Engaging an army is an automatic tactical lose

Currently viewing this thread:

A few reasons for this. First is they have nerfed the **** out of your ability to gain new t5+ troops. Second is the ai wills new armies into existence after getting wiped 8 times in 20 minutes. And third is you gain very little from wiping an army, you do gain a fair amount of gold when you do it with a companion army but at end game it isn't about gold anymore it is about men, and even with my best strats the average number of men i lose a fight tends to be about 20 when fighting a 1000 man army so all and all i come out with less than i came in with. Forth is the fact that they boosted lord death rates way too much imo. If you dont care about wiping half the clans on your save it is fine, but i do, so when i go into an army battle and kill 4 enemy lords that makes things even more unappealing.

All these things have compounded together to create a meta where i have found it to be more advantageous to not engage enemy armies at all. I have found that the best strat is to run around with a party of 300 khan guards or some other troop just observe my vassals fighting and if they are going to lose i come in and command their troops and carry them with my khan guards. I sometimes bring out my personal army as well if things are serious but i have found that it is a very bad idea to use them unless unavoidable. However it never is. The best way i have found to use an army is to simply chase around the other army until they run out of food and if their army is big to be scared off and they are about to take something then it is probably a better idea to make peace. That is of course if fighting them would get more than 50 men killed because anything above that isnt worth the loses.

Point is attacking an enemy army has become way too unhealthy which has created one of the most stale metas i have seen in the game yet. Unless of course you are willing to have you 1300 man army slowly but surely attritioned out and come back with a bunch of t3s in the place of the t6 troops you brought out. I just hate that we are now in a meta in which you are better off staving everyone to death rather than actually fighting them.
 

Askorti

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WB
Huh.. So Taleworlds might have inadvertently made the most realistic strategic simulator ever...
 
Yeah you need to beat them with zero losses of high tier troops or it's not worth it. I mean, you still need to deal with them but it's not that much of a benefited.
The only workarounds are using mostly t3 khuzait raider that can be easily replaced and of course recruiting prisoners.
High tier troops cost campaign time FOR THE PLAYER and no amount of money from loot gives you campaign time to go make make more good units or buy warhorses all over the world.
 

Antaeus

Sergeant
Conversely, because recruiting prisoners is the easiest way to get top tier troops... my army tends to start looking like my enemy, but supercharged.

For example, when I fight the Battannians, I end up with more Fians and Oathsworn than they can field in their parties, because I 'tax' them after each battle by taking the 2-3 off each party I fight. After a dozen fights I have 20 or 30 Fians. Same for Khuzaits. I tax them of their best units after each battle and end up with more high tier HA than they can field.

Since 1.5.8 you tend to usually end up at war with the same one or two factions that border you. So when I join Sturgia, I end up with an awesome top tier Battannian army. When I join the Empire, I end up with an amazing Khuzait army.

Re: battle shy... I'm with Ashkorti. That's what a real medieval sim would be like... Battles in Bannerlord aren't decisive enough. A big win over a large army should open up territory to attack, instead you face another army straight away and an endless grind.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
Yeah you need to beat them with zero losses of high tier troops or it's not worth it. I mean, you still need to deal with them but it's not that much of a benefited.
The only workarounds are using mostly t3 khuzait raider that can be easily replaced and of course recruiting prisoners.
High tier troops cost campaign time FOR THE PLAYER and no amount of money from loot gives you campaign time to go make make more good units or buy warhorses all over the world.
Tier 3 troops, regardless of type, are just about good enough for everything you want them to do, assuming they have the basic capability (i.e. mounted, shielded, ranged weapon, etc.). Feeling like you have to grind every time you lose high-tier troops saps a lot of fun out of the game.
 
Tier 3 troops, regardless of type, are just about good enough for everything you want them to do, assuming they have the basic capability (i.e. mounted, shielded, ranged weapon, etc.). Feeling like you have to grind every time you lose high-tier troops saps a lot of fun out of the game.
I agree, I use the raider for the +speed and ease of positioning. I'll collect Khans guards over time as they're actually worth their price if you revert back to a lone clan and have just your 1 party against a faction, just KG can wreck much larger armies.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
I agree, I use the raider for the +speed and ease of positioning. I'll collect Khans guards over time as they're actually worth their price if you revert back to a lone clan and have just your 1 party against a faction, just KG can wreck much larger armies.
I do the same with infantry though -- granted, not because I did some in-depth research or anything, just because I think infantry are ****ing useless most of the time and mostly good as siege meatshields but I realized it didn't matter if I had a bunch of tier 5 infantry or a bunch of tier 3 infantry. The siege would be won either way. The only question was how many I lost BUT it was quicker and easier to replace 100 tier 3 infantry than 15 tier 5.

pEhx5O5.jpeg
 
Top Bottom