Even battles are not ready for release

[Apocal]

Nerfing archers won't fix it - it'll just piss off everyone who likes using archers.

It will fix the very obvious issue of ranged damaged making most units utterly superfluous on the battlefield.

They perform like firearms in Bannerlord. And not even like those late middles ages types of firearms, but as good as firearms of the Napoleonic era. Or even better, considering that they lack any kind of natural predator, there is zero penalty or counter for formations that maximize firepower (shallow vee, bent wing or L) or reduce the casualties from the same (open order). Those formations are objectively better, nearly 100% of the time in Bannerlord, subject only to terrain considerations.

In summary:

Yeah, I'm down with anything that makes ranged power less overbearing.

Also, just so I'm clear, I think high-tier armor should utterly no-sell arrows in Bannerlord, regardless of how good your bow or arrows are. Like, just straight-up ping off for 0 damage, do not pass Go, do not collect $200. Anything less than that level of protection just means the solution to most Bannerlord tactical problems is a marginally higher critical mass of archers (foot or horse) to slaughter everything else for zero losses.

my opinion is that ranged power should be heavily nerfed and largely restricted to morale damage, with only melee being decisive.

And yes, I agree players build ahistorical armies. I'm saying that is the game's fault for not getting medieval combined arms correct; players respond to incentives like winning. If they see stacking archers is 100% effective, they'll continue to stack archers.

But in proportion to their historical abilities, they are way out of line, which leads to tactical distortions that make the game resemble a kind of funhouse mirror version of pike-and-shot. That's my main concern.

I am completely serious: tactically, the arrows in this game act more like bullets because they can reliably cause enough casualties to make melee superfluous. That wasn't as much a thing in medieval times, short of woefully unprepared opponents. Instead archery was used to disrupt, cause morale failure, restrict freedom of action and offer one plank of a combined arms platform. But the melee was still important.

even with objectively superior ranged weapons (early gunpowder firearms) on the field, pikes were the dominant arm (during field battles) of the last years of the medieval era. Ranged weapons, even in the case of the exceptional English longbow tactics, did not demonstrate dominance over melee in that period.

Bannerlord, being a game about medieval battle, should reflect the more general relationships between arms, in which archery was typically a supporting role, with the arms of decision being either shock cavalry or polearm-equipped infantry, winning in the melee.

 

[Clsy]

btw 100 hp was a mistake it limits meaningful balance to be made while there is a unless skill perfectly suited to replace with hp related skill into.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

Would have actually solve the whole **** show but apparently it was changed prior to release per MP testers demand and Taleworlds made some last minute rework to please the competitive scene so it end up with the current version spear we got in vanilla. They also have some working spear formation but was removed because it was too effective, they clearly have a ability to make it work but nothing seems to past their quality control.

Its worse than that. They actively choose the dumbest solutions.

Like ffs, their idea of balancing horse archers was to make them morons that randomly charge in. Rather than... I dunno. Nerfing range damage?

 

[Apocal]

Its worse than that. They actively choose the dumbest solutions.

Like ffs, their idea of balancing horse archers was to make them morons that randomly charge in. Rather than... I dunno. Nerfing range damage?

To be fair, nerfing ranged damage wouldn't have fixed the complaint that led to the current mess we have. People weren't angry their troops were being killed -- players just adapted by having 100% shielded footmen in circle; AI can't meaningfully break that -- but rather because fighting horse archers was legitimately 10-30 minutes of doing nothing except holding your shield up until they'd run out of arrows. It was ****ing boring beyond belief and a player had absolutely nothing to do until the arrows ran out.

 

[LuciusDomitiusAurelianus]

Archers are so OP because they do the same damage as melee troops but at a distance. It's that simple.

Until archers' stupidly unrealistic and excessive damage to armour is fixed, they will never be balanced.

AI was pretty stupid in Warband too but archers were not OP. Why? Because ARMOUR WORKED

That's an armor balance thing then, what'll end up happening is ranged damage gets cut in half then add on proper damage reduction scaling by "armor tiers" and there will be posts about infantry being OP.

Relatively, all damage values across weapon types should be more or less consistent as you move up the tiers of the weapons. Factor in +/- damage factors for slash/piercing/blunt but with a properly calculated armor value and counters to the damage factors.

Right now, the weapons more or less follow that rule while armor does not. It stands out with archers because of Piercing damage but theoretically would be noticeable if the AI' usage of spears was not totally ****ed up.

Properly implemented the damage received would scale linearly if tiers of weapons & troops were similar - only outliers would be statistical anomalies and when higher tier troops with higher tier weapons face off against lower quality troops. Which is how it should be designed. Goes back to the whole "bandit rocks beat T6 noble" threads that pop up.

My other points are still in scope though. While the AI stays in its pretty horrendous state even if armor & damage balances were implemented the archers will still maul everyone when infantry charges with shields down, cavalry freezes and/or refuses to positively engage archers or whatever force is screening them

 

[Ser Jon]

Its worse than that. They actively choose the dumbest solutions.

Like ffs, their idea of balancing horse archers was to make them morons that randomly charge in. Rather than... I dunno. Nerfing range damage?

The decisions made align to a vision they don't really share. One can only assume the vision is based on further implementing dumb AI.

 

[MostBlunted]

TheVisionTM must be based on some really cool drugs I guess.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

btw 100 hp was a mistake it limits meaningful balance to be made while there is a unless skill perfectly suited to replace with hp related skill into.

Agreed.

Like ffs, their idea of balancing horse archers was to make them morons that randomly charge in. Rather than... I dunno. Nerfing range damage?

They gotta just make stationary ranged shoot a little ahead of the HA and problem goes away, but seeing as they can't make cavalry hit things maybe they can't do that either. But then the player can just use HA like fast archers anyways and shoot AI form both sides.... this can only be solved by the AI being improved again or changes to maps and stuff. If the AI just sits there or can be easily kept in place, even less powerful ranged can still slaughter them.

That's an armor balance thing then, what'll end up happening is ranged damage gets cut in half then add on proper damage reduction scaling by "armor tiers" and there will be posts about infantry being OP.

I mean really t5 and t6 units should all be Oh Pee compared to lower tier troops. You should have an overwhelming advantage with a full t5 t6 force compared to the AI's "whatever I got for free on the way to the war because TW doesn't make me do anything but raids and armies" force. RTS command mod makes cav and infantry a lot more useful with being able to target them at a formation and not have them constantly turned around, but Cav still is slow to kill anything. I agree though, the issue is more then just ranged damage and lets not forget the best ranged units are also very powerful in melee anyways, so they would still be the better pick.

 

[Bluko88]

Please, fix cavalry AI, nerf archers and nerf the OP units which everyone who has played this game more than 20 hours knows (Fians and Khans' Guard).

They're not going to fix anything. 1.8 is about as good as we're going to get, which is truly sad after 2+ years of EA.

Inexcusable really, I mean besides a handful of additions (Rebellions, Vassalization, etc.) and some stability improvements is this game really better off then it was in March 2020? Not if you ask me and we've lost things like being to create actual formations ourselves. (Remember when you could put recruits in their own formation?)

RTS Command and camera mods make battles a lot more enjoyable but none for for little jimmy on Consoles.

Yes, RTS Camera is essential as a mod. I will not play a campaign without it.

Why TW won't let the player target formations (actually don't think A.I. can either) is beyond me. Seems like such a basic feature for a game like this. Nevermind troop outlines and better camera.

I hope console players clap back at the poor state of Bannerlord. The problem is most will only play 20 hours kill some looters and think it's neat. Anyone who puts any serious time into this game is going to see its glaring faults. Be funny if TW gets hit with a bunch of refund request for the game, granted Bannerlord isn't anywhere near as glitchy as Cyberpunk - but it's just as unfinished really.

It's hard to say, but I don't think there's much enthusiasm for release in general.

How to fix all the major issues with Bannerlord's singleplayer combat:

* Increase the protection armour gives against pierce damage by 1.7X. Right now bows/crossbows take 4-5 chest hits to kill a fully armored troop. It should be 7-8. This will massively improve the balance of archers because melee troops will be able to get in range to attack without dying.

Yes archer damage has to be nerfed. It's way too easy to kill things at range. Nerfing arrow/bolt damage will greatly increase the viability of melee units. Archers should be a support unit, instead they are the primary killers. And it's way to easy to cheese the A.I. with archers, send a few units to kite the enemy and your archers will take care of the rest.

Seriously if there were no shields in this game, archers would dominate everything.

Many of the commonly requested features need less than a day's worth of work to implement as proven by Bloc. Sometimes even only an hour.

Which is why we're asking for Warband features that made the game loop more enjoyable and less focused on killing bandits, killing doomstacks, and chasing people around.

I'd rather play Warband at this point, warts and all. Yeah animations are janky and it looks like something from 2002 - but at least it's an actual game.

And I say this as someone who never played Warband until after playing Bannerlord.

Dude play with the realistic battle mod.Its a whole new experience.Dont expect them to fix anything.

Pretty much this, mods are the only thing that can salvage this game.

Mods are supposed to add "flavor" to the game, they shouldn't be required to add the "noodles". But guess that's becoming more and more a thing where the community is supposed to fix the game. And in Bannerlord's case not only did we pay for the game, but we've been play testing it for the past 2 years, offering tons of feedback - whether it's on bugs or glitches, or just general Quality of Life requests. All to fall on largely deaf ears. I don't get how TW screwed this up.

 

[Bluko88]

Its worse than that. They actively choose the dumbest solutions.

Like ffs, their idea of balancing horse archers was to make them morons that randomly charge in. Rather than... I dunno. Nerfing range damage?

It's funny though.

How do we make Horse Archers not blatantly OP? Let's just make their A.I. so bad that they'll be unusable without heavy player micro LOL

Of course if spears and regular cavalry were actually good for anything, that might you know counter them? They've know regular cavalry are bad for a long time - why you don't see any sword only cavalry. Melee cavalry needs to be better at hitting things. Maybes charges shouldn't do a lot of damage, but should knock down footmen a lot more.

Cavalry if it charges into archers should seriously disrupt the formation. And really archers should not be able to defeat cavalry 1v1. I mean even if the archers can kill a fair amount to start, once the cavalry plow into the archers it should be game over for the archers.


Also the fact TW refuses to seperate SP from MP in terms of game mechanics is extremely foolish. How do you honestly expect to balance both?

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

And it's way to easy to cheese the A.I. with archers, send a few units to kite the enemy and your archers will take care of the rest.



I'd rather play Warband at this point, warts and all. Yeah animations are janky and it looks like something from 2002 - but at least it's an actual game.

And I say this as someone who never played Warband until after playing Bannerlord.

Yeah, you havnt played Warband alot then.

In Warband you could kite entire parties, just riding around them in a circle, while you archers would kill them all to a man. It still works for e.g. looters in Bannerlord but I have yet to convince an actual party that they should focus on me.

I am not really sure this is what you should praise Warband for...

 

[Rafa911]

Cav need to be able to knock more foot soldiers down. Also knocked people should take trample dmg if another horse runs in top of them

 

[five bucks]

That's an armor balance thing then, what'll end up happening is ranged damage gets cut in half then add on proper damage reduction scaling by "armor tiers" and there will be posts about infantry being OP.

I totally disagree that it will make infantry OP because right now dying in 4-5 hits means they mostly die before they can even reach melee range. A.k.a., 0-20%HP.

If they died in 7-8 hits that would mean they would reach melee range with 20-40%HP, which is enough to have a good chance in a melee fight but still be at enough of a disadvantage to archers to potentially lose.

If for whatever reason it does make infantry too strong, which is unlikely, Taleworlds can just dial down the pierce damage soak number by like 0.2X or something.

My other points are still in scope though. While the AI stays in its pretty horrendous state even if armor & damage balances were implemented the archers will still maul everyone when infantry charges with shields down, cavalry freezes and/or refuses to positively engage archers or whatever force is screening them

I agree that other changes need to be made.

But even with no other changes and only changing pierce damage to armour and buffing spear damage/speed, like I said above, troops charging archers will now have ~30%HP by the time they reach the fight, instead of 0, and that is enough to make an enormous difference in their viability.

Armour buffs against arrows NEED to happen more than anything else. This is not to say that other changes shouldn't be made too, but you people should stop confusing matters by downplaying the importance of armour being actually useful.

The message to Taleworlds should be clear and consistent: pierce damage to armour should be nerfed, spear damage should be buffed.

 

[Apocal]

Inexcusable really, I mean besides a handful of additions (Rebellions, Vassalization, etc.) and some stability improvements is this game really better off then it was in March 2020?

Hell yes, it is better off.

It was noticeably better even four months in, compared to the launch.

 

[MostBlunted]

But only because the EA release version was Placeholderlord. More like a techincal alpha than a game, so yea...it´s better now. Now it´s a unfinished beta...

 

[geala]

I don't have that high hopes. Bannerlord has some fundamental problems, and it is not the armor in the first place. The game does for example not know what time it should simulate. It says "1084" in the beginning but has a huge bunch of professional high armor infantry troops. In the time such troops became more widely used in the real world, the cavalry sucked more and more, and better armor for them did not solve the problem.
I don't see a solution for the vanilla game. The overabundance of armor on the troops prevents the game from making armor strong. Otherwise it would be like RBM with combat module, a terribly clumsy type of battle, and far less realistic than in vanilla.

I'm playing with much less armor on most of the troops and armor being stronger than in vanilla but with few troops well armored. I put most ranged weapons (except tier 5 bows and tier 4 and 5 crossbows) to "Cut" and took away one quiver from most archers. Archers usually are unarmored or armored only a bit. I have a recruitment system which makes it very difficult to amass Fians. It feels better than in vanilla, however archers are a bit underpowered. The same will happen if TW made pierce damage weaker, as many wish. I don't care that much as long it could be modded.

What were much more important than armor and such stuff would be more control on the battlefield and less braindead AI. I'm using RBM AI module and it's already better than vanilla. Nevertheless, it should be possible to order units to attack units. The AI should not charge recklessly to death if they have one soldier more than the enemy but worse troops. Soldiers should not turn towards the player or some lonely riders if they stand with their backs to a line of archers; at most they should form a square with all sides protected. Soldiers should turn towards the player if attacked and face the thread, and not turn a second later to let them be butchered again. Moral should play a much bigger role in combat. Lords should not fight 20 against 400 but surrender. Ok, and cavalry should be able to hit with lances, foot archers should be able to hit horsearchers (like in the mod Improved Combat AI).

 

[five bucks]

I don't see a solution for the vanilla game. The overabundance of armor on the troops prevents the game from making armor strong. Otherwise it would be like RBM with combat module, a terribly clumsy type of battle, and far less realistic than in vanilla.

You are overcomplicating things here.

It is this simple:

Armor gives terrible protection against arrows, so melee units die before they can reach archers.

Rise the protection of armour against arrows. Now survivability of melee units goes up. Now melee units can reach archers and kill them.

If this makes archers too weak, reduce the protection slightly.

It is THAT simple.

I'm playing with much less armor on most of the troops and armor being stronger than in vanilla but with few troops well armored. I put most ranged weapons (except tier 5 bows and tier 4 and 5 crossbows) to "Cut" and took away one quiver from most archers. Archers usually are unarmored or armored only a bit. I have a recruitment system which makes it very difficult to amass Fians. It feels better than in vanilla, however archers are a bit underpowered. The same will happen if TW made pierce damage weaker, as many wish.

Yeah, your problem is you're changing bow damage to cut, which means you can't tweak the values without messing with melee combat. Also removing the quivers was totally unnecessary.

That problem does not apply if it's pierce damage instead. If archers become too weak with 1.7x pierce damage soak (which they shouldn't), then you reduce it by 0.2x, or something, until they are no longer too weak.

It's balancing 101. It worked in Warband. It is not as hard as you're making it sound. Balance is not an on/off switch between overpowered and underpowered, it's a sliding scale. Numbers can be changed however we want.

What were much more important than armor and such stuff would be more control on the battlefield and less braindead AI. I'm using RBM AI module and it's already better than vanilla. Nevertheless, it should be possible to order units to attack units. The AI should not charge recklessly to death if they have one soldier more than the enemy but worse troops. Soldiers should not turn towards the player or some lonely riders if they stand with their backs to a line of archers; at most they should form a square with all sides protected. Soldiers should turn towards the player if attacked and face the thread, and not turn a second later to let them be butchered again. Moral should play a much bigger role in combat. Lords should not fight 20 against 400 but surrender. Ok, and cavalry should be able to hit with lances, foot archers should be able to hit horsearchers (like in the mod Improved Combat AI).

Sure, all of these things should happen. But no amount of AI changes will fix archers being overpowered while archers are armor-piercing machine gunners.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

This is it...

...more than two years of ringing that bell and here we are still ringing. How young and naive we used to be...

 

[Ser Jon]

This is it...

...more than two years of ringing that bell and here we are still ringing. How young and naive we used to be...

Blobbing is our inheritance for Bannerlord.

 

[Lucius Confucius]

People wanting better horse archers are silly. If you get better horse archers you will just complain how OP the Khuzaits are. And how OP horse archers are.

The complain train never ends.