[In progress] Every Bannerlord High Tier Troop Analyzed

Users who are viewing this thread

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Grandmaster Knight
+1

+2

The boy who is wrong and doesn't want armour to be balanced is outnumbered by about 100:1 by the people who do want armour to be balanced. Arrows being as overpowered as they are makes infantry and melee cavalry comparatively garbage. Our sense of fun comes from the game being balanced and being able to use different troops viably.

No you don't lmao, because they are overpowered. You don't have to buff them at all because they are already by far the best troop types, they really just need a nerf, with the optional change of all around weaker shields also but that's optional.

What stunts the long term replayability is that non ranged units are garbage and I know if I use anything but a party of all Fian or all Khan's Guard I'm gimping myself.

Better analogy: you are talking about how the engine could be working better while everyone else on the boat is more concerned with the fact there's a hole in the bottom.

There is no point about talking about anything AI tactics related when archers can do the same damage *or better* ****from a distance**** than melee troops can do. It makes infantry permanently useless for anything but a shield-dropping distraction in small amounts.

Until armour damage from arrows is fixed, there will continue being only two cost effective strategies: "massed horse archers preferably Khan's Guard" or "massed archers on a hill with 10% token distraction infantry".
+💯
 

LyonExodus

Regular
@five bucks ok mate. we get it. Your view is better than anybody and anyone who says otherwise must be an idiot and not to be reason with.
Thanks the lords we have you, a man who is willing to tell the TRUTH by telling us how bad the game is instead of keeping the discussion where the post is. troops analysis.

Why does everything that you touch must turn into a arrows OP discussion?
Besides i know many veterans who don't like RBM, it's a mod. use it if you so choose don't force what it does upon others. Just because those people are not willing to state their opinion doesn't make them any less important.

Who in their right minds makes polls public i have no idea. the reason of a poll is to give an opinion without being judged.
or this happens:
The boy who is wrong and doesn't want armour to be balanced is outnumbered by about 100:1
Where the superior intellect of the most loud part of the forums 100 people gets to gang on someone just because they are different.
Also the choice was literally yes or no, no middle ground. talking about "illusion of choice" there.

oh society, lovely. To be fair is one guy dragging the other 99 down, but still there is a lot wrong in the quoted sentence.

You are 100 loud people, there are roughly 20K players each day playing Bannerlord. The interest in Bannerlord streams and playtroughs is higher when few or no mods are being used. that shows that a large part of the playerbase prefers vanilla over modded, or just QoF mods that don't change gameplay too much.
Let alone the fact that those videos and videos like them are aimed at mostly helping new players who likely have no idea even where to find mods for this game.

Yes RBM is a popular mod, use it as you like, don't enforce it. The game in my opinion has bigger issues than armor but we can argue on that, just not here.

But why are you just soo damn agressive about POVs that don't align with yours? Is it too difficult to think that different people view problems in different ways and find different ways to tackle them?
I have no idea how someone can be like this, anything that drove you to this. I hope you get out if it, that behavior is going to either surround yourself with people who think alike you or force anybody who doesn't away.



Can we for God's sake stop turning this post into an armor imbalance post? it's not the bloody point
@five bucks I'll ask you gently to think carefully about your next post or please go somewhere else if you want to talk about anything but analyzing units, especially if you have to come across the way you do.
 
Last edited:

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Grandmaster Knight
Let alone the fact that those videos and videos like them are aimed at mostly helping new players
Yes yes, encourage them to use crappy troops who die too much and waste their time and make them stop playing. Or they go complain and get told how to actually play the game well by people who play the game well.
 

LyonExodus

Regular
@LDominating i wanted this thread to bring awareness to the different troops in the game showcasing how they differ, what are the weakness players should be aware of, and if they are fixable with perks. Likewise what strength they should capitalize on and build towards perfecting.

How different weapons impact performance or how armor can carry some otherwise bad units to great performers.
This post should have been about what kind of armies and groups of units you can run together and with what captains, speculating on how units could perform with alternative equipment.

Bringing up to date awareness to the worst performers so that TW could buff some of them, and nerf the too good ones.
Instead it turned into a ****show of people stating it's irrelevant, as Khans are OP and archers are superior. thanks Sherlocks. You know who you are.

Some people being so close minded to not even consider that players might want to play in different ways than Khuzait cheese archers or battanian Fian blasting. Going as far as to indirectly state that any other playstyle is stupid and not fun.

I get that there is a most optimal way to play, yet they seem to not understand that people can play whatever the hell they want, it's a bloody singleplayer game.
I don't get how a guide who's aim is to bring awareness with, i don't even have any idea how many hours i have worked on it at this point, can be turn into a battleground for people to only see the game in a negative way.

Talking as if myself, a 4K hours veteran, have no idea that arrows are too good and unbalanced. Like i said there are other places to discuss that manner, this is not the one.

The thing that upsets me the most is that there is care about the work, i personally care not only about informing players but helping some bad units get their very deserved buffs, and point the finger at the ones who clearly need some nerfing.

I am willing to bet, and i might take a loss, than those who are quick to judge haven't watched even a single one. Instead replaying with months old videos with no information whatsoever and worse testing as proof.

You can spot those who truly respect the work as you can have conversations with them that are relevant to the analysis.

Unfortunately i didn't want to make this post myself. if it was for me i would never post anything on this website, not anymore. But i was asked to and then did it.
the reason being that for many players it's simply not worth it putting your work on the forums, as the replies tend to be among the most toxic i get on any platform. just view the comments on the videos and you get the idea of how different they are.

Especially when you are like me and you like to cover CONTROVERSIAL information.

Some people need to chill for real. They can't keep bashing on people who have a different opinion until they force them off the platform.
As i said in the past, that behavior doesn't make the forum a place were you can have conversations. it drives anybody who has a different opinion off, and some have become masters at doing so.

I don't go onto other players guides and post to state how uninformed, useless, wrong, outdated, irrelevant they are.
There are some people who spread disinformation for the sake of money.
But there are also some that genuinely care, and as wrong as they might be. ****ting on their hard work calling it irrelevant, taking out of the drawer months old poll votes to mock and laugh at their hard work is not what should be at the base of any healthy community member.
Many creators for Bannerlord prefer to never post here for a reason, instead they create their own communities on other platforms.

There is something fundamentaly wrong in that.
 

BigFat

Veteran
I don't think anyone is "****ting on your hard work", I watched about half of them and I even complemented you for it. They're short and concise which is nice compared to some padded out videos by others. Unfortunately, armor value (or lack of them) is pretty relevant to the conversation when it makes 2 of the 4 troop trees comparatively useless and fixing them has been something people have been begging for for quite awhile. I would try not taking things so personally next time.
 

LyonExodus

Regular
@BigFat the convo we had previously was nice. i partially agree on the armor thing, i think it should be higher and such, but let's leave it at that.

i didn't want my comment to come across as everyone is against the work but there are a couple who clearly are.
i have met those few in the past so i am not new to them and how opinionated they can be.
Don't get me wrong i am a tough egg to crack too when i want to. but i don't actively diminish their work and posts with my contrarian opinions.

I don't get why despite their position being clear they must portray the work and the author in a negative way. Dragging the post focus away from it's starting point.

I don't want to block people, i value free speach.
i just wish that posting on the forums wouldn't require to come across those people every single time.
One of the very first replays in this thread basically undermines the entire work by saying this:
Sadly, all troops except Khan's Guards and Fian Champions are largely irrelevant because of three major factors:

Now that's something personally i would never state out of nowhere out of simple respect. as if some player was to come across this post that's one of the first things they will end up reading. And because of it might miss out of a lot of valuable info.

That's the stuff i am talking about.
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
Now that's something personally i would never state out of nowhere out of simple respect. as if some player was to come across this post that's one of the first things they will end up reading. And because of it might miss out of a lot of valuable info.

That's the stuff i am talking about.
To a player who wants the strongest troops, it is irrelevant which troops are Tier B and which are Tier C. All they need to know is Tier S, and tier A for when S isn't available.

To a player who wants to use the troops they feel like regardless of their strength, it is irrelevant which troops are Tier B and which are Tier C.
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
Can we for God's sake stop turning this post into an armor imbalance post? it's not the bloody point
@five bucks I'll ask you gently to think carefully about your next post or please go somewhere else if you want to talk about anything but analyzing units, especially if you have to come across the way you do.
Oops, I missed this post.

Obviously armour imbalance is not the point, however it is definitely relevant to this discussion because it makes most of your videos irrelevant either to players who want strong troops or players who don't care about troop strength.

After making that clear, I was going to stop posting about it, but I jumped back into it when I saw you once again claiming that people only want armour fixed for realism. We don't, we also want it fixed for balance.

The game will never be balanced while arrow damage to armour remains in its current poor state, it's that simple. As long as you can understand that and stop claiming otherwise, we have no reason to disagree.
 

Wheem

Grandmaster Knight
WF&SVCWB
To a player who wants the strongest troops, it is irrelevant which troops are Tier B and which are Tier C. All they need to know is Tier S, and tier A for when S isn't available.

To a player who wants to use the troops they feel like regardless of their strength, it is irrelevant which troops are Tier B and which are Tier C.
Those aren't the only two types of players, though. Some of us want a more "realistic" army composition, which will obviously include a significant % of infantry in almost all cases, and would like to see comparisons between the various available units.

I also think some people like to overstate just how "useless" certain units supposedly are. This is a phenomenon that exists outside of gaming as well, where product-X is supposedly bad just because product-Y is better in some way...it's like you're either #1 or garbage, with nothing in between. Some units being overpowered doesn't make others completely pointless for players to use, especially in a single player game.
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
Some units being overpowered doesn't make others completely pointless for players to use,
Not just overpowered but vastly overpowered. If Khan's Guard outperforms every unit both in melee and at range except the Fian Champion, the only reason to use units other than these guys is if you can't access them. Nobody else does all around combat better than the Khan's Guard, who can kill over 10x their number in recruits, while other noble cavalry struggle to kill 3x. Nothing counters them.
especially in a single player game.
If you don't care about how effective you are then of course other troops have a point to use for their aesthetics but I already addressed this.
 

Wheem

Grandmaster Knight
WF&SVCWB
Not just overpowered but vastly overpowered. If Khan's Guard outperforms every unit both in melee and at range except the Fian Champion, the only reason to use units other than these guys is if you can't access them. Nobody else does all around combat better than the Khan's Guard, who can kill over 10x their number in recruits, while other noble cavalry struggle to kill 3x. Nothing counters them.

If you don't care about how effective you are then of course other troops have a point to use for their aesthetics but I already addressed this.
As a general rule, I don't aim for absolute maximum effectiveness in single player games - immersion and whatnot are typically far more important. I'm not going to kill certain NPCs without reason, or complete specific quests in an "out of character" way, just because that's how you get the #1 best weapon in a game. I'm not going to exploit bugs just because it gets me more money, experience, or allows easily cheesing certain boss fights. Nor do I find it very satisfying to run a Vlandian cultured vassal of the Kingdom of Vlandia across the map to recruit nothing but Khuzait noble troops just because that's what's mathematically the best unit available.

If someone else wants to play the game as though it were a competitive multiplayer game that they had money or an e-sports career riding on, then that's cool - I hope they find maximum enjoyment in the game. But that's not why I play the game, and it doesn't make every other inferior unit "worthless" somehow. The only units that actually deserve that label, IMO, would be most melee cavalry that aren't used as dragoons. Their inability to properly aim lance/spear stabs is one of the biggest problems for battles.
 

LyonExodus

Regular
@five bucks if you don't care, leave.
it's clear you have are here only to disrespect other playstyles. and tell us how superior certain troops are or how useless information is if you want to play with all troops.

After i gave you all the explanations to why this, not only is useful and appreciated by the large majority of players, but what also aims at i think it's clear you are as dense as osmium.

Please go away if your only intent is to overstate how useless troops are in comparison to the best of the best. And let the others who want to enjoy the thread and genuinely appreciate the effort and work use it.

You don't have to ruin everything you don't agree with for gods sake!
 

Wheem

Grandmaster Knight
WF&SVCWB
@LyonExodus If you're looking for more content ideas and don't mind the testing-work, it might be worthwhile to make some video(s) on tier 2-4 units. Probably not doing each individually, since that would take forever, but some generalities and/or "standout" (both good and bad) units might be handy for some.

From my own experience and casual testing, I find the tier 3 Sturgian Soldiers to be a really strong and cost effective unit (the Sturgian Spearmen almost seem like a step backwards, mostly due, I think, to their really low damage sword). Meanwhile, the tier 2-3 Battanian and Imperial infantry seem lackluster, though Imperials get a huge improvement at tier 4.
 

LyonExodus

Regular
@Wheem
That would be amazing given the right amount of time is found. The idea for those videos would probably be to make 4 to 5 videos covering each low tiers depending on either their faction or type.
It can be very useful for those who want to min max in knowing which troops they can hold upgrades for. because the upper tier is worse.
We know there are cases where that happens like the Falxman & Vet. Falxman situation. and at lower tiers this can be even more common.

Testing troops for RBM was also one of my ideas, even if i don't play with the mod i think giving that information to the modders can help in improving their mod experience.
They seem to also been interested in one of my older testings so i would be glad to help.

Another idea was using mods to find out which weapons are the best for companions depending on their skills, with a various combination of perks to find the most optimal ones for swing speed builds or DMG up builds.

Another idea was talking about army compositions and how captains can impact performance, for this i would require a mod built specifically for it, since the only way to access captains perks in vanilla is by fighting an existing army.

I have some ideas moving forward, all involving gathering some numbers and extensive testing.

My goal is to make videos that can be relevant for the longest time possible, and update the ones who fail to do so as i go.

Thanks for the ideas, and i'll do my best to cover as much as i can when it comes to combat and troops.
 
Top Bottom