I'm done with this game.

Users who are viewing this thread

Antaeus

Sergeant at Arms
What?
Sturgian Heavy Axeman?
Bro are u high?
There's no arrow getting past a T5 infantry unit.
Actually just to mess with u a bit,try ARCHERS against Aserai Veteran Warrior without the shieldwall formation and see for yourself.
If you think fighting is f1-f3 then sure.

But I'd take on your 100 of any T5 infantry with my 50 Fians and 50 Oathsworn any day. And certainly you couldn't take any non-shield T5 infantry against high tier archers at all - they must be used with support.

The point of my post is that the best units are those that combine to enhance each other's best traits. Nobody makes an army of all t5 infantry, because it would get steamrolled by a mixed force. It would get pinned in place by average infantry just long enough to be destroyed by enfilading fire from archers or horse archers, then as it crumbles, finished off by a cavalry charge.

So with that in mind, re-read my post. Sturgian infantry are great meat shields to keep an enemy in place while you wipe it out with archers because of their huge shields. Every unit has a role to play, and not all of them are offensive, and some are best combined with other units - which is why those 1v1 tests are silly. But as the game currently stands, archers and horse archers are the decisive arm of any Bannerlord force. Cavalry and infantry are really only there to manipulate an enemy into place to better shoot them with arrows.
 
Last edited:

KingEroc1st

Veteran
Stop suggesting mods! You are completely missing the point.
you are the one that has missed the point for a year and a half.
the devs don't really care much, and talking on the forums results in absolute nothing.
the only way for anything you can possibly want to be somehow reflected into the game you actually play, is with mods, that already exist.

so keep complaining and wasting your time. or actually download those mods and start maybe having fun. idk the decision is yours
 

KingEroc1st

Veteran
All Sturgians really lack is a braceable polearm - leaving them vulnerable to heavy cavalry.
i don't agree with your assessment of bracable polearm. the AI doesn't ever engage the infantry formation with their cavalry charge head on.
and besides. the AI doesn't have enough dedicated spearmen with bracable polearms in a dedicated formation able to actually make use of the mechanic. frankly i don't know why they even added it since it practically does nothing.

if you bother running custom battles you'd realize you'll need approximately 2/3 shield infantry and 1/3 2-handers to crush cavalry in an infantry only vs cavalry scenario.
(once again. running a test between pikemen vs cav is useless since you'll never field an only bracable polearm infantry line, or even close to half infantry without shields) as even you probably agree the usefulness of infantry in this game is determined by their shield and armor rather than their offense.

in my testings the Sturgian Infantry combo is the second strongest after Empire infantry.

this is how i ran the tests. in custom battle, i lead 300 infantry (100 t4 and t5 shield troop each + 100 2-hander, after many rounds of testing this is the most optimal infantry vs cavalry combo granted we are at a tier disadvantage) vs 300 enemy t6 banner knights. (i chose them as test subjects since they performed best as t6 cavalry vs my troops)
I first tell the troops to stay in a long shield wall (i did this to maximize ranged fire coverage before the clash, since the enemy ai charge is soooo freaking "deadly" i didn't care about it), and then once the enemy charge us we go into square formation. once the battle is about half done i charge everyone.
special consideration for Khuzait since they have no 2h, i used dismounted Kheshigs on hold fire.
and Battanian used Falxmen not Fians.
 
Last edited:
Gonna echo someone else and say that I don't want to see a 'best' unit for every category. I like the idea that all units have their place no matter what.
 

LDominating

Regular
Gonna echo someone else and say that I don't want to see a 'best' unit for every category. I like the idea that all units have their place no matter what.
Yep.
Still it's pretty pathetic a faction focused around heavy infantry performs so poorly in melee and in cavalry charges.
 

KingEroc1st

Veteran
I don't want to see a 'best' unit for every category
unfortunately, whenever there are more than one individuals in a category with different stats, there will be a "best" every single time

are you basically saying you want all units of the same type to have the exact same skills/gear level and the only difference being visual/cosmetic??

there will always be meta strategies developed based on whatever balanced they make to the game, and it will be the most efficient set up. that's how people and games work. the only way against that is to make everything the same. and faction = reskin
 

KingEroc1st

Veteran
Not necessarily, unless the game is so simple that you can never employ different tactics or anything.
you failed to read my following statement about the ever emerging meta game regardless of how much "balancing" they do or how often or how drastic.

trust me man. i've been a hardcore esports fan since the mid 2000s, every RTS and MOBA, no matter how complex, always end up having super efficient meta game strats that everyone uses. a game like bannerlord... the complexity is not even on the same scope.

so it's not that games are to simple there aren't other tactics. it's just that those tactics are so bad they aren't worth using, as if they didn't exist. and such is the challenge of trying to balance a game, you create overpowered and underpowered stuff every patch. I think it's a good idea to stay away from that for TW and just make all troops same stats. to simplify things. and allow better more cohesive cosmetic options.
many more accomplished and capable game developers have been struggling at that balance work for ages, and they are barely able to not fail at best. it's not worth it
 
Last edited:

Earth Dragon

Sergeant
Let’s be Frank: given historical precedence of the Kiev Rus and surrounding Slavic people, they really should have horse archers. Their Noble unit could make the transition to Cavalry at tier 4, the Hunters could branch off once more to create a horse archer, and they could look more like the Slavic army they are suppose to be.

I agree Battanians and Vlandians should not have them (Horse Archers). There was a massive lack of that tactic in Western Europe. But the Slavs weren’t in that same bubble.
 

five bucks

Squire
unfortunately, whenever there are more than one individuals in a category with different stats, there will be a "best" every single time
I think he means just not having a clear best unit. Some being slightly better is ok.
Are you basically saying you want all units of the same type to have the exact same skills/gear level and the only difference being visual/cosmetic??
The way to make units feel different within the category without having a clear "best" one is to make each of them excel at a particular thing. Which exists to some extent.

For example - among heavy infantry, the Sturgian Heavy Spearman and Heavy Axeman get the toughest shields with best upper-body coverage. Empire Legionary gets the toughest armor. You can have a heavy infantry with the best weapon, the best combat skills, the highest athletics, the most projectiles, etc.

Then, to make all factions feel different without any of them having the "best" heavy infantry or the "best" melee cavalry, you can show their specialisation by structuring their troop trees so that the heavy infantry faction gets heavy inf from T2 and has two branches of heavy inf at T5 (as Sturgia does).
 

Antaeus

Sergeant at Arms
Each high tier unit and each faction are the best under certain circumstances - as Eroc and others have stated. Which is how it should be. Those single unit v single unit tests tend to bias certain unit types. E.g. Heavy 2h infantry tend to be weak vs archers, but super strong vs infantry when missiles are disabled. But combine them with good shield infantry to sap arrows and you have a killer combo against a lot of mixed enemies.

Some units are better at not dying so quickly. Some units are better at killing quickly. Some are better at being a balance but not the best at anything. The differences make you have to think differently when you play as different factions. And when you're fighting against different factions. In my experience, the factions themselves are now really well balanced against each other, so to break this balance, it is up to the player to interfere - and the way the player interferes is different for each faction, but entirely doable.

And ideally, the variability it encourages you to deploy different units to cover for each other's strengths and weaknesses - and once the developers have it balanced correctly... the combination should leave factions fairly even in total - those with strong archers are balanced by those who are resistant to archers. Those who have strong infantry should balance against those who are good at avoiding a melee. Etc etc.
 

five bucks

Squire
Each high tier unit and each faction are the best under certain circumstances
I wouldn't go that far, some high tier units are just worse versions of others. I can't realistically see a situation where the player would choose to upgrade to Sturgian Heavy Spearman over Heavy Axeman. Vlandian Pikeman's job is done better by the Sergeant. There is definitely improvement in balance needed in the troop trees.
 

Antaeus

Sergeant at Arms
I wouldn't go that far, some high tier units are just worse versions of others. I can't realistically see a situation where the player would choose to upgrade to Sturgian Heavy Spearman over Heavy Axeman. Vlandian Pikeman's job is done better by the Sergeant. There is definitely improvement in balance needed in the troop trees.

Oh I agree there's probably tweaking to be done. For example, I'm guessing Pikemen will get a longer pike, and Sergeants may end up with a smaller unbraceable polearm to more clearly define their roles. But some of the game mechanics that these units operate under aren't fully resolved yet either so with time (e.g. bracing)...
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Master Knight
Catafrack: Best at getting shot more before dyinng when you want a guy to get in the way (infantry too slow) he's your guy.
Bannerknight: best at closing in and.... well if you have enough somebody's getting a poke..... they are good at closing the distance.
Drunkoozy:...... the other non-noble one with javelins is better.... **** this guy, dismount him or something. WTF TW lol
Aserai Feris builer: When you want to kill a few somethings and then lose a t6 unit.... they're the fastest... they get some cheap shots... but they don't last... so they're bad.... dying is bad...
Khan's guard: Do you just want to kill em? Kill em at range, kill em up close, kill em in a siege, doesn't matter they kill everything and are just better. Did a different dev program these? They can HIT THINGS from horse back, Everything else is just garbage flopping around like a bag of ****s by comparison. This is how other t6 units should be, TW, no nerfs just make other units not suck, make them THIS GOOD.
Fians: Do you want to kill every one but you got no warhorses or are on the wrong side of the world? It's okay bro we fians have go you covered.
We don't move so fast and wont make you go so fast but we still everything for you.
 

Antaeus

Sergeant at Arms
I have to say... I just hate Faris. They literally troll you. They die well enough, but you always lose a KG. Just to annoy you.

Unless they're yours... then if you can micro the hell out of them to keep them out of a melee, they are pretty good at smashing HA.
 
unfortunately, whenever there are more than one individuals in a category with different stats, there will be a "best" every single time

are you basically saying you want all units of the same type to have the exact same skills/gear level and the only difference being visual/cosmetic??

there will always be meta strategies developed based on whatever balanced they make to the game, and it will be the most efficient set up. that's how people and games work. the only way against that is to make everything the same. and faction = reskin
Well yeah, let there be that one best unit, if only because they are somehow rarer/more expensive to attain.

But beyond that, let units actually have their own roles to play, even if it doesn't necessarily make them the 'best' at their role. Something like Empire Archers having somewhat average bows, but make up for it by being really well armoured. Or Sturgian Archers running one less quiver, mainly because they have shields that turn them into effective frontline infantry. Fians can still remain the best in the role, but suffer from being relatively rare and expensive. That sort of thing.

That way, you can actually have a variety of units around, of which none will feel completely useless. So no, don't everyone being the same. But alas, the tactical layer of the game is really simple atm, so its harder to make this sort of thing really 'work'.

Oh I agree there's probably tweaking to be done. For example, I'm guessing Pikemen will get a longer pike, and Sergeants may end up with a smaller unbraceable polearm to more clearly define their roles. But some of the game mechanics that these units operate under aren't fully resolved yet either so with time (e.g. bracing)...
Pikemen suck ass because they wear ugly, weakass helmets. They also cannot compete with the likes of an Oathsworn, who is basically superior in every single way. Better armour, a shield, braceable polearms with anti cav hooks and javelins.

Why would you ever want a pikeman? Seriously, there's a lot to be done for the units, and I don't know if the devs will care to address it well enough.

Catafrack: Best at getting shot more before dyinng when you want a guy to get in the way (infantry too slow) he's your guy.
Bannerknight: best at closing in and.... well if you have enough somebody's getting a poke..... they are good at closing the distance.
Drunkoozy:...... the other non-noble one with javelins is better.... **** this guy, dismount him or something. WTF TW lol
Aserai Feris builer: When you want to kill a few somethings and then lose a t6 unit.... they're the fastest... they get some cheap shots... but they don't last... so they're bad.... dying is bad...
Khan's guard: Do you just want to kill em? Kill em at range, kill em up close, kill em in a siege, doesn't matter they kill everything and are just better. Did a different dev program these? They can HIT THINGS from horse back, Everything else is just garbage flopping around like a bag of ****s by comparison. This is how other t6 units should be, TW, no nerfs just make other units not suck, make them THIS GOOD.
Fians: Do you want to kill every one but you got no warhorses or are on the wrong side of the world? It's okay bro we fians have go you covered.
We don't move so fast and wont make you go so fast but we still everything for you.
This basically. Khan's Guard and nothing else is really needed.

I think its going to be a tall order to make every noble into a heavily armoured horse shock archer cavalry... unless you mean make them all as good at killing.

What I really hate that its not that hard to do. Something like:

Cataphract: Almost unkillable, too thick to stop.
Banner Knight: Just give us back Swadian Knights. Seriously.
Druzhinnik Champ: Give them glaives/two handed axes and make them the best cavalry 'brawler'
Vanguard Faris: Give back the seeker missle jereeds
Khan's Guard: Maybe knock down their polearm skills? Or even give them a sword instead of two quivers, so that they don't completely overshadow everything?
Fian Champ: This is about right I think.
 

five bucks

Squire
I think its going to be a tall order to make every noble into a heavily armoured horse shock archer cavalry... unless you mean make them all as good at killing.
Agreed. Ananda usually has good takes but "no nerfs" is the wrong mentality here. If all the noble units are good at just about everything they won't feel different at all- or the alternate option, making the melee focused options completely stupidly dragon ball Z levels of strong so that they can compete with a ranged unit that already slaughters in melee.
Khan's Guard: Maybe knock down their polearm skills? Or even give them a sword instead of two quivers, so that they don't completely overshadow everything?
Lowering their polearm skills wouldn't come close to balancing them unfortunately.
Glaives (and slash polearms in general) should have their damage knocked down by like a quarter, and it should be taken away from the Khan's Guard and replaced with a sword. It's good for them to be the best horse archer in the game, and that should come at the cost of being noticeably worse at melee than every other noble unit.

Khanguardo delenda est.
 

Helz

Knight
But beyond that, let units actually have their own roles to play, even if it doesn't necessarily make them the 'best' at their role. Something like Empire Archers having somewhat average bows, but make up for it by being really well armoured. Or Sturgian Archers running one less quiver, mainly because they have shields that turn them into effective frontline infantry. Fians can still remain the best in the role, but suffer from being relatively rare and expensive. That sort of thing.
Those are good ideas. I think the simplest way to implement the most roles would be to give each class a large selection of weapons and armor. Then the players can discover their own styles and expand the game.
 
Those are good ideas. I think the simplest way to implement the most roles would be to give each class a large selection of weapons and armor. Then the players can discover their own styles and expand the game.
Like MP? Well...

It would be kind of cool... but really impractical and just more unnecessary work when there are bigger things to sort out.
 
Top Bottom