If no nerfs for Fians or Khan's Guard then..

[five bucks]

Giving buffs to all other units just for do not nerf two units which are clearly OP? Why?

Making all elite units as OP as Fian and Khan’s Guard, just going to make the game easier for the player, less challenging, and boring.

I do not want to steamroll the AI after getting 40-50 elite units.

+1

It would be far easier to nerf the Khan's Guard than to buff everything else.

Here's what TW needs to do to make most of the SP troops decently balanced:

* Increase the protection of armor against arrows/bolts by 1.7x
(This would instantly make Khan's Guard less OP and make Fian Champions pretty balanced and would make all infantry and cavalry troops stronger)
* Nerf the damage of the Glaive so it can only 4hit to chest instead of 2hit
(So the Khan's Guard isn't the best melee troop and horse archer in the game wielding a lightsaber, and you have a reason to pick other troops. Combined with the above change this should make Khan's Guard balanced)
* Buff the damage and speed of spears/pikes across the board, and make the AI actually use it when fighting infantry
(This will make spear infantry less garbage)
* Make archers lead their shots when shooting at circling horse archers
(This will give an actual counter to circling horse archers)
* Nerf shield health by about 15% across the board
(This will make throwing axes useful, be more realistic, and make shields feasible to actually break sometimes)
* Make pike AI troops properly learn to use pike bracing when being charged by cavalry from the front
(This will balance the new power of cavalry and make pike infantry useful)
* Give a Falx back to the Veteran Falxman
(So they aren't a downgrade from T4)
* Nerf the Legionary a bit in some way, perhaps athletics skill and 1h skill
(So that Sturgia can have the best shield infantry troops in the game instead of Empire)
* Make the Menavlion into a pike with good stats
(Like how it was in real life. So Empire can have the best pike infantry troops in the game)
* Make the Pilum throwable again
(Just do it)

For the most part, simple changes that will go a long way. That will make the balance good enough for console and for anyone who is happy with close enough to perfect balance; and then modders can do the finishing touches to take it from good to perfect.

 

[JunKeteer]

Or you could also limit the number of T6 units you can use depending on perks or clan tier or why not both?
I mean, as far as i can tell simply rearranging the skills and tweaking the DMG output is enough. the Khans don't need to be massively nerfed, just rebalance them so they are not going to be the best troops at anything they attempt to do.

The one route I definitely don't want them to go is limiting my options in my playthroughs even further with another arbitrary cap. They just need to modify damage outputs of polearms. Aiming for calvary improved so even the thrust/lances are noticeably better (including foot spear/pikemen I've noticed).
Reduce the factoring damage of swing polearms as I'm assuming there's a lot of stacked factoring from perks, swing, and calvary speed; add the fact it's 'window of attack' is very forgiving. Buff the pierce/thrust factor for weapons so that spear/pikemen are a bit more relevant, even sword pierces as pierce attacks in this game are already poor in comparison to just swinging in practically every situation.

 

[xdj1nn]

Presumably some aspects of the AI aren't going to be fixed for awhile at this point, if ever, so working with the AI they have / bandaid fixes is what I'm assuming they'll do to fix up balance post-release. The first two changes would also make the player less absurdly powerful with a swinging polearm. I like using them but sometimes something fun is so powerful it kind of ruins it because it feels too much like cheesing.

I'm simply advocating for being loud about it instead of presenting them the easy way out

+1

It would be far easier to nerf the Khan's Guard than to buff everything else.

Here's what TW needs to do to make most of the SP troops decently balanced:

* Increase the protection of armor against arrows/bolts by 1.7x
(This would instantly make Khan's Guard less OP and make Fian Champions pretty balanced and would make all infantry and cavalry troops stronger)
* Nerf the damage of the Glaive so it can only 4hit to chest instead of 2hit
(So the Khan's Guard isn't the best melee troop and horse archer in the game wielding a lightsaber, and you have a reason to pick other troops. Combined with the above change this should make Khan's Guard balanced)
* Buff the damage and speed of spears/pikes across the board, and make the AI actually use it when fighting infantry
(This will make spear infantry less garbage)
* Make archers lead their shots when shooting at circling horse archers
(This will give an actual counter to circling horse archers)
* Nerf shield health by about 15% across the board
(This will make throwing axes useful, be more realistic, and make shields feasible to actually break sometimes)
* Make pike AI troops properly learn to use pike bracing when being charged by cavalry from the front
(This will balance the new power of cavalry and make pike infantry useful)
* Give a Falx back to the Veteran Falxman
(So they aren't a downgrade from T4)
* Nerf the Legionary a bit in some way, perhaps athletics skill and 1h skill
(So that Sturgia can have the best shield infantry troops in the game instead of Empire)
* Make the Menavlion into a pike with good stats
(Like how it was in real life. So Empire can have the best pike infantry troops in the game)
* Make the Pilum throwable again
(Just do it)

For the most part, simple changes that will go a long way. That will make the balance good enough for console and for anyone who is happy with close enough to perfect balance; and then modders can do the finishing touches to take it from good to perfect.

again, the danger of nerfing paths' that it will eventually make the game suck even more - keep in mind that I don't even use the Krueger Guava troops

It is better to buff the whole units roster to avoid nerfing two clear OP units? Yeah, sure…

Just because you lack the imagination or vision to see it doesn't mean it doesn't work or cannot be done.

I can understand that AI still needs tweaks. I also understand that all archers units are still overperforming, mostly because arrows are still doing too much damage against armored units, but Fian and Khan’s Guard are simply much better doing everything than any other unit. Improving armor protection against arrows/bolts would make these units a bit less OP, but they would continue being much better than anything else.

not tweaks, in some areas complete revamps, on others extremely thorough detailing, and others actual FIXES.
If AI only needed tweaks we'd have mods with it - we don't because the AI is incomplete still...
Fians are passable/only competent as infantry but don't do it much better than any other inf unit. Their shine relies upon the ranged side of it.
KG's are only showing such blatant OPness because AI was built in such a way that it works much better with swingable weapons than it does with thrust weapons. So the first fix is AI, than tweaking skill levels, than messing with the weapons themselves. - KG's should still be able to destroy t4 or lower inf by the end of it, but should encounter a real challenge upon t5+ units. So part of the fix would indeed incur on fixing how armor works, but they'd still out-class everyone if the AI isn't touched, as such the idea would be that they should be demolished by certain types of troops on melee (like Line Breakers, who should be the strongest DPS inf unit, but are not due to crap armor)

 

[LyonExodus]

The one route I definitely don't want them to go is limiting my options in my playthroughs even further with another arbitrary cap.

it's just a suggestion.
One thing i will never get about this game is why when i play on the hardest avaiable difficulty the AI doesn't cheat as much as any other game.
Let's say that the AI can upgrade troops faster and thus having more High tier troops in their parties (something i tried myself by modding the game and it makes it way more enjoyable)
Stacking a lot of T5 and T6 is the only way to compete with them. So you have to have a strong character before taking down towns yourself.

The AI will never be good at tactics, it's a processor at the end, it will always be predictable.
But what they can do is making the hardest difficulty actually hard by giving bonuses to the AI and reduce the player capabilities in unfair ways.

I am a bit bored of having to create a real hard difficulty setting when any other game as one available with the simple click of a button.
Challenging in this game is just a "normal mode" with a mask. it's not really a challenge, it's a grind.

Anyway, going back to the suggestion.

This game as a massive flow nobody can even see:
it's too easy for the player to have a stacked army
And it's too hard for the AI to have at least 50% of their troops being T4+
And let's not to talk about the huge amount of perks that only the player can benefit in a smart way and are not made for the AI.

The imbalances among troops are even greater because of how the game just doesn't really challenge you.
If i meet the King of Vlandia in a field battle his army must make me shiver, instead Derthert will bring 10 Banner Knight 5 Sharpshooters and 3 Sergeants in comparison to my 100 Legionaries and 100 Palatine Guards.

better perk selection for the AI and faster upgrading will allow them to create challenging armies.
How you balance that you may ask? Longer Prison time and cooldown on the creation of new parties.

I have tested similar stuff myself, the game is not even comparable to vanilla at that point.

 

[LDominating]

My ideas weren't to harm the Fians or Khans as I feel like the noble troops should feel stronger.
I do see it as weird that only Fians and Khans use very noble-ish/very strong weapons where the other troops use the worse variants,or weapons found on basic line troops.
As you can see with the Cataphract Mace which has the name in it,it should be on them and the Thamaskene Steel Spathion.

Also many lower tier units are weirdly designed.
For example the T2-T3 of Sturgia,the Otrok and Varyag have less armour than their basic line.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

it's just a suggestion.
One thing i will never get about this game is why when i play on the hardest avaiable difficulty the AI doesn't cheat as much as any other game.
Let's say that the AI can upgrade troops faster and thus having more High tier troops in their parties (something i tried myself by modding the game and it makes it way more enjoyable)
Stacking a lot of T5 and T6 is the only way to compete with them. So you have to have a strong character before taking down towns yourself.

The AI will never be good at tactics, it's a processor at the end, it will always be predictable.
But what they can do is making the hardest difficulty actually hard by giving bonuses to the AI and reduce the player capabilities in unfair ways.

I am a bit bored of having to create a real hard difficulty setting when any other game as one available with the simple click of a button.
Challenging in this game is just a "normal mode" with a mask. it's not really a challenge, it's a grind.

Anyway, going back to the suggestion.

This game as a massive flow nobody can even see:
it's too easy for the player to have a stacked army
And it's too hard for the AI to have at least 50% of their troops being T4+
And let's not to talk about the huge amount of perks that only the player can benefit in a smart way and are not made for the AI.

The imbalances among troops are even greater because of how the game just doesn't really challenge you.
If i meet the King of Vlandia in a field battle his army must make me shiver, instead Derthert will bring 10 Banner Knight 5 Sharpshooters and 3 Sergeants in comparison to my 100 Legionaries and 100 Palatine Guards.

better perk selection for the AI and faster upgrading will allow them to create challenging armies.
How you balance that you may ask? Longer Prison time and cooldown on the creation of new parties.

I have tested similar stuff myself, the game is not even comparable to vanilla at that point.

If we had actually challenging battles, we would have losses, which in turn means spending time recruiting new troops. It would risk making the game exceedingly grindy. Good point on counterbalancing it with longer prison time/cooldown on party creation, though, you would potentially need alot of other adjustments to income, levelling etc. to keep a reasonable pace.

This is probably more suitable/realistic for a mod.

 

[xdj1nn]

My ideas weren't to harm the Fians or Khans as I feel like the noble troops should feel stronger.
I do see it as weird that only Fians and Khans use very noble-ish/very strong weapons where the other troops use the worse variants,or weapons found on basic line troops.
As you can see with the Cataphract Mace which has the name in it,it should be on them and the Thamaskene Steel Spathion.

Also many lower tier units are weirdly designed.
For example the T2-T3 of Sturgia,the Otrok and Varyag have less armour than their basic line.

well, you seem to get my point without actually understanding what I said.

If we had actually challenging battles, we would have losses, which in turn means spending time recruiting new troops. It would risk making the game exceedingly grindy. Good point on counterbalancing it with longer prison time/cooldown on party creation, though, you would potentially need alot of other adjustments to income, levelling etc. to keep a reasonable pace.

This is probably more suitable/realistic for a mod.

I know how to pull that off (something like that) but that would require an entire revamp of the game design itself - meaning getting rid of many of their current feature systems and remaking those from scratch... It's really not feasible, maybe (depending on scope of changes) not even for modders.

I believe more in a compromise, which TW should be going for - but evidence indicates they simply don't give a rats arse about doing so.

 

[LyonExodus]

This is probably more suitable/realistic for a mod.

Indeed.
That entire thing right now is better to be done with the use of mods.
But that shows how much you can do with very little. There could easily be an "Impossible" mode for this game for players that need that challenge.
During my time i encounter many issues while trying to get a perfect balance between challenge and not breaking the game. The Economy was one of the problems i run into since every lord was making a ton of money every day.

But still, the quality of enemy lords armies should be addressed even in vanilla, one way or another, and the perk selection for AI needs to improve or be completely different. Some selections are clearly just for the player and not the AI.
Yet, by forcing the AI to not select certain perks you already make them better

Troop balancing can be addressed too and if the devs want to get in touch i can tell them what i think might work, and i know some are gonna say nerf arrows and the game will be good. it's not that simple lads.

Right now i am busy with many things and i can barely get new analysis out

 

[xdj1nn]

Indeed.
That entire thing right now is better to be done with the use of mods.
But that shows how much you can do with very little. There could easily be an "Impossible" mode for this game for players that need that challenge.
During my time i encounter many issues while trying to get a perfect balance between challenge and not breaking the game. The Economy was one of the problems i run into since every lord was making a ton of money every day.

But still, the quality of enemy lords armies should be addressed even in vanilla, one way or another, and the perk selection for AI needs to improve or be completely different. Some selections are clearly just for the player and not the AI.
Yet, by forcing the AI to not select certain perks you already make them better

Troop balancing can be addressed too and if the devs want to get in touch i can tell them what i think might work, and i know some are gonna say nerf arrows and the game will be good. it's not that simple lads.

Right now i am busy with many things and i can barely get new analysis out

well, the issues with BL were first pointed out back in Warband over 12 years ago - 12 years ago... What was the bottom line? Put both AI and player under the same rules.

First detailed announcement of BL: "Players and AI will work under the same rules"
first news about the EA: "well, AI will work a bit differently you see"
and we're back to square ZERO (not even 1)

 

[anoddhermit]

well, the issues with BL were first pointed out back in Warband over 12 years ago - 12 years ago... What was the bottom line? Put both AI and player under the same rules.

First detailed announcement of BL: "Players and AI will work under the same rules"
first news about the EA: "well, AI will work a bit differently you see"
and we're back to square ZERO (not even 1)

lol, as bad as this might look they probably just quickly learned that this is less feasible or enjoyable than it looks like on paper. AI playing by the same rules as a player does often ends up really bad - either the AI stomps anyone who's not an advanced player, or it's trivial to cheese the AI once you know how it works, or some combination.

I think sometimes a compromise is best though - it should never feel like the AI is cheating or playing by patently obvious different rules in frustrating or immersion breaking ways.

 

[xdj1nn]

lol, as bad as this might look they probably just quickly learned that this is less feasible or enjoyable than it looks like on paper. AI playing by the same rules as a player does often ends up really bad - either the AI stomps anyone who's not an advanced player, or it's trivial to cheese the AI once you know how it works, or some combination.

I think sometimes a compromise is best though - it should never feel like the AI is cheating or playing by patently obvious different rules in frustrating or immersion breaking ways.

not really, the rules can be the same, what can't are the mechanics governing said rules. (they must be coded to mimic cause & effect)
How does one pull that off? Through data gathering from players - than simulating the result on the AI.

The only way to make the exact same rules + mechanics for both AI and player would be to have an actual AI play the game with us... Not a VI. - To me what they've learned was that it was lengthy work and simply opted to shortcuts instead. Fact is the game would need to be played and tested than the AI would have to abide by rules like the player while circumventing it's limitations - the effect would be that if the player disrupts a supply line, ai will suffer the logical consequences, if the player raids their fiefs, their armies get affected, etc.

 

[five bucks]

again, the danger of nerfing paths' that it will eventually make the game suck even more - keep in mind that I don't even use the Krueger Guava troops

Why will it "eventually make the game suck even more?" Explain how.

The overall trend I have seen with Taleworlds' balance is that they gradually make things better.

I already said this in another reply to you:
* They balanced snowballing
* They greatly improved cavalry charges knockdown, charge damage and couching
* They greatly improved melee damage to armour protection especially blunt damage
Etc.

It is irrational to think that Khan's Guard getting a balanced melee weapon will somehow make the game suck.

Just because you lack the imagination or vision to see it doesn't mean it doesn't work or cannot be done.

You're missing Dabos's point.

You could

A: Nerf one unit directly (and buff a bunch indirectly by changing the armour formula and spear stats)

Or

B: Buff 30+ units' equipment and skill directly to be not massively overshadowed by the Khan's Guard. (and buff a bunch indirectly by changing the armour formula and spear stats)

Which one is more work, therefore more likely to create mistakes and less likely to be done?

We need to stop having an irrational fear of nerfs. Nerfs are a good tool in the arsenal of a game developer. When something is far above the power level of everything else to the point that its design is no longer interesting and does not have interesting weaknesses, what do you do? Nerf it!

Fians are passable/only competent as infantry but don't do it much better than any other inf unit. Their shine relies upon the ranged side of it.

I agree. They only need the same nerfs as other archers (buffing armor to work properly).

KG's are only showing such blatant OPness because AI was built in such a way that it works much better with swingable weapons than it does with thrust weapons. So the first fix is AI, than tweaking skill levels, than messing with the weapons themselves

You could make thrust/couch weapons work perfectly and get one shot kills literally every time (which would be too strong by the way) and Khan's Guard would still be better because they don't need as much of a run-up to oneshot.

There are only two possibilities here: nerf Khan's Guard, or buff everything else to the point that it's unrealistic or bad for the design of the game.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

Frankly I think nobles should feel powerful asf, but almost impossible to spam unless you're late game or something. I think all the crying people had about nobles being too rare has basically ruined things- nobles should be rare and that's that. That way when you do have one, you get something powerful.

That aside if I got to nerf Khan's Guard, I'd do something like this.

Spoiler: Khan's Guard redone

Take away one of their quivers, lower their skills, lower their armour. I find this guy still looks great (better than TW's mismatch look actually). With them like this, they at least don't overshadow the Heavy Horse Archer or the Heavy Lancer in terms of theoretical roles. They should still feel great to use, but not overwhelmingly the best thing possible.

That aside I will test them out on the field and see if they still feel too good or not.

 

[Dabos37]

How much strong should feel elite units compared to rercruits? I suppose everyone has their own tastes, but in my opinion, it should not be as much stronger as some people would like. Fian Champion and Khan's Guard are clear examples of what I personally do not want to see in this game. I do not want a unit which turn all my battles against the AI into a massacre where I do not get a single loose. Maybe some people like @Ananda_The_Destroyer enjoys wiping the floor with AI armies, and he probably would love to see all elite units on pair with Fians and Khan's Guard (which would be at the same time an indirect nerf for these two units), but I personally find this a mistake. This will turn the game into something 0 challenging and boring for a lot of players who enojoy having more challenging battles. Elite melee cavalry units like cataphracts, banner knights, etc, are strong enough and do not need a buff IMO.

I am pretty sure that, aside from lacking some content, one of the reasons because most of people find late game so boring, is because the game campaign turns too easy when you get enough money to sustain a super elite army. Let's do not ask for making the game even easier for the player.

People who enjoy wiping the floor with the AI will still have the option to play with easy settings.

 

[Apocal]

Why will it "eventually make the game suck even more?" Explain how.

The overall trend I have seen with Taleworlds' balance is that they gradually make things better.

I already said this in another reply to you:
* They balanced snowballing
* They greatly improved cavalry charges knockdown, charge damage and couching
* They greatly improved melee damage to armour protection especially blunt damage
Etc.

It is irrational to think that Khan's Guard getting a balanced melee weapon will somehow make the game suck.

It is because if players take losses (even minor ones) it means they have to go replenish, sooner rather later. That doesn't matter much when you've played the game for like fifty hours, but when you've played it for like a thousand or more, the process of getting new troops sucks ass because it is completely boring.

Taking away the troops who can win flawlessly = more grind for them.

edit: The only reason I'm different is that I don't give a **** about my party comp as long as it isn't a bag of complete nonsense.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

It is because if players take losses (even minor ones) it means they have to go replenish, sooner rather later. That doesn't matter much when you've played the game for like fifty hours, but when you've played it for like a thousand or more, the process of getting new troops sucks ass because it is completely boring.

Taking away the troops who can win flawlessly = more grind for them.

edit: The only reason I'm different is that I don't give a **** about my party comp as long as it isn't a bag of complete nonsense.

Yes.

I will give POP credit for one thing. The whole system of recruiting from prisoners did work great to encourage you to just work with what you could get you hand on (too bad the balance was all over the place the rest of the time).

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

I don't think there's any challenge increase in just ramming different troops together and more of them dying and needed more replacements sooner. It's just adding more padding to game with too much repetitive padding already. What part is the challenging part? Is it waiting for your infantry to waddle across the map? Is it a few more arrows from a good position form x troop compared to y troop? 2 or 3 timed charges with heavy HA to finish off after out of ammo instead of 1 or 2 with KG? You waste a little more time one way or another and that's challenging gameplay to you?

 

[Apocal]

I don't think there's any challenge increase in just ramming different troops together and more of them dying and needed more replacements sooner. It's just adding more padding to game with too much repetitive padding already. What part is the challenging part? Is it waiting for your infantry to waddle across the map? Is it a few more arrows from a good position form x troop compared to y troop? 2 or 3 timed charges with heavy HA to finish off after out of ammo instead of 1 or 2 with KG? You waste a little more time one way or another and that's challenging gameplay to you?

FWIW, I don't think they intended the battles to be challenging.

I say that because the rewards you get if you win are one are relatively low, while the penalties are relatively high and everything seems to be scaled around the player fighting and winning constantly.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

FWIW, I don't think they intended the battles to be challenging.

I say that because the rewards you get if you win are one are relatively low, while the penalties are relatively high and everything seems to be scaled around the player fighting and winning constantly.

Yup, you end up fighting way way way too many battles for them to be actual challenges.

 

[Dabos37]

I don't think there's any challenge increase in just ramming different troops together and more of them dying and needed more replacements sooner. It's just adding more padding to game with too much repetitive padding already. What part is the challenging part? Is it waiting for your infantry to waddle across the map? Is it a few more arrows from a good position form x troop compared to y troop? 2 or 3 timed charges with heavy HA to finish off after out of ammo instead of 1 or 2 with KG? You waste a little more time one way or another and that's challenging gameplay to you?

The best way to explain it, is why people do not use cheats, compared to people who use cheats. You can just enable cheats and win the game without any effort, without any tense moment when you do not know if you are win or lose a decisive battle. Getting Khan's Guard and Fian Champions are pretty much like enabling cheats IMO. When you get a good number of these units, you are 100% sure that you are going to defeat enemy armies easily.

Some players enjoy playing with cheats and some other players don't.

I am personally in favor of making the game the most challenging possible, if you are playing with hardest settings.