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

Users who are viewing this thread

Okay, now I am tracking, I was reading it wrong! I need big crayons to know what to look at lol.

I agree 100% with all of your suggestions - especially taking out the Crossbows - they feel out of place and don't add much except for confusing the player. It also takes away from a Vlandian (Norman) playthrough who are supposed to have (historically + in-game lore) some of the better crossbowmen.

I also agree with the addition of a mace to the Cataphract/Clibinarius units - there probably needs to be some AI profile changes up and down the codebase because I see Elite Cataphracts stick with using their Kontos up close when they should swap to their sabre/spatha and the Bucellarii will pull out their sabres/spatha versus retreating away to put more arrows on people.

I know the sources are hard to nail down exactly what the Romans/Byzantines meant by Clibinarius but I took it to mean Cataphracts + Bows/Javs - of course it could be referring local auxiliary units. Not like the Romans didn't have experience with that manner of warfare - Aetius had a healthy contingent of Hunnic horse archer/skirmishers/lancers and there are also a lot of Parthian/Sarmatian/Alan/Pontic contingents used.

I think we are definitely in line - I love these suggestions and hope to see it implemented. (As well as the others!)

Oh no no, as for the crossbows I was only referring to removing them only from the imperial tree :lol:. Bear in mind that after a long period (Europe) where it was hardly used at all, the crossbow came back in the 10th century or so, in siege warfare in Northern France, and quickly spread throughout Europe. It is plausible to think that the Normans were already using it at the beginning of the 11th century, astonishing the Byzantines in 1096 who were completely unaware of this weapon (and they certainly did not use it in such a significant way afterwards that it appears in the game as a Byzantine reference.).

It is true that people may think that clibanarii and catafactii are basically the same thing. They are similar yes, but if we refer to the sources of the magister militium themselves, I quote:

[...]the clibanarii were veteran and/or distinguished cataphractii, promoted to what was probably the highest rank of the Empire's heavy cavalry; this would confirm that the creation of the new clibanarii units was made from pre-existing cataphractii units, promoting the best and/or selecting personnel. Another aspect that would underline the specialised and elite character of heavy armoured cavalry in general, and of the clibanarii in particular, is the question of the fabricae out of a total of 25 fabricae documented according to the Notitia Dignitatum, four are dedicated to the production of equipment for the clibanarii (we understand that, therefore, also for the cataphractii), of which only one produces other equipment at the same time, and it is the only one of this type located in the West. No other military speciality has fabricae specifically dedicated to the production of its military equipment. [...]

That's why I stick to pure shock-melee cavalry for the clibanarii without equipping them with bows (anti-infantry) in the "Noble line" because clibanarii > catafract. And the catafracts are left as an evolution of the bucellarii in a way that would be plausible have a bow+kontos (anti-cavalry).
 
Last edited:
I open this space for debate by proposing the idea of a slight restructuring of the factions' troop tree. In my opinion there are quite a few units which have a redundant role in both equipment and performance. Also, the noble troop line seems to me to want to stretch the gum; Imean...I think that following the criteria of three tiers like with minor factions would be much more interesting and straightforward.

All this comes after my realizing that the Empire Tree is lacking one unit compared to the others and that Battania does not follow a criteria in my opinion that is appropriate for the noble line; the whole of it, ranged troops as opposed to the other factions with pure cavalry lines.

Well, here I have created this troops scheme with the help of mountandblade.fandom (There are some names that have not been updated but the structure is the same). As I said, I've reduced the noble line to 3 tiers and slightly altered the regular troop tree.

Original left, modified right:
IPZ_3.jpg

Vlandia: Vanguard and Squire are two redundant units and therefore I would dispense with them. Also, and as a substitution of role, I would move Gallant as a regular troop in the cavalry branch.

Empire: Vigla Recruit is redundant, while Equite would be relocated as regular cavalry.

Sturgia: Warrior Son redundant and Vetaran Varyag may switch its equipment to Varyag, moving it to the regular infantry branch.

Khuzait: No change to the regular branch. However, Noble's Son and Qanqli would not fit into this 3-Tier system even though they don't contribute anything either as they are redundant (This faction already has enough cavalrymen).

Battania: I consider that the noble line should be exclusive to the cavalry (horse as a symbol of power) and therefore the current one should be absorbed by the regular branch. Highborn Youth and Highborn Warrior are two units that are too similar and contribute little to the ranged line; therefore, I would personally get rid of them. Fian and Fian Champion, on the other hand, in my opinion would fit much better in the regular branch as what they are, a specialized ranged swordman. After these changes, we would have a fairly complete tree with a combination of infantry, ranged, riders and skirmishers. The noble line would consist of Scout and Horseman, who would jump from the regular line directly to the noble line and as a complement a new unit need to be created (or transformed).

In my opinion, the Battania noble line should play a role as heavy skirmishers (archetype of Celtiberian - Gallic horsemen).

Aserai: No change in the regular branch. However, Youth and Tribal horseman would not fit into this three-tiered system even though they do not contribute anything, as they are redundant.

What do you think?

Do you think that the trees would need a revision? Could the noble line be simplified to three tiers? Are there redundant troops among the trees?

----
Analysis Expanded:
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.


Melee Missiles
I2r8-.png


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)

dJdjl.jpg


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.

FQbLj.jpg


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.

UwSMo.jpg


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.
I love you ideas, great stuff. Between you and half metal jacket we have some really awesome troop tree changes, which I think Taleworlds should take seriously.
 
Last edited:
giphy.gif

Water under the bridge, mate. :lol:

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



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.
I agree the Fians are basically Gallowglass warriors and I have seen quite a few pieces of art work showing a gallowglass with a shorter bow on his side (rather than a fians longbow). Although Gallowgs warriors didn’t exist (to my knowledge) before the 13th century. https://images.app.goo.gl/1iYorFVhQAp33Vtr7I am all for a Welsh inspired commoner archer line (as a Welshman myself, this makes me happy) and they fit into Battania seamlessly) I’m not sure about Pictish crossbows however as there is only really one source for them on a single stone, personally long spears and even half decent archers represent Picts better in my opinion. That being said, adding crossbows would make sense from the point of view of the game as the Vlandians and the Empire are on Battanias borders. Mounted nobles just makes perfect sense for all factions (unless they add the Nords in game). Not only does this link to the excellent cavalry of the Gauls and the Celtiberians of the classical world, but also to all the post Roman Celtic peoples who still held horses in very high regard. In the early Middle Ages the welsh had the best horsemen in Britain (especially Strathclyde welsh) and after the Norman invasion the Irish had famous light cavalry.
 
I agree the Fians are basically Gallowglass warriors and I have seen quite a few pieces of art work showing a gallowglass with a shorter bow on his side (rather than a fians longbow). Although Gallowgs warriors didn’t exist (to my knowledge) before the 13th century. https://images.app.goo.gl/1iYorFVhQAp33Vtr7I am all for a Welsh inspired commoner archer line (as a Welshman myself, this makes me happy) and they fit into Battania seamlessly) I’m not sure about Pictish crossbows however as there is only really one source for them on a single stone, personally long spears and even half decent archers represent Picts better in my opinion. That being said, adding crossbows would make sense from the point of view of the game as the Vlandians and the Empire are on Battanias borders. Mounted nobles just makes perfect sense for all factions (unless they add the Nords in game). Not only does this link to the excellent cavalry of the Gauls and the Celtiberians of the classical world, but also to all the post Roman Celtic peoples who still held horses in very high regard. In the early Middle Ages the welsh had the best horsemen in Britain (especially Strathclyde welsh) and after the Norman invasion the Irish had famous light cavalry.
Obviously these are opinions, you can agree with them or not. As an ass, everyone has one; I'm glad we have a similar one :lol: .
 
Back
Top Bottom