[Discussion Area] Redundant Units in the Troop Trees + Noble Branch tier simplification

[nereid]

I think spearmen and pikemen can exist together without too much overlap. Spearmen can be decent anti cavalry with the ability to withstand enemy volleys, while pikes can be the real cavalry stoppers, albeit at the cost of being target practice for archers.

Yes, but this touches on another point which is the behavior in formations and the shield wall. Currently the front line of the shield wall will include units without shields which is not how it should be. Currently I rarely use unshielded troops as you have to do to much micromanagement to get them to survive until the melee mosh pit. I would love to simply order my infantry into a shield wall and the heavy shielded infantry will take the first two lines while the shock troops and skirmishers will stand behind them and advance orderly towards the enemy.

Additionally I would love to get a better handle on skirmisher infantry units. Currently they also require a lot of micromanagement to use them rather well. IMHO it really depends where things shall go. If the AI is rather well implemented then you can simply shove them off to the AI and run hay wire in the battle field but as long as the AI has its quirks micromanagement is all that you've got.

 

[Qwezz]

Batannia and sturgia would be overpowered if you gave them access to fianns/varyags in the basic troop tree. You could nerf them, but that would damage their identity as battania=best archers, sturgia=best infantry. Fiann champions and varyags have a reputaion to uphold after all. What I think should be done to keep their identity, while keeping the noble troop tree cavalry idea is making their archer and inf 1 tier above other basic units as a exception.

Recruit>Warrior>Soldier>veteran warrior>varyag>veteran varyag(1 tier above all other basic units, more expensive as well)
Volunteer>Clan warrior>Trained warrior>Battanian archer>Fiann>Fiann champion(1 tier above all other basic units, more expensive as well)

This might have balancing issues, but is the bare minimum design-wise. Sturgia would actually end up being better off than before, as a varyag will be THE unit of sturgia,like he should be, instead of something you just upgrade to heavy cav.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

I am regretfully aware, seems I failed to convey the intent of my reply. That was the closest emoji I could to mimic a nervous sweat.

Water under the bridge, mate.

I swear no more derailing; let's get on with the main subject. Thank you.

Batannia and sturgia would be overpowered if you gave them access to fianns/varyags in the basic troop tree. You could nerf them, but that would damage their identity as battania=best archers, sturgia=best infantry. Fiann champions and varyags have a reputaion to uphold after all. What I think should be done to keep their identity, while keeping the noble troop tree cavalry idea is making their archer and inf 1 tier above other basic units as a exception.

Recruit>Warrior>Soldier>veteran warrior>varyag>veteran varyag(1 tier above all other basic units, more expensive as well)
Volunteer>Clan warrior>Trained warrior>Battanian archer>Fiann>Fiann champion(1 tier above all other basic units, more expensive as well)

This might have balancing issues, but is the bare minimum design-wise. Sturgia would actually end up being better off than before, as a varyag will be THE unit of sturgia,like he should be, instead of something you just upgrade to heavy cav.

IHMO the Bannerlord's Fiann are a total aberration, an attempt at pseudo-fantasy robinhood william wallace archetype; it would have been better to convert them into something similar to the Gallowglass archetype. The Bannerlord's Fiann has nothing to do with any "Celtic orbit" at all. Indeed, I think the crossbow should be implemented in the Battanian line by pure Pictish connection and have a line of archers that resemble Welsh archers archetype...but that is another debate.

The nobles of Battania, should go on horseback. Indeed, in ancient times the Gallic/Celtiberian cavalry was considered if not the best, among the best. A kind of middle-class cavalry that, when dismounted, performed like an infantry troop of the highest level. This should apply to the noble line of Sturgia as well; the Druzhina.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

Water under the bridge, mate.

I swear no more derailing; let's get on with the main subject. Thank you.

Aye. Back to topic...

Batannia and sturgia would be overpowered if you gave them access to fianns/varyags in the basic troop tree. You could nerf them, but that would damage their identity as battania=best archers, sturgia=best infantry. Fiann champions and varyags have a reputaion to uphold after all. What I think should be done to keep their identity, while keeping the noble troop tree cavalry idea is making their archer and inf 1 tier above other basic units as a exception.

Recruit>Warrior>Soldier>veteran warrior>varyag>veteran varyag(1 tier above all other basic units, more expensive as well)
Volunteer>Clan warrior>Trained warrior>Battanian archer>Fiann>Fiann champion(1 tier above all other basic units, more expensive as well)

This might have balancing issues, but is the bare minimum design-wise. Sturgia would actually end up being better off than before, as a varyag will be THE unit of sturgia,like he should be, instead of something you just upgrade to heavy cav.

I am going to assume that @Terco_Viejo did in fact intend for them to be appropriately nerfed down if put into the common troop tree. While you could bump them up, I think that runs into your original issue- giving Battanians and Sturgians access to common tier 6 units would be overpowered. Doesn't matter the price, considering everyone is fine paying for nobles.

Making them stronger within reason isn't actually hard at all. Longbows already give Fians a distinct edge, and you can bump up their Bow skill to match Master Archers, along with their very capable two handed and athletics skills. Similar things can be done to the Varyags (who aren't even much stronger than other infantry to begin with).

Yes, but this touches on another point which is the behavior in formations and the shield wall. Currently the front line of the shield wall will include units without shields which is not how it should be. Currently I rarely use unshielded troops as you have to do to much micromanagement to get them to survive until the melee mosh pit. I would love to simply order my infantry into a shield wall and the heavy shielded infantry will take the first two lines while the shock troops and skirmishers will stand behind them and advance orderly towards the enemy.

Additionally I would love to get a better handle on skirmisher infantry units. Currently they also require a lot of micromanagement to use them rather well. IMHO it really depends where things shall go. If the AI is rather well implemented then you can simply shove them off to the AI and run hay wire in the battle field but as long as the AI has its quirks micromanagement is all that you've got.

Oh, that. I don't know about that, I just hope that TW can un**** the shield wall mess. Don't two handers hide behind shield walls and wasn't the issue about them running ahead thanks to TW's nerf to the shield wall speed? They had the right idea of making two handers hide behind shields before, so maybe they can just hard cap running speed within formation or something.

Its less for players for sure since they can micro if willing, but I do see the concern when it comes to AI and their behaviour based on the basic troop type logic they work with.

I tend to use a lot of 'fire at will' and 'hold fire' commands when it comes to skirmishers, along with moving them all over the place. Would be great if TW did actually work on them for sure though, although I consider them to be much more of a micro management troop no matter what.

 

[nereid]

Oh, that. I don't know about that, I just hope that TW can un**** the shield wall mess. Don't two handers hide behind shield walls and wasn't the issue about them running ahead thanks to TW's nerf to the shield wall speed? They had the right idea of making two handers hide behind shields before, so maybe they can just hard cap running speed within formation or something.

AFAIK currently units in a shield wall will walk. I do not know if a jogging shield wall would be better shortening the time the infantry is under archer fire. This in turn removed the in front running shock troops. But if you move the formation then it is still possible to get unshielded troops in the front rank.

 

[Piconi]

This is a great discussion, i absolutely agree that no looter units should ever be allowed to upgrade to noble units, and this thread revealed to me some wondefull mods i honestly haven't been paying attention to (with less to no both time and desire actually playing the Singleplayer).

That made me thinking, perhaps that could change with @HalfMetalJacket @Terco_Viejo and myself potentially merging some of our mods together into 1 single module some time in the future. Troops, combat, camera, collision capsules, freehand shields, uniform colors, banners and colored settlement names, all reworked in a lite Native+ manner ?

 

[Ling*]

While redundancy may be... bad? I think that from my perspective the more options for units we have to play around with (even if its just an aesthetic difference), the better the game is. Though yeah if we're just talking about straight up duplicates I say we get rid of em and make new unique classes.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

This is a great discussion, i absolutely agree that no looter units should ever be allowed to upgrade to noble units, and this thread revealed to me some wondefull mods i honestly haven't been paying attention to (with less to no both time and desire actually playing the Singleplayer).

That made me thinking, perhaps that could change with @HalfMetalJacket @Terco_Viejo and myself potentially merging some of our mods together into 1 single module some time in the future. Troops, combat, camera, collision capsules, freehand shields, uniform colors, banners and colored settlement names, all reworked in a lite Native+ manner ?

It wouldn't be a bad idea to do a macro mod, to be honest. More Troops Mod by @HalfMetalJacket is one of the most interesting Native conversions in my eyes (there are things that can be improved, but hey) and even more so with the new assets (Italian-Norman helmet...etc). I'm looking forward to seeing new models of armour and other panoply by the Community and I also look forward to what Taleworlds will officially offer us in this regard.

I hope that Taleworlds will finally abandon the idea of a " saxon " Battania (with no intention of disparaging identities) by embracing the PURE Celtic archetype. The same with Sturgia and its Slavic flavour (there will be time for Nordic Vikings in a hypothetical Nord invasion DLC, who knows? ).

The Community when it goes hand in hand together; it is always stronger if it is clear where to go.

 

[Apocal]

I would honestly hand the hooked spears to Vlandian sergeants. No idea why people think they're good. They're actually not well armoured, don't randomly whip out short bills anymore and they have no throwing weapons. A hooked spear would at least give them the niche as the definitive spear & shield infantry.

They have maces that chew through heavily armored enemies, especially 2-hander infantry. The maces keep working in the tightest of presses, so Vlandian sergeants really start to stand out when you're facing something like the Wall Of Steel Aserai mid-game armies. I think anti-armor infantry is a very narrow niche, to be honest, but when it works, it really works well.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

This is a great discussion, i absolutely agree that no looter units should ever be allowed to upgrade to noble units, and this thread revealed to me some wondefull mods i honestly haven't been paying attention to (with less to no both time and desire actually playing the Singleplayer).

That made me thinking, perhaps that could change with @HalfMetalJacket @Terco_Viejo and myself potentially merging some of our mods together into 1 single module some time in the future. Troops, combat, camera, collision capsules, freehand shields, uniform colors, banners and colored settlement names, all reworked in a lite Native+ manner ?

So you mean like Diplomacy? Sounds cool, but I'm no good for anything other than troop trees and 5 minute craft assets.

It wouldn't be a bad idea to do a macro mod, to be honest. More Troops Mod by @HalfMetalJacket is one of the most interesting Native conversions in my eyes (there are things that can be improved, but hey) and even more so with the new assets (Italian-Norman helmet...etc). I'm looking forward to seeing new models of armour and other panoply by the Community and I also look forward to what Taleworlds will officially offer us in this regard.

I hope that Taleworlds will finally abandon the idea of a " saxon " Battania (with no intention of disparaging identities) by embracing the PURE Celtic archetype. The same with Sturgia and its Slavic flavour (there will be time for Nordic Vikings in a hypothetical Nord invasion DLC, who knows? ).

The Community when it goes hand in hand together; it is always stronger if it is clear where to go.

You can't just tell me that things can be improved without telling me what. Now lay it on me. You know you want to get even.

But anyway these are different topics for elsewhere, so moving back to the actual discussion...

AFAIK currently units in a shield wall will walk. I do not know if a jogging shield wall would be better shortening the time the infantry is under archer fire. This in turn removed the in front running shock troops. But if you move the formation then it is still possible to get unshielded troops in the front rank.

I don't really know the specifics myself, but yeah, I'll assume that a commander would want their troops to cut the distance between them and enemy skirmishers, so a jog sounds legit. Still, I think its possible to force shock troops to stay behind shield bearers no matter what. The 'Follow' command forces your soldiers to stay behind you, and never step in front.

While redundancy may be... bad? I think that from my perspective the more options for units we have to play around with (even if its just an aesthetic difference), the better the game is. Though yeah if we're just talking about straight up duplicates I say we get rid of em and make new unique classes.

Depends on that aesthetic difference. Something like the difference between a Veteran Falxman and a Voulgier? Fine by me. Something like Oathsworn and Wildings? I believe that would fall under your idea of a duplicate.

They have maces that chew through heavily armored enemies, especially 2-hander infantry. The maces keep working in the tightest of presses, so Vlandian sergeants really start to stand out when you're facing something like the Wall Of Steel Aserai mid-game armies. I think anti-armor infantry is a very narrow niche, to be honest, but when it works, it really works well.

Eh, but Imperial Legionaries have a 2/3 chance of coming out with maces, all while packing far superior armour pilas they can either hold or throw.

I still think Sergeants would benefit from having hooked spears, if only to stop Legionaries from completely blowing them out of the water.

 

[Apocal]

Eh, but Imperial Legionaries have a 2/3 chance of coming out with maces, all while packing far superior armour pilas they can either hold or throw.

I still think Sergeants would benefit from having hooked spears, if only to stop Legionaries from completely blowing them out of the water.

That's true but I was arguing why I think they are good, not why I think they are the best.

edit: Also, I remain skeptical of all spears and spear-like implements in Bannerlord.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

Fair enough.

edit: Also, I remain skeptical of all spears and spear-like implements in Bannerlord.

Even glaives?

 

[Apocal]

Even glaives?

No, just thrust-only polearms. They come pre-nerfed and the AI still doesn't know enough to exploit their reach advantage or even keep appropriate distance.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

No, just thrust-only polearms. They come pre-nerfed and the AI still doesn't know enough to exploit their reach advantage or even keep appropriate distance.

And AI don't have a sense of self preservation. They'll run through a pike until they're balls to balls with the guy holding it. Thrust polearms definitely do need the ability to create and dominate distance, just as they did in real life.

Still, hooked spears kind of do something? They only really work when cavalry essentially get past the wall of spears, but better than nothing.

 

[Anushtegin]

ah, it's one of my favourite topics. i even did a more comprehensive thread a while ago with much of the same conclusions.

• battanian troop tree should absolutely swap archers and horsemen for more consistency, also for reasons of pricing (no additional upgrade costs because of war horses). fianns are already among the best troops and they are the chapest noble troops too.
• i also think it doesn't make sense that bandits upgrade to nobles (pretty romantic idea but ultimately unrealistic)
• i don't think nobles should only be recruited from towns and castles. impoverished nobles in rural areas would be most likely to sign up with adventurers.
• the empire factions desperately need more horsemen. in fact i would go as far as to say that you can scrap the crossbow line entirely and replace it with another horse line, or two (mounted archers). their lack of cavalry is also one of the reasons they suck so hard vs khuzaites.

i have some additional points too. other than battania, the aserai troop tree is bad for several reasons, notably the aserai tribesman and mamluk have virtually identical equipment. also, like upgrading bandits to nobles, recruitign aserais to enslave them as mamlukes doesn't make sense. aserai towns should have a special notable like a slave trader that offers only mamlukes. each faction also should have unique mercenaries. liek you should be able to recruit nubian troops in aserai taverns (and villages should have taverns as well, because why not? you can't do much in villages anyways).

other factions would have that as well. the empire could recruit varangian guardsmen in taverns as well, so you don't have to recruit sturgian regular troops that look like your enemy's troops except for the shield.

anyways, bandits would then upgrade into those elite mercenaries instead of noble troops, which makes inifnitely more sense.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

There is a very interesting debate going on where to get very good feedback. Thank you guys for your active participation.

We are covering a lot of topics, but they are still on track as far as the main issue is concerned.

There will be people who do not share this idea (we're here to discuss), but as I said before (see also the reference that appears in the devblog) I'm more willing to "redirect" the recruitment of noble units. For me certainly the recruitment of such units should be done in cities and I think that this function could be carried out by a Constable (petty nobility, see as the right hand of the Governor). I think that one in each city would be enough.

It makes more sense to me that for the recruitment of units belonging to the regular army bulk, be the headman, landowner, artisan, merchant, and gang leader who perform this function.
The constable could be in charge of supplying noble units, but also of complementing the quotas with mercenary units (the same ones we can find in the tavern - a shortcut). This character, like the rest of the notables, would provide missions which would be interesting to engage in activities such as bounty hunting, instruction, payment of commissions...etc (I'm just imagining)

 

[nereid]

Maybe you should only be able to recruit noble troops if you belong to a faction? This would prevent that you as a Vlandian baron could simply hire Fians. Also why would noble troops join a nobody without any allegiance to anyone (if you are no vasall then you have to be a clan tier 3 at least)?

In general I would like to see consequences if you simply have a mish mash of different faction troops. Maybe this will be implemented via the morale mechanics or otherwise you could raise the hire price for troops of other cultures (meaning a Vlandian player will pay the normal price for Vlandian troops, while he will pay additional denars for Battanian troops). Which in turn can be negated by a Charm perk for example.

 

[Blood Gryphon]

This is a great discussion, i absolutely agree that no looter units should ever be allowed to upgrade to noble units, and this thread revealed to me some wondefull mods i honestly haven't been paying attention to (with less to no both time and desire actually playing the Singleplayer).

That made me thinking, perhaps that could change with @HalfMetalJacket @Terco_Viejo and myself potentially merging some of our mods together into 1 single module some time in the future. Troops, combat, camera, collision capsules, freehand shields, uniform colors, banners and colored settlement names, all reworked in a lite Native+ manner ?

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

Maybe you should only be able to recruit noble troops if you belong to a faction? This would prevent that you as a Vlandian baron could simply hire Fians. Also why would noble troops join a nobody without any allegiance to anyone (if you are no vasall then you have to be a clan tier 3 at least)?

In general I would like to see consequences if you simply have a mish mash of different faction troops. Maybe this will be implemented via the morale mechanics or otherwise you could raise the hire price for troops of other cultures (meaning a Vlandian player will pay the normal price for Vlandian troops, while he will pay additional denars for Battanian troops). Which in turn can be negated by a Charm perk for example.

The way I see it, a noble troop isn't necessarily high society. They could just be the bastard child of the family, or a noble that's got nothing but their skills and weapons. They look at a player and probably assume they'd be good enough for a little while before hopscotching off to someone else.

I think a penalty to mixed armies would make some sense. And perks to negate those penalties are cool too.

 

[Anushtegin]

why should there be penalties for 'mixed' armies? there was no nationalism and mercenaries were commonplace. there should only be a heavy morale penalty if you use troops against their own faction.