If they are able to effectively tie up all my HA then I can't effectively rain arrows on their infantry core and disorganize them enough to use my cavalry charges to break their line.
As someone who frequently runs HAs exclusively, tying them up is the key to defeating them. HA (while in motion) are nowhere near as accurate as regular archers, and make up for it with numbers and agility. Bringing them to a halt by surrounding them with inf/cav is probably the only really effective way to stop them from mass picking you off. This has less to do with them being weak in melee (which is often not even the case) and more with the fact that if you don't bring them to a stop, you have effectively no way to kill them outside of using your own archers.
All of that said, I was just thinking during a battle earlier that horse archers make some of the issues with combat AI and the ineffectiveness of formations, as well as the need for more nuanced shields. Most campaign AI will rarely, if ever, circle up infantry, and even when they do, they have nothing to do except sit their with shields and wait for the HAs to run out of arrows.
I think there are two sets of actions that need to be considered to balance horse archers in the game, neither of which involve adjusting HA stats.
- First, horse archer units need to be more expensive.
Much more expensive. Bannerlord has already taken a step in the right direction with requiring you to actually own a horse for each unit you create, but this design choice needs to be expanded upon. Horses should absolutely require food. This could be done by carrying feed around like you do now for your troops, but I would like to see this done in addition to some sort of grazing mechanic, requiring you to spend some time feeding your horses on a regular basis.
In addition, I think there should be a far greater investment required to train horse archers. Mounted archery is very difficult, and while I can't personally attest to this fact, there are any number of people who will tell you just that on the internet. They should be expensive to train as a result, in terms of both money and time. I would also add that the accuracy penalty on horseback should be markedly increased to reflect this.
- Second, I would propose an idea to help infantry troops (both melee and archer) deal with both horse archers and calvary in general. The effectiveness of spears and pikes against calvary is something that has already been discussed elsewhere on the forum, so I won't delve into that specifically, but suffice it to say that not only am I wholeheartedly for these ideas, I think they should be taken a step further. Wooden spikes, pounded into the ground, were an anti-calvary weapon used all around the world at multiple times throughout history to stop calvary charges from destroying infantry. While they would indeed deal massive, almost universally fatal damage to a charging horse, their real use was stopping horses from charging into them in the first place. A horse is not stupid. It is fully aware that if it runs full speed into a wall of spikes, it will die. As a result, a horse would, upon realizing the danger ahead, do it's best to come to a complete stop instantly. You can imagine the affect this had on the horses rider. This effect applies to spears and lances as well. That said, I think the ability for infantry troops to be able to deploy stakes to prevent horse charges would not only massively balance infantry v calvary in general, but would also be an incredibly interesting improvement to battle strategy as a whole.