ya know, know it.

 

[Caps]

What? is that legitimate question? Depends on what point in history and who you're talking about. For instance the french during the battle of agincourt did not raise 'professional' infantry. The king raised the support of his nobles which then brought people from their territories to fight (somewhat like clans in games I guess). Henry though, the king of England, began paying and training his men which would be a thing going forward in the late middle ages.

And as for the battle of hastings,Vlandia in game is supposedly inspired heavily by the Normans, which I can see.

The point is, if you're going to talk like you know history you could at least, ya know, know it.

So if you match soldiers who trained for their whole life against field workers idk what you expect to happen. And it has nothing to do with the OP topic.

 

[Gambles]

So if you match soldiers who trained for their whole life against field workers idk what you expect to happen.

I didn't mean to imply that the average levied soldier peasant was incompetent or useless, many actually trained in their daily lives. War and battle were a very common thing then, many men would have expected to at least be someone competent with a weapon probably a spear or hook or something and a shield they may even have some gambeson. Regardless though, they wouldn't be nearly as effective as trained and paid soldier with bought high grade armor, unless they outnumbered them or something.

Having said that, Vlandia peasants in game with billhooks are too powerful lol. But that isn't what I replied to you about, you said knights were just used to run down peasants and prior to that the whole crossbow thing and archers n ****.

I'm no authority in game balance as far as multiplayer goes especially, I just haven't played enough of it yet and mostly captain mode (50 wins only so far). But history happens to have been a hobby of mine since way back in grade school, I was replying, more so to that than your challenge to the current balance of the game, which I'd probably agree that peasants shouldn't be murdering guys in full mail and lamellar.

 

[High Risx]

Crossbows could pierce plate there are multiple reports of knights getting shot by peasants.
just because a video shows something doesn't make it fact.
the crossbow was the AK47 of the era, a weapon of freedom fighters that took little care and little skill to learn

 

[Kripaz]

Crossbows could pierce plate there are multiple reports of knights getting shot by peasants.
just because a video shows something doesn't make it fact.
the crossbow was the AK47 of the era, a weapon of freedom fighters that took little care and little skill to learn

Huh, don't know any report of medieval crossbow bolt piercing plate and dealing lethal wound , but sometimes they found their way through armors joints.

 

[High Risx]

Crossbows could pierce plate there are multiple reports of knights getting shot by peasants.
just because a video shows something doesn't make it fact.

He was using a weak ass crossbow, a heavy crossbow requires the strength of your whole body to load it.
almost like doing a 100kg deadlift, if you are bending your arms you will not load it, your arms must be straight, to
transmit. energy from the legs and core to the hands.

the crossbow was the AK47 of the era, a weapon of freedom fighters that took little care and little skill to learn.
Some crossbows were made from goats bladders and not twine. which gave the crossbow 3 times the power.

The Genoese crossbowmen of the Crusades era would decimate armored knights, Anytime their banner was seen, the enemy would revise their battle plans. They where the "ACE" up your sleeve and you only revealed them at the last moment to throw your opponent into a panic.

 

[Kripaz]

Are you referring to something or..?

 

[sircarl3]

While I disagree that your naked unshielded guy should stand a chance against archers, those same arrows should just bounce off when hitting metal armor. Bows are OP against armor in this game, arrows should not be able to penetrate top tier armor.

Preach

 

[TFK_Ted]

While I didn't read the whole thread, I 100% agree with the OP's first post.

 

[iSailor]

I really don't understand the people in favor of bows and shields. Why did TaleWorlds implement this complex physics-based melee model if the meta favors turtles and bowsnipers so much? Duel servers are not the answer here because you can't just save the whole gameplay with artificial duel between players, these situations should occur randomly on the battlefield.

While it is more realistic, is it not necessarily fun and competitive multiplayer game should favor skill over realism. It's just frustrating to siege castle without being able to personally impact the gameplay; even if you get to the walls (you are forced to go with shield or you will get sniped from 500+ metres) you will get shot by archers who can deal enormous amount of damage even at point blank. Current state of multiplayer is only an interactive experience for casuals who want to see big medieval battle rather than being competitive game.

Currently the game revolves around two concepts:

1. Playing an archer and sniping everybody while not suffering any disadvantages in melee combat
2. Not playing an archer and either trying to juke your way towards archers or bash peoples' shields.

So again, why did TaleWorlds rework the combat system at all? Why did they add depth to it if it's not possible to experience it due to bow and shield spam? Manual combat is the best part of this game because it's when skill of two players is measured and compared. The timings, faking hits, footwork, newly added combos and swing momentum... But you don't get it in this game. You either pull unbreakable shield out and simplify all combat to pressing two buttons or become an archer and be literal sniper who deals enormous damage at any distances with surgical precision.

Currently the factor that determines whether you are successful or not is only how often you get randomly sniped out. And it makes me mad. Good competitive game shouldn't force situations where only one (or none at all) solution is viable. There's no counterplay to archer; you can take shield to close the distance but in reality it only makes you able to approach him, he still can challenge you in melee combat without any disadvantages. This makes archer significantly better than any other class.

 

[Shemaforash]

You're not wrong, we've mentioned more than enough times that picking archer is better than picking infantry simply because you have more utility EVEN if you can't aim at all. There's no incentive to pick infantry since you can easily be footshot or run down by cavalry. If you pick cavalry you can kill an archer and loot their horse and you are a horse archer with good stats. Vice versa if you kill a cavalry as an archer you suddenly can be a horse archer! Such brilliant game design. I don't understand why they want that to be a possiblity, because it will be in competitive games. They think they've removed the "dropping equipment" from warband but in fact they've just made it stronger.

 

[Younes]

I feel like because of how big a role archers play now and the terrible combat there is, two handed classes are becoming insignificant.

 

[Dubya]

Yep, I've mostly moved to archer spamming myself because fighting against shield turtles is an exercise in frustration. The only infantry class I play anymore is the savage with the falx because you can actually hit a turtle after kicking him. I've noticed less and less two-handed/non-shielded infantry in siege and as a result the melee combat has been completely sedated. Cavalry is also stupid strong and should cost a lot more. It's really not fun when you hit a horse clean with a greataxe swipe as it gallops past you only to see a wimpy 50 damage hit. The riders should also take tremendous damage when their horse dies from under them and they skid along the ground at 30 mph. Javelins and other infantry throwing weapons should probably do more damage as well, or at least be much more accurate while moving. Hitting an archer for 40 damage with one of your three javelins doesn't seem fair when they shoot you right back for just as much damage if they don't one-hit you with a headshot. Multiplayer needs a lot more attention in general.