Ok, then make it the other way around and provide a morale bonus or something like that if you only have troops from a single faction.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
[Discussion Area] Redundant Units in the Troop Trees + Noble Branch tier simplification
- Thread starter Terco_Viejo
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Ok, then make it the other way around and provide a morale bonus or something like that if you only have troops from a single faction.
Anushtegin
Sergeant
goign back to your original point. yes if you're part of a certain faction, you should not be able to recruit troops of a different faction easily, or at all. you should probably also not be able to recruit noble troops while beign independent. however, i still see no point why there should be an artifical nerf to having different faction troops or a buff to only having teh same faction troops.
Maybe simply a buff for having only your mates along for the fight
especially as there was a malus if you had different troops in your army in Warband if I remember correctly.
HalfMetalJacket
Knight
I would question a morale penalty against their own faction as well for the same reason. Attacking one's own people isn't usually cause for worry.
As for penalties on mixed armies, I suppose it lies in cultural differences rather than national ones. Like language differences or something. I wish TW did more.
Anushtegin
Sergeant
what i had in mind is, steppe nomads often changed sides durign important battles, such as talas, manzikert and the battle of the terek river. there should be an option before battles to entice troops of your own faction to change sides before the battle witha skill like roguery, leadership or tactics.
mahmud of ghazni had a multicultural army, and every contemporary writer lauded him for the fact. and there's no question on how effective his army was. i'm also not aware of any time this was ever a problem, like with the normans of italy.
I’m almost positive there were moral penalties in warband for mixing troops. (Could have been diplo mod)
Also I’m unsure if it’s the case now but eventually when lords relations are actually set with villages they won’t be able to recruit from all the slots and they will probably only have a single slot open to recruit from other culture villages. That should help reduce the amount of mixing but still allow weaker factions that don’t have many villages the ability to recruit just not at the same rate
Also I’m unsure if it’s the case now but eventually when lords relations are actually set with villages they won’t be able to recruit from all the slots and they will probably only have a single slot open to recruit from other culture villages. That should help reduce the amount of mixing but still allow weaker factions that don’t have many villages the ability to recruit just not at the same rate
There were. They were usually mild, but when you started stacking penalties up for lack of food variety, attacking someone's home faction, etc. it made it way simpler to just go all-in on Swadian Knights, Nord Huscarls or Sarranid Mamlukes.
HalfMetalJacket
Knight
So I went ahead and trimmed down the troop trees just a bit more. Now everyone possesses only 14 common troops and 3 nobles.
Created with drawio. Ignore the expand boxes, forgot to get rid of those.
I'm sure there's going to be some debate on it, but I feel that with this, faction strengths and weaknesses are far clearer. Interpret each 'dead end' troop as a cheaper, but effective budget choice.
I don't think TW would go for anything like this though. Besides the issue of save compatibility, I'm sure that they prefer having t5 common troop progression across all factions.
Created with drawio. Ignore the expand boxes, forgot to get rid of those.
I'm sure there's going to be some debate on it, but I feel that with this, faction strengths and weaknesses are far clearer. Interpret each 'dead end' troop as a cheaper, but effective budget choice.
I don't think TW would go for anything like this though. Besides the issue of save compatibility, I'm sure that they prefer having t5 common troop progression across all factions.
Here I bring a little analysis that gathers what is commented in this thread. As I mentioned earlier I believe that in the Native there is redundancy of troops and I truly believe that there is an undefined system of strengths and weaknesses for each faction. In the regular troop tree each of the units should be well defined and framed within their role by function. Imo, only the noble troops should have "versatile" functions, which as I said, I would reduce to three units.
In the regular troop tree each of the units should be well defined and framed within their role by function. In my view, only the noble troops should have "versatile" functions, which as I said, I would reduce to three.
At this point, a number of questions arise... For example:
Can (light-heavy) infantry be equipped with missiles? - throwable as pila or other type of spears when they do not exceed the pair of them, yes. Equipping an infantry unit with one or two bags of javelins would already be framing it in a role of which it does not belong; we would be turning it into a skirmisher.
What defines heavy cavalry in general lines? -essentially the horse's bard (and the type of horse) and the rider's panoply.
Should a ranged troop have high melee skills? The high tier would, however, never be more efficient than an average infantry tier; their function is what it is, role function ranged.
Can a shock troop have throwables? My answer is no because it would be performing a skirmisher function indirectly. This is where I put the focus on Fiann's units. High level ranged units which perform shock functions with high levels of efficiency in both melee and athletics; in my opinion they are a nonsense.
Do you see where I'm going?
So, here is a reformulation of the troop trees with defined function roles.
Vlandia: Cavalry push. Function role lines defined in a missiles-infantry-cavalry balance. Weaknesses, they don't have skirmishers. The noble troops would be framed within the role of Cavalry complementing itself with a high performance in melee.
Sturgia: Pure muscle structure. Role lines of function that tend towards the branch of pure infantry. Weaknesses, low level of ranged troops. The noble troops would frame them within the role of heavy cavalry being complemented with a performance in good melee.
Khuzait: Mounted archers. Role lines of function that tend towards the branch of mounted archers, pure steppe tactics. Weaknesses; they have neither shock nor skirmishers. Noble troops would frame them within the role of mounted archers with the equipment of the heavy cavalry (bard+panoply).
Empire: All in one. All types of function roles are part of the tree in a balance of missiles-infantry-cavalry. Weaknesses; it has none, it is the Empire. The noble troops would frame them within the role of heavy cavalry complementing itself with a good performance in melee.
Battania: Hit and run. Role lines of function that tend towards the branch of infantry and missiles. Weaknesses: No heavy cavalry. The noble troops would frame them within the role of skirmishing cavalry complementing itself with a high performance in melee.
Aserai: Mobile force. Lines of role of function that tend towards the branch of skirmishers and missiles. Weaknesses; little presence of pure infantry or shock. The noble troops would frame them within the role of skirmishing cavalry with the equipment of the heavy cavalry (bard+panoply). With this restructuring there would be room for light cavalry camel units.
----
Edit: I have slightly modified the line of Sturgia because there was a rounding (+ 1 light cavalry unit); I suppose that so much time in front of the coloured squares has caused me a small lapsus.
In the regular troop tree each of the units should be well defined and framed within their role by function. In my view, only the noble troops should have "versatile" functions, which as I said, I would reduce to three.
Melee | Missiles |
At this point, a number of questions arise... For example:
Can (light-heavy) infantry be equipped with missiles? - throwable as pila or other type of spears when they do not exceed the pair of them, yes. Equipping an infantry unit with one or two bags of javelins would already be framing it in a role of which it does not belong; we would be turning it into a skirmisher.
What defines heavy cavalry in general lines? -essentially the horse's bard (and the type of horse) and the rider's panoply.
Should a ranged troop have high melee skills? The high tier would, however, never be more efficient than an average infantry tier; their function is what it is, role function ranged.
Can a shock troop have throwables? My answer is no because it would be performing a skirmisher function indirectly. This is where I put the focus on Fiann's units. High level ranged units which perform shock functions with high levels of efficiency in both melee and athletics; in my opinion they are a nonsense.
Do you see where I'm going?
So, here is a reformulation of the troop trees with defined function roles.
(Native troops - Native function - Function proposal)
Vlandia: Cavalry push. Function role lines defined in a missiles-infantry-cavalry balance. Weaknesses, they don't have skirmishers. The noble troops would be framed within the role of Cavalry complementing itself with a high performance in melee.
Sturgia: Pure muscle structure. Role lines of function that tend towards the branch of pure infantry. Weaknesses, low level of ranged troops. The noble troops would frame them within the role of heavy cavalry being complemented with a performance in good melee.
Khuzait: Mounted archers. Role lines of function that tend towards the branch of mounted archers, pure steppe tactics. Weaknesses; they have neither shock nor skirmishers. Noble troops would frame them within the role of mounted archers with the equipment of the heavy cavalry (bard+panoply).
Empire: All in one. All types of function roles are part of the tree in a balance of missiles-infantry-cavalry. Weaknesses; it has none, it is the Empire. The noble troops would frame them within the role of heavy cavalry complementing itself with a good performance in melee.
Battania: Hit and run. Role lines of function that tend towards the branch of infantry and missiles. Weaknesses: No heavy cavalry. The noble troops would frame them within the role of skirmishing cavalry complementing itself with a high performance in melee.
Aserai: Mobile force. Lines of role of function that tend towards the branch of skirmishers and missiles. Weaknesses; little presence of pure infantry or shock. The noble troops would frame them within the role of skirmishing cavalry with the equipment of the heavy cavalry (bard+panoply). With this restructuring there would be room for light cavalry camel units.
----
Edit: I have slightly modified the line of Sturgia because there was a rounding (+ 1 light cavalry unit); I suppose that so much time in front of the coloured squares has caused me a small lapsus.
Last edited:
Anushtegin
Sergeant
here's my input:
vlandia: i don't have much issues with the old troop tree, and i don't mind your suggestions either. the only thign i noticed is that vlandia in your variant only has five tier 5 troops instead of the previous six.
sturgia: my main issue with the current sturgia tree is that they get mounted units relatively late, which you addressed only partially with the noble tree. i think it's pretty redundant to have two top tier melee and two top tier shock units, but no (heavy) cavalry in the main troop tree. i'm also not really happy that they don't get a top tier archer, considerign that archers are the best troops in bannerlord.
khuzaites: i think a better way to go about khuzaites is to strip them of their infantry and replace it with skirmishers and let them keep the shock cavalry. for a horse-centered culture not to have fully armored horsemen but fully armored infantry seems implausible. instead, they should have the best mounted options and the worst footmen. noble line would more properly be half shock cavalry instead of heavy cavalry due to the glaive.
empire: the main problem with the empire is that they don't get enough mounted units, which you addressed at least in the upper tiers. personally, i would remove the crossbowmen line entirely, as the byzantines didn't really made all that much use of crossbowmen in this period, especially compared to foot archers. converseley, they should have more skirmishers.
battania: your tree is an complete improvement, instant thumbs up.
aserai: the only thign i really disagree with is the completely unnecessary camel suggestion. the tree also suffers from a lack of regular horse units, one of the aserai strong suits that they should also keep. though i like that your troop progression is much more logical compared to what it is now. i also like that the mamlukes are now apparently removed from the tree, as they should. they make more sense as special mercenaries that you can recruit in taverns.
vlandia: i don't have much issues with the old troop tree, and i don't mind your suggestions either. the only thign i noticed is that vlandia in your variant only has five tier 5 troops instead of the previous six.
sturgia: my main issue with the current sturgia tree is that they get mounted units relatively late, which you addressed only partially with the noble tree. i think it's pretty redundant to have two top tier melee and two top tier shock units, but no (heavy) cavalry in the main troop tree. i'm also not really happy that they don't get a top tier archer, considerign that archers are the best troops in bannerlord.
khuzaites: i think a better way to go about khuzaites is to strip them of their infantry and replace it with skirmishers and let them keep the shock cavalry. for a horse-centered culture not to have fully armored horsemen but fully armored infantry seems implausible. instead, they should have the best mounted options and the worst footmen. noble line would more properly be half shock cavalry instead of heavy cavalry due to the glaive.
empire: the main problem with the empire is that they don't get enough mounted units, which you addressed at least in the upper tiers. personally, i would remove the crossbowmen line entirely, as the byzantines didn't really made all that much use of crossbowmen in this period, especially compared to foot archers. converseley, they should have more skirmishers.
battania: your tree is an complete improvement, instant thumbs up.
aserai: the only thign i really disagree with is the completely unnecessary camel suggestion. the tree also suffers from a lack of regular horse units, one of the aserai strong suits that they should also keep. though i like that your troop progression is much more logical compared to what it is now. i also like that the mamlukes are now apparently removed from the tree, as they should. they make more sense as special mercenaries that you can recruit in taverns.
Earth Dragon
Sergeant
(This post was being typed before the new lists were presented above. Please reply with this as context)
Personally, in the case of Battania, it’s a travesty that you have to find the noble class to be able to raise proper range troops. Why is there not a short bow option in the main line somewhere?
The Noble line either exemplifies what the faction is good at, or is the source of something in an elite, yet short supply. So it makes sense that Vlandia has access to melee Cav in two places, while the Empire only has it in one.
So if the faction is supposed to be focused/specialized in an area, it really shouldn’t be completely lacking of that in its main tree.
Vlandia, Khuzait, and Sturgia all do this. Their core thematic fighter type is present in their main tree.
The Empire makes sense to have everything covered with Non-Archer Cav contained in its own line
Aserai sort of is, sort of isn’t. Having the Mamelukes is great, but true Skirmish Cav (not Horse Archers) would be the bread and butter of Arab and Berber armies for centuries, and this where the idea of giving them Camelry comes from, which, if just going off the current tree, could just be the Skirmisher splitting into archer and Camelry to supply that function. This also adds a lot more flavor to the faction.
Battania (as mentioned) just feels porous with archers completely lacking from the mainline
Personally, in the case of Battania, it’s a travesty that you have to find the noble class to be able to raise proper range troops. Why is there not a short bow option in the main line somewhere?
The Noble line either exemplifies what the faction is good at, or is the source of something in an elite, yet short supply. So it makes sense that Vlandia has access to melee Cav in two places, while the Empire only has it in one.
So if the faction is supposed to be focused/specialized in an area, it really shouldn’t be completely lacking of that in its main tree.
Vlandia, Khuzait, and Sturgia all do this. Their core thematic fighter type is present in their main tree.
The Empire makes sense to have everything covered with Non-Archer Cav contained in its own line
Aserai sort of is, sort of isn’t. Having the Mamelukes is great, but true Skirmish Cav (not Horse Archers) would be the bread and butter of Arab and Berber armies for centuries, and this where the idea of giving them Camelry comes from, which, if just going off the current tree, could just be the Skirmisher splitting into archer and Camelry to supply that function. This also adds a lot more flavor to the faction.
Battania (as mentioned) just feels porous with archers completely lacking from the mainline
HalfMetalJacket
Knight
I would at least let some troops carry around throwing axes. Then again, I'm attached to my heavy infantry with javelins so I can't say I like making troops more limited.
I don't know how you intend to actually equip the loadouts of each soldier, but I think it would not hurt to give a few of them 'versatile' uses. Otherwise faction troops like Battania and Aserai infantry might begin to underperform due to generally poor armour. A unit with throwing weapons is at least given some sort of distinct advantage that they otherwise wouldn't have if it never existed.
Why don't your Khuzaits have heavy cavalry in the common tree?
Also dammit I love Fian super troopers too much to see them turn into one dimensional 'archer only' units. Makes me want to see them in your noble line again, just so that they can exist in your 'versatility to nobles' only rule.
I'm still somewhat curious about what you might think of my 'pruned down' tree.
I don't know how you intend to actually equip the loadouts of each soldier, but I think it would not hurt to give a few of them 'versatile' uses. Otherwise faction troops like Battania and Aserai infantry might begin to underperform due to generally poor armour. A unit with throwing weapons is at least given some sort of distinct advantage that they otherwise wouldn't have if it never existed.
Why don't your Khuzaits have heavy cavalry in the common tree?
Also dammit I love Fian super troopers too much to see them turn into one dimensional 'archer only' units. Makes me want to see them in your noble line again, just so that they can exist in your 'versatility to nobles' only rule.
I'm still somewhat curious about what you might think of my 'pruned down' tree.
I may be wrong, mine is just another opinion; but I sincerely believe that every faction must shine in something and limp in something else.
I have rectified Sturgia's infantry line, as you indicated, there was certainly a redundancy (my lapsus). I have added a light cavalry unit and shock units would be available for tier 3. Khuzait needs a minimum of infantry; I see it that way. Aserai cries out for camel cavalry. To have a specialized unit of Tier 5 camel skirmishers ( war camel + kontos style long spear + 2 bags of javelins + secondary weapon) would be something very interesting imo.
Certainly there is an open discussion thread about the issue of "must have throwables" for shock units? As I said, for the infantry (units in particular) if equipped with spears that could be thrown (a maximum of two) it's ok; having heavy infantry units with two bags of javelins, seems excessive to me.
Khuzait, this faction is already powerful enough in the cavalry section for me to include heavy cavalry.The heavy cavalry function plus the extra horse archery would be provided by the noble line.
I don't know, there's something that doesn't convince me about the Fiann's...maybe they've got it in for them. Ranged troops on foot + shock with 2h swords + good armor + high level of melee and athletic skills... I don't know, it doesn't match in my head. I prefer to have a well-defined line of archers by role of function in the regular tree and have a noble cavalry playing the role of the desired Celt archetype:
---
I like your "pruned tree" because you have followed my advice and reduced the noble line to three
I have rectified Sturgia's infantry line, as you indicated, there was certainly a redundancy (my lapsus). I have added a light cavalry unit and shock units would be available for tier 3. Khuzait needs a minimum of infantry; I see it that way. Aserai cries out for camel cavalry. To have a specialized unit of Tier 5 camel skirmishers ( war camel + kontos style long spear + 2 bags of javelins + secondary weapon) would be something very interesting imo.
Certainly there is an open discussion thread about the issue of "must have throwables" for shock units? As I said, for the infantry (units in particular) if equipped with spears that could be thrown (a maximum of two) it's ok; having heavy infantry units with two bags of javelins, seems excessive to me.
Khuzait, this faction is already powerful enough in the cavalry section for me to include heavy cavalry.The heavy cavalry function plus the extra horse archery would be provided by the noble line.
I don't know, there's something that doesn't convince me about the Fiann's...maybe they've got it in for them. Ranged troops on foot + shock with 2h swords + good armor + high level of melee and athletic skills... I don't know, it doesn't match in my head. I prefer to have a well-defined line of archers by role of function in the regular tree and have a noble cavalry playing the role of the desired Celt archetype:
| Noble Celt | Fantasy Skyrim-eske robinhood tutifruti |
|---|---|
| 
|
---
I like your "pruned tree" because you have followed my advice and reduced the noble line to three
HalfMetalJacket
Knight
Well where does that leave throwing axes? Not as good as javs, yet 1 more shot than two spears... I suppose they can go to infantry of particular distinction, like some Sturgian troops.Certainly there is an open discussion thread about the issue of "must have throwables" for shock units? As I said, for the infantry (units in particular) if equipped with spears that could be thrown (a maximum of two) it's ok; having heavy infantry units with two bags of javelins, seems excessive to me.
Khuzait, this faction is already powerful enough in the cavalry section for me to include heavy cavalry.The heavy cavalry function plus the extra horse archery would be provided by the noble line.
I don't know, there's something that doesn't convince me about the Fiann's...maybe they've got it in for them. Ranged troops on foot + shock with 2h swords + good armor + high level of melee and athletic skills... I don't know, it doesn't match in my head. I prefer to have a well-defined line of archers by role of function in the regular tree and have a noble cavalry playing the role of the desired Celt archetype:
Noble Celt Fantasy Skyrim-eske robinhood tutifruti
---
I like your "pruned tree" because you have followed my advice and reduced the noble line to three
I'm just attached to Fian Champs, stupid weirdness of their weirdness aside
Again, Celtic noble cavalry makes much more sense, but the goofy side of me says noble shock trooper legolas.
Anushtegin
Sergeant
i see you added another cavalry option, but sturgia now has two dead ends instead of just one. cripplign strugia like that i strongly disagree with. each unit tree should be able to max out. there's really no reason to not max out archers in any of the factions, missile troops are too important.
also while i understand why people ask for camel troopers, it's just not there. camels were only used as transport animals and that includes mounted infantry. combat on camelback did not took place in reality. in the current game logic, mounted infantry is represented by infantry with horses (or camels) in the inventory. look, camels are unique to the aserai lands, but so are arab (aserai) horses. they need to have more horse options, not less.
HalfMetalJacket
Knight
Did you take a look at my concept for 'trimmed down' troop trees? I think there is potential for 'dead end' troops to exist as effective budget options. Like maybe Sturgian archers goes no further than tier 4, but they get to be very close to the skill level of a tier 5 archer, while wearing excellent equipment and fighting fairly well in melee thanks to using shields and axes.
Oh really?
Arabs, Romans, Seleucids, Parthians and a many others have used camels as war mounts.
| 
|
Anushtegin
Sergeant
in antiquity yes, when horses were not as common yet due to domestication, as the picture on the left illustrates. the picture on the right doesn't show mounted combat and doesn't contradict the idea of mounted infantry.
most of the peoples you mentioned also only used camels as mounted infantry. again, a horse is always a superior option in mounted combat unless you need to patrol large swathes of desert. and to nitpick, seleucids and parthians if anythign used bactrian camels, not dromedaries that are currently in the game.
some of the minor faction troops are quite good for their level liek the karakhuzaites, beni zilal and the ghilman to a lesser degree (haven't really tried much fo the others). that's not really the issue. i don't think dead end troops in the regular troop trees are desireable due to AI. players can pick and min/max more easily. sturgians are already a weak faction that would only get weaker with those changes.
most of the peoples you mentioned also only used camels as mounted infantry. again, a horse is always a superior option in mounted combat unless you need to patrol large swathes of desert. and to nitpick, seleucids and parthians if anythign used bactrian camels, not dromedaries that are currently in the game.
some of the minor faction troops are quite good for their level liek the karakhuzaites, beni zilal and the ghilman to a lesser degree (haven't really tried much fo the others). that's not really the issue. i don't think dead end troops in the regular troop trees are desireable due to AI. players can pick and min/max more easily. sturgians are already a weak faction that would only get weaker with those changes.
Last edited:
Anushtegin
Sergeant
and this proves what exactly...? the battle got that name because aisha mounted a camel to rally her troops (camels are taller than horses), but the camel was killed under her. the picture is from an illuminated manuscript from late 15th century, also showign a donkey or mule with ali holdign zulfiqar...
