Damage/protection conception: the elephant in the room

Do you like the armour protection/infliction damage calculations currently applied in SP Bannerlord


  • Total voters
    148

Users who are viewing this thread

bestmods168

Sergeant
Yeah, there are things that can't be neglected, especially something that is supposed to be the backbone of the game.

Another thing that has been little talked about are the animations; whoever has been reading me will know that I have been (and still am) concerned about a few of them throughout this development process. The swing arcs is one of them.

This root problem is more palpable in MP but certainly affects SP. Well, first OurGloriousLeader provided feedback regarding this issue in 2019 and after bringing the issue to Taleworlds attention repeatedly (I insist, repeatedly), recently we were officially told that modifying the animations has a low chance of being implemented.

It's all a question of priorities... I wonder...instead of having your animators busy with cutscenes and other menial things, why don't you get them to actively review this problem and fix it once and for all? The vision™... there's another example of the Bannerlord experience™.

And I repeat, this fundamental issues cannot be relegated to modding because regardless of the people who may be concerned, it affects the newcomer to the franchise just as much as the veteran player. Want new items? -Modding ok... want more factions? - modding ok, you want AoE-style RTS mechanics like Bloc's latest video demo? -modding ok.

OK; but the combat system must necessarily be as solid or stronger than Warband's was back in the day.

giphy.gif

I'm quite concerned about this issue, honestly.
Until its fix. Let's have a moment of silence for the passing of bannerlord.................................
 

Tajl

Squire
To be frank, that looks absolutely absurd. Realistically, those legionaries will find themselves surrounded, tired out or just overwhelmed by the sheer weight of those looters.

Wearing armour doesn't mean you feel nothing either, you be battered up and bruised even from things that don't necessarily penetrate you. And I think a lot of people here underestimate the potential for just getting knocked out too.

And considering how easily and quickly you can amass a force of t5 elites, the game does get pretty easy with RBM.
I think historically peasants agains professional soldiers never ended well for the peasants. Armor was extremely important and even if armored man could feel when he was hit unarmored man was allready dead or crippled. And of course those professionals had lot better weapons too and were more skilled with them.

Good examples about how professional soldiers did against larger armies of peasants are rare, because usually peasants did know how it would end and didn't do it.

But there is some which I think are relevant. Like Defeat of Boudica. 10000 Romans agaisnt lot larger amy of brittish troops. Who even were not peasants, but still far from Romans well armed professionals. If those Brithish warriors couldn't do it what chance would true peasanst have?

And of course there is peasant rebellions through the history like German Peasan't War 1524-1525 where there was lot of peasant rebels who didn't accomplish anything and were instead slaugtered in masse.
 
I think historically peasants agains professional soldiers never ended well for the peasants. Armor was extremely important and even if armored man could feel when he was hit unarmored man was allready dead or crippled. And of course those professionals had lot better weapons too and were more skilled with them.

Good examples about how professional soldiers did against larger armies of peasants are rare, because usually peasants did know how it would end and didn't do it.

But there is some which I think are relevant. Like Defeat of Boudica. 10000 Romans agaisnt lot larger amy of brittish troops. Who even were not peasants, but still far from Romans well armed professionals. If those Brithish warriors couldn't do it what chance would true peasanst have?

And of course there is peasant rebellions through the history like German Peasan't War 1524-1525 where there was lot of peasant rebels who didn't accomplish anything and were instead slaugtered in masse.
Those tend to be a lot more a matter of poor morale and a lack of organisation. If you had that scenario in those video demos where raggedy dudes just kept piling on you, dead friends be damned, you will exhaust them eventually. Fighting a lot of dudes is no fun no matter how skilled or well equipped you are. Numbers are basically weight class- bigger is better.

Also, a lot of peasant rebellions were usually crushed with cavalry, not foot men. The horse is a significant force multiplier.

But yes, peasants against trained troops usually doesn't end well for peasants... but not really because armour and skill makes you invincible.
 

Honved

Knight
Most medieval conflicts between solders and peasants ended badly for the peasants, largely because they had minimal organization, inadequate training, and makeshift equipment. In all of the M&B games (unmodded), organization isn't a major factor, since the individual troops just charge the closest enemy and formations break apart long before contact is even made. It doesn't look ANYTHING like a medieval battle, more like a barroom brawl with weapons. Training is a significant factor in original M&B and Warband, but less so in Bannerlord, where the effects of skill seem to be soft-capped. Equipment, particularly armor, makes relatively little difference in Bannerlord, but was significant enough to make a clear difference in the previous iterations of the series.

100 peasants charging 10 veteran soldiers would probably be one-sided, since the initial shock of impact due to numbers would probably be squandered by the first few peasants arriving piecemeal, versus a rigid shieldwall on the veteran side. Close order on the advance and well-drilled cooperation between adjacent soldiers would put those first peasants to the fight at a huge disadvantage, and the first few casualties on the peasant side would be very likely to cause the entire group to rout before the rest could put their numbers to good use by surrounding the soldiers. I would expect a typical fight to last about as long as a Bannerlord battle, with a few dead peasants and the rest running for their lives. IF (and it's a big "if) the peasants manage to retain their morale and swarm the soldiers, I would THEN expect the peasants to overwhelm the soldiers, but with horrendous losses in the process.

The other part of the problem with Bannerlord is that a battle between equally trained and equipped veteran formations ends just about as quickly as a fight against peasants, again due to the lack of formation cohesion, reduced effects of skills, and the minimal effects of their far more expensive equipment. In effect, they're all just overpaid looters, not professional soldiers. Maybe Talewords should rename the game "MobMaster".
 

JunKeteer

Regular
Most medieval conflicts between solders and peasants ended badly for the peasants, largely because they had minimal organization, inadequate training, and makeshift equipment. In all of the M&B games (unmodded), organization isn't a major factor, since the individual troops just charge the closest enemy and formations break apart long before contact is even made. It doesn't look ANYTHING like a medieval battle, more like a barroom brawl with weapons. Training is a significant factor in original M&B and Warband, but less so in Bannerlord, where the effects of skill seem to be soft-capped. Equipment, particularly armor, makes relatively little difference in Bannerlord, but was significant enough to make a clear difference in the previous iterations of the series.

100 peasants charging 10 veteran soldiers would probably be one-sided, since the initial shock of impact due to numbers would probably be squandered by the first few peasants arriving piecemeal, versus a rigid shieldwall on the veteran side. Close order on the advance and well-drilled cooperation between adjacent soldiers would put those first peasants to the fight at a huge disadvantage, and the first few casualties on the peasant side would be very likely to cause the entire group to rout before the rest could put their numbers to good use by surrounding the soldiers. I would expect a typical fight to last about as long as a Bannerlord battle, with a few dead peasants and the rest running for their lives. IF (and it's a big "if) the peasants manage to retain their morale and swarm the soldiers, I would THEN expect the peasants to overwhelm the soldiers, but with horrendous losses in the process.

The other part of the problem with Bannerlord is that a battle between equally trained and equipped veteran formations ends just about as quickly as a fight against peasants, again due to the lack of formation cohesion, reduced effects of skills, and the minimal effects of their far more expensive equipment. In effect, they're all just overpaid looters, not professional soldiers. Maybe Talewords should rename the game "MobMaster".

Well said, due to the effectiveness (or lack of) for armor in BL, numbers play a more significant factor vs the veteran/higher tier troops; moral system was a good workaround but that needs some tweaking.
I don't mind if they cost more for upkeep/upgrading but as of right now, there's no feeling of 'potency' or 'connection' or 'development' when you get a squad of ~40 elites as we did in Warband.
 

Terco_Viejo

Spanish Gifquisition
Grandmaster Knight
Here's a hug buddy. 🎻:cry:

giphy.gif

Where this journey takes us, and whether Taleworlds makes a slight change of course to our satisfaction, we shall see 😌 🎻.

Until its fix. Let's have a moment of silence for the passing of bannerlord.................................
Quite right... for many players, Talewordls' failure to fix this means crippling their own foundation, which is only shaking as we get closer to the "supposed end of EA". Clearly there are modders who have lost/ are losing interest in the game as critical problems with the native are not fixed by default.
 

CrazyElf

Sergeant
They simply don't buy food in an army. When I make an army and visit all villages/towns before sieging. I still have parties starving and eating my food. Villages still had food you could buy, but they simply wouldn't. They also all had money (my companions and my clans in kingdom, non was poor/very poor. All average+). So yeah, they simply don't buy food.

Yes - having food when the AI is sieging has become a reliable way to gain influence. The problem is you can't be in every army and the enemy must be challenging enough to make the game interesting.

The problem can be summed as:

  1. The AI must keep more food in the part, especially when preparing to lay siege.
  2. Laying siege requires a long effort because one must build camp, then siege equipment.
  3. I also think the AI should knock walls down more frequently, but this takes even longer and the AI has to be smart enough to build 4 trebuchets and move them to reserve, then attack
  4. Naturally option 3 requires a lot of food (probably several weeks worth)
  5. They should also have horses, as large armies don't move quickly

They also need to only abandon a siege when it makes sense (ex: heavy losses with low odds of taking the settlement or a stronger enemy party nearby).

LOL. True. True. I say the same thing all the time. People in the modding discord have got to stop inflating their egos everyday and attacking anyone not in their boyz club. They can have all the cool and best looking assets in the world, but at the end of the day their soldiers will just clusterf_ck on the battlefield.

Although I don't agree with their behavior, I don't think it's the folks modding and making new assets that are preventing Taleworlds or anyone else from implementing a smarter AI here.

Ultimately they have to release a major patch with smarter AI. I mean, mods like RBM AI can help, but the base game should have a decent AI.

Formation attacks and complex ai tactics are possible. Its just not on taleworld's list of things to do. Think about it. TW was able to change the ai behavior and allowed them to march forward cohesively. Then allow the infantry to engage the enemy while the cavalry does a perfect flank. RBM was able to make the two sides keep a distance while engaged. Enhanced Battle Test was able to allow one to select which unit to attack.

Right now Spear Rework or RBM Combat Module are basically necessary for spears.


I think better formations, and a major re-balance of armor are necessary.
 

CrazyElf

Sergeant
I think historically peasants agains professional soldiers never ended well for the peasants. Armor was extremely important and even if armored man could feel when he was hit unarmored man was allready dead or crippled. And of course those professionals had lot better weapons too and were more skilled with them.

It would depend on the timer period and civilization. Often levies were basically cannon fodder - kind of like how recruits are (at least with RBM Combat Module enabled).

Often the bottleneck was the income of the levies themselves, who were expected to provide their own equipment. This was certainly true in the early Middle Ages and in the Roman Republic (before the Marian reforms). Some of the more well off levies might be well equipped, but lower class people would surely not be.

Oddly enough, at times "Barbarian" (or what Rome and probably the Calradian Empire in Bannerlord) would consider barbarians were often well equipped with levies. They have a "savage warrior" culture. Battania would probably be the closest that fits that.

There were certainly cultures that did improve their levy troops (Marian Reforms in Rome or maybe Later Middle Ages and perhaps Japan during the Sengoku Jidai), but yes, levies were never going to be as good as a professional soldier.


Most medieval conflicts between solders and peasants ended badly for the peasants, largely because they had minimal organization, inadequate training, and makeshift equipment. In all of the M&B games (unmodded), organization isn't a major factor, since the individual troops just charge the closest enemy and formations break apart long before contact is even made. It doesn't look ANYTHING like a medieval battle, more like a barroom brawl with weapons. Training is a significant factor in original M&B and Warband, but less so in Bannerlord, where the effects of skill seem to be soft-capped. Equipment, particularly armor, makes relatively little difference in Bannerlord, but was significant enough to make a clear difference in the previous iterations of the series.

At this point, I'll say it again, RBM is a game changer for this. Tier 1 units get slaughtered by higher tier units.

IF we wanted a truly realistic battle, maybe we'd want 3 classes:

  1. Levy
  2. Man at arms
  3. Noble units

There is a mod that allows for this.



It's for those who want even more realism.
 
If they make armour more powerful, the whole game would need to be rebalanced, which is why I don't use any mod to change it, which might thoroughly break the balance, in both singleplayer and multiplayer. In singleplayer mode, Faris is arguably the worst noble troop in game for their poorest armor. Will they become even weaker? Also in online game, Aserai is featured with light armor. I can't imagine they thoroughly rebalance the game.
 

five bucks

Knight
If they make armour more powerful, the whole game would need to be rebalanced
The game isn't balanced in the first place, so that isn't an issue.

In fact, the game is horrendously imbalanced right now because of the weakness of armour.

Therefore, fixing armour will actually reduce the amount of balancing work that needs to occur in the game.

Right now, all melee attacking units are much weaker than ranged units, especially melee attacking units without shields. Look at this, archers can easily murder infantry who outnumber them more than 2x.

The only thing that keeps infantry relevant at all is shields, and even then you don't need many infantry at all, because a small amount of infantry forces the enemy to drop their shields, allowing your archers at the back to shoot into melee. Therefore the best party which gives the best results against any enemies is always "small amount of shield infantry supported by lots of archers", or "stacked Khan's Guard who are archers as well as being the best melee troops in the game."

The game is horribly imbalanced because armour is so weak against arrows - so fixing armour will make the game more balanced.
In singleplayer mode, Faris is arguably the worst noble troop in game for their poorest armor. Will they become even weaker?
They will become comparatively stronger. Right now noble troop tiers are something like this:

Tier S: Khuzait Khan's Guard
Tier A: Battanian Fian
Tier C: Every other noble troop
Tier C-: Faris.

If armour is fixed, and glaive is nerfed, it will look more like this:

Tier A: Every noble troop
Tier A-: Faris.
 
Last edited:

black_bulldog

Knight at Arms
WBWF&SVC
If they make armour more powerful, the whole game would need to be rebalanced, which is why I don't use any mod to change it, which might thoroughly break the balance, in both singleplayer and multiplayer. In singleplayer mode, Faris is arguably the worst noble troop in game for their poorest armor. Will they become even weaker? Also in online game, Aserai is featured with light armor. I can't imagine they thoroughly rebalance the game.
It makes armor stronger across the board so units don't die so fast. RBM makes it so higher tier units are worth price and upkeep instead of being a glorified cannon fodder. It's doubtful that Taleworlds would ever change mp armor values and afaik no one here is asking for that. But imho a nice side effect of higher armor values is battles last longer and become more technical so you as a battlefield commander can have more control of the flow of battles, before saying that the mod breaks the game why not try it and see for yourself if you like it or not.
 
It makes armor stronger across the board so units don't die so fast. RBM makes it so higher tier units are worth price and upkeep instead of being a glorified cannon fodder. It's doubtful that Taleworlds would ever change mp armor values and afaik no one here is asking for that. But imho a nice side effect of higher armor values is battles last longer and become more technical so you as a battlefield commander can have more control of the flow of battles, before saying that the mod breaks the game why not try it and see for yourself if you like it or not.
What you said is exactly what concerns me. I think if armor is made stronger, the maintenance of higher tier troops should be greatly increased. In valina game, low tier troops have their place. I kind of enjoy choosing between power but expensive high tier troops, and weak but cheap low tier troops. If maintenance not change, many interesting low-tier troops would become meaningless, not good for variety.
The game isn't balanced in the first place, so that isn't an issue.

In fact, the game is horrendously imbalanced right now because of the weakness of armour.

Therefore, fixing armour will actually reduce the amount of balancing work that needs to occur in the game.

Right now, all melee attacking units are much weaker than ranged units, especially melee attacking units without shields. Look at this, archers can easily murder infantry who outnumber them more than 2x.

The only thing that keeps infantry relevant at all is shields, and even then you don't need many infantry at all, because a small amount of infantry forces the enemy to drop their shields, allowing your archers at the back to shoot into melee. Therefore the best party which gives the best results against any enemies is always "small amount of shield infantry supported by lots of archers", or "stacked Khan's Guard who are archers as well as being the best melee troops in the game."

The game is horribly imbalanced because armour is so weak against arrows - so fixing armour will make the game more balanced.

They will become comparatively stronger. Right now noble troop tiers are something like this:

Tier S: Khuzait Khan's Guard
Tier A: Battanian Fian
Tier C: Every other noble troop
Tier C-: Faris.

If armour is fixed, and glaive is nerfed, it will look more like this:

Tier A: Every noble troop
Tier A-: Faris.
Ranged troops might be a little op in singleplayer mode, but I doubt if it's armour's sake, as in multiplayer mode ranged troops are kind of weak. If armor is powered against arrows, I can't see any use of ranged troops in multiplayer mode. I also concern some other things like the maintenance and the strength in simulation battles. From simulation battle, we can figure out that 1 high tier troop is equivalent to 2 or 3 low tier troops. If armor is buffed, then high tier troops are buffed, which means high tier troops may slaughter more recruits. I don't know if you see it ok, but they need to be reworked, or maybe only buff armour against arrows? Then why not just keep nerf archers.
 

five bucks

Knight
I think if armor is made stronger, the maintenance of higher tier troops should be greatly increased. In valina game, low tier troops have their place. I kind of enjoy choosing between power but expensive high tier troops, and weak but cheap low tier troops.
The issue is that high tier melee troops are already expensive (Tier 5 troops cost 6 times more wages than a recruit) but are not powerful to match that cost (I have tested it, and 10 Tier 5 melee troops cannot defeat even 17 Tier 1 melee troops).

So, despite costing 6x more than a recruit, T5 melee troops are not even 2x as powerful.

This is due to the weakness of armor allowing low tier troops to easily kill high tier troops. This is a big reason why armour needs to be fixed - blunt damage against armor needs to be reduced a bit, and arrow damage to armor needs to be reduced a lot.
If maintenance not change, many interesting low-tier troops would become meaningless, not good for variety.
Low tier troops would still be useful because they are cheaper than top tier troops, and because when top tier troops die you must train up low tier troops to get back to them.

What is currently not good for variety is that all melee troops are weak, so if you want to use a viable army, you have to use archers or Khan's Guard. Fixing armour will help fix this.
Ranged troops might be a little op in singleplayer mode, but I doubt if it's armour's sake, as in multiplayer mode ranged troops are kind of weak.
It is important to note that multiplayer mode and singleplayer mode are balanced separately by Taleworlds. Multiplayer mode already has different damage, movement speed, weapon stats, etc., from Singleplayer mode.

Armour is certainly the main issue here, as many experienced Singleplayer veterans agree.
If armor is powered against arrows, I can't see any use of ranged troops in multiplayer mode.
We are only asking for armour to change in singleplayer.
I also concern some other things like the maintenance and the strength in simulation battles. From simulation battle, we can figure out that 1 high tier troop is equivalent to 2 or 3 low tier troops. If armor is buffed, then high tier troops are buffed, which means high tier troops may slaughter more recruits. I don't know if you see it ok, but they need to be reworked, or maybe only buff armour against arrows? Then why not just keep nerf archers.
High tier troops slaughtering more recruits is a good thing. Since I pay 6x more money for a T5 Legionary, he should be able to take on 5 enemies.

In Mount & Blade Warband, a Swadian Knight could kill more than 10 Recruits by himself. In the current version of the game, a Khuzait Khan's Guard can also kill 10 Recruits by himself. So it's not too far out of the question that 1 guy should be able to kill 5 guys.
 
Top Bottom