Faction Troop Trees - an analysis as of 1.5

[Apocal]

I also ask everyone this: who are the actual true skirmishers in this game?

@Dabos37 was using "skirmish unit" in a more general sense, encompassing archers as well.

Actual, true skirmishers in this game would be terrible for a multitude of reasons that could be summed up thus: none of the real advantages, all the real downsides and a few more on top of that.

 

[ElCrisp]

I also ask everyone this: who are the actual true skirmishers in this game?

Sorry if I was being imprecise with my language, when I was saying skirmishers I was refering to javalin units.

Actual, true skirmishers in this game would be terrible for a multitude of reasons that could be summed up thus: none of the real advantages, all the real downsides and a few more on top of that.

Could you expand on this want to hear your thinking.

 

[Apocal]

Could you expand on this want to hear your thinking.

They fit some specific battlefield niches:

1. screening force to trigger enemy ambushes and forces away from your forces before they are ready
2. fill in gaps between units that develop due to terrain
3. harassment of enemy units

Let's roll through that list in Bannerlord:

• You can't be ambushed, either on the main map or in a tactical battle.
• There is not reason to care if there is a gap between your units, they will all moshpit anyway.
• Harassment has absolutely zero value because morale doesn't matter until the point at which it shatters entirely.

The disadvantages of skirmishers:

• Fighting in open order and without serious polearms, they are vulnerable to being swept aside by cavalry.
• Typically equipped with only modest protection.
• Skirmishing is a slow process of attrition.
• In Bannerlord, they very quickly run out of things to throw.
• In Bannerlord, they are not any cheaper to recruit, train or equip.
• In Bannerlord, only killing counts for purposes of damaging morale.

People might complain that Darkhans and Legionaries aren't real skirmishers but they are about as good as you can get with ranged-throwing weapon equipped infantry because they are capable of killing after a brief flurry of javelining, followed by closing in to the slaughter without fail. The stereotypical lightly-equipped skirmisher with a handful of javelins is strictly outclassed by troops who can kill in the melee because that's where the infantry's killing is mostly done. Where skirmishers should shine is parts of the game that don't exist or are simplified away and handled by other systems.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

well, i was goign off the premise that all top tier footmen should be useful and there should be no clear outlier before anyone else (archers before footmen, skirmishers before pure melee) and that there shouldn't be a single footman that can do it all, because why have anything else? the idea of having a troop tree is to have variation and choice, to mix troops to best effect. otherwise me might skip this thign altogether and only have fians, khan's guards and whatever and laugh at people that want balance and diversity...

footmen by that time period were essentially grouped in to categories: line ('heavy') foot and light foot. line footmen were supposed to fight in formation and give a base to rally behind and protect from cavalry charges. skirmishers are part of the light infantry that can't wear heavy armor because it would slow them down/tire them faster and make them less agile. they were not supposed to withstand infantry or cavalry charges but retreat behidn actual line infantry.

in bannerlord, some heavy infantry classes get javelins for no reason other than makign them better or not letting that extra weapon slot going to waste i guess. likewise skirmishers get equipment with which they can compete with heavy infantry on equal footing.

which brings me back to my OP: some factions clearly have different branches of footmen that can be categorized as skirmishers and heavy infantry, however the progression doesn't always make sense, and the battanians get various types of footmen that are often both heavy foot yet also skirmishers but to varying degrees.

let's take sturgia: there are two main branches that can be classed as 'melee' and 'ranged'. do you want to get the best skrimisher? guess i gotta go into the 'ranged' tree and upgrade that javelin foot. wrong! the javelineer ultimately upgrades to mounted skirmisher. the best foot skirmisher meanwhile is in the melee branch...

empire? tough luck, no dedicated skirmisher, even though they were well known for it. they were however not really known for their crossbowmen. therefore it makes sense, IMO, to replace the crossbowmen line with skirmishers armed with tzikourion axes. that would also give the faction more flavor.

battania? as said, one muddled mess. there are two branches that can be liberally categorized as 'heavy' and 'light', but the equipment is all over the place and they have two nearly identical final heavy infantry/skirmisher upgrades, just in case someone made the wrong upgrade choice earlier i guess.

aserai? the. worst. first you branch off into two virtually identical infantrymen, only to find that you are ****ed either way, because the tier 3 upgrade javelineer turns into the archer eventually, and the best skirmisher is, as usual, the heavy foot with shield.

khuzaite darkhans used to have eastern javelins, but now they only get one triangular throwing spear, makign them eastern legionaries essentially...

in summary, yeah there aren't exactly dedicated skirmishers, which IMO is a big issue...

Meh, like Apocal said, dedicated skirmishers in literal light armour wouldn't be especially good in bannerlord... at least assuming some sort of nerf to javelins happens.

Again, I don't really have an issue with throwing weapons being given to melee infantry though. Like I said, lots of cultures tend to use throwing weapons as a preamble. I do think units should all be capable of being similarly viable though.

I suppose things like giving certain units more javelins, and others a set of throwing spears like how it worked in Viking Conquest would help. Also bigger differences in skills would help too.

 

[ElCrisp]

Yeh well my vission would be, some of the heavier inf can have that one throwing spear. Others maybe dont ie vlandians.

The dedicated skirmishers can have medium armour, a shield one hander and two stacks totalling 10 javalins. That doesnt seem like an ineffective unit in my mind. We know how dangerous javs are. That unist could kill anything with a shield down, and would get killed in melee by heavy inf / cav and get killed by archers if it is not careful with its shield.

I dont think javalins should be nerfed by the way (outside of selling them) atleast in damage. They should be more lethal than a bow per shot, because they are / should be more innacurate and far shorter range. Otherwise why would a player run throwing weapons, over a bow.

Dont forget I am stipulating that AI needs to be better with the use of its shield, this would both nerf the dedicated skirmisher, and buff its own shield use. Making it a very effective fighter of archers. once it gets into range.

I also think unit collisions should be a bit less soup like, for the sake of infantry melees not looking like a runny blendor.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

I dont think javalins should be nerfed by the way (outside of selling them) atleast in damage. They should be more lethal than a bow per shot, because they are / should be more innacurate and far shorter range. Otherwise why would a player run throwing weapons, over a bow.

I would also nerf damage from bows tbf. As for why run around with throwing weapons? The reason doesn't change- you have a spare equipment slot. Simple as that.

 

[Anushtegin]

skirmishers in bannerlord as opposed to real life have another advantage, they can often one shot everyone without a shield. speakign of which, another feature of real life skirmishers was to harass the enemy main line and strip them of their shields. the javelin was primarily an anti-shield weapon, as a thrown weapon can't really pierce heavy armor, but it can pierce wooden shields. in which they would get stuck, rendering them useless. javelins should have a damage bonus vs shields like axes do.

 

[ElCrisp]

I can see nerfing damage from bows but I would do it by buffing armour and also nerfing bows a little.

I think the arguments about realism are relevant only to a minor extent.
Like realisticlly arrows have no hope of pentrating lamellar or even chainmail at range. and rarely do it at close range.
But we cant simulate how having a bruised rib makes you second guess wrestling the man across the field until one of you dies.
Or if some one gets unlucky and immobilised having a tendon damaged.

Instead arrows are lethal in the game and its fun to play with them.

Can skirmishers play the role that they do in real life? No. Can they be a meaningful bit of unit diversity and effective in bannerlord, I dont see why not.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

I can see nerfing damage from bows but I would do it by buffing armour and also nerfing bows a little.

I think the arguments about realism are relevant only to a minor extent.
Like realisticlly arrows have no hope of pentrating lamellar or even chainmail at range. and rarely do it at close range.
But we cant simulate how having a bruised rib makes you second guess wrestling the man across the field until one of you dies.
Or if some one gets unlucky and immobilised having a tendon damaged.

Instead arrows are lethal in the game and its fun to play with them.

Can skirmishers play the role that they do in real life? No. Can they be a meaningful bit of unit diversity and effective in bannerlord, I dont see why not.

Oh yeah, definitely nerf bows via armour. Solves a **** tonne of other issues too.

And I agree with your realism point. M&B is simply not realistic, and that's fine. Extra doses of realism to enhance gameplay is always welcome, but realism for its own sake isn't best.

 

[lukkyb]

I can see nerfing damage from bows but I would do it by buffing armour and also nerfing bows a little.

I think the arguments about realism are relevant only to a minor extent.
Like realisticlly arrows have no hope of pentrating lamellar or even chainmail at range. and rarely do it at close range.
But we cant simulate how having a bruised rib makes you second guess wrestling the man across the field until one of you dies.
Or if some one gets unlucky and immobilised having a tendon damaged.

Instead arrows are lethal in the game and its fun to play with them.

Can skirmishers play the role that they do in real life? No. Can they be a meaningful bit of unit diversity and effective in bannerlord, I dont see why not.

Bows would penertrate mail (not sure what the minium bow poundage had to be but they would) This lead to the creation of steel plate amour whcih bows would not go through

Video on plate at Againcourt yes i know its alot later time period



This is why shields were kings of the battlefiled as if you didnt have one you werent gonna have a nice day thats not to say that 11th century mail could not stop certain bows but the technology just wasnt there yet to make full plate mail to try and neagate the efects of arrows (again you could make a tighter format of rings 6x6 called kings mail but this was more expensive)

another thing to consider is only really knights and lords had full mail in this time period as it was excpensive so the levys would be lucky if they coould afford a helmet or even a gambison (helmet takes priority)

the reason shield walls existed was to stop the huge amounts of damage that a few vollys of arrows could casue sheild walls were seldom used in combat as you need to have some room for the line to manuver about

Now i know its a game and certain liberties need to be made for fun over realism and i do agree amour needs to be improved protecion wise but arrows still should be a threat and force the player to slowly advance in a shiled wall instead of charging in loads of knights to deflect all the arrows

 

[Apocal]

Can skirmishers play the role that they do in real life? No. Can they be a meaningful bit of unit diversity and effective in bannerlord, I dont see why not.

Unit diversity, fine. But anything even remotely close to historical use leaves dedicated skirmishers strictly inferior to archers. The best thing for them is being mounted (Aserai Faris do this and they are arguably the second best noble line) so they can at least hypothetically close to a flank.

 

[Olympeus]

Unit diversity, fine. But anything even remotely close to historical use leaves dedicated skirmishers strictly inferior to archers. The best thing for them is being mounted (Aserai Faris do this and they are arguably the second best noble line) so they can at least hypothetically close to a flank.

I'm loving those Aserai Faris. I just picked up a significant quantity of javelin cavalry in this play through beginning with Brigands, then the Aserai Bandits, and now I have some Faris worked in and these guys seem highly effective as a unit. I'm avoiding mixing in other standard cavalry units as I feel this will start causing collisions and formation confusion for them.

I really like how they move to engage before the enemy can close. With my heavy cavalry I always wait for the infantry lines to close before I send them in because I know they will charge straight at the spearmen instead of going around to the archers. Unless they are positioned carefully, then I think they will go for the archers first (?)....but with the javelin cavalry you can be confident they won't try to run on top of spears until after they've expended their missiles which leaves plenty of time to soften the enemy and the infantry will close.

 

[Anushtegin]

Unit diversity, fine. But anything even remotely close to historical use leaves dedicated skirmishers strictly inferior to archers. The best thing for them is being mounted (Aserai Faris do this and they are arguably the second best noble line) so they can at least hypothetically close to a flank.

IMO skirmishers can fill a niche in this game. they will be outranged by archers but have a shield which gives them better protection from archers and lets them close the gap and beat archers in the melee. they will be outclassed heavy infantry in the melee, but their javlins give them a slight advantage before the actual melee. essentially, they should be a middle ground between archers and ehavy infantry (with shields).

 

[Apocal]

IMO skirmishers can fill a niche in this game. they will be outranged by archers but have a shield which gives them better protection from archers and lets them close the gap and beat archers in the melee. they will be outclassed heavy infantry in the melee, but their javlins give them a slight advantage before the actual melee. essentially, they should be a middle ground between archers and ehavy infantry (with shields).

There are infantry in front of the archers, dude. To get into melee range with the archers -- and probably to get within javelin range in most situations -- the skirmishers have to go through the melee press. They won't make it, at least not soon enough, before the battle is completely decided anyway.

And that's assuming you can get the skirmishers to ignore the infantry and not waste all their javelins on their shields.

edit: that's why I said mounted skirmishers worked well; they can just ride around the melee press.

 

[Anushtegin]

i was speakign in a simplistic 1v1 scenario. i mean by that logic, i would not send in my skirmishers all by themselves anyways...

 

[Dionaea]

I just put my cannon fodder (everyone who is not a Sturgian or not a Fian) in the skirmish group, and use them to slow down the enemy's advance whilst my Fians shoot at them, or I put them on a flank and slightly ahead of my Sturgian shieldwall to help protect it as it is positioned in front of the Fians.

I've reached the point where I no longer need to rely on the retreat exploit since I can sacrifice my non precious troops and it doesn't affect me emotionally if they die. Also because those do almost all the fighting now, after a few battles the survivors are leveling nicely with the occasional elite fodder troop dying but it's still a pretty tough group and I even put non sturgian cavalry and non fian archers in there so it's a very diverse battle group

 

[Olympeus]

I just put my cannon fodder (everyone who is not a Sturgian or not a Fian) in the skirmish group, and use them to slow down the enemy's advance whilst my Fians shoot at them, or I put them on a flank and slightly ahead of my Sturgian shieldwall to help protect it as it is positioned in front of the Fians.

I've reached the point where I no longer need to rely on the retreat exploit since I can sacrifice my non precious troops and it doesn't affect me emotionally if they die. Also because those do almost all the fighting now, after a few battles the survivors are leveling nicely with the occasional elite fodder troop dying but it's still a pretty tough group and I even put non sturgian cavalry and non fian archers in there so it's a very diverse battle group

Cool troop formations!

 

[Ichon]

i'm not sure when exactly crossbows were used in scandinavia and eastern europe, and i don't think that would really make much of a difference to their effectiveness anyways. but maybe crossbows for their ranged milita could be an option.

Sturgia is a mix of Rus and Baltic peoples which traditionally fought more on foot due to the swampy and forest geography but they lived nearby steppes and adopted horses quite readily. Several of Attila's Hunnic 'hordes' were Gothic tribes who fought mounted.

The use of warhorses by Rus were relatively rare but they fought very commonly as mounted infantry, riding small sturdy horses on raids or to the site of the battle and then dismounting to fight. Sturgia really needs a strong infantry mounted on a weak charging horse which enters the battle already dismounted but can use the speed bonus and +20% auto-calc bonus.

Noble Sturgians would fight on warhorses as in later eras the mounted infantry morphed into full-time medium cavalry in the Druzhina employing a mix of steppe and native tactics where most warriors learned the bow and how to ride but quality warhorses remained expansive and most men still fought on foot once reaching the battle but were capable as medium cavalry with bows and shields/lance/mace but did not have large formations of heavily armoured lance cavalry charging en masse.

Crossbows were adopted very readily by Baltic peoples from the Knight Orders which stocked their castles and forts with massive quantities of crossbows and bolts. Crossbows were rare outside the Orders in the 14th century but were widespread in the later 15th century and seemed to have been used in great numbers and for longer than most other places in Europe aside from the Italian maritime states.

I think Sturgia is the weakest roster because TW couldn't decide if they should commit to the 'Vikings/Norse' style or to the Rus/Baltic style and made it the worst of both.

Having the final tier of Druzhina be a mounted medium cavalry with relatively weak archery but strong armour and no lances but long maces/swords while the highest tier non-noble line is a strong foot infantry but that gets horses for travel and the auto-calc bonus of cavalry would hugely help Sturgia.

All the lower tiers having throwing javelins and the highest ranged tier being crossbowmen that have a two-handed spear + javelins (no shield) would make the most sense and they could use crossbows at range while devasting low armoured cavalry with throwing weapons and long reach two-handed spears fending of the charge but still picked apart at range by horse archers if not defended by a shieldwall.