It might be a good time to talk about Sturgian Druzhinnik

[Bluko88]

Since you have introduced winter and snow to strengthen Sturgia, why do you still let Varyags keep their horses. It does not make much sense. Now Sturgia has no feature at all. It did not have any feature in the past by the way. Historically, Varyads did not mount horses neither, right?

Honestly I really don't see why the Sturgians shouldn't be more infantry focused. I mean do we really need 3 (actually 4) cultures whose noble line is effectively just heavy melee cavalry? It would make a lot more sense if Sturgia mirrored Battania more as an infantry centric Kingdom. I've basically turned my back on the vanilla troop trees. Not balanced, not diverse, just a joke. Any other developer of a strategy/battle game will typically make troop balance THE priority. And a small team could easily sort this all out in a month for Bannerlord, but nah.

I've more or less proven to myself over the past year and half that making the Sturgia noble line heavy infantry does not spoil the game. Makes the game a lot more interesting to be honest. If the Khuzait Horse Archer formation is intimidating, shouldn't the Sturgian infantry formation basically be the equivalent?

Ideally Sturgian Trees would be like this:

Honestly I don't even think troop types matter that much in simulated battles (troop tier matters most). You could create a Kingdom of entirely infantry and they'd still probably do fine or no worse on the Campaign map. The actual geography (i.e. fief placement) and random chance plays the biggest role in what Kingdoms prevail. Hence why Battania or Sturgia is usually first to go - because their territory is terrible for the A.I. to defend.


The base game also really suffers from all the Kingdoms having effectively the same troop rosters. Everyone has a T5 Shock Troop, everyone has a T5 Archer, and everyone has (except Battania) a T6 Horseman. The Kingdom you pick has no real bearing on actual battles.

That's why I've also started toying around with somewhat reduced troop trees (trimming the fat), and introducing inherit weaknesses. i.e. Sturgia has weak/limited archers, little cavalry, and a heavy focus on Shock Troops.

I played around with CTT on the base factions and making Druzhinnik use 2h axes on horseback was decently effective, the reach still allows them to hit infantry and cavalry with great cleave. Also fills a niche that no other faction does.

You can have mounted shock troops, but they need to be balanced by not having shields and or light armor. Otherwise they steam roll everything much like Khan Guards in melee mode, though to a lesser extent since weapon length is shorter for axes. I believe I toyed around with Druzhniniks being effectively mounted two-handed axemen, but they were too strong in melee combat, but also too vulnerable at same time. Still probably improvement over vanilla since they are generally a waste.

The Heavy Spearmen/Axemen would need to be rebalanced to be competitive, in some way, with Super Melee Guys since their entire troop line would be pointless if it's both easier and smarter to mass recruit superior counterparts and just have normal Sturgians become... their okay-ish archers.

Eh not really. The A.I. is just gonna recruit whatever is available and upgrade 50/50 (think there's a problem with Castle troop upgrades favoring one branch though). So one line ends as lesser infantry? Big deal, if a T5 unit is balanced appropriately still a good unit, also cheaper. Also in my mod I addressed that by NOT giving T5/T6 Varyags spears or throwing weapons. So you would still want Axemen and Spearmen for the weapon diversity.


This game is so ripe with pointless and redundant units anyways.

It's only an issue for those power gaming by recruiting certain troops. But you can't really control what the player chooses to recruit anyways.

 

[SomeWeirdSins]

Honestly I really don't see why the Sturgians shouldn't be more infantry focused. I mean do we really need 3 (actually 4) cultures whose noble line is effectively just heavy melee cavalry? It would make a lot more sense if Sturgia mirrored Battania more as an infantry centric Kingdom. I've basically turned my back on the vanilla troop trees. Not balanced, not diverse, just a joke. Any other developer of a strategy/battle game will typically make troop balance THE priority. And a small team could easily sort this all out in a month for Bannerlord, but nah.

I've more or less proven to myself over the past year and half that making the Sturgia noble line heavy infantry does not spoil the game. Makes the game a lot more interesting to be honest. If the Khuzait Horse Archer formation is intimidating, shouldn't the Sturgian infantry formation basically be the equivalent?

Ideally Sturgian Trees would be like this:

Honestly I don't even think troop types matter that much in simulated battles (troop tier matters most). You could create a Kingdom of entirely infantry and they'd still probably do fine or no worse on the Campaign map. The actual geography (i.e. fief placement) and random chance plays the biggest role in what Kingdoms prevail. Hence why Battania or Sturgia is usually first to go - because their territory is terrible for the A.I. to defend.


The base game also really suffers from all the Kingdoms having effectively the same troop rosters. Everyone has a T5 Shock Troop, everyone has a T5 Archer, and everyone has (except Battania) a T6 Horseman. The Kingdom you pick has no real bearing on actual battles.

That's why I've also started toying around with somewhat reduced troop trees (trimming the fat), and introducing inherit weaknesses. i.e. Sturgia has weak/limited archers, little cavalry, and a heavy focus on Shock Troops.

You can have mounted shock troops, but they need to be balanced by not having shields and or light armor. Otherwise they steam roll everything much like Khan Guards in melee mode, though to a lesser extent since weapon length is shorter for axes. I believe I toyed around with Druzhniniks being effectively mounted two-handed axemen, but they were too strong in melee combat, but also too vulnerable at same time. Still probably improvement over vanilla since they are generally a waste.


Eh not really. The A.I. is just gonna recruit whatever is available and upgrade 50/50 (think there's a problem with Castle troop upgrades favoring one branch though). So one line ends as lesser infantry? Big deal, if a T5 unit is balanced appropriately still a good unit, also cheaper. Also in my mod I addressed that by NOT giving T5/T6 Varyags spears or throwing weapons. So you would still want Axemen and Spearmen for the weapon diversity.


This game is so ripe with pointless and redundant units anyways.

It's only an issue for those power gaming by recruiting certain troops. But you can't really control what the player chooses to recruit anyways.

Cav bonuses get a 20 percent bonus in auto resolve and move faster on the map, so more cav heavy factions will generally do stronger in auto resolve wars

 

[JunKeteer]

This game is so ripe with pointless and redundant units anyways.

It's only an issue for those power gaming by recruiting certain troops. But you can't really control what the player chooses to recruit anyways.

Also, the cost is so insignificant for the top units vs lower ones, there's no 'gaming' required; just upgrade all troops. With loot mechanics, acquiring horses aren't even a problem after a short while.

There's no balancing act of deciding quantity vs quality of troops; just get max party cap, upgrade-all. Caravan, fiefs, workshops, and loot easily negates the cost factor.

 

[sh1ny4]

Cav bonuses get a 20 percent bonus in auto resolve and move faster on the map, so more cav heavy factions will generally do stronger in auto resolve wars

no longer true about the 20% tho

 

[SomeWeirdSins]

no longer true about the 20% tho

as of when? I thought it was only removed for seiges

 

[sh1ny4]

as of when? I thought it was only removed for seiges

on the 1.2.7 patch notes :

• Reworked the Auto Battle Calculation system.
  • Mission and terrain types now provide bonuses or penalties for attackers and defenders.
  • For example, an attacking horse archer on flat terrain now has a large bonus but if you throw him into the forest that converts into a large penalty. Defending archers do great in a siege while attacking ones receive a penalty and so on.
  • Perks of the Army/Party leader that have a Captain effect now also give a bonus to all the troops under their command. A tier is determined for each of these perks and those are then counted together. Tier 1-3 gives a bonus of 1%, tier 4-6 of 2%, tier 7-8 of 3%, and tier 9+ of 6%.
    • For example, having the Deft Hands (T6) and Form Fitting Armor (T2) perks results in a bonus of 3% (T8 ).

which is why an infantry druzhinnik would be nicer with the new patch, now we just have to hope that snow and rain buff inf even more and it would be very good on sturgia

 

[SomeWeirdSins]

on the 1.2.7 patch notes :



which is why an infantry druzhinnik would be nicer with the new patch, now we just have to hope that snow and rain buff inf even more and it would be very good on sturgia

Thanks!

It's hard to notice somee of the little changes in 1.2x because it's the worst patch since the middle of early access, the game is super broken

 

[Joshuak614]

I wouldnt mind seeing Sturgian Druzhinnik fight as something more akin to a mounted infantry. What I mean is generally lower skill with horses (maybe the lowest skill of any cavalry), high skill with athletics (maybe a little higher than any other infantry type), and high skill with one handed, two handed, and polearm. I would want them to be equipped with a sword or mace, a shield, a two handed axe, and a polearm, ideally one that could be couched and braced.

This idea comes from a time when I met a Vlandian companion who had only melee skills. I equipped him with a sword, shield, polearm, and two handed axe, and he excelled in melee combat across the board. If he was approaching archers, he would use the shield to block the missiles, if he was on horseback, he would charge with a couched lance, and if he engaged in melee foot combat against an enemy using a shield, he would draw his two handed axe and start wailing on the shield until it broke. He was effectively shield infantry, shock troop, and spear troop, all in one man. The only down side was he had no offensive abilities at range.

I would imagine Sturgian Druzhinnik armed like this as being used like Dragoons were historically. They could act act as a low grade heavy cavalry in the beginning of a battle, but once the Sturgian shield wall makes contact with the enemy and locks them in place, the Druzhinnik would flank around behind the infantry, dismount, then charge into their rear, pinning them between the combination shield infantry/shock troop that would be the Druzhinnik, and the shield wall. The shield wall would then be ordered to charge, making the enemy infantry fight on two sides at once. And if there is archers shooting into the backs of the Druzhinniks, then the mounted skirmishers could charge at the infantry to keep them pinned down. Once the enemy infantry line is broken, the Druzhinniks would be ordered to mount up and then run down retreating enemies, or to move to a new location to be reengaged with a new enemy.

Doing this would make the Sturgian Druzhinnik a completely unique troop type, one that is essentially a noble infantry force that uses their horses to move around the battlefield and can fight as cavalry in a pinch. And of course requiring them to have a horse to be upgraded would help to slow their upgrades and make them more expensive. You could even have the Druzhinnik need a mount and a Druzhinnik Champion need a war mount to be upgraded, thus making them even more expensive to upgrade.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

Warband is distant and I think you've forgotten its defects. It's not as good as in our memory. Firstly, do you remember how hard it is to train non-combat companions? They have to fight in battle or they can't get skill points. Secondly, Warband doesn't have perks.

In Warband You can make an incredibly powerful and useful player character very quickly (EARLY IN THE GAME) and reap the full benefits of your build for the entire game. If you know what to do you can have max INT skills at level 13. In bannerlord you can be 3/4 done with the game by the time you get some of the better skills and perks so they don't really matter. Bannerlord just tries to copy other popular rpg systems but made them really bad and un-rewarding in the context of the game.

 

[SomeWeirdSins]

In Warband You can make an incredibly powerful and useful player character very quickly (EARLY IN THE GAME) and reap the full benefits of your build for the entire game. If you know what to do you can have max INT skills at level 13. In bannerlord you can be 3/4 done with the game by the time you get some of the better skills and perks so they don't really matter. Bannerlord just tries to copy other popular rpg systems but made them really bad and un-rewarding in the context of the game.

you can also get engineering 300 in like 2 sieges and then just run around winning seiges vs 1000 defenders with 150 attackers. Game is a joke right now

 

[STcloz]

Ideally Sturgian Trees would be like this:

Cav bonuses get a 20 percent bonus in auto resolve and move faster on the map, so more cav heavy factions will generally do stronger in auto resolve wars

This problem is easy to solve. TW can increase the dismounted druzhinnik's value in auto resolve calculation.

I wouldnt mind seeing Sturgian Druzhinnik fight as something more akin to a mounted infantry. What I mean is generally lower skill with horses (maybe the lowest skill of any cavalry), high skill with athletics (maybe a little higher than any other infantry type), and high skill with one handed, two handed, and polearm. I would want them to be equipped with a sword or mace, a shield, a two handed axe, and a polearm, ideally one that could be couched and braced.

I think we all agree with you. What you said is hard to implement since AI might not use the troop as intended. But if the AI is well designed, mounted infantry will make a difference.

In Warband You can make an incredibly powerful and useful player character very quickly (EARLY IN THE GAME) and reap the full benefits of your build for the entire game. If you know what to do you can have max INT skills at level 13. In bannerlord you can be 3/4 done with the game by the time you get some of the better skills and perks so they don't really matter. Bannerlord just tries to copy other popular rpg systems but made them really bad and un-rewarding in the context of the game.

Don't misunderstand me. I was not saying that the companion system is perfect. I mean Bannerlord is more like a semi-finished product than a total failure. Bannerlord has a better frame in general. I think perks need to be remade again and that upgrades of companions should be easier. These work should not be left to modders. Oh, the cap of the companion amount should be doubled or tripled and companions need their own side-quests to make them alive.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

This problem is easy to solve. TW can increase the dismounted druzhinnik's value in auto resolve calculation.

I think we all agree with you. What you said is hard to implement since AI might not use the troop as intended. But if the AI is well designed, mounted infantry will make a difference.

Don't misunderstand me. I was not saying that the companion system is perfect. I mean Bannerlord is more like a semi-finished product than a total failure. Bannerlord has a better frame in general. I think perks need to be remade again and that upgrades of companions should be easier. These work should not be left to modders. Oh, the cap of the companion amount should be doubled or tripled and companions need their own side-quests to make them alive.

Yeah, another thing always stands out as a problem with the skill/perks of Bannerlord is the redundancy of limits. It was even worse when leveling up reduced you skill learning rate, but it still seems like a blunder. If in a game you need to "do things to gain skill" then doing more and more things is the limit. You don't need to have levels and points evolved at all, doing the things so much to earn higher and higher skills is enough. Especially in Bannerlord's case where allegedly they want the game to go on for a very long time: why shouldn't the player (or companions) eventually master every skill? It just feels like they threw together multiple systems from other games without understanding how they work or taking their own game's context into account.

Of course the game doesn't go on for a very long time and you can paint the map with very few skills/perks, but that's even more reason it makes no sense to have limits. And yes, you can go to 200+ engineering just shooting guys with a ballista in a single fight (well, probably you need to retreat and do it several times) but to me this just points out more why there's no reason to make the skill/perk system annoying and limited.

 

[JunKeteer]

Yeah, another thing always stands out as a problem with the skill/perks of Bannerlord is the redundancy of limits. It was even worse when leveling up reduced you skill learning rate, but it still seems like a blunder. If in a game you need to "do things to gain skill" then doing more and more things is the limit. You don't need to have levels and points evolved at all, doing the things so much to earn higher and higher skills is enough. Especially in Bannerlord's case where allegedly they want the game to go on for a very long time: why shouldn't the player (or companions) eventually master every skill? It just feels like they threw together multiple systems from other games without understanding how they work or taking their own game's context into account.

Especially when your character ages/dies now too. I shouldn't have to grind to age 50 in order to benefit from then end tiers. That's for your first character (assuming starting at 20), your children will be worse off once they come of age since they don't gain skills as quickly as the player until you take them over. So the only way to get ahead is retiring your character the moment the next comes of age; don't really have to explain how stupid of a gameplay element that is.

Of course the game doesn't go on for a very long time and you can paint the map with very few skills/perks, but that's even more reason it makes no sense to have limits. And yes, you can go to 200+ engineering just shooting guys with a ballista in a single fight (well, probably you need to retreat and do it several times) but to me this just points out more why there's no reason to make the skill/perk system annoying and limited.

Never liked TW's way; in WB at least it was basic and easy to just adjust the numbers on a doc file. The 1-att. per 3 levels, 1 focus per level (basic), levels gained by specific usage, usage exp gain varies widely from sources and focus points, skills also cap because of 5 focus max + attribute factor.

And...how does a 50 riding perk of 'Well-strapped' allow my governed settlement (even applies to players?) to gain 0.5 loyalty? If it applies to companions-as-governors only then, do they get the benefit of the -50% lame chance aspect of that perk or is that negated? This is just one perk of one skill, there's dozens more like this.

 

[hoboistice]

Warband is distant and I think you've forgotten its defects. It's not as good as in our memory. Firstly, do you remember how hard it is to train non-combat companions? They have to fight in battle or they can't get skill points. Secondly, Warband doesn't have perks.

I still play Warband, I haven't played Bannerlord in months. Game has lots of ways of gaining xp for your characters, perk system just makes the game grindier.

You can have mounted shock troops, but they need to be balanced by not having shields and or light armor. Otherwise they steam roll everything much like Khan Guards in melee mode, though to a lesser extent since weapon length is shorter for axes. I believe I toyed around with Druzhniniks being effectively mounted two-handed axemen, but they were too strong in melee combat, but also too vulnerable at same time. Still probably improvement over vanilla since they are generally a waste.

Much better to have them actually be powerful and unique rather than yet another generic hcav for a faction. Like you say the game is filled with unit redundancy.

 

[bfmsc]

Druzhinniks shouldn't have their horses removed, but they should have their spears replaced with a long 2-handed weapon like an axe in my opinion. This way, they would be able to perform a unique function of "mounted shock troop", where they can use their mounts to move and reposition quickly and then dismount if the player wishes (and also be more effective in sieges).

I understand why people want the Sturgian noble troop to be a foot troop, as there are already 3 other noble mounted melee cav troops, but having a noble foot infantry unit would render 1 or more of their commoner foot troop trees useless. One change that would give diversity to noble troops would be to split Empire noble troops to 3 - one for each imperial faction:

- The Northern Empire noble troop would be the Vaegir Guard who would be a Varangian Guard inspired noble shock infantry with a 2H axe and a 1h or polearm with a shield (already exists in lore, which is a plus).
- Southern Empire would keep the Cataphracts, since they would be the geographically closest to the Calradian analogue of the Parthians, who inspired the Roman Cataphracts.
- Western Empire would be crossbows + sword & board infantry, inspired by the... umm... Ballistarii? Genoese? Precursors to the Rhodok military doctrine in lore maybe?

Actually I tested use two handed axes replace lance in my mod, believe me you won't like it at all, that makes druzhinniks much weaker because they missed most of the blows when they mounted and using 2 handed axes, the lance version beat the axe version in every test, no matter versus infantry or versus cavs.

 

[bfmsc]

Druzhinniks shouldn't have their horses removed, but they should have their spears replaced with a long 2-handed weapon like an axe in my opinion. This way, they would be able to perform a unique function of "mounted shock troop", where they can use their mounts to move and reposition quickly and then dismount if the player wishes (and also be more effective in sieges).

I understand why people want the Sturgian noble troop to be a foot troop, as there are already 3 other noble mounted melee cav troops, but having a noble foot infantry unit would render 1 or more of their commoner foot troop trees useless. One change that would give diversity to noble troops would be to split Empire noble troops to 3 - one for each imperial faction:

- The Northern Empire noble troop would be the Vaegir Guard who would be a Varangian Guard inspired noble shock infantry with a 2H axe and a 1h or polearm with a shield (already exists in lore, which is a plus).
- Southern Empire would keep the Cataphracts, since they would be the geographically closest to the Calradian analogue of the Parthians, who inspired the Roman Cataphracts.
- Western Empire would be crossbows + sword & board infantry, inspired by the... umm... Ballistarii? Genoese? Precursors to the Rhodok military doctrine in lore maybe?

so my solution is every faction now has two elite troop line, for sturgia I gave them a nordic huskarl using 2 handed axes but also have a shield and the old druzhinniks got 2 handed axes in their slot 3, so they are more powerful during seiges.

you can try it:

mywer's troop expand and vanilla overhaul

Add one elite troop branch, one non elite troop branch, one female troop branch and 2-3 unique mercenary troop branch for each faction. also add many equipments into the equipment pool of about 20 van

www.nexusmods.com

 

[Totalgarbage]

Actually I tested use two handed axes replace lance in my mod, believe me you won't like it at all, that makes druzhinniks much weaker because they missed most of the blows when they mounted and using 2 handed axes, the lance version beat the axe version in every test, no matter versus infantry or versus cavs.

It's a bit disheartening to hear, but I suppose the units' performance can be fixed by giving them a very long axe (something a bit shorter than a glaive) or something like a warrazor.

so my solution is every faction now has two elite troop line, for sturgia I gave them a nordic huskarl using 2 handed axes but also have a shield and the old druzhinniks got 2 handed axes in their slot 3, so they are more powerful during seiges.

you can try it:

mywer's troop expand and vanilla overhaul

Add one elite troop branch, one non elite troop branch, one female troop branch and 2-3 unique mercenary troop branch for each faction. also add many equipments into the equipment pool of about 20 van

www.nexusmods.com

I personally don't like the 2 nobles idea except for 1 exclusive noble troop for each empire factions (1 Noble infantry based on the Varangian Guard for the Northern Empire, 1 Noble Crossbow & Shield unit for the Western Empire & the good ol' Cataphract for the Southern Empire), but I gotta say that I really like what you've done with the mercenary troop trees.

Also, I know that I can mod the game, and I do, but I'm writing stuff like these so that the base game itself is better.

Not related to the conversation, but TW should really make it so that minor faction troops can be recruited from taverns.