Insanely OP unit in SP.

Users who are viewing this thread

I preferred Slaver Chiefs to Swadian Knights in Warband lol.

Might have been with Floris mod though.

.... Wait no it was the Vaegir Elitniy Druzhinnik in Floris.
Floris mod is awesome. Especially the aesthetics of troops - personally I find the troops in Floris still look much better than the troops in bannerlord (at least the native ones)
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
You are wrong Apocal but you always want to be right even to the point of using words outside of their intended use and now calling my argument ridiculous by giving a false example, and the weirdest part is that you do know better :roll:
Then let's go through my claims then, one by one.
The morale system doesn't care how casualties are generated. It only cares that the men are being killed/wounded and within a certain radius, along with a modest RNG to their starting morale.
brGuuND.png

AgentState.Killed and AgentState.Unconscious refer to troops killed and wounded here. I suppose I could have been less flippant by saying that panicking units also can cause other troops to panic but since you can only panic troops in the first place by killing them, it is more academic than anything else.

If you don't believe that, mexxico explained it as well, right here.
There is no morale contagion so you'll never see an actual cascading rout spread throughout an army, except by killing enough men in their immediate vicinity.
...
There isn't even global morale tracking, except in the sense of the party's morale at the start of a battle.
This one is harder to show because I can't just point to something that's not there. But here are two videos I made, the first of an enemy army getting murdered by a V-formation, the other of myself riding along, clipping guys from the side of a formation.

In the first video, I hold down Alt the entire time so that it displays the number of troops currently assigned to the AI formations. Panicking troops are subtracted from that number, along with the dead (obviously). You can see the number of troops (should be able to, hopefully the encoding/upload process didn't take away too much detail) steadily decreasing from kills and panicking/routing due to those kills, but there is never a chain rout. If there were a chain rout, you'd see a sudden drop in the number of enemy troops assigned to the formation. Depending on how the quality shakes out, you might be able to see the steady stream of men fleeing over the hill. And I do mean "steady stream"; it literally resembles a waterway, wider or narrower at times but a constant flow.

For the second video notice that they rout in small groups every time I kill one due to low morale but there is no chain rout; there is nothing that forces the whole formation to come apart. In fact, the formation stays coherent right up until nearly the last man. There is also no chain routing going on. All the men who flee because of my arrows (this with the morale damage perk for ranged kills BTW) is in the immediate vicinity of the man I just killed. And again, there is a steady stream of them, not a few here, then a few there, then the whole formation breaking in quick succession, as should happen with a chain rout.

That's why I call battles DPS races. @Calabanar is right that it isn't necessarily a fatal flaw -- lots of tactics games, at their core, are (or eventually become) DPS races but manage to be interesting as games because the player is given plenty of tools to affect said race. But in Bannerlord, one of the single most effective methods is simply stacking particular troop types and letting them do their thing, so it doesn't depend on much skill beyond applying the basics. You don't need to use tactics (the game doesn't even recognize if you are using them instead of just crashing troops together F1 F3) or even really care about initial morale state that much. There is no morale state so high it can't be killed through nor is there a morale state so low that it produces instant routing.

Just take a deathball and kill faster, the enemy will break before you do.
 
Last edited:
As for the AI, well they can't kick or shield bash right now and they do feints not so often, so there is defnitley a lot of work to be done.
the main problem for me is that the AI has the same combat ability regardless of skill.
of course a tier 5 legionary has better armor and weapon compared to a tier 1 looter. but that's just their equipment. they'll land the same number of hits on each other due to having the same ai. but in real world. a skilled fighter can easily hold his own against a novice fighter, able to land a lot more hits than he would end up receiving, regardless of equipment. and right now. the only stat that makes a significant enough difference is athletics and it has been recently nerfed

now instead of coding an AI combat system of percentage chance to hit based on unit skill. which is extremely difficult and tedius while requiring a lot of work to tune and balance. they can just introduce an AI damage system based on troop tier that compensates for it.

I'm not talking about player interaction with units. I'm talking about unit interaction with each other. the absorb ratio is definitely a step towards that but it's not enough.
 
Something approximately reflecting actual medieval battles.
In my opinion Bannerlord have still too few troops in the field and too few formation groups to do any kind of proper mediaval tactics. Damage would have to be reduced to 1-2 per hit (or health to like 500) or there needs to be much more troops so there is actual time to break one of the flanks to cause chain rout, or threat of chain rout. Right now if you have 3-4 unit types in the battle its pretty much large skirmish 250 footmen + 150 archers + 50 cav 50 HA, imagine this situation in some historically accurate mod for Total War for example - not much you could do there either.
 
KG and fians are just powered, nothing over about it. Lots of units being sucky and useless doesn't make other units over-powered, because there shouldn't be any strait out worthless or inferior types of units, it's a massive blunder in the game's design.
KG and family are as effective as Cavalry should be because they have glaives. Glaives are the only type of mounted weapon the AI know how to use well enough to hit anything. And they're longer then side arms, which is all that matter, because hitting first is all that matter. The guy who hits (or shoots) first in banner lord is gonna win and last longer.

I said ever since I played the MP beta: TW, make mounted weapons longer and make the mounted AI know how to time it's hits to hit stuff. I don't know why it persist so long.

Oh, you edited your post. Yeah, they are hands down the best units in the game. It isn't even close really, although they aren't worse than Swadian Knights were in Warband and probably a bit better in terms of balance by pure accident, just because most people playing Warbands are more into feudal knights than Central Asian hostage-bodyguards.
All Cav need to as powerful they were in warband and it's a huge soiled bed that they're still not after so long. TBF Huskarls were really powerful too and I expect a similar performance from the t5 Infantry, before I'm satisfied with Bannerlord.
 

CrazyElf

Veteran
I feel like the main problem here is that archers and arrows as a whole are doing too much damage against armor.

This thread has a lively debate right now about this:


The problem is that so long as armor does not offer much protection against arrows - horse archers will remain very potent - combining both the advantages of range and the mobility of cavalry. A buff to armor would solve much of this.


In my opinion Bannerlord have still too few troops in the field and too few formation groups to do any kind of proper mediaval tactics. Damage would have to be reduced to 1-2 per hit (or health to like 500) or there needs to be much more troops so there is actual time to break one of the flanks to cause chain rout, or threat of chain rout. Right now if you have 3-4 unit types in the battle its pretty much large skirmish 250 footmen + 150 archers + 50 cav 50 HA, imagine this situation in some historically accurate mod for Total War for example - not much you could do there either.

This is one of the parts that I like RBM about - overall it slows down the game as a whole, making combat tactics possible, as opposed to the base game where units kill each other at a very rapid pace, which results in a blob where tactics are not as possible - often the F1 + F3 joke the optimal tactic.

Darth Mod was my favorite for Total War: Shogun 2 for that reason.

On a separate note, I wonder if there could be a module made for RBM to increase hp by say, 400% to make that possible? This would somehow have to be balanced with archer ammunition levels though. Same with throwing weapons.


Another point I do like about RBM right now is that they do make archers less potent, so having OP Khuzait Khan's Guard does not happen as much in RBM. It's why I often urge the developers to take a closer look at the mod.

 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight at Arms
KG and fians are just powered, nothing over about it. Lots of units being sucky and useless doesn't make other units over-powered, because there shouldn't be any strait out worthless or inferior types of units, it's a massive blunder in the game's design.
KG and family are as effective as Cavalry should be because they have glaives. Glaives are the only type of mounted weapon the AI know how to use well enough to hit anything. And they're longer then side arms, which is all that matter, because hitting first is all that matter. The guy who hits (or shoots) first in banner lord is gonna win and last longer.

I said ever since I played the MP beta: TW, make mounted weapons longer and make the mounted AI know how to time it's hits to hit stuff. I don't know why it persist so long.


All Cav need to as powerful they were in warband and it's a huge soiled bed that they're still not after so long. TBF Huskarls were really powerful too and I expect a similar performance from the t5 Infantry, before I'm satisfied with Bannerlord.

Yes, Fianns, all other archers and horse archers are fine, and the problem is that everything else is underpowered in your opinion… While you maybe enjoy powning poor lords without getting any single loss to then come here to forums and tell us how easy the game is, and how you can conquerer towns solo at day 100 :wink: , some other people enjoy playing challenging games.

Elite units being as ultra effective as archers (especially fian champions), crossbowmen (especially sharpshooters) and horse archers (especially Khan’s Guards which are broken), just make the battles against lords stupidly easy because lords are not able to build 100% elite armies like the player (and it is ok, lords having 100% elite armies would look awful and non immersive).

Anyway, when the game get balanced and exploits get removed, all that is needed for continuing wrecking lords without getting losses is to setting difficulty at lower level.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
I feel like the main problem here is that archers and arrows as a whole are doing too much damage against armor.
'If you mean the main problem here' as in this thread, arrows aren't nearly the whole picture. And I can say that with 100% certainty because Khan's Guards also out-perform every other cavalry unit in the game if you put them on Hold Fire orders. Maybe not in sterile room 1 v 1 duels that literally never happen in normal gameplay, but if you put 50 KGs against 100 any other cav, they'll win and win by a lot, every single time. It isn't a question of tiering, either. It includes catas, BKs, druzh, and FVGs, the other noble cav types.

It won't be a completely flawless victory by any means, but it is noticeable how much better they are than basically every other unit on the field.

The secret is having a swinging polearm. Every other piece of melee equipment -- shield, lance, sword, mace, axe -- is a clownshoe in comparison.
In my opinion Bannerlord have still too few troops in the field and too few formation groups to do any kind of proper mediaval tactics. Damage would have to be reduced to 1-2 per hit (or health to like 500) or there needs to be much more troops so there is actual time to break one of the flanks to cause chain rout, or threat of chain rout. Right now if you have 3-4 unit types in the battle its pretty much large skirmish 250 footmen + 150 archers + 50 cav 50 HA, imagine this situation in some historically accurate mod for Total War for example - not much you could do there either.
Or just make units less willing to dive into battle outright and slaughter each other. We get 1000 on the field in BL at once and that's enough for thee broad strokes to work out in a suitable timeframe. And by that, I mean less than twenty minutes.
 

CrazyElf

Veteran
'If you mean the main problem here' as in this thread, arrows aren't nearly the whole picture. And I can say that with 100% certainty because Khan's Guards also out-perform every other cavalry unit in the game if you put them on Hold Fire orders. Maybe not in sterile room 1 v 1 duels that literally never happen in normal gameplay, but if you put 50 KGs against 100 any other cav, they'll win and win by a lot, every single time. It isn't a question of tiering, either. It includes catas, BKs, druzh, and FVGs, the other noble cav types.

It won't be a completely flawless victory by any means, but it is noticeable how much better they are than basically every other unit on the field.

The secret is having a swinging polearm. Every other piece of melee equipment -- shield, lance, sword, mace, axe -- is a clownshoe in comparison.

On horseback, yes, the swinging polearm is very powerful. I still believe the arrows are the bigger issue, but yes, I do agree polearms are powerful. I also see this as being historically accurate - they began to dominate especially as armor proliferated in the later medieval period.

I have found javelin throwing weapons to be quite powerful in horse on horse combat as well - so I'm not sure every other weapon is a "clownshoe".

The reason why I see arrows as the issue is because more often than not, the Khan's Guards units are firing their arrows. In many battles, they do not even use their polearms at all and rely completely on their ranged attacks.
 
Yes, Fianns, all other archers and horse archers are fine,
That's actually not my opinion though, I think it's great for the t5/6 Ranged units to be powerful in general, but that lower tier ranged does too much damage to high tier units and fires a bit to fast for thier equipment and skill. Likewise it's good that KG can actually hit enemies with thier polearm, I want all Cav to be able to do so as well. Units being useful is great for game about using units to kill each other! The glaives also do a lot more raw damage then most weapons, but that's almost a non-issue since other mounted units struggle to land hits at all.

lords are not able to build 100% elite armies like the player
I've seen them get pretty close though. They don't cherry pick extra noble troops or full HA and stuff like that, but the dominating factions can get max tier parties and put up a good fight.

and how you can conquerer towns solo at day 100 :wink:
I did it on day 45 in older versions. Now there's additional economic considerations....

Just make Iron Flesh a thing again.
Yes please. I really like the whole warband kit to be honest. I remember a TW dev blog or interview saying something like "you can't just have more and more hp then another person, it's not realistic" and I kinda agreed...... but then the game comes out and there's still +hp stuff scattered about, but we're stuck with the 100 HP looters and I kinda want more HP difference for troops! ALthough they need the damage/armor balance to go with it it still. In warband a unit having

20+ hp was a lot because that could = several more hits on a armored unit, in bannerlord it's like 1/2 a hit :sad:
 
'If you mean the main problem here' as in this thread, arrows aren't nearly the whole picture. And I can say that with 100% certainty because Khan's Guards also out-perform every other cavalry unit in the game if you put them on Hold Fire orders. Maybe not in sterile room 1 v 1 duels that literally never happen in normal gameplay, but if you put 50 KGs against 100 any other cav, they'll win and win by a lot, every single time. It isn't a question of tiering, either. It includes catas, BKs, druzh, and FVGs, the other noble cav types.

It won't be a completely flawless victory by any means, but it is noticeable how much better they are than basically every other unit on the field.

The secret is having a swinging polearm. Every other piece of melee equipment -- shield, lance, sword, mace, axe -- is a clownshoe in comparison.

Or just make units less willing to dive into battle outright and slaughter each other. We get 1000 on the field in BL at once and that's enough for thee broad strokes to work out in a suitable timeframe. And by that, I mean less than twenty minutes.
People are already whining when skirmishing and defending the hill happens too often in RBM, so I understand why TW does not go into deeper tactics, they simply would not be appreciated by wider masses (and TW needs to sell product in a first place as a company).
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
People are already whining when skirmishing and defending the hill happens too often in RBM, so I understand why TW does not go into deeper tactics, they simply would not be appreciated by wider masses (and TW needs to sell product in a first place as a company).
Yeah, I agree. People would, uh, not like it if their troops were reluctant to dive in. But mods can do that without concerns like basic user experience or how streamable something is. I'm trying to get the morale system fully figured out (I'm trying to make rallying work) but I really want one where morale is the basic currency of battle rather than outright kills.
On horseback, yes, the swinging polearm is very powerful. I still believe the arrows are the bigger issue, but yes, I do agree polearms are powerful. I also see this as being historically accurate - they began to dominate especially as armor proliferated in the later medieval period.

I have found javelin throwing weapons to be quite powerful in horse on horse combat as well - so I'm not sure every other weapon is a "clownshoe".

The reason why I see arrows as the issue is because more often than not, the Khan's Guards units are firing their arrows. In many battles, they do not even use their polearms at all and rely completely on their ranged attacks.
Arrows' effectiveness is certainly a part of it, but even if you tame arrows (I change them Cut damage, which gets most of the way there), you still have KGs being the best unit on the field by a significant margin, just because other shock cav is awful while glaives work wonderfully.

And yeah, thrown javelins are powerful but I don't think of them as melee equipment.
 
Yes please. I really like the whole warband kit to be honest. I remember a TW dev blog or interview saying something like "you can't just have more and more hp then another person, it's not realistic" and I kinda agreed...... but then the game comes out and there's still +hp stuff scattered about, but we're stuck with the 100 HP looters and I kinda want more HP difference for troops! ALthough they need the damage/armor balance to go with it it still. In warband a unit having

20+ hp was a lot because that could = several more hits on a armored unit, in bannerlord it's like 1/2 a hit :sad:
Sounds like complete nonsense. People absolutely have different levels of endurance and toughness in real life. And I imagine veteran warriors are going to be more durable than most.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
And I imagine veteran warriors are going to be more durable than most.
No one is going to notice when battles are between 100s of dudes, unless they are deliberately watching for it or it is adjusted to a comical level.

Source: sometimes troops already get over 100 HP in the game and almost nobody notices.
 
Elite units being as ultra effective as archers (especially fian champions), crossbowmen (especially sharpshooters) and horse archers (especially Khan’s Guards which are broken), just make the battles against lords stupidly easy because lords are not able to build 100% elite armies like the player (and it is ok, lords having 100% elite armies would look awful and non immersive).

Anyway, when the game get balanced and exploits get removed, all that is needed for continuing wrecking lords without getting losses is to setting difficulty at lower level.
it's not an exploit to max min your army for best combat prowess. in every game, where there's any kind of balance going on. players will always gravitate towards those slightly more powered and efficient to max min their results. this will happen no matter how balanced or frequently updated the game is

there are 2 easy solutions if you think the single player ai is too dumb.

1- don't upgrade ur troops. they'll stay at tier 2-3-4 and cost less money, so your army isn't "overpowered"
2- fight larger enemy armies. fight people that out number you 3 to 1 and see how ur tier 5-6s do. enemy armies will be too slow to run away from your party
 
No one is going to notice when battles are between 100s of dudes, unless they are deliberately watching for it or it is adjusted to a comical level.

Source: sometimes troops already get over 100 HP in the game and almost nobody notices.
i notice it all the time, when i deliver a hit that's 115 and the person doesn't die lol. especially with some of the troop mods they consistantly have 120-150 hp.
 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight at Arms
it's not an exploit to max min your army for best combat prowess. in every game, where there's any kind of balance going on. players will always gravitate towards those slightly more powered and efficient to max min their results. this will happen no matter how balanced or frequently updated the game is

there are 2 easy solutions if you think the single player ai is too dumb.

1- don't upgrade ur troops. they'll stay at tier 2-3-4 and cost less money, so your army isn't "overpowered"
2- fight larger enemy armies. fight people that out number you 3 to 1 and see how ur tier 5-6s do. enemy armies will be too slow to run away from your party

So, instead giving feedback for balancing OP units, your advice is that I should not upgrade my units? It sounds similar to not using smithing because it gives you too much money… Or when wood workshop gave us a 15k profit per day…

Upgrading infantry and cavalry to max tier feels ok, but upgrading ranged units to max tier means that the game feels ridiculously easy. This looks to me like a 100% balancing issue.
 
Top Bottom