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!
Can you buff them? Thanks!
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.
And how exactly is heavy cavalry spam better then archer spam? Besides, making cavalry ragdoll everything it touches would prevent archer spam how?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.
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. 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?
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 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.
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.