Custom battle tests (1.5.6): Horse archers are insanely OP & Infantry is pointless

[brian82406]

I don't use F1 F3. I can use 100% HA to fight a bunch of different groups though. There isn't anything that really stops it, especially not when 100% HAs take next-to-no losses.

Then you are just not reading the thread...

Everyone can do that in a single player game. You can do it, I can do it. There's no reason why others can't. If you want, you can even try to use 100% archer/crossbow to do the same, with same micromanagement, and would you find that to be too strong too? How about dev just make this whole game into a dumb melee fighting game. Would that suit you guys better?

Don't be ridiculous! If AI couldn't kill your 100% HA army, that's because AI is dumb af, if anything needs to change, change AI. If you are smart enough you can beat any AI no problem with archer only too, with small or even no lost. If what you want is a multiplayer game experience, you should ask for a multiplayer experience.

 

[Monkey]

with F1+F3 in a 1000 battle...? sure upload a vid, I wanna see how your AI under charge command did better than mine.

I don't use F1 F3. I can use 100% HA to fight a bunch of different groups though. There isn't anything that really stops it, especially not when 100% HAs take next-to-no losses.

That might change depending on difficulty settings, but F1+F3 horse archers kill everything without losses 80-90% of the time when not outnumbered. If you actually command them, repositioning, manually ordering salvos and managing ammunition (F4), they can take anything even double their size (limited only by the amount of ammunition). And that's not all. If you're willing to "cheese" by fleeing once your run out of ammunition or even once enemy melee cavalry gets near (which is the epitome of "cheese" but I've done that in desperate moments) only to "reset" starting position and ammunition without resetting casualties, you can take on any number/type of enemies (except maybe - maybe - horse archers) without a single ****ing casualty.

It's pretty safe to say that horse archers are like panzers (combat vehicles). They're able to hurt while staying safe at a distance. The point of the OP might be that the "rock/paper/scissors" element in Bannerlord, if it's even there, is not too prevailing. I'm not sure what's by design or not, but, from my experience:

(Open) Field Battles: [Horse Archer > Melee Cavalry] > [Archer > Infantry]
Siege Battles: [Archer > Infantry] > [Horse Archer > Melee Cavalry]

I haven't extensively tested Aserai or Sturgian nobles against Khuzait nobles, but I believe it would be nice if at least some melee cavalry could be a good counter to horse archers. I do believe TaleWorlds is on the right track, with balance getting better with each patch. Penalizing (moving) mounted accuracy is a step in the right direction IMO. Of course there's still the problem of mass horse archer fire since the effectiveness/efficiency of a stream of mass arrow fire doesn't depend that much on accuracy/skill.

 

[Gandamula]

As I said before, archers on horseback, or any type of cavalry, running in a forest, hitting trees and staying on horses without falling is completely insane. The same applies to the player, sometimes I hit a tree at high speed and I just have to accelerate again.
On the map, the cavalry movement in forests or mountains should also have a speed penalty, greater than infantry, this would change the whole paradigm of the game, even in simulated battles, the forest or in mountains ones should give the infantry an advantage.

 

[brian82406]

That might change depending on difficulty settings, but F1+F3 horse archers kill everything without losses 80-90% of the time when not outnumbered. If you actually command them, repositioning, manually ordering salvos and managing ammunition (F4), they can take anything even double their size (limited only by the amount of ammunition). And that's not all. If you're willing to "cheese" by fleeing once your run out of ammunition or even once enemy melee cavalry gets near (which is the epitome of "cheese" but I've done that in desperate moments) only to "reset" starting position and ammunition without resetting casualties, you can take on any number/type of enemies (except maybe - maybe - horse archers) without a single ****ing casualty.

It's pretty safe to say that horse archers are like panzers (combat vehicles). They're able to hurt while staying safe at distance. The "rock/paper/scissors" element in Bannerlord, if it's even there, is not too prevailing. Horse archers are the best units in open field battles (where they can actually put their horses to use).

I am just wondering, have you guys really played HA in 1.56 or 1.57B? Why do I feel like you are talking about the HA like EA just came out yesterday?

First of all, when not outnumbered, no player can ever get defeated (as long as your troop quality is only a bit lower than you enemy).

Secondly, F1+F3 HA killing without losses 80%~90% is a like a myth. HA battle AI now requires more distance to circle enemy formation and would randomly charge into enemy line if unwatched, so if you have HA only, F1 + F3 is death sentence to 10~30% of your HA units, not mentioning enemy Cav could distract your HA units, making them more likely to run into inf formation. It's really more of a mobile archer that can get shot into pieces by enemy archers, assuming they have some amounts of high tier archers like yours, (and this is not to mention high tier archer is easier and cheaper to get). It used to be that T2 HA can carry the entire battle, not these days. I tried, I know.

Thirdly, I don't see why you can't do the "cheesy" stuff with archer/crossbow unit. I can divide 100% a/c army (preferably Aserai archer) into a few control groups and just play hit and run, and wait till my quiver emptied and restarted again. It probably can do the same, just without maneuverability, and with much trouble because you have to micro everything. HA provides an easier way to micro, so what's the problem. HA rides horse, they are supposed to do that.

Lastly, I disagreed with Rock-Paper-Scissors elements. Battle is won by units functioning and working together. Inf. is a good meat shield to soak up arrows, archers offers a good firepower, cav works nicely as a counter balance to other horse unit and is super powerful when charge from behind, and horse archer is good at harassing and also offers a good firepower. You really just want them all, at least I do. The best of all, battle can be decided by the engagement of individual combat where the effectiveness of the weapon and skills of using it matters. There's no such thing as infantry must be victorious against cav, who said so, Total War? Bow and Horse are both merely an instrument that offers you advantage against your opponents, just like armour and shield, and Bannerlord's combat system illustrated this reality perfectly. Unless you say, Khuzait are dumb enough to only equip their elite HA with just some weak ass arrow when they can obviously offer better. That'd be ridiculous.

The fact is, due to how organic Bannerlord combat system is built, it is just impossible to do Rock-Paper-Scissors thing, because Horse and Bow is just naturally a better stuff to have.

 

[brian82406]

As I said before, archers on horseback, or any type of cavalry, running in a forest, hitting trees and staying on horses without falling is completely insane. The same applies to the player, sometimes I hit a tree at high speed and I just have to accelerate again.
On the map, the cavalry movement in forests or mountains should also have a speed penalty, greater than infantry, this would change the whole paradigm of the game, even in simulated battles, the forest or in mountains ones should give the infantry an advantage.

I can get behind what you said. That's most reasonable, and I think falling from horse should have damage too. Much more real.

 

[Apocal]

Then you are just not reading the thread...

Everyone can do that in a single player game. You can do it, I can do it. There's no reason why others can't. If you want, you can even try to use 100% archer/crossbow to do the same, with same micromanagement, and would you find that to be too strong too?

First off, I quoted the exact thing I disagreed with, so to say I'm not reading the thread is ridiculous.

Secondly, yes, I have done the exact same thing with archers and I do complain that ranged power is too strong. This isn't a new thing for me:

Yeah, I'm down with anything that makes ranged power less overbearing.

Also, just so I'm clear, I think high-tier armor should utterly no-sell arrows in Bannerlord, regardless of how good your bow or arrows are. Like, just straight-up ping off for 0 damage, do not pass Go, do not collect $200. Anything less than that level of protection just means the solution to most Bannerlord tactical problems is a marginally higher critical mass of archers (foot or horse) to slaughter everything else for zero losses.

my opinion is that ranged power should be heavily nerfed and largely restricted to morale damage, with only melee being decisive.

And yes, I agree players build ahistorical armies. I'm saying that is the game's fault for not getting medieval combined arms correct; players respond to incentives like winning. If they see stacking archers is 100% effective, they'll continue to stack archers.

But in proportion to their historical abilities, they are way out of line, which leads to tactical distortions that make the game resemble a kind of funhouse mirror version of pike-and-shot. That's my main concern.

I am completely serious: tactically, the arrows in this game act more like bullets because they can reliably cause enough casualties to make melee superfluous. That wasn't as much a thing in medieval times, short of woefully unprepared opponents. Instead archery was used to disrupt, cause morale failure, restrict freedom of action and offer one plank of a combined arms platform. But the melee was still important.

This is about the 18th time I've had this same discussion and I have become exceedingly efficient at it.

 

[Monkey]

(...) Secondly, F1+F3 HA killing without losses 80%~90% is a like a myth. (...)

(...) Thirdly, I don't see why you can't do the "cheesy" stuff with archer/crossbow unit. (...)

(...) Inf. is a good meat shield to soak up arrows, archers offers a good firepower (...)

The fact is, due to how organic Bannerlord combat system is built, it is just impossible to do Rock-Paper-Scissors thing, because Horse and Bow is just naturally a better stuff to have.

I live that myth and you can too if you choose your fights (which is easy with a 100% mounted troop map speed) and avoid sieges, villages and, preferably, forests too. Just try to stay in open fields.

It's technically possible to cheese with foot archers too, but if the enemy has cavalry there might not be enough time for your archers to leave the map (especially if you're trying to not have any casualties). Moving foot archers are indeed much more accurate than moving mounted archers, because foot archers quickly stop to shoot and then resume moving. If you order your mounted archers to stand still, however, while shooting, and only move them to reposition, that difference is gone.

I quoted the last phrase of yours out of confusion. Are you saying horse archers (horse and bow) are "naturally better"?

 

[brian82406]

First off, I quoted the exact thing I disagreed with, so to say I'm not reading the thread is ridiculous.

Secondly, yes, I have done the exact same thing with archers and I do complain that ranged power is too strong. This isn't a new thing for me:






This is about the 18th time I've had this same discussion and I have become exceedingly efficient at it.

You deliberately quoted the part where I replied about F1+F3 everything and then asked me about something that's not related to F1+F3 horse archers.... what do you expect me to answer?

Besides, range weapon is always preferable, and it should be, and this is also historically accurate. I mean, not all armour can be penetrated by arrows obviously, but it is not common for soldiers to have a set of good armour, and so duhh... it should in some way work like a medieval bullet.

I dunno why you think bows and arrows are just used as something like disruption, morale failure or restrict freedom of action, instead of actually killing (it was actually actually effective, Battle of Agincourt? The 3rd Crusade? The Mongol invasion?). They should probably allow you to construct some fortification on battlefield or carry defensive wagons as in Hussite Revolt, which I would agree, and would've nerf Khuzait a lot, but won't happen, and it would still largely base on arrows.

Historically, archers were hard to train, crossbow took too long to reload, and arrows and bolts were limited and so ofc they didn't always get massively employed in medieval period, and thus you had better chance with melee, but Range was powerful historically. Hard to argue w nerfing the unit directly.

 

[Monkey]

I dunno why you think bows and arrows are just used as something like disruption, morale failure or restrict freedom of action, instead of actually killing (it was actually actually effective, Battle of Agincourt? The 3rd Crusade? The Mongol invasion?). They should probably allow you to construct some fortification on battlefield or carry defensive wagons as in Hussite Revolt, which I would agree, and would've nerf Khuzait a lot, but won't happen, and it would still largely base on arrows.

Historically, archers were hard to train, crossbow took too long to reload, and arrows and bolts were limited and so ofc they didn't always get massively employed in medieval period, and thus you had better chance with melee, but Range was powerful historically. Hard to argue w nerfing the unit directly.

Those are really good points, IMO, but go back to my initial observation that the game implementation of it all faces a tradeoff between realism and gameplay balance while at the same time having to limit the scope and complexity of the game. Completely simulating the logistics of troop training, ammunition and everything else would be too much for a game that is already niche.

@Apocal's suggestion of changing the role of ranged troops is another valid and good design suggestion. It's all a matter of what kind of game TaleWorlds wants. Personally, I belive a few more tweaks to the (melee cavalry) AI and maybe the addition of more features, which might be already in the works (like falling from horseback or other strategical features), could keep improving Bannerlord unit balance without the necessity of a bigger overhaul.

 

[brian82406]

I live that myth and you can too if you choose your fights (which is easy with a 100% mounted troop map speed) and avoid sieges, villages and, preferably, forests too. Just try to stay in open fields.

It's technically possible to cheese with foot archers too, but if the enemy has cavalry there might not be enough time for your archers to leave the map (especially if you're trying to not have any casualties). Moving foot archers are indeed much more accurate than moving mounted archers, because foot archers quickly stop to shoot and then resume moving. If you order your mounted archers to stand still, however, while shooting, and only move them to reposition, that difference is gone.

I quoted the last phrase of yours out of confusion. Are you saying horse archers (horse and bow) are "naturally better"?

Hmmm... I am pretty confused with your entire statement. Yeah, ofc I know how to play 100% HA, but if you can't take any territory, would it be fun?

Well, divided your 100% A/C into 3-5 control groups instead of one large line. Keep it at 3 ranks, length varies, loose formation and arrange it into a V-shape formation. You will have enemy inf. and cav. melt on sight. In case of large cav contingents, just add the thickness, so you can murder them once they charge in.

And yes, HA are naturally better, they are the combination of high maneuverability and powerful killing weapon. If you are going to build an organic combat system, then HA would always have an advantage over non-horse unit. Huns and Mongols, devastated the entire Eurasia for centuries. The easiest way to counter them is really just to have a similar attachment in your army, fight the way they fight you (as in ancient China). Or you just have to be creative, historically, HA can be countered by having wagons which you can quickly transform into fortification, having better muskets, invent fire wagons (likely some Korean Hwa-cha style battlefield weapon) to scare the horse (I heard that's how Ming dealt Mongol and Tartars, I don't really know how it works).

 

[Monkey]

And yes, HA are naturally better, they are the combination of high maneuverability and powerful killing weapon. If you are going to build an organic combat system, then HA would always have an advantage over non-horse unit. Huns and Mongols, devastated the entire Eurasia for centuries. The easiest way to counter them is really just to have a similar attachment in your army, fight the way they fight you (as in ancient China). Or you just have to be creative, historically, HA can be countered by having wagons which you can quickly transform into fortification, having better muskets, invent fire wagons (likely some Korean Hwa-cha style battlefield weapon) to scare the horse (I heard that's how Ming dealt Mongol and Tartars, I don't really know how it works).

Alright. I believe we're miscommunicating. I assumed you believed HA are underperforming because of your first reply to this thread, quoted below.

I personally disagree with nerfing HA as a unit. Their aiming is practically ****, and they frequently spent all their arrows before the battle is over (big battle I mean), this is especially true with low tier horse archers, which are pretty worthless.

I must have misunderstood you, however, since you're (correctly) saying the easiest way to counter them (horse archers) is with a "similar attachment" (horse archers - though that wouldn't exactly be a "counter", but a "same weapon" tactic). You also suggested new features (like muskets (!) and improvised fortifications) for better means to defend against them. In the end, I believe we are all in complete agreement. The "horse archers" thing is overperforming and it's not because of the individual power of the single unit in itself, but because that's just how it works. To be able to hurt from afar (bow) while staying at a safe distance (horse) is simply better than anything else. And unfortunatelly there is no way to change that through changes to the horse archer units themselves without nerfing them to the point of effectively removing them from the game in practice.

I decided not to go with "solve that problem", but with "change that" instead, because it might not be a problem, but an inevitability of the vision TaleWorlds has for Bannerlord and the chosen game implementation design. If, say, muskets and cannons were introduced to the game, there wouldn't be too much hope for archers to stay competitive, in which case, if you wanted archers to remain a "competitive" element, you'd have to go through either the unrealistic route (making arrows behave/damage like musket balls and archers like minutemen) or the way too complex logistics route (making arrows cheaper and easier to produce than muskets and, consequently, situationally (economically) "better"). If you made it so it's just as easy/hard to recruit/train/produce/maintain fully equipped and provisioned archers and minutemen equally, then it's bad design. There is absolutely no reason to choose archers.

This might be where there's room for improvement in Bannelord, though I do believe balance has been getting better and I'm not sure logistical challenges wouldn't cross the desired complexity threshold. The game isn't the easiest of them all. Turning it into a medieval economy simulator (though I do tip my hat to Bannerlord's implemented economy) wouldn't be a good idea IMO. That said, there might be space for additional tuning on the ease of acquiring and maintaining the different types of troops that might further help bring everything into greater balance.

 

[Apocal]

You deliberately quoted the part where I replied about F1+F3 everything and then asked me about something that's not related to F1+F3 horse archers.... what do you expect me to answer?

I quoted the part where you said you have to use other units. In BL, right now you don't need to use other troop types and you can reliably beat every other army composition. You can win without losses if you put in a modest amount of effort.

Besides, range weapon is always preferable, and it should be, and this is also historically accurate. I mean, not all armour can be penetrated by arrows obviously, but it is not common for soldiers to have a set of good armour, and so duhh... it should in some way work like a medieval bullet.

I dunno why you think bows and arrows are just used as something like disruption, morale failure or restrict freedom of action, instead of actually killing (it was actually actually effective, Battle of Agincourt? The 3rd Crusade? The Mongol invasion?).

It isn't historically accurate. Even in Agincourt, most of the actual killing was done in the melee and as for the Mongols, they held 40% of their tumen as lancers. Even in the prototypical horse archer dunkfest, Carrhae, the Parthians still needed to close in with their cataphracts and inflicted the the majority of the Roman casualties afterwards, once the Roman army had basically suffered morale collapse.

Furthermore, we're playing a game and battles in this game are supposed to be about the interplay between different troops, along with other factors, to create interesting tactical situations. Having horse archers and archers unabashedly dunk on everything else means that there is a single optimum, which is inherently less interesting.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

Furthermore, we're playing a game and battles in this game are supposed to be about the interplay between different troops, along with other factors, to create interesting tactical situations. Having horse archers and archers unabashedly dunk on everything else means that there is a single optimum, which is inherently less interesting.

We need Huskarlz and Swadian knights to balance it out. What we don't need is nerfed, useless warband horsearchers to balance it out by being equally impotent as Cav and Infantry. The bad HA in warband were a result of a nerf to their original circling behavior (as seen in1257 mods) because people said "waaaa it's not fair my my barbarianz!...." in earlier versions of OG M&B.

I talked over and over about how Cav missis it's attacks and how Infantry bobs it's shield up and down allowing to be shot too easily from the front.
They need to stop being stubborn and just fix this stuff, give more armor/change damage calcs and keep single player completely separate from any MP considerations. I get it, too much HP and armor on Cav in MP makes everyone complain they can't have their Braveheart RP sword fights. Just do it separate. Why would it be so hard to just make entirely different units and loadouts so they can have affirmative infantry action in MP?

 

[Abyssos]

thats why u fight fire with fire not water best troops vs mountarchers?? mountarchers heheh

 

[Monkey]

We need Huskarlz and Swadian knights to balance it out. What we don't need is nerfed, useless warband horsearchers to balance it out by being equally impotent as Cav and Infantry. The bad HA in warband were a result of a nerf to their original circling behavior (as seen in1257 mods) because people said "waaaa it's not fair my my barbarianz!...." in earlier versions of OG M&B.

I talked over and over about how Cav missis it's attacks and how Infantry bobs it's shield up and down allowing to be shot too easily from the front.
They need to stop being stubborn and just fix this stuff, give more armor/change damage calcs and keep single player completely separate from any MP considerations. I get it, too much HP and armor on Cav in MP makes everyone complain they can't have their Braveheart RP sword fights. Just do it separate. Why would it be so hard to just make entirely different units and loadouts so they can have affirmative infantry action in MP?

Aren't Nord nobles (the last tier) supposed to be, at least in theory, the best counter to horse archers? They're high tier one-handed weapon and shield cavalry. While in theory I don't think they could chase horse archers, maybe they could break them away from the circle train of death with the threat of melee engagement. On the other pole (south), there are the Aserai nobles with the fastest horses in the game (not counting "noble" horses) and ****ing javelins which are horse killers. I keep saying I believe fine tuning of the troop AI (among other minor things, like troop stats and equipment - not nerfs, especially not to horse archer troops) could help improve balance. That said, I can't really say that I see the "rock-paper-scissors" element prevailing in Bannerlord, but I do believe there can be more incentives to diversifying instead of going 100% horse archers.

 

[brian82406]

I quoted the part where you said you have to use other units. In BL, right now you don't need to use other troop types and you can reliably beat every other army composition. You can win without losses if you put in a modest amount of effort.

It isn't historically accurate. Even in Agincourt, most of the actual killing was done in the melee and as for the Mongols, they held 40% of their tumen as lancers. Even in the prototypical horse archer dunkfest, Carrhae, the Parthians still needed to close in with their cataphracts and inflicted the the majority of the Roman casualties afterwards, once the Roman army had basically suffered morale collapse.

Furthermore, we're playing a game and battles in this game are supposed to be about the interplay between different troops, along with other factors, to create interesting tactical situations. Having horse archers and archers unabashedly dunk on everything else means that there is a single optimum, which is inherently less interesting.

Well, in Agincourt, French levies were melee by their own knights, and as I said, common soldiers just don't have the same protection knights have, this is not to mention many knights were killed by arrows in the face. As for Mongols, I don't think the defining line between horse archers and lancers were that obvious, and horse archers were still dealing the most damage. I just don't see the reason why you wanna charge a formation when you still have bow and arrows on horse, and also, Asian cav rarely charged into infantry's face like European cav did. Same happened during Islamic expansion in 8th century where Arabic archers easily picking off armed Roman soldiers on desert. They damage morale because they actually can kill people AND IS A KILLING POWER if you don't have a proper armour or cover.

And the game is designed in a such way that, you are just commanding a bunch of individuals with a sword and spear, and you call it "infantry" because they serve the function of an "infantryman", but they still FIGHT AS INDIVIDUAL with sword and spear!! They are not AOE2 unit where pikemen are created with certain stats or bonus, so horse and bow (Speed and Range) are just naturally great advantages to have. That's the beauty of the game. How do you balance that? Nerf the speed of horse or the power of bow? Is that the best you can think of, to make the game more playable for you personally and sacrificing its good presentation of reality? It's fun and playable because it kinda present the reality that HA are powerful.

thats why u fight fire with fire not water best troops vs mountarchers?? mountarchers heheh

HAH, if only everything is as simple as fire and water. Training your own horse archer to fight enemy horse archer was what ancient empires came to think of, maybe you should laugh at them too. How stupid to think of this idea, why don't they just invent a counter to it. Yeah, why don't they?

Aren't Nord nobles (the last tier) supposed to be, at least in theory, the best counter to horse archers? They're high tier one-handed weapon and shield cavalry. While in theory I don't think they could chase horse archers, maybe they could break them away from the circle train of death with the threat of melee engagement. On the other pole (south), there are the Aserai nobles with the fastest horses in the game (not counting "noble" horses) and ****ing javelins which are horse killers. I keep saying I believe fine tuning of the troop AI (among other minor things, like troop stats and equipment - not nerfs, especially not to horse archer troops) could help improve balance. That said, I can't really say that I see the "rock-paper-scissors" element prevailing in Bannerlord, but I do believe there can be more incentives to diversifying instead of going 100% horse archers.

I wonder why you wanna go for 100% HA... that kinda limits where you can go and what you can do, it's really not fun at all. And I feel the game already offered some good units to go against HA. For example, I would never want to go against a crossbow or heavy horse army w even just a 50~60% HA army, that would already be a micro nightmare. Though I would say if they just make those crossbow use the shield on their back as it should be used, or allow defending archers to place some barriers, HA would suffer even more.

 

[Jaang]

That might change depending on difficulty settings, but F1+F3 horse archers kill everything without losses 80-90% of the time when not outnumbered. If you actually command them, repositioning, manually ordering salvos and managing ammunition (F4), they can take anything even double their size (limited only by the amount of ammunition). And that's not all. If you're willing to "cheese" by fleeing once your run out of ammunition or even once enemy melee cavalry gets near (which is the epitome of "cheese" but I've done that in desperate moments) only to "reset" starting position and ammunition without resetting casualties, you can take on any number/type of enemies (except maybe - maybe - horse archers) without a single ****ing casualty.

It's pretty safe to say that horse archers are like panzers (combat vehicles). They're able to hurt while staying safe at a distance. The point of the OP might be that the "rock/paper/scissors" element in Bannerlord, if it's even there, is not too prevailing. I'm not sure what's by design or not, but, from my experience:

(Open) Field Battles: [Horse Archer > Melee Cavalry] > [Archer > Infantry]
Siege Battles: [Archer > Infantry] > [Horse Archer > Melee Cavalry]

I haven't extensively tested Aserai or Sturgian nobles against Khuzait nobles, but I believe it would be nice if at least some melee cavalry could be a good counter to horse archers. I do believe TaleWorlds is on the right track, with balance getting better with each patch. Penalizing (moving) mounted accuracy is a step in the right direction IMO. Of course there's still the problem of mass horse archer fire since the effectiveness/efficiency of a stream of mass arrow fire doesn't depend that much on accuracy/skill.

You can always order your horsearchers to dismount before firing, if mounted accuracy penalties get too big


Then get back on the horses after three or four volleys, and relocate.


Basically, a weapon that allows you to kill from a longer distance than your opponents, combined with a cheap transport platform, will always be a superior wespon system... whether it's archers on horses or machine gunners on armored jeeps.


That's just how the world works, and it's how anything even remotely modeled in the world will work too.

 

[8uzzard]

I am a horseback archer with 4 years of training. There are 2 types of draw in archery: the Mediterranean with 3 fingers and the arrow is on the left side of the bow which means that you have aiming because you can see the edge of the arrow tip blurry on the target. The other which is more evolution for the human being is the eastern THUMB draw only one finger with ring usually made from horn which is the real intuition instinctive because the arrow is on the right side of the bow and you cannot see the edge so you looking only at the target the rest is the human SOUL which is aiming, there is no other explanation. When you shoot with eastern thumb draw on horse back u have 1 2 release or 1000 2000 release. 2 seconds draw and release. THE MOST ACCURATE shooting is the soul's aiming in eastern thumb draw which is also used in Kyudo archery with the Yumi bows. The same instinctive shooting we can see in football in basketball also because when u shoot u don't look at the ball u focus on the target. In Bannerlord the archery is Mediterranean draw which is normal for me to take a bit longer aiming! The bow is not only insrtument for killing or hunting, it is the instrument for developing the intuition the tiny little bond that connects the soul with the flesh Edit: one more thing I forgot when you shoot in gallop is more easy for me than shooting in thrust which is the horse when slow but u jump on his back and its harder. The more gallop the more precise the more "calm in the air" the rest is practice. And one more thing out of the topic is that when u shoot u shoot with both eyes open because one the right eye is focusing on the target and the other is taking care for the peripheral sight and intuitively measures the distance to the target - that's a God's work and I cannot explain better. The precise shooting should be nothing more that 140 meters that's almost the maximum in which u can achieve the 10 in the target but from 8 to 10 circle in the target is considered for deadly zone. The arrow is flying from 140 to 240km per hour, depends on the pounds of the bow(I mean how heavy the bow is). A master archer or elite archers for example in Bannerlord should shoot with both right and left hand! So it will be easy to change sides with the bow draw only for 5 6 tier horse archers.

 

[Yertyl]

Can I just leave this quote here?

There has been quite a lot said about the longbow in historical texts, and and many of these tend to elevate the longbow to a sort of medieval heavy machine gun, decimating all its arrows touched at unheard-of ranges. It must be remembered, however, that while they often represented a large part of the army, their light armor and lack of close combat training made them vulnerable should an enemy manage to come to blows with them. This led to the English defeat at the battle of Patay in 1429. At Bannockburn in 1304, Edward II left his longbowmen too far on the flanks, and they were massacred by the reserve of Scottish cavalry.

From this site
This is one of the biggest problems currently in the game IMO: Archers are not significantly more vulnerable than melee units (sometimes even beating them in melee), and cavalry is not significantly more costly than infantry (beyond starting cost), which is why both dominate.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

Honestly, just nerf the damage of ranged attacks and everything will be better. Not accuracy, damage. Archers were terrific to have, but not necessarily because they are good at killing everything.