Currently viewing this thread:

Hello! Game is pefect! Except heavy cavalry, its basically useless. In battles infantry 2:1 heavy cavarly, they barely can kill a single unit xD
Can you buff them? Thanks!
 
Last edited:

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight
Buff cavalry in simulated battles (automatic resolve) does not seem like a good suggestion for me tbh. It would negatively impact the game balancing for sure. On the other hand, cavalry is still meh in actual battles, and still feels far away from archers performance which are simply x2 times better.
 
Vanilla cavalry have multiple easily fixable problems.
A) Lances are too short so stabbing with lance (or regular spear) is more efficient than couching and foot infantry outranges cav anyway.
B) Charge distance in vanilla is too short, which means that cav dont have enough time to properly charge with couched lance (which is useless anyway - see above).
C) AI cavalry uses advance too often, advance in general is very bad order - foot soldiers dont throw javelins and cav does not charge properly.
D) Armor have too little efficiency vs projectiles, even less so when cav is charging against flying projectiles - this results in dead cav before it can cause enough chaos and damage.

When I say easily fixable I mean it, we already fixed all of these isues with mod, so devs can literally copy paste most of our solutions or come up with their own since they have better knowledge of their own code and better access to it then we do.
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
Please not. Removing Warband's heavy cavalry spam was one of the best design decision in Bannerlord. Now playing as something else then a heavy cavalry is much more viable and enjoyable and combined arms approach is effective. Cavalry shouldn't be able to just overrun heavy infantry in formation. It's both unrealistic and unfun.
 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight
Please not. Removing Warband's heavy cavalry spam was one of the best design decision in Bannerlord. Now playing as something else then a heavy cavalry is much more viable and enjoyable and combined arms approach is effective. Cavalry shouldn't be able to just overrun heavy infantry in formation. It's both unrealistic and unfun.

Warband = Heavy cavalry spam
Bannerlord = Archers spam

Not sure why you are thinking that it is more effective to use combined arms in Bannerlord when getting >80% ranged units is by far the most effective way to cheese the game.

No one is asking for bringing back super OP Swadian Knights, just for making all units viable and cavalry is currently too far away from archers effectiveness.
 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight
I think this video shows exactly the current Archers vs Cavalry performance. In this long video, you can find many battles where I tried to defeat the same army with cavalry and with archers. I got crushed all the times when I used cavalry, and I crushed the AI the only time I used archers (check the video at 00:15:40 for archers battle):


While archers are still pretty OP (I do not want to talk much about this in this thread), it is pretty clear for me that cavalry is underperforming. Cavalry is especially bad against other cavalry units and really bad to kill the enemy's missile cavalry. I expect at least a 2:1 ratio for T6 heavy cavalry units but I rarely can get this performance in any battle (even in actual battles when using combined armies). Devs have already said that they are going to improve the cavalry AI but it is taking a lot of time for some reason... Probably because it is pretty hard to achieve. I have also read that armor will get improved against arrows, this will also help with game balancing which is currently a mess.
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
Warband = Heavy cavalry spam
Bannerlord = Archers spam
And how exactly is heavy cavalry spam better then archer spam? Besides, making cavalry ragdoll everything it touches would prevent archer spam how?

Archers are OP not because they can magically shoot laser rays and burn highways through infantry lines but because AI can't use shieldwall properly. In Warband you couldn't use archer spam because AI was actually using their shields.

Not sure why you are thinking that it is more effective to use combined arms in Bannerlord when getting >80% ranged units is by far the most effective way to cheese the game.

Because you don't have to cheese the game in Bannerlord. In Warband there was no way to counter Swadian knight, in Bannerlord countering archers is a trivial thing. That AI can't do it is a problem of the AI, not the archers been OP.

No one is asking for bringing back super OP Swadian Knights, just for making all units viable and cavalry is currently too far away from archers effectiveness.

Plenty of players do actually: https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/are-cavalry-charges-lame-in-your-opinion.439360/
Some are even directly referring to Warband and Swadian knights.
 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight
And how exactly is heavy cavalry spam better then archer spam? Besides, making cavalry ragdoll everything it touches would prevent archer spam how?

Archers are OP not because they can magically shoot laser rays and burn highways through infantry lines but because AI can't use shieldwall properly. In Warband you couldn't use archer spam because AI was actually using their shields.



Because you don't have to cheese the game in Bannerlord. In Warband there was no way to counter Swadian knight, in Bannerlord countering archers is a trivial thing. That AI can't do it is a problem of the AI, not the archers been OP.



Plenty of players do actually: https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/are-cavalry-charges-lame-in-your-opinion.439360/
Some are even directly referring to Warband and Swadian knights.

Archers or Cavalry spam are both pretty bad for the game. I said that Archers spam is even worse because they are even more OP than Cavalry is in Warband in my opinion. Sure, maybe it is not just about archers being too good, and the AI has to get improved, but the current result is Archers spam being insanely strong and effective, and making the game as easy or even easier than it is in Warband with Heavy Cav spam.

Ok, maybe some people are directly asking for Swadian Knights spam in Bannerlord, but it is for sure not my case, and I do agree with cavalry in Bannerlord should not be as OP as it is in Warband. I just think that Tier 6 heavy cavalry should be just somehow better (all improvements related to the cavalry AI, not stats), while archers performance should be balanced across infantry/cavalry performance. Getting 50 Fians (which is actually not too hard to achieve) means that we can win almost every battle with 0 losses and it makes the game feel as exploitable as using smithing in my view.
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
Archers or Cavalry spam are both pretty bad for the game. I said that Archers spam is even worse because they are even more OP than Cavalry is in Warband in my opinion. Sure, maybe it is not just about archers being too good, and the AI has to get improved, but the current result is Archers spam being insanely strong and effective, and making the game as easy or even easier than it is in Warband with Heavy Cav spam.

Ok, maybe some people are directly asking for Swadian Knights spam in Bannerlord, but it is for sure not my case. I think that Tier 6 heavy cavalry should be just somehow better (all improvements related to the cavalry AI, not stats), while archers performance should be balanced across infantry/cavalry performance. Getting 50 Fians (which is actually not too hard to achieve) means that we can win almost every battle with 0 losses and it makes the game feel like using smithing in my view.

This is newer ending "balancing" loophole. You buff cavalry because you fell it's too weak. Ques what? Players that like to play of foot start to complain that their infantry can't counter cavalry and will demand buffing of the "weak" infantry. Players that like to play ranged will start to complain that their arrows harmlessly bounce off the cavalry and demand to buff "weak" archers. Fine, so you do that. Ques what? You're at the start of another loop because mounted players just started to demand to have their "weak" cavalry buffed again.

What people don't realize is that real combat is not a Total War game, where you can assign a unit attribute and artificially make archers weak against cavalry or vice versa. In real life it does not work that way and it does not work in RPG game either. There is no artificial "balance" and magical attributes. Units, weapons and soldiers are not balanced, they simply have a strong and weak points. Strong point of a archer is that he can hit things at a range. Let him shoot at the man on horse and he will kill or incapacitate him. He does not know that archers should be "weak against cavalry". Don't let him shoot at range and he will be useless. Strongpoint of cavalry is that it's fast and mobile. Make them outmaneuver the enemy, attack him at a weak point, flank or rear and they will decimate him. Let them stand under arrow fire without moving and they will die.

In real life "units" are not stronger or weaker then other "units". They are just better in fighting certain way then others. Use them correctly and they are strong. Use them incorrectly and they are weak.

Cavalry shouldn't be able to just ragdoll whole infantry formations to death by colliding in to them. Cavalry should be able to outmaneuver infantry and hit its weak points, pick up stragglers, get at the archers and skirmishers.

What we should ask from devs at TW is not to artificially "balance" our favorite unit, we should ask to give us better ways to control them and more competent AI (including formation AI and better "morale" system). How hard is it to make AI use their shields when under threat of ranged fire? They did it in Warband, didn't they? It would instantly reduce archer spam effectivity by half if not more. Especially if shieldwall formation would move soldiers with shields to the front and those without to the back. To use archers, you would have to place them in such a way, that they can shoot in to unshielded side. And that would require combined arms approach. Hence no spam anymore.
 
Last edited:
I am for historically accurate cav within limits of game of course, this includes both the good and the bad.

The good: They should be able to turn the tide of battle if used properly - charge to flank, charge to rear, charging loose formations in general. Their armor should actually protect them because thats the best armor available in the period.

The bad: Inability to charge spearwall / pikewall efficiently from the front, in a sense that they wont do that not in a sense that they will charge frontally everytime only to get instakilled by pikes. (would require AI adjustment)
Price and meintenance both for player and AI (would actually require huge changes to campaign AI because it seems to me like it either cheats or just lives on debt like America). For example normal horses could life of land if the land is plain or steppe, but when its something else they would need grain (much more than single man). Warhorses would need grain always and more than normal horses. Generally speaking knights or similiar warriors had some 3 people taking care of them and the horse, so the maintanance (wage) should be 4 times us much in comparison to foot soldeir of same tier. This could be reduced for khuzaits (since nomads were more self reliant).
Edit: Obviously terrain other then step and plain should be (and already is) very handicapping for cav.

In this kind of situation cav could be really powerfull in historically correct manner but they would be rare sight, at least the high tier that uses war horse and heavy armor.
 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight
This is newer ending "balancing" loophole. You buff cavalry because you fell it's too weak. Ques what? Players that like to play of foot start to complain that their infantry can't counter cavalry and will demand buffing of the "weak" infantry. Players that like to play ranged will start to complain that their arrows harmlessly bounce off the cavalry and demand to buff "weak" archers. Fine, so you do that. Ques what? You're at the start of another loop because mounted players just started to demand to have their "weak" cavalry buffed again.

What people don't realize is that real combat is not a Total War game, where you can assign a unit attribute and artificially make archers weak against cavalry or vice versa. In real life it does not work that way and it does not work in RPG game either. There is no artificial "balance" and magical attributes. Units, weapons and soldiers are not balanced, they simply have a strong and weak points. Strong point of a archer is that he can hit things at a range. Let him shoot at the man on horse and he will kill or incapacitate him. He does not know that archers should be "weak against cavalry". Don't let him shoot at range and he will be useless. Strongpoint of cavalry is that it's fast and mobile. Make them outmaneuver the enemy, attack him at a weak point, flank or rear and they will decimate him. Let them stand under arrow fire without moving and they will die.

In real life "units" are not stronger or weaker then other "units". They are just better in fighting certain way then others. Use them correctly and they are strong. Use them incorrectly and they are weak.

Cavalry shouldn't be able to just ragdoll whole infantry formations to death by colliding in to them. Cavalry should be able to outmaneuver infantry and hit its weak points, pick up stragglers, get at the archers and skirmishers.

What we should ask from devs at TW is not to artificially "balance" our favorite unit, we should ask to give us better ways to control them and more competent AI (including formation AI and better "morale" system). How hard is it to make AI use their shields when under threat of ranged fire? They did it in Warband, didn't they?

To avoiding loops, the devs should take or do not take some suggestions into consideration. If the game feels balanced where all units and army composition feel viable and balanced, without any of them making the game feel too easy and exploitable, I think that suggestions to continue working on balancing should be simply ignored. Sadly we are far away of that point, and suggestions for balancing are pretty much welcome in this moment, especially when we have some units clearly underperforming while some other ones clearly overperforming.

The endless balancing loop should not be an argument for not trying to apply any kind of balancing at all. Balancing won't be perfect ever, but there is a huge margin for improvements currently and I do not find any reason because we should not be suggesting changes for that.

I am not interested in the historical debate to be honest... Because no one here is able to provide 100% accurated information and there are tons of contradictory information on Internet. All I want is a better balancing for the game without any kind of units feeling broken/OP or useless.
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
To avoiding loops, the devs should take or do not take some suggestions into consideration. If the game feels balanced

Problem is that "feel balanced" is a subjective thing. Playing on a horse and leading cavalry charges is going o feel different then playing a Robin Hood with band of archers and very different playing Viking raider in a shieldwall.

where all units and army composition feel viable and balanced, without any of them making the game feel too easy and exploitable, I think that suggestions to continue working on balancing should be simply ignored. Sadly we are far away of that point, and suggestions for balancing are pretty much welcome in this moment, especially when we have some units clearly underperforming while some other ones clearly overperforming.

The endless balancing loop should not be an argument for not trying to apply any kind of balancing at all. Balancing won't be perfect ever, but there is a huge margin for improvements currently and I do not find any reason because we should not be suggesting changes for that.

I am not interested in the historical debate to be honest... Because anyone here is able to provide a100% accurate information and there are tons of contradictory information on Internet. All I want is a better balanced game without any kind of units feeling broken/OP or useless.

Sure, but I am simply pointing at the fact that demanding arbitrary buffs on particular units is not going to make anything balanced. How do you want to measure "balance" between the horseman and an archer for example? Should horseman be able to kill archer or should archer be able to kill horseman? Well the answer is both but then how exactly do you want to accomplish that? If you make horseman "stronger" so that he can kill archer then archer is not going to be able to kill the horseman and vice versa.

And the obvious thing I am pointing out is that horseman is not stronger then archer and archer is not stronger then horseman, there is no balance between them. The success of one or another is in how they are been used, not what "stats" or "buffs" they have.

Take a chess, which is simplified battle. What is stronger? Pawn or knight? Answer is none. Pawn can kill knight and knight can kill pawn. Trick is not in their "strength", trick is in the way you move them. Pawn doesn't have more or less HP armor or "attack" then a knight. If TW was able to make this aspect of combat more important then we might not have these discussions about buffing, depuffing and balancing this or that unit because it wouldn't matter as much.

Archers can attack at the distance. Cavalry can move and change position fast. Heavy infantry is good at holding position and fight in formation frontally. Make these things matter more in combat, meaning making combat more tactical and it would go long way towards "balance" without need to buff anything. Within limits of the AI and game system of course. I am not expecting complete realism.
 
Last edited:

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight
Problem is that "feel balanced" is a subjective thing. Playing on a horse and leading cavalry charges is going o feel different then playing a Robin Hood with band of archers and very different playing Viking raider in a shieldwall.



Sure, but I am simply pointing at the fact that demanding arbitrary buffs on particular units is not going to make anything balanced. How do you want to measure "balance" between the horseman and an archer for example? Should horseman be able to kill archer or should archer be able to kill horseman? Well the answer is both but then how exactly do you want to accomplish that? If you make horseman "stronger" so that he can kill archer then archer is not going to be able to kill the horseman and vice versa.

And the obvious thing I am pointing out is that horseman is not stronger then archer and archer is not stronger then horseman, there is no balance between them. The success of one or another is in how they are been used, not what "stats" or "buffs" they have.

Take a chess, which is simplified battle. What is stronger? Pawn or knight? Answer is none. Pawn can kill knight and knight can kill pawn. Trick is not in their "strength", trick is in the way you move them. Pawn doesn't have more or less HP armor or "attack" then a knight. If TW was able to make this aspect of combat more important then we might not have these discussions about buffing, depuffing and balancing this or that unit because it wouldn't matter as much.

Archers can attack at the distance. Cavalry can move and change position fast. Heavy infantry is good at holding position and fight in formation frontally. Make these things matter more in combat, meaning making combat more tactical and it would go long way towards "balance" without need to buff anything. Within limits of the AI and game system of course. I am not expecting complete realism.

There is not hard to find that T6 Archers will always be much more useful and appealing than T6 cavalry. Not sure if you have checked this video, but for me there is no reason because I should not get Fians over T6 cavalry 100% of the times (aside from me disliking to use exploits that make the game less enjoyable, in the same way I do not use smithing currently because it is broken):


I am pretty sure that the devs' tests are going in the same direction, mostly because it is pretty evident that you can defeat the AI easily if spamming archers (00:15:40 for archers battle), while cavalry is much harder to manage effectively and while the result is much worse. The balancing is pretty subjective, yes, but if you are getting infinitely better results if recruiting X unit instead of recruiting Y unit, there is not needed to be a balancing expert to know that something is really wrong with these results.

Maybe you want cavalry to be relegated to a 100% support role, while other people want cavalry to a more deadly role, etc. Who is right on this? Well, who knows, but what is pretty evident is that archers make feel cavalry and infantry useless because you do not need anything else if spam archers. If you get a different unit, you clearly know that your army is underperforming compared to an archers spam army.

Concerning the Archers vs Cavalry question, well, if the cavalry is able to reach archers in melee, cavalry should be able to inflict massive kills on these archers, but it is not happening currently because cavalry AI is mediocre as best and miss a lot of hits. Anyway, there is not much sense to argue about if cavalry AI should be improved or not, because at this point all people do agree with everything related to improving AI, plus devs have already confirmed that cavalry AI is getting improved, so people complaining about cavalry bad performance can be happy now.
 
Top Bottom