Disccusion about the current position of Infantry

Currently viewing this thread:

Forsee

Veteran
In WB most of the time you had only 1 horse available, 810g Boris or how is it calld I don't remember, and this horse was way less fragile than BL heavy horses. You spent ALL your gold just to get that relatively light horse. Here you have heavy horse, heavy armour and great lance by default and on top of that you have 2 spawns just like heavy inf do.
 

OurGloriousLeader

Grandmaster Knight
Boris 😂

Yeah you had the hunter which is probably comparable to the light cav class here in BL, and the rider usually was lighter armoured than the infantry as well, again comparable to the light cav. The armour on the horses is just incredibly strong, it needs, if not removed for thematic and aesthetic reasons, then at least heavily given a downgrade in terms of what the rest of the rider's equipment is (very slow horse?)
 

Roadpork

Regular
Yes exactly. Here is the thing with realism: it sucks to be an Infantry amongst an army of cavalry and archers. With that being said, nobody would like to play Infantry and if we keep going the way we are going then all Infantry mains, including myself, will switch to Cavalry or Archer because its just much more fun. We will have matches of 3 archers and 3 cav vs 3 archers and 3 cav. I am not actually exagarating because I am considering to permanently switch class to Archer or Cavalry because I regularly get F**KED by an archer that I can never catch or a random horseman that stands still in the middle of a melee fight whilst his horse tanks all the damage. Believe me if this doesn't change the Infantry class will become an accesory to the game whilst everyone focuses on archer and cav.

This is why I invite everyone to post constructive feedback so there is a slight chance the developers might consider implementing any of these

Actually, to be realistic and economic speaking, an inf in-game should represent at least 10 people combine together. e.g. 10 times of HP, 5 times of damage(considering people in the real world can't stack)...
 

EbdanianAdmiral

Knight at Arms
Give us a flexible inf class that can fill multiple roles without being forcing inf to dedicate themselves to a niche.

(Medium Infantry)

Buff the medium inf that already exist for Battania and Sturgia while adding the class to other factions.
 

Spaceyetu

Recruit
Archers should have to choose between being quick enough to kite and being able to fight in close quarters. Put a movement penalty on carrying both a bow and a 2h and lessen the penalty on just a bow.

Armor still doesn't matter as much as it should. Arrows shouldn't deal damage when it hits plate. If armor were as weak as it is in bannerlord, no one would ever have wore it. You can't actually shoot an arrow through a breastplate... at all. You have to hit gaps in the armor and rain a volume of arrows on heavily armored enemies. Chain and gambeson would stop you from getting pierced (unless they used specific arrow heads) but it would still feel like you got hit with a 90 mph fastball.
 
@Spaceyetu: So you are talking "same main weapon" (no difference in weapon values) but light gear vs. heavy gear. A good comparison would be the Khuzait Archer vs. the Khuzait Khan Guard - to quote something I know.
Armor-wise, the first just wears a kind of hat while the other has a full armor - should make a difference in movement. The normal archer should outrun other armored classes outright to play its cards like exploiting flanks or harassment, right?
Side-arm should not be more than some 1H-weapon for self-defense...we are talking short swords and one-handed maces here or a hatchet. No "2H-axe-wielding berserker with a bow"
Since the heavy archer is slower, it still could have better melee gear, so 2H-swords or polearms are o.k., right? But no shield or even with shield: no forcefield over the shield's border. You are trading survivability or melee prowess for speed in fact.

Somewhat I wonder, why we have damage types but armor does not react differently to them so: just one armor value. Or does it make a difference?
I know that chain mail protects versus cuts very well, but not versus piercing damage. Padded armor protects versus blunt damage. Plate protects versus piercing, but could be deformed by heavy blows from axes and maces (something not reflected at all), basically: blunt and cut damage
 

Forsee

Veteran
Stop trying to bring realism in BL, it's a multiplayer competitive game, and it mainly should be balanced and fun to play, even if it goes against realism. The game has a lot of conventions and that's alright. You cannot make heavy infantry the slowest class in game, as it should be in terms of realism, it would just ruin the gameplay. You also cannot make them like tuna cans, that would be stupid balance decision and it won't be fun to play.
 

Spaceyetu

Recruit
The goal of my bringing in realism isn't to say it should interact exactly realistically, but rather that the way its implemented now its so far off the realistic case that armor is never really preferred over speed.

The game should have interesting choices in load out selection and the theme of those choices modeled after some degree of medieval realism. Its not absolute one way or another.
 

hoonii

Sergeant at Arms
you have 2 spawns just like heavy inf do
uh that is wrong for heavy cav??
light cav can spawn twice but are very fragile, especially to archers
i think you meant 1 heavy 1 light spawn correct?


Maybe the ultimate nerf to cav, so people can stop *****ing about it, would be increasing the heavy cav cost so high that it gives you only one spawn(or maybe one cav spawn only, no light spawn or anything) so it would be extremely risky but rewarding choice. But then no one would take heavy cav everyone would go for double light spawn, so much in fact heavy cav would fall from meta. Unreasonable in my opinion.
 

Spaceyetu

Recruit
@Mikal Manfriedson Thats what I was thinking as far as archer loadouts go. The heavier archers shouldn't be able to escape without support but fair better in a head to head fight and the lighter archers should get sliced up like butter when caught but have mobility that requires either cavalry or a fast inf unit to catch.
 

Caps

Knight at Arms
WBWF&SNWVC
@Mikal Manfriedson Thats what I was thinking as far as archer loadouts go. The heavier archers shouldn't be able to escape without support but fair better in a head to head fight and the lighter archers should get sliced up like butter when caught but have mobility that requires either cavalry or a fast inf unit to catch.
movement speed is rly important in a close combat fight
 

Forsee

Veteran
@Mikal Manfriedson Thats what I was thinking as far as archer loadouts go. The heavier archers shouldn't be able to escape without support but fair better in a head to head fight and the lighter archers should get sliced up like butter when caught but have mobility that requires either cavalry or a fast inf unit to catch.
All infantry should be able to catch all archers, imagine situation where you have only heavy infantry left against a few light archers, if they wouldn't be able to catch them, that would be an auto win for these archs. Heavy archers are already slow enough, the problem is that infantry is too slow to catch them fast enough to not die from a crossfire.
Maybe throwables should slow down enemies a bit for a couple secs on hit and maybe they should even rear cav on a clean headshot throw to the high speed horse.
 

Spaceyetu

Recruit
All infantry should be able to catch all archers, imagine situation where you have only heavy infantry left against a few light archers, if they wouldn't be able to catch them, that would be an auto win for these archs. Heavy archers are already slow enough, the problem is that infantry is too slow to catch them fast enough to not die from a crossfire.
Maybe throwables should slow down enemies a bit for a couple secs on hit and maybe they should even rear cav on a clean headshot throw to the high speed horse.

I dont think the game should be balanced around single unit vs single unit. If it does come down to that the archers should be low on arrows and it become about ammo efficiency.

That won't really happen now though because archer ammo amount/efficiency is a bit too good. Killing an infantry in full lam plate with mail and gamb with arrows should take a lot of arrows to find armor gaps or bludgeon with repetitive volleys. But like I said before, BL armor doesn't really do much.
 

flashn00b

Regular
I think what really needs to happen is for cavalry to have mechanics that better emphasize their role as an archer counter, hence my earlier thread about a super armor mechanic similar to what fighting games have. That way, archers will either be forced to land headshots or pick a class that's armed with a weapon capable of causing horses to rear on impact
 

Enter

Sergeant at Arms
I will tell you how most of heavy infantry vs heavy archer duels looks like. 3 of 5 heavy archers (only sturgia doesn't have heavy archers) have two handed weapons. When archer is skillful he can easily make perfect block and create situation where slow infantry player have to block hits because he got stun and he can't repeat attack. Slow movement of infantry, especially during blocking with shield, is giving oportunity to archer to make kickslah or to spam with attacks inf player. Two handed wepons are giving chance to kill heavy infantry in 2 hits. And here we go. This is why archers are better than infantry. While in Warband archers didn't have acces to good melee weapons and they were getting items from drops from infantry now in Bannerlord archers have best melee weapons, same movement speed as infantry and obviously ranged weapon. Infantry is bad in everything. It's because other units have same statistics and same or even better melee weapons. Previously heavy infantry had throwing weapons which other units didn't have. Now infantry have slow movement speed so they can't catch archers and useless spears against cavalry.
 

Loyal2Odin

Sergeant
I will tell you how most of heavy infantry vs heavy archer duels looks like. 3 of 5 heavy archers (only sturgia doesn't have heavy archers) have two handed weapons. When archer is skillful he can easily make perfect block and create situation where slow infantry player have to block hits because he got stun and he can't repeat attack. Slow movement of infantry, especially during blocking with shield, is giving oportunity to archer to make kickslah or to spam with attacks inf player. Two handed wepons are giving chance to kill heavy infantry in 2 hits. And here we go. This is why archers are better than infantry. While in Warband archers didn't have acces to good melee weapons and they were getting items from drops from infantry now in Bannerlord archers have best melee weapons, same movement speed as infantry and obviously ranged weapon. Infantry is bad in everything. It's because other units have same statistics and same or even better melee weapons. Previously heavy infantry had throwing weapons which other units didn't have. Now infantry have slow movement speed so they can't catch archers and useless spears against cavalry.
Yes. Sign the petition #inflivesmatter
 
All infantry should be able to catch all archers, imagine situation where you have only heavy infantry left against a few light archers, if they wouldn't be able to catch them, that would be an auto win for these archs. Heavy archers are already slow enough, the problem is that infantry is too slow to catch them fast enough to not die from a crossfire.
Maybe throwables should slow down enemies a bit for a couple secs on hit and maybe they should even rear cav on a clean headshot throw to the high speed horse.
I disagree - arrows are limited - once you are out of them, you are outclassed automatically and I think this is true for all game modes (remember: I only know captain). So unencumbered troop should ALWAYS be quicker then encumbered.
 
Top Bottom